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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 130 by DanieltheDragon]

http://www.derekchad.com/p127555868/h19e28de5#h19e28de5

here is one of their premier gay photography vendors *gasp* straight couple......

another vendor

http://allebachphotography.com/wedding/

lots of straight wedding pictures in there.

another vendor

http://memoriesareforever.com/

geez I am really having trouble finding a vendor on their site that doesn't do straight weddings......


Do I need to continue?

[KenRU]

I am so tired of this strawman argument. NOBODY is afraid that the government might force some minister to actually perform (officiate at) a gay wedding.

Glad to hear. I did not fully understand your argument – though I think I do now.

The problem is that people are being forced to participate in gay weddings...and by 'participate in,' I mean to cater, to photograph, to allow the use of property and venues,

Up to this point in your list, wouldn’t that be the law? How would this be any different than segregation?

Are you arguing that because an Orthodox Jew doesn’t recognize a Reform Jew as “really Jewish� that it is ok for him to refuse to rent, cater to and do business with a Reform Jew?

It is if the Reformed Jew insists that the Orthodox Jewish Kosher deli cater his kid's bar Mitzvah and serve ham sandwiches.

No one can require them to provide food they do not wish to provide. If, however, you’re doing public business, you can’t discriminate. Not carrying a certain food is not discrimination.

That’s what it seems you are now saying. How and why is this any different than racial bigotry?

Let me ask you:

Is it OK to force a black person to cater a KKK meeting?

I’m pretty sure by law they cannot deny them. Does that answer your question?

Take Betty and Richard Odgaard, for instance, who have a place in Iowa; a former church turned art gallery which also hosts weddings and receptions.

Now this couple are Mennonites. She is the daughter of a minister. They have hired gays. They have hosted many events for gays. However, when a gay couple wanted them to have their wedding there, the Odgaards said 'no.' They would not provide the venue for, nor services to, a gay wedding; it violated their religious beliefs.

They could hold any OTHER event there, no problem at all.

They have been threatened with fines, punished with sanctions...and are now suing the state of Ohio for violation of their freedom of religion.

As well they should be. Sorry, but discrimination is illegal. Former church, not currently a church – that is a big difference.

But if you are going to insist upon a CHURCH being forced to this, then...

]the New Jersey Methodist Church was not only sued, it lost it's tax exemption (now THAT'S ironic) because it refused to allow a same sex wedding on its property.

False. I am from NJ and am somewhat familiar with this case. It was not a church, which makes a big difference. The group (the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association) lost its tax exempt status because it discriminated (like your Odgaard family) when renting out its pavilion (which was not on church grounds).

So, what you presented was not really what actually happened. And, it reinforces what I’ve been asserting. No church or minister was ever forced to perform a wedding or forced to use its holy grounds for something that went against its beliefs.

But, once you begin to do business publicly, you are absolutely one hundred percent subject to discrimination laws. As well you should be, even if your so-called holy doctrines call for it.

It seems to me that you are arguing for it to be legal for people (not the church or an institution, but people) to discriminate against one another as long as it is religiously called for. Say it ain’t so.

It's absolutely 'so.'

So much for those discrimination laws, huh? How utterly sad.

You seemed to dodge my question. How is this any different than segregation? So, is it ok for someone to deny services to an inter-racial couple? Where do you draw the line?

Read the First amendment. You will notice that the very first right mentioned has to do with the freedom of religion, and it is the ONLY right that is mentioned TWICE.

First, that the government shall not establish a religion and second, that it will not prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Under no circumstances are the above examples prohibiting someone from practicing their religion. It is however, preventing discrimination. Huge difference. You have the right to not suffer discrimination. You do not have the right to not be offended.

The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the politically correct.

I never thought it was.

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

Agreed.

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.

Agreed. Except when you cause harm to another, or deny them equal rights, etc. Then the unpopular ones are subject to the law, just like everyone else.

I agree with Danmark in his post (#120).

Discrimination doesn’t become legal because a holy book says it’s ok.

[DanieltheDragon]

The law says I can't own slaves and the bible says I can. Surely this is a violation of a religious belief right?

[dianaiad]

The law says I can't own slaves and the bible says I can. Surely this is a violation of a religious belief right?

The bible actually makes no comment as to whether you can own slaves, or rather, how you go out and get them, absent the pretty standard method of conquest. It tells you how to treat them if you do, or how to behave if you are one.

Indeed, all in all, the biblical approach to slavery is very secular; recognizing that the 'law' says you can own slaves, and telling the religious who happen to own them that their responsibilities to those slaves are a bit more involved than the law addresses.

