News21 A Journalism Initiative of the Carnegie and Knight Foundations

Comments

Janice Castro, 2007-07-20 08:03:00 -- Flag for review

This is terrific. Entertaining while educational. Thank you for taking what could have been rendered as a dry print piece and making it so accessible.
JC

John, 2007-07-24 08:56:00 -- Flag for review

A few questions:

–What about Hinduism, Sikhism, Wiccan?
–Why only Reform Judaism, and not the growing Orthodox Judaism?
–Shouldn’t it be more explicit that this compass is dogma and that many of the faithful are independent thinkers?
–What about the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam? What Islam are you drawing your conclusions from?
–Why include smaller Christian faiths and leave out major denominations like Pentecostal, mainline Protestanism, and Greek Orthodox?
–Why are the statements so sweeping? For example, under Judaism, you said that interfaith marriage is condemned. First, is this true? (http://clickonjudaism.org/pages/FAQ_intermarried.html). Secondly, condemned (with a fire symbol) is quite a Christian concept. Many of these religions don’t believe in burning in Hell for sins.

Erin FitzGerald, 2007-07-25 12:51:00 -- Flag for review

John, thanks for your many excellent and thought-provoking comments.

The plan for the Moral Compass was to state the “official position” for nine major religions. We discussed and debated which nine those should be. We wanted Hinduism; wanted to include it very much, but it didn’t fit our parameters, that is, first, stating the official position, then indicating nuances to that position via the videos. I personally contacted several Hindu groups but they said that Hindus do not normally take positions, as a group, on these types of ethical decisions. One of the Hindu organizations I spoke to said that they are currently working with other Hindu groups to prepare those types of statements, but the “official position papers” wouldn’t be ready until well after our deadline. In short, we did what we could given these constraints.

As to Orthodox Judaism, yes, we would have liked to include it, along with so many others. But we felt that if we subdivided Judaism we’d have to subdivide all the religions, which went well beyond the parameters of the project…It’s like trying to write a short story when you have enough material for a novel…you have to stick to defined parameters or the whole thing gets out of hand.

In short, this is not a definitive work. We hope it offers a glimpse, and some understanding, but it cannot answer, (nor do we suggest that it answers) everything.

The statement you quoted from Judaism regarding Interfaith Marriage was taken from The Central Council of American Rabbis. Rabbi Jane Litman, for example, didn’t agree with that statement. Unfortunately, time and space prohibited us from including all video responses.

In our Muslim responses, we are referencing Sunni Islam. In our answer to the gay clergy question, our source references the difference between Shia and Sunni belief with regard to that issue.

As to the idea that the compass is dogma…I am the producer and director of the videos, and I had such a different experience of the people I interviewed. Yes, the words we wrote reflect an official position or “dogma” of a given religion, but if you view Amanda Phifer’s video about sexual intimacy, you’ll see that she’s an independent thinker. And if you listen to Pastor James McCray when he talks about Methodist Sexuality (both of these are in the general videos section), or if you listen to Rabbi Litman’s comments, you’ll see that these people are both independent and passionate thinkers.

Finally…as to our fiery “condemned” symbol. Your point is well taken. Of the religions on our wheel, only two of them: Buddhism and Unitarian Universalists, don’t reference “hell” or a place of eternal suffering (Methodists refer to it as ’separation from Jesus Christ’) in their literature or scriptures. If you review both the Buddhist and Unitarian Universalist positions on our moral compass, you’ll find we don’t use the word or symbol for “condemned” with either of them. That said, the flames are shorthand for a certain type of religious condemnation.

We made an effort to make our process transparent and continue to do so. The dialogue you’ve initiated here contributes to that. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues; thanks for your comments. Please leave any links you think might better illustrate the subtleties of religious practice and belief. We count on you to enrich the discussion.

-Erin FitzGerald

John, 2007-07-25 13:44:00 -- Flag for review

Erin,

Many thanks for your responses. Your answers certainly enlighten a project that obviously had a lot of time and effort put into it. It was mainly clarifications I was searching, and you’ve certainly helped clarify. What the “Moral Compass” does, and why I think it is a great tool, is that it starts a dialogue. Not only in this comment field, but with the several users I’ve shown it to. I think comments for this project are a great format for some questions that may go unanswered. And hopefully adherents to these faiths will speak up and comment on whether they agree or not with their religion’s stance. Keep up the good work.

