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?

[dianaiad]

The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the politically correct. It was not written to protect the free speech of those who agree with you, or the religious beliefs of which you approve.

Quite the contrary. It was written to protect the rights of those you don't like, of whose opinions you do not approve, and whose beliefs you don't share. it was written this way to ensure that, when YOUR beliefs become the unpopular ones, you can still hold them without fear of being fined or sanctioned.
....

This is exactly right.
And that is why a business open to the public cannot refuse service to a Jew, a member of the KKK, an African American, a Mormon, a Lesbian, or a gay bashing self proclaimed 'true Christian' just because the business is owned by a Jew, a member of the KKK, an African American, a Mormon, a Lesbian, or a gay bashing self proclaimed 'true Christian.'
Welcome to the USA where your private intolerances and heart felt beliefs do not provide sufficient excuse to allow you the right to deny rights to others.

No, and a Jewish deli cannot refuse to sell what's on his menu to a Catholic. But he IS allowed to tell said Catholic that he won't make a ham sandwich, because it's not on the menu.

A Catholic owned business cannot refuse to photograph the baby shower or a divorced couple simply because that couple isn't Catholic. He CAN, however, refuse to participate in the wedding of either member of that divorced couple to someone else, if their previous spouses still live.

A Photographer may not refuse to photograph a birthday party because the party givers are gay; everybody has birthdays. That IS discrimination according to sexual preference.

However, if that photographer will 'shoot' the b-day party, or the graduation, or the family reunion, and refuses only to participate in the wedding, and is forced to do so?

That is religious discrimination.

there is no way you can avoid it.

The only excuse you have is that in this case, you approve of discrimination, because it's the OTHER guy who is getting clobbered.

[atheist buddy]

The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the politically correct. It was not written to protect the free speech of those who agree with you, or the religious beliefs of which you approve.

Quite the contrary. It was written to protect the rights of those you don't like, of whose opinions you do not approve, and whose beliefs you don't share. it was written this way to ensure that, when YOUR beliefs become the unpopular ones, you can still hold them without fear of being fined or sanctioned.
....

This is exactly right.
And that is why a business open to the public cannot refuse service to a Jew, a member of the KKK, an African American, a Mormon, a Lesbian, or a gay bashing self proclaimed 'true Christian' just because the business is owned by a Jew, a member of the KKK, an African American, a Mormon, a Lesbian, or a gay bashing self proclaimed 'true Christian.'
Welcome to the USA where your private intolerances and heart felt beliefs do not provide sufficient excuse to allow you the right to deny rights to others.

No, and a Jewish deli cannot refuse to sell what's on his menu to a Catholic. But he IS allowed to tell said Catholic that he won't make a ham sandwich, because it's not on the menu.

Of course. If the deli doesn't have ham, it doesn't have to make a ham sandwich. It would be crazy to force a business to sell products that it doesn't sell.

If on the other hand the deli was willing to sell a specific type of sandwich to everybody except for the Catholic, then we have a problem.

A Catholic owned business cannot refuse to photograph the baby shower or a divorced couple simply because that couple isn't Catholic. He CAN, however, refuse to participate in the wedding of either member of that divorced couple to someone else, if their previous spouses still live.

Nope. If I say to you "want to photograph my wedding" and you say "I don't want to because your wedding is immoral according to my religion", you are 100% in the wrong.

A Photographer may not refuse to photograph a birthday party because the party givers are gay; everybody has birthdays. That IS discrimination according to sexual preference.

However, if that photographer will 'shoot' the b-day party, or the graduation, or the family reunion, and refuses only to participate in the wedding, and is forced to do so?

If he can't make the wedding because he has a previous booking, or they can't agree on a price, or he is sick, or he just doesn't feel like doing wedding gigs anymore, that's fine. If he refuses to provide a service to someone on the basis of them being a protected class (race, disability, sexual orientation, gender, etc) then he's in the wrong.

Of course he shouldn't be "forced" to do the wedding. That's crazy. How do you force him, you hire goons to physically drag him to the wedding? That's absurd. Plus how good a job would he be able to do if under threat from the goons.

No, you just fine the homophobe an amount equal to 4 or 5 years of his income, and this way he is disincentivised to ever again discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. No problem.

That is religious discrimination.

Actually it's discrimination against religious discrimination.

You don't have the right to discriminate based on somebody's sexual orientation. Sorry. It's the law.

The only excuse you have is that in this case, you approve of discrimination, because it's the OTHER guy who is getting clobbered.

Absolutely. I'm 100% in favor of discriminating against bigots.

I'm not discriminating against robbers when I put them in jail. I'm not discriminating against bigots when I punish them for discriminating against gay people.



Look. You can't stop it. In most of the developed world, people who discriminate against gay couple are osctrcized to pretty much the same degree as those who discriminate against interracial couples. In a few years, the memo will reach even Alabama, Utah, Nigeria and other developing nations.

Why not get ahead of the curve, and jump off the homophobia train before it plunges into a cliff?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 121 by dianaiad]

The one case you are referring to wedding cakes were on the menu...... just not for LGBT individuals. kinda sounds like discrimination to me and a jury agreed, just saying. If your going to get a business license in CO you kinda have to obey the rules and regulations of CO.

