Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Did the US forefathers want a Christian nation? Ask the Treaty of Tripoli.
stephenjaygould.org — Ratified unanimously in 1797 by the Senate, Article 11 states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
wqwert- 2342 diggs
- digg it
- InfamousAtheist, on 11/05/2007, -58/+301Of course not! They actually used their brains, instead of ignoring logic and reason.
- DirkVanAss, on 10/12/2007, -220/+73No, but they didn't want a Godless nation either, most of them were Deists and Deists typically reject supernatural events and divine revelation. But they believe that nature and science ultimately point back to one higher power.
- captainbluebear, on 10/12/2007, -15/+171Apologies for the comment abuse, but heres the important bit:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. - theMurdocVolta, on 10/12/2007, -83/+23and Slaves!
- meepus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+111@dirkvanass:
Importantly, being a Deist does not mean conforming to a specific religious doctrine. It's a philosophical standpoint that has no impact on legislation or government itself, and for good reason. - willwill100, on 10/12/2007, -122/+8Of course they did! They actually forgot to use their brains, instead of using logic and reason.
- blaze03, on 10/12/2007, -18/+102@ dirkvanass
"No, but they didn't want a Godless nation either, most of them were Deists and Deists typically reject supernatural events and divine revelation. But they believe that nature and science ultimately point back to one higher power."
It doesn't matter what belief system any individual forefather subscribed to. The roots of our country began with people fleeing from religious/political persecution. To desire for a religious sponsored government goes against everything we should be standing for.
If in fact they "didn't want a Godless nation", it was probably for the same -irrational- reasons why people today (in 2007) are still untrusting of atheists. - quomen, on 10/12/2007, -53/+4Hougen fluuegan loogen?
- JonGalt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39This is the article of the constitution making this and ALL treaties SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. And making this absolutely official. Its almost like amending the constitution...almost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -42/+132you atheists just don't get it. US christians are perfectly allowed to throw out logic, reason, and evidence, whenever it happens to go against our argument. that's what faith is -- belief claimed to be truth absent and often contradictory to logic, reason, and evidence. besides, the treaty of tripoli was never actually signed by the US forefathers... it's just a document created by satan to test and expose the non-believers. [/sarcasm]
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -25/+18"If in fact they "didn't want a Godless nation", it was probably for the same -irrational- reasons why people today (in 2007) are still untrusting of atheists."
I don't doubt the Cold War is cause for some of the mistrust Atheists suffer from. It's why "In God We Trust" became the country's national motto, after all. Many Americans seem to have a deep hatred of anything to do with communism.
I also suspect the boom of fundamentalism and evangelism, especially down south, is to blame as well. I doubt the Puritans were very kind to the idea of Atheism either. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -17/+31Ah, but it takes a much stronger person to believe, on faith alone, that we were founded as a Christian nation than to recognize obvious evidence to the contrary.
/sarcasm - Dewhead, on 10/12/2007, -54/+42The wanted freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Read the first amendment.
- FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -13/+41Treaty of Tripoli = Huuuuuuuuuge defeat for Flat Earthers, HUGE!
- FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -15/+50""No, but they didn't want a Godless nation either, most of them were Deists and Deists typically reject supernatural events and divine revelation. But they believe that nature and science ultimately point back to one higher power.""
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separation of church and state is what the founding fathers wanted for the nation, and we must never allow anyone to distort history to make it appear otherwise.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html - CaptMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -21/+13"it's just a document created by satan to test and expose the non-believers."
...wouldn't that make Satan a good guy then? Oww... my head hurts now, this is why I could never sit through Sunday school as a kid, too much thinking on my own. - CrashPoint, on 10/12/2007, -13/+65"The wanted freedom of religion not freedom from religion."
Can't have one without the other. - McHoffa, on 10/12/2007, -20/+55"Can't have one without the other."
Actually you can... you can be free to exercise your belief as a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Tom Cruise... that if freedom OF religion, you choose what you want to believe...
a Christian group being told they cannot pray in public, or a muslim group being told they cannot pray, would be freedom FROM religion... in other words never being exposed to it because the government says it is not allowed...
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
read the last part "OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"
maybe i am just using common sense, but to me that means not only can the government not establish or recognize one religion, it also should not be able to tell anyone when they can or cannot pray, or dance, or however they exercise their religious beliefs....
if you are atheist, then exercise that, but you cannot strip religion out of everything, by law... - neoform, on 10/12/2007, -19/+23"The wanted freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Read the first amendment."
You wanna point out from this text where is says they didn't want freedom 'from' religion?
"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."
This leaves the choice up to the person, not the government. We are free to chose any religion we want, including none. Get over yourself, faith and belief are supposed to be thing we CHOOSE.. not be forced into. - umfskibum, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20"The wanted freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Read the first amendment."
They actually wanted both, hence the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. - chuckytaylor02, on 10/12/2007, -20/+4***** please. exhaust your logic and reason and see what you have left.
- RFacter, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6Here is a different version of the treaty I found on Yale.edu
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1805t.htm#art11
I find no mention of Christianity, and the article numbers don't seem to match the ones in this story. Yale's version looks a little more official. - valvin47, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19@RFacter
Do a little more research. There's more than one Barbary treaty. Here's the treaty in question, from Yale nonetheless.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18@RFacter
"Here is a different version of the treaty I found on Yale.edu"
It's not a different version of the treaty, it is a different treaty - one signed in 1805, as it says right at the top and the bottom of that page, and ratified in 1806.
The treaty that is the subject of this article is the Treaty of 1796, ratified in 1797.
There is no language in the later treaty that contradicts Article 11 of the original treaty.
Nice try though - get that link from an theocratic propaganda site? - DrinkingNyquil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"I find no mention of Christianity, and the article numbers don't seem to match the ones in this story. Yale's version looks a little more official."
Wikipedia:
The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version provided by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty, and was from a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. However it originated, it was undeniably a part of the treaty as approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate. - Vishap, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14I'd like the throw in two points here.
First, there seems to be disagreement over what freedom from religion means, i.e., a semantics debate. Some seem to think saying that you have freedom from religion means you are free not to believe in God, while others seem to think it means you are free to go about your life never encountering anything that deals with religion. Obviously the former is true and the latter is false (you can pray in public if you want to, schools can require reading that involves/mentions religion or people practicing it, etc). I think both groups agree more than they realize.
Second, why do people concern themselves so much with what the Founding Fathers wanted? Yes, we have them to thank for many freedoms, but they weren't all around good people. Remember how originally only rich, white men could vote? I realize their intentions are important when interpreting the Constitution, but I fail to see how they matter for every part of our history. Also, they were a mixed group of people, if some wanted religion to influence how they formed laws, some didn't. Either way, it's the current Constitution that dictates how things work, not what each of them wanted. /rant - cherrick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@mchoffa
No, see, you're using a different definition for "freedom from religion" than others. What most people mean by "freedom from religion" is that not only are you free to practice whatever religion you want, but you are also free to NOT practice any religion at all. Any reasonable person would support this definition of "freedom from religion" and also agree with you on under your definition. - bradbaxter, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14I'm a Christian, and I don't believe that the original purpose of the Forefathers was to establish a Christian Government (or Christian Rulership). I do think, however, that the Christian Worldview (and yes, there were deists, but they were all Christian deists, to my knowledge) held by the Founders did INFORM them as they composed our system of government. They were all heavily influenced by their religious beliefs. One religious belief they held (you could say it is a Christian belief) is that man cannot force Christianity upon another man (nor can a government). With that, it would have been antithetical to them to form a government which would FORCE Christianity upon anyone!
Now, are there Christians (to the extreme) who would prefer this form of government. Sure. (Just as their are atheists who want the government to force atheism down the throats of the population -- China???) But the VAST MAJORITY of Christians understand Christian theology well enough to know that there is nothing Christian about a "Christian Government" that would force Christianity upon the people! However, a government INSPIRED by Christianity: YES!
One more thing that the founders never intended: PUBLIC SCHOOLS. So, when we get into these debates about the Founders and then about evolution and creation... it becomes hairy real quick. Because, what would the Founders say: teach evolution or creation or both? Well, I think the real question is, what would the Founders say about our public education system? Without a doubt, the majority would detest it (as it is not Constitutional!).
So, the point is, if we would follow the Founders more closely, we could actually lay to rest many of the issues that divide us! - Obsidian743, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10NO ONE ever argued that the U.S.A. was a "Christian nation" in the sense that the Treaty of Tripoli denies. I don't know one person that actually thinks the Constitution or any government doctrine declares the U.S.A. to be a "Christian nation" but I and many others do consider it a "Christian nation" and do feel the founding fathers intended it to be so - just not in the twisted sense everyone makes it out to be.
Regardless of their own religious beliefs, our forefather wanted a nation that was not religious state - that is all. This is not to say they weren't themselves Christians or similarly minded. It can still be argued that they all had hope that Christian values and spiritual mindedness would be manifest as the core values of this nation.