Khin Mai Aung, 2007-07-27 11:02:00 -- Flag for review

I think the wheel is a great concept and a refreshing idea. However, I feel that Eastern religions were given very cursory and somewhat tokenizing treatment while Western religions were explored more richly. In addition to the glaring omission of Hinduism (though I sympathize with the challenge you describe in response to John’s comment), Buddhism is inaccurately painted with a broad brush that is weighted heavily toward Westernized Buddhism (which accounts for a small percent of all Buddhists) and ignores differences between different sects. Not to mention, the citations are rather flimsy for a journalism site (about.com is hardly an authority on Buddhism). And if there was a concern about subdividing religions, why did you subdivide Christianity 4 ways (or 6 ways if you include Mormonism and Unitarianism). Christianity and Christian influenced religons take up 6 out of 9 wheel segments! Catholic, Episcopal, Baptist, and Methodist traditions have more in common than various sects of Buddhism, and yet you did subdivide those religions. If it is logistically too difficult to be inclusive due to lack of information or firm positions, you should not try. It would have been more prefessional and less tokenizing for you to simply frame it as a Moral Compass of Western religions or Christianity-influenced religions.

Jody+, 2007-07-31 19:36:00 -- Flag for review

This is an interesting and informative web site. However, as an Episcopal Priest, I think it is important to point out that the response as to homosexual relationships are blessed by the entire Episcopal Church, thereby making it an official position is incorrect. At the most it should be listed as “varied” or “discerning,” since the item you refer to as indicating official blessing was merely a resolution indicating that some Episcopalians are exploring this as a legitimate position and we are not sufficiently of one mind to condemn them. That is hardly a unified and official position, and I would hazard a guess that while the majority of the Episcopal Church voted not to reject such practices at General convention, a majority of Bishops have not approved such rites, nor would they encourage priests in their dioceses to use them. A little more clarity about our confusion would be appreciated :-p

Jody+, 2007-07-31 19:44:00 -- Flag for review

Ditto for several other answers… perhaps you need an Episcopalian “fuzzy” label. Most dioceses would require that homosexuals be celibate in order to be ordained, there are several dioceses of the Episcopal Church that will not ordain women. I understand why some statements must be sweeping when you will find individuals in any faith group that disagree with official teaching, but when official teaching is clearly unclear and/or conflicted while in the process of change you should probably have a way to indicate that for honesty’s sake.

taryn quaker, 2007-08-01 09:52:55 -- Flag for review

Hi There,
I really like the design and humor of the piece, but I was wondering why you chose to include so many branches of Christianity and a very narrow representation of other religions. For example, do Sunnis and Shia Muslims feel the same on all topics? What about Hindus, Bahai's, Zoroastrianism and other branches of Judaism? It seems like a very Christian-focused piece. But cool presentation.
TQ

Don Lattin, Managing Editor, News 21, 2007-08-01 11:04:37 -- Flag for review

Taryn --

Thanks for your comments. We would have like to include more religions, but there was limited space, and for some faiths, like Hindus, it's very hard to find authoritative teachings to which they all agree. That was also a problem with Buddhism, but we did the best we could with that one. We included various Christian demoninations to show the differences within the religion, and because the vast majority of U.S. citizens identify as Christian.

eye-of-horus, 2007-08-02 09:22:00 -- Flag for review

*** What’s the (Western) God got to do with it? ***

The only gods worth a damn operate “beyond good and evil” (to use Nietzsche’s sparkling phrase). That is, moral categories *do not* apply to them.

The Powers act as they will. Their actions are subject to no constraint. The gods of Job and Oedipus for example must be acknowledged and worshiped whatever they do.

Morality *does not* grow out of religions with such divine Immoralists. The truth of a wide separation of morality from religion receives a masterful summary by the eminent classicist, E. R. Dodds:

“I need hardly say [sic!] that religion and morals were not initially interdependent, in Greece or elsewhere; they had their separate roots. I suppose that broadly speaking, religion grows out of man’s relationship to his total environment, morals out of his relation to his fellow men.” [The greeks and the irrational. UCal. 1951. 31]

Ironically a good Father god arises from hatred. From the all-too-human psychologically protective act of projection. Just as the ‘other’ is evil and guilt incarnate, the “god with us” is spotless and acts for our good. Here originates the holy one of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, brothers all.

Each defined by negating the Other, the sons of Darkness who dwell outside the Light. Each a metaphysical and ethical dualism. Each a morally rigoristic religion of wish fulfillment, self-deception and resentment. Secularism corrupts. Tolerance capitulates to evil. Only the pure ones prevail.

