Alternative ethics

[Gob]

The gender is irrelevant in pedophilia, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

[Sean]

Is it arse Loca! Ethics and spirituality can be (and very often are) mutually exclusive.

[Gob]

Bets of luck Sean!

[Sean]

LMAO

[Scooter]

Scooter, if it makes you comfortable to believe that, be my guest.

If you don't believe it, then you must believe that every prison rapist is homosexual, even though 95 or 98 or whatever percent of them never had sex with any other man either before or after their incarceration.

Maybe I just haven't been reading enough, but it seems to me the instances of pedophiles - particularly the priests in question - molesting both males and females are exceedingly rare. The overwhelming majority of cases are men on boys.

In North America and perhaps the UK. In mainland Europe and Latin America, the proportions of male and female victims are much more balanced. Suggesting that in environments where priests' access to children was not as differentiated by sex, they abused whomever was available. Suggesting that in North America, where priests were far more likely to have access to boys than to girls, the same principle meant that more boys would be victims.

[loCAtek]

Is it arse Loca! Ethics and spirituality can be (and very often are) mutually exclusive.

Didn't say they couldn't, mate. Gob's question was what did spiritually have to do with any of it?

I said ethics was a step in spirituality. You can stop at being ethical, and/or you can continue on to being spiritual.

[dgs49]

Actually, Scooter, your point about prisons is one (of many) reasons why I do not believe it is possible to define "homosexual" in a way that can be used to develop public policies. The State can only deal with behavior, not with motivation, desire, or preference.

After pondering this discussion for a while, I think I understand why you object to my referring to the offending priests as "homosexual pedophiles." (1) You disagree with my conclusion that the vast majority of accused priests are preying exclusively on boys, (2) You believe that that characterization supports the view by some that every homosexual is a potential child molester (and thus, ineligible to be leader of the Boys Choir). (3) You believe that if there is such a thing as a "homosexual child molester," then there must on the other hand be such a thing as a "heterosexual (i.e., 'normal') child molester." (4) You believe the characterization detracts from the essence of the crime - the victimization of children (not boys or girls, in particular, but children).

OK. I will reluctantly accept your point. I'll never refer to a pedophile as "homosexual" again.

But is it OK if I vote against Bruce the Drag Queen as the new Scoutmaster?

[Gob]

I said ethics was a step in spirituality. You can stop at being ethical, and/or you can continue on to being spiritual.

Baloney, you can stop at ethics without needing to continue to a belief in wooo..

The way you phrase that puts "spirituality" (the choice to believe in something you cannot prove) over and/or above ethics (personal moral principles,) there is no ascending league table here.

[loCAtek]

Kay, we both (all) agree you can stop at ethics.

The need for any spiritual is up to the individual. To claim that everyone's needs are the exactly the same is baloney. Some feel they have spirits that need nurturing; that that aids in their self-improvement/affirmation/enlightenment. Some find it music, some find family, some find it in nature; things that nourish the soul. However, it's a choice to seek to feel it; it does takes more effort to do so. The choices are up to the individual; everyone's needs are not exactly the same.

[Gob]

So why did you phrase your (rather meaningless) post as if people can go through ethics to reach a better state?

Bad grammar or the hyperbole of the recent convert?

One man's spirituality is another's belly laugh.

[loCAtek]

Good question. If you are trying to lead a spiritual life, you would be preparing yourself not just for a good life, but a good or better afterlife. (I realize you may not believe in one, but ...you asked) Nearly every religion and philosophy states the key to a good life is live it without regrets. The key to a good afterlife is the same.
Obviously if you are unethical, you are bound to have many regrets; and therefore your death, and/or entrance into the afterlife will be a bad one. You may even go to Hell, but depending on your beliefs your mileage may vary.
You shouldn't regret living and you shouldn't regret dying. If you believe in your spirit and wish to nurture it in preparation of your inevitable demise; then you may choose spirituality to do so.

[Sean]

Is it arse Loca! Ethics and spirituality can be (and very often are) mutually exclusive.

