Brilliantly put!

Sadly, I would bet that an astounding number of Americans might just like to see "one straight nation" in the pledge of allegiance.

"...that we all stand for"? Name one value, just one, that all Americans stand for?

I realize that we'll get into fractions of one percent, but where is the line drawn? The author of this video seems to think that because Atheists represent less than 10% of the population, we should not have Christian values printed on our money, expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance or national motto, but what percentage of the population is the cut-off point? At what point do we decide that the percentage of the population of secessionists, for instance, is too small to represent? Can't have that "one nation" line in our pledge, lest they be offended.

Patrick,

Here are three for you: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You could argue that there are some people within our country that don't believe in these things. While you are correct that they are out there and they are an ultra-slim minority, they are against every idea from which the genesis of our nation sprang. Why would a nation celebrate the ideas that are the antithesis of its founding?

Yet, we do. I don't know why we have "in God we trust" on our money as well as that other crap. Because to have that on our money is a manifestation of an idea that represents the antithesis of our founding.

I'm an Atheist. I am passionately in favor of every beautiful idea that was cemented into the constitution and the founding documents. And they are all beautiful. My atheism not only does not run counter to these ideas, it is a celebration of them.

Okay, I can see that your next move will be the "America is a Christian nation" argument. Bring it. I love that argument. It's like batting practice.

Oh, and by the way, "... but what percentage of the population is the cut-off point?"

When it comes to state endorsement of one religion over another? One. That's the cut off point: one. Not one percentage point, one person. One person over 350,000,000 or so. One.

Do you have any understanding that our beautiful nation is very unique in that we value the individual's rights? Individual means one person. When this nation finally reaches Her lofty ideals, the individual person's right that does not infringe on another's is untouchable. That was what the founding fathers were putting into motion. She is the only nation that has ever graced the earth with such a concept and She'll get there one day. God damn, I love Her. You should get to know Her, too.

Quote:
Those who believe we can construct a morality divorced from our Judeo-Christian heritage suggest there is a universal morality that can be established based on what should be relatively self evident principles, most of which are iterations and derivatives of Game Theory. We are helpful and fair with others because the alternatives lead to poor outcomes for all. Yet if we do not privilege the Judeo-Christian ethics that are the underpinnings of our unconscious morality, we have no answer for cultures that take a very different, zero sum, approach to morality, ie I take what is yours and do what I want because I can and my god sanctions such behavior. In other words, once we have jettisoned our G-d, we have disarmed intellectually in the war with another's god.

Religion is devalued by so many sophisticates because religion, as practiced in the West, served to constrain our behavior. To be a moral man or woman was to accept limitations on the expression and gratification of our desires. Once we have, as a culture, fully adopted an ethic of Just Do It as the apotheosis of our morality, we are helpless against those who wish to Just Do It in ways which are inimical to us.

...Since the Übermensch is defined by his ability to rise above conventional morality and create his own morality, there are no effective limits to the Übermensch; any purely rational morality designed by humans can be changed on a whim and fully rationalized as a new, emerging morality with minimal effort. The wreckage of the last century should have alerted us to the danger.

[For an interesting perspective on how Nietzsche's ideas were corrupted by the Nazis, see Professor Barry Rubin's post on The Strangest Antisemite of Them All: The Bizarre Case of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche did not mean to rationalize genocide but when G-d is dead all things can be rationalized by Homo rationalis.]

Link:
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2010/12/the-morality-of-the-%C3%BCbermensch.html

"Those who believe we can construct a morality divorced from our Judeo-Christian heritage suggest there is a universal morality that can be established based on what should be relatively self evident principles ..."

Yep, that's me. I completely believe that self evident principles can and have always guided actual human morality.

"We are helpful and fair with others because the alternatives lead to poor outcomes for all."

Absolutely. Plus, I don't want to look in my mirror and see someone I don't like. I like good people and I dislike people that do others harm.

" ... once we have jettisoned our G-d, we have disarmed intellectually in the war with another's god."

This makes no sense to me whatever.

" ... religion, as practiced in the West, served to constrain our behavior."

Bullshit. What bad behavior has religion ever constrained?

"To be a moral man or woman was to accept limitations on the expression and gratification of our desires"

Completely true. However, you don't need a god in order to accept such limitations.

