Air Force Academy makes 'God' optional in cadets' oath

[Incorruptible]

Jesus was a socialist

Also, we didn't come from Monkeys. if anyone teaches you that, that person is an idiot. We share a common ancestor with modern apes.

Also, I think society may have failed you.

Jesus wasn't a socialist. You should be ashamed of yourself for even saying that.

Taking God out of the oath is just wrong and they should keep it.

 

[LightPattern]

I view people who are okay with such behavior as immoral, as I already stated above. A universal standard of morality is a pipedream. We can attempt to share our moral views with others and maybe cause some to rethink their moral code. I think most murderers are aware that they are acting immorally. Treatment of women is an issue where people act out their personal moral codes, codes which I find are often immoral. That is where laws governing conduct are needed. We may not ever convince some men that women are worthy of respect but we can legislate behavior.

You can have community standards of ethics which are the most important part of a culture. This is why multiculturalism can be toxic, because you don't know what standards your neighbors are living by anymore. In my experience apathy becomes the most commonly accepted reaction when conflicting standards clash in an atmosphere of multicultural acceptance.

You can try codifying everything into laws... but the truth is there will never be enough laws to cover every possible situation we as humans encounter.
Through the legal system we end up being at the mercy of not only the letter of the law, but the cultural background (including religion) of those in authority who get to pass judgement on us.

 

[ThinClient]

Jesus wasn't a socialist. You should be ashamed of yourself for even saying that.

Taking God out of the oath is just wrong and they should keep it.

You mean taking out part of the oath that wasn't originally there to begin with?

...is WRONG?

LOL :awe:

Separation of church and state, bitches. If it's god-related and there are atheists in the group, then you are disrespecting their opinion and forcing religious dogma down the throat of those who wish not to participate.

Remember, freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

 

[Retro Rob]

You can have community standards of ethics which are the most important part of a culture. This is why multiculturalism can be toxic, because you don't know what standards your neighbors are living by anymore. In my experience apathy becomes the most commonly accepted reaction when conflicting standards clash in an atmosphere of multicultural acceptance.

You can try codifying everything into laws... but the truth is there will never be enough laws to cover every possible situation we as humans encounter.
Through the legal system we end up being at the mercy of not only the letter of the law, but the cultural background (including religion) of those in authority who get to pass judgement on us.

Agreed as well.

IMO, it's fine if you want to have that personal view of "making up your own morals", but you really nailed it...having separate groups holding totally contrasting standards of morality is a very, very scary place to live in.

You would be basically living in a place where nothing is technically "wrong".

That's a scary thought.

 

[fskimospy]

You can have community standards of ethics which are the most important part of a culture. This is why multiculturalism can be toxic, because you don't know what standards your neighbors are living by anymore. In my experience apathy becomes the most commonly accepted reaction when conflicting standards clash in an atmosphere of multicultural acceptance.

You can try codifying everything into laws... but the truth is there will never be enough laws to cover every possible situation we as humans encounter.
Through the legal system we end up being at the mercy of not only the letter of the law, but the cultural background (including religion) of those in authority who get to pass judgement on us.

Well maybe not EVERY situation, but almost every one. That's the entire purpose of common law, the foundation for our judicial system. You make broadly applicable laws and then rely on judges to interpret and apply them to different circumstances.

This is in contrast to civil codes that actually try and write everything down, which I view as pretty silly. (NICE JOB, LOUISIANA)

 

[sandorski]

Agreed as well.

IMO, it's fine if you want to have that personal view of "making up your own morals", but you really nailed it...having separate groups holding totally contrasting standards of morality is a very, very scary place to live in.

You would be basically living in a place where nothing is technically "wrong".

That's a scary thought.

Society sets the Moral Standard. That's why, despite Religious Belief dominance, the US and others no longer have Slavery and have decent Rights for Women.

 

[thraashman]

Jesus wasn't a socialist. You should be ashamed of yourself for even saying that.

Taking God out of the oath is just wrong and they should keep it.

Well, I would say Jesus wasn't anything except a well written story figure. However the character created for the Bible is pretty clearly one that believes in socialist concepts. Especially considering he was clearly very anti-capitalist.

As far as the oath, it wasn't changed, it was made optional certain parts for certain people. Forcing people to make an oath to a god they don't believe in is what's wrong.

 

[IronWing]

Agreed as well.

IMO, it's fine if you want to have that personal view of "making up your own morals", but you really nailed it...having separate groups holding totally contrasting standards of morality is a very, very scary place to live in.

You would be basically living in a place where nothing is technically "wrong".

That's a scary thought.

How do you get from accepting personal responsibility for morals to a place where nothing is technically "wrong"?

 

[Retro Rob]

Society sets the Moral Standard. That's why, despite Religious Belief dominance, the US and others no longer have Slavery and have decent Rights for Women.

