New twist to pledge case. Little girl wanted to say 'under God'. Dad used her.

[Lincoln]

Surely people realize that "common sense" is a very poor basis for morality. Tyrants throughout history based their ideas of "morality" on their particular views of what was common sense. Generations have slaughtered each other over conflicting ideas of what is moral and what is not.

And any moral system must have a foundation or it cannot endure. It can change with each new generation if that is not the case. In fact that is exactly what some atheists are trying t do now with the moral foundation of America. They are trying to get everyone to pretend that their morality is better even though it is based on their transient thoughts. In 50 years perhaps some fanatical terrorist group will think of a different basis for morality.

With the American system of morality however, certain rights are 'inalienable'. For some reason people want to make those rights subject to an ever changing interpretation of whoever happens to be in power.

And no one can logically say that God is a fictional being. That is simply an opinion. The essence of this argument is power. Atheists want to take the power from God and expect an entire nation to trust that they will come up with a better idea. Most people are quite satisfied with the rights of man being firmly established as they are now. You will not destroy this country without opposition. So far almost the entire nation and both houses of congress are opposed to the designs of a few fanatical atheists. Good luck...

[Lincoln]

Here is an interesting article on the theistic basis for morality:

Craig–Taylor Debate:
Is the Basis for Morality Natural or Supernatural?
Opening Statement
William Lane Craig
Over the years I have had many occasions to quote and comment on Prof. Taylor’s work in my own writing, and it’s a distinct honor to be sharing the platform tonight with him.

Now I want to say at the outset that I agree thoroughly with him that the question is not whether we can be good without God. I don’t think that’s a disputed issue tonight. Rather, the important question is the sub–issue: Is the basis for morality natural or supernatural? And I’m going to defend two basic contentions in tonight’s debate: (I) that supernaturalism provides a sound basis for morality, and (II) that naturalism does not provide a sound basis for morality.

Look with me at that first basic contention, that supernaturalism provides a sound basis for morality. In support of this contention I’d like to make two points:

(1) If God exists, then objective right and wrong exist. God’s own holy and perfectly good nature provides the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. His commands flow necessarily from His own moral nature and constitute for us our moral duties. In the Judeo–Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: first, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your strength, with all your soul, with all your heart, and with all your mind," and second, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." On this foundation, we can affirm the objective goodness of love, generosity, self–sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

(2) Because, according to supernaturalism, man’s life does not end at the grave, all persons are held morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be banished, righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall see that we do live in a moral universe after all. In the end, the scales of God’s justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices that we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance. We can, with consistency, make moral choices which run contrary to our self–interest and even undertake acts of extreme self–sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not just empty and meaningless gestures. Rather, our moral lives have a paramount significance.

It’s noteworthy that Professor Taylor, in his writings, agrees that supernaturalism provides a perfectly coherent and sound basis for morality. In his most recent book, Ethics, Faith, and Reason, he writes, "The idea of moral…obligation is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher…than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations…can be understood as those imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political obligations…."{1} Unfortunately, Professor Taylor seems not to believe in God, and so he shuns a supernatural foundation for morality. Nevertheless, he admits that if God exists, then the foundations for morality are secure. Thus I think that we can agree that supernaturalism provides a sound foundation for morality.

What a contrast that—when we turn to naturalism and look at my second major contention—naturalism does not provide a sound foundation for morality. Naturalism does not match supernaturalism in supplying the necessary conditions for successful moral foundations.

(1) If naturalism is true, objective right and wrong do not exist. Again in his writings Professor Taylor agrees with me on this score. He argues that when modern man abandoned God as the foundation of morality, he lost all basis for saying that objective right and wrong exist. Taylor writes,

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.... Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war...or the violation of human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.
Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.{2}
He concludes, "Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning."{3}

I couldn’t agree more. Without God, there is no objective right and wrong. As Professor Taylor says, it’s just conventional. Thus if naturalism is true, it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as morally wrong. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous, and so in the course of human evolution it has become taboo. But there is nothing really wrong about raping someone. If, as Professor Taylor states, moral rules are, "nothing but the customs…that this or that culture adopts over the course of time,"{4} then the nonconformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more morally wrong than being uncultured. Nor, by the same token, can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It really doesn’t matter what values you choose, for there is no right and wrong. Moral good and evil do not exist.

