|
Real0ne -> RE: Soooo What gives the court supreme or otherwise jurisdiction over (9/1/2015 9:48:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
moral questions since they are secular and presumed nonreligious?
I would like to hear on what grounds people think they are or are not qualified to make all these moral decisions when moral decisions are religious?
....and if someone believes they are qualified what are those qualifications exactly and where do they come from?
....and what is the resulting religion from the many moral decisions they make?
....or is the gubblemint the chosen religion of today?
....or are moral decisions made by gubblemint not religion, and if not how is it distinguished as 'not' a religion?
Morals are of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of one's conduct with the distinction of [it] being right or wrong. Often described as ethical.
Ethics are conducting oneself under the principles of morality, pertaining to what is right and wrong...in that conduct.
People, govt. and religion all at times, often act immorally and without ethics.
Next question.
Everyone takes upon themselves their own decisions as to what is moral as well as collectively...govt. and religion.
The question as posed is a non-sequitur at least insofar as all moral questions are not always and need not be religious. See above.
So that brings up the question;
if someone makes a religious determination something is right and acts upon it, they are acting in accordance with their religion.
Now if the government as Ken said adopts the same and frames it as ethics does that change the fact that the person acted in accord with their religion, or doesnt it? [:D]
I am of course making the presumption that not to many statutes were written before the bible.
|
|
|
|
