ETHICS AND MORALITY. PERSONAL ETHICS VS INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS, OR FINDING GOD VS FORCING GOD. PT 4.

From the Two Examples, we get the Basic Controversy that exists in the U.S. Today, as well as many Nations around the World that try to separate Religious Belief, Tradition, and Form of Worship outside the Realm of Government Control;

To what Degree does Legal and Lawful Authority have over the Religious Lives of Those who live within its Borders.  What is Permissible, and free from Government Intervention, and what Constitutes Criminal or Undesirable Activity that must be Controlled or Stopped.

Remember, in part Two we had a New Government that wanted to leave as many Personal Moral Decisions as possible in the hands of the Individual, Free of Possible Intervention or Sanction.  In part Three we had just the opposite, a New Government that wanted to control the Religious and Spiritual Lives of Those within its Borders, to the Point of Punishing those who will not follow a Specific Mandate about correct Moral Behavior.

However, within the U.S., THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT TAKES THESE TYPES OF SCENARIOS, AND REVERSES THEM;  INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS THAT BELIEVE THAT THEIR RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ENTITLES THEM NOT ONLY TO WORSHIP AND BELIEVE AS THEY SO CHOSE, BUT THAT THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS MUST LEGISLATE THESE DOCTRINES INTO LAW, MAKING IT ILLEGAL NOT TO FOLLOW A SPECIFIC CODE OF ETHICAL OR MORAL CONDUCT.

It often Amazes me the number of people who claim to follow "THE PATH OF GOD", OR "FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF THE LORD", who will scream the loudest if they believe that Their Rights are being violated, YET SEEK TO FORCE EVERYONE TO OBEY THEIR OWN PERSONAL FORM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF. TO THEM THE "PATH" OR "FOLLOW", IS NOT TO BE LEFT TO INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.

Now, in the U.S., this wouldn't be a Problem if Elected and/or Appointed Officials Actually Understood or Believed in the CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

UNFORTUNATELY, TO ACHIEVE THE POWER AND PRESTIGE THAT COMES WITH HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE, MANY AMERICANS ARE WILLING TO TOSS OUT THE CONCEPT OF "FREEDOM OF RELIGION", TO APPEASE THOSE WHO WANT TO LIVE IN A THEOCRACY OF THEIR OWN CREATION.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. PERSONAL ETHICS VS INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS, OR FINDING GOD VS FORCING GOD. PT 3.

In Part Two, we examined a Government that allows those living within its Boundaries, the opportunity to Worship Freely, and in the Manner they choose, free of Official Interference.  This Policy is Subject to Obeying Civil Laws, designed to preserve the Safety and Stability of the Standing Government.

The Moral Standard that this Type of Government Policy is Endorsing, regarding the extent of Permissible Religious Behavior and Activities to be left undisturbed, can be related as:

The Concept that Ethical and Moral Behavior, in how one chooses to live Their Life, is Meaningless if one is not free to select an Alternative without outside Intervention.  In Other Words, Coming to God and Obeying Specific Doctrines, cannot be Truly an Act of Devotion and Belief, if FORCE OR THE THREAT OF PUNISHMENT COMES FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES.

The Government in example #1 is Defining GOD on a Very Personal Level, leaving as much as possible to Individual Interpretation, only Intervening when the Safety of All is at Risk.

NOW, let us create a second example.

The Scenario:  After an Extensive Conflict, a Peace Treaty is Drawn up between Two Countries.  In the Treaty, a Community that Lies within the Physical Boundaries of Nation A, is now to come under the Rule of Nation B, due to the Physical Borders being Altered.

This Community had been living under the Laws of Nation A, which has a Policy regarding Religious Freedom similar to that of the Country described in the First Example.

However, in this Second Example, the New Government believes that GOD GUIDES THEM DIRECTLY, AND THIS IS EXEMPLIFIED IN THEIR CODE OF LAW,  WHICH ALLOWS DIRECT INTERVENTION AGAINST ANYONE WHO DOES NOT OBEY RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE SET BY "DIVINE INSPIRATION", AS INTERPRETED BY RELIGIOUS HIERARCHY.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. PERSONAL ETHICS VS INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS, OR FINDING GOD VS FORCING GOD. PT 2.