(2) If naturalism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions. Even if there were objective moral values under naturalism, they’re irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. If life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint. As the Russian writer Dostoyevsky rightly said, " If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."{5} Given the finality of death, it really doesn’t matter how you live. So what do you say to someone that concludes that we may as well just live for self–interest, live just as we please, for pleasure? Perhaps Professor Taylor would say to him that it’s in his best self–interest to adopt a moral lifestyle. But clearly that’s not always true. We all know of situations in which morality runs smack in the face of self–interest. That’s called temptation, right? Moreover, if one is sufficiently powerful, like a Ferdinand Marcos, or a Papa Doc Duvalier, or even a Donald Trump, one can pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and live in pure self–indulgence. Acts of self–sacrifice become particularly inept in a naturalistic worldview. [tape unintelligible] but pure self–interest. Sacrifice for another person would just be stupid. Thus the absence of moral accountability in the philosophy of naturalism makes the virtues of compassion and self–sacrifice hollow abstractions. Naturalism therefore fails to match supernaturalism in supplying the elements necessary for any sound moral foundation.

Now Professor Taylor says that we don’t really need [tape unintelligible] right and wrong, moral accountability, to have sound moral foundations. He says each person should just try to develop his virtues in order to be happy. But is this really adequate for sound moral foundations? I don’t think so, and so consider with me three objections specifically to Taylor’s view.

(1) Taylor’s so–called virtues are really completely amoral. We have a tendency, when Professor Taylor talks about virtues, to think that he’s talking about moral virtues, but in fact he’s not. As he says in his book, what he means by a virtue is really just a skill. A virtuous person is someone who can do something exceptionally well. But this raises two problems:

(i) A person can be very skillful at cruel and hurtful practices. For example, on Taylor’s view, it makes sense to talk about a virtuous torturer. Dostoyevsky once wrote, "People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that’s a great injustice and insult to the beast. A beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel."{6} There are people who are exceptionally skilled at torturing their victims, who invent creative, fiendish ways of inflicting pain, of keeping their victims lingering in pain as long as possible, rather than granting them the release of death. On Taylor’s view, such a person is a virtuous individual. He is exercising his creative intelligence. And as Taylor reminds us in his book, creative intelligence can be exhibited in "virtually any activity."{7} He says that "any activity can be done badly or well, and are always done best when not done by rule, rote, or imitation, but with successful originality."{8} Upon reading these words, I was reminded of a statement by Richard Wurmbrandt, who was tortured in communist prisons. He wrote,

The communist torturers often said, ‘There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do whatever we wish.’ I have heard one torturer even say, ‘I thank God in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.’ He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.{9}
Most of us would say that such a person is morally evil, but on Taylor’s amoral view of virtue, he is actually a virtuous man, which is absurd.

(ii) Because Taylor’s virtues are amoral, no one is morally obliged to become virtuous. Because we naturally tend to think of virtues as moral virtues, we tend to think that this is how we should become. We should be loving, generous, kind, and so forth. Even Professor Taylor lapses into language of moral duty. On page 50 of his book, for example, he speaks of one’s obligation to oneself to become virtuous. But that’s self–contradictory. On his view, you have no moral obligations to yourself or anybody else. The decision to be loving, creative, and interesting, rather than selfish, lazy, and boorish, is utterly arbitrary. The decision to become a Mother Teresa rather than an Adolph Hitler is rather like the decision to go to McDonald’s rather than Burger King.{10} It’s just arbitrary. But I think that most of us recognize that we should be virtuous rather than unvirtuous, and that’s precisely what Professor Taylor's philosophy does not allow us to say.

(2) Christianity offers us a better virtue ethics than Professor Taylor’s. Virtue ethics are part and parcel of moral philosophy, but I think that the Christian version is better than Professor Taylor’s in two ways.

(i) Christianity affirms the reality of moral virtues. On Taylor’s view, remember, virtues are amoral, rather like a skill. But the Christian view is that virtues are qualities that we should acquire. For example, Augustine defined virtue as rightly ordered love—that is to say, valuing things according to their true worth in the right order of priority.{11} Similarly, Aquinas defines virtue as a habit, acquired by the mind, to live rightly.{12} Notice how both of them connected virtue with moral duty. To live rightly, to fulfill your moral obligations, you must be virtuous, and thus one should become a virtuous person—something Professor Taylor’s philosophy does not allow us to say.

(ii) Christianity recognizes the reality of religious virtues. Taylor says that because man is distinctively rational, virtue lies in maximizing his rationality. But what this overlooks is that man is just as religious as he is rational. In his Eudemian Ethics Aristotle describes the ideal life as "the worship and contemplation of God."{13} Taylor simply passes over in silence the religious dimension of Aristotle’s ethics. But Aquinas picked it up and recognized that in addition to the traditional moral virtues, there are religious virtues like faith, hope, and love. Taylor’s version of virtue ethics is based on a truncated view of man and ignores the religious dimension of life; and so, I think, is tragically incomplete.

