Re: RELIGION: intuition (OT)*

[Guest guest]

Do you think religion and secular society can ever come together

on a compromise for a universal enforcement system

(officially-recognized universal moral-code)? If so, I have an

idea to submit as a new universally-accepted morality. But what

to call it? Seems it might need a catchy name. How about " The

Consensual Code " ? Here it is: anything that is consensual among

the adults engaged in the activity and has no direct victim (that

sustains direct non-consensual [actual] harm) shall not be viewed

as either a sin or a crime. I think this would be a very

attractive proposal, as it contains basic elements of both

sectors.

-Mark

_____

On 7/22/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> But even you, must believe in some degree of universal

> uniformity. What else do laws against murder, for example, or

slavery,

> embody, if not applied universal moral uniformity? So really,

it just

> becomes a disagreement over where you place the threshold

between universal

> enforcement and tolerance for different value systems.

Well yes, I'll concede that point, but I'm pretty sure the

disagreement is unresolvable.

Chris

_____

[Guest guest]

" Do you think religion and secular society can ever come together

on a compromise for a universal enforcement system

(officially-recognized universal moral-code)? If so, I have an

idea to submit as a new universally-accepted morality. But what

to call it? Seems it might need a catchy name. How about " The

Consensual Code " ? Here it is: anything that is consensual among

the adults engaged in the activity and has no direct victim (that

sustains direct non-consensual [actual] harm) shall not be viewed

as either a sin or a crime. I think this would be a very

attractive proposal, as it contains basic elements of both

sectors. "

How would you view situations where people are excluded from the religious

society?

Would you view woman, and homosexuals, and women who had abortions, as

people who were harmed by the religious society, or would you view the

exclusionary society as simply one that was consensual and didn't harm those

who didn't belong because of their actions, sex, sexual preference, or

whatever. Kind of like a golf club that excludes blacks or Jews - they

aren't harmed because they're not members to begin with...

_____

On 7/22/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> But even you, must believe in some degree of universal

> uniformity. What else do laws against murder, for example, or

slavery,

> embody, if not applied universal moral uniformity? So really,

it just

> becomes a disagreement over where you place the threshold

between universal

> enforcement and tolerance for different value systems.

Well yes, I'll concede that point, but I'm pretty sure the

disagreement is unresolvable.

Chris

_____

[Guest guest]

somebody (Chris?) wrote:

> " Do you think religion and secular society can ever come together

> on a compromise for a universal enforcement system

> (officially-recognized universal moral-code)? If so, I have an

> idea to submit as a new universally-accepted morality. But what

> to call it? Seems it might need a catchy name. How about " The

> Consensual Code " ? Here it is: anything that is consensual among

> the adults engaged in the activity and has no direct victim (that

> sustains direct non-consensual [actual] harm) shall not be viewed

> as either a sin or a crime. I think this would be a very

> attractive proposal, as it contains basic elements of both

> sectors. "

>

Is consensual supposed to be consentual? I'm not trying to be smart.

You've typed it a few times and I am not sure of it's meaning. What

age are you deeming members to be adults? 18, 21 or 16?

Gene wrote:

> How would you view situations where people are excluded from the religious

> society?

> Would you view woman, and homosexuals, and women who had abortions, as

> people who were harmed by the religious society, or would you view the

> exclusionary society as simply one that was consensual and didn't harm

> those

> who didn't belong because of their actions, sex, sexual preference, or

> whatever. Kind of like a golf club that excludes blacks or Jews - they

> aren't harmed because they're not members to begin with...

>

>

Sorry, I lost it....what? Those that do not conform to the code have to

be punished (because they have committed a crime/sin). Or is that your

question?

And back to - how are the sinners/commitors of crimes to be

punished? Do they say their Hail 's in jail?

[Guest guest]

On 7/23/05, <harringtonwa@...> wrote:

> somebody (Chris?) wrote:

[snip]

> Is consensual supposed to be consentual? I'm not trying to be smart.

No that wasn't me, that was Mark , if I remember correctly.

However, since I'm addressed, never in my life have I ever seen the

word " consentual, " and I just typed it into my email spell checker,

which suggested I replace it with " consensual, " which is the spelling

Mark used, and a word I've seen very frequently in my life. So

without doing much more research I'd wager that " consentual " isn't a

word.

> You've typed it a few times and I am not sure of it's meaning.

It refers to an occurance or arrangement to which all parties affected

consent to. Dictionary.com might have more numerous and precise

meanings.

> And back to - how are the sinners/commitors of crimes to be

> punished? Do they say their Hail 's in jail?

Well it wasn't me, but I thought that Mark was actually trying to

diminish both the breadth of crimes and sins, by eliminating so-called

" victimless crimes " and their religious counterpart, " victimless

sins. " Granted, such homogenization of values is obviously-- to me

anyway-- impossible, but you seem to see Mark's vision as a melting

together of the political and religious spheres, which isn't how I saw

it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

" Do you think religion and secular society can ever come together

on a compromise for a universal enforcement system

(officially-recognized universal moral-code)? If so, I have an

idea to submit as a new universally-accepted morality. But what

to call it? Seems it might need a catchy name. How about " The

Consensual Code " ? Here it is: anything that is consensual among

the adults engaged in the activity and has no direct victim (that

sustains direct non-consensual [actual] harm) shall not be viewed

as either a sin or a crime. I think this would be a very

attractive proposal, as it contains basic elements of both

sectors. "

How would you view situations where people are excluded from the

religious

society?

