Does religion improve behavior?

[Zzyzx]

.

Being religious does not make you better behaved, researchers have found.

A new study found 'no significant difference' in the number or quality of moral and immoral deeds made by religious and non-religious participants. 

The researchers found only one difference - Religious people responded with more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.

To learn how people experience morality and immorality in everyday life, the researchers surveyed more than 1,200 adults, aged 18 to 68, via smartphone. 
For three days, the demographically diverse group of U.S. and Canadian citizens received five signals daily, prompting them to deliver short answers to a questionnaire about any moral or immoral act they had committed, received, witnessed or heard about within the last hour. 

In addition to the religion variable, the researchers also looked at moral experience and political orientation, as well as the effect moral and immoral occurrences have on an individual's happiness and sense of purpose. 

The study found that religious and nonreligious people differed in only one way: How moral and immoral deeds made them feel

Religious people responded with stronger emotions – more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds. 

The study also found little evidence for a morality divide between political conservatives and liberals. 

'Our findings are important because they reveal that even though there are some small differences in the degree to which liberals and conservatives emphasize different moral priorities, the moral priorities they have are more similar than different,' Skitka said. Both groups are very concerned about issues such as harm/care, fairness/unfairness, authority/subversion and honesty/dishonesty, she said. 

'By studying how people themselves describe their moral and immoral experiences, instead of examining reactions to artificial examples in a lab, we have gained a much richer and more nuanced understanding of what makes up the moral fabric of everyday experience,' Skitka said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... uilty.html

Do you agree or disagree with the bold items above? Why?

[KenRU]

Civil unions or domestic contracts or whatever you want to call 'em should be obtained from the government to get the civil rights.

And yet, the vast majority of religious organizations still oppose civil unions. Why is that?

Separate the civil and contractual obligations from the religious and cultural ones. Then everybody wins.

Isn't that what is happening since DOMA was repealed? Yet we still see legal challenges trying to prevent civil unions. Why is that?

It seems to me that your fear of the government imposing its will on the religious is not what is actually happening. Its the religious (right) trying to impose its moral standards on others.

-All the best

[dianaiad]

Well, if one group thinks that 'reason' means they have the right to force others to participate in religious ceremonies which violate their beliefs, then I'm not reasonable.

The vast majority of same sex couples I’ve read about (and the few that I do know) had no desire to force a religious group to perform their wedding. They just wanted the legal right to wed.

Moving the goalposts there, sir. "Participation" involves more than actually performing the marriage, just like 'participation' in public school prayer means more than being forced to say the words.

In the case of public prayer, it also means being forced to stand there and listen...and in the case of gay weddings, it means being forced to provide services and publicly support/approve of the whole idea of the wedding.

If one group thinks that they may impose their religious beliefs upon people who do not share those beliefs, and force this by force of law, then I'm not reasonable.

The only ones trying to do this are the legal challenges by the religious right who are trying to deny the right for same sex couples to wed. Ironic how this argument seems to be the reverse of actual reality.

You are quite right. I was not referring to what the gay rights activists want here.

If by 'reason' you think that it is permissible for the government to impose its idea of marriage upon religious groups, then I'm not reasonable.

Dianaiad, please show me where this argument has been made. I often hear this argument, and never understood the fear. I never once heard or read about a legal challenge that would force churches, synagogues or mosques to do this.

Oh, give me a break, KenRu. I'm a MORMON. If there is anybody in this nation who knows very well what the government will and will not do in regard to forcing religious groups to abide by in terms of marriage, it's the Mormons...and I'm not talking about a hundred and twenty years ago. I'm talking about 2008, running through until now.

Great googly moogly.

and THAT is our problem, mind you; that is, that's what the Mormon's problem is. We didn't have any problem with gay couples having every single civil right that California can give married couples. It wasn't until they demanded the cultural and religious approval (over and above government recognition and civil rights) that the word "marriage" implies that we objected.

You know, the forced participation in, and recognition of, such marriages in our RELIGIOUS lives.

So, I guess I'm not even a little bit reasonable. SOMEONE is going to be mad at me, no matter what.

I won’t be mad at you. : )

Nice of you.

[dianaiad]

Civil unions or domestic contracts or whatever you want to call 'em should be obtained from the government to get the civil rights.

And yet, the vast majority of religious organizations still oppose civil unions. Why is that?