(3) Taylor’s virtue ethics are morally repugnant. I’m sorry to have to say this, but I think it needs to be said. You wouldn’t tell this from his opening speech, but Taylor’s vision of the virtuous man is one who is proud, intelligent, and self–centered. Just listen to what he writes: "Genuinely proud people perceive themselves as better than others, and their pride is justified because their perceptions are correct."{14} "By and large, most people are rather ignorant, stupid, insensitive—in a word, ‘weak’—that is, inferior."{15} He says that "the weak, seeing that the superior want to rule, invent restraints upon them in the form of moral rules. The very first principle of this morality is that all people are equal."{16} Professor Taylor disagrees. He writes, "A proud person does not pretend to an insincere equality with others who are inferior, that is, who are meek, foolish, or silly."{17} "Some people really are better than others, and therefore count for more."{18} "A person is not worthy of esteem just by the fact of being a person, but rather by the fact of being a person of outstanding worth, which is something quite rare."{19}

Well, how does this tiny minority of superior people relate to others? Taylor says, "The proud person creates his own morality."{20} He knows that [tape unintelligible] a superior person will be generous to a friend not because he cares for the friend, but so that the friend will be in his debt and thus obliged to return the favor. In the index of his book, Professor Taylor speaks of Aristotle’s justified contempt for inferior persons. For example, Aristotle described a slave as "a living tool."{21} Similarly, in describing Stoic ethics, Taylor says, "You help the suffering, not for their sake, but because [it]…is essential to a noble life."{22} He says you’re "not trying to do something for the other person, except incidentally."{23} Instead, you’re really trying to improve yourself. Taylor specifically contrasts this with Jesus’s story about the good Samaritan, which was meant to illustrate the principle You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Taylor ridicules the teachings of Jesus, as holding that the poor, the weak, the ignorant, the stupid are the most important people on Earth and most favored by God.{24} Of course, what Christianity really holds is that because all persons are created in the image of God and are loved by God and are persons for whom Christ died, all are equally precious in God’s sight. A person’s worth doesn’t lie in his talents or accomplishments or skills, but on God’s unconditional love for him. This principle came to be embodied in the Declaration of Independence in Jefferson’s immortal words, "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, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Professor Taylor’s denial of this principle lies at the root of racism, chauvinism, Nazism, and a host of other social ills. As one reviewer put it, Taylor’s ethics of elitism is "profoundly objectionable, and even sinister in its implications."{25}

Thus I think Taylor’s virtue ethics are incapable of rescuing naturalism from its fatal flaws, and therefore I think we can conclude my two contentions: (I) supernaturalism does provide a sound foundation for morality, and (II) naturalism does not provide a sound foundation for morality.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Now if anyone would bother to read my posts instead of trying to read something into them that I did not say they would find that I never accused atheists in general of being immoral or bad or evil persons -- not one time.

And I never accused you of saying they were immoral. You claimed Atheist morals were based on nothing, dirt, or survival of the fittest. I just gave examples of what they can be based on, and asked you if that corresponded to what you meant by your assertion.

I said that their system of morality must logically have a foundation of nothing (or animal evolution) or the reasoning of a certain person or group of people.

You also implied that those types of foundations were restricted to "dirt, and survival of the fittest". That to me seems derogatory, and I gave examples of moral foundation which doesn't deal with God, that I really don't think would qualify as either dirt or survival of the fittest. Do you think they do?

That does not mean that atheists are immoral, only that the basis has no firm foundation because it's origin can be traced back to the fickle minds of men or the transient thoughts of a mortal man or woman.

The same can be said about any religious morality. God is not proven to exist, as you said in a later post, His existance or lack thereof is pure speculation. I won't claim that God can't exist and that your morals are based on nothing but "the fickle minds of men or the transient thoughts of mortal man or woman", but until the existance of God is moved from an opinion to fact, whatever you claim about Atheist morality would apply to your own.

That is the clear difference between the American system of government and atheists systems.

Not necessarily brought about by the difference of the belief system. It would be entirely possible for an Atheist system of government to be designed exactly the same as our current one, minus a few references to God in oaths and pledges. The only real difference would be the motivations for doing so.

Eventually the people start to do some research on their own to discover the roots of their society.

So? Are you claiming that just because a society was based on compassion, unity, and logic, that later researchers would look back and say "Wow, this is a baseless society, lets get rid of it"? You could just as well argue that people would look back on a system based on religious beliefs, and because of a lack of their own belief in that religion, come to the same conclusion.