Sophocles, Euripides and the author of Job among the Ancients and Darwin, Nietzsche and Freud among the Moderns understood that existence cares not one iota for humanity’s well-being or being comforted.

The foundation of our legal well-being and right action is the Constitution — in which the word ‘God’ does not appear. “We the people” give rights and duties to each other, that is, to ourselves as the sovereign body.

Additionally, Amendment 1 protects what used to be called “freedom of conscience.” Initially the right of every man (not slave, not female, not propertyless) to freely choose how to conduct his religious life. “Freedom of conscience” provides cover for the atheist, agnostic, deist, and an overwhelming population of the blessedly indifferent.

What’s God got to do with ethics and law? Nothing. To claim otherwise is to be at once intellectually dishonest and morally blind. George W. Bush’s tyranny begins here.

eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007

Rev, Jim Burklo, Sausalito Presbyterian Church, 2007-08-02 10:47:54 -- Flag for review

Cool idea! - the moral roulette wheel - it's clever and thought-provoking. Unfortunately, it's wildly inaccurate.

It's simplistic in a misleading way. First of all, the divisions on the wheel are arbitrary and leave out vast swathes of the religious landscape, and also the divisions suggest that the religions are somehow equivalent in relevance or scale or influence. For example, there are probably more Methodists who strongly disagree with their national church's position on abortion than the total membership of the Unitarian denomination. The moral teachings are misleadingly simplistic because on very many subjects there are multiple teachings from one given sect, or no teachings to speak of at all.

Religion is particularly ill-suited to reduction to trivia-game factoids, it seems to me!

Don Lattin, Managing Editor, News 21, 2007-08-02 10:53:17 -- Flag for review

Jim --

Most of the positions on the Moral Compass are the OFFICIAL teaching of the various churches. We are not saying that all the members (or even a majority of the members) agree with church leaders. We tried to reflect this in the videos, where people talk more about the shades of grey in all of this. In fact, we included video clips of a Methodist pastor who says she DISAGREES with many of the church teachings on gay issues.

Mike, 2007-08-02 14:45:37 -- Flag for review

While this is interesting, the answers, at least for Judaism, are not entirely accurate. The Central Conference of American Rabbis does not speak for all Jews, nor does it have any real authority over what is the "Jewish" opinion on something. Judaism has a long and proud tradition of debate about its tenets and so a quick answer on a contentious issue is likely to misrepresent the opinion of a good number of the faithful. For example, not only did my temple condone the marriage of homosexuals, for a time we had lesbians as our religious school principal and our interim Rabbi. I would suggest adding an icon to denote that there is debate on the issue.

Michael, 2007-08-02 14:54:00 -- Flag for review

This is superb! Great job.

Don Lattin, Managing Editor, News 21, 2007-08-02 15:13:33 -- Flag for review

Mike -

Thanks for the feedback. We are only saying that the Reform movement rabbis have this position -- not all Jews. Check out the video clips of Rabbi Jane Litman, who offers a different voice. If we had the space and time, there would be other views from Orthodox, Conservative, or Jewish
Renewel rabbis. Some are with specific questions. Others are found via the "Video" button on the lower right side of the graphic.

tarunkrsnadas, 2007-08-02 17:08:29 -- Flag for review

Inaccurate, incomplete, insane, who cares? What you have done here, despite it's inadequacies, is a work of service to the Lord God, according to the resources available to you at the time.
Great use of Flash too.
Keep up the good work and keep serving God, whatever you may call Him, according to your abilities, and to hell (literally) with those who criticize.
Love
Tarun

Rev. Chuck Smoot, 2007-08-02 20:40:50 -- Flag for review

When speaking in reference to Judaism, you said something that "But we felt that if we subdivided Judaism we’d have to subdivide all the religions, which went well beyond the parameters of the project." Yet, you used 5 different Christian denominations, which appears to be a subdivision to me. And granted, there are a great many Christian denominations, I too would have liked to see representation from other Jewish and Muslim branches. While this project is truly interesting, as someone else referenced, it is also misleading, although I suppose if you made the distinction that you were using "official" positions, perhaps viewers would understand a little better.

Overall, a nice start, I just think a little more diversity could make this a better project.

