Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
That's a cute story but its really just self-serving pablum. You'd have a
lot of trouble actually proving that, and there's lots of evidence to the
contrary.

Europe had a very stable, peaceful population before the Roman Empire
converted to Christianity. It had a peaceful population before the Roman
Empire. True, there were periodic "empires" that came and went down
through the eons, but for the most part humans have formed peaceable
societies. When there is little population pressure, and modest trade,
there is little "empire building." When empires are created, they
invariably impose order and ethical systems, usually more effectively than
our modern systems.

That's hogwash, Jeff. You couldn't prove your contention no matter how hard
you tried. Religion is the sole historical harbinger of moral behavior,
good or bad--not empire building.

Well, remember I said the religion is constant factor in humanity -
there is really no way to separate it out. People have had "religion"
for eons, and most have moral systems that we would recognize as
"reasonable." So you can always make the claim that religion is
responsible for everything good, and all things bad are caused by
ignoring religion.

However, you specifically claimed that pre-Christian "morality" was
insufficient, "Not much morality in evidence" was your comment. This
is total nonsense. You've completely ignored the thousands of years
of peaceful civilization that preceded the Christian Era.
Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome plus others had long periods
peace and prosperity. All had a strong moral systems, "raping,
pillaging, and homicide" were not, as you claim, constant events.

How moral was the feudal system?
Curiously, the feudal system has its foundations in laws passed by
Emperor Constantine at the same time he was laying the groundwork for
Christianity as the state religion.

It was
little more than slavery. Most laws were created to protect royalty and/or
the wealthy. Wealth was created on the backs of the poor and
underpriveleged. Such 'have-nots' were considered expendable, like cattle
or machines.

So you're claiming that all of that ended in the Christian Era? In
fact it was just the opposite - the serfs were originally "coloni" and
had certain rights. As it evolved in the Middle Ages, the "serfs"
(from the Latin for "slave") had few rights.

It wasn't until the Roman Catholic Church and later the
protestant movements came to power that any rights or protections were
afforded the 'have-nots,' and even that took centuries.

So that's why the Catholic Church protected the rights of the
Native-Americans.

The US Colonies
were far less barbaric than early Europe, primarily due to imported European
Christian moral foundations,

You seem to be ignoring that fact that half of the colonial economy
was based on brutal slavery. It was so much a part of our society
that it was endorsed by our Constitution. And the Caribbean slavery
was even worse.

but it took the combined efforts of such groups
as the Quakers and other prospering religions to finally convince the
fledgling country that salvery was immoral.

Are you really suggesting Quakers are the exemplars of organized
Christian religion??? If all Christians were Quakers I don't think we
would be having this discussion.

And what if Martin L. King has
advocated a bloody racial war, as opposed to his Christian-based movement of
peaceful resistance?

So are you claiming that if King had been a cleric of an African
religion he would have advocating "raping, pillaging, and homicide" of
the Christians??? Can you see how racist that sounds?


What is even more amusing in all this is my undergrad European history
teacher, *an atheist*, who taught his in classes that the influence of
religion in Europe was the "sole impetus" for morality.

By one definition, "morality" is a sense of right and wrong based on
religion, while "ethics" is the same sense but based on the concept
that an orderly society serves everyone best. Using this definition,
religion *is* the impetus for morality, by definition!

Also, as I've said, religion is/was always there. But modern
Christian writers have a tendency to downplay the role of any religion
perceived as "pagan."

He didn't believe
in the existence of a diety, but he did attribute moral evolution to the
existence of religious groups and dogma. So did the texts his courses
required. It's a relatively recent anti-religious (anti-religious
right-wing) movement that is attempting to re-write history based on
unsupported hypotheses.

Re-write? Are you claiming the great empires didn't exist? Or that
chaos ruled the world until Constantine?


snip stuff where we largely agree

However, not all religions are the same. While most are accepting of
other religions, a few are insistent that their particular "path to
salvation" is the only viable one, and that everyone else is an infidel.

This becomes a religious foundation for conquest and colonization. The
two major proponents of this are Christianity and Islam. The global war
we seem to be on the verge of is a natural consequence of the "morality"
of these two religions.

You're probably right. The history of the world is rife with wars of
religious foment.

So what's the solution? Should we abandon the Judeo-Christian morality on
which this country was founded?

No - we should abandon the concept that our version is better than
anyone else's.

Should the Islamic countries abandon their
"morality?"

No - they should abandon the concept that their version is better than
anyone else's.

Whenever I hear someone claim they must "accept this or that as the
only path to salvation" I am offended. It is the work of the Devil!

My personal take is that the two moralities are fundamentally
incompatible and we should stay the hell out of the Islamic world.

Certainly sending our army hasn't helped...

We
should also find a means to replace the energy requirements obtained from
the Middle East in order to be free of any involvement there. But no one's
listening to me.

Bush certainly isn't.