It is entirely unfair to any ideology to approach it by applying values and morals from a different ideology to see if it would work or not. To properly judge it, you need to adopt a frame of mind which uses the morals of that ideology to judge it.

An example would be Christianity. One of the precepts is that belief, not personal knowlege, of God is important. Now if I have no belief in God, and judge it only on personal knowlege, Christianity has no base to it, unless of course I have personally seen God. This would be an unfair conclusion because Christianity does not allow for approval or disproval based on personal knowlege. It requires belief, and understanding what it requires, I can say I don't believe, but I can't say that I don't believe so it can't be true. Now to take the Christian morals and just discard them as insignificant because I neither believe in, nor have experienced God personally, is ignorant.

This is what you are doing when considering the Atheist moral system. You believe that God is the basis for your moral system. You see a moral system (Atheist) without God as the basis. Because your moral system would not work without God does not mean that the Atheist system would not either, but you use your own beliefs as an argument against the viability of an Atheist system. The Atheist system would require you to disregard God (intellectually seperate yourself from your own beliefs, not necessarily change them) to judge properly.

A thinking person would soon see that the American system is based upon God given rights that cannot be changed or usurped by men.

Just because I don't believe in a God (or rather any human definition I am aware of, as I am agnostic) doesn't mean I can't agree with the notion that all humans deserve basic equal rights. It is the notion of justice and equality that makes these rights indelible in my estimation, not God. For you it is the notion of God that makes it so. You can't prove that my notions are incorrect or falacious anymore than I can prove that your's are. It is an unfair argument you are making, akin to if I were to say your morals are based on nothing, because I see the notion of God (in a Christian sense) as just that, nothing but "the transient thoughts of a mortal man or woman". I won't make that argument, and nobody should.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ned
We have three main "God" religions: monotheism, polytheism, and atheism. Stripping "God" out from our Pledge is just as much a form of establishing atheism as adding God was establishing monotheism.

So any phrase which doesn't include the word God is promoting atheism? I don't think that's a rational conclusion. Otherwise we would need 'God' being said constantly to not promote atheism. As the Pledge is an affirmation of patriotism, not an affirmation of the belief of the people, there is no need for a reference dealing with God.

There is middle ground here. It isn't 'under God', it isn't 'under Gods', and it isn't 'without God', it is a lack of an officially worded phrase dealing with God altogether.

If the Supreme's eventually rule that adding God to the Pledge was establishing religion, I would be in favor of thinking about a "neutral" phrase that would accomodate all beliefs.

I agree with this. But I also see having no phrase (and allowing anyone to insert their belief phrase as they will) as neutral. It's hard to come up with a neutral phrase about God that appeases the three seperate "God" religions. If you use the term Gods you can't include monotheism, if you use the term God you can't include polytheism, and either version excludes atheism. The only fair way is to just not make reference to the existance of God, Gods, or lack thereof. Which as noted above does not promote atheism, it promotes absolutey nothing.

[tniem]

I just wanted to interupt this debate on religion with a simple answer to the title of the thread,

No ****.

A second grader didn't care about the line? Really? Are you telling me she wasn't just more interested in dolls or playing at recess than taking something to court? Go figure. I thought everyone in second grade was suing and trying to change the country.


Thanks Lincoln for such an enlighentened article.

The debate isn't whether the second grader cared, it is whether it is constitutional to force someone to say that in a school setting. Which, by the way, the court was right to say it wasn't. It is unconstitutional to force someone, especially someone that young without any defense, to invoke the Christian god. Just like it would be unconstitutional to force your child to pray to Allah, Buddha, or Mother Earth. The truth of the matter is that the court was right and everyone whinning about it is the real childish people out there.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Surely people realize that "common sense" is a very poor basis for morality. Tyrants throughout history based their ideas of "morality" on their particular views of what was common sense. Generations have slaughtered each other over conflicting ideas of what is moral and what is not.

Another unfair argument. Turn the argument around and consider the things done in the name of God and maybe you will see why it's unfair. The fallibility of a human does not prove the fallibility of the ideology they subscribe to.

And any moral system must have a foundation or it cannot endure.

I agree, and would take it one step further. Any moral system must have a foundation to even be conceived. That foundation can be just about anything, but it needs to be there. People don't act without reason (conscious, subconscious, or instinctual).

It can change with each new generation if that is not the case. In fact that is exactly what some atheists are trying t do now with the moral foundation of America. They are trying to get everyone to pretend that their morality is better even though it is based on their transient thoughts. In 50 years perhaps some fanatical terrorist group will think of a different basis for morality.