"...Since the Übermensch is defined by his ability to rise above conventional morality and create his own morality, there are no effective limits to the Übermensch"

It's not a matter of creating a new morality. It's simply figuring out the morality that is self evident in nature. When you do something wrong, you feel ... well, wrong. It's not a good feeling. This is what, sometimes through trial and effect, gives all thinking men morality. Others need a magical book for that. Either way, there are effective limits to all but sociopaths and other miscreants.

Interesting post. I've actually never read Nietzsche. I think I will now -- if only I can figure out how to spell his name in the library card catalog.

The poster you quote seems to make some good points and writes quite well, only he really is operating on a very flawed premise as I see it. Thanks for putting it out there at any rate. I very much enjoyed reading it.

The most important premise that this blogger and I wouldn't agree on from the start is that there is one morality based on a human invention and another morality based on Judeo-Christian mysticism. I believe that they are both a product of human invention and, therefore, the same sort of animal.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you kill someone, you feel bad about it and don't want to do it again. That's how "thou shalt not kill" got into all of the religious books in one form or another. A human wrote all of these books.

Judeo-Christian ethics that are the underpinnings of our unconscious morality

Here's Ben-David, yet again, bringing up the rear to justify his evidence-free belief in god.

The underpinnings of Judeo-Christian ethics are evolved human moral principles present in every person.

You don't have to believe in The Great Pumpkin to be a good person. We have evolved modules for reciprocal altruism, empathy, cheater detection, and more that make us behave well.

Sigh...why, oh, why do I bother?

Yet again, an asshat is telling me what I believe and what I don't believe.

whistleDick, oh-so-hasty-to-jump-to-conclusions, where, pray tell, did I say I believe America is a Christian nation? As a matter of fact, while I am a Christian, I believe in a secular society and that people are free to worship as they see fit. And I don't believe America is a Christian nation. And I don't believe these things should be on our currency, in the Pledge of Allegience, or our national motto or anywhere else! Nor do I believe that laws should be based in Christianity or any other religion.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the America is a Christian nation argument isn't going to come from me, since I don't believe that. Perhaps you would be less disappointed if you learned how to read printed words and not read into them.

Religion causes divisiveness, hate, and death.

http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:

Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians. The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus. Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.

America is a Republic not a democracy, and the values spoken of in the Declaration of Independence are not subject to the whims of the moment.
Our system of government is explicitly designed so that substantial change is exceedingly difficult to achieve. The fact that today a vast majority of the population finds no objection to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is irrelevant. Even if over half of all Americans sought to trash those elements from society, their efforts would be illegitimate.
In our society, actions are subject to governing, not ideas. Our Constitution is a method for governing actions in accord with the ideas presented in the Declaration.

If the meaning of America is important to you (O voice in the video), stop whinging about mottos and get busy tearing down thought-crime laws.

Oh, and there's much more of interest at the link above, do read it.

Oh, and Patrick, I really appreciate what you wrote above.

A bit more from it:

Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)

"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)

“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"…the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (See Genesis Chapter 3 where humankind is cast from Eden for their sins. Hitler compares this to the need to exterminate the Jews for their sin against Christ.)

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race. That is why many German Jews died in WW2 regardless of their Aryan nationality.)

Ben David, you wrote:

"Nietzsche did not mean to rationalize genocide but when G-d is dead all things can be rationalized by Homo rationalis."

So having "In God We Trust" printed on a dollar bill is an endorsement of the Holocaust? There is no morality with religion?

Everyone needs a reason to feel superior. I've got mine.

Right. I've seen several claims made, and none of them supported.

One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true.

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once.

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" . This was not an idle statement, they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

Here are just a few of a myriad of quotes from our founding fathers.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
-James Madison letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world “ John Adams

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” John Adams

"The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation [birth] of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation [birth] of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
-Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
-Thomas Jefferson letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
-George Washington letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.” Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.” Thomas Paine

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.” Thomas Paine

the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Declaration of Independence

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them."

George Washington

Again, had Hitler based his murdering on invisible pink bunnies, would you be blaming the bunnies, or Hitler? People hell-bent on doing harm-or insane-will latch onto anything to justify it to themselves.

Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

This is a desist statement not a religious statement.

"evolved human moral principles present in every person."

Amy, you're better than this. If it were present in every person, we'd have no prisons, no Madoffs, no beaten kids, no rapes......

Meant to say diest.....

Brilliant post (and comments) Amy.
And great stuff from whistleDick.

