Years ago, in one of my group psychosocial sessions I had decided the group needed an introduction to ethical decision making, so I asked who could give me a definition of ethics. No one offered an answer. I asked again. I got a couple of answers that were not even remotely connected. This was not good, I had assumed (wrongly) I would have some foundation on which to begin a session.
With that in mind, I have decided to mention ethics to my little group of readers.
Ethics is defined as: 1) study of morality’s effect on conduct: the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct 2) a system of moral principles governing the appropriate conduct for a person or group.
Ethics is not a list of rules for what to do our not to do. It appears that most people like lists of rules, clear bright lines saying “don’t do this” or “do this” to be morally sound. It absolves them of making difficult moral choices. Leaders also like rules because it allows them micromanagement powers over their followers. Rules are the hallmark of the world’s mono-theistic religions, even when their founders apparently opposed such rules. Jesus was very clear in his denunciation of the rule makers in favor of an ethics based on “love thy neighbor as thyself”; however, the first thing his cadre of disciples did once he was gone, was to start imposing a list of rules. Continue reading “Of Ethics”
Note: I’ve been working on this for some time, but due to the nature of the content have been slow to publish it.
It has become a refrain from the left (and the media) to hear how Islam is a religion of peace and those who engage in violence have are not “real” Muslims. If one questions this premise the interesting moniker of Islamophobe is tied to the questioner. However, the question “Is Islam a religion of peace?” is legitimate and should be considered. However, the more I have looked into the issue, rather than get a simple answer I find it becomes ever more difficult to make simplistic answers.
To be a Muslim, a person simply has to agree there is only one God and Mohammad is his prophet. Though the mantra does not expressly say so, the assumption is that one accepts the Quran as the literal words of the one and only God and that the Quran supersedes all other older religious texts. All that is beyond question. The problem is that the Quran is not a book of systematic theology, nor is it a single narrative; but rather it is a book of various styles and subjects and content. Muslims say this style is because it is divine and its unique style is due to that fact. Secularist would respond that the lack of clarity is due to the fact that the Quran is nothing more than a mishmash of Persian, Arabic, Jewish and Christian ideas plagiarized by Mohammad and his immediate successors.
The divine or secular nature of the Quran is a matter of faith, but for this discussion the significance of this is that such a non-linier text is infinitely subject to interpretation. Of course issues of interpretation is true with all religions; but it seems monotheistic religions struggle with variations in interpretation more than most. I would suggest that this is because practitioners tend to be far more dogmatic about the unique rightness of their theology than other religions. In the case of Islam the initial schism in interpretation goes right back to the origins of the religion itself as if to make the point that there is not just one Islam a prima fascia case. Continue reading “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”
The Cognitive Dissident 
Recent Comments