"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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. How moral was the feudal
system? 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. 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.
The US Colonies were far less barbaric than early Europe, primarily due to
imported European Christian moral foundations, 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. And what
if Martin L. King has advocated a bloody racial war, as opposed to his
Christian-based movement of peaceful resistance?

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. 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.

Moreover, it *is* the "Natural Law" of humans to form religions with
associated ethical systems. Virtually all human groups around the world
have formed their own religion - its one of the constants of humanity. I
don't believe this in any way "proves" the existence of God, but it does
mean that every culture has its own version of morality.

That supports Katy's and my argument. As to your last sentence, nothing
will ever prove the existence of God. Belief is an act of faith, not
scientific proof.

(As an aside, I also think that within any group there will be those who
need to believe in God, and would make one up if a suitable one did not
exist in their culture, and there are those who would never accept it.
Thus there will always be fundamentalists and atheists among us; in fact
you'd find some of each at any religious gathering! Just human nature.)

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? Should the Islamic countries abandon
their "morality?" My personal take is that the two moralities are
fundamentally incompatible and we should stay the hell out of the Islamic
world. 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.



You're leaving out one important point... please define "moral" behavior.

That's the nub of the problem.

You said, "Religion is sole historical harbinger of moral behavior." It's
just as easy to argue that economic incentive was so.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com