Maxprop wrote:

This is typical of secular-progressive thinking. American indians, now the
so-called native Americans, ranged from peaceful, hunter-gatherers to
violent, warlike tribes.

Kind of like Christians, wouldn't you say?

snip anecdotal stuff about how nasty some Indians were

insert obligatory story of Christian soldiers slaughtering Indian
women and children

Actually, its very difficult to say anything about the Native
Americans, since the vast majority were wiped out by disease before
ever seeing the white man. Some say the numbers were extremely high,
20 million or more, a large proportion of them peaceful farmers in the
Mississippi valley. I'm not "blaming" the Christians for this; it was
an accident of evolution that the Western Hemisphere never developed
immunities to the diseases of the Eastern, rather than the other way
around.



I personally believe that morality is not fundamental to human nature.
Humans are innately carnivorous and contentious. They will kill for food
and out of rancor. They will kill for power and for wealth. Such has been
the case from the beginning, and it continues today, albeit to a far lesser
extent. Morality is learned and self-imposed, not innate. Many noteworthy
authors of fiction and non-fiction have based their works on this premise.

Yes, yes. We've all read Lord of the Flies.

However, civilized societies have emerged all over the world, without
the benefit of Christian salvation.



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.
Is peace the only measure of morality in your vernacular? China had
lengthy periods of prosperity and peace, but state executions were as
common as births in many of the early dynasties.
So that never happened in Christian countries, such as Nazi Germany?

There will always be abberations. Hitler was no Christian, despite the
prevailing religions of Germany, Italy, and Austria during the period.

Hitler was not alone - he had the support of his country. In fact,
Germany also started WWI just because they wanted a good war to show
their stuff, and the Franco-Prussian War was a precursor to that.
Here was a good, Christian society that decided what the world needed
was a few good wars.

For
you to cite such things as proof of the failure of Christianity to invoke
morality in various societies shows an anti-religious bias.

Ah, anyone who disagrees with you is "anti-religious"!

Not a "failure," just not substantially better then any other
religion. The European countries have been at war for much of the
last 1400 years or so. Many of these wars were religious, although
most had economic factors at their roots. In addition, any
non-Christian cultures were systematically destroyed. I'm not trying
to claim that this was much worse than elsewhere in the world, but its
really hard prove it was much better.


So were punitive slavery, innate servitude,
So that never happened in Christian countries, such as just about all of
them?

Of course it happened, but Christianity was the major impetus for the
elimination of such things. That has been my contention all along. The
outcry against slavery in this country began with the various churchs and
sporadic religions, such as the Quakers.

You're falling into a fallacy here. Everyone who was there, for
better or worse, you've identified as Christian. The truth is that
slavery was endorsed by the colonial powers, and the major organized
churches. The forces against slavery were often the same that argued
against centralized religion and state supported churches.



No trouble at all. Christian countries tend to be generally more civilized
and observant of individual human rights than those of other religions or of
no particular religion. I doubt if you can find an equal number of
non-Christian countries with the observed morality of the more prominent
Christian ones.

Interesting assertion. How about if we scale the level of "human
rights" by the level of economic development. And are you willing to
go back over the last 1400 years, or are you only looking at the last
few years? How about if we measure the "change" rather than an
"absolute measure"? That way, you could probably make the case that
China has advanced by light-years, while the USA has fallen backwards
for this entire millennium!

How about if we look at other major civilizations: The Mongol Empire
lasted for two hundred years, and its echoes resonate today. Although
its mode of conquest was a bit severe (totally destroy any city that
did not comply, spare those that did) and its laws a bit harsh, it was
an exceedingly peaceful empire. It was run as a meritocracy, so that
anyone could rise to power, and no one was above the law. The people
were safe, it was said that "a woman carrying a sack of gold could
travel safely from one end of the Empire to another." Religious
freedom was guaranteed throughout the empire, and in fact the empire
spent money fixing up local shrines and temples, echoing the Persian
Empire of 1700 years earlier. Trade was encouraged and the Silk Road
ran for about 150 years, giving Western Europe a taste of Eastern goods.