The whole thing is a matter of 'judge the times according to the times' thing, something that, perhaps, you have a problem doing.

For one thing, slavery in biblical times...and indeed, right up until some enterprising soul figured out that people with black skins had a built in 'slave detector' that changed the entire paradigm of slavery, was seen very differently.

Up until then, you see, slavery was very much a part of every day life; like it or not, it was. The difference between that sort of slavery and the sort you are probably thinking of, where 'blacks' are slaves and 'whites' are not, ANYBODY could end up being a slave. Today I own you, tomorrow you could own me. As small as the chance was, (and admittedly, the odds were not great) it was possible for a Roman slave to become a very wealthy citizen and slave owner in his own right.

As soon as slavery became limited to those of 'dark skin,' that is, 'black people,' that chance, slim as it was, became utterly impossible. That changed everything.

Before that, slaves were seen as people who had lousy luck, but people. Not that they were treated so much better, but they were seen differently.

Not that this made slavery any 'better' than it would be now, or that slaves were treated much better, or less like property, but at the time, slaves were...people in a lousy situation, not 'creatures whose natural lot in life is to be enslaved.'

It was an attitude shift that I don't think you quite understand. YOU are reacting against the sort of slavery the Civil War was about, and projecting that onto the slavery practiced in biblical times.

Don't do that.

With this in mind, take another look at the biblical mentions of slaves and those who owned them.

[Danmark]

The bible actually makes no comment as to whether you can own slaves, or rather, how you go out and get them, absent the pretty standard method of conquest. It tells you how to treat them if you do, or how to behave if you are one.

Exactly. The Bible does not condemn slavery.



That is the point.

[KenRU]

The law says I can't own slaves and the bible says I can. Surely this is a violation of a religious belief right?

The bible actually makes no comment as to whether you can own slaves, or rather, how you go out and get them, absent the pretty standard method of conquest. It tells you how to treat them if you do, or how to behave if you are one.

Indeed, all in all, the biblical approach to slavery is very secular; recognizing that the 'law' says you can own slaves, and telling the religious who happen to own them that their responsibilities to those slaves are a bit more involved than the law addresses.

The whole thing is a matter of 'judge the times according to the times' thing, something that, perhaps, you have a problem doing.

I’m thinking you have this backwards, again.

By this logic, if a secular society suddenly allowed slavery to exist again (making it legal), then you would have no problem owning a slave (or being one then)? After all, the bible (according to you) “actually makes no comment as to whether you can own slaves�. So, it would be morally acceptable, right?

The whole point (as pertaining to this thread) is just what Danmark says, the bible does not condemn slavery – which we all (I hope) recognize as immoral.

In fact, you are on much more solid religious ground objecting to same–sex marriage then you are slavery and that speaks volumes about how much moral value we should place in the bible.

According to the bible, homosexuality is worthy of condemning, but slavery is not.

… Before that, slaves were seen as people who had lousy luck, but people. Not that they were treated so much better, but they were seen differently.

In all cases, the slaves were seen at best as a monetary investment – rarely were slaves seen as people, and easily replaced.

I really don’t see why you are trying to make a distinction. It is not helping your case.

Not that this made slavery any 'better' than it would be now, or that slaves were treated much better, or less like property, but at the time, slaves were...people in a lousy situation, not 'creatures whose natural lot in life is to be enslaved.'

This is utterly not true. According to Wikipedia: “Their living conditions were brutal, and their lives short.�

This is a far cry from “people in a lousy situation�, don’t you think?

Furthermore: “Slaves were considered property under Roman law and had no legal personhood. Unlike Roman citizens, they could be subjected to corporal punishment, sexual exploitation (prostitutes were often slaves), torture, and summary execution.�

You were saying that this is different than Civil War slavery how? Those differences that I could find, were incredibly minor.

It was an attitude shift that I don't think you quite understand. YOU are reacting against the sort of slavery the Civil War was about, and projecting that onto the slavery practiced in biblical times.

Please show how a slave in Roman times had a life that was anything more than marginally better than a Civil War era slave. Otherwise, you’re point is very much lost.

With this in mind, take another look at the biblical mentions of slaves and those who owned them.

History is quite revealing when it comes to how slaves were treated, whether Roman Times, or the Civil War Era.

In either case, it was horrid.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to post 117 by dianaiad]

NOBODY is afraid that the government might force some minister to actually perform (officiate at) a gay wedding.

You speak for everyone on the planet? I mean, how can you know that NOBODY has this fear?