Unfortunately, throughout Human History, Many Religions and Faiths 

have exported Their Religious Beliefs and Practices at the point of a Sword.  Adapt or Die.

Sometimes it is Different Denominations or Sects within the Same RELIGION, supposedly Worshiping the same GOD, who have engaged in Fights to the Death.

Yet, there are cases of Empires and Nations showing Tolerance to the Belief Systems of People who Inhabit recently acquired Territory or Land.

What causes One form of Government to behave in a manner that Persecutes, and another to show Understanding and Acceptance?

I think it may lie with THE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD, OR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH THAT IS ESPOUSED BY THOSE IN POWER OR AUTHORITY, THAT WILL GIVE US AN INDICATION OF HOW OPPOSITION RELIGIOUS GROUPS WILL BE TREATED.

To Clarify, consider the following Two examples.

Government # 1 is Ceded Land that was Formerly controlled by an opposing Nation.  This Government is now responsible for Administering and Enforcing Economic, Social and Legal Programs that are part of its Infrastructure, into the Newly Acquired Territory.

There is a Problem;  The Dominant Religion in this Area, by number of Adherents, is Relatively Small compared to other Faiths within Government #1's Borders.

However, the New Government has a Policy that Recognizes the Following:  THAT LAWS GOVERNING MORAL BEHAVIOR AND RELIGIOUS FAITH, ONLY ADDRESS ISSUES THAT WILL AFFECT THE STABILITY OR PROPER FUNCTION OF THE PRESENT FORM OF AUTHORITY. This may include such Concepts as CIVIL RIGHTS, TAXATION, CRIMINAL ACTS etc.

THIS GIVES US THE FOLLOWING:  RELIGIOUS FAITH AND WORSHIP ARE MORALLY NEUTRAL CONCEPTS LEFT TO INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION, AND ARE NOT TO BE SANCTIONED OR PUNISHED UNLESS THEY INTERFERE WITH THE GOVERNMENTS ABILITY TO SUCCESSFULLY OPERATE.

LOOK FOR THE SECOND EXAMPLE, ALONG WITH THE COMPARISON AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO, IN PART 3.

FEATURE ARTICLES. SELF- DEFENSE, AND STAND-YOUR GROUND LAWS. PT 3.

FEATURE ARTICLES.

SELF- DEFENSE, AND STAND-YOUR GROUND LAWS.  PT 3.

The real danger of recent Court Decisions, is how juries are interpreting Stand- Your Ground Laws, and the precedent it creates.

Are we now living in a country that allows Bigotry, Racism, and other immoral and irrational mindsets as an excuse to commit murder.

Consider, the following two statements;

- The Use of Deadly Force is justified, if a Reasonable Person believes that their life or the life of another, is in immediate danger.

- If the individual believes that their life, or the life of another is in immediate danger, Deadly Force is allowed under the law.

Now, they seem on the surface, to say the seem thing.  However, there is a major difference, and it must be addressed.

In the first example, the word Reasonable is used, so Deadly Force must be justified by what a normal and rational person would do, given the same circumstances.  In practice, this is usually measured by the Actions, Demeanor and Physical Threat that the attacker has exhibited during the altercation.  In other words, the victim had no other choice, and behaved appropriately.

However, the second example removes the word Reasonable. This allows the Defense to claim that the personality and belief system of someone using Lethal Force, be the deciding factor for justifying Self- Defense.

This creates the following;  What if someone holds an Irrational view of different categories of people, that is not grounded in fact and is Demonstrably false. These opinions are contrary to what a Reasonable person would believe, for they are purely subjective in nature. These World Views are products of Hate, Prejudice and Preconceived ideas about others.

If these views are considered valid, in terms of arguing Self- Defense, and the individual...

                           

• ...believes that certain Ethnic and Racial groups are always armed and looking for an excuse to kill.
• ...associates Members of Certain Religions with Terrorism.
• ...is of the opinion that Sexual Orientation makes some people unable to control their behavior.

... then they are justified in using Lethal Force, BECAUSE OF THE BELIEF THAT THEIR CONCLUSIONS ARE TRUE, REGARDLESS OF THE REASONING THAT UNDERLINES SUCH JUDGMENTS. 

If such a Defense is allowed to stand, then we have given every Hate Group a license to kill.

Date-  6/15/2014.