Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

My answer to Rachel's question:

Hair club for Men.

I can't get over my disappointment that his dalliance wasn't with another dude.

HEY! It wasn't with a DUDE, therefore it is A-OK!

Seems that affairs run rampant in this state.

WTF does 'sanctity' mean? Is there some magical invisible force generated from an invisible magical being involved? Well... some people think so. The word 'sanctity' in my mind, holds zero meaning. It is an imaginary concept imparting magical energies to something that has no such thing. Please. Show me concrete evidence of this so-called sanctity. Can it be measured? Does it hold a charge, emit an energy field, or be made of atoms?

What is marriage? It is a ritualistic formality bonding two individuals decreeing a co-commitment. It is a totally unecessary ritual. Most people do it because they feel guilty otherwise. Potentially even fear a reprisal by a non-corporeal entity in an imaginary afterlife should they fail to conform. All invented and executed by bunch of guys dressed in robes in an expensive building paid for on the backs of the poor.

Is marriage bad? No. By no means is it bad. It does provide for an evolutionary co-benefit/advantage for the family unit.

Certain societal norms require such a legal declaration to obtain certain benefits for the individuals involved. Thankfully marriage does not require neo-magical-religious formalities. One can simply file at the local town hall and call it a day.

You get a marriage license or legal document. You don't get some magical invisible energy field.

"More Republican Hypocrisy on "Sanctity of Marriage"

Which implies that, what, Democrats don't believe in staying faithful to one's spouse?

That's an interesting statement, but it does seem in line with the facts (Edwards, Clinton, etc.) They didn't resign when they got caught. Republicans (including a Speaker of the House back in the 90s), do.

So who has the moral high ground again?

>> ^ShakaUVM:
"More Republican Hypocrisy on "Sanctity of Marriage"
Which implies that, what, Democrats don't believe in staying faithful to one's spouse?
That's an interesting statement, but it does seem in line with the facts (Edwards, Clinton, etc.) They didn't resign when they got caught. Republicans (including a Speaker of the House back in the 90s), do.
So who has the moral high ground again?


They didn't resign because - DUH! - it didn't have anything to do with how they did their job.

Newt Gingrich resigned because he would have looked like a hypocrite for calling on Clinton to resign when he himself was guilty of the same "crime." That, and the GOP needed to sacrifice him. Remember how Dennis Hastert wasn't even the first choice to replace him? The GOP needed to dig up a High School wrestling coach to restore their image after Gingrich's (and his intended successor's) embarrassment.

It's the GOP who paint themselves as the party of "family values." That's why they need be called out for their moral double-standards. How can they say they're "protecting marriage" when they can't even protect the sanctity of their own marriage?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'John Ensign, senator, adultery, hypocrite' to 'John Ensign, senator, adultery, hypocrite, Rachel Maddow, msnbc' - edited by SlipperyPete

There's a world of difference between those trying to live up to a moral code and failing, and those who never bothered to obey any moral authority outside of themselves. Liberals have little room to criticize the former.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
"More Republican Hypocrisy on "Sanctity of Marriage"So who has the moral high ground again?


I guess the Republicans, because that's the place where they stand and go "Shame shame" at Democrats caught having affairs while they're having affairs of their own.

Cripes, it's almost like some of these guys spout their moral stances for the sole purpose of furthering their political agendas, but that would just be crazy.

Edit-Maybe he did try to hold himself to some morale code and failed, but that's the thing. Everyone is capable of such things, if you can make it through life without doing anything you feel is wrong that's great, but the capacity to falter is there in anyone because we're free beings.

Is this man evil now? Does this man not deserve a job? No, he just did something human. Anything else concerning this is between him and his wife. He probably does feel a little more humble on the whole topic however.

The hypocrisy is that GOP leaders are willing to deny the human right of marriage for others while they themselves don't respect it in their own lives.

>>^ quantumushroom
"There's a world of difference between those trying to live up to a moral code and failing, and those who never bothered to obey any moral authority outside of themselves. Liberals have little room to criticize the former."