>>Again, had Hitler based his murdering on invisible pink bunnies, would you be blaming the bunnies, or Hitler? People hell-bent on doing harm-or insane-will latch onto anything to justify it to themselves.

momof4,

That's a deeply pointless question, isn't it?

Given we know Hitler deliberately co-opted the muscular Christianity of that era to give his own ideas divine heft?

Just watch the Leni Riefenstahl films.

(Whether or not Hitler was sincere in his religious convictions IS a question worth debating. But that's not what you are asking!)

perro do you not understand whaT a deist is?

And Ben David, once again, if there is no morality without god then why are rape, slavery, murder of anyone of a different faith, and genocide al now considered to be immoral when all four acts are encouraged by your god

Again, had Hitler based his murdering on invisible pink bunnies, would you be blaming the bunnies, or Hitler?
Posted by: momof4

Given no one else worships invisible pink bunnies

People hell-bent on doing harm-or insane-will latch onto anything to justify it to themselves.
Posted by: momof4

And yet somehow they always choose your god, dont you find that just a little bit too coincedental?

Actually I believe it is you that does not understand what deism is.

Deism is not christianity as understood by modern evangelicals but neither is it atheism.

We are not discussing Christianity but religion, yes?

Religion isn't the source of human conflict, but it's dangerous because there's no one for humans to challenge.

When government or other humans are the source of suffering, we can vote for a different person, start a revolution or just wait for that jackass to die. When people do things in the name of God, where do we turn?

de·ism (dzm, d-)
n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. There has been much speculation that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.

Believeing in a creator of the universe that has no direct contact or interest in human life, that does not require worship, adherence to tenents or sacraments hardly qualifies as a religion. It was a way for them to reason the exsistence of the universe and life on Earth as the science of that time didn't allow for a better explanation....

" Can't have that "one nation" line in our pledge, lest they be offended."
_____________

It's not the "one nation" idea that is "offensive," it's the belatedly added "under God" idea that is sectarian and divisive.

As someone suggested, perhaps it should be mutated not to be politically correct but to at least being factually correct: "one nation, under Canada." Could help people with their geography too

Are you sure you know what deists are perro?

We are not discussing Christianity but religion, yes?

Posted by: perro

A diest by defiition can not belong to any religion as there is no religion that claims to worship a diest style god

Keep up or you get left behind by the smarter kids perro

I like what Ed had to say.

Who here has read about the Iroquois Confederacy (The Great Law of Peace's influence on our US Constitution)?

The Iroquois did not hold beliefs in a Christian God. They were more similarly aligned with deists.

None of the Founding Father's were Christians. Our Constitution was not derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs but from a humanist perspective - inclusive of some of the ways the Native Americans at the time governed and their respective philosophies.

It is wonderful (IMHO) that Judeo-Christian principles mesh very well with our founding documents (unlike Islam) - but this whole country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles is a canard.

"And yet somehow they always choose your god, dont you find that just a little bit too coincedental?"

My God? And always? I think not. You know that's a defenseless position or you would have offered proof. Or are you simply ignorant of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, any number of suicide bombers, Kirk Palmer, the current chinese government (esp against the falun gong) I could go on all day.

You could total up every person killed in the name of religion in the history of man, and not come near the total of atheist regimes, not to mention individual murderers.

"A diest by defiition can not belong to any religion as there is no religion that claims to worship a diest style god

Keep up or you get left behind by the smarter kids perro"

They don't call it a religion, but they have a world-wide "union" of which they state:

"our actions and energies will cause Deism to eclipse the "revealed" religions of the world and Deism will eventually, through lots of hard teamwork and altruism, replace the "revealed" religions."

Sounds a lot like a religion to me, luj. I find it amusing you lump yourself with the "smart kids".

"My God? And always? I think not. You know that's a defenseless position or you would have offered proof. Or are you simply ignorant of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, any number of suicide bombers, Kirk Palmer, the current chinese government (esp against the falun gong) I could go on all day."

Fascism and State-ism could very well fall within the definition of a religion. There was the absence of free practice of religion in these cases - and the forced religion was the State or the Dear Leader. Small government and freedom of religion were classical liberal philosophies imbued into our Founding documents and into our culture.

Feebie:
"It is wonderful (IMHO) that Judeo-Christian principles mesh very well with our founding documents (unlike Islam) - but this whole country being founded on Judeo-Christian principles is a canard."

Statements like this bug me just about as much as statement that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

What principles are you guys talking about?