The Mongolian Empire has a bad reputation in Western history, but in
many ways they were a breath of fresh air compared to what Europe had
to offer.


But now you're just doing what you claimed you wouldn't - your saying the
evil things are because religion hadn't taken hold yet. The feudal system
was strongly endorsed by the Church. The Crusades were ordered by the
Church. Slavery was justified by the Church. Are you trying to tell us
the the Church was not really Christian until the Quakers showed us the
way?

Don't be absurd.

Not being absurd at all, in fact this is central to my point. The
Church of England and the Pope effective endorsed slavery as a major
component of colonial expansion. The Quakers that led the fight
against slavery are so "fringe" that some don't consider themselves
Christian.

Remember, slavery was abolished only recently here - I remember when
Civil War veterans were still alive. And even though strides have
been made recently, a few years of progress does not nullify centuries
of darkness.


It would be just as easy to say the the Church had created a pretty nasty
place until the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. These were largely
secular movements.

Nothing during the Renaissance was strictly secular, despite the outward
appearance. The church was a major factor throughout. Take a look at
Renaissance-period art. What are the vast majority of the subjects?

That's a pretty weak point. While much of the "sponsored" art was
religious, especially in Italy, there was much that was not. In 1500
almost every aspect of life was strongly influenced by the church. By
1800 much was not.


Sure I read on. But I have trouble seeing the Quakers as mainstream
Christianity. In fact, I could probably make a good argument that the
Liberal Quaker movement "showing the way" is proof that the dogma of
"credo based" western religions led to terrible injustices.

The Quakers were among the first religions to essentially decry the
brutality and unfairness of slavery. Most slavers at the time considered
themselves to be Christians. And some Quakers owned slaves as well, but
they were among the first to free their servants from bondage.

But they were certainly not "mainstream" Christians. You seem to be
saying the the Quaker philosophy is a natural outgrowth of
Christianity. I'm claiming that they arrived at that place in spite
of Christianity.

... This leads to Universalism, which is that all religions are a valid
path to the same spiritual reality. Both of these forms I see as
reactions against Church dogma, not an smooth evolution of the church.

The Quakers, now generally knows as "Friends," are not a church at all.
They do not have pastors, and meeting places can be anywhere. They do
consider themselves to be Christians, but because of a complete lack of
national organization and due to local interpretations throughout the
country, the philosophies of Quakers vary dramatically. They do subscribe
to a basic Christian morality, however. Perhaps moreso than many other
organized religions. But it's foolish to try to categorize or classify
them. They might best be termed a loosely-organized movement, rather than a
church, at least that's my take.

And for all of these reasons, I don't see how they can be held up as a
example of Christianity over any other religion. In fact, one could
make the case that any religion would eventually spawn such a group.
In fact, I'm sure we could find precursors of the Quakers among the
many philosophical schools in the Greco-Roman world.

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?
Not at all--I have no idea where you came up with that. I was implying
that if King had been a secular anarchist, not unlike Bob Seale of the
Black Panther Party, and had held the same level of influence, the
outcome of his movement might have been radically different. Racial
civil war comes to mind. Fortunately Bobby Seale was far less
influential. And there's nothing racist about that. Do some study of
the early Black Panthers. Their manifesto was quite clear, at least that
which hasn't been subjected to the left-wing historical revisionists
attempting to improve his image.


Wow! That is pretty racist! You're really trying to prove that if it
weren't for the Christian background of MLK he would have been a secular
anarchist!

Not at all. I was giving an example of one of many possibilities. And if
you want a clear-cut example of blatant racism, take a close look at the
early Black Panthers. Or the modern-day Nation of Islam, ala Lou Farrakhan.
You've been swallowing liberal dogma for far too long, Jeff. Open your mind
to some truths that may not gybe with your current beliefs, but true
nonetheless.

No, you were being rather blatantly racist. You were saying that a
great man of peace would likely have become a violent anarchist if he
was not influenced by Western religion. The truth is that his
"non-violent" influence was Gandhi, not Christianity.

My hypothesis (obviously unprovable) is that had the African slaves been
allowed to keep their native religion, MLK would have been a non-Christian
preacher with the same peaceful message.