Didn't say they couldn't, mate. Gob's question was what did spiritually have to do with any of it?

I said ethics was a step in spirituality. You can stop at being ethical, and/or you can continue on to being spiritual.

That's exactly what I thought you were saying.

Being ethical is much more valuable than being spiritual. In fact spirituality often calls for unethical behaviour.

[Andrew D]

Obviously if you are unethical, you are bound to have many regrets ....

That's backwards. Ethical people have regrets precisely because they realize that they have done unethical things, and they wish that they had not. Unethical people have no (or fewer) regrets because their lack of ethics either prevents them from realizing that they have done unethical things or makes them not care that they have done unethical things.

[Andrew D]

Some feel they have spirits that need nurturing; that that aids in their self-improvement/affirmation/enlightenment. Some find it music, some find family, some find it in nature; things that nourish the soul.

Which just goes to show that the term "spirituality," at least when used in a non-technical sense (as it almost always is), is too nebulous to be useful.

[Gob]

Being ethical is much more valuable than being spiritual. In fact spirituality often calls for unethical behaviour.

Spirituality gave us the Salem witch trials, the crusades, stoning, and Al Queda...

[loCAtek]

Being ethical is much more valuable than being spiritual. In fact spirituality often calls for unethical behaviour.

.

That's fanaticism, not spirituality.

Obviously if you are unethical, you are bound to have many regrets ....

That's backwards. Ethical people have regrets precisely because they realize that they have done unethical things, and they wish that they had not. Unethical people have no (or fewer) regrets because their lack of ethics either prevents them from realizing that they have done unethical things or makes them not care that they have done unethical things.

Granted, there are people of that extreme, but they are the ones who lead others to unethical behavior. The majority of people have some kind conscience, otherwise society wouldn't function.

Which just goes to show that the term "spirituality," at least when used in a non-technical sense (as it almost always is), is too nebulous to be useful.

It differentiates dogmatic religion from real faith.

Spirituality gave us the Salem witch trials, the crusades, stoning, and Al Queda...

That was not spirituality but fanaticism.

AndrewD is only one addressing spirituality; the claims that any fanaticism is being pressed on anyone is contradicted by the OP.

[Sean]

And what bred that fanaticism?
Their faith, that's what!

Do you think that they would have started burning witches/killing heathens/hijacking planes if they didn't believe that their God wanted them to do it.

Would an atheist do any of those things because of their belief?

[Crackpot]

No Faith is merely a scapegoat to cover their greed (in one form or another)

Would an atheist do any of those things because of their belief?

ask Stalin.

[Sean]

No Faith is merely a scapegoat to cover their greed (in one form or another)

Not neccessarily CP... I'm not sure how the people of Salem profited. In fact the whole witchhunt palaver only began after it got the big thumbs-up from the Pope.

From Dr. Charles Selengut'sSacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence:

Regarding the Crusades:

The Crusades . . . were very much holy wars waged to maintain Christianity's theological and social control . . . . On their way to conquering the Holy Land from the Muslims by force of arms, the crusaders destroyed dozens of Jewish communities and killed thousands because the Jews would not accept the Christian faith. Jews had to be killed in the religious campaign because their very existence challenged the sole truth espoused by the Christian Church.

Regarding the Inquisition:

The inquisitors generally saw themselves as educators helping people maintain correct beliefs by pointing out errors in knowledge and judgment. . . .Punishment and death came only to those who refused to admit their errors. . . .during the Spanish Inquisitions of the fifteenth century, the clear distinction between confession and innocence and remaining in error became muddled. . . .The investigators had to invent all sorts of techniques, including torture, to ascertain whether . . . new converts' beliefs were genuine.

There are many groups out there who commit atrocites for no other reason than their victims believe in a different Celestial Teapot and have different values. A quick search gave me these...

Army of God
Hutaree
Concerned Christians

...and that's just in the US!

[Sean]

Oh and I'll give you Stalin.

But I think you'll find that his case was an anomaly...