My concern here is of that of the poster and those that are so eager to comment. What is the real purpose of posting this article? Is someone trying to shove it in the face of someone else? Are they trying to alert the world to some great unknown? Given the title and description, it's clear that posting this article was nothing less than a derisive, vindictive act intent on one-upping the fundamentalists that believe this to be a "Christian nation" in any sense of the phrase. The real ignorance is blatant when the nay-sayers insist on building up these strawmen. - glasnostic, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@ mchoffa
You talk about the freedom to pray in public, yet there has never ever been an attempt to limit a person’s right to pray in public….
Wait wait.. I take that back…
If you are Muslim, or look Muslim, you better not pray in a public airport before getting on a plane.
I guess we really don’t get one without the other. - adm58, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22"The Christian god can be pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
Thomas Jefferson - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10@ Vishap
"Second, why do people concern themselves so much with what the Founding Fathers wanted?"
Thank you for that. Yes, we all have profound respect for the Founding Fathers, but neither Christians nor Atheists should look at them as "infallible" in the first place.
Furthermore, I'm puzzled how Atheists can so strongly protest the idea that a (nominally) Christian nation (The Newsweek poll from last month said 82% of Americans *consider themselves* Christian) would enact both laws and public policy that reflects those values. The Atheist perspective is that the universe is devoid of any Deity, and therefore any *absolute* standards of right and wrong anyway. Therefore the Atheist is left with the (unenviable) problem that all "we should permit this, but not that" statements (applied to anything from actual laws to simple standards of politeness) must flow from *consensus* rather than any concept of an *absolute* anyway.
If a Atheist says "morality flows from majority consensus" then where is the logic of saying "a nation where the overwhelming majority feels X is right is still wrong because my minority is offended by it." - bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@Dewhead, freedom from religion is freedom of religion. You are free to practice your religion, I am free to BE free of religion. When you force your religion on me, you have violated my Constitutional right.
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@vishap:
There would be no desire on the part of atheists to be interested in the intent of the founding fathers except that theists use them as an arguing point for continued religious interference in government.
That is why it is important. It stands in response to those who use mistruths to support their cause. - adm58, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22@prisoner24601
You, sir, misunderstand atheism. One reason atheists are uncomfortable with religious persons is this notion that religion has a monopoly on morality. Why do we need to have right and wrong laid out for us in an ancient book? Clearly we have some intrinsic sense of what is good, or we'd kill all those poor Wal-Mart associates for working on the sabbath like Leviticus tell us to do. Atheists are fully capable of making a moral decision from their own conscience without having to be told by gods, popes, priests, etc. what morals are. - bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Prisoner, that is an interesting point to make, but you still are locked in your idea that morality has to come from religion. I believe, maybe I misunderstand you. As an atheist, I do respect that you hold religious beliefs, and when it comes to our laws, I do not want them to interfere with your beliefs, but at the same time they should not interfere with mine. This country was founded on that principle. Morality and ethics are synonyms, they are a belief system of right and wrong. By definition, they do not have a source associated with them. My morals are very much based upon society.
Our laws can not reference religion as a basis, because then it is alienating it's own citizens. Do I have a problem with you using religion as guidance towards our laws, not necessarily, as long as you remember that there are other view points besides yours, and it is not logically possible to argue that any one religion is anymore right than any other religion. We don't say that areas living under Shia law where men are allowed to beat women is wrong because of christian religious beliefs, that is based upon humanism. - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7@ bemenaker
"When you force your religion on me, you have violated my Constitutional right. "
Honestly, what do you mean by "forcing religion on you" here? No Christian is suggestion you should be compelled to worship our God (unlike, say, Islam which does philosophically accept "conversion by the sword" on the other hand.) Christians simply vote and support politicians and policies consistent with our sense of morality.
No on has absolute freedom. You cannot drive 200 mph on the freeway no matter how much you believe you should be able to do it. The majority consensus has led to laws to restrict you from doing that, even if you feel you should be "free to do as you please." - levi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@mchoff
"a Christian group being told they cannot pray in public, or a muslim group being told they cannot pray, would be freedom FROM religion... in other words never being exposed to it because the government says it is not allowed..."
Your Fox News view of freedom from religion is sorely mistaken and this type of misleading tripe is why Atheist are so disliked. Freedom of/from religion means that the GOVERNMENT will not support, favor, or require any religion. So a public school for example may not lead students in prayer nor can they prevent them from praying on their own free time. Example 2 government property building/park will not promote any religion (display the 10 commandments). Example 3 Churches can not participate in the political possess by supporting a specific party or candidate or display political signs on church owned property. This is because they are tax exempt and they would have to wave their tax exemption status in order to do so.
No were does it say government can stop an individual or group from practicing in a public place as long as it does not violate any other laws.
There is also nothing preventing people or businesses on private property to display or recognize religious symbols like Xmas decorations. - dasluvaluva, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Check out this well-researched article that discusses what was occurring at the time & the reasoning of the Treaty: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4We are not a Christian government. Just because there are Christians within the government doesn't mean our government is permanently Christian. Our government is a government of the people. And the majority of people in this country happen to be Christian. Deal with it. You can't just say once you get into office your beliefs become obsolete. That's not how it works. A persons beliefs are always there and they will always be used to determine the path of the country. And if that persons beliefs are based in Christianity they are based in Christianity. There isn't anyway around that.
BUT
Those Christian people are not and have not since the dawn of the country been able to make laws favoring Christianity or any other religion. THAT'S what freedom of religion is. It's not freedom FROM religion. You do not have a right to close your eyes and pretend religion doesn't exist. You do not have the right to censor religious symbols from appearing in the open. You do not have the right to stop people from praying and you do not have the right to stop people from making important decisions based on their faith.
Freedom of religion means you can believe whatever you want without being shunned by the public.
Freedom FROM religion means you should never be exposed to a religious culture.
There is a difference between the two and it's the first one that is in the constitution not the latter.
Sorry atheists but you are just as free to be Atheist as I am Christian. - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4@ adm58
"You, sir, misunderstand atheism."
Well to be perfectly honest, I'm finding that Atheism seems to be a very "multi-faceted" (to be as diplomatic as possible) point of view in that apparently many of you have very different notions of where "morality" does flow from (if not from a Deity) and/or disagreements about what the very word "morality" means if it has any useful meaning at all.
"One reason atheists are uncomfortable with religious persons is this notion that religion has a monopoly on morality."
Again, I would submit that you're going to have a very difficult time establishing any definition of the word "morality" itself (that does not appeal to an Absolute Source) that ends up meaning anything more than "the consensus of the majority."
If not, I'd certainly like to understand what that might be. - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5@ bemenaker
"My morals are very much based upon society."
Quite sincerely I have to ask, don't the implications of that bother you deeply? If we were a cannibalistic society, then if the majority wanted to eat you there would be noting "wrong" with that.
1. Morality by consensus is fluid
2. If morality is by consensus, then you've just destroyed *your* basis for saying there is anything *wrong* with a majority Christian nation deciding to enact/promote/publicly support Christian principles. - adm58, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@prisoner24601
If you're issue is with the definition of morality, the dictionary makes that simple:
"morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."
Where in that does majority rule come into play? Nowhere. A lot of humanists, unitarians, deists, etc., are of the opinion that human beings have an intrinsic sense of what is right and wrong. It is wrong to kill someone. It is good to help those less fortunate. With other issues, one might make a principled, moral decision based on philosophical or sociological grounds. We all have moral standards unique to our own place in the world, and I would venture to say that anybody who sees morality as a majority consensus is, well, ***** stupid. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"Your Fox News view of freedom from religion is sorely mistaken and this type of misleading tripe is why Atheist are so disliked. Freedom of/from religion means that the GOVERNMENT will not support, favor, or require any religion" Of and From are not the same word. Don't group them together like that because they really are not the same word. Freedom from is to be rid of something. Freedom from your parents means you moved out and no longer have to deal with your parents. Freedom of your parents means your parents are allowed to do whatever they want to you. Obviously those are two completely different scenerios. It is the same thing here. Freedom FROM religion is not the same as freedom OF religion.
By ridding the country of religion you are not creating a freedom OF religion environment. It would be just as unfair to ban all religions from exisiting publicly as it would be to say we are a christian government with christian laws and if you are atheist you deserve to be thrown in jail. It is just as unfair. The only reason you support it is because it favors your beliefs. It would make our government an atheist government which is just as bad as making our government Christian.
You do not have the right to tell me I can practice my religion publicly. You do not have the right to tell me that because I am christian I can't hold a public office. You do not have the right to tell me that I can't use my Christian beliefs to make decisions for my life and the life of others if my job tells me to do so.