I don't think either side knows what the other is talking about.

If I may throw this out there, I think the principles we are talking about is not particularly sectarian. I think they encompass things like "equality." We don't have a caste system; we don't have a feudal system; we managed to get the "divine right of kings" abandoned; we don't have nobles or an aristocracy (though the Founders themselves were pretty aristocratic). We had a Judeo-Christian principle that all are equal before God; all are fallible; and all require redemption. That's why we get to vote, why the power to govern comes from the people, why we do not have a king, and why we have continued to make the constitution more "democratic" (e.g. abolishing slavery, direct election of senators, female suffrage, etc.).

That is what I think people mean (or should mean) when they talk about Judeo-Christian principles.

But, no one ever says what they are talking about. So, they are determined to misunderstand one another (and do so complacently).
-Jut

Patrick,

Man, I guess I horribly misread your original post. I thought that you were saying that since the 90% of the country was religious, the 1953 motto, pledge, and money changes were justified.

I wrongly predicted that you would go into the "Christian nation" argument. For that, I admit to a slight case of ass-hattery.

I've looked at your first post again and can't seem to see where I went wrong. Perhaps clarity is the burden of the writer as much as the reader.

I very much appreciate the sentiments of your second post.

Amy, perhaps you should do a little more historical research before you blame the Hitlers upbringing for the holocaust. Hitler had an alcoholic father who lobed to beat him and a doting mother. He was a "momma's boy" who feared that he had Jewish blood. The german population as a whole blamed world Jewry for the defeat in world war one, and the horrible reparations forced on germany after the treaty of versaille. Read mein kampf to see what hitler was all about.

Perro points out the naked emperors on this thread:

We are not discussing Christianity but religion, yes?

Most of the posters here are dissing the Judeo-Christian morality they grew up with - either because it constrains their behavior, or because it is perceived as uncool.

whistleDick whistles past the main point of my quoted text:

It's not a matter of creating a new morality. It's simply figuring out the morality that is self evident in nature. When you do something wrong, you feel ... well, wrong. It's not a good feeling. This is what, sometimes through trial and effect, gives all thinking men morality.

Yet no such universal morality has emerged - indeed, the same culture than gave us algebra and chemistry - and linked East and West for centuries - has a very different notion of what "feels wrong". Killing your daughter because she's dishonored you "feels right" to these folks.

Similarly, we have seen the post-Christian West sink quickly into self-justifying moral relativism.

What is "self-evident" to you is the cultural echo of centuries of very specifically Judeo-Christian teaching.

Haakon serves up another hoary chestnut - also mentioned by momof4:

A list of murderous events which draw upon religious epistemological closure waits patiently to refute the idea that non-religious epistemological closure is unique in its badness.

But religion - at least Judeo-Christian religion, which is generally what's under attack here - provides a moral code that can be appealed to.

Taking the inevitable Hitler comparison - an argument can be made that Christian support/justification of Nazism contradicts Christian teaching.

For the Nietzschean Ubermensch, it's a moral come-as-you-are. Despite all the fluff about universal morality - there is nothing to appeal to, no moral code set above the human power of self-deception and self-justification. Might makes right.

"You could total up every person killed in the name of religion in the history of man, and not come near the total of atheist regimes, not to mention individual murderers."

"Or are you simply ignorant of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, any number of suicide bombers, Kirk Palmer, the current chinese government (esp against the falun gong) I could go on all day."

You cannot kill in the name of atheism. You can kill in the name of nationalism, communism, totalitarianism, facism, greed, power, freedom, because you want to and of course God. Killing in the name of not believing in something is ludicris, unless of course your insane.

You cannot produce one quote or any documentation that any of these regimes killed in the name of not believing in god. Conversely, just turn on the news and you will find someone every single night killing in the name of god.

The argument is a non starter.

P.S. suicide bombers are killing in the name of god. Everyday quite frankly.....

We are helpful and fair with others because the alternatives lead to poor outcomes for all.

Except when the alternative leads to a good outcome for one or a few. Then, the one or the few may not be so helpful and fair with others. And they probably won't lose any sleep over it either.

Absolutely. Plus, I don't want to look in my mirror and see someone I don't like. I like good people and I dislike people that do others harm.

The problem with this statement as a general rule for morality is that you're using your own standards as a moral benchmark. Others don't use those same standards and, so, may like themselves perfectly well after committing acts that would horrify you.