Edward Mokurai Cherlin, 2007-08-02 23:31:36 -- Flag for review

In Soto Zen Buddhism, we recite every morning, "Separated do the sects become by setting up of doctrines, practices, and these become the standards that we know of all religious conduct." It is the official position of our church that official positions are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The Buddha said, "Whatever conduces to cessation of suffering is my teaching." You can't reduce that to a formula.

Buddhism insists that the supposed self of a person is not a thing. How much less is a church a thing! It is not by satisfying our desire for certainty that we reach happiness, but by abandoning our attachement to such desires. The world is an adequate place to become enlightened in, without pretending to understand it.

Official Buddhism does exist. Theravada, Tibetan, Pure Land, Vinaya, Tendai, Nichiren, and Zen are major strands of Buddhism, in each of which you can get almost any opinion flatly contradicted. There are even Fundamentalist Buddhists waging war on unbelievers.

It is possible to find self-proclaimed authorities in any religion, and to find lots of people who swear by one or another of them. That doesn't make them official. Even the claim of the Catholics that God appointed the Popes doesn't succeed in making them official anywhere but in their own minds. There is no such thing as official religion, and we would all be much better off if we admitted it.

There are many in other religions who agree with much of this, including many Hindus, Sikhs, Sufis, and Daoists. The book of Proverbs says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou too become like him." There are no inherently right answers.

There are even Christians who do not believe that belief is the essence of Christianity. In comparison with charity, for example. "Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

It is not necessary to believe in God to be religious. It is necessary to love God. Many atheists do, not knowing that what they love is God. The God that the hypocrites profess and the atheists deny actually does not exist.

What do you think?

Don Lattin, Managing Editor, News 21, 2007-08-03 09:14:08 -- Flag for review

Edward -- I personally think you are spot on with your comments. Buddhism was the weakest link in this chain of doctrine because of the different way Buddhists see the teachings of their faith. I actually suggested we not include it and just stick to Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, but others on our team thought we needed to show more "diversity." We tried to go beyond the "blessed/condemned" rubric with the various quotations and the video clips revealing more personal reflections on these questions. We also tried to include a little humor, such as in the answer to the Buddhist masurbation questions. Some people are afraid the answer may be "offensive" to Buddhists. Any comments from any Buddhists out there?

eye-of-horus, 2007-08-03 10:40:57 -- Flag for review

** The wheel of Logic **

Well, it's not karma. But, circular reasoning is fun to see when practiced in the raw, naively.

Now, the true believer above wants to say that it is impossible not to believe in some-god-or-other. That is, atheism is not possible.

Sorta sounds like homeopathic Tillich, tincture of ultimate concern. (Take a little pinch of Ground of Being, dilute a million times with holy water. Swallow. Think godly thoughts.)

Anyway, as a published example, Time magazine back in Oct 2004 presented a laughable mutiple-choice Quiz on one's status in "spirituality."

The Quiz unconsciously skewered the circular sophistry of religious ideology worldwide. If you scored only 1-5 points (like I did) you were a skeptic lacking potential for spiritual insight. Clever stuff.

Being thus condemned to an unenlightened state, I and the entire race of skeptics can not undermine beliefs which require spiritual insight to believe! Delicious. Pause to savour.

This is the classic logical failure of an "immunizing strategy." It begs the question -- just what is this 'spirituality' ? You can't respond by saying only those who are with me can appreciate what I have to say.

Sorry, but religionists who use this form of argument simply presuppose what they set out to prove.

eye-of-horus


** Hi, Don. I'm still a fan from the Chron days. **

C'mon Don, if you limit yourself to a wheel of beliefs only, you miss out on hearing from at least 10% of the U.S. population which holds that religion as a metaphysical or theological concern is a pointless exercise. ("Theology is a subject without an object.")

And, the U.S. by standards of Europe and other anglophone countries is extremely conservative. (No surprise there.) Percentages of disbelievers are higher elsewhere.

We should all be able to agree, however, that religious history, sociology, psychology are matters of contemporary concern since they influence politico-social events.

I'm very fond of religion. What it means to be human without it has been an ever-widening experiment, first in Antiquity, then underground in the Great 1000 years of Hypocrisy in the West, and with accelerating speed since 1800.

Doing fine without faith, Don, your site can't be complete without it. It's older than Xianity by at least 300 years with Epicurus and probably 500 if Democritus gets a pass. Really, it's a pity that Jesus didn't get a thorough education in philosophy.

eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007

Dru Brooke-Taylor, 2007-08-04 02:04:28 -- Flag for review

This is an intriguing site. I'm in England and found it following a reference from a web newspaper column here. It's also interesting that the formal positions taken by the same groups here would almost certainly not be identical to their equivalents in California.