I don't know. Personally, I think that EVERYBODY should have to get a civil union if they want the civil rights, and then EVERYBODY can go to whatever religion (or handy beach or Elvis impersonator) they want to and get married.

Separate the civil and contractual obligations from the religious and cultural ones. Then everybody wins.

Isn't that what is happening since DOMA was repealed? Yet we still see legal challenges trying to prevent civil unions. Why is that?

It seems to me that your fear of the government imposing its will on the religious is not what is actually happening. Its the religious (right) trying to impose its moral standards on others.

Really?

So....why all the lawsuits against people who refuse to participate in gay weddings for religious reasons?

The ones that the gay rights people pretty much all win?


Whether you agree with the outcome of those lawsuits or not, they ARE the government imposing it's idea of marriage on religion.



-All the best[/quote]
[/quote]

[KenRU]

Well, if one group thinks that 'reason' means they have the right to force others to participate in religious ceremonies which violate their beliefs, then I'm not reasonable.

The vast majority of same sex couples I’ve read about (and the few that I do know) had no desire to force a religious group to perform their wedding. They just wanted the legal right to wed.

Moving the goalposts there, sir. "Participation" involves more than actually performing the marriage, just like 'participation' in public school prayer means more than being forced to say the words.

Not moving the goalposts, perhaps I just misunderstood your point. We’ll see as I read on.

In the case of public prayer, it also means being forced to stand there and listen...and in the case of gay weddings, it means being forced to provide services and publicly support/approve of the whole idea of the wedding.

I would like to see an example of this. I have yet to hear, read or see an example of a church, synagogue or mosque being forced to do this. Please elaborate on why you fear this.

If one group thinks that they may impose their religious beliefs upon people who do not share those beliefs, and force this by force of law, then I'm not reasonable.

The only ones trying to do this are the legal challenges by the religious right who are trying to deny the right for same sex couples to wed. Ironic how this argument seems to be the reverse of actual reality.

You are quite right. I was not referring to what the gay rights activists want here.

So to whom were you referring to?

If by 'reason' you think that it is permissible for the government to impose its idea of marriage upon religious groups, then I'm not reasonable.

Dianaiad, please show me where this argument has been made. I often hear this argument, and never understood the fear. I never once heard or read about a legal challenge that would force churches, synagogues or mosques to do this.

Oh, give me a break, KenRu. I'm a MORMON. If there is anybody in this nation who knows very well what the government will and will not do in regard to forcing religious groups to abide by in terms of marriage, it's the Mormons...and I'm not talking about a hundred and twenty years ago. I'm talking about 2008, running through until now.

Great googly moogly.

and THAT is our problem, mind you; that is, that's what the Mormon's problem is. We didn't have any problem with gay couples having every single civil right that California can give married couples. It wasn't until they demanded the cultural and religious approval (over and above government recognition and civil rights) that the word "marriage" implies that we objected.

You know, the forced participation in, and recognition of, such marriages in our RELIGIOUS lives.

They legally tried to get churches, mosques and synagogues to perform same sex marriages? In California? I am unaware of that legal battle. Can you give me a link to an article to read about this? Any info at all? I’m very curious to learn more. It will be the first time (in a very long while) that I will actually be agreeing with the religious right, lol.

So, I guess I'm not even a little bit reasonable. SOMEONE is going to be mad at me, no matter what.

I won’t be mad at you. : )

Nice of you.

Why get mad? I’m here to learn different points of view, and to see if my own personal belief systems can withstand scrutiny. If not, then I have to re-evaluate. Besides, it is also fun : )

[KenRU]

Civil unions or domestic contracts or whatever you want to call 'em should be obtained from the government to get the civil rights.

And yet, the vast majority of religious organizations still oppose civil unions. Why is that?

I don't know. Personally, I think that EVERYBODY should have to get a civil union if they want the civil rights, and then EVERYBODY can go to whatever religion (or handy beach or Elvis impersonator) they want to and get married.

I assume when you say civil rights, you mean the same benefits as heterosexual couples, such as survivor benefits, tax breaks, living wills, inheritance etc, correct?

Separate the civil and contractual obligations from the religious and cultural ones. Then everybody wins.

Isn't that what is happening since DOMA was repealed? Yet we still see legal challenges trying to prevent civil unions. Why is that?

It seems to me that your fear of the government imposing its will on the religious is not what is actually happening. Its the religious (right) trying to impose its moral standards on others.