The problem is that people are being forced to participate in gay weddings...and by 'participate in,' I mean to cater, to photograph, to allow the use of property and venues, to recognize those marriages as marriages 'under God' for the purposes of employment in specifically religious jobs, for housing in church owned apartments or houses that have doctrine based rules for the renters...

I can assume you'd be OK with the same or similar discrimination against Mormons? Should Mormons be charged more for doing whatever because they are Mormons? SHould Mormons be banned from polygymy?

You're not being forced to marry anyone so it's really none of your business who is legally allowed to get married. It's not hampering your ability to worship your Mormon stuff. Your temple isn't being forced to allow gay people into it.
Seems to me, you have A LOT more protection over what YOU want to do PERSONALLY than some other groups in this country.
Pure and simple.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 117 by dianaiad]

NOBODY is afraid that the government might force some minister to actually perform (officiate at) a gay wedding.

You speak for everyone on the planet? I mean, how can you know that NOBODY has this fear?

The problem is that people are being forced to participate in gay weddings...and by 'participate in,' I mean to cater, to photograph, to allow the use of property and venues, to recognize those marriages as marriages 'under God' for the purposes of employment in specifically religious jobs, for housing in church owned apartments or houses that have doctrine based rules for the renters...

I can assume you'd be OK with the same or similar discrimination against Mormons? Should Mormons be charged more for doing whatever because they are Mormons?

Er...do you have any lawsuits regarding people who charge gays more for the same services offered to others?

I'd be interested in knowing about that.

SHould Mormons be banned from polygymy?

Don't look now, but (whisper this) THEY ARE.

Indeed, that's the biggest reason that the Mormons are fighting so hard to keep the government from redefining marriage. When it does, Mormons get it in the neck. I mean, the last time the government decided to do this, families were ripped apart, children taken from their mothers, church property was confiscated, people imprisoned because of who they married...or did not marry.

And that was six years ago.

You're not being forced to marry anyone so it's really none of your business who is legally allowed to get married.

You are correct. It isn't.

what IS my business is what I am forced to do as a result.

It's not hampering your ability to worship your Mormon stuff. Your temple isn't being forced to allow gay people into it.

????

We 'allow gay people in it.'

We simply do not allow 'practicing' gay people in it for the same reason we don't allow heterosexual folks who have sex outside marriage bonds in it.

Seems to me, you have A LOT more protection over what YOU want to do PERSONALLY than some other groups in this country.
Pure and simple.

Then you haven't been paying attention to American history.

I, personally, have been refused jobs because of my religion. ....and I absolutely agree with the folks who refused me the job.

[KenRU]

Indeed, that's the biggest reason that the Mormons are fighting so hard to keep the government from redefining marriage. When it does, Mormons get it in the neck. I mean, the last time the government decided to do this, families were ripped apart, children taken from their mothers, church property was confiscated, people imprisoned because of who they married...or did not marry.

And that was six years ago.

To what are you referring here?

[dianaiad]

Indeed, that's the biggest reason that the Mormons are fighting so hard to keep the government from redefining marriage. When it does, Mormons get it in the neck. I mean, the last time the government decided to do this, families were ripped apart, children taken from their mothers, church property was confiscated, people imprisoned because of who they married...or did not marry.

And that was six years ago.

To what are you referring here?

To the FLDS compound raid...the one orchestrated by the Texas Child Protective Services. The one that the courts found was prompted only by religious prejudice, which rulings were appealed on the grounds that if the TCPS were allowed to release the children and allow the parents to leave the state, that they, the TPCS, that is, would not then be allowed to keep them in the state and keep the kids away from their parents.

The EXCUSE used was a fraudulent phone call which claimed to be a woman inside the compound being mistreated. That call turned out to be a fake from a woman several hundred miles away...and it turns out that the authorities knew that the call was a fake before they went in.

Turns out that the incidence of child abuse within the compound was a LOT less than that found outside the compound, and more of those children were physically hurt (broken legs, for instance) while they were in 'protective custody' than while they were with their parents.

The EXCUSE used was the actions of Jeffers, the leader of the group...but he was in jail and had been for quite some time before the raid.

The reason, as the courts found, was that the neighbors did not like the FLDS, and the government was forcing the FLDS to abide by its definition of what marriage is.

Whenever I point out what the government did to the Mormons in Utah 'back in the day,' in the late nineteenth century, where the US government sent half its armed forces after the Mormons, confiscated church and personal property...I get told that no, this can't happen NOW.

But it did, didn't it?