Should We Shame Religious Politicians?

[Revoltingest]

What's your reasoning? In this case, I'm merely curious, rather than asking in order to engage in a debate about it. But how do you get from shaming to tossing out racial,etc slurs?

Shaming is about hurting a person.
If hurt is the intent, this is just one method of inflicting it.
The discussion was about calling someone a "whore", ie, shaming sexual behavior.
Is it better than insults based upon race, gender, etc?
I say no....even if one believes the other person deserves it.

 

[Revoltingest]

No it isn't good at all.
We've come a long way in the past 50 odd years to depress name calling and
segregating people according to differences.
I appreciate an open accepting society.
Remember Governor Wallace?
What a disgusting pig of a politician!
Someone finally gut shot the hog. He lived I think.
Wallace quote upon loosing an election:
"After the election, aide Seymore Trammell recalled Wallace saying, "Seymore, you know why I lost that governor's race? ... I was out******ed by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be out******ed again."
What a pig!

The filers caught these letters.
N I G * * * you get that right?
He'd use that term even on radio but not t-v.

Vigorous opposition needn't be about causing shame.
Like Hillary & Obama (bigotry against gays who'd marry), he evolved past his notorious bigotry (racism).
But perhaps if he felt shame, it was after he changed.
I give him come credit his personal progress.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you think that allowing shaming would necessarily open the door to abuse? What kind of abuse soecifically?

The shaming I was discussing was (IMO) abusive as the goal.
If by pointing out wrongs in order to correct them, the perp feels shame as a result, this is different.

People often tell me that being abusive to people they disagree with is an ethical choice.
Were it an effective means of advancing morality, I'd be open to it.
But I don't believe it works.
People thinking they have The Truth is too often merely an excuse for abuse.
To change someone's mind, civil discourse works better.

 

[Sunstone]

Shaming is about hurting a person.
If hurt is the intent, this is just one method of inflicting it.
The discussion was about calling someone a "whore", ie, shaming sexual behavior.
Is it better than insults based upon race, gender, etc?
I say no....even if one believes the other person deserves it.

Thanks for elaborating on that!

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks for elaborating on that!

You're welcome!

 

[Kori]

I think if we are going to talk about shaming people, we shouldn't expose ourselves with resounding ignorance.

Easter is from Paganism. Just like Christmas.

For all of those here that are worried about hurt feelings, what about the pain of these Religious Nut jobs inflict like their pro-rape stance? Watch this video, and ask if these "people" should not be shamed.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I don't see the difference between religious beliefs and values and other philosophical and normative viewpoints. They all are based in controversial and contested philosophical and ethical areas, and their conclusions are not to be settled by pointing to empirical facts alone (if any conclusions ever can be).

I don't see why anyone should be any more shamed for believing homosexuality wrong because of what the Bible says than one who thinks discrimination shouldn't be tolerated because they believe in the moral equality of heterosexuals and homosexuals. I would at least like to see a proper attempt to differentiate the kinds of normative beliefs and values in the former from the latter and thereby show the legitimacy of one in the public space as compared to the other.

 

[Mister Emu]

Easter is from Paganism.

No, it really isn't. Even the idea that the name Easter(which is in English, and that was not always, and German/German derivatives only; for most of the world the name is a derivative of Greek Pascha from Hebrew Pesach) is sourced from a pagan goddess is in serious doubt. The Christian celebration itself isn't pagan in any way.

Anyone with religious or historical training is going to see your underwhelming attack on their practices and them for the ignorance it is. That you tried to(or copied) a meme to be smug about your point only adds to the irony.

I'm not saying don't shame people, as a conservative I wish our truly absurd conservative representatives got shamed more for their idiocy. The rape stuff that came out (women won't get pregnant, their body can shut it down) is absolutely garbage. I'll still point out your ignorant attacks on my faith and myself.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't see the difference between religious beliefs and values and other philosophical and normative viewpoints. They all are based in controversial and contested philosophical and ethical areas, and their conclusions are not to be settled by pointing to empirical facts alone (if any conclusions ever can be).

I don't see why anyone should be any more shamed for believing homosexuality wrong because of what the Bible says than one who thinks discrimination shouldn't be tolerated because they believe in the moral equality of heterosexuals and homosexuals. I would at least like to see a proper attempt to differentiate the kinds of normative beliefs and values in the former from the latter and thereby show the legitimacy of one in the public space as compared to the other.

