This is TOO much!

[tvashtarkatena]

You are absolved, my child.

[Dechristo]

Needless to say, those of us who are not christian, and who still hold the constitution in high regard, object to this agenda, and to the hijacking of the word "moral" in public discourse.

Implies that those who identify with the label "christian" are contrary to your notions.

 

 

Hey hey, ever regular old run of the mill Christians don't necessarily appreciate the "Religious Right" BS either. Don't lump together everyone who lables themselves as Christian.

If you'll take the time to read a bit more carefully, you'll see that I didn't.

 

perhaps

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think that the Left considers most of their policy positions to be as grounded in a set of moral values that they are just as passionate about as the folks on the right

 

The difference these days is that the code word "moral values", as used in public political speech, has come to mean the prayer in schools, pro-life, anti-gay agenda embraced by the religious right. It is a philosophy that strongly believes in the government legislating what goes on in the bedroom, how to parent children, and how individuals should behave in private. In essence, it is public policy based on fundamentalist christianity.

 

Needless to say, those of us who are not christian, and who still hold the constitution in high regard, object to this agenda, and to the hijacking of the word "moral" in public discourse.

 

yeah, we need liberals like you teaching us how to raise our children. lesson one: Mr. Trashie teaches the kiddies how to flip people off.

[JayB]

I've been pretty amazed by the abdication of this turf via the wholesale rejection of anything that has the word "moral' in it. Some kind of "Here's our "moral values" and this is why we support position X, position Y, etc." and a Blair-Clintonesque policy stance would probably be much more effective in terms of generating a coherent agenda that a large portion of the electorate could get behind.

 

I don't think that it's necessarily a case that one side is completely neutral with respect to the manner in which people conduct their private lives. You may feel like gun control, for example, is a completely morally neutral issue - but there are plenty of people who feel as though this is a massive intrusion into their private lives. You may not agree with them on this one, but I think it's easy to assume that because a particular law or policy is in synch with your own viewpoint, it is by default un-intrusive and morally neutral.

[archenemy]

Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertains to matters of good and evil used within three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values —shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct.

 

Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual.

 

I don't understand how anyone could think that thier own morals, or the cultural mores they live under, could be construed as neutral in any way. Baffling.

[minx]

facts are neutral. morals are not.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I've been pretty amazed by the abdication of this turf via the wholesale rejection of anything that has the word "moral' in it. Some kind of "Here's our "moral values" and this is why we support position X, position Y, etc." and a Blair-Clintonesque policy stance would probably be much more effective in terms of generating a coherent agenda that a large portion of the electorate could get behind.

 

I don't think that it's necessarily a case that one side is completely neutral with respect to the manner in which people conduct their private lives. You may feel like gun control, for example, is a completely morally neutral issue - but there are plenty of people who feel as though this is a massive intrusion into their private lives. You may not agree with them on this one, but I think it's easy to assume that because a particular law or policy is in synch with your own viewpoint, it is by default un-intrusive and morally neutral.

 

Both "sides" moralize just as much. The left just thinks it's OK to do it, because they have no God (other than themselves) who is "making the rules" that support the principles which they believe. Somehow it is no problem to make up your own principles and that this is somehow non-offensive and non-threatening; wheras principles based on a higher power are. In fact such a basis of belief and behavior is no better than 100% equivalent, and arguably much worse.

 

The left also ignores the fact that there are always those who profess a belief for their own gain, whether they actually believe what they profess or not, and such hypocrisy does not apply to those who actually hold a set of beliefs which they in fact practice. The belief system of thousands of honest, moral people are not illegitimized nor negated by one pastor visiting a male prostitute and taking meth.

 

Moreover, I will add that it is always easier to succeed with no beliefs and standards than to occasionally fail when you actually have standards. So congrats to all you moralizing liberals that are successful in your lack of moral beliefs! You've succeeded in meeting your own standards. Good job!

 

[archenemy]

facts are neutral. morals are not.

Yup. Just like the fact that God created man in his present form.

[tvashtarkatena]

I don't think that it's necessarily a case that one side is completely neutral with respect to the manner in which people conduct their private lives. You may feel like gun control, for example, is a completely morally neutral issue - but there are plenty of people who feel as though this is a massive intrusion into their private lives. You may not agree with them on this one, but I think it's easy to assume that because a particular law or policy is in synch with your own viewpoint, it is by default un-intrusive and morally neutral.

 

Actually, I don't subscribe to any of your assertions. And your example of gun control, which I personally couldn't give a damn about, is dated. The Democrats in general have largely abandoned that as an issue out of shear necessity.