The people put those people into office. If they are christian it's because the people wanted them to be. The people wanted them to make decisions based on christian values. And if some day the majority of the country becomes atheist I am sure we will see a lot more ahtiests in office. That's the beauty of the way we have it now. It is a representation of the majority of the people. - imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@prisoner: Please stop the absurd, Atheist has no morals BS.
You just have to take an ethics class to see the huge variety of ethics and morality that is not based on religion.
In one of Plato's discussions(paraphrase): Is it moral only if a God wants it to be so? If God says kill your children(hmmm, I vaguely remember a story) does it make it moral?
Theist pick and choose their morality based on the current social norms not because the Bible said so. If you did, you'd honor the sabbath, stone your defiant children, treat slaves well etc.
The Philosopher's Humes' definition of morality: A balance of these criteris: Benefits Me, Does not harm me, Benefits others and does not harm others.
Social contract theory: I don't steal or kill because I don't want others to accept killing or stealing as acceptable.
Biological/Evolutionary Theory, etc etc etc.
Human's have some natural inbuilt morality that is a product of evolution and biology. - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5@ adm58
"A lot of humanists, unitarians, deists, etc., are of the opinion that human beings have an intrinsic sense of what is right and wrong. It is wrong to kill someone."
Seriously, you can't be arguing that "moral behavior" means "doing the things we all know deep down are right" can you? I mean, surely you'd agree that different cultures at different times throughout the world have had radically different "common sense" on certain behaviors. - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Getting Morals from religion can be a double bladed sword depending on whos preaching the religion. On one hand it can build quite the upstanding citizen who does no harm to no one because he believes God told him to. In that case religion is great and benefits the community greatly! On the other end of the sword though you got people teaching religion as some sort of elitest group your a part of and anyone not within this group is going to hell. Or even worse anyone not within that group does not deserve life itself. That's when there is a problem. Morals are best taught seperate from religion IMO but religion can be a great way to teach morals if done correctly.
- iamsmartacus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There already seems to be some discrepancies in this article and other sites presenting the same treaty, but that aside.
If this treaty as presented on the site is correct, we still most view it through historical perspectives. The founders were very reactionary to governments that were headed by a particular church, they did not want to be a theocracy. They did not want our government to be hijacked by a particular ruling religious body. They also didn't want government to be completely void of religion and to eradicate the religious freedoms of individuals. There is a distinct difference in that you also cannot ask the individuals participating in government service to devoid themselves of any religious belief. It is what shaped and molded them to be in the position they now serve.
The government is not allowed to establish a particular religion as the supreme authority over government, it does not prevent the government to work with and promote religious activities. During the time of Jefferson's presidency churches were meting in the capital, and supreme court housing. Aethism is a form of religious philosophy and should not be the determining factor anymore than Christianity, Islam, or Judasim. - imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Tao: That's a argument from semantics only. You're trying to shift the debate from Atheist's opposition to having religion of any kind supported by the government(such the absurd National Day of Prayer in May or Christmas as a national holiday) to the absurd "Xians are being prevented from worshiping" argument. Do it in your own time, keep the government out of it.
The country is Xian but the government must remain secular or it risks playing favorites with any religious denominations that so happen to be the largest. Imagine one day if Muslims or Hindus or Atheist control the congress and start enacting their own religious/anti-religious laws.
Freedom From Religion according to the courts basically states that the state will not support religion and will not discriminate against the non-religious. - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@ imperium2000 5 minutes ago
"Please stop the absurd, Atheist has no morals BS."
Hi imperium! Nice to see you again!
My argument is not that Atheists *have no* "morals." It's that Atheist morality is largely fluid, and (quite ironically) to the degree that it can be *fixed* to a particular specific concept, that concept is: "What is right is what the *majority* of society has agreed is right" which means you (an Atheist minority) lose any *moral arguments* that a Christian majority should not codify Christian principles. - JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3It's no coincidence that the First Amendment directly contradicts the First Commandment.
- adm58, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@prisoner24601
I think imperium2000 helped me make my argument. I guess my poltical science/philosophy education has made me take for granted the wide array of ethical theory that is out there. It was dumb of me to assume everyone who comments on Digg is educated on a subject. I will, for one last time, repeat that athiests do not have "majority rule morals." Majority rule is bad, which is why Aristotle likened democracy to a form of tyranny. That is why we have a republic, so people of principle can govern in ways that benefit all citizens. - imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@Prisoner: "Seriously, you can't be arguing that "moral behavior" means "doing the things we all know deep down are right" can you? I mean, surely you'd agree that different cultures at different times throughout the world have had radically different "common sense" on certain behaviors."
Exactly. Your Christian morality is completely different from Puritans, Renaissance, Medieval, Dark Age, First Century Christians so your Christian morality and ethics are not absolutes but are just social constructs that are filtered through your dogma. Why don't you kill adulterers anymore? Because Christian morality is as much a social construct as anything.
Why is homosexuality immoral? Why is Stem Cell research being opposed? Why is sex so feared? These are all dark age morality.
@Tao:
Good point. Other good points:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death" - Albert Einstein
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@ adm58
"It was dumb of me to assume everyone who comments on Digg is educated on a subject."
I'll go ahead and assume you didn't mean that in a condescending manner...
Nevertheless, imperium really hasn't resolved the issue at all. He's simply re-asserted (similar to how you did earlier) that Atheists *do indeed* have morals, but has not established a logical basis for those morals (beyond simple "majority consensus" as I have asserted.
I completely acknowledge that both of you have *asserted* there is some sort of perfectly logical and *absolute* moral principles that can be established without a Deity.
I do not, however, acknowledge that either of you have clearly defined the logic behind that assertion. You've both basically told me "there's lot's and lot's of really good reasons why lots and lots of people think there is absolute morality even if man is simply an evolved animal" and then told me "So shut up you Theist twit!"
I honestly hoped for a bit more than that. - imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Prisoner: Oh Hi again...how rude of me.
@Tao:
A simple basis to morality is "Empathy". The ability of a person to put themselves in the position of someone else.
That is the reason why people can do bad things to people who they 'dehumanize' or are from an outside group because you can't or won't empathize with these 'outsiders' or 'barbarians'. The moment a thief start thinking of people as 'fathers', mothers etc. instead of the 'shopkeeper', the 'rich guy', they'll stop to think.
That's a reason why sociopaths are so dangerous. People with this disorder have no basis for morality because they cannot empathize at all. It is the same reason why certain people with frontal lobe brain damage(I won't go into an argument of the existence of the human Soul) have similar sociopathic tendencies.
I have to get back to work. I'll be back later. - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't know why people think our founding fathers were any less politicians than people are today... Half of them probably were hardcore atheists but they pretended to at least be deists to placate certain demographic groups.
If the country was founded on any religion, it would be mentioned in the Constitution and it's not. End of story. - adm58, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@prisoner24601
If I told you atheists had a special two-thousand year old book that dictated our moral philosophy, would that satisfy you? As Imperium has indicated, not even religion is absolute in its moral approach. There is moral disparity within Christianity. You have nutjob Baptists protesting Mr. Roger's funeral because Mr. Rogers was a Christian man who called for acceptance (and we can't accept gays, say the Baptists).
So, get a clue. Morality is very much an individual matter, even for theists. I agree with Imperium's assertion of empathy... that is about as universal as morality can get. Clearly though, it is a nuanced thing, and more complicated than you are willing to accept. All I was originally saying is that moral behavior does not require religion. - kingfoot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Ok, so i started off, saying ***** you to the people bitching about comment abuse. now, im saying ***** you to the ones apologizing. its much more annoying. please stop saying it.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@dasluvaluva,
Your "well-research" source is nothing of the sort.
Intro paragraph:
"..people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument"
False - and David Barton, the theocrat propagandist behind wallbuilders.com, knows it is false. You may simply be ignorant, but you are parroting lies. The notion that America was not founded as a Christian nation has extensive, explicit basis in writings of the founders explaining the founding of the country as well as their interpretation of the Constitution; it has grounding in hundreds of years of Supreme Court opinions. This treaty is but one of many foundations for a position, the opposite of which has no historical foundation whatsoever.
Next paragraph:
"An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God; an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible; and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind."
Note how Barton, in his typically dishonest, sneaky fashion, uses language suggesting that atheists and agnostics merely "profess" a believe, while the deist actually "believes.
"One of the quotes they set forth is the following:
The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.GEORGE WASHINGTON
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington’s supposed statement."
Actually, as Barton well knows, it is an historical anachronism to state that Washington himself wrote the treaty; as historians will tell you, in the period during and the decades following Washintgon's political life, almost anything of importance was attributed to him. In fact, as honest atheist as well as honest theist historians will tell you, the treaty happened to be signed toward the end of Washington's term as US President, but was not written by him.
The very first link at the end of the original article Dugg explains this early on - as you would have known, if you had bothered to actually read anything before mindlessly and obediently parroting dishonest propaganda.