Would you view woman, and homosexuals, and women who had

abortions, as

people who were harmed by the religious society, or would you

view the

exclusionary society as simply one that was consensual and didn't

harm those

who didn't belong because of their actions, sex, sexual

preference, or

whatever. Kind of like a golf club that excludes blacks or Jews -

they

aren't harmed because they're not members to begin with...

_____

Well under my own definition of morality, I think I would have to

say that people who are not accepted into private groups are not

harmed. Therefore I think it should not be seen as illegal for a

group owner to refuse to do business / associate with whomever he

chooses. It's a tough call because it sounds prejudicial, but

boils down to property rights and the right to do with your

property whatever you want. Now public groups, entities and

properties are a different matter, and can not discriminate for

any reason. But since churches are private, I think they can

legally be selective about their membership.

-Mark

_____

[Guest guest]

somebody (Chris?) wrote:

> " Do you think religion and secular society can ever come

together

> on a compromise for a universal enforcement system

> (officially-recognized universal moral-code)? If so, I have an

> idea to submit as a new universally-accepted morality. But what

> to call it? Seems it might need a catchy name. How about " The

> Consensual Code " ? Here it is: anything that is consensual among

> the adults engaged in the activity and has no direct victim

(that

> sustains direct non-consensual [actual] harm) shall not be

viewed

> as either a sin or a crime. I think this would be a very

> attractive proposal, as it contains basic elements of both

> sectors. "

>

Is consensual supposed to be consentual? I'm not trying to be

smart.

You've typed it a few times and I am not sure of it's meaning.

What

age are you deeming members to be adults? 18, 21 or 16?

_____

,

I found no entry for " consentual " . Yes, my use of " consensual " is

correct.

I suppose most would view 18 as adult age.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

" How would you view situations where people are excluded from the

religious

society?

Would you view woman, and homosexuals, and women who had

abortions, as

people who were harmed by the religious society, or would you

view the

exclusionary society as simply one that was consensual and didn't

harm those

who didn't belong because of their actions, sex, sexual

preference, or

whatever. Kind of like a golf club that excludes blacks or Jews -

they

aren't harmed because they're not members to begin with... "

" Well under my own definition of morality, I think I would have to

say that people who are not accepted into private groups are not

harmed. Therefore I think it should not be seen as illegal for a

group owner to refuse to do business / associate with whomever he

chooses. It's a tough call because it sounds prejudicial, but

boils down to property rights and the right to do with your

property whatever you want. Now public groups, entities and

properties are a different matter, and can not discriminate for

any reason. But since churches are private, I think they can

legally be selective about their membership. "

A curious version of morality. So, then it would be fine, say, for all

private colleges to refuse to accept Jews, or blacks, and this would not be

harmful to Jews or blacks? Or it would be ok for any private employer to

refuse to employ them, or homosexuals for that matter, so that only the

state could employ these people? And this would not be harmful? There is no

concept of cumulative harm? Say, if it weren't just one private group or

religion, but a great part of the society that refused to provide their

services to people because of sex,color, background, sexual preference. This

would not be harmful? This is a very scary viewpoint. Very scary indeed.

[Guest guest]

Mark-

>Here it is: anything that is consensual among

>the adults engaged in the activity and has no direct victim (that

>sustains direct non-consensual [actual] harm) shall not be viewed

>as either a sin or a crime. I think this would be a very

>attractive proposal, as it contains basic elements of both

>sectors.

That sounds potentially good to me, but I think it's a dream and nothing

more. Salon has a good article up now called " One Nation, Divisible " ,

about the possibilities of accord between fundamentalists and secular

society. http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/07/23/feldman/index.html

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, mark robert <colowe@...> wrote:

> Here it is: anything that is consensual among

> the adults engaged in the activity and has no direct victim (that

> sustains direct non-consensual [actual] harm) shall not be viewed

> as either a sin or a crime. I think this would be a very

> attractive proposal, as it contains basic elements of both

> sectors.

>

>

>

> -Mark

I might be missing your point, but I'd go with you here except I would

take out the word sin. Far as I am concerned people can view things

anyway they want and freely work for/against to *persuade* others as

to their view *voluntarily*. But crimes are actionable, and sins are

not necessarily so. Initiating aggression against someone's will is

actionable, lying to your parents should not be.

Of course there is always the question, is this utopian? Here is a

recent essay that tackles the issue:

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?

http://www.mises.org/story/1855

[Guest guest]

mark robert wrote:

>

> I found no entry for " consentual " . Yes, my use of " consensual " is

> correct.

>

>

Hello Mark. ah, I see the error of my ways now. Funny how when I was

checking it last night I couldn't come to the same conclusion. Must

have been dark. Ok, I get what you mean. Me - the spellchecker police

was spelling it wrong!

>

> I suppose most would view 18 as adult age.

>

>

I still want to know what the people will have to do that don't follow

the code. Maybe they could be put to death. Ummmm, wait a minute...how

could they be punished unless they consented?

I thought it was an interesting concept. I suspect that that's how it

all started, don't you? State and Church are way too far divided now to

ever see eye to eye on what you are saying. Unless by some stroke of

luck (?) a horrible plague killed everyone except for one religious

group. Then they would have carte blanche to fix the laws. Oh, it

looks like the remaining group would already have to be following the

code. How many religions are there that have one sin written in their

book/s that would be allowed by the Consensual Code?