However, I've two quibbles.

First of all, Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist and Methodist are all parts of the same religion.

Second, it's a pity the moral questions are all and only about sex. This gives the impression that a person's moral compass is just a matter of who he or she regards it as permissible or impermissible to exchange bodily fluids with. So ones views on the environment, when it is OK to kill people for political reasons, whether there are limits on revenge, whether it is good or bad to carry arms, whether it's OK to fiddle ones taxes if one isn't likely to be found out, and whether one should do down a work colleague to get promoted, these are all things outside the moral compass.

Erin FitzGerald, Video Producer, Moral Compass Project, 2007-08-04 09:51:43 -- Flag for review

Hi Dru. Thanks for your comment.
I would be very interested in what the official positions are on these topics and how they differ in England. Actually, that's a great story idea...the difference between the same religions here and in England or other countries.

You bring up some great ideas. I'd love to work on a moral compass that addresses the larger moral issues of our time with reference to religious belief. Our specific task here at UC Berkeley was to address religion and private life, so we looked at moral questions that effect private decisions, not the more public ones.

Great to hear from you across the Atlantic. Can you please tell us what web column references us and sent you here? Thanks!

Erin

Faloo Faloo, 2007-08-04 19:15:12 -- Flag for review

I agree.

Morality *does not* grow out of man's relationship to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. How much less a great tool is that it is impossible not to believe in some-god-or-other.

Now, the true believer above wants to say that it starts a dialogue. Being thus condemned to an unenlightened state, I and the atheists deny anything that actually does not appear. Many atheists do, not knowing that what they set out to prove.

It begs the question -- just what is this true? Really, it's a pity the moral questions that may go unanswered. The truth of a good Father god arises from hatred.

When official teaching is clearly unclear and/or conflicted while in the Great 1000 years of Hypocrisy in the videos, where are the people who talk more about the differences?

J, 2007-08-05 02:24:23 -- Flag for review

Do we really still need a religion to define our sense of morailty? I'm not even sure the word "morailty" is relevant to many of the above questions. How many people lie awake at night worrying about the moral dilema: "to masterbate, or not to masterbate?"

Shan Morgain, 2007-08-05 17:56:13 -- Flag for review

Nice idea. But why so selective? It's almost entirely monotheist religions.
Where is Hinduism? Western Paganism?
These are both substantial religious communities equally as important to today's morality as several of those which are included.

Brian Aldrich, 2007-08-06 02:28:42 -- Flag for review

I want to tell you how impressed I am with this flash "moral compass," particularly because you included more than one protestant denomination. Excellent work. Best, Brian Aldrich http://www.abstractconcept.org

Jim Patterson, 2007-08-06 06:22:25 -- Flag for review

It would appear that the Buddhist answer to "What is your teaching on families using a surrogate to carry a child?" is actual the answer to a question on interfaith marriage.

Robert, 2007-08-07 19:57:15 -- Flag for review

Interesting. But as can be seen from the comments, the reliability of the answers is in doubt. Also observed is that only one or two of the religions presented are not wishy-washy in their answers to some important questions. I believe something was said about those who have lukewarm responses, Rev 3:16.

Kris Thomas, 2007-08-07 20:20:10 -- Flag for review

(Note: I first tried to send this to you through the 'Contact Us' link on this website. It did not accept my sending. So I am posting it here. Feel free to remove my message from the page if you feel it is needed.)

Dear Ma'am or Sirs:

Two things: first the Cross and Flame symbol is of the UNITED methodist church; there is a significant difference from just Methodist. Second: what year of the discipline did you use? 'Cause the answers given on this site are not all current (as far as I know) with the current Conference opinions. For example, last I heard, a homosexual could be a minister so long as s/he was celibate. Admittedly, policy changes from year to year, which is why I asked what year of the Discipline you used. I have been involved with the UMC for some time now in a variety of laity positions. It has been my understanding that the position has been, in general to "love them all and let God sort them out." Now, if the most recent Book of Discipline has something else to say, I apologize for being snippy. However, if that is the case, I would have to wonder why one of our local UM churches has such an active gay ministry that has nothing to do with 'converting' anyone's sexuality. Once again, I apologize for any offense I am causing; I'm just trying to set the record straight. Thank you for your time.