Really. Does having a certain moral code justify anything. Like total hypocrisy. Will you try and justify anybody no matter what they did as long as they have the same ideology as you have? Do you hate so called liberals that much?

^With my liberal tendencies and therefore lack of morality as QM said, I'm going to go back to finishing my painting of Muhammad going down on Jesus.

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's a world of difference between those trying to live up to a moral code and failing, and those who never bothered to obey any moral authority outside of themselves. Liberals have little room to criticize the former.


AHHAHAHHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAAAAAA!

Thats the stupidest and most pathetic defense of hypocritical douchebaggery you've come up with in a long time.

This guy, like so many other republicans, have made a living out of judging other people, out of "defending marriage" and "protecting the family" and generally being a dick about other peoples private affairs. When other people did exactly the same thing he did, he called for them to resign. And then he doesnt resign himself. There could be no firmer evidence that it is Ensign who has no moral integrity at ALL

And who is this "moral authority outside ourselves", SkyDaddy? HAHAHA, pathetic. Morality is an evolved trait, both biological and cultural, as intelligent beings , we make moral decisions based on the world around us, it is shaped by our knowledge, culture and the exchange of ideas ie: moral philosophy. This is why nearly all of our bible-thumping ancestors thought slavery was completely ok, while nearly no modern bible-thumper thinks so. Yet the bible never condemn slavery, so why are so many Christians against it? Aren't they listening to the "Moral authority outside of themselves"?? Who do they think they are, intelligent apes capable of their own moral reasoning? I think not! While God didn't write anything in the bible about this slavery-is-wrong business, he probably sprinkled invisible magical "moral-dust" on us all in the late 1700s. Thats the only logical conclusion.

Thats the stupidest and most pathetic defense of hypocritical douchebaggery you've come up with in a long time.

It's often said that liberals can never be hypocrites because they don't actually believe in anything ethical in the first place.

It's amazing to see someone actually making that argument.

And yeah, QuantumMushroom had it precisely right - it's better to have ethics and have (some people) fail to live up to them (some of the time) than to not have ethics at all.

Fortunately for you, BicycleRepairMan, I'm part of the pro-dismemberment lobby, so you won't have any right to accuse me of hypocrisy when I come to your house and start collecting digits. Hey man, that's my moral belief, and since all moral beliefs are the same (don't judge me, man!) you have no grounds to criticize me. Hell, your very moral foundation is not to criticize others because of their beliefs. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite and accuse me of doing this supposed "evil" now would you?

Hell, I'll even chop off your hand in a country where it's legal, so you got no room to complain there. I'm sure you've stolen something in your life, so we'll fly together to Saudi Arabia, and maybe even get it televised.

Yet the bible never condemn slavery, so why are so many Christians against it?

Epic theological fail.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
It's often said that liberals can never be hypocrites because they don't actually believe in anything ethical in the first place.

Examples?

You say we have no ethics at all, so you must have plenty of examples to prove your point.

"Fortunately for you, BicycleRepairMan, I'm part of the pro-dismemberment lobby...."

Are you attempting to equate having an extra-marital affair with being a member of a "pro-dismemberment lobby"?

You say we have no ethics at all, so you must have plenty of examples to prove your point.

On the topic in question, I already have. Nobody in the Democratic party seriously expected Clinton to resign from cheating on his wife and lying about it because he didn't violate any expectations of morality from a Democrat.

When you can cheat on your wife, lie about it under oath, and have people dismissively hand wave it away, you'd have a serious ethical crisis on your hands. If they cared about ethics. Which they don't, beyond paying it lip service.

(Don't get me wrong, plenty of individual Democrats do, but not the party as a whole.)

Are you attempting to equate having an extra-marital affair with being a member of a "pro-dismemberment lobby"?

Hey, man, don't judge me. You can't. Morals are just evolved feelings, so all are equally valid. If I say they're the same, what - you're going to take the imaginary moral high ground and say I'm wrong? You can't. That's the really amusing thing about moral relativism. When you claim it, you lose the ability to even think about ethics in a critical fashion at all.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
It's often said that liberals can never be hypocrites because they don't actually believe in anything ethical in the first place.
It's amazing to see someone actually making that argument.