The morality of religions have changed over time as well. It's a good thing to always progress wouldn't you say? Our founding fathers had a revolutionary view on the world, and set in place a system which was improved over previous systems. This is not to say it was perfect, and it has changed (mostly for the better) over the years through ammendments and in other ways. Slavery is no longer with us, everyone over 18 has equal voting rights, and hopefully we can continue to improve upon the foundation that they set for us.

You are arguing that the founding fathers beliefs justify the Pledge's wording. Don't you think it's interesting that the founding fathers did not deem fit to institute a Pledge in the first place? I am willing to apply the same logic used previously (that the founding fathers were not perfect in their ideas) and allow that the Pledge may be considered just a change, not necessarily an improvement or not. To use the founding fathers beliefs to justify the Pledge (and it's wording) is not valid reasoning though, as they didn't institute a Pledge.

Perhaps they never thought of the idea, perhaps they felt it was something to be avoided, I don't think I've seen any documentation on their thoughts concerning such oaths. It would be interesting to read if there are any references. What I'm sure of is that they didn't institute a Pledge for whatever reason.

With the American system of morality however, certain rights are 'inalienable'. For some reason people want to make those rights subject to an ever changing interpretation of whoever happens to be in power.

There are provisions in the Constitution and even Declaration of Independance (not official law in the DoI of course) for the change in these rights. It is the amendment process, and has been used to further broaden the definition of these rights, and apply them more fairly than our original government did. This process allows for change depending on the ideology of 75% of the states (I think 2/3rds of congress is needed to first suggest a possible amendment).

Also it might be worth noting that the SCOTUS is in charge of interpretation of Constitutional issues. They happen to be 'in power' in this situation, and their interpretations have also changed on issues over the years. The American morality you speak of allows for, and follow, the evolution of ideas that you seem to be set against.

And no one can logically say that God is a fictional being. That is simply an opinion.

And that God exists is an opinion. I used this reasoning in my previous reply to you. I completely agree with you on this point.

The essence of this argument is power.

Perhaps it is for you. I see it as an equality issue, which is why I even debate it. As an agnostic I have no real care about whether the phrase 'under God' is said or not. I do have a problem with the government officially supporting any phrase that has religious connotations.

Atheists want to take the power from God and expect an entire nation to trust that they will come up with a better idea.

I'm sure some do. Some don't. There are theists who would like government to be run by their religion, it isn't a valid argument against the phrase 'under God' being in the Pledge though.

Are you saying that those who don't believe in God should trust in God to have initially implemented the correct idea? History would refute that our government was perfect in it's implementation. It isn't perfect now, and should continue to be further refined, especially as it specifically allows for such refinement.

Most people are quite satisfied with the rights of man being firmly established as they are now.

Most people who's rights are protected. There are some still lacking those rights. Homosexuals still aren't allowed equal opportunity to marriages or adoptions. The 'equality' allotted by our government should not be assumed to be perfect as it is. At some point it may be, but it isn't now, and assuming it is ceases all advancement opportunities in that area.

You will not destroy this country without opposition. So far almost the entire nation and both houses of congress are opposed to the designs of a few fanatical atheists. Good luck...

Removing the phrase 'under God' from the Pledge would hardly destroy the country. If the SCOTUS determines it is constitutional for the phrase to be in the Pledge, that is the official channel for the decision to be made. I would still disagree with it personally, and perhaps another future suit could show that it is unconstitutional, but it would be perfectly legal until such time. The ideology held by those in congress, and that held by the majority of Americans, has no legal hold on this decision. If you are suggesting that it does, you are the one disregarding the design of our government.

[Ramo]

2/10, Lincoln. You're getting better.

[Lincoln]

Hi Ramo.

Asher,

First let me say that it is refreshing to discuss this with someone such as yourself who puts forth some reasonable arguments without the normal straw men cleverly inserted as kind of a tradition at Apolyton.

The foundation of godless materialism must eventually be traced to dirt. Regardless of the high sounding rhetoric of well meaning people, nature without God takes us back to mindless and moral-less mass and or energy. On the way back most atheists pass through the theory of evolution which is based upon animal survival and competition for available resources etc.. Some logically base their morals on that theory (or even that reality). Those who do not base their morals on dirt or evolution have no logical basis on which they can sustain those morals.

Any human being whether theist or atheist or whatever can stop anywhere and proclaim a moral system of one kind or another. The theist however can trace his moral system to God however that God is perceived. The atheist however cannot stop until he gets to the dirt. His foundation if it is based upon logic must be based on dirt. In other words it does not have a logical basis at all. If he can convince people long enough that he has some good ideas then his system will be preserved. But as soon as thinking people explore the foundation of that morality they will find that it is based on nothing but some dead man who's ideas have outlived their usefulness (at least in their eyes).