Well our moral standard isn't any better, as we've replaced that with murder, gun violence (I think the US buries about 10k people/yr), kidnapping, child pornography/pedophillia, cyber theft... I could go on about how much better our morals are nowadays, if you want.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I don't know about the officer's oath. I do know both the words swear and god were optional in the enlisted oath back when I did so in early 2008.

 

[IronWing]

Well our moral standard isn't any better, as we've replaced that with murder, gun violence (I think the US buries about 10k people/yr), kidnapping, child pornography/pedophillia, cyber theft... I could go on about how much better our morals are nowadays, if you want.

Except for cyber-theft, I think most people recognize those activities as immoral.

Knowing something is wrong isn't the same thing as refraining.

 

[sandorski]

Well our moral standard isn't any better, as we've replaced that with murder, gun violence (I think the US buries about 10k people/yr), kidnapping, child pornography/pedophillia, cyber theft... I could go on about how much better our morals are nowadays, if you want.

Except we don't. Those are all Immoral by Societies standards. Hell, most of those have always existed and the very fact that ancient Societies considered them Immoral as well would seem to indicate that these things have always occurred.

 

[Retro Rob]

Except we don't. Those are all Immoral by Societies standards. Hell, most of those have always existed and the very fact that ancient Societies considered them Immoral as well would seem to indicate that these things have always occurred.

Ok if those are not part of society's standard, then why do they happened, consistently, like clockwork, day in, day out?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Ok if those are not part of society's standard, then why do they happened, consistently, like clockwork, day in, day out?

Those things happened in the past like clockwork day in day out. Per capita probably at much worse rates except for things like child pornography where technology facilitates it's spread much more.

 

[ThinClient]

Ok if those are not part of society's standard, then why do they happened, consistently, like clockwork, day in, day out?

...because there's a shitload of people on the planet, more than there used to be, so the rates of literally everything are going to increase because there are more people to do them.

 

[ThinClient]

Well our moral standard isn't any better, as we've replaced that with murder, gun violence (I think the US buries about 10k people/yr), kidnapping, child pornography/pedophillia, cyber theft... I could go on about how much better our morals are nowadays, if you want.

Murder and violence isn't any more or less than it used to be. At least, you can't claim to know that it is one way or another. Hell, religion is what caused tribes to kill each other in ancient times and yet I don't see you speaking out against the immorality and unethical actions of religion, now do I.

 

[brycejones]

Taking God out of the oath is just wrong and they should keep it.

Why is making it optional wrong? Care to explain your reasoning?

 

[sandorski]

Ok if those are not part of society's standard, then why do they happened, consistently, like clockwork, day in, day out?

Why do you think Morals exist?

 

[Retro Rob]

Why do you think Morals exist?

I think they exist for the same reason laws do -- to establish and maintain some sort of order.

Why?

 

[thraashman]

I think they exist for the same reason laws do -- to establish and maintain some sort of order.

Why?

I'd say that's close to what I believe. But not exact. I'd say moral came to be out of a need to maintain order, they developed out of an evolutionary need. Humans are like any other pack animal and there needs to be rules that benefit the survival of the pack. Then we got too smart and started making up some silly ass shit.

 

[sandorski]

I think they exist for the same reason laws do -- to establish and maintain some sort of order.

Why?

Can they exist without a Need? aka: Is there a Moral for some issue that does not exist?

The reason Society considers certain things Immoral is because those things cause Harm. They are existing things that need to be addressed. If Murder did not exist, then there would be no need for a Moral view regarding Murder.

 

[Retro Rob]

Can they exist without a Need? aka: Is there a Moral for some issue that does not exist?

The reason Society considers certain things Immoral is because those things cause Harm. They are existing things that need to be addressed. If Murder did not exist, then there would be no need for a Moral view regarding Murder.

I don't think there is any documented history that we can point to that shows murder (or any other "bad" behavior) existed before human morality did.

I'd like to see something if you have it.

 

[sandorski]

I don't think there is any documented history that we can point to that shows murder (or any other "bad" behavior) existed before human morality did.

I'd like to see something if you have it.

lol, wut? This is a silly question.

Not being much of an Ancient historian, I can't provide such a thing. However, since you value it so much, the Bible itself shows Murder before the Moral.

Ask yourself this: Why would a Moral exist for some Action that does not exist?

 

[ThinClient]

I don't think there is any documented history that we can point to that shows murder (or any other "bad" behavior) existed before human morality did.

I'd like to see something if you have it.

You can't show that human morality existed before murder, either, but you're choosing one and using it to support your claim.

Ridiculous.

 

[Retro Rob]

lol, wut? This is a silly question.

Not being much of an Ancient historian, I can't provide such a thing. However, since you value it so much, the Bible itself shows Murder before the Moral.

Ask yourself this: Why would a Moral exist for some Action that does not exist?

I left Cain and Able out for a specific reason, so that you can acknowledge, without me mentioning it, that the Biblical story is the only "proof" (from a purely documentation standpoint) that we have of crime before the code.

Anything outside of that is pure guess-work and assumption, which I wanted to establish you as doing.