Religious people do have a clearer moral code than secularists

[bindeweede]

Well, it is in the Telegraph, written by their Religion Editor, who just happens to be an Anglican priest.

Quite balanced, I thought.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...n-secularists/

[Pebble]

"Do adherents to a major faith have demonstrable, objective and tangible standards of behaviour towards others enshrined in their religious traditions, to which they can and should be expected to aspire because they are accountable to their divine authority, that are not so prescribed by secular authorities?"

The religion in question is Islam so the standards in question include killing adulters and heathens.


If I follow Booth's argument, if you commit an offence, but know that this is wrong - there should be leniency. So tax fraud is really OK? After all the only really serious criminals are those who fail to understand the difference between right and wrong.

[tolman]

Well, as for Cherie Blair, I'd surprised the god-bothering twit didn't go the whole hog and not give any punishment, because the guy will be punished in the afterlife, possibly simply for not being a Catholic, as well as for being a thug.

As for the anglican priest, George Pitcher, he's absolutely right that many religious people do have clear moral codes.
Unfortunately, those moral codes often extend to killing people for doing anything the believer disagrees with.
Really evil things, like being [born] homosexual, performing legal medical procedures, marrying (or wanting to marry, or talking to) people their father doesn't like, being the wrong religion, or even not being the in quite the right subset of a particular religion.

Psychopaths the world over have very clear moral codes - what they want to do is Right, and people who disagree with them are Wrong.
Adding religion to that doesn't necessarily help.
Sometimes, all it ends up doing is letting people pick the bits of a religion that agree with their prejudices, and then carry on claiming that [deity] is in full support of what they want to do.

[bindeweede]

I do hope the Rev. R. Sole has read some of the comments on his article. This is one of many I enjoyed.

I’ve just decided to become profoundly religious, in case I feel like committing a crime soon.


Surely before Cherie acquits me of whatever horrible crime I decide to go for, she ought to inquire into the specifics of my beliefs… what if I’m a member of the Holy Order of the Naughty Fellows? We’re an ancient brotherhood who believe that we were put on this Earth by God in order to cause a nuisance to others.


Which raises the further question: if she can acquit someone because she approves of his religious beliefs, she presumably thinks she can condemn someone else because she doesn’t approve of his.
Is she a completely prematurely senile cretinous old bag or something?

Of course, she didn't acquit the chap, just suspended the sentence.

[ChrisOfNottingham]

The thing with morals is that despite our best efforts to put them into some kind of rigid framework, in real life there are always additional circumstances to take into consideration. It is far better to take each case on its merits. Having a moral 'code' leads to the kind of situation where young girls burn to death rather be seen incorrectly dressed.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1874471.stm)

I will probably get angry about this until my dying day.

ps Newbie 1st post!