Your Questions About Morality And Law Uk

Pip answers:

In the fight to ‘win the war on drugs’ successive governments have taken up impossible stances to appease the far right and the church.
The stance we are left with is that of being in a war that is not only impossible to win but, is costing the country a fortune and making some very nasty people very rich.
The only alternative, that has a chance of winning, is one that was used, on a trial basis from 1987/8 until 1992/3 in one of the towns on the periphery of Manchester.
In this trial the town used was picked because it was average town. It had a population of some 30,000. It had the national average breakdown of age ranges in the correct percentages, the correct percentage of unemployed, drug addicts and crime statistics.
A Doctor was assigned to register every addict in the town and put them through an assessment, then supply them their drug of choice on a two day prescription.
It took this Doctor three years to get every addict in the town signed up and once he’d done that, the dealers went away, they obviously couldn’t compete. What this did was to make the ordinary citizen feel more at ease, to such an extent that people started using subways and underpasses again in safety. People started to ‘promenade’ of an evening again. That is to go out for a stroll, during which they would stop and talk to complete strangers, as well as friends. The ordinary non-addicts of the town stopped using anti-depressants. Which saved the NHS a great deal of money. The NHS also saved money because of the drop in injury’s received by people who used to get ‘mugged’. There was also savings because of the drop in treatment to addicts, who stopped getting infections due to using other people’s needles.
The police had an easier time because they had less crime to deal with. In the final year of the ‘experiment’, the national average crime rate went up by 26.7% but, in this town crime went down by 28.4%, that is an effective drop in crime of just over 55%. Court and prison costs went down substantially as well.
The cost of this experiment was minimal. A heroin addict on £100 per day of street smack, was supplied with enough pure heroin, Millax (a cutting agent), ties, needles, spoons and syringes , for two days at a time, at a cost of £4.
Addicts that were working at the time, were more able to keep their jobs and dignity. They didn’t have to find ways of making so much extra cash to feed their habits.
The only people speaking against this way of dealing with the drug problem, were the ultra rightwing and the churches, who had, what they call morality reasons for objecting.

Pip answers:

Anglican leaders from around the world have clearly stated their opposition to the “victimisation or diminishment” of gays and lesbians, saying demonising and persecuting them was “totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care”.

“We say that no one should have to live in fear because of the bigotry of others.”

The mormons poured millions into forcing through prop 8 in CA: to ban gay marriage. In August 2010 the court held that to be unconstitutional. On 15 June 2011 the San Francisco court upheld that decision because it violates the constitutional rights of citizens. On 7 February 2012 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the California law again finding that the California state constitution banning same-sex marriage violated principles of due process and equal protection under the law.

The court found that the ban violates equality laws to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California. The constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.

It is now awaiting the Supreme Court verdict which is expected to uphold the early court decision.

If that happens then gay marriage will become legal everywhere and that will be marriage and not civil partnership!

In the UK The intolerance, bigotry and homophobia from Chrsitians resulted in it being classed as a hate crime with severe sentences. It has led to the government framing legislation which if enacted will replace “Civil Partnership” with full marriage.

The loving god works in mysterious ways.

Pip answers:

Part 1 of 2, from Dalinian
——————————————————————————————————————

Hi Steve,

Firstly, let me celebrate your honesty, candour, and vulnerability in asking for help in this way. It’s so refreshing to ‘meet’ a young man who exhibits such open hearted courage in revealing his doubts about the religious faith in which he was raised. I salute your bravery, my friend. So now let’s address some of your substantive issues.

——————————————————————————————————————
“I started SERIOUSLY considering Agnosticism these past fews days after getting into science (More specifically Astronomy) when I learned about the vast galaxies, universes, and how insignificant we are.”