The Inquisitors who advocated burning and/or drowning witches were saving their souls, not doing them harm. They liked the person they saw in the mirror.

The terrorists who kill innocent people sleep just fine...and are convinced of their moral superiority to their victims. Charles Manson seems untroubled by his past deeds. Hitler believed he was saving the German people. Stalin slaughtered more people than Hitler did (and Old Joe was definitely not a Christian), yet never expressed remorse.

That's the danger of using an internalized morality. Each person gets to define (or rationalize) what is and isn't moral.

[The Founding Fathers] were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity.

'cause the Enlightenment happened in a vacuum?

Ed: "You cannot kill in the name of atheism. You can kill in the name of nationalism, communism, totalitarianism, facism, greed, power, freedom, because you want to and of course God. Killing in the name of not believing in something is ludicris, unless of course your insane."

A fair point. However, one can easily reason that, without God, all is permitted. I think the argument would be that the Soviet Union and China, and other dogmatically atheist regimes killed millions. If atheism is integral to communism, killing in the name of communism could be equivocated with killing in the name of atheism. Or, to put it in a slightly different manner, the atheistic foundation of communism removed any kind of moral reservations that might have prevented Stalin from murdering millions. After all, he had the power. What did he have to fear? Only his successor, which is why he killed so many potential ones.
-Jut

You cannot kill in the name of atheism. You can kill in the name of nationalism, communism, totalitarianism, facism, greed, power, freedom, because you want to and of course God.

Nice...a get out of jail free card for the argument.

Your religious opponents in this debate must answer for every killing done in the name of God, but the anti-God side doesn't have to answer for a single killing done by any regime, individual, or organization that disputed or disallowed the existence of God.

================

Can't kill in the name of atheism, eh? You'd be surprised what people are willing to kill in the name of.

The post-revolution French government destroyed and/or confiscated church property and persecuted clergy and members of their congregations in order to destroy religion in France (especially the Catholic Church). The final goal was to impose an atheistic Cult of Reason. Then they set about doing the same thing to the rest of Europe, igniting 20 years of global war.

================

Interesting: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/01/atheism-and-violence

"What principles are you guys talking about?"

Me personally? Natural Law. I believe at the heart of our Constitution belies the inherent principles of natural law. The governance of which, the structure or model outlined in our Constitution was heavily influenced by the Iroquois Constitution.

Christianity is based on the same premise (so are the majority of religions), however, the "rules" (man made laws) they practice as a way of communion with others in society - in order to maintain broad adherence to these natural laws (principles) may change according to sect, denomination or religion.

I guess to phrase it better, Christianity along with other religions tend to interpret the best way to adhere to Natural Law differently. They are all based on the same premise or principles though.

Communism, totalitarianism, fascism, socialism are all the antithesis to Natural Law. Capitalism, is the closest man made economic interpretation to Natural Law (in my view) and the US Constitution is the closest man made law for broad governance of these principles.

God, Creator, Elohim, Evolution, Gaia ...whatever. Don't care. As long as there is the freedom of belief in some sort of higher source that can be interpreted on an individual basis that does no harm to others and is chosen of free will - not forced upon an individual or culture - It should not matter if they are an atheist, an agnostic or a Christian.

It is when that higher source becomes defined, mandated and required to be accepted by force - where you will see the ugly side of human nature (whether this power of the Almighty is being vested in a human, a religion or a government - it is all the same and will produce the same outcomes).

I am okay with referencing "Creator" in the Constitution or in our government documents or on our money - I prefer it actually, to God. It is neutral and it's reference allows clarity, providing a distinguishing difference between Natural Law and the State.

"Fascism and State-ism could very well fall within the definition of a religion."

Then you would have to say that any guiding belief system is a religion, even atheism or low-carbism. Or representative republics, as those of us who live here have no choice but to follow it, right?You simply can't say that other's beliefs in ANYTHING are religion while your own are not.

Ed, you are simply an idiot if you don't think people can kill in the name of atheism. People can and have murdered others for absolutely every reason under the sun. Hell, there are groups of atheists that meet and commune about their atheism every week. Sounds like a religion to me.

"Then you would have to say that any guiding belief system is a religion, even atheism or low-carbism."

Yup. It CAN have the very same qualities...and people are free to choose them or not. I only get cranky when others use their powers - via legislation, public policy, regulation or laws to impose their values on ME. I don't care if it's Michelle Obama telling parents they don't have the capacity to manage the diets of their children or Al Gore positioning his AGW movement to dictate what type of commodities I must buy - lest I be responsible for a sun flare that singes all of humanity so he can line his fat pockets.