Really?

So....why all the lawsuits against people who refuse to participate in gay weddings for religious reasons?

The ones that the gay rights people pretty much all win?

Because they are not against churches, they are against businesses. Not one was a legal battle to wed in a church. They were ALL against banquet halls, convention halls, etc.

Not one, to my knowledge, has been against a holy place. If a banquet hall is owned by a fundamentalist, they don’t have to provide a minister for a same sex wedding, but they can’t deny them renting the hall out. That is discrimination. You are going to be hard pressed to find a legal battle that tried to have a place of worship perform or host a same sex wedding.

Whether you agree with the outcome of those lawsuits or not, they ARE the government imposing it's idea of marriage on religion.

Nope. It’s the government preventing discrimination. To my knowledge, all cases were legal battles trying to rent or use places of business, not holy grounds. Sorry, I do not see your concerns (in this case) being justified.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 68:

The 'Bible' is not A book. It's a collection of a bunch of different books. "Bible" comes from 'biblio,' which is more like 'library' than 'book,' and it is divided into books and THEN chapters,

So are all those different books within this larger collection going to be about different things, different times, cultures and outlooks?

Of course.

Meh. If it's got a front cover and a back cover, and pages in between, with words on them pages, calling it a book is an apt descriptor.

As to different cultures and outlooks, I notice the Christian will interpret these "various books" in, and don't this beat all, various ways.

How can we ever tell which of 'em's right?

As for me, I don't think that the government should have anything to do with marriage as religion sees it, and HAS seen it, from time immemorial.

Marriage predates any government that exists on the planet to day, Joey, and all religions have different views of what it is.

The government...all it does or can do is recognize it and issue certain rights and obligations to those who are. No government has the right to take over a religious rite and make it official for every belief system there is.

You seem to be stuck in the ancient past of your "collection of books right here in this one of 'em".

The definition of words changes, as can be corroborated by any interested party.

That you refuse to accept these changes should in no way force others to adhere to ancient, outdated definitions.

To include demanding government can't use a word.

Government DOES have the right to issue civil rights, contractual rights and obligations to folks, and it has the right to do so to anybody it wants.

So...'marriage' should be private, religious and of absolutely no legal force.

Civil unions or domestic contracts or whatever you want to call 'em should be obtained from the government to get the civil rights. If religions want to 'bless' such unions, fine. If it doesn't, fine.

If such a notion is "fine", how come so many Christians are unwilling to call their marriages "civil unions"?

I'll tell ya why, when one reveres ancient thinking, they tend t'wards refusing to accept modern ideas.

Until then, however, everybody has a problem.

Seems mostly its certain religious folks with the problem - a complete lack of respect for the rights of homosexuals to have their marriages recognized by the government, even if such a recognition causes so many religious zealots to fret about their own beliefs.

I see it as being forced to participate, BY LAW, in religious ceremonies which violate my beliefs. I find that to be unconstitutional, and so should you.

I'm so saddened to hear you were forced to attend a gay marriage, or to have gotten gay married yourself.

On behalf of everyone, lol.

Separate the civil and contractual obligations from the religious and cultural ones. Then everybody wins.

Only don't it beat all, part of the "cultural ones" is that some parts of the culture wish to extend rights to everyone, and not just to those so proud to think they have them a homosexual hating god.


"Don't let the government call married folks married, now that's how we solve this so's everyone's happy!"


How proud must the religious be to declare they, and they alone, know what is a marriage?

How proud must the religious be to declare a god they can't even show exists has an opinion they can't show he has, and how that opinion is that only those who worship said God knows what it is, is a marriage?


What sort of arrogance has folks declaring the government can't call a marriage a marriage, 'cause their "special belief" is that only they know what is a marriage?


I challenge all people, religious and not, to confront such - dare I say it - bigotry. And that is what it is, no matter the discomfort it causes those who would practice it, no matter how "upset" they are that you call out bigotry upon first sight. It's "My beliefs are special, so special that unless I get to define marriage for everyone, well then we must demand the government not ever utter the word!"


Conclusions?
As relates to the OP, I consider religious folks denying to others the use of a word is among the examples of religious folks not being have. But keep in mind, these are folks who're constantly told how special they are, for their special beliefs, and how anyone who disagrees is a "fool" "incapable of doing good". Who can rightly blame 'em, having heard how special they are all their lives?

