Morals, and 'Morals'

One of my friends believes that religion, ALL religion, is pointless superstition. He has taken the stance, more or less, that most religious conflicts come down to ‘who has the best imaginary friend.‘ I don’t know that I completely disagree - many laws and rules come off as archaic and discriminatory in modern society (rules preventing women from being as ‘free’ as men in society, or rules against homosexuality for example) and it can be difficult to pin point which laws were formed with the goal of making a peaceful society or just giving religious significance to things already in place. If you’re interested in reading more on that, take a moment to google “why are there religious laws against pork.‘

What exactly is this kid supposed to honor here?

Other things, like the Judeo-Christian commandment “Thou shalt not commit Murder” or the Buddhist precept against killing other living beings are pretty intuitive - killing people is terrible in that it causes pain, loss, etc. Others, like “Honor they mother and father” can be a little trickier. What if your parents don’t care about you, abuse you, make poor decisions and put you in danger constantly? Are you still required to honor them?

I think there’s a difference between ‘religious’ morals and just plain morals. ‘Religious’ morals dictate doing or not doing something “Because you should/n’t,” and if you do, some great, invisible being in the sky will punish you at some point. Just plain old morals are personal and constantly developing, and drive you to do what you consider right or wrong based on your beliefs. There’s a lot more wiggle room, and - I believe - actions driven by one’s own experience-based morals tend to more sincere and thought out.
I don’t know when I first started getting a sense of Right and Wrong. Obviously, it’s not something that comes all at once. I remember when I was very young on different occasions being told not to do some things - but not why.

On this train of thought, I remember a particular instance (at the age of 5 yrs old or so) where I was playing with different configurations for my fingers while sitting on the stairs. I have no clue why, but this was very entertaining to me. At some point I settled on the hand position with my right hand of a fist, with my thumb out and my middle finger up. I was flipping the bird, but I had no what idea the gesture I was making meant as I sat on the stairs waving my fist around and watching the shadow on the wall. My dad spotted me, sped over, and grabbed hold of my hand.

“Let my raised digit summon all your rage!”

“I don’t EVER want to see you doing that again,” he told me. He squeezed my hand very tightly, and his tone made it clear that he was very upset. I’m sure he assumed I’d seen someone else doing it and understood what it meant, but I hadn’t, and I didn’t. I lived in a constant fear for a short time that I would accidentally stick that finger out again while my dad was watching, and incur his (seemingly irrational at the time) wrath. I was more relaxed when he wasn’t around, even using the finger to point around other kids. I didn’t learn what the gesture meant until sometime the third grade, and it took a lot of explaining on the part of an older kid to make me understand how a fist with a finger coming out of it was offensive and could make people extremely angry.

Another thought that comes to mind is on the matter of stealing things - I never took other kid’s things. That’s not to say that other kids didn’t have things I wanted, there were always cool toys or trinkets, but I knew that I didn’t want others to take from me (though they sometimes did) so I didn’t steal. No one had to tell me that stealing was wrong, I just instinctively knew that I’d be really upset if someone took MY stuff, so I wouldn’t do it to them. Similarly, I didn’t hit unless someone hit me first, and I tried not to be too big a nuisance. I felt, even as a little kid, that if my pleasure came at someone else’s discomfort or pain, then it was probably wrong. Though I wasn’t familiar with the phrase, “treat others as you would like to be treated” was a pretty big guideline for me.

What I’m trying to get at, with my round-about-ranting, is that some ‘morals’ are taught, others are just known. I’ve never really sat back to examine the difference between the two before recently, and it’s kind of strange to look at the reasons for some of the rules we follow, and how they continue to affect how we live. In the US, the tradition of shorter hours of operation on Sundays follow largely from Christian beliefs about keeping Sunday a 'holy' day (though admittedly I think most stores today just enjoy having a day of rest). Laws against homosexual unions* have no place in a modern culture where the sexual preferences and relations between consenting adults in a private venue plays no part in affecting the progress and development of a society. Regarding contraceptives and birth control, in this day and age, in developed countries where bloodlines and population size don’t directly correspond to a family’s ability to own land or participate in society, it is not ‘moral’ to deny access or restrict use of contraceptives and birth control: it is religious.

Using the argument of “This is wrong because God Says So, so you Shouldn’t Do It” is a wobbly stance at best. If you’re going to go that route, why is it okay to pick and choose? In regards to homosexuality, many people cite "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). But what about the other ancient laws in the bible against wearing clothes that mix more than one type of thread (goodbye comfy polyester/cotton mixes! Leviticus 19:19), or against even touching pork (Leviticus 11:7, 8), or against anyone but virgins (female only, it seems - guys can apparently approach the altar having sexed) getting married, with the death penalty if they’re NOT a virgin when they get married (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)? What about rules against women speaking in church (1 Corinthians 14:34) or the verses commanding slaves to be obedient to their masters (Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9, 1 Peter 2:18), which seem to endorse the practice of owning Slaves?

Mixed threads, pigskin, AND laying with another man?! Yeah, he's gonna burn.

I suppose it can be argued that if someone can practice self control, than the whole issues of contraceptives could be averted - but one person’s beliefs regarding condoms, hormone pills or abortion should not interfere with another person’s life choices - recreational sex between informed, consenting adults using protection is only wrong from a certain religious standpoints. It may be argued that being asked not to wear religious articles of clothing or iconography in certain public arenas is discriminatory, and people affected by such rules or laws may feel as though a secular lifestyle is being forced upon them: but no one can deny you the right to still hold your beliefs inside yourself, or not go to certain events/places.

For instance, if you strongly believe that you MUST wear something for religious reasons, but your work place denies all and any religious wear, it is their right to keep religion out of the work place. You would have to choose between working at that place, or holding to your beliefs - arguing that you should instead be allowed to wear a religious article in the workplace where none are allowed is a violation of their rights to make way for your desires.

Yes, this is restricting. But it’s the truth. And if you honestly believe that your god is going to punish you for all eternity because you didn’t wear a specific item in order to work at a job to support you and your family, maybe it’s time to reevaluate your beliefs.

While I don’t ascribe to Wicca, I appreciate this particular bit from the Wiccan Rede (which may be embellished or changed to suit one personally, so there are hundreds if not thousands of versions: though, they all tend to follow the same guidelines) -

“If it harm none, do what you will.”

‘Religious’ morals can provide a handy guideline for people not sure where to draw the line themselves, but nothing is just black and white, yes or no. Aside from your kids until they’re old enough to start choosing things for themselves, you have to choose for yourself, on a day to day basis, what is right or wrong. Yourself, and no one else.




*I believe that ‘marriage’ is an inherently religious term, referring specifically to the binding of one man and one woman together before their God (in the sense of the Abrahamic God). I have no problem with homosexual unions, or civil partnerships, or hand fastings, perhaps a Unitarian ‘marriage’ or any other ceremony that publicly and legally recognizes a homosexual couple as a domestic pair and a single legal entity. However, ‘holy matrimony’ or ‘marriage’ typically refers to the Christian ceremony, and homosexuality kind of flies in the face of those beliefs. Sorry for any confusion or offense.