LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY dulcinbradbury)

Remember the story about how the park service wasn't allowed to say how old the Grand Canyon is? It appears to be a hoax.

Apparently, Dominionists aren't the only ones with an agenda out there. ;) I just wanted to update the community, since we seem to pride ourselves on accurate information.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY wyldraven)

Things are really looking up recently. There's been a great deal of good news lately on the global warming front, but this one just blows me away.

NewScientist.com: Climate change unites science and religion

( Excerpt. Click Headline for full story. )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Morals vs. Ethics

My friend Joel Pelletier painted this picture in response to this article, particularly the final paragraph:

According to the Christian Science Monitor in a recent article, “They (atheists) are astonished that a majority of Americans question evolution and support teaching intelligent design in the science classroom. They are distressed over polls that show that at least half of Americans are unwilling to vote for an atheist despite the Constitution’s requirement that there be no religious test for public office.” Lori Lipman Brown, SCA director, says, "We need to educate the public that people who don’t have a god belief can be good neighbors and friends and moral and ethical people." But this is a problem because atheists really cannot claim to be moral or ethical because morals and ethics have their roots in God’s law.[emphasis mine]

WTF?!?!? Because someone chooses not to believe in god(s), they cannot be moral or ethical? That is the biggest bunch of pious bullshit I've ever read.

Joel's verbal response to this rubbish is much more constrained, but wonderfully articulate:

In your article about the SCA and Arlene-Marie, it seems you confuse morals with ethics, and claim that only persons of faith can have either. Morals is based on a punishment concept, where God commands certain laws or actions, which men are supposed to follow without question or pay the consequences (in this life in the Old Testament, or in the next life in the New Testament). Ethics is based on consensus amongst men and women, rules agreed upon because they enable us to live our lives with each other here on this earth, regardless of each person's, family's or country's religious beliefs.

Your morality can inform or guide your ethical decisions, but morality is a personal thing between you and your God, and cannot (and should not) be forced on others.

By claiming that there can be no ethics without the fear of God's punishment, you deny 7000 years of human civilization, politics, arts, philosophy and ethics.

Ethics, because of it's ability to evolve with human civilization, supercedes morality, especially when morality is is rooted in ancient laws and practices. Contemporary ethics concludes that it is wrong to execute a woman because she commits adultery (note recent cases in Ethiopia), even though, according to Leviticus and other religious texts, it is moral.

As for Arlene-Marie, no one is perfect, and she corrected her statement. Ask Rev. Haggard about perfection in morality. Ethics says he did nothing "wrong" to us or his congregation, only (perhaps) to his wife and family - and himself - by lying about his true nature for so long. It is ethical to conclude that this is a matter between him and his family, and none of our business.

Which, interestingly enough for a very moralistic community, seems to be exactly how the issue is being handled.

I would rather adhere to a 21st century code of ethics than any bronze-age morality. And if you scratched the surface of any except the most hardline believer, they would probably agree. Especially the women.