Also your point is such an extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme case. You have maybe 1 or 2 such cases out of the THOUSANDS of gay weddings

[Danmark]

A Catholic owned business cannot refuse to photograph the baby shower or a divorced couple simply because that couple isn't Catholic. He CAN, however, refuse to participate in the wedding of either member of that divorced couple to someone else, if their previous spouses still live.

A Photographer may not refuse to photograph a birthday party because the party givers are gay; everybody has birthdays. That IS discrimination according to sexual preference.

However, if that photographer will 'shoot' the b-day party, or the graduation, or the family reunion, and refuses only to participate in the wedding, and is forced to do so?

That is religious discrimination.

there is no way you can avoid it.

The only excuse you have is that in this case, you approve of discrimination, because it's the OTHER guy who is getting clobbered.

No. I disagree. The problem is your claim about people 'participating' in a wedding.

Selling a wedding cake that is "on the menu" or flowers that are "on the menu" is not 'participation' in the ceremony. If your business has a 'menu' that says "we photograph weddings" then it is not 'participating' in the ceremony to merely take photos of it and it is unlawful discrimination to refuse.

No, a 'black owned' business, open to the public cannot refuse to sell flowers or provide services to others just because they are white, KKK, Mormons, or even Republicans. It doesn't matter WHO is getting 'clobbered.' Tho' how in the word it is 'being clobbered' to sell a cake, flowers, or take a photo is beyond me.

What you are claiming is 'religious discrimination' simply isn't. What you are insisting upon as your freedom is the right to deny service to others based on their beliefs or lack thereof.

No one is claiming a non Mormon has a right to a temple wedding, or that a Catholic priest can be forced to perform a Catholic wedding ceremony for a couple who do not meet the requirements of a Catholic wedding.

However, a Justice of the Peace who provides a public wedding service to the general public, cannot refuse service on account of race, creed, or beliefs of the couple. However, no one can insist that during the service he repeat vows or other words or incantations that violate his personal beliefs. Whether such refusal is a legitimate exercise of his 1st Amendment rights, or is an excuse to deny service because of unlawful discrimination is a question of fact on a case by case basis.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 121 by dianaiad]

The one case you are referring to wedding cakes were on the menu...... just not for LGBT individuals. kinda sounds like discrimination to me and a jury agreed, just saying. If your going to get a business license in CO you kinda have to obey the rules and regulations of CO.

Also your point is such an extreme extreme extreme extreme extreme case. You have maybe 1 or 2 such cases out of the THOUSANDS of gay weddings

Any case unjustly settled is unjustly settled, period.

And 'wedding cakes' may be on the menu, but if the menu reads "Wedding cakes for traditional Christian weddings," then wedding cakes for gay ceremonies are not on the menu, any more than a baker who supplies wedding cakes for gay weddings doesn't have to supply them for heterosexual weddings.

Or, as happens in California, photographers who only advertise services for gay weddings aren't going to get sued if they refuse to 'shoot' a heterosexual one.

I fail to see the difference between a photographer who will only shoot gay weddings, and one who will only shoot 'straight' ones.

I also fail to see the difference between a baker who will supply the cake for a gay wedding...but not for a 'Church of Satan' one.

If that baker WILL provide goods and services to gays for any other event in their lives, then it can be safely inferred that the objection is to the wedding, not because gays all have cooties all the time.

If the objection is religious, and to the EVENT, not to the people in it, then it's not discrimination.

Unless you are willing to sue EnGayged Weddings because they specifically advertise that they do only gay weddings, then I suggest that you consider your position.

Consider what would happen to any business who flat out advertised that they only did heterosexual weddings; that they specialized in them, and didn't even put gay weddings on the 'menu.'

And consider, if you will, what would happen if this double standard were not, after all, 'double.'

You could do this a couple of ways: you could allow businesses to cater only to heterosexual couples and weddings as well as allowing businesses to offer services only to gay couples and weddings, or you could force BOTH sets of businesses to offer (and advertise) that they will do either type?

I can predict which way the gay rights group would go....but y'know what?

Nobody is giving gay wedding services providers any grief, even the ones who absolutely will not 'do' straight weddings.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to dianaiad]

First CA cases aren't relevant to CO cases different laws different regulations. The bakery was in violation of CO law if you don't like it don't start a business in CO or work to repeal the law. The bakery could sue the government for violating his 1st amendment rights if he wants, not sure how successful he would be.

Your right though we should make sure LGBT individuals stay second class citizens because of a percieved threat to your religious beliefs.

[Danmark]

[Replying to dianaiad]

First CA cases aren't relevant to CO cases different laws different regulations. The bakery was in violation of CO law if you don't like it don't start a business in CO or work to repeal the law. The bakery could sue the government for violating his 1st amendment rights if he wants, not sure how successful he would be.

Your right though we should make sure LGBT individuals stay second class citizens because of a percieved threat to your religious beliefs.