So no system of morality based on atheism can long endure and it provides no promise to the next generation. It cannot, unless the people are kept in ignorance. People kill themselves when they find that their lives have no purpose. There is nothing really to prevent them except their own vanity and their natural desire to survive. That survival instinct is the only basis for their morality. It is the same instinct that is in animals. A purely logical system of morality then cannot prevent men from killing each other if that helps them or society to survive. Stalin based his society on the power of the state or society as a whole. So did Mao although they had different ideas about how to give power to the people or the state. Both systems turned out to be immoral because people will act like animals if given half a chance. Even Christian communities or other religious communities will resort to these base animal instincts over time. Most of these communes end up dissolving into bickering and petty arguments about money and power and control. The Christians are often no better than the atheists as history has proved.

So the answer obviously is not to base a society on Christianity because it will eventually be destroyed by the animals just like the atheist society is. That is where the wisdom of the founders comes in. They refused an entanglement of church with state and they refused an atheist society. They chose a society based upon a generic God that cannot (or should not) offend anyone except a die hard fanatical atheist. The “God” that the founders placed in the Declaration of Independence is a neutral God. Jefferson, Adams, Paine were at each other’s throats over religious matters. They did not at all agree on a single religion. Adams hated Paine, and Jefferson and Adams had a long falling out but they eventually learned to get along and they became the best of friends. The founders all agreed eventually to adopt Madison’s generic God that was limited to providing righteous judgment after this mortal life while providing here; life, liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness. Who can argue now with a system of government and morality that is based on that? Why would anyone want to destroy such a system – so they can be in charge of life and liberty and equality? Do you really trust anyone with the power over those freedoms? I don’t.

I said several times on this thread that I don’t care a whit about the pledge with or without the words ‘under God’. I was a school kid when they changed them and I thought it sounded better before they messed with it. The point is that they do happen to express a truth in regard to our nation’s history and foundation. I am skeptical of anyone now who is offended by those words to the point that they would destroy the foundation of the country in the process of removing them.

I say that God is not a fictional being. An atheist says that he is. So we have a choice. Either we base a government on a hope of the reality of God (which hope can NEVER be disproved) or we base a society on that which we know full well is without a foundation. The theistic foundation can endure because it transcends the changing minds of men. It is an abstract foundation that can never be disproved to the atheist and it is a firm foundation for the theist. On the other hand a system of government or morality based on atheism is not supported by either theist nor atheist and it cannot be supported by logic. Wise indeed was the man who uttered these words (John Locke in Toleration):

“...those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.”

---------------------------------

In other words, atheists can be tolerated if they don't try and make too many waves.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
“...those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.

You agree with these words and think they are wise?



That's hatemongering prejudice. To assert that atheists are more likely to break promises, covenants and oaths than theists is a load of horse****.

The worst liars I know are all fundamentalist Christians...

[Lincoln]

Well I have met liars from both camps but I do not base my morality on liars.

[Lincoln]

Why would anyone want to destroy this foundation upon which the United States was laid:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ..


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Lincoln]

Now I have to go to bed...

[Aeson]

As Asher hasn't participated in this thread (at least not recently), I will assume that was directed at me.

I do find it derogatory that you use the word 'dirt' to describe the foundation of my moral values though. My morals are justified in no part by the existance of a divine entity, rather what I consider logic and understanding (not knowlege, but human empathy).

If you would like I could go into more detail about my moral system, and the reasoning behind them. I can assure you that survival of the fittest enters nowhere in the whole line of reasoning, and the basis is not dirt, but value (abstract sense, not monetary).

So no system of morality based on atheism can long endure and it provides no promise to the next generation. It cannot, unless the people are kept in ignorance.

Here is the problem. You assume that future generations would not accept an ideology without God as it's basis. To myself, understanding that God is the basis for our moral system means absolutely nothing. I can judge the worth of 'all men are created equal' with or without the idea of it being the will of God or not. It means the same thing either way.

A personal example:

I was raised in a Mormon family/community. Through most of my childhood I just accepted it and that was how things were. Once I reached an age (and circumstance) where I could start doing my own thinking, I realized I did not believe in that religion.

That is not to say I didn't see the value of many of the teachings. Mormon's have a 'Word of Wisdom' which describes a healthy diet, no alcohol, tobacco products, or such. It corresponds to the basic food pyramid very nicely, it makes sense to me even without God.

