BishopRic wrote:If Glasser is referring to "standards" created by religion, then I simply disagree with him, and I can find loads of studies to support my position. Certainly, common standards of decency, criminal behavior, etc., must be corrected. My point is that when the "standards" are illogical, based on mythology rather than science (eg, gays are sinners, must be straightened out, tea are coffee are always bad, etc.), then there will be a problem because the standards are not based in reality.
So to me it comes down to who sets the standards. For you, that may be your concept of God. For me, I would choose time-tested science and logic.
Dr. Glasser tends to use the term "standards" in a generic way, rather than in the sweepingly exclusionary way you appear to. I believe that is wise on his part, not only because, as a religious man (I believe he is a practicing orthodox Jew) he is tauting his approach in the secular environment of psychiatry, but also because with most every pluralistic society, it is virtually impossible to determine the precise origins of the "common standards"--i.e. where religious standards end and so-called scientific standard begin. It is also wise because a compelling case can be made for good, as a rule, for various religious and so-called scientific standards, and it would be illogical to sweepingly dismiss either because of the exceptions among each for ill.
As for myself, I don't look at this in the either/or way that you appear to, but I find it useful to use both religion and science as compliments in formulating my personal standards--in much the same way that I try to use both my heart and my mind in doing the same.
One possible example was described in todays opinion section of the SL Tribune regarding the tragic suicide ofGayle Ruzicka's son:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7970012
A quote: "Gayle Ruzicka and her Eagle Forum activists fervently denounce moral impurities according to their standards and consider people with "immoral propensities" as evil and dirty, untouchable outcasts. Then when it hits home they hesitantly reveal, with shameful resolve, "he was a dear boy. He wasn't this hard core, mean, awful thing that you hear about when you hear about someone who took drugs. He was a kind, sweet boy and the family dearly loved him."
In other words, there seems to be a double standard in the words and behaviors of moral activists. On the one hand, they preach unconditional love. On the other, and I can assure you, people can feel this, they treat those with different beliefs and standards as wicked, second class humans. And the results are obvious.
Again, this is my experience.
I am not sure that moral activists in general can accurately be painted with that broad brush, nor am I certain that the position of the Eagle Forum was fairly conveyed in the news article. In fact, I question whether the example in question suggests a double standards rather than a softening of prejudice. But, no doubt disfavorable and extremist examples can be trotted out against certain religious standards, just as the same can be done with certain secular standards (various aspects of Marxism for example), though I am not sure what value there would be in doing so. Again, I think reason would suggest that the issue not be about "us vs. them" (religion vs science) or the origins of the standards, but rather what standards "work", and our striving collectively to implement them.
Anyway, I believe I understand what you mean by treating people of differing beliefs as second-class citizens. I suppose I could have felt that when you prejudicially characterized and dismissed the faith-based portion of my standards as "illogical", "mythology", and not based in "reality". ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-