Having Moral or Religious Standards is Outdated and No Longer Acceptable?

Question

The government is much better at telling us what is right and wrong because they can reflect the public mood much better. A liberal, accepting approach to all things makes a much better World.

Please note there is an "or" between moral and religious.

Answer 1

Only if you happen to agree with Fuehrer Blair and his cronies. The government is now trying to force a totalitarian state on us where everybody MUST believe what the government wants. for example, Jade and friends on Big Brother could face charges of stirring up racial hatred just because they don't like some groups of people. Aren't they allowed to think what they want? Apparently, they need professional help to enable them to agree with other people. It's a policy that stems from the top - everyone MUST agree with the majority, even though the majority group in any nation consists mostly of the lowest educated and least intelligent people.

Bring back freedom of speech and learn to accept morality for it's own sake, not government coercion.

Answer 2

Having morals is most certainly not outdated-out of fashion perhaps but not outdated.

Religious standards and the morality associated is a much larger and more complicated topic, with extremist views only too visible in the current climate-from anti-gay and anti-abortion campaigns to the latest plot to behead a British soldier.

The goverment is absolutely the last place we should be looking towards for a stance on right and wrong-their approach seems to consist of do the wrong thing for as long as possible until you're caught and then try and convince everybody that you didn't know it was wrong, honest!

And as regards knowing the public mood...well.

T. Blair and his collective lunatics wouldn't find any dissent in the public arena if he had a map, compass and a GPS. If we all marched on Downing Street carrying pitchforks he'd look out his window and say 'Wow, lots of farmers about today'.

A liberal, accepting approach means that those who are determined to do wrong by us will get away with it(even more than they have been doing of late) because the liberals will say 'well they're entitled to do what they want-we're liberal and all for self expression'. Which would not be an issue if it were only them who were affected, but more often than not they scream from the rooftops having never even seen the other persons shoes, never mind walked a mile in them.

As far as I am aware this country still allows 'free speech' (please don't get me started about how it's not free it's paid for in blood), and everyone is entitled to their own view-be it religious, political or otherwise. What they're not entitled to do is ram it as far down our collective throats as they can regardless of the fact that it's making us choke.

Answer 3

Hello Gorgeous,


I think that you don't have to be religious to have moral standards. In Britain our moral outlook is Christian based still, although I feel we are holding on with white knuckles whilst watching it go down the toilet.

If we continue to accept the amoral increase then we're going to be in deep trouble. People can no longer look to those in authority when they're wallowing in sleaze and the base mire of their own self promotion. And young peoples role models can't even make a conversation.

This sounds really negative I know. We can stem this though even outside of religion. By being responsible for ours and others lives. Although ultimately I believe the only way is going to be through Jesus Christ.

Answer 4

I take it you are referring to the gay adoption thing. I agree the first answer, in that I'm not religious but have good morals. But, it certainly seems that the state is overruling religious ideals in favour of political correctness and 'equal rights for all'. This itself is morally wrong. There are a lot of religious ideas that I don't agree with, like saying abortion is wrong, but at leas they don't go forcing their ideas on everyone else, which the government is doing. This government is really getting on my nerves, and by the looks of things, a lot of other peoples' too. No wonder so many more people are voting BNP now.

Answer 5

There is no absolute standard for what is right or wrong without an objective basis for morality. If there is no objective basis then all morality is relative. The only objective basis for morality that is not relative is to believe that there is a God who is holy and just. Even if people don't acknowledge God when they give assent to the concept of right and wrong it's from what is written on their hearts by God.

Answer 6

What you need to do is to do away with God. When you've done that you'll have morality dictated by government.....kind of a George Orwell type 'Big Brother". But that seems to be what you want. Let's just put our heart, soul, brain and conscience on the shelf and let 'Big Brother' tell us what is right and wrong. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR!
If there is no God then there are no absolutes. If there are no absolutes then there is no such thing as right and wrong. Right and wrong are just whatever the culture defines them to be in a Godless society. Our christian culture says you're supposed to love your neighbor. Some cultures down in the amazon say you're suppose to eat your neighbor. A government can define right and wrong just by man made law that is not based upon anything higher. But man has a natural bent toward evil. It's inherent in him. If you don't agree with that, your argument is not with me but with 6000 years of human history. Being bent toward evil he will always water down those laws because those laws are not based upon anything but the governments opinion. It's as if God has established those laws and man always wants to be free to live in any licentious manner he pleases.. Eventually, you come to one of two end results: 1)the morality keeps getting watered down and watered down until you have anarchy in your nation because no one has any morals. 2)You need more and more force to enforce those man made opinions(laws) that are not based upon anything ultimate(God) and pretty soon you have a totalitarian government. So you always end up with one of two end results.....either you end up with anarchy or a police state.
Francis Schaeffer, that great christian philosopher, used to say that liberals always bring on the thing they hate most......totalitarianism. What he meant was that they keep whittling down the morality in a nation until the only way you can keep order is with storm troops and a gestapo.
Mao Zedong understood this perfectly well. He said " the only real morality is at the point of a bayonette. In his society that was true. He was a communist and his state was atheistic. An atheistic state doesn't allow for a God. As I said at the beginning....if there is no God there are no absolutes......if there are no absolutes there is no such thing as right and wrong ........if there is no such thing as right and wrong then sooner or later you will need bayonettes to keep the peace.
Like I said before, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR!

Answer 7

the finer points of morallity are the ethics that deal with behavior but the courts need to evolve to higher standards ;these will not come from the religious standards that have helped cause many of our problems to date. reason and morallity are of the most importance to mankind not to god . when prevention is better incorporated into our paradigm of law, justice will be served without revenge as a misnomer of justice;but not in my lifetime.

Answer 8

I don't think for a minute that if you have morals it automatically means it is with or because of your religion!
as religions do not fit well into morals because they are anything but GOOD - hence - morals are still in but religions are OUT!

Answer 9

I don't think you're right. Take Shilpa Shetty, for example. She had very high moral and religious standards and the public chose her as the winner of Big Brother.

Answer 10

Religious standards - fiction
Moral standards - personal choice
Government - corrupt mendacity
Public mood - mob mentality

Go figure.