No, we do have our morals, that was my point, but we dont see it as morality to decide what goes on in other adults beds. As I tried explaining, morality is entirely man-made, it is entirely an abstract, arbitrary concept, it evolves over time, just like animals are and do. and religions are and do..

The fact that some of us acknowledges this fact, however, doesnt mean we live in a world where anything goes. If we compare it to biological evolution, for example, it is a known fact that we humans share ancestors with other apes.

If you go backwards on the human timeline and the chimp timeline paralell, the two lines will meet a few million years ago, which means that at some point in the past, our ancestors looked alot more like monkeys and other apes than we do, so, when exactly did we become "humans"? a hundred thousand years ago? two hundred thousand?

The answer is that there is no clear moment, it happened gradually, and its still happening gradually. Our local existence in this timeline allows us to name animals that live now something specific, but in reality, its all just arbitrary, there is no "fixed" human form, or shrimp form, or monkey form. The way we see life today is simply how life looks at this moment.

Yet, even as I realize this, and accept it as a fact, that there is no clear, ultimate distinction between species, I am still obviously capable of seeing the difference between a giraffe and a whale, or a human and a chimp, in the same sense a creationist could.

Morality works somewhat the same way, just like animals, it has evolved over time, and even differently in different places. And what seems to me to be perfectly obvious, say, that pigments in our skin shouldn't decide whether we are slaves or slaveholders, may seem inconceivable in some other time and place, as indeed it did. Some time in the future, people might look back at us and be unable to fathom how we could breed large, obviously somewhat intelligent animals, treat them the way we treat them and then slaugher them or exploit them for food.

Epic theological fail.

Epic explanatory fail. Care to cite chapter and verse, or are you simply wrongly crediting the bible for the very moral evolution I am talking about?

Cripes, it's almost like some of these guys spout their moral stances for the sole purpose of furthering their political agendas

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! We're discussing the realm of POLITICAL morality stances here. A person's private morality is merely coincidental to whatever political morality they assume to get elected to office.

Now - Republicans go after voting blocs. When you get right down to it, the bulk of Republicans today are NOT 'conservative' by any definition. They are reckless fiscal liberals, and (as this vid shows) they are not exactly social conservatives either. But they get elected being the opposition party to the Democrats, and so they have to stake out positions that tend to be at odds with thier actual behavior. Hence - hypocrisy.
It isn't exactly a Rpublican problem though. Liberal hypocrisy on moral issues is rampant as well. For example, they claim to be the party of patience, tolerance, and fairness. However, most of the neolibs in the Democrat party today are a literal study in anger, intolerance, and cruelty. But they sell themselves as something else come voting time.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a persons fidelity is unrelated to their job performance, then this guys screwing around should not be news.

Traditional value fail. >> ^quantumushroom:
There's a world of difference between those trying to live up to a moral code and failing, and those who never bothered to obey any moral authority outside of themselves. Liberals have little room to criticize the former.


If that statement is true, wouldn't it logically work both ways?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a persons fidelity is unrelated to their job performance, then this guys screwing around should not be news.

The reason it is 'news' is that shadenfrued is the mother's milk of modern neolibs. Most news agencies are slopping over with increasingly unprofessional neolibs who have little regard any longer about how blatantly they display their bias. Therefore, when a Republican or conservative slips up in the realm of traditional values it becomes 'news' because they can't stop themselves from pointing out the hypocrisy. They are less interested focusing on the constant hypocrisy of liberals - but there it is.

Part of this comes from mis-placed agression over Bill Clinton. The neolibs never have quite gotten over Clinton getting impreached for lying under oath. They think it was all about the sex. So their mantra is and was "it didn't effect his job performance..." because to them it was all about sex crazed neocons and not about lying under oath. So when a Republican screws up about sex they are all over it like black on a bowling ball. To them it is a key aspect of thier political identity to chew out Repubs/Conservs over such things because it mentally (but inaccurately) justifies their defense of Bill Clinton.

Wait ... I just checked. Clinton wasn't impeached.