And I take back the "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the money. It shouldn't be there or in the pledge. But I still think that the use of the word Creator in our founding documents, and culturally here in the US is indispensable to the individualism in our country. There are higher things at work then our government - although ask most legislators these days and they may think otherwise.

"You simply can't say that other's beliefs in ANYTHING are religion while your own are not"

Where did I even attempt to say this? Show me.

This Just In -
Switzerland considers repealing incest laws
Switzerland is considering repealing its incest laws because they are "obsolete".

.... so much for "natural morality"

Link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html

Watching that made me want to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Litlsbp6imY

mega classic!

A few things

1. I'm sure some one might kill it the name of atheism - how about you come up with an acctual case of that happening rather than a 'what if'

2. Anyone else find it hilarious that someone mention muslim suicide bombers and christian witch burners as examples of the 'inhernt flaws of a non religious morality'?

3. Ben David its been months, possibly more than a year and still you havent answered how rape, slavery, murder, and genocide are considered by every moral person on earth to be inherently evil when they all have gods stamp of approval.

4. Incest is also approved by god, Adam and Eve's children, Noah's grndchildren, Lot's children. How may of the patriachs of your religion were married to a set of sisters?

Momof4 wrote:

"Ed, you are simply an idiot if you don't think people can kill in the name of atheism. People can and have murdered others for absolutely every reason under the sun. Hell, there are groups of atheists that meet and commune about their atheism every week. Sounds like a religion to me"

People also meet every week to discuss automechcanics, sports, mathmatics, science, literature, art, etc... do you consider these religions?

In the same post that you are responding to I also wrote: You cannot produce one quote or any documentation that any of these regimes killed in the name of not believing in god.

Can you produce the evidence or is it you just have faith that it's so; sans any evidence what so ever.

Attacking my intelligence serves no purpose other than to show your lack thereof.....

You cannot produce one quote or any documentation that any of these regimes killed in the name of not believing in god.

The French Revolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution

"The programme of dechristianization waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included...the enactment of a law on October 21, 1793 making all nonjuring priests and all persons who harboured them liable to death on sight."

"By the end of the decade, approximately thirty thousand priests had been forced to leave France, and others who did not leave were executed."

Although, by your logic, Ed, you would say they killed in the name of the new Cult of Reason rather than in the name of atheism...despite the fact that atheism was the foundation of the Cult of Reason.

Atheism was a major part of the Communist system. Therefore, although the state-ordered killings were actually about control, atheism must take the hit for them. It's only fair. So many of the killing done in the name of religion were also actually about control.

For example, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were not about religion. The Crusades were intended to reduce the internecine squabbling going on in Europe due to an excess of unemployed fighting men. The Spanish Inquisition were a domestic control program along the lines of the Gestapo (Ferdinand and Isabella co-opted the Church).

Hilter's vendetta against the Jews was a way to organize Germany behind him by playing on the hatred of Jews widespread in Germany and Austria at the time. This hatred stemmed from the idea that Germany did not lose WW I on the battlefield but was brought down from within by liberal brought down by liberal socialists, identified with Jews. Jews were frequently identified as Marxists/communists and vice versa. Jews, because they were not allowed to own land in Europe in the Middle Ages, became very proficient as bankers and businessmen. Their success led to much resentment against the very class of people that forced them into those professions in the first place.I learned all this at the Smithsonian Holocaust Museum.

Not that I don't agree that people who claimed to be Christian (including established church governments) were used, and allowed themselves to be used, by Hitler, but I think it's important to point out that no one who has any understanding of Christianity can say "the Jews killed Jesus" or to in any way hold Jews "accountable." The central tenant of the Christian faith is the sacrificial death (by execution) of Jesus the Christ. If Jesus didn't die, there is no Christianity. Any "Christian" who hates Jews because of some wrong against Christ is just using their religion to excuse their bigotry.

John 10:18 [Jesus said] No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.

Conan:

The French Catholic Church comprised the First Estate, 130,000 out of a population of twenty-three million. The clergy were exempt from state taxation, ran their own courts, collected a tithe, and held a monopoly on education. Immensely wealthy, the Church paid a yearly “free donation” to the state out of borrowed money. Owning one-tenth of the realm, the Church had full control over all official records.