There certainly are different laws from State to State, but the laws in all States must be valid under the U.S. Constitution. The Constitutions of the various States may grant additional protection, but the U.S. Constitution guarantees each State must abide by its protections at a minimum. Also, when there are insufficient cases, or the area of law is unsettled in one State, proper legal analysis will include cases from other jurisdictions. It may also cite law review articles and other learned treatises and authorities.

[Danmark]

Or, as happens in California, photographers who only advertise services for gay weddings aren't going to get sued if they refuse to 'shoot' a heterosexual one.

I fail to see the difference between a photographer who will only shoot gay weddings, and one who will only shoot 'straight' ones.

I also fail to see the difference between a baker who will supply the cake for a gay wedding...but not for a 'Church of Satan' one.

If that baker WILL provide goods and services to gays for any other event in their lives, then it can be safely inferred that the objection is to the wedding, not because gays all have cooties all the time.

If the objection is religious, and to the EVENT, not to the people in it, then it's not discrimination.

Let’s take two hypothetical cities or counties. Juab is 80% Mormon and very conservative politically. Berkeley has very few Mormons and is very liberal. The women in Berkeley all have hairy armpits and the women of Juab buy more razor burn ointment per capita than any place on Earth.

These two enclaves are outside the jurisdiction of the United States. If a Mormon couple in Berkeley wants wedding photos for their reception at their home, they have to travel 500 miles to find a photographer and import her to Berkeley. They have to do this secretly of course, since Berkeley will require a single use permit for the 'Out of Stater' and will insist on a process for the permit that will be interminable.

A gay couple in Juab wants flowers, wedding cake and a professional photographer to cover their wedding. They can’t find any florist, bakery or photographer in town that is willing to provide services. They have to import those services at a distance of 500 miles. They must do this in secret because Juab has adopted the same permit process that Berkeley favors.

Then one day both Berkeley and Juab decide they want to join the U S of A.
Overnight Mormons in Berkeley and Lesbians in Juab are able to just walk down the street for the services they want. They cannot be denied because the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution guarantee them equal access.

The excuse, "It is the event, not the person we object to" is laughed out of Court because both judge and jury are able to see thru the phony and dishonest claim that the service providers claim 'religious' reasons for denial of services. The judge and jury rule that in both cases the service provider is not 'participating' in the ceremony.

After these cases, new religions are organized in both Juab and Berkeley. The center of their doctrines require as a matter of religious faith no commerce or contact with Mormons or Gays, respectively. When they use their religion to deny service, both groups lose, because despite the fact the courts are less than brilliant, they recognize rubbish* when they see it.

_____________________
*I may petition for rule change on this forum. There are some words which have no proper synonym yet violate forum rules if they are used.

[kayky]

If you provide a product or service to the public, you cannot discriminate against customers based on your personal religious beliefs. To want to do otherwise is not a desire for religious freedom but religious privilege.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 121 by dianaiad]

Any case unjustly settled is unjustly settled, period.

And 'wedding cakes' may be on the menu, but if the menu reads "Wedding cakes for traditional Christian weddings," then wedding cakes for gay ceremonies are not on the menu, any more than a baker who supplies wedding cakes for gay weddings doesn't have to supply them for heterosexual weddings.

That sounds openly discriminatory. What if I owned a bakery that said we make wedding cakes for white wedding ceremonies only? I don't think that would fly.

Or, as happens in California, photographers who only advertise services for gay weddings aren't going to get sued if they refuse to 'shoot' a heterosexual one.

I would be interested to find a case related to this. I would have to say that if they offer to shoot weddings they have to shoot straight ones as well. Discrimination is still discrimination.

I fail to see the difference between a photographer who will only shoot gay weddings, and one who will only shoot 'straight' ones.

neither do I they both are discriminatory.

If the objection is religious, and to the EVENT, not to the people in it, then it's not discrimination.

The event was not gay the people were the event was simply non-christian. The people were gay and that was the problem. The event was simply non-religious.

Unless you are willing to sue EnGayged Weddings because they specifically advertise that they do only gay weddings, then I suggest that you consider your position.

I actually went to the website what you are writing here could be considered libel. Now they have gay all over their website and advertise as LGBT friendly meaning they will perform/arrange the necessities for LGBT weddings but no where on the site does it say they will not perform/arrange a straight union. It simply is a service to arrange and connect people who are willing to perform LGBT unions with LGBT couples. It does not say they will refuse service to any one group. Lets not spread misinformation. It undermines your position.

Consider what would happen to any business who flat out advertised that they only did heterosexual weddings; that they specialized in them, and didn't even put gay weddings on the 'menu.'

The website does not say only LGBT weddings it says LGBT friendly. I reckon they are doing pretty good advertising this way as it is a niche market with fewer competitors and many LGBT individuals struggle to find LGBT friendly wedding planning. Seems like a good model to me and apparently its working for them. Also the occasional straight couple that wants to use them to find services probably helps with additional revenue.

Nobody is giving gay wedding services providers any grief, even the ones who absolutely will not 'do' straight weddings.

Please provide an LGBT friendly wedding service that refuses to do straight weddings. I will criticize them just as much as I would this baker.