 

Your confuse the actual definition of terms like "moral values" with its connotative meaning in the public sphere. When that term is used in public, political speech, it connotes a specific agenda put forth by the religious right.

 

I object to intrusions on privacy and personal choice from the left as well. As conservatives in power have become more radical, however, they are fewer and farther between these days.

 

Simply put, I believe government should be neutral regarding religion, as stated in the constitution. I believe that everyone should have an equal right to marry whom they choose. I believe that the government should stay out of our private lives and personal choices. The religious right does not believe these things, and therein lies my objection.

 

And BTW, for those who are logically challenged, stating that non-christians object to a religious right agenda does not imply anything at all about christians who do not fall into that category.

[tvashtarkatena]

The belief system of thousands of honest, moral people are not illegitimized nor negated by one pastor visiting a male prostitute and taking meth.

Assumption: 'honest, moral people'. Do you know all 14,000 or 30 million of them? What puts you in any position to judge that?

 

What condemns all those 'honest, moral' people, in my book, is their robust effort to impose their religious values on public policy to prevent people from marrying the person of their choice (in addition to literally demonizing their sexual preference) and inject their religious teachings into public schools, just to name a couple. That makes them all complicit, and guilty as charged, according to my moral code which includes equal protection under the law, seperation of church and state, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. If you want to believe that a giant wood rat is god, fine. Keep it out of public policy.

 

Oh wait, I don't have a moral code. Sorry, I forgot.

Edited November 6, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[ClimbingPanther]

Oh wait, I don't have a moral code. Sorry, I forgot.

That's not true!!! Don't beat yourself up like that.

It's just that yours doesn't matter

[underworld]

Simply put, I believe government should be neutral regarding religion, as stated in the constitution. I believe that everyone should have an equal right to marry whom they choose. I believe that the government should stay out of our private lives and personal choices. The religious right does not believe these things, and therein lies my objection.

 

right to marry - right now, everone does have an equal right to marry. the govt, based on social norms, chooses what the available pool is that everyone has the rights to. right now it does not include those of the same sex, nor does it include underage kids or relatives. if you truly believe the govt should not have a role in the gay part, you must also not think the govt should have a roll in the underage or related part.

 

privat lives and personal choices - not sure which buzzword issue you're refering to here?

[archenemy]

I don't think that it's necessarily a case that one side is completely neutral with respect to the manner in which people conduct their private lives. You may feel like gun control, for example, is a completely morally neutral issue - but there are plenty of people who feel as though this is a massive intrusion into their private lives. You may not agree with them on this one, but I think it's easy to assume that because a particular law or policy is in synch with your own viewpoint, it is by default un-intrusive and morally neutral.

 

Actually, I don't subscribe to any of your assertions. And your example of gun control, which I personally couldn't give a damn about, is dated. The Democrats in general have largely abandoned that as an issue out of shear necessity.

 

Your confuse the actual definition of terms like "moral values" with its connotative meaning in the public sphere. When that term is used in public, political speech, it connotes a specific agenda put forth by the religious right.

 

I object to intrusions on privacy and personal choice from the left as well. As conservatives in power have become more radical, however, they are fewer and farther between these days.

 

Simply put, I believe government should be neutral regarding religion, as stated in the constitution. I believe that everyone should have an equal right to marry whom they choose. I believe that the government should stay out of our private lives and personal choices. The religious right does not believe these things, and therein lies my objection.

 

And BTW, for those who are logically challenged, stating that non-christians object to a religious right agenda does not imply anything at all about christians who do not fall into that category.

I agree with what you are saying here.

 

Except, the Constitution is not unbiased in regards to religion.

And the implication about christians who don't fall into that catagory is understood the same way as the "moral value" interpretation in the public sphere is understood.

[tvashtarkatena]

lesson one: Mr. Trashie teaches the kiddies how to flip people off.

Literalism is a simpleton's refuge.

[archenemy]

Simply put, I believe government should be neutral regarding religion, as stated in the constitution. I believe that everyone should have an equal right to marry whom they choose. I believe that the government should stay out of our private lives and personal choices. The religious right does not believe these things, and therein lies my objection.

 

right to marry - right now, everone does have an equal right to marry. the govt, based on social norms, chooses what the available pool is that everyone has the rights to. right now it does not include those of the same sex, nor does it include underage kids or relatives. if you truly believe the govt should not have a role in the gay part, you must also not think the govt should have a roll in the underage or related part.

 

privat lives and personal choices - not sure which buzzword issue you're refering to here?

The difference here is that the majority of Americans agree that gays should have a right to marry. The majority also believe relatives, underage kids, and sheep don't have the right to marry.