I've read the Bible several times, and even without God viewed as the source, there are many good and wholesome ideas contained within it. I think there is a problem with our society that we ascribe too much importance to the author, and not enough to the ideas attributed to them. An ideology should stand on it's own merits, not those of a hero or God figure.

People kill themselves when they find that their lives have no purpose. There is nothing really to prevent them except their own vanity and their natural desire to survive. That survival instinct is the only basis for their morality.

I don't know if you have any experience with suicide, personal or otherwise, but it sounds like you haven't. I have the scars on my wrists, and I know several others who do as well. I can assure you that vanity (as relating to my will to live, I do have a problem with being vain about my appearance though) and survival have no hold over me, and is not compatible for the reasons I am still alive, nor those that I know who have overcome their desire for death.

It's about understanding worth. Death is an equalizer, no matter how much a person suffers in life everyone ends up in the same place, and so pain can be detached from, and the feelings of others take precidence. I have a family which cares for me deeply, and that is why I'm alive, the only reason. The others who I've know in the same situation have the same reasoning.

It might be interesting to note that all my suicide attempts came while I did believe in God, and before I formed my own personal system of morals. Everyone is different, and has different justification needs. It might be alright for you to justify your morals based on God, it doesn't mean it will work for everyone. It definitely did not work for me.

I offer this personal experience to help show that God is not the only possible purpose, and not the only one which can justify a moral system. A moral system based on anything can work. It is the morals, and the ability of the people who feel that way, that determine the sucess of the system. Throwing out the names Mao and Stalin only shows the same thing as throwing out terms like the Crusades and Jihad. That is, that people are fallible, regardless of their justification.

The founders all agreed eventually to adopt Madison’s generic God that was limited to providing righteous judgment after this mortal life while providing here; life, liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness. Who can argue now with a system of government and morality that is based on that?

I agree completely with "life, libery, equality, and the pursuit of happiness." as a fundamental human right. I don't believe that way because of God though. God is not necessary for me to have a moral system based on these ideals.

Why would anyone want to destroy such a system – so they can be in charge of life and liberty and equality?

I can't answer that, I would not want to destroy such a system, although there is room for improvement and I would change the system a bit to continue on that path. Seeing as how the founders saw this necessity of advancement, and allowed for it (amendments), this is not destorying the system. This is working with the system. To disallow all change, regardless (even if it is supported widely enough to allow for amendment), is working against it.

Do you really trust anyone with the power over those freedoms?

No one person should have that power, especially not the type of person who would aspire to have that power, and use the means necessary to attain it. The system allows for changes though, and that power is given to Congress and a delegation from each State in the amendment process. It's a pretty good allotment of that power IMO. One which can be attributed with the advancements of equal rights (for African American, Women especially), and hopefully will continue to be.

I don’t.

But you do. You trust our founding fathers and their vision of how freedom should be apportioned. Or you trust God with that power, and he inspired our founding fathers. I'm not sure where you place your trust, but you obviously have placed it somewhere in the foundation of our system.

We better apportion those freedoms now, and hopefully will continue to improve in the future. These improvements do not necessarily have to be based on God. The hinderance of these improvements are not necessarily based on there being no God either.

If you need an example I would point to the KKK and neo-Nazi groups. The KKK is a religious group which opposes the equality of African Americans. The neo-Nazi are atheist groups that would oppose the same thing. It is not their acceptance or refusal of God which makes them right or wrong (in this case very very wrong). It is the morals themselves.

I don't need God to tell me that all people deserve equal rights and freedoms, many other people are the same. In the past it may have been necessary for a large portion of society, because God had previously been attributed with supporting the opposite, and the vast majority were very religious. Not to mention, usually very poorly educated by today's standards.

These days integration is at least present in most communities. Children can grow up knowing children from other ethnic/religious groups. There are no dogmatic teachings for most of us about the inherant superiority of one group over another to overcome. Many have achieved a level of intellectual advancement where God is no longer necessary to tell them what is right and wrong. In the past there were very few who had the diverse life experience necessary to come to an enlightened conclusion. These people tended to be one's who brought about social and religious changes, not the ones who blindly followed whatever the past dictated. Our founding fathers were these type of enlightened people, taking another step forward towards true equality. They may have needed God to justify that step. I don't need God to do the same because it is so much more commonplace nowdays.

This is just one example of a moral that can be equally well (or badly) founded on God, or other foundation. The same thought process can apply to any moral.

I am skeptical of anyone now who is offended by those words to the point that they would destroy the foundation of the country in the process of removing them.

I am not offended by the words. I am offended that the words are officially supported by our government and it's institutions, especially when it applies to teaching institutions where children go to learn.