Further on in that article, Barton distorts, selectively quotes, and outright fabricates quotes from founders to justify his case. Barton is a well-known, admitted fraud - just google "Barton and fraud" and have fun.
How does it feel to know that you cited an admitted liar and exposed fraud as a source for your religious argument?
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Short version: dasluvaluva, Google "Barton and fraud", and then explain to us whether you were merely duped by a con man or are deliberately bearing false witness. Which is it?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
That is a really good quote. Though I consider myself a religious person I hate when people act like religion is the only way to be a good person. Time and time again not only have good people arisen without religion but bad people have arisen because of religion.
Many Christians believe that the only way to be a good person is to follow Christ. And while I agree that anyone who follows Christ (correctly) will be a good person I do not believe it is the only way to be a good person. The quote that is attributed to this belief is when Jesus says "I am the light, the truth. No one sees my father except through me"
But the way I interpret that is that Christ ulimtately decides what is good and what is bad and you have to get through Jesus to get to heaven. If more Chrstians interpreted that quote that way I think more Christians would be more accepting of other faiths. It's funny because I have yet to find one passage in the New Testimate where Jesus claims you have to be Christian or Jewish or any other religion to access heaven. It's funny to me how many people interpret Jesus's words to say this even after how many good things he did to people of all faiths. In fact he seemed to regularly pick battles with those who said only Jews deserved to be saved.
I don't think this arguement would exist if Christians were more forgiving and showed more love to those who choose not to believe in Chirst. - boomer808, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Is it logical or reasonable to think that man appeared in the universe by chance and chemistry? God may not be as the Bible portrays, but I find it quite illogical to think that we came about from an explosion of nothingness. Open your minds my young atheist brothers. There is more to the universe than Man can comprehend. "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Albert Einstein, 1954.
Amen - TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4No one can know to a certainty how the universe was formed and anyone who claims they do know to a certainty is a fool.
- godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the "atheists have no morals" "argument" stems from the misconception that all atheists are nihilists, which is clearly not true. The pseudo-argument probably stems from the fact that those religious apologists who don't want to sound irrational, by claiming that the bible is the pure word of god, instead try to justify it as a code of conduct that helps our society function correctly. But in the end, they remain religious apologists struggling wildly to justify the continued adoption of an outdated book, who can only benefit by portraying atheists as immoral loose cannons, only governed by self-interest.
The truth is, 99% of atheists will morally by anyone's standard. If the only reason you act morally is because you fear god's hell, then I'd argue that you are in fact, a hypocrite. - digibruce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@prisoner24601
It's possible that some small percentage of atheists believe in moral relativism (as do some religious people), but I do not. My moral code requires preservation of individual liberty tempered by the correct application of the Golden Rule - neither principle devolves from a superbeing, and yet they are universal moral absolutes - natural law if you prefer. Moreover, the question of the existence of god is orthogonal to the questions of morality. In other words, the question of the existence of a superbeing that created the universe is not primarily a moral question. However, religion does take a moral stance opposed by atheism: that if god exists, we should worship it, typically because it is has absolute power, not because of any objective morality it might display. That is something I can't get behind - it is anathema to my moral code. And once again, this moral code is not based on consensus, it is based on simple, absolute principles.
There is one other principle - reliance on objective truth - that puts belief in god into a gray area that might be considered morality. It might be considered a moral stance to choose faith over objective truth, or vice versa, since the application of objective truth is necessary for the establishment of individual liberty and adherence to the Golden Rule. Contemporary popular debates about morality and atheism seem to hinge on this question of the existence of god, but they really sidestep the main moral battle between religion and non-religion: whether we should submit to power because it is power.
Finally, I should note that, even though I self-identify as an atheist, I do believe in god. It's just that god isn't what most religious people claim it is. God is not a supernatural creator-being, it is a powerful cultural meme - a consensus within a culture - and as such is an extremely powerful force that needs to be taken seriously, respected, and understood. But it's easier to say "God does not exist", since most religious people will see both descriptions of god's existence/non-existence as equivalent anyway - as your own belief that god is not a consensus demonstrates.
So, to summarize the true atheist perspective:
1. It's pretty clear there is/was no all-powerful supernatural creator-being. It's 100% clear that there is no meddlesome all-powerful supernatural creator-being that intercedes in people's lives and has goals humans can understand. These are not statements with substantial moral implications, except with regards to the nature of truth.
2. However, "god" exists in many forms as cultural memes.
3. If God the All-Powerful Creator (or other superbeing) did turn out to exist, we should not worship Him simply because He is All-Powerful.
4. God-the-meme or God the All-Powerful Creator (should He turn out to exist) should be subject to evaluation based on the same absolute moral principles as everything else, namely, preservation of individual liberty tempered by the Golden Rule, and by application of objective truth.
5. There are universal moral principles that are shared by many atheists and many religious people. These principles do not come from god or the belief in god. - Jack000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2moral absolutism simply deferrs the explanation for the existence of morality to the existence of an omniscient entity.
the philosophical implications of morality cannot be answered so easily. - crazygeorge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is a difference between being founded on the christian religion and being founded on christian values. Once you adopt a label such as 'christian', you also adopt the good and bad that goes with that label. This is why there can be a difference between a Christian and a person who follows Christ.
- Triffid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0wow... as if someone sitting around reading digg comments just had their mind changed by all your profound arguments O.o
- MitchWilkinson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Never mind the Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War, which begins "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity" and was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay.
Or the Treaty of Kanagawa which U.S. Ambassador Perry signed "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."
If you want to play the history game, it will not end as you choose. Historical deniers will trot out the treaty of Tripoli, and I can respond all day with other examples.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm#n4
The Avalon project does a good job explaining the errors and inaccuracies of the Barlow translation, but for those whom intent precedes content, truth will be ignored. Indeed, the original language of the treaty, Arabic, does not even include Barlow's infamous article, and as such was never signed by both parties. - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ digibruce
"My moral code requires preservation of individual liberty tempered by the correct application of the Golden Rule"
I understand the idea that you are forwarding (and appreciate the thoughtful tone in which you are presenting it) but still see a serious problem here that (so far) really hasn't been addressed. If the moral code that you ascribe to is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (a generous and peaceful philosophy) the fact that you feel that one is best doesn't "invalidate" some hypothetical cannibal's "do unto others *before* they do it undo you" (selfish and violent) philosophy.
In other words, how can any Atheist state their benevolent philosophy is the correct one if there is no "absolute court of appeals" that can set the standard? In the Atheist framework, how can you not have 6.2 billion people all determining for themselves whatever they think is "right" or "wrong" personally and in radical contradiction to each other?
The only proposed answer here so far is that of "empathy" but that simply isn't "functional." Nazi's didn't empathize with Jews, cannibals don't empathize with their victims, etc.
More importantly, the idea that empathy and/or the golden rule IS "the standard" because we would all LIKE it to BE the standard again simply reverts to "morality is consensus" wherein the Nazi or cannibal is perfectly "moral" by the standards of his society.
I'm surprised that Atheists are not more comfortable accepting (and arguing for) the notion of an "amoral" universe since that flows more logically from the assumption of a "causeless" universe. Of course the implications are monstrous, but the reasoning is more sound if you are prepared to accept the premise of a Godless universe. - adm58, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@prisoner24601
I understand your hypothesis, but you're off base. The evidence is that atheistic societies are actually more peaceful. Statistically, where secularism is more common, crime is less common. See Sweden, or a handful of other European nations. - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ adm58
"The evidence is that atheistic societies are actually more peaceful."
I would point out that your response is along the lines of "atheism works" (discussing what you perceive to be the *effect* of the system) and not a direct reply to my (quite different) problem with it, which is that there's no consistent "absolute standard of morality " that any atheist so far here has been able to establish in a very compelling way.
For example, assume your modern western "golden rule/empathy" standard is the one you hold to, but there is another society (I'll call it "New Sparta" for this discussion) which is atheistic, but fully believes the "right" thing to do is to kill those who don't agree with them. (I'm ***NOT*** by the way, making some snide accusation that atheists are violent or any other such nonsense, so please don't assume that I'm grouping you or anyone else here into that New Sparta. It's just a device for the purpose of this discussion.)
If New Spartans believe in killing those who disagree with them, on what basis can you assert their "morality" is *wrong* and yours is right? - Jack000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0prisoner24601:
I don't think there is any relationship between moral relativism and atheism. Rather, it is that moral objectivism necessitates theism.
Moral subjectivism and relativism might not be the best answers, but neither is the objectivist viewpoint. If there is an absolute, objective source of morality, how do you know that this morality happens to align with your own? Perhaps the bible is the answer, but the bible did have many archaic laws which in today's society would not be acceptable. From the epstimological perspective, there is no way of knowing whether god indeed sees cannibalism as immoral, quickly paving the way for this argument to justify any number of immoral acts.
the bottom line is that there are no easy answers, for atheists or theists. - imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If the moral code that you ascribe to is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (a generous and peaceful philosophy) the fact that you feel that one is best doesn't "invalidate" some hypothetical cannibal's "do unto others *before* they do it undo you" (selfish and violent) philosophy."