That may very well be true. I never implied that it wasn't possible. My
example of a secular anarchist was simply that: an example. It was you who
filled in the blanks with other examples that I neither implied, nor
actually even thought of.

sorry Max, No wiggle room here. You said, "And what if Martin L.
King has advocated a bloody racial war, as opposed to his
Christian-based movement of peaceful resistance?"

Why are these the only two alternatives? Your clear implication is
that without the Christian influence, MLK would have advocated a
bloody racial war. That's about as racist as it gets. Think about it.


You seem to imply that ethics and morality are mutually exclusive.

Not at all. Nothing that deep. I'm only saying that if one defines
morality as the religious teaching, than obviously religion is the sole
impetus.

Nope. Never said that. I was implying that the *basis for moral behavior*
originated with western religion. The *evolution of morality* has been both
secular and religious. My entire point in all this discussion is that
*without Christianity it is unlikely that the stimulus for morality, as we
interpret it today, would not have occurred. This would be a far different
world without the influence of religion. This would be a vastly different
country without the influence of religion.*

In other words, without Christianity we would all be barbarians?



I believe that its rather impossible to separate ethics from religious
teaching, because religion has be part of humanity from as far back as we
can detect.

Bingo. Why have you been arguing with me?

Because you have been insisting that your religion, Christianity, is
superior to all others. In fact you've been specific that without
Christianity, morality as we now know it would not exist.

On behalf of all of the would be barbarians of the world I would like
to say that we were getting along pretty well before you came along,
and we could have done just fine without your help, thank you very much.


... Would you claim that the Spanish
Conquistadors were any better?

Nope. But as I stated earlier morality has undergone an evolutionary
process, both by secular and religious influences. My point is that without
religion, the process of moral evolution would have been severely retarded,
if it occurred at all.

And my point has been that religion has always been there, there is
nothing special about Christianity. You quite explicitly claimed that
only Christianity could give us "morality, as we interpret it today"

You should remember that only 75% of the US population considers
itself Christian. And a fair portion of those were forced conversions
only a few generations ago. This country is not 99% Christian, as you
seem to think - its real heritage is quite mixed.


Not sacrifice, but there was that little thing called the Inquisition. And
there were those witches burned - perhaps 100,000 around the 15th century.
But those were the "bad" Christians, right?

They were excellent examples of the necessity of the concept *separation of
church and state.* Yes, they were bad Christians, interpreting the gospel
to their own political needs, rather than following any particular moral
compass. And they are minor, spurious examples of what Christianity has
affected in its 2000 year history.

Minor? Spurious? Are you serious??? Spain was at the time a major
power, on the verge of becoming a super-power. The Jews at the time
were a roughly 10% of the population, and, being city dwellers, held
about 30% of the middle class jobs and government positions. First
they were forced to convert, then tortured and murdered, all of their
property was confiscated, and the survivors forced to flee the country
that had been their home for over 1200 years. And this wasn't an
event that happened one day and then blew over; it was a process that
took 100 years that was at first endorsed by the Church, and in the
end it was managed Pope's appointed representative.

The witch hunts lasted for centuries and was a constant fixture in
medieval times.

The Crusades went on for 300 years, a total of nine campaigns. In the
First Crusade alone 30%-50% of Europe's Jewish population was
slaughtered. Plus, the Jewish population of Jerusalem and Palestine
in general was eradicated. Most people today think the small Jewish
population in pre-Israel Palestine was caused first by the Roman
conquest and then by displacement by Arabs, but it was really the
Crusades that did in the Jewish population there.

When you start stringing these things together, its hard to find a
period where there wasn't some heinous behavior on a large scale. It
was only during the enlightenment that we seemed to turn a corner,
breaking free from the grip of religious dogma.


To hold Caligula as an example of the typical pagan invites holding Hitler
as the typical Christian. Do you really want to go there?

Nope. Just giving you a taste of your own spurious-example tactics. Sort
of idiotic, isn't it.


You're the one with "spurious examples." The Greco-Roman culture gave
the Mediterranean world 700 years of relative peace, and you pick the
worst psychotic emperor as its exemplar. The truth is within a year
after his descent into madness his own people started taking steps to
remove him - he was assassinated by his own guards in the third year
of his reign. And, most of the records of his personal life were
written by his political opponents, and must be taken with a grain of
salt.