[archenemy]

lesson one: Mr. Trashie teaches the kiddies how to flip people off.

Literalism is a simpleton's refuge.

The fact (I mean, implication) that you think liberals need refuge speaks volumes about you; doesn't it?

[ClimbingPanther]

This may need a new thread, but the real question in all of this moral wrangling is:

Who or what defines "morality?" If it's individuals, then why condemn murderers (I doubt many ascribe to this)? If it's a societal convention (which I suspect many here believe) then it's all relative to your place in history and geography. If it is a (or THE ) supreme God then it's whatever he says and our opinions don't matter.

 

It's simple and doesn't require much philosophy for those on either end of the spectrum, but I think it would be interesting to see some discussion on what people really mean when they say "morality."

[Doug]

lesson one: Mr. Trashie teaches the kiddies how to flip people off.

Literalism is a simpleton's refuge.

The fact (I mean, implication) that you think liberals need refuge speaks volumes about you; doesn't it?

 

I believe (with all of my moral convictions)what he was implying was that simpletons need refuge and take it in literalism.

 

Dork.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Doug

[underworld]

Simply put, I believe government should be neutral regarding religion, as stated in the constitution. I believe that everyone should have an equal right to marry whom they choose. I believe that the government should stay out of our private lives and personal choices. The religious right does not believe these things, and therein lies my objection.

 

right to marry - right now, everone does have an equal right to marry. the govt, based on social norms, chooses what the available pool is that everyone has the rights to. right now it does not include those of the same sex, nor does it include underage kids or relatives. if you truly believe the govt should not have a role in the gay part, you must also not think the govt should have a roll in the underage or related part.

 

privat lives and personal choices - not sure which buzzword issue you're refering to here?

The difference here is that the majority of Americans agree that gays should have a right to marry. The majority also believe relatives, underage kids, and sheep don't have the right to marry.

 

probably a majority or america is fine with gays being together and achieving rights similar to that of man/woman couples. i think a lot of peole just don't like the term 'marriage' to be used for it. don't know why. it just gets old hearing the 'equal rights' or 'marry whoever they want' mantra. it is an oversimplification and inaccurate.

[tvashtarkatena]

Except, the Constitution is not unbiased in regards to religion.

 

And the implication about christians who don't fall into that catagory is understood the same way as the "moral value" interpretation in the public sphere is understood.

 

The constitution, however, allows for a separation of church and state through the equal right to observe any religion (including none). The fact that it is not entirely neutral doesn't negate this principle.

 

As for the latter; apples and oranges. Mine was a one time statement to a small discussion group, as subject to individual interpretation as any other statement, but not weighted with any widely accepted connotation. "Moral values" is a heavily used phrase in public, political speech with a specific connotative meaning.

[archenemy]

Human conscience is a reference to a drive that encourages individuals to do right; its origins and role are the subject of much discussion. Belief in an effective system of divine judgment can be a source of personal motivation, as classically seen in the success of Medieval codes of knighthood and the spread of Islam. The desire to conform to the behavior of a group to which an individual belongs or aspires to belong is also a powerful force, though it may generally apply to more general cultural norms and customs, where the dichotomy is between proper and improper behavior.

 

Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fibre", whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labelled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of Cistercian reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within nationalist movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one, common morality, irrelevant of what that morality actually is.

 

Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.

 

Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life, morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality". Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.

 

The systematic study of morality is a branch of philosophy called ethics. Ethics seeks to address questions such as how one ought to behave in a specific situation (applied ethics), how one can justify a moral position (normative ethics), how one should understand the fundamental nature of ethics or morality itself, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and the nature and explanation of moral capacity or the ontogenetic development of moral agency (moral psychology).

 

For example, in applied ethics, three issues that revolve around interpretations of the moral ban on murder — capital punishment, abortion and wars of invasion — are under contentious discussion in United States society and politics. In normative ethics, a common question is how one would justify a lie given for the sake of protecting someone from harm. A common meta-ethical question is of what is meant by the terms right or wrong. Moral realism would hold that the individual is attempting to elucidate some objective moral fact, whereas the various branches of moral non-realism would hold that morality is derived from either the norms of the prevalent society (cultural relativism), the edicts of a God (Divine Command Theory), is merely an expression of the speakers sentiments (emotivism), is an implied imperative (prescriptivism) or is literally nonsense (Error theory).