Interesting. What you stated is 100% true except that the main imorrality from cannibalism and nazis is their act upon other humans. The 'do onto others' philosophily does invalidate the others philosophy since it is harmful to others. I like Hume's definition of what's moral, which is basically whats "Good for you, Not harmful to you, Good for others and Not Harmful to others."
"In other words, how can any Atheist state their benevolent philosophy is the correct one if there is no "absolute court of appeals" that can set the standard?"
There isn't. Simply the best at the time and place, the morality of society changes with time. That's the reason the ethics of the Constitution is so amazing(except for slavery).
"In the Atheist framework, how can you not have 6.2 billion people all determining for themselves whatever they think is "right" or "wrong" personally and in radical contradiction to each other?"
You can't. That's the reason we have laws.
"The only proposed answer here so far is that of "empathy" but that simply isn't "functional." Nazi's didn't empathize with Jews, cannibals don't empathize with their victims, etc."
It did fail. Hence the holocaust. That's a breakdown of the morality of society and the power of Authority. Take a look at the Milgram Study on how authority can cause people to do bad things and the Stanford Prison Experiment for how good people turn evil when placed under certain circumstances.
"More importantly, the idea that empathy and/or the golden rule IS "the standard" because we would all LIKE it to BE the standard again simply reverts to "morality is consensus" wherein the Nazi or cannibal is perfectly "moral" by the standards of his society."
Sure. They may have been moral from their perspective but they're still imorral from everyone elses perspective. Here's a Philosophical question. If all of humanity dies, does morality still exist if little gremlins appear? Is it a social construct and is in the mind of man or is it a part of nature? You think it is the latter, I think it is the prior. It is scary but that's reason why we need to teach or kids to be more humane because if our morality dissapear, it is gone.
"I'm surprised that Atheists are not more comfortable accepting (and arguing for) the notion of an "amoral" universe since that flows more logically from the assumption of a "causeless" universe. Of course the implications are monstrous, but the reasoning is more sound if you are prepared to accept the premise of a Godless universe. "
The universe is amoral. I don't have a problem with it. The cosmos doesn't give a rats ass if we all die. That's the reason we have to take responsibilty for our actions and not depend on a deity if we ***** up. - Simus1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The TREATY OF TRIPOLI is very often misused (as in this thread and original link) and taken out of its historical context. For those who care for a careful analysis of this topic, please read: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5
Many confuse the phrase "Christian nation" with FEDERAL establishment of the Christian religion. We need look no further than the anti-establishment clause of the 1st Amendment for the view of the Founders against federal establishment. However, the Founders did mean for the new republic to be a "Christian nation" in 2 senses (*remember, the question raised here is not present Constitutional law, but what most of the FOUNDERS WANTED*):
(1) They left to STATE governments the power to establish Christianity (or a specific denomination) as their STATE religion. With the exception of Madison, they did not object to the fact that most colonies and, thereafter, STATES explicitly established Christianity in their official STATE documents and constitutions.
(2) [Regarding this second point, please see quotes below] Even in the federal context, they believed that the personal God of Christianity built the moral foundations for the independence, creation, and laws of the U.S. government. They believed that individual liberties were a gift from God, not constructs of rulers or legislators. They believed that the survival and thriving of this republic depended on the continuing morality and religion of its people. Forty-nine of the fifty-something signers of the Declaration of Independence were practicing Calvinists (it is hard to get any more fundamentalist than Calvinists), not deists; some were even ordained ministers.
JAMES MADISON: "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better that the builders of Babel." (James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention; see James Madison, The Papers of James Madison, Henry D. Gilpin, ed. (Washington: Langtree & O'Sullivan, 1840), Vol. II, p. 985)).
THOMAS JEFFERSON: "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." (See Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1787, p. 289).
JOHN ADAMS: "... because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (See John Adams, "To the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts," October 11, 1798).
NOAH WEBSTER: "Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion."
"[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles."
"This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."
(See Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 300, Sec. 578.)
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS: "Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [July 4th]? . . . Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity. .. ?" (See John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their Request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 5)).
ABRAHAM LINCOLN: "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulties." (See A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, James D. Richardson, editor (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. VI, p. 11, from his First Inaugural, March 4, 1861)). - prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ imperium2000
"If all of humanity dies, does morality still exist if little gremlins appear? Is it a social construct..."
First of all, I really like how you phrased this. Sort of like "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it..." analogy, and perfectly apt to our discussion. Yes, your statement that morality is tied to the *existence* of humanity is very much in keeping with what I understand Atheist morality to be: a "contrivance of society" (for lack of a better term) rather than an "absolute universal standard" that would remain inviolate regardless of mankind's existence in the Theistic perspective.
Now I honestly not trying to say "ha ha! I gotcha!" here or anything, but it does seem that at least you (if not the atheist other posters here) are at least "warming up to" my argument that atheist morality really cannot be termed "universal absolute" and more properly "human convention."
In other words, there is nothing "right" or "wrong" about a black hole eating a planet. There is nothing right or wrong about a fox eating a rabbit. There is (I now extrapolate, and I continue to assert that I do so quite reasonably) nothing "right" or "wrong" about a cannibal eating a man within the Atheist logical framework.
What there *is* in the atheist framework is a "majority consensus" that says "if you eat another man, we'll lock you up because *this* society doesn't want that sort of thing going on. (which is quite fine, but it is a very different thing to say "cannibalism is *wrong* than it is to say *we've agreed not to tollerate it.*)
The reason this becomes (very) relevant is that any reasonable atheist can rationally reach the conclusion "there's really no such thing as right and wrong, there's just what will be tolerated and what will be punished."
Now to make a significant (but honestly quite reasonable I still assert!) transition, this means some crime (rape for example) isn't *wrong* per se, it's simply very *risky* and becomes a question of "it is probable that I will be caught?" not "is it right?" Rape is a very apt (although disturbing) issue to discuss this with because it is essentially "normal" in the animal kingdom.
And I would ask you to consider the possibility that a major part of the reason you are likely feeling your blood boil as you read what I've said is partly because you have been designed by a creator with a conscience that is horrified by the notion of rape. You (and I and everyone here) WANT rape to be wrong, FEEL rape to be wrong, are REVOLTED by rape. But is that because we are evolved animals that have for some inexplicable reason come to reject what is "normal" for every other species? Or could it possibly be because a Creator built us in a unique way that is different from all other creatures alive by giving us a soul and a conscience? - Jack000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0just want to reiterate that atheism does not necessarily lead to moral relativism. Moral objectivism is a direct conclusion of belief in god, but the same relationship does not follow for atheism and relativism.
it is perfectly rational for an atheist to believe in moral subjectivism, relativism, or even a form of objectivism which does not invoke god - imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Prisoner:
Well besides sidestepping all my other arguments in my prior post.
"a "contrivance of society" (for lack of a better term) rather than an "absolute universal standard" that would remain inviolate regardless of mankind's existence in the Theistic perspective."
Yup. I believe that morality is a part of human biology and society. It isn't engrained in reality. If all of humanity dissapears, I believe that humanistic morality will dissapear as well.
"Now I honestly not trying to say "ha ha! I gotcha!" here or anything, but it does seem that at least you (if not the atheist other posters here) are at least "warming up to" my argument that atheist morality really cannot be termed "universal absolute" and more properly "human convention."
Never said otherwise. As some posters have mentioned, moral objectivism(which I think doesn't exist since moral laws are suject to interpretation) is linked in human biology(and even in monkey biology) which is the avertion to killing and decreasing suffering.
"In other words, there is nothing "right" or "wrong" about a black hole eating a planet. There is nothing right or wrong about a fox eating a rabbit. There is (I now extrapolate, and I continue to assert that I do so quite reasonably) nothing "right" or "wrong" about a cannibal eating a man within the Atheist logical framework."
There nothing right or wrong about a cannibal eating a man in the sense that cosmos doesn't care about. However, we as humans have a conciousness and we are biologically aversed to cannibalism which causes suffering and pain and is therefore imorral from a biological basis.
"What there *is* in the atheist framework is a "majority consensus" that says "if you eat another man, we'll lock you up because *this* society doesn't want that sort of thing going on. (which is quite fine, but it is a very different thing to say "cannibalism is *wrong* than it is to say *we've agreed not to tollerate it.*)"
That is why cannibalistic societies used to exist. Society and programming can lead normal people who are aversed to eating people to be cannibals.
You also used the might is right argument. Just because you won't get caught for rape doesn't make it right in the sense that you've harmed someone else. If the person isn't caught, nothing bad will happen to that person. No deity will punish them but it is still wrong as it has harmed another person and society as well.
"designed by a creator with a conscience that is horrified by the notion of rape."
