Examine two critiques of the relationship between religion and morality. It has long been common thought that there is a distinct link between Religion and the fundamental moral laws upon which we base our lives upon. These heteronomous moral codes were used as the basic principles of everyday life. From this viewpoint then, it is hard to imagine a world without the concept of religion, as sure anarchy and suffering would ensure across the Globe. However, if this link between religion and morality is criticised, then there are sufficient grounds for secularist and atheistic ways of life.
One negative aspect to his essay would have to be his bias toward conservatives and the rich. He deliberately labels out the rich in many of his examples by pointing out how they claim to be Christian but do not wish to help aid the poor. As for conservatives, he not only points out George W. Bush but refers at times to religion as “conservative religion.” This clearly shows his bias toward them and could be a way for him to associate them with the American Christianity problem. I believe McKibben has a great point on this issue. As American Christians, we always believe that if we do good deeds or help ourselves we go to heaven.
In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man… But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
The Christian worldview understands that everything is the Lords and we are to treat it as such. Sometimes it is the lack of understanding regarding the ways of God and the principles of His word that can keep leaders from treating their employees with respect and with moral love. Nash (1992) stated, “Christianity simply will not make sense to people who fail to understand and appreciate the Christian doctrine of sin” (p. 48). It is easy to look at our ways as right when if they were put against the word of God we would see how wrong they really
Thus, he believes there is no reason why should you live a moral life rather than for one's self. Fidley asks Seltzer one last question, “what motivation for adopting the moral point of view can you possibly offer without a belief in God and immorality?” which leads us to this quote, “When religion tells us that there is nothing more we can say about morality than that we can’t see the reasons for it, but do it if you know what’s good for you, then I do condemn it. We can do better than that. We can become moral grown-ups. And if there were a God, surely he would approve”.
Some atheists and agnostics argue to remove "in God we trust" from our currency. Conservatives on the religious right work for prayer in our public schools. Secularists fear religious zealotry, and believers abhor moral anarchy. In this popular level historical overview of the relationship between church and state, religion and politics, Jon Meacham, the managing editor of Newsweek and a practicing Christian, argues against both extremes. There is, he insists, a well-defined historical common middle ground, what he calls a "sensible center," that best serves the many and varied interests of our country.
They believe we as human beings are prone to sin. We have a proclivity to do terrible things or to be tempted to so (p.30, 2008). They believe our freedom or success of government is dependent on virtue. They further added that only moral people would remain free. On those premise it is asserted that religion play an important part in nurturing the virtue needed for a free society.
The view that religion is a conservative force stems from theories from Functionalists, Marxists and Feminists. Each see religion as keeping society in its current form, despite the theories coming to the same conclusion the reasons differ. For Durkheim religion acts as a vital organ in society and keeps society alive by maintaining social solidarity. Functionalists believe that religion creates a shared value consensus and acts as a social glue helping unite individuals as well as helping them cope with stress. In comparison to this view Marxists see society as promoting the interests of the ruling class and legitimating suffering and therefore preventing social change.
The name Pi carries much meaning, to begin with the protagonist’s name is considered to represent the idea of irrationality in the field of mathematics. Throughout the novel, Pi is portrayed as a ‘religious child’. Pi’s believe in religious ideal is somewhat irrational due to the lack of evidence given by these beliefs. A well-known sociologist Karl Marx argues that religion “is the optimum of the people, since religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering” (Karl Marx). What Marx means by religion being the optimum of the masses is that people tend to turn to religion for support.
There are however moral considerations to be taken into account. Many religions and codes of moral conduct forbid the use of intoxicants. Marijuana is deemed to fall into this category of intoxicants. For a nation like America that was established on a strong religious foundation, the legalization of marijuana with the aim of making profits would mean that it is compromising on its core values and beliefs. In addition, the economic benefits of legalizing marijuana is likely to be overshadowed by its impact on society.