>> ...Of course, again we can do the dance of semantics, discussing what
is the
>> appropriate definition of being "moral."
>>
>> For example, do you see divorce as an immoral act? Would you argue that
>> in general staying married is more moral than getting divorced?
>>
>> The United States leads the industralized world in divorce rate.
>> Certainly some of this has to be immoral.
>Herb Coleman wrote:
>Why does it follow that "some of this has to be immoral?"
Are you suggesting that divorce is not a moral issue? That it is okay
under any circumstances?
I was careful to say SOME OF THIS, by the way, because even "Christian
fundamentalists" know
that there are "biblically permissable" divorces, and that non-religious
people may see a higher
percentage of divorces as an amoral event. But my questions still stand.
>We also are world leaders
>in the number married (re-married) does it also follow that "some of this
has to be
>immoral?"
I don't follow this part at all. Sounds like you've raised a good
question by I missed the meaning.
I seem to be saying "Doing X (X = getting divorced) may be a moral act,
but it may also be an immoral act."
Or another way to put it is "Sometimes it is wrong to do X (get divorced),
sometimes it is not wrong to do X
(get divorced)."
So where is the logic in "Is it also wrong to NOT DO X (not get
divorced)."??
>Certainly many would argue that marriage of 13 year olds is immoral and
certainly
>that forced marriage is immoral. What about multiple marriages?
Depends on your culture. In the US most people would probably say these
things are immoral (note I said MOST people).
In other countries the acts are not necessarily immoral -- one half of the
world's countries still observe some form
of arranged marriages. We may say this is immoral, but those countries'
constituents may disagree.
How is that relevant to our discussion?
>> Now when you look at believers and nonbelievers, believers are are
>> probably as likely to get divorced -- but when you begin to look at how
devout the
>>
>> believers are, the divorce rate generally decreases with each strata.
>What is your source for this? According to a November 12, 1999 Associated
Press
>article, those in the "bible belt" had the highest divorce rate.
Do you have a specific citation? Do you know how they assessed people's
religion? It strikes me
as pretty weak to simply look at a geographic region and compare/contrast
with other regions of the country.
I don't know of anyone who would say this is good research, certainly not
if the variable of question
was religiosity. One would want to survey individual people on their
professed religiosity and marital endurance.
A common problem in research on religion STILL remains -- people are
simply asked to fill in the blank ("I'm a Methodist")
without assessing the intensity, the commitment, the level of involvement
in that religious group. This
is more laborious but will always yield superior results.
Simply saying "Hey, them bible belt people get divorced more often..."
ignores among other factors that the
bible belt probably contains a higher percentage of poor denizens than any
other region in the US. And
it is established from divorce data that income is definitely tied to
divorce, definitely one of the strongest
demographic factors.
I'm at home now, so I don't have anything to cite. I will get that to you
tomorrow. I have at least one
study off the top of my head (but let's just get some actual info),
hopefully more, that demonstrates marital endurance is strongly associated
with church attendance.
In other words, the more you go, the more you don't go. You know?
Cheers from my sunroom,
Jim Guinee
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