Absurd logical fallacy. You've just made a circular argument. "Rape is wrong because, God made us to feel it is wrong therefore god exists"
"But is that because we are evolved animals that have for some inexplicable reason come to reject what is "normal" for every other species?"
That is because we're not animals and evolved to function as large societies and not small animal packs. Wrong correlation.
"Or could it possibly be because a Creator built us in a unique way that is different from all other creatures alive by giving us a soul and a conscience?"
Possible but your statement is built up on multiple assumptions: A Creator has to exist, your Creator has to be all powerful, you're assuming the soul exist etc. You need to prove this statement. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Simus1,
Google "Barton and Fraud". As was already noted in this thread, the quotes you cite from wallbuilders include complete fabrications by the site owner, taking unrelated pieces (even, at times, individual words!) from separate quotes by the same founder and stitching them together in ways that make it seem one thing was said when quite another was; in other cases, existing quotes were altered or had pieces tacked on to them that the original founder never said; and, in other cases, quotes were invented from whole cloth.
The fact that you post these lengthy quotes here a day AFTER wallbuilders was debunked in the very same thread you post on, suggests that you are deliberately trying to mislead and bearing false witness in defense of your holy cause.
Simus1, please inform us:
1) are you merely an ignorant shill being exploited by liars and con-men, or are you deliberately sowing confusion and spreading lies?
2) Is that the kind of values you think your "Christian nation" should have? Why should we endorse that?
- Itazura, on 10/12/2007, -18/+73It is sad that this day in age we must look to such an old treaty with a foreign nation to come to terms with how religious our government has become, when in plain sight a much more famous document that should hold much more power clearly dictates the seperation of church and state, sadly though, no one who is charged with upholding these laws actually does so.
- jbarnes1234, on 10/12/2007, -24/+16There is nothing established in our governmental laws or process that is inherently religious. What we have are a majority of people who operate our government who are inherently religious and those people set public policy. If you disagree with them, you get to vote them out. Unfortunately, atheists are in the vast minority in this country and their voting power is inconsequential.
- borderinsanity, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36True enough. The US Constitution nearly always trumps any treaty. However, the Treaty of Tripoli is no longer valid because the political organizations (e.g., the Barbary States) it deals with no longer exist. While many want to say that the Treaty is definitive to the separation of Church and State; there are far better references in Thomas Jefferson's writings and the Federalist Papers about this topic.
Taken in context, the Treaty means, "we won't pay you tribute for safe passage of US ships because you are Muslim, but because you are pirates terrorizing US ships and Citizens." The Treaty was intended to give safe passage to US ships through the Mediterranean against the pirates that hailed from the Barbary States. The reality was that the US had no Navy or Marines after the War of Independence and could not get that protection from the British Navy.
The Treaty was broken by the Barbary Pirates and eventually required direct US action in the First (c. 1801) and Second (c. 1815) Barbary Wars. (Incidentally, the opening stanza of the US Marine Corp hymn refers to "the shores of Tripoli", a direct reference to the Barbary Wars fought by the US Marines.)
If anything, the Treaty and the ensuing two Barbary Wars taught the US several lessons relevant today. First, that religion is no justification for forming deals with other nations. Second, you can't make a deal with a pirate/terrorist because the pirate/terrorist is by definition lawless. Third, the US pays no ransom for safe passage of its people/assets anywhere in the world. And last, the US will project military power on other nations to enforce foreign policy and the rule of law.
Sadly, the Barbary Wars were the start of sometimes brutal European occupation of the North African coast as well as other Muslim lands; and probably are the basis of historic enmities by today's Muslim nations against traditional liberal Western democracies. - elk1, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9what is truly sad is that one obscure document becomes irrefutable proof as long as it is in line with your view point. Our government was not founded to be a christian nation, but it was founded by christians who prescribed to a christian set of morals.
If you look at a little less obscure of a document, say the declaration of independence, you can see statements such as
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Creator with a capital C indicates that these unalienable rights are not natural, but a mandate from god. If you look to nature, i can think of no social system in which these rights are provided. i personally do not believe in god, but feel that religion was pivotal in creating the sense of morality. there is no absolute good or bad, it all has to get defined somewhere and the basis for most american's moral views are judeo christian. i also believe that many current religious views are in conflict with my own morality. that being said i find the athiest attacks on anything christian abhorrent. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25@jbarnes1234
"There is nothing established in our governmental laws or process that is inherently religious."
Are you kidding?
Ever heard of Blue Laws? (thankfully eliminated in most states)
Or maybe the whole Creationism/Intelligent Design movement?
How about right to die issues?
Lack of access to contraceptives? (thankfully state legislation regarding access was overruled by the Supreme Court)
What about recent cases where the 10 Commandments were posted in government buildings?
There are plenty of examples of laws and other government actions directly influenced by specific belief systems. - thundacracka, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9What famous document? I don't see how you can "uphold" a law that doesn't exist. It only appears in commentary. That aside, I agree with Jefferson's statement on the separation of church and state. It's so often misconstrued to fit ones argument. The separation is meant to protect the church from the state.
- Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"sadly though, no one who is charged with upholding these laws actually does so."
What's funny is that most of the Republican politicians out there do not themselves personally agree with super Jesus-freak religion politics. There's really just a minority that does. As a whole, the Republican party caters to the Jesus-freak voters because, in essence, they are a large block of guaranteed votes.
Lately though, this tactic is slowly fading away as many religious leaders are pulling support from the Republican party due to the "Godless" scandels that have been happening. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@thundacracka
"It only appears in commentary."
Commentary gives insight into and context for Framers' Intent. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@borderinsanity: "The US Constitution nearly always trumps any treaty."
Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." - that appears to say treaties trump the constitution.
@elk1: "Our government was not founded to be a christian nation, but it was founded by christians who prescribed to a christian set of morals."
No, they weren't Christians. Many were Deists. (Deism is sort of "atheism-lite"; it's certainly not Christianity!) - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@elk1,
The Declaration of Independence, inspirational though it may be, has no legal standing. The Constitution does, as do treaties ratified by Congress and Supreme Court decisions--which are pretty unambiguous on the matter of separation of religion and state.
Not that we should be forever bound by what a bunch of white male property owners thought three hundred years ago - they were men, not gods, and their ideas and rules should be scrutinized rationally and thoughtfully in light of modern understanding (which is why the Constitution has been amended so many times) - but the founder's own extensive writings should surely be considered in the equation as well. Why attempt to interpret or infer intent from a non-binding declaration when you have reams of writings, letters, and state legislation written by and/or supported Jefferson, Madison, Adams and others clearly spelling out their attitude toward religion and state?
Of course, you've probably never read any of the original writings, but are merely parroting theocratic propaganda from some other site.
Do your own research - it's all public domain - and come to your own conclusions as a free-thinking human, not an obedient slave to organized religion. - borderinsanity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Misesean
Mmmm... No it doesn't. The "notwithstanding" clause changes the reading. The Constitution and US Common Laws precede Treaties. Treaties are between sovereign nations and the US and by themselves hold no special power. Typically, a statute is needed to implement a ratified treaty into US Common Law and enabling Federal Regulations. By itself, a treaty can't be implemented. The exception to this is if a ratified treaty conflicts with an existing statute, the US Supreme Court or a State Supreme Court can at its option strike the offending statute assuming that the treaty still complies with the intent of the US Constitution or the laws of the State.
- SnowflakePillow, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Cool find.
- ICSU, on 11/05/2007, -13/+189Let's see the pattern:
George Washington
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle"
"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the
Christian Religion."
Thomas Jefferson
"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature."
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
James Madison
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
John F. Kennedy
"I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end... where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the churchof his choice."
George Bush Snr
"I don’t know that atheists should be considered patriots, nor should they be considered citizens".
George W. Bush jnr
"The United States is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles and beliefs."- jkleinfeld, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14thank you ICSU
thank you ever so much - Red_Eye, on 10/12/2007, -15/+12But you forget one thing. Unfortunate majority. Since common sense and mob mentality are mutually exclusive we will always have to bow to majority forces. Since the human psyche is inherently weak and in need of a hand holding people will always flock. Therefore the winner is the group who breeds the most.
This country may have won the war against the British, but we lost the much more subtle war against Christianity very quickly. - RedKiteFlying, on 11/05/2007, -6/+19Thank you ICSU, for highlighting the swing to Christian morality that has emerged in the United States since the Reagan era ushered in the Age of Conservatism. We were not founded as a Christian nation, and as an atheist, I would really rather we not be a Christian nation now.
- cgoff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3What needs to be defined here is the term Christian. For instance, your quote from James Madison is most assuredly referring to Catholicism. Is this what the founding fathers were worried about? After all the atrocities the Catholic Church was committing in Europe and elsewhere during that time period perhaps they didn't want a repeat of it here in America. If so, can you blame them for their statements?