That's the problem with religious believers - if you ain't with 'em, you're ag'in 'em.

As for me, I don't object to being ag'in 'em when they seek to impose their own definitions for words onto any government that declares itself of the people, by the people.

[Zzyzx]

.

How proud must the religious be to declare a god they can't even show exists has an opinion they can't show he has, and how that opinion is that only those who worship said God knows what it is, is a marriage?


What sort of arrogance has folks declaring the government can't call a marriage a marriage, 'cause their "special belief" is that only they know what is a marriage?

This seems to me to be an apt description of the entire situation. A "god" that cannot be shown to exist supposedly has an opinion (that cannot be shown toi exist) regarding marriage and religionists are supposedly the ones who KNOW what the invisible, undetectable "god" wants.

The whole "god / marriage" issue seems a bit tenuous at best.

[dianaiad]

From Post 68:

The 'Bible' is not A book. It's a collection of a bunch of different books. "Bible" comes from 'biblio,' which is more like 'library' than 'book,' and it is divided into books and THEN chapters,

So are all those different books within this larger collection going to be about different things, different times, cultures and outlooks?

Of course.

Meh. If it's got a front cover and a back cover, and pages in between, with words on them pages, calling it a book is an apt descriptor.

As to different cultures and outlooks, I notice the Christian will interpret these "various books" in, and don't this beat all, various ways.

You don't say.

I have noticed that non-Christians do the same thing. Amazing, isn't it?

How can we ever tell which of 'em's right?

Now THAT'S a loaded question to ask a "returned" Mormon missionary, if there ever was one.

Simple answer: ask God. Go with your own conclusions. Don't make fun of those who come up with different answers.

As for me, I don't think that the government should have anything to do with marriage as religion sees it, and HAS seen it, from time immemorial.

Marriage predates any government that exists on the planet to day, Joey, and all religions have different views of what it is.

The government...all it does or can do is recognize it and issue certain rights and obligations to those who are. No government has the right to take over a religious rite and make it official for every belief system there is.

You seem to be stuck in the ancient past of your "collection of books right here in this one of 'em".

The definition of words changes, as can be corroborated by any interested party.

That you refuse to accept these changes should in no way force others to adhere to ancient, outdated definitions.

To include demanding government can't use a word.

I can demand it when it's use of a 'word' is more than the word, but rather the usurpation of a concept it not only has no right to, but is constitutionally forbidden to mess with.

You know that it's more than 'a word,' or you wouldn't be so all fired insistent that the government be allowed to define it for religion. I mean...if it's just a word, why not use a different one? Why do you insist upon throwing hundreds and thousands of years of tradition, and the FACT that 'marriage,' both as a word and an institution, has been religious for far longer than it has been legally contractual according to a government. "Marriage" simply cannot be defined or ordered by government; it can't enforce the promises made at the altar by folks who wish to marry.

So, if it's just a 'word,' then YOU use a different one. We've been using it the way we have been for many thousands of years.

It's just a word, right?

Government DOES have the right to issue civil rights, contractual rights and obligations to folks, and it has the right to do so to anybody it wants.

So...'marriage' should be private, religious and of absolutely no legal force.

Civil unions or domestic contracts or whatever you want to call 'em should be obtained from the government to get the civil rights. If religions want to 'bless' such unions, fine. If it doesn't, fine.

If such a notion is "fine", how come so many Christians are unwilling to call their marriages "civil unions"?

Because they aren't civil unions. They SHOULD be, though. They should be civil unions to the government, and marriages to themselves, their belief systems, their families and their culture.

<snip to end>

That's it. I've said my piece on this, and will not say more in this thread; it has been hijacked away from the topic quite far enough, IMO.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 78 by dianaiad]

Marriage is not exclusive to Christianity, in fact gay marriage in Rome was legal until Christianity took over as the official state religion where they made a law specifically banning it....

I don't see anyone usurped the term except for those who wish to control the lives of others.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 78 by dianaiad]

Marriage is not exclusive to Christianity, in fact gay marriage in Rome was legal until Christianity took over as the official state religion where they made a law specifically banning it....

I don't see anyone usurped the term except for those who wish to control the lives of others.

That's not quite true.

the Roman emperor could marry whoever he wanted to. He could make a citizen of whoever...or whatever...he wanted to. He could make his horse a god, and did.

But nobody ELSE could.

Sorry.