Kris Thomas

Anonymous, 2007-08-07 23:32:40 -- Flag for review

Thank you for accurately portraying Roman Catholic doctrine. It is so often misrepresented or "spun" in a way that allows the journalist to grind the proverbial axe. I cannot speak to other religions, but if the information is as of the same quality reflected in the Roman Catholic section, this is quite valuable.

Nick, 2007-08-08 00:00:14 -- Flag for review

I would encourage you to investigate further the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church, and see what it means to be truly Catholic. While the Church may officially offer guidance on many of the issues discussed here, only the questions about clergy are Church Law, and in fact the Catholic Church almost always yields to the personal relationship between the individual and God to determine the morality of any specific situation, thusly you have many divorced, gay, and masturbating Catholics that do not need to fear excommunication. I can't speak for the authenticity of the other claims made here, but it is an excellent idea and a well designed site.

Don Lattin, Managing Editor, News 21, 2007-08-08 10:34:35 -- Flag for review

Dear Kris Thomas -- Thanks for writing. The positions taken only apply to the United Methodist Church, which is by far the largest Methodist denomination in the U.S. We understand that positions can change year to year, but we have tried to list the most recent authoritative United Methodist statement on the issue. If there has been a SIGNIFICANT change in any of these positions, please let us know. We included the video clip from the dissident United Methodist contregation to show that not all local churches (or even a majority of local churches) agree with the national stand. And, yes, the church does allow CELIBATE homosexuals to serve as ministers, but we are refering to "self-avowed, PRACTICING" homosexuals in this reference.

dino134, 2007-08-08 20:38:07 -- Flag for review

superb...but we need to be cautious...but great job done!

A User, 2007-08-09 04:23:53 -- Flag for review

Not all Christians are Catholic if you hadn't noticed.

Martie Dawn, 2007-08-11 21:32:46 -- Flag for review

The part on buddhism re: homosexuality is wrong. HH the Dalai Lama updated his position on homosexuality AFTER speaking to homosexual Buddhist and affirmed that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Furthermore, not all Buddhists follow HH Dalai Lama, he is the leader of 1 of 4 types of Tibetan Buddhism, not all different forms. Saying he is the spokesperson for Buddhism is like saying that the Pope is the spokesperson for all Christianity and not just one of many denominations.

Martie Dawn, 2007-08-11 21:34:14 -- Flag for review

I see you changed your position on homosexuality since the last time I looked and had a chance to post. Sorry about the previous post. Good job on the compass.

ammar, 2007-08-13 03:15:27 -- Flag for review

thank you

Shaun, 2007-08-13 06:11:42 -- Flag for review

HAHAHA!!

Well as I thought... Catholics condemn EVERYTHING !!

liz, 2007-08-14 08:37:51 -- Flag for review

This is an amazing piece. All the problems that people have posted with it are useless. This project at this point 'is what is' and you all did a great thing. All these arrogant people look it over and fault you for not being able to present the project THEY want to see. Yes, you didn't include all religious sects; yes, each member of these sects may have differing views than that expressed here; yes, people refuse to read the comments and responses above this box before they rush to have their own voice heard complaining about the same things already discussed. And people typically only feel strongly about any perceived inaccuracies and omissions based on their personal faith or beliefs. It is as fascinating to me to read the responses as the wheel itself. We have NO intellectual or spiritual humility!

Jeff Zimmerman, 2007-08-20 21:55:47 -- Flag for review

Re: Catholics and homosexual clergy...

The wheel is imprecise. The Vatican document stipulates that prospective seminarians with a strong same-sex attraction need to have demonstrated a chaste lifestyle for a minimum of three years prior to being permitted to enter the seminary.

eye-of-horus, 2007-08-21 10:51:45 -- Flag for review

** It's all insubordination, FF **

Only a zany like you deigns to respond. Oh well. Better a fool for the X-man than a thousand "insubordinate" theologians,philosophers of religion, priests, and believers. Or, to quote one of your own:

"They would have us believe that objections against Christianity come from doubt This is always a misunderstanding. Objections against Christianity come from insubordination, unwillingness to obey, rebellion against all authority. Therefore, they have been beating the air against the objectors, because they have fought intellectually with doubt, instead of fighting ethically with rebellion...So it is not properly doubt but insubordination" Soren Kierkegaard.(Lowrie 122).

