Is it unfair or unreasonable to hold actions of the past to the morality standards of today?

20 - 30 yrs ago, we had the same ideas about morality. So no, it's not unfair to hold them to the standards we have today because there isn't that much of a difference in our standards. If we're talking about holding people today liable for the actions of a group that they aren't even a part of, then I'd say that's being unreasonable (like how some blame all Christians for the actions of those during the Inquisitions).

IF this is in reference to your other question about how a certain group was forcing women to give up their babies... then it is not unreasonable to judge them for those actions. We would judge a group of people that did that if it were 400 yrs ago. There are certain standards which seem universal... and tricking a woman to give up her child so that another family can have one happens to be one of those instances.

Please don't tell me people are actually trying to excuse that sort of behavior :O

If holding institutions accountable for deliberate harm in the past is "off-limits" then what use is the rule of law if it's only applies to non-religious institution affiliated individuals or non-conservative political entities......

Typically the rule of law only applies to anyone who demands that authorities be held accountable for breaking the same laws that they insist that we must obey or be punished, however following the same rule of law apparently doesn't apply to those who enforce the rule of law as history clearly illustrates.

The main problem inherent to allowing a large institution to deny or admit guilt for committing human atrocities, is that it essentially locks in the first step of erasing an association in the minds of a large segment of society, once an issue is settled or has run it's course, people forget and move on to more pressing concerns within their own lives.

This is clearly why the un-arrested murderer of Trayvon Martin needs to be held accountable, but I doubt very few people will sustain any concentrated effort to illuminate the entrenched injustice inherent to a white dominated plantation mentality like Sanford, FL.

For as soon as the indifferent wheels of Sanford justice have moved as far as they're likely to turn, the vast majority of black people will still be dominated by a minority population of white politicians/and incompetent white dominated police force, just like in South Africa under Apartheid.

Unless a serious debate is initiated and maintained, the white status quo, much like the catholic church, will just wait until the outrage over a clearly shielded murderer or the pedophile victim settlements run their course, then it's back to "business as usual" for both entrenched institutions of white dominated power.

<<Is it unfair <snip> standards of today?>>

Yes, of course it is.

<<Esp. when it <snip> and/or governments?>>

When it comes to ANYTHING.

<<For example, people who are LGBT used to be locked up in institutions, drugged, shocked and lobotomized. The catholic church used to drug young single mothers and steal their babies.>>

It did NOT! That did not happen!

<<Both of these <snip> of their time?>>

It's not about giving a free pass. It's about YOU not being ARROGANT and judging others according to standards that did not exist at the time.

<<ADD Actually, Daver <snip> history: learn it.>>

Sources? SOURCES? You did not attribute your claim to ANY legit SOURCES!

That's the problem with morality. It is a product of the times and the understanding the people of that time had. The best thing is to understand and learn from the past. We can look back and judge but it won't do us any good. Just like it won't do people in the future any good when they look back and judge us.

Well, yes and no...

There's nothing we can do about past "atrocities" now, they've already happened.

However, denying they ever occurred, or trying to *entirely* excuse them based on "the times," means we don't learn anything from past mistakes that could help us to not repeat them.

Open and honest airing of past abuses, and an attempt to learn something from them, is the rational thing to do.

Peace.

They don't get a pass. Not from me.

I've just read in the Netherlands, the Catholic church castrated male rape victims of priests who told.

God’s very name, Jehovah, means “He Causes to Become.” This implies that Jehovah causes himself to become the Fulfiller of all his promises. When Moses asked God his name, Jehovah elaborated on its meaning in this way: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” (Exodus 3:14) Rotherham’s translation puts it this way: “I Will Become whatsoever I please.”

So Jehovah chooses to become, or proves to be, whatever is needed to fulfill his righteous purposes and promises. An evidence of this is the fact that he bears a wide array of titles and descriptive terms: Jehovah of armies, Judge, Sovereign, Jealous, Sovereign Lord, Creator, Father, Grand Instructor, Shepherd, Hearer of prayer, Repurchaser, happy God, and many others. He has chosen to become all of these—and much more—in order to carry out his loving purposes.—Exodus 34:14; Judges 11:27; Psalm 23:1; 65:2; 73:28; 89:26; Isaiah 8:13; 30:20; 40:28; 41:14; 1 Timothy 1:11.

Does this mean, then, that God’s personality or standards change? No. Regarding God, James 1:17 says: “With him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow.” How could God meet the challenge of varying circumstances while remaining unchanging himself?

The example of caring parents who shift roles for the sake of their children illustrates how this is possible. In the course of a single day, a parent may be a cook, a housekeeper, an electrician, a nurse, a friend, a counselor, a teacher, a disciplinarian, and much more. The parent does not change personality when assuming these roles; he or she simply adapts to needs as they arise. The same is true of Jehovah but on a far grander scale. There is no limit to what he can cause himself to become in order to fulfill his purpose and to benefit his creatures.—Romans 11:33.

For example, Jehovah is revealed as a God of love and mercy in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures. The prophet Micah of the eighth century B.C.E. asked about Jehovah: “Who is a God like you, one pardoning error and passing over transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? He will certainly not hold onto his anger forever, for he is delighting in loving-kindness.” (Micah 7:18) Similarly, the apostle John wrote the famous words: “God is love.”—1 John 4:8.

On the other hand, in both parts of the Bible, Jehovah is presented as the righteous Judge of those who repeatedly, grossly, and unrepentantly violate his laws and harm others. “All the wicked ones [Jehovah] will annihilate,” said the psalmist. (Psalm 145:20) In a similar vein, John 3:36 states: “He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”