I agree in part. But, I think you are disregarding the fact that actions can be judged on their own merits, without speculation of "what they might cause" or what an actor may or may not have been thinking.

 

[leibowde84]

No, it really isn't. Even the idea that the name Easter(which is in English, and that was not always, and German/German derivatives only; for most of the world the name is a derivative of Greek Pascha from Hebrew Pesach) is sourced from a pagan goddess is in serious doubt. The Christian celebration itself isn't pagan in any way.

Anyone with religious or historical training is going to see your underwhelming attack on their practices and them for the ignorance it is. That you tried to(or copied) a meme to be smug about your point only adds to the irony.

I'm not saying don't shame people, as a conservative I wish our truly absurd conservative representatives got shamed more for their idiocy. The rape stuff that came out (women won't get pregnant, their body can shut it down) is absolutely garbage. I'll still point out your ignorant attacks on my faith and myself.

Honestly, I think I understand what you are saying, and I agree with a part of it. But, as a life long Catholic, raised by a Catholic mother, who went on to an all boys Jesuit high school who ended up studying philosophy at a prebeterian college, it is well established that much of the traditions associated with the holiday of Easter are from pagan origins.

I agree that to Christians it's about Christ's sacrifice. But to the majority of people with children who acknowledge the day, it consists of eggs, bunnies, chickens, flowers, "rebirth", spring, children being happy and entertained, and women being happy about being able to wear bright colors (I think). All of which, even the clothes, have their origin in pagan rituals celebrating the coming of spring.

 

[jeager106]

Easter is from Paganism. Just like Christmas.

For all of those here that are worried about hurt feelings, what about the pain of these Religious Nut jobs inflict like their pro-rape stance? Watch this video, and ask if these "people" should not be shamed.

Easter is from Paganism. Just like Christmas.

For all of those here that are worried about hurt feelings, what about the pain of these Religious Nut jobs inflict like their pro-rape stance? Watch this video, and ask if these "people" should not be shamed.

Easter is from Paganism. Just like Christmas.

For all of those here that are worried about hurt feelings, what about the pain of these Religious Nut jobs inflict like their pro-rape stance? Watch this video, and ask if these "people" should not be shamed.

Really? Easter and Christmas have roots in paganism?
YES It Is. Do the research and learn for yourselves.
Both " holidays " are deeply rooted in pagan rituals.
What better way to practice paganism than to disguise pagan holidays
as "Christian" celebrations.
Clever. This has fooled generations of Christians and does a fine job to this day.
Christians don't want to see the paganism practices in so called "Christian" celebrations.
Who wants to give up Easter and Christmas holidays?
No one!
No matter that "Christians" are following paganism totally disguised as Christian.

 

[leibowde84]

Really? Easter and Christmas have roots in paganism?
YES It Is. Do the research and learn for yourselves.
Both " holidays " are deeply rooted in pagan rituals.
What better way to practice paganism than to disguise pagan holidays
as "Christian" celebrations.
Clever. This has fooled generations of Christians and does a fine job to this day.
Christians don't want to see the paganism practices in so called "Christian" celebrations.
Who wants to give up Easter and Christmas holidays?
No one!
No matter that "Christians" are following paganism totally disguised as Christian.

I agree. The way I see it, what's the harm. As long as it brings families together and ignites generosity, right?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I agree in part. But, I think you are disregarding the fact that actions can be judged on their own merits, without speculation of "what they might cause" or what an actor may or may not have been thinking.

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here.

Really? Easter and Christmas have roots in paganism?
YES It Is. Do the research and learn for yourselves.
Both " holidays " are deeply rooted in pagan rituals.
What better way to practice paganism than to disguise pagan holidays
as "Christian" celebrations.
Clever. This has fooled generations of Christians and does a fine job to this day.
Christians don't want to see the paganism practices in so called "Christian" celebrations.
Who wants to give up Easter and Christmas holidays?
No one!
No matter that "Christians" are following paganism totally disguised as Christian.

Certainly, Christians took over pagan festivals, including Easter. And yes, some pagan symbolism was used. But the festivals were more or less Christianised. Indeed, even the dichotomy between pagan and Christian here is suspect.

In no sense can you say that Easter as it was celebrated in Christendom (for secularists now in the West it is hardly practicised at all - those things leibowde84 points out are commercialised and trivialised to mean very little) is a pagan festival in disguise. It is Christian festival that makes use of some pagan antecedents for its own purposes.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not quite sure I understand your point here.