K. is absolutely right. Insubordination, not reason, is the only way to kill a non-existent divinity. Any androcentric, paternalistic set of gods deserves to die. The "Father" is dead, ditto "the Judge."

Can the personhood of the middle-eastern "God" survive its emasculation? No, I think that the Lords of Dualism will bleed to death when shorn of their masculine members Like Saturn of old, Yahweh, God and Allah can achieve one good end. Their sacrifice will loose Aphrodite to be wafted ashore on the blood-flecked spume.

What does religion have to do with morals? Nothing. The Big3 monotheisms are nihilism incarnate.

eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007

CatholicCourage.com, 2007-08-21 12:31:55 -- Flag for review

Thank you for tackling such a difficult project.

As a Catholic, I recognize that unlike many of the other groups listed, Catholicism is also a society (as is Mormonism and possibly Judaism and each Islam sect). As such, Catholicism acknowledges the need to provide proper rules for the individual to succeed in the goals of the society - namely to please God and enjoy God forever. While the other groups may have this as a goal they don't do so as a society, but more so as a clustering of like-minded individuals.

Sex is in the forefront of popular thought and morality for the same reason: It's core to our humanity and powerful in its affect.

Nick seems to think the Catholic Church leaves morality up to the individual. While culpability may be individual attributed, the act is either moral or immoral based on three criteria: The object chosen, the end in view or the intention and the circumstances of the action. ALL THREE must be met in order fr an act to be moral. This compass seems to address the first of these criteria from each perspective. For more information go to: http://www.vatican.net/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Thanks for the entertaining and helpful tool.

David, 2007-08-30 13:15:39 -- Flag for review

Great Job! I really enjoyed the wheel.

One thing that I found interesting was that every question was either condemned or discouraged by the Catholic responses.

Ignatius, 2007-08-30 18:21:20 -- Flag for review

Wonderful too! I find it quite interesting to compare and contrast beliefs and this wheel is a nifty way to do just that.

It is important to note, however, that the Catholic position on many (all?) of these issues goes much deeper than the popes saying yes or no to these questions. For a good many of these issues of sexual immorality (many of which "afflicted" St. Augustine of Hippo) there is a long history of the Church thinking through and struggling with them. No one is perfect, even the Popes (infallibility versus impeccability), and the Church has had to wade through these issues to bring about an official doctrine to steer the faithful in the right direction.

What I'm saying is that the Catholic position on these issues is not a knee-jerk reaction, but rather the organic development of 2000 years of thought and prayer.

Pax vobiscum!

D. Thomas, 2007-09-08 05:51:37 -- Flag for review

I would really have liked to seen some questions regarding how the religon handles discipline among its members, how they are about imposing their beliefs on others, and what are the beliefs about not contributing to the community for things like police, libraries, and schools? These are some of the things that would tell me how true their moral compass is.

Corey Mondello, 2007-10-29 04:03:37 -- Flag for review

I do not see any mention of Hinduism.

Sandra Bouman, 2007-11-04 09:39:01 -- Flag for review

Think real deep...further than beyond deep...and ask one question...Where Did God Come From?

Sandra Bouman, 2007-11-04 09:42:34 -- Flag for review

The answer to WHO is God is easier: God is not a what, who, where, when or how...Our Conscience is Our God. Our moral compass comes from our within oursevles and is our conscience.

Nicole, 2008-02-03 04:27:30 -- Flag for review

From what I believe, Mormons highly discourage inter-faith marriage, saying to marry those "who share the same standards". Mormons believe that to obtain the highest level of Heaven-- the Celestial Kingdom-- you absolutely must be married in the Mormon Temple. And only qualified Mormons may enter and be married in the temple.

Those who do not marry in the temple, but had ample oppurtunity to, may not acheive exaltation or reach the Celestial Kingdom. Again, based on my knowledge those who are Mormon, but marry outside the faith can not be married in the temple, thus they can not enter the Celestial Kingdom.

Erin FitzGerald, 2008-02-03 09:32:20 -- Flag for review

Thanks for your input on your beliefs, values and understanding of the Mormon religion. This is one of the goals of this project...to better understand the role of faith in private life. Based on your comment, I'd like to know more. For example, what is a "qualified" Mormon?
Can a person from outside the faith become a qualified Mormon? How do they do that? Are there teachings, proofs, etc? Would someone from outside the faith who wanted to marry a Mormon need to go through some process to convert. Is there such a process? Thanks for letting us know.
Erin

Pat, 2008-02-12 09:21:57 -- Flag for review

In deliberating over the goodness of religion, or debating the sects and major religions, precious few appear to transcend those ideals to a time when the religions did not exist, and put themselves in the shoes of that prophet - presumably attributable to why converts were gained in the first place.