The foundation of our country is the foundation regardless of the decision made on the issue. The only action (as far as this issue is concerned) that would shake the foundation of our country is if the Supreme Court found the phrase (as used in the Pledge in public schools) unconstitutional, and then Congress overruled it's decision in some manner, or pre-empted the case from ever reaching the Supreme Court.

I say that God is not a fictional being. An atheist says that he is. So we have a choice. Either we base a government on a hope of the reality of God (which hope can NEVER be disproved) or we base a society on that which we know full well is without a foundation.

God may be a magical being which makes 'right' right, but it's pure speculation either way. God is not the only possible foundation for a moral system. It is derogatory to everyone who doesn't believe in God to suggest that their morality is without foundation. No different than to suggest that any moral system based on God is without foundation.

------------------------------

I would hope you could see the problems with that quote from John Locke, and stop using it. It is quite elitist, and rather regressive thinking.

A person's ability to tell the truth is based on their character, not necessarily their beliefs.

[tniem]

One thing Lincoln, there is a difference in the Declaration of Independence with lines like Nature's God, Divine Creator, etc. than in the Pledge's God. The first can be applied to almost all religions, the second is inheritently Christian in how it was said and in why it was added. The reason the line was added was because a Catholic group during the 1950s campaigned to the President to add it during the Cold War as a front to the godless Communists. It was meant to say we were a Christian nation and Eisenhower added it for the political votes. That is an unconstitutional addition to our law.

Not to mention in all of this that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. The Pledge meanwhile was signed into law. And so to force someone to say that is unconstitutional.

[Lincoln]

Aeson,

Sorry for calling you Asher.

I do have personal experience with suicide and I have seen people rescued from despair when they find a purpose greater than themselves. For some that I have known, that purpose was found when they understood that they were created for a purpose and loved by God. For others such as you (and myself) that purpose was love for others and the pain it would cause them by the selfish act of suicide. Nevertheless there are many in this society that are not loved and would not be missed much if they killed themselves. I find it cruel to these people when their only hope is dashed by a fanatical atheist. I have worked with these people in juvenile institutions and prison and as a foster parent. In many cases their parents or 'loved ones' are their worst enemies. They are not stupid, they know that they are lost and alone and unloved. Only their hope in God keeps them going. I honestly have no toleration for atheists who actvely go about their lives for the purpose of destroying this hope.

That is what John Locke's words mean to me about 'tolerating' atheists. I tolerate them as I do all people but I do not tolerate the active efforts of fanatics to destroy a faith that they do not understand.

John Locke did not tolerate them to destroy the moral and legal basis of a republic he invisioned (which eventually came to light in America). That is no insult to atheists anymore than the prohibition of a state religion is an insult to a theist. It is only an insult to fanatics. Christians are not free to blow up abrtion clinics because "God" told them it was okay. They are not tolerated either. Society cannot tolerate fanatics when they take that fanaticism to its destructive end.

In your own personal morals which are commendable you borrow from the foundation of theism. Your humanism is based upon a human. More learning or more experience with diverse cultures does not make someone more moral. Peter Singer is a good example as are fanatical leaders throughout history who were well traveled and educated. More education has the potential of making evil men more sophisticated and clever in their evil.

Your own personal morality may very well endure throughout you life because it is based on your own mind which is apparently firm. But that is no foundation for an entire culture. How can it be? An evil mind can rise up and destroy people who think like you.

The pledge issue is a side show. This is merely a line in the sand that has been drawn by the majority. The case will likely be thrown out without a judgment by the Supreme Court. It is a bad case with a bad ruling and I predict that it will prove nothing one way or another. I wish that the words were never inserted in the pledge but I find it interesting that they are so powerful that certain atheists cannot stand to have their ears offended by the hearing of them.

"In God we trust." I am satisfied to leave my liberties in his hands. It is true that the founders were only human and that the foundation of this republic is based upon their particular reasoning. But the fact remains that when this country was founded the words in that declaration as a result of that reasoning included the phrase "endowed by their Creator". That takes the authority out of their hands. They gave that power to God alone and no man or no state or no mind or can usurp that power.

The Bill of Rights were almost not included in the constitution because the founders thought they would weaken the inherent rights of man by spelling some of them out. Therefore if they were itemized it would appear that those rights were granted by the government. That was a cause of great debate. All agreed that the rights were unchanging and not subject to the future reasoning of men or governments. The rights existed before and after the constitution was written. The have always existed. That was the difference between America and the rest of the world then. They took the God given rights of man out of the hands of the state and the church and left them where they rightfully belong. I say leave it be.