At the outbreak of the Revolution in 1789, only one bishop out of the 135 in France came from a non-noble background. All of the other bishops had ties to the nobility, many of them coming out of the finest, oldest aristocratic families in France. The Church guarded its privileges jealously and was unassailable.

The were revolting against the aristocracy and in this particular case the repressors were in fact the church (the first estate) and nobility (the second estate). There revolution was against repression, corruption, colossal dept, taxation, an unfair court system, poor educational system and a forced religious system (sounds awfully similar to our own revolution). They were in fact not fighting this war in the name of atheism. Robespierre introduced the “Cult of the Supreme Being”. This is deism not atheism.

Atheism is not a belief system. It is a word to define a person who does not believe in theism. An atheist can not wage war against something he or she doesn’t even recognize exists in the first place. It is completely absurd to think so.

Robespierre introduced the “Cult of the Supreme Being”. This is deism not atheism.

He introduced the Cult of the Supreme Being because the Cult of Reason was a failure and offended him with its lack of morality. Robespierre was a bit of a prude.

++++++++++++++++++++

"The Cult of Reason (French: Culte de la Raison) was an atheistic belief system, intended as a replacement for Christianity during the French Revolution. The word "cult" in French means "a form of worship", without any of its negative, exclusivist implications in English: devotees indeed intended it to be a universal congregation." - Wikipedia [emphasis mine]

"In the spring of 1794, the Cult of Reason was faced with official repudiation when Robespierre, nearing complete dictatorial power, announced his own establishment of a new, deistic religion for the Republic, the Cult of the Supreme Being. Robespierre denounced the [Cult of Reason] on various philosophical and political grounds, specifically rejecting their atheism."

"...the Cult of Reason espoused a humanocentric philosophy in which no gods at all were worshipped: the worship of Reason as an abstract concept was the guiding principle. This bold rejection of all divinity, compounded by the "scandalous scenes" and "wild masquerades" attributed to the Cult of Reason[i.e., a lack of morality], appalled the rectitudinous Robespierre. In late 1793, Robespierre delivered a fiery denunciation of the Cult and its associates and proceeded to give his own vision of proper Revolutionary religion. Le culte de l'Être suprême was formally announced before the Convention on May 7, 1794" - Wikipedia

++++++++++++++++++++

[Their] revolution was against repression, corruption, colossal dept, taxation, an unfair court system, poor educational system and a forced religious system (sounds awfully similar to our own revolution).

Not at all like ours. The underlying societies were different. The goals of the revolutions were different.

The French Revolution's goal was to completely remake French society...and, eventually, European society. The goal of the American revolution was to get the English off our backs and continue with society as it was.

The French Revolution didn't replace an oppressive religion with freedom of choice in worship. It forced atheism on the people...and did so violently.

The post-revolutionary government did away with traditional religious holidays and made the week ten days long (partly to eliminate the 6 days of work and 1 day of rest prescribed in the Bible). The people, however, rejected the atheism of the early Revolution, keeping track of the seven day calendar at home and worhipping on Sundays behind closed doors.

Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being was introduced in order to avoid turning public opinion against the Revolution over the issue of religion. While the French were against the Catholic Church (as it was then constituted in France), they were not against God.

OTOH, our revolution eschewed any national religion (even atheism) and espoused the freedom of the people to worship as they saw fit. It probably helped us that we had more religions than the French had cheeses while the French had really only one object on which to focus their hatred of the clergy and organized religion.

I heard a quote tonight that just so gelled this whole discussion:

My initial assumption is that we each own ourselves. I am my private property and you are yours. If we accept the notion that people own themselves, then it's easy to discover what forms of conduct are moral and immoral. Immoral acts are those that violate self-ownership. Murder, rape, assault and slavery are immoral because those acts violate private property. So is theft, broadly defined as taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another. -- Walter E. Williams

The point being if you start with the concept that you own yourself -- and everything that you earn through honest labor belongs to you. It doesn't belong to your neighbor, your family, your government, or any other person or group.

The morality of violating your person are the basic moralities of the laws regardless of religious affiliation.

When a government, another person, another group or religious affiliation tries to change those rules you have a right to be offended and "fight" back. (I'm not advocating armed insurrection.)

Another thing to note is that while the First Ammendment of the Bill of Rights says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It didn't prohibit the establishment of at the state level.

As of 2010[update] Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provides,

"... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."