I know how you feel – I’ve a life-long fascination with scientific astronomy and cosmology, from the age of 10, when I used the telescope my Dad gave me to show him the rings of Saturn and the Galilean moons of Jupiter. Two of the reasons why practically all cosmologists are atheists are that (1) not only are there no more significant gaps in scientific cosmology for a ‘God of the gaps’ to explain away, but also (2) there’s simply mountains of evidence that from the Plank time after the Big Bang (10^-43 seconds) to now (c. 13.7 billion years later), nothing but natural laws and processes have determined how our cosmos has evolved over time.

But I’d caution against feeling insignificant – for more, see my previous ‘Best Answer’ at:
• How do you respond to the modern notions of the immense size and age of the universe?
» http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110803132736AAnjKHS
In particular, I’m with Joel Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams in believing that discovering the truth about the immense size and age of our universe emphasises how important we are in being able to comprehend…
• ‘The View from the Center of the Universe – Discovering our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos’
» website – http://viewfromthecenter.com
» video download, 303 MB – http://viewfromthecenter.com/files/NASA-Ames-Lecture.mp4

——————————————————————————————————————
“I’ve done some bad things in my life (sex…”

Despite the Christian dogmatism, sex is absolutely NOT a “bad thing”. Our sexuality – straight, gay, bi, trans – is as natural and good as our capacities for altruistic kindness and loving our friends. Get self-educated in safer sex techniques, to optimise sexual health for you and your sex partners, and enjoy expressing your sexuality – it’s a major part of what makes you human, and deserves to be celebrated, not repressed as in the conventional Christian tradition.

The other risky activities you mention are all pretty standard for your age; the more you comprehend what we know collectively about the physiology, patterns and experiences of teenage risk-taking behaviour, the more empowered you’ll be to make more well-founded decisions in the future; for instance, see:
• ‘Teenage Risk-Taking: Teenage Brains Really Are Different From Child Or Adult Brains’, in ScienceDaily, 2008
» http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080328112127.htm
» more info – http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Teenage+risk+taking+behaviour
» Google scholar – http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Teenage+risk+taking+behaviour&oi=scholart

——————————————————————————————————————
“I’m not a bad person for the most part”

Despite the appallingly demeaning Christian doctrine of ‘Original Sin’, neither you nor I nor anybody else is a “bad person” AT ALL. The most valid over-generalisation is that we are all good people, but occasionally, like everybody else, you may make a poor decision, or do something wrong. That is an integral part of the human condition, and it does NOT define the whole of your being-in-the-world as “bad”. You’re obviously smart enough to learn from your mistakes and wrong actions, as we all do.

Despite the preposterously arrogant Christian assertion that only their God is the source of all morality, these days anthropology and evolutionary psychology are beginning to demonstrate that human morality is as much an evolved trait as eye colour or language acquisition – for more, see my previous two-part ‘Best Answer’ at:
• Is morality an inborn quality or acquired/human construct/subjective concept?
» http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110628073439AAu9m0t

——————————————————————————————————————
End of Part 1 of 2, from Dalinian.
I’ll pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to deliver Part 2/2

Pip answers:

Animals are not created in the image of God and are not under law.
Animals have not received the knowledge of good and evil..there is neither morality nor immorality with animals.

Edit
There is no such thing as a loose interpretation of morality.
A loose interpretation of morality is called imorality.

Who’s definition of morality do you follow?
What makes his judgment better than yours or mine?
How do we define morality?
Without an absolute truth how do we judge? Who is the judge?
Does society itself set the standard? Hasn’t history itself proved society can not?
Most societies base the idea of morality on religion even then they tend to miss the boat.
There are no moral animals because animals have no judge nor teachers.
If an animal could overcome instinct would it be beneficial to it’s survival?
How would an animal decide what is moral?
Would a Tiger decide killing is imoral and therfore become a vegitarian?
What moral laws could an animal place itself under?
What type of morality are we looking for?
The only thing we could determine when seeking moral animals would be known as instinct which is survial of the species.

Pip answers:

YEAH! Blame the White Man! It’s Whitey’s fault!

What is? Why… EVERYTHING is, of course!

Apparently we’re not only Pure Evil, we’re also Omniscient….