- jobenly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"To morrow being the day set apart by the Honorable Congress for public Thanksgiving and Praise; and duty calling us devoutely to express our grateful acknowledgements to God for the manifold blessings he has granted us. The General directs that the army remain in it’s present quarters, and that the Chaplains perform divine service with their several Corps and brigades. And earnestly exhorts, all officers and soldiers, whose absence is not indispensibly necessary, to attend with reverence the solemnities of the day."
General George Washington, orders to his troops to a church service
"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"
Benjamin Franklin, trying to establish an opening prayer in the Constitutional Convention
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Jefferson, inscription on his memorial (sounds like an atheist, right?)
I don't post these quotes as gotchas, but to warn you all to be careful of revisionist history. In all probability, all of the founding fathers had very complicated and contradictory views of religion. To act like you absolutely know the state of any of their minds from a few quotes is to be self-deluding, and making a point with cherry-picked quotes is a fallacious. - noodlez, on 11/05/2007, -4/+2i hereby nominate ICSU's comment as the best digg comment ever
- atr0p1s, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"When will the persecution end? I dream that one day there may even be a Christian president, or 43 of them... consecutively."
- Jon Stewart - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@jobenly
You missed the point completely.
This is not about their beliefs (or lack of) in a god of whatever religon, but about the separation of religion and government (Church and state). And, of course, they targeted mainly Christianity, since it was and still is dominant. - jobenly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ICSU
No, I got your point. You missed mine. Separation of church and state has been part of the U.S. culture since the beginning. What exactly that means and entails has been up to debate at least since the time of the founding fathers (they all had opinions on the subject and argued about it). You tried to prove that U.S. leaders have become more and more supportive of an establishment of Christianity over the years. I provided some quotes to show that the founding fathers pulled religion into their public duties in a way that would be scandalous now-a-days. I provided those quotes to show that your logic is less than accurate and to warn against projecting your ideologies into your understanding of history. - tand0m, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thank you ICSU for presenting this trend of views on Christianity and morality in our state.
I just wanted to point out that the first quote from Washington:
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle"
really is pointing out that Washington believes that national morality canNOT prevail without religious principle. re-read the quote. but that says nothing about how much he believes religious principle should play a part in government and definitely doesn't say that Christianity is the correct religious principle to follow.
Also, I think it'd be an interesting study to see how actual Policy has shifted in favor of Christian morality, because quotes are nice and all, but don't say a lot about what is actually going on.
- jkleinfeld, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14thank you ICSU
- theMurdocVolta, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19Its sad that people are so caught up in branding the US with a religious title, The "Melting Pot" apparently is only skin deep. Why cant we except and respect each others beliefs, I myself am Agnostic, I personally think that western religion has it all wrong, but who am I to say that Joe and Jane ***** is wrong for being Christian or catholic or whatever.
The Christian community especially need to get over itself and except that not everyone has to conform to its beliefs. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11On the other hand, it's a treaty between two nations that the U.S. really needed for economic reasons, and it explicitly mentions previous Christian/Muslim hostilities... It's not hard to read it as mostly a document written with political expediency in mind, rather than an accurate description of each party's real intentions.
- DDoSAttack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7So what exactly has changed then in the last 210 years?
- Skizmo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9- "So what exactly has changed then in the last 210 years?"
stupification has become mainstream - DDoSAttack, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@Skizmo
Nah, it's always been mainstream. This is nothing new...
Hell, a mere 100 years earlier we were burning witches (read those who's personal religious beliefs and morals don't mesh with what's popular) at the stake - patik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@DDoSAttack
Witch burning wasn't even based on religion, it was just societal politics at play (i.e. people didn't want certain outcasts living in their town, or an influential person made an accusation). - inajeep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think being called a witch was a social issue but the burning part was a religious act.
- tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And it's no longer valid. The other party broke it and we went to war with them.
- richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Hell no they didn't, a lot of the forefathers weren't even Christian, alot were Agnostic. Ive said it in the past and Ill say it again, if any of the forefathers were alive today to see what there country has become they would ***** a brick.
- suprememilo, on 10/12/2007, -20/+10Well we are the wealthest and most powerful country in the world, they would probably like that a bit.
Our constitution (albet not being inforced) is pretty much the same as it was back in the day. - richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19Forgot to add, its really weird in these types of religious stories how being Atheist and godless is somehow a bad thing.
And super no they wouldnt, we fought the wealthiest largest and most powerful country to become free, freedom is what they would ultimately want and not have the country become Christian Land. - avasol, on 10/12/2007, -6/+58I think if our forefathers came back they would say something like "OMFG we SPECIFICALLY let you morons keep your guns and left numerous clues to rebell against tyranny and opression but all you do is to eat cheetos and fondle your bellybuttons so we're moving out to Holland, the last bastion of personal freedom."
Ps. I am not affiliated with Holland nor do I advocate drugs. - richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Avasol while agree that the main reason we have the right to have guns is not for out protection but in the major case of needing them to overthrow a government that no longer serves us, and yes hippie people I know you think guns are the devil and the right to bare arms conspiracy, I don't think we are to tyranny and oppression yet.
And at this point there is little we can do, all politicians are equal scumbags no matter Rep or Dem, and the few honest independents have no chance in hell to win thanks to a country vastly full of people who will vote Dem or Rep just cause they are one of them regardless if there is a better man, so might as well sit back grab the cheetos and watch the ***** hit the fan.
And PS I do advocate drugs and Holland has nice windmills. - redhook, on 10/12/2007, -14/+8"Well we are the wealthest and most powerful country in the world, they would probably like that a bit."
No we're not, the British Pound is currently worth almost twice what the dollar is. - thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18>No we're not, the British Pound is currently worth almost twice what the dollar is.
Wow, that statement shows such a profound lack of understanding it is unbelievable.
You might as well have said: "No we're not, the several baseball cards are currently worth almost twice what the dollar is."
You might be schocked to learn that the Panamanian Dollar is 1:1 with ours... does that mean the two countries are equal in wealth and power? - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Yeah the Pound is flying (for now) but to say Britain is wealthier than the US shows a lack of appreciation of the number of Dollars out there in comparison to Pounds. It's not a country (yet) but a better comparison would have been the Euro which does have comparable volume and is slightly stronger than the Dollar at the moment.
It's amazing how much damage Bush has done to the Dollar though. If you had 100% reserve banking it would be impossible for people like Bush to do so much damage to the economy. - redhook, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3@thefirelane
You might be shocked to learn that they use the US Dollar in Panama. - thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"You might be shocked to learn that they use the US Dollar in Panama."
Firstly, thank you captain obvious. That was the point of my post... they are identical, but which country is the Superpower.
You may now return to your job as an English to English translator - jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1>>No we're not, the British Pound is currently worth almost twice what the dollar is.
>Wow, that statement shows such a profound lack of understanding it is unbelievable.
>You might as well have said: "No we're not, the several baseball cards are currently worth almost twice what the dollar is."
>You might be schocked to learn that the Panamanian Dollar is 1:1 with ours... does that mean the two countries are equal in wealth and power?
Wow, that statement shows such a profound lack of understanding it is unbelievable. Just so you know, the US dollar is losing value against many different currencies the most alarming being the strengthening of the Euro and it's growing status as a standard currency over the US dollar in the enonomic world. What is most alarming is the rate at which other countries are dumping US treasury bonds. - thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>Wow, that statement shows such a profound lack of understanding it is unbelievable. Just so you know, the US dollar is losing value against many different currencies
Thank pal... guess what, I don't live in the US and I don't get paid in Dollars, I'm keenly aware of the exchange rate.
However, you failed respond to my point... which is that measuring the 'wealth' of a country based solely on looking at the exchange rate is absolutely stupid and arbitrary... hence my comparison to baseball cards - elhaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@richiestang78
Well, I suppose that's the one thing that Bush has done for the conservative movement. We all now agree, left and right, that having guns can be useful. Every other conservative principle has been sold out to the highest bidder.
- suprememilo, on 10/12/2007, -20/+10Well we are the wealthest and most powerful country in the world, they would probably like that a bit.
- MGustafson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Mussulmen... look it up... it's actually the in the second half of the sentence... it's an older word for Muslim... Muslim, as pertaining to this war though... the treaty was meant to declare that we were not at war with a religion, but with a country. We signed a treaty against war with Tripoli. That was it. Anyone who says that we should use this document to stop war with the middle east (this is Digg, they will) is wrong.
This document appeased Tripoli by stopping a crusade type war. Our forefathers were Christian and therefore the Cristian upbringing is obvious with our manifestos. I am not a Christian but I was raised as one and with that in mind the majority or Christian rule (from the Bible) are good ideas, but they are just that, ideas. The major issues in the Bible that people conflict with such as abortion and homosexuality (which I am for) are based around an idea of health. Back when the book was written (by the Roman Catholic church) there were major societal issues with health and what not that were addressed by simply banning certain activities. Yes there are other parts of the Bible that address these but even if there was a God and he gave us a set of rules then those ruled could still be subject to change (IE. we don't abide by the same set of rules in high school that we abide by in kindergarten).