Certainly, Christians took pagan festivals, including Easter. And yes, some pagan symbolism was used. But the festivals were more or less Christianised. Indeed, even the dichotomy between pagan and Christian here is suspect.

In no sense can you say that Easter as it was celebrated (for secularists now in the West it is hardly practicised at all - those things leibowde84 points out are commercialised and trivialised to mean very little) in Christendom is a pagan festival in disguise. It is Christian festival that makes use of some pagan antecedents for its own purposes.

Acts can be judged by there effect of society as a whole. Murder, theft, dishonesty, etc. can all easily be seen as "immoral" without any consideration of a higher power by their impact on society. It is societal evolution, a brand of which not guided by natural selection, but, instead, by social cohesion and prosperity.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Acts can be judged by there effect of society as a whole. Murder, theft, dishonesty, etc. can all easily be seen as "immoral" without any consideration of a higher power by their impact on society. It is societal evolution, a brand of which not guided by natural selection, but, instead, by social cohesion and prosperity.

This is false. The concepts of judgment and effects here are normative and must lead to the the sort of contest, philosophical and normative areas I spoke of. That is the case even at the very general level you are talking of, even before we get down to details. Perhaps if you are advocating some sort of Sterner-like egoism, where all is down to personal preference and no shared moral values are invoked, you might be correct (though I'm still sceptical), but I don't think you mean this.

 

[leibowde84]

This is false. The concepts of judgment and effects here are normative and must lead to the the sort of contest, philosophical and normative areas I spoke of. That is the case even at the very general level you are talking of, even before we get down to details. Perhaps if you are advocating some sort of Sterner-like egoism, where all is down to personal preference and no shared moral values are invoked, you might be correct (though I'm still sceptical), but I don't think you mean this.

1. Can you demonstrate that your first two sentences are accurate with verifiable evidence?

2. The rest of your statements here are, I assume, due to your ignorance of the subject, as nothing stated should lead anyone to think I believe what you claim. To your questions, no, that is in no way what I believe.

 

[leibowde84]

This is false. The concepts of judgment and effects here are normative and must lead to the the sort of contest, philosophical and normative areas I spoke of. That is the case even at the very general level you are talking of, even before we get down to details. Perhaps if you are advocating some sort of Sterner-like egoism, where all is down to personal preference and no shared moral values are invoked, you might be correct (though I'm still sceptical), but I don't think you mean this.

Just to be clear, I am referring to the fact that we can judge actions on their own merits rather than trying to make blanket statements, appealing to a claimed necessary authority. If you disagree, can you at least explain why?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

1. Can you demonstrate that your first two sentences are accurate with verifiable evidence?

I would say it was common sense. You were clearly implying that some acts are immoral (hint) because of their effects or impact on society. How would you construe this non-normatively?

2. The rest of your statements here are, I assume, due to your ignorance of the subject, as nothing stated should lead anyone to think I believe what you claim. To your questions, no, that is in no way what I believe.

Okay so you, and I would guess the OP, do not mean to rule out normative claims altogether. What I'm looking for is how you argue that some normative and philosophical claims (those associated with religion) are illegitimate in the public square and others are not. You mentioned effects that show certain things are clearly immoral but didn't show how such a claim escapes the same sort of contested and controversial philosophical and normative debates that religious morality belongs to.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Just to be clear, I am referring to the fact that we can judge actions on their own merits rather than trying to make blanket statements, appealing to a claimed necessary authority. If you disagree, can you at least explain why?

The term merits implies some sort of normative standard (as you have excluded egoist and other non-normative meanings). How are such standards not based on similarly contested normative and philosophical beliefs as religious morality?

 

[leibowde84]

I would say it was common sense. You were clearly implying that some acts are immoral (hint) because of their effects or impact on society. How would you construe this non-normatively?

Okay so you, and I would guess the OP, do not mean to rule out normative claims altogether. What I'm looking for is how you argue that some normative and philosophical claims (those associated with religion) are illegitimate in the public square and others are not. You mentioned effects that show certain things are clearly immoral but didn't show how such a claim escapes the same sort of contested and controversial philosophical and normative debates that religious morality belongs to.

No, my argument is only against your assumptions that aren't based on any evidence, as I've shown. Agains, I am in no way saying your hypothesis is an impossibility, but you have to support it on its own merits with verifiable evidence.