I believe religion is a useful metaphor with which to view the world. I
also believe that the need to believe in a deity is hardwired into the
human psyche, such that in any group the will be some that "need to
believe," and that there will also be others unable to believe, and many
who go with the flow. As for my own beliefs, I have pondered, I've read
and studied the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Koran, and other
"holy" texts, and none of them hold the answer for me. And so my beliefs
remain beyond articulation; perhaps they lie somewhere between the Theism
and Pantheism I mentioned above. However, I've come to the conclusion
that it is a meaningless question - like the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, asking the question destroys the answer. What is important is
whether you lead your life as thought there was a God.

AKA: morality. Not a bad concept, eh? I'll agree that enlightened
individuals can be moral without leading thier lives as if there were a God.
And many. perhaps the masses, cannot, ergo the influence of Christianity and
other western religions on societal and world morality. Perhaps that is
*all* religion and theism is about--the creation of morality. Perhaps the
writers of the Bible had that, and only that, in mind. Perhaps that was the
stimulus for Jesus' teachings as well. Guess we'll never know for sure.

And what do Werner Heisenberg and subatomic particles have to do with any
of this?? g

A simple view of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that you
can't know both the position and momentum of a particle. Or,
pointing to a particle and asking what its energy is destroys the
answer. A example: shoot a light source at a double slit and the
expected interference pattern appears. Slow it down so that
individual photons are being shot and it still makes the pattern, as
if the photons "knew" they should act like a wave. Now put a detector
at the slits to see which slit the photon goes through and the pattern
disappears and the photon just pile up behind the slits. In other
words, asking the question destroys the answer. In the same way, once
you give any thought to the question, "Do you believe in God?" a pure
answer becomes impossible.



I have nothing against religion, and I have nothing against most religious
beliefs. However, I don't think any of them hold a universal answer.

Not for you, certainly, but for many theism holds *all* the answers. And
for many the basis of their morality is their theistic belief.

I should have said "somewhere between Deism and Pantheism" above,
because Theism implies a belief in divine or supernatural revelation.

Clearly, Theism is central to religion for many people, and while
that's not for me, I accept that many people need/want that in their life.

I'm not
saying it's right or wrong, or implying rational vs. irrational
introspection on the matter. I'm only saying that the world is in general a
more moral place due to the influence of religion,

yes, but I've already agreed that religion is part of human nature,
thus morals are part of human nature.

particularly western religions.

And this is where I differ. You have failed to show any evidence
whatsoever that the world is a better place because of Christianity as
opposed to any other religion.

One oft overlooked historical fact is that at the same time the
Christianity was getting started, and Judaism was redefining itself,
there was also a significant movement that today has been dubbed
"pagan monotheism." There was a strong trend for educated Greeks and
Romans to view the many gods as allegory, and to believe in a single
God, with a unified purpose. They were influenced by Judaism and were
often converts to early Christianity. One wonders what might have
happens if this group had been allowed to develop.



Katy made the statement that moving from a religious basis to a more secular
basis for the administration of our government will foment depravity and
chaos. (not her exact words, but the idea is essentially valid) I can't say
whether she's right or wrong--no one can, save for someone living in the
late 21st Century, should we follow a more secular path. But the atheistic
movement in this country is primary a political one, brought about by a
general hatred on the part of the far left for the so-called "religious
right."

You're delusional Max. It sounds like you've forgotten to take your
meds. What is this alleged "atheistic movement"? Here's a clue, Max:
it wasn't a handful of wacko atheists that objected to school prayers,
it was most of the country. The most recent Supreme Court case, Santa
Fe v. Doe, was initiated by Catholic and Mormon students and parents
that objected to "proselytizing practices" of the Baptist prayer
leaders. There is nothing wrong with morals that are derived from
religion; it's that I don't want "my" children subjected to "your"
religion.


Extremists attempt to injure or discredit their opponents, rather
than promote their particular brand of dogma. The extreme left is no
exception in this respect. I'm only saddened