 

[edit] Development of morality

 

While some philosophers and biologists hold that morality is a thin crust hiding egoism, amorality, and anti-social tendencies, others see morality as a product of evolutionary forces and as evidence for continuity with other group-living organisms. Proponents of what could be called "Natural Outgrowth Theory" see no conflict between evolutionary biology and morality since moral codes generally prescribe behavior that enhances individual fitness and group well-being. For example, the taboo against inbreeding encourages individuals to avoid producing defective offspring that would depress their reproductive fitness. Compliance with and internalization of social conventions leads to a sense of regularity that makes group living more predictable and hence, less stressful, for its members. Reciprocity ensures a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. On any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984).

 

Christopher Boehm (1982) has advanced a possible mechanism where natural selection pressures drove the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution. In primate societies, a fight between high-ranking individuals raises the anxiety level of the entire troupe, so that third parties sometimes intervene to bring the quarreling parties to reconcile. A despotic dominance style like that observed in many macaque species also causes more stress for subordinates. As early hominids moved from arboreal to terrestrial habitats, anxiety-induced dispersal behavior would have exposed individuals to predation, forcing our ancestors to develop more efficient conflict management strategies if they were to enjoy the benefits of group living. The invention of stone tools around 2.5 million years ago made fights potentially more injurious, which further increased selection pressure for conflict interference and group controls on dominance behavior. In summary, living in close quarters on the open savanna with ready access to dangerous weapons compelled early hominids to develop strict codes of acceptable behavior.

 

Some evolutionary psychologists have argued that human morality originated from evolutionary processes. An innate tendency to develop a sense of right and wrong helps an individual to survive and reproduce in a species with complex social interactions. Selected behaviors, seen in abstraction as moral codes, are seen to be common to all human cultures, and reflect, in their development, similarities to natural selection and these aspects of morality can be seen in as the basis of some religious doctrine. From this, some also argue that there may be a simple Darwinian explanation for the existence of religion: that, regardless of the truth of religious beliefs, religion tends to encourage behavior beneficial to the species, as a code of morality tends to encourage communality, and communality tends to assist survival.

 

These explanations for the existence of morality do not, however, necessarily assist in deciding what is truly right for future actions. Should an individual's own morality really be determined by what is best for their genetic offspring (colloquially, but inaccurately, "the good of the species" see group selection) Viewholders counter that evolutionary psychology extends millions of years of empirical justification for our moral sense, provided that sense is indeed innate — more than recorded history could demonstrate. They claim sensible people would behave with morality knowing subconsciously that it has succeeded in the past. Still, an explanation of why and how humans could have a moral basis does not imply that they ought to hold these views.

 

Some observers hold that individuals have distinct sets of moral rules that they apply to different groups of people. There is the "ingroup," which includes the individual and those they believe to be of the same culture or race, and there is the "outgroup," whose members are not entitled to be treated according to the same rules. Some biologists, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists believe this ingroup/outgroup difference is an evolutionary mechanism, one which evolved due to its enhanced survival aspects. Gary R. Johnson and V.S. Falger have argued that nationalism and patriotism are forms of this ingroup/outgroup boundary.

 

The evolutionary critique points to the radical ways which morality differs across times and cultures among human beings. Very few activities are always morally wrong across all human societies. For example, some groups still practice forms of infanticide or incest, activities that would be condemned harshly in most Western societies. It has been argued that morality is simply whatever norms are present within a given society at a given time, while the other argument lies in the existence of morality.

 

[edit] Morality in judicial systems

 

The law considers itself independent of morality, even if the law happens to reflect or intends to reflect morality. (Of course, it is not difficult toems, the word morality concretely means a requirement for the access to certain charges or careers, or for the obtaining of certain licenses or concessions, and generally consists of the absence of previous records on (e.g.) crimes, bankruptcy, political or commercial irregularities.)

 

In most systems, the lack of morality of the individual can also be a sufficient cause for punishment, or can be an element for the grading of the punishment.

 

Especially in the systems where modesty (i.e., with reference to sexual crimes) is legally protected or otherwise regulated, the definition of morality as a legal element and in order to determine the cases of infringement, is usually left to the vision and appreciation of the single judge and hardly ever precisely specified. In such cases, it is common to verify an application of the prevalent common morality of the interested community, that consequently becomes enforced by the law for further reference.

 

The government of South Africa is attempting to create a Moral Regeneration movement. Part of this is a proposed Bill of Morals, which will bring a biblical-based "moral code" into the realm of law. This move by a nominally secular democracy has attracted relatively little criticism.

