I suppose I didn't express myself very well. The rabbit hole I mentioned is about how people agree or disagree with aspects of each others' moralities, and what the outcome should be in the larger context of society. I agree that stoning as a punishment for adultery shouldn't be tolerated, but that doesn't mean my principles for believing that are necessarily the same as yours, or that I share your other principles. That's what I'm trying to get at.
The dance of which morality is correct and should be enshrined in law (I think anything that is "clearly" immoral should be prohibited by law as a 1:1 mapping; the law is therefore a reflection of morality) is not one I like to partake in. Even if we all agree to discard current major religious beliefs around morality, there will still be many points for people to disagree on. Some people will be very left out and others slightly; that's what I meant by "morality is beyond laws". There is an inherent impasse that arises at this junction.
There is definitely a problem with splitting hairs on finer and finer points, until everyone is subdivided, until each individual has their own religion, their own morality. No two people are identical, and it is also impossible to force or convince everyone to be identical, thus there is always something different to disagree on.
So all arguments on religion are really fruitless.
I guess I come back to, how to get to a best common good. And in todays US, there is such a wide split between people, that there is also a wide range of things where there could be compromise to have a better society. Every difference is a chance to find a solution.
So how do we get to commonalities if kids are indoctrinated (brain washed) from an early age.
Religion blocks progress, because if someone truly believes in their god, then they wont compromise. Then there are religious wars, persecutions, inquisitions, etc... And sadly, the US is moving that way with the blurring of the split between state and church.
We don't have to agree on all points of religion to make progress, we just have to agree to some basics like maybe treat everyone equally, don't beat up trans kids. Religion should be taught in the home, not in the schools. There should be a lot of room to come together before we get to an impasse.
The 'left' is trying to do good, make things better, 'to progress', and they are clueless that the 'right' is actually in a Holy War without compromises where anything goes. It's an un-even fight. This country went to the moon, I never in a million years thought we could backslide into religious dogmatism. So, all of this arguing in this thread that religious schools are ok, is really not looking at history.
Well said, and I agree. I have some staunchly religious friends, and while they're happy to discuss things with me, there are just some topics they'll never change my mind on, nor I them. Oh well. That's life. I'll stand up for what I think is right and hopefully society largely agrees.
The dance of which morality is correct and should be enshrined in law (I think anything that is "clearly" immoral should be prohibited by law as a 1:1 mapping; the law is therefore a reflection of morality) is not one I like to partake in. Even if we all agree to discard current major religious beliefs around morality, there will still be many points for people to disagree on. Some people will be very left out and others slightly; that's what I meant by "morality is beyond laws". There is an inherent impasse that arises at this junction.