I feel that the contributor of this article is trying to push the idea that government is trying to push a Christian agenda (and attempting to show a lie that will degrade and deface the government). This may be the case in some aspects but I've always felt that overall the government has done an excellent job of respecting the freedom of religion. We never have to worry that we will be oppressed after going to an alternative (to the Christian faith) church. We may have some instances where say if we went to a Muslim church we might be checked out, but that is fine (when the government steps in and say kidnaps us and sends us to camp it is not). It is fine because the government has the responsibility of protecting the citizens and one of the easiest ways of doing that is through profiling. Profiling is wrong when used incorrectly, but helps greatly when used right. Our (the United States) government is trying hard. And while we (liberals specifically since they are they most outspoken on this topic) may not agree we have to respect an effort.
Basically religion can be used as a guideline these days. The days of a need for a strict doctrine like the Bible are past and we must adjust our beliefs accordingly. With the technology available to us and with modern science we can enhance (not throw out) the Biblical teachings. We can accept other ideas and other Bucolically dirty lifestyles without damaging our "souls". If the Christian god is an intolerant God who rules through dictation then he is a flawed God. Only through accepting "alternative" lifestyles can we unite as a species as I and some others feel God (or Gods in some cases) intended.
Maybe we should look past the religious agenda of the government and focus on the more important moral aspect of things. Is it moral for the US to try to alter a lifestyle of another nation? Is it moral for us to push our Democratic ways on a culture much older than us? Democracy, or at least a true democracy is based on the peoples choice. Whether or not we agree with that choice is irrelevant. If a country wanted to be lead by a gay black communist then we have no right to step in and change that.
Lets focus on the issues that matter people (liberals especially). Not some argument about whether or not we were formed as a Christian nation. There's a reason the rest of the world is pissed at us. When we have peace and when the citizens are ALL taken care of then we can speculate on this. The government has more important issues to debate instead of bringing this up.
~Mike
PS. I consider myself politically conservative but I agree with some liberal issues. I am by no means trying to spout a propaganda like message just think about this and set some priorities and say a purpose in random trivia spouting like this.
Think critically or don't bother thinking.- richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Very nicely put and I agree with the most part, Im atheist and my only major problem with Relgion is its unwillingness to adjust itself to modern times. Instead of the earth was created in 6 Days, why not say God set in motion the events of the big bang and over billions of years natural law is the reason we are here and stop with the literal translation.
As far as my political views I wouldn't say im either Liberal or conservative
Gun Control No, its our right and our history
Abortion Yes, women should and need the right to have control over there bodies and not be made into incubators with no choice of the matter
Drugs, Yes, honestly there no more dangerous then Alcohol
Religion in the Government, Big no no, Evolution should be taught in school since its science, public funding should never go to any religion based or owned organization (Boy Scouts for example, Mormons control them)
I roll with the issues, making my mind up about them rather then listening to one side or another, cause lets face it no one side can be right about it all. - KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Actually the Forefathers were mainly Deist.
- jm9206755, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Anyone who says that we should use this document to stop war with the middle east (this is Digg, they will) is wrong."
But nobody did so this is an irrelevant statement.
"Our forefathers were Christian and therefore the Cristian upbringing is obvious with our manifestos."
They were mostly deist. In fact, Thomas Jefferson, for example, is notorious for having written his own version of the Bible where he edited out all the miracles and other supernatural events.
"I am not a Christian but I was raised as one and with that in mind the majority or Christian rule (from the Bible) are good ideas, but they are just that, ideas."
Morality should not be established based on any religious text because doing so would, erroneously, confuse the whole idea of morality with the whole idea of religion. If the US is to be a country which truly respects the diversity of our populous, and varying religious beliefs, law must be based on a secular sense of morality.
"I feel that the contributor of this article is trying to push the idea that government is trying to push a Christian agenda (and attempting to show a lie that will degrade and deface the government)."
"The United States is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles and beliefs." -George W. Bush
Somehow I cannot blame people for being concerned....
"This may be the case in some aspects but I've always felt that overall the government has done an excellent job of respecting the freedom of religion. [snip] We may have some instances where say if we went to a Muslim church we might be checked out, but that is fine"
Profiling is not fine. It is often racist and xenophobic because at it's very fundamental one is making wide generalizations about an entire population. Not only that but it means that many innocent people are subject to extra scrutiny when there is no evidence they have actually committed any wrongdoing. This is a shameful violation of personal privacy. Just because it may make Americans feel safer (or even actually make them safer, who knows) it still should not be done because the government, for the sake of the people, should ALWAYS err on the side of an individuals rights even at the expense of national safety. To not do so removes all value from our form of government and is a slap in the face to everything that America stands for and our men and women in the military have died for since July 4, 1776.
"Basically religion can be used as a guideline these days. [snip] With the technology available to us and with modern science we can enhance (not throw out) the Biblical teachings."
Can but shouldn't. To use the Bible, the Koran, the Torah/Talmud, etc. as a basis of morality and law would grant too much status to one religion over other beliefs. Now mind you science is also a poor basis for morality (i.e. scientifically eugenics would actually be great for society if it wasn't so morally apprehensible). We don't need religion for morality.
"If the Christian god is an intolerant God who rules through dictation then he is a flawed God."
Please actually read the Bible.
"Maybe we should look past the religious agenda of the government..."
....I may be wrong, but I think you just contradicted yourself.... - cgoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1MGustafson, after reading the part about how the Roman Catholic Church wrote the Bible I just had to stop. How people can take you seriously after that statement is beyond me.
- tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@cg
He meant the Church chose the books to put into the Bible (leaving out, say, the Gnostic Gospels).
- richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Very nicely put and I agree with the most part, Im atheist and my only major problem with Relgion is its unwillingness to adjust itself to modern times. Instead of the earth was created in 6 Days, why not say God set in motion the events of the big bang and over billions of years natural law is the reason we are here and stop with the literal translation.
- greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Of course they didn't. They took extra care to keep religion out of gov't so as to allow citizens the freedoms to practice whatever belief they chose.
But heck, you can't expect the bible thumpers to understand this as it would require independant open minded thought. And the fear of that task is precisely why they go to church in the first place. It's much easier to be told what to think than to form your own thoughts.- ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Yay, I love how bigotry against Christians is so accepted. It shows just how open-minded and tolerant people really are. I've seen and heard from just as many closed-minded, knee-jerk atheists, liberals and other assorted detritus of the so-called intelligentsia to offset the most gung-ho, lockstep Fundamentalists you could ever find. In fact, I find the closed-mindedness of many of the non-religious left to be far more hypocritical because they never recognize that they themselves are guilty of exactly what they rail against as they seek to impose _their_ morality on others.
- alarion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1it's not bigotry if it's an observation of behavior. And quite frankly, the behavior described is one I have observed from many christians. For the record, I have, in the past, professed Jesus Christ as my personal savior and been baptised. Since then, I no longer believe.
Saying seagulls ***** on cars is not being a bigot towards seagulls. But it doesn't mean every seagull ***** on cars.
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Yay, I love how bigotry against Christians is so accepted. It shows just how open-minded and tolerant people really are. I've seen and heard from just as many closed-minded, knee-jerk atheists, liberals and other assorted detritus of the so-called intelligentsia to offset the most gung-ho, lockstep Fundamentalists you could ever find. In fact, I find the closed-mindedness of many of the non-religious left to be far more hypocritical because they never recognize that they themselves are guilty of exactly what they rail against as they seek to impose _their_ morality on others.
- Cyberen, on 10/12/2007, -8/+44The funny part is how Christians think they're so persecuted in the USA, despite...
1. There is a majority of Christians over other religions in the country
2. There is a blatant pro-christian slant in the government, not only in who gets elected, but "faith-based initiatives" and blocking for stem-cell research based on certain christians protesting loudly,
3. How often do you see a jesus fish in a newspaper ad, compared to an Islamic crescent or Jewish star? Something tells me people wouldn't be putting it in their ads if it would persecute them.
4. This country was intended to be neither biased to or rejecting of any religion or lack thereof so people could practice their beliefs in peace.
But there you have it, cognitive dissonance on such a level that even a frighteningly powerful majority can still feel like a victimized underdog.
I know people are going to say that they're christian and these people don't represent them. Well you better sort them out, they're on your team!- richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19LOL I like that last line and yes your right about that all.
Another example of Christian influence and probably the biggest one is Gay Marrage. I dont care if 2 dudes or gals want to get married under law. And in reality it is a 1st amendment issue, they should have the right under freedom of religion, if thats what the believe fine. - MGustafson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5There's a major difference in the people who are in the business of the Christian church and the people who are involved the the introspective aspect of Ch
- richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19LOL I like that last line and yes your right about that all.