 

[edit] Comparative morality among cultures

 

There has been considerable work done in studying comparative morality among cultures. To such researchers, morality is not seen as a constant essential "truth" but as a series of values that is influenced by (and influences) the cultural context. This is often called moral relativism. [citation needed]

 

One well known commentator is Fons Trompenaars, author of Did the Pedestrian Die?, which tested various moral propositions. One of these was whether the driver of a car would have his friend, a passenger riding in the car, lie in order to protect the driver from the consequences of driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that different cultures had quite different expectations (from none to almost certain).

 

[edit] Moral codes

 

Moral codes are often complex definitions of right and wrong that are based upon well-defined value systems. They dictate proper personal conduct. Although some people might think that a moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's values, ethics, etc. or, for that matter, the judgment of those of others. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. Sometimes, moral codes give way to legal codes, which couple penalties or corrective actions with particular practices. Note that while many legal codes are merely built on a foundation of religious and/or cultural moral codes, ofttimes they are one and the same.

 

Examples of moral codes include the Golden Rule; Wiccan Rede; the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism; the Ancient Egyptian Code of Maàt ;the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures; the ten Indian commandments; and the principle of the Dessek.

 

A related and more intricate (some say more corrupt) concept is an ethical code, which establishes tradeoffs and rationale for making decisions for the greater good. Some of these resemble a moral code, most are less strict and make no special claim to actually distinguish 'right' from 'wrong' in any absolute sense. The ethical code is concerned with weighing all the negative and positive results of an action, and making a decision based upon the greater good for a greater number.

 

Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems (e.g. Taoism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive — part of human politics.

[archenemy]

Oh, and

The moral core of an individual is the extent to which that person will apply his or her notions of morality. It is centered on the individual and can be extended to include other people or groups. The individual sees these others within the moral core as deserving to be treated in the same way the individual personally wants to be treated.

 

The moral core is a principle that can determine how an individual applies particular moral values and beliefs. It is described in some theories of ethics as the limits to the rationality of ethics itself. From this perspective, morals are considered primarily aesthetic notions and not seen as directly sharable.

 

Persons who fall outside of an individual's moral core are not covered by that individual's notions of morality and do not enjoy its protections. Thus, the concept of a moral core can serve to explain apparent hypocrisy in people who claim to have particular ethical principles. For example, it might be used to explain why someone whose religion forbids murder can nevertheless support involvement in war or imposition of the death penalty for certain crimes. According to this theory, the people whose killing can be justified somehow fall outside the individual's moral core.

 

A moral core is presumed to be formed by experience, including especially parental moral examples, and the slow growth via cognition of a set of conditionings, inhibitions, and concepts of beauty through his or her entire lifetime. Although it may be demonstrated to train or inspire others, it cannot be shared in any way, and is constantly changing.

 

In some cases, this moral core is called maturity.

 

Some theories of morality, notably moral relativism, but also branches of theology, hold that there is little value in attempting to share moral cores or even to align moral choices except to the bare minimum needed to prevent conflict.

 

The opposite belief, imposing various degrees of standardization via a moral code and its enforcement, usually in a legal system, is that such cores either can be shared or are irrelevant to the process of social control and learning proper conduct.

[tvashtarkatena]

probably a majority or america is fine with gays being together and achieving rights similar to that of man/woman couples. i think a lot of peole just don't like the term 'marriage' to be used for it. don't know why. it just gets old hearing the 'equal rights' or 'marry whoever they want' mantra. it is an oversimplification and inaccurate.

 

First off, I never used the generic term 'equal rights'. I used 'equal protection under the law', which is a specific, fundamental constitutional right. Second, I don't personally care whether gay unions are called that or marriage or something else, as long as there is equal protection under the law. I used the term 'marriage' for brevity and clarity (ie., everyone knows what a 'marriage' is).

 

This issue is following the same historical arc as interracial marriages did when they were outlawed in many states. All the same arguments against are being recycled today. The outcome will probably be the same; gays will be allowed to 'marry' and we'll wonder what the fuss was all about.

[tvashtarkatena]

Just like the fact that God created man in his present form.

 

Hopefully, for the rest of you, I wasn't the model.

[underworld]

If it is a (or THE ) supreme God then it's whatever he says and our opinions don't matter.

 

for most in an organized religion (but i will speak for catholosism) - it is what god says. the reason it may evolve of change in the course of time is that it is man's interpretation of what god has directed. the interpretation may be based on social norms or scientific break thru. stories such as crationism are interpreted, for most, as a story told to get a point accross. not to be taken at 100% face value. growing up in a very catholic house and in a church a lot i was taught that many people interpret the bible differently. it is between them and 'their god' how they interpret it and we aren't here to judge that.

 

true there are some fundamentalists out there of all religions that take things too far and take things too literally. these are the minority, even tho they get the spotlight.