It may well be viewed as the heights of entrepreneurship, the making of a religion - whether that prophet was Jesus, Joseph Smith, Muhammed, or Jim Jones.

Regardless of all of the ritual and rules created, the reality appears to be that all such prophets have used mankind's uncertainty about his creation to make the converts that through time carry the torch of their beliefs. That it seems to be only men is unique in that women apparently haven't the need, or inclination to do this even if they could. But they appear to have been well used by their prophets to do much of the coordination work of acquiring status for the "organized" religions. That it may appear like "organized" politics should be of some basic recognition. Identity worship seems to be the case regardless. And both profits, power and incidental benefits appear to be the outcome.

There must also be the recognition that if one system works, two must be better - and so, the idea to use both politics and religion together must have been idyllic to former societies. Adding coercion in the name of religious principles must have given a greater measure of confidence and justification to such a plan.

Bare bones, however, it does appear that all is rooted in organizational entrepreneurship for specific, not general purpose.

Nicole, 2008-02-26 18:42:42 -- Flag for review

Hello Erin. Sorry for the late response. I did not know that my comment would be responded to or taken into consideration.

To briefly answer your questions, a "qualified" Mormon is one who holds a current Temple Recommend. You must answer a series of questions affirming your belief in the doctrines of the Church and prove that you are living a worthy Mormon life.

A person outside the faith may become a qualified Mormon. You do this by meeting with LDS missionaries and taking a series of lessons about basic doctrine of the Church. When the missionaries feel that you are ready, they will ask you to be baptized. You must get interviewed to prove that, again, you are worthy enough to join the Church by affirming belief in doctrine. You are then baptized by immersion. After a year of membership, you are able to qualify for a Temple Recommend. As a side note, Mormons 12+ (and recent converts) may apply for a "limited-use recommend" where you perform baptisms for the dead. Those 18+ (and those that are converts for at least one year) apply for a two-year recommend, where not only you perform baptisms but other sacred ordinances as well, including Celestial Marriage and Endowments.

So there is a process. Those wanting to marry a Mormon in the Temple would have to convert, wait a year, prove that they are worthy of a recommend, and may get married in the Temple for time and all eternity.

Again, only those married in the Temple may enter the highest level of Heaven which is the Celestial Kingdom. To reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom you must be married in the Temple. There are three levels of Heaven in Mormon doctrine: Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial. Celestial being the highest kingdom. And within the Celestial Kingdom there are three other levels. To reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom(called exaltation) you must be married in the Temple.

Those Mormons married outside the temple cannot reach the highest level, but may qualify for the bottom two levels in the Celestial Kingdom or the other two degrees of Heaven.

I know it's a bit confusing, but I hope it helps.

Also, this page from authorized LDS material clarifies things: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c2c97befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0

Small Blue Thing, 2008-03-12 03:59:29 -- Flag for review

Hi there,

I've found a mistake _maybe a misconception in the Muslim area.

Premarital sex is MORALLY condemned by the Holy Quran, and the Sunnah doesn't express any specific punishment.

Extramarital sex is LEGALLY punished by 100 lashes, NOT DEATH _except wahabbi sect, who actually condenms everybody to death...

Nevertheless, you do need those 4 witnesses having watched the coitus. Even then, if the woman swears by God she's inocent, the punishment disappears, although she has to compensate her husband in some way. Extramarital flirting is morally condenmed but not punished.

Islam, as Christianiy, is a complex universe with more than 10 tendences and schools, really different from one another. What I have written here is a little too general, only based in the Quran and Prophet Muhammad's life facts, called the Sunnah or Hadiths (teachings).

Great site!

Errol, 2008-06-08 21:21:36 -- Flag for review

Very simplistic understanding of Buddhism. There are three main divisions and many subdivisions. The answers will vary greatly on some questions. The same can be said about Judaism. If you are going to have a site of this nature all the major religions should be handled in an equal fashion.

Adrian Bishop, 2008-07-09 15:17:32 -- Flag for review

Have a look at the Centre for Defined Ethics at www.themoralcompass.co.uk

Regards,

Adrian Bishop
Principal
Centre for Defined Ethics
Plymouth
England