Heh, nice try at twisting my point. However, it has nothing to do with libs, neolibs, porklibs, cons, victs, or anyother political group. This is just mudslinging, just like it was for Clinton. If even bush got strung up over a BJ (and boy did he need one), I'd defend him even if I think he is the single worst president in US history.

So the guy banged some chick. That is between him, his wife, the woman and her husband.

Wait ... I just checked. Clinton wasn't impeached

You must not have checked very well, because Bill Clinton was formally impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19 - 1998 in HR 611 with the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. As far as I can determine, Bill Clinton was never once charged by congress with having 'sex' with Monica Lewinsky. All charges and impeachement articles stemmed from his rather famous lies under oath.

Neolibs try to minimize the reality, but if George Bush was brought into a hearing and lied under oath about so much as whether he chewed his fingernails they would want him impeached and/or prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The whole Scooter Libby charges were the same exact thing. Libby lied under oath about the Plame thing & got convicted for perjury even though he had committed no crime. That's the thing about perjury. It doesn't matter what you lie about. It just matters that you lied under oath.

Unless you're a Democrat...

Epic explanatory fail. Care to cite chapter and verse, or are you simply wrongly crediting the bible for the very moral evolution I am talking about

Jesus's core social message was that of Universal Charity. It seems passe to us now (since we're both presumably living in a country that has adopted Christian values, so you don't see it, like a fish in the ocean), but was quite revolutionary for the time. The doctrine of Universal Charity resulted in people's conception of how to act toward each other over time, resulting in the establishment of many of the things secular humanists call "social justice organizations" these days, not understanding that their beliefs stem from a two thousand year old Christian tradition.

I fully expect you to not believe this, since most people have never studied history, and to base their beliefs on what they've absorbed from their culture ("of course I know that"), in your case it seems a militant and atheistic ignorance and dislike toward religion, mixed with a healthy dose of moral relativism and social darwinism.

The emancipation of slavery was the result of Universal Charity being applied to the human condition of slaves. (Do you fail to understand that absolute morality and change over time in its application are perfectly compatible, I wonder?) But it's no wonder that it took so long - slavery has a long tradition in humanity, and it's hard for people to buck the status quo - most people follow the crowd and resist change. If, for example, it became, say, trendy to mock Christianity and embrace moral relativism, then you'd see, for example, such posts making up the majority of those on, say, Videosift.

It's no coincidence that it was the 1800s equivalent of fundamentalist Christians who led the emancipation movement - it was the flowering of a realization that Universal Charity should be applied in a new way.

Ummm.. I'm not sure if you're a troll, I'm guessing not sense most trolls don't have the patience to type that much out. The idea of 'social justice' has it's roots MUCH farther back than Jesus, back to the Romans, back to the Ancient Greeks, and 'social justice' occurred in Native American culture LONG before they ever heard of Christianity.

I daresay, if you feel that way ShakaUVM (and now that I see your name, I might have to change my opinion on your troll status)perhaps it is yourself that hasn't really studied history other than what it says in the bible. There are other books you should check out.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
Hey, man, don't judge me. You can't. Morals are just evolved feelings, so all are equally valid. If I say they're the same, what - you're going to take the imaginary moral high ground and say I'm wrong? You can't. That's the really amusing thing about moral relativism. When you claim it, you lose the ability to even think about ethics in a critical fashion at all.


The funny thing is you probably believe your bullshit.

Which isn't very funny, really.

Honkeytonk, I had to look up sanctity myself to be sure there wasn't also a secular meaning for it. But, It's a purely religious term, so it should be completely unconvincing to those of us who don't believe in the biblical god.

c.1394, from OldFrench sanctité, from Latin sanctitatem (nom. sanctitas) "holiness, sacredness," from sanctus "holy" (see saint).

The question in my mind is, why do Christians still think that civil marriage in the US is sacred? Don't they know that the government has been permitting wicked heathens, cowardly agnostics, and godless atheists to marry since the founding of our nation? Not to mention the blasphemy of mixed race marriage.

Given that, it's more accurate to say that conservative Christians believe marriage AS GRANTED BY THEIR CHURCH is sacred. But no one is suggesting churches could somehow be forced to marry gays. So WTF is their problem after all?

The funny thing is you probably believe your bull....

I exactly pegged moral relativism a loooong time ago much to the chagrin of my very relativist philosophy professor. Moral relativists can be very simply described by one word... Lazy. Taking a moral position means you have to DEFEND it. That takes courage and reason. It takes no brains or spine at all to do nothing but toss stones at someone else's valuations - all the while stolidly refusing to supply an alternative.

So most moral relativists are really nothing but lazy, whiny, cowardly critics. They never tell you what they think is good because that would mean defending a position (oh nos!). It's much cheaper and easier for them to just poke holes in everyone else's work. It's the ultimate cop-out of philosophy.

>> ^quantumushroom:
There's a world of difference between those trying to live up to a moral code and failing, and those who never bothered to obey any moral authority outside of themselves.


Oh really? Looks like same shit different shovel.

Except the republican shovel has an air of piousness about it.

In short:

digit lopping: Not a personal moral choice, you are applying force to others (and breaking the law in the process). If you were cutting off your own fingers, you'd have a point. As it stands, you just come across as psychotic or internet wannabe (more wannabe ; )

better to fail to live up to a code vs not having one: Typical. Just because the code doesn't conform to your sensibilities, it doesn't exist. How about it's better to have a code that you don't force on others that you fail to live up to? If that occurs then you're just a personal hypocrite, not a public one... X D

universal charity: Lol, so when are the christians going to show their vaunted charity to the gay and lesbian folks?

pointing out democratic hypocrisy as a justification: Oldest strawman in the book. "Someone else fucked up so it's okay if he fucks up as well". Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of your partisan flag. If a person preachs one thing then does another, particularly if they use it as a political platform, they deserve to be lambasted for it. To say it's excusable for that reason is a joke.

Clinton's impeachment: He was impeached for lying. So why hasn't Bush/Cheney been impeached for 8 years of lies and other more ridiculous crimes against the US people in particular and the world in general?

Oh yeah, that's right, they're republican. Wouldn't want QM, arsepacker and the new neo-con kid on the block to have to defend the indefensible.. =)

Refusing to offer an alternative: I'll offer an alternative. If you intend to fuck someone other than your spouse, don't make a career out of criticising others for doing the same thing... =) If you think fucking around is okay, say it loud and say it proud. Should be interesting to see how a little honesty plays at the polls...

My mistake, he was indeed impeached, but not convicted. In more generic terms, he was not found guilty.

I'm sorry, this idea that hypocrisy is a horrible sin is just so much hogwash. I don't agree, at, with the Senator's point of view, but his own weaknesses should not dictate his point of view.

If you take the position that hypocrisy is unacceptable, then you basically end up with a moral code that consists only of things you would never do, regardless of right or wrong. You might cheat on your wife somewhere down the road in a moment of weakness? Ok, cheating must be made OK or otherwise you'll be a hypocrite. Have a touch of envy once in a while? Envy: OK. Every swipe a pen from the office? Thievery: OK. You see where this ends up.

No, the accusation of hypocrisy is just mud-slinging.

I will agree with one thing though: You have to take your own medicine. If you insist that someone should resign over cheating on their wife, then you should be prepared to resign if you do the same. It does not, however, mean you shouldn't be against cheating on your wife, and if all you did was speak out against it, then you should just be prepared to hang your head.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
Epic explanatory fail. Care to cite chapter and verse, or are you simply wrongly crediting the bible for the very moral evolution I am talking about
Jesus's core social message was that of Universal Charity. It seems passe to us now (since we're both presumably living in a country that has adopted Christian values, so you don't see it, like a fish in the ocean), but was quite revolutionary for the time. The doctrine of Universal Charity resulted in people's conception of how to act toward each other over time, resulting in the establishment of many of the things secular humanists call "social justice organizations" these days, not understanding that their beliefs stem from a two thousand year old Christian tradition.
I fully expect you to not believe this, since most people have never studied history, and to base their beliefs on what they've absorbed from their culture ("of course I know that"), in your case it seems a militant and atheistic ignorance and dislike toward religion, mixed with a healthy dose of moral relativism and social darwinism.
The emancipation of slavery was the result of Universal Charity being applied to the human condition of slaves. (Do you fail to understand that absolute morality and change over time in its application are perfectly compatible, I wonder?) But it's no wonder that it took so long - slavery has a long tradition in humanity, and it's hard for people to buck the status quo - most people follow the crowd and resist change. If, for example, it became, say, trendy to mock Christianity and embrace moral relativism, then you'd see, for example, such posts making up the majority of those on, say, Videosift.
It's no coincidence that it was the 1800s equivalent of fundamentalist Christians who led the emancipation movement - it was the flowering of a realization that Universal Charity should be applied in a new way.


Talk about fish in water.. You have obviously not read or understood anything about the evolution of morality. As others here have pointed out, he wasnt really a first in anything, which is fine, as he was pretty good for his time. But please dont flatter him as the inventor of "universal charity" It is bullshit, and I think you know it. Take a look a the teachings of Jainism, invented some 600 years before Jesus came along:

"Do not abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or human being"

How's that for "Universal Charity", huh? in a single "commandment" the Jains outlawed slavery, torture, killing and oppression of all humans AND animals. Now, I'm not a Jain follower either, their extreme non-violence alone is too much for me (word is that its so "bad" that some of them wear masks to avoid accidentally swallowing innocent insects) But I refer to them simply to make a point: Jesus worshippers like you are suffering from a bad case of tunnel-vision. Morality, as I pointed out, evolves and changes over time, and yes, thinkers like Jesus have influenced and driven these changes all throughout history, but this before-and-after jesus view of morality is bullshit, and we all know how slave-holders used their bibles to justify their actions, and if Jesus had said something like the above Jain-quote, we could perhaps have avoided a few hundred years of slavery, by using scripture as leverage. But the fact is, there really is no such leverage in there.

<>> ^Lolthien:
Ummm.. I'm not sure if you're a troll, I'm guessing not sense most trolls don't have the patience to type that much out. The idea of 'social justice' has it's roots MUCH farther back than Jesus, back to the Romans, back to the Ancient Greeks, and 'social justice' occurred in Native American culture LONG before they ever heard of Christianity.
I daresay, if you feel that way ShakaUVM (and now that I see your name, I might have to change my opinion on your troll status)perhaps it is yourself that hasn't really studied history other than what it says in the bible. There are other books you should check out.


You failed to understand what I wrote (which is understandable, it was long, but distilling Christian philosophy into a couple paragraphs is not easy). But your rant totally misses the mark.

Jesus' message wasn't about social justice, per se. Social justice evolved from the doctrine of Universal Charity. (His other main doctrine was loving God before all else, for those of you playing along at home.) But yes, his message was revolutionary.

Like I said, it doesn't sound that way to us now, since we've been living in a Judeo-Christian society for the past 2000ish years, but it was different from everything that came before, even Judaism.

@BicycleMan, if you can't tell the difference between Jainism and Christianity, I don't have much hope for you. My narrative about the flowering of antislavery through Christian philosophy is correct.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^ShakaUVM:
Hey, man, don't judge me. You can't. Morals are just evolved feelings, so all are equally valid. If I say they're the same, what - you're going to take the imaginary moral high ground and say I'm wrong? You can't. That's the really amusing thing about moral relativism. When you claim it, you lose the ability to even think about ethics in a critical fashion at all.

The funny thing is you probably believe your bullshit.
Which isn't very funny, really.

Another brilliant counterargument!

Bravo, sir.

@BicycleMan, if you can't tell the difference between Jainism and Christianity, I don't have much hope for you. My narrative about the flowering of antislavery through Christian philosophy is correct.


Uh, what? when did I express that I cant tell that difference? in fact, I mentioned Jainism partially to point out the difference, but also to show that the teachings of Christianity and "Christian philosophy" (theres an oxymoron to remember) is by no means the best, nor the first, nor is it exceptional in any significant respects. your narrative about the flowering of antislavery is precisely NOT correct at all. The end of slavery began with the enlightenment, which is marked by the advent of questioning Christianity and its tenets, it is of course true that both sides used the bible to argue their case, but the whole issue flowered out of the emancipation from religion and introduction of a secular, humanistic, non-tribal worldview. and non-religious laws. I am obviously not denying that most people, on both sides, were religious, but when the anti-slavery movement were led by people like Abraham Lincoln, a known religious skeptic, it is an insult to the victims of slavery to claim this was some kind of Christian movement:

It was the Declaration of Independence, rather than the Bible, that Lincoln most relied on in order to oppose any further territorial expansion of slavery. He saw the Declaration as more than a political document. To him, as well as to many abolitionists and other antislavery leaders, it was, foremost, a moral document that had forever determined valuable criteria in shaping the future of the nation Miller, William Lee (2002). Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography.

Bear in mind that I am not claiming that it was an entirely secular process, I am merely pointing out the ridiculous claim that it was a religious, and Christian, movement, when proponents of slavery frequently used their bibles to defend it.

Not totally unique, no. But not very similar to anything that came before it, even Judaism (see for example the Expounding of the Law).

There is an interplay between the absolute morality found in the Bible (certainly the Bible's writings haven't changed since it was first set down into a codex) and society is where you find your "evolution of morality", but it does not mean that all morality is flexible, and without basis. The Bible is what it is, and different cultures and times have interacted with it in different ways.

I'm writing from a history workshop right now, talking about how during the progressive era, the Social Gospel message was an interplay between Progressivism and Christianity, with the core message being, "What would Jesus do if he ran a factory? Would he exploit his workers or charge an exorbinant price?" Likewise, it's no coincidence abolitionists were devoted Christians who were interpreting the doctrine of Universal Charity to apply to the condition of slavery. My lord, man, you think it was a secular movement? Read John Brown's letters some time: http://www.familytales.org/results.php?tla=job

Or when Jesuits first entered China, they preached to them by saying that their pre-existing beliefs about the Lord of Heaven was like the idea of Jesus, so with a few changes to their beliefs, they could easily become Christians.

There is an interplay between the absolute morality found in the Bible (certainly the Bible's writings haven't changed since it was first set down into a codex) and society is where you find your "evolution of morality", but it does not mean that all morality is flexible, and without basis.

I think you have a very warped view of morality. First of all, the bible is NOT a source of "absolute morality" and not even a "basis" for morality.

The point I was trying to make, that point you completely miss, is that our morality is not a "divine gift", but that doesnt have to mean that it is completely arbitrary. You seem to be locked into the view similar to that of creationists who deny our relatedness to other primates because they think it undermines our "special place in creation" as humans. In your view, I gather, is one where there is an "absolute morality" that God has cleverly hidden among the numerous orders of genocide and the warnings of what will happen to Thought-Criminals who dare to question their leader...

I dont think morality works like that at all, I believe it is, like religion and the various gods, entirely man-made, and that it is an evolving, social, abstract construct, but that, like our relatedness to other animals, doesnt have to diminish it or undermine it. This is also the only thing that can explain how morality changes so radically over time and space. How can a view that morality is somehow based on the bible explain anything, when in fact most of the rules in the bible are now considered to be directly immoral, and the bible also omits some of the most important laws we have (such as a ban on slavery, for example)

Isnt it about 10000 times more likely that Christianity is entirely man-made, and that the "Our-book-is-REALLY-special" feeling that Christians have in common with every other religion ever invented is just good old bias? Ask any Muslim, Scientologist or Buddhist as many times as you'd like, they'll all have the same kind of answers: No, we are different from every other religion, see?

Basically, yes, there is a message you can take home from Jesus, and yes, some of those ideas, (such as the emphasis on forgiveness) are relatively rare in other religions, and sure, this is another thing that has helped shape morality over the last 2000 years, but it is by no means the only contributing factor, and No, the bible is not THE source of absolute morality, nor the foundation upon which all morality is based. such claims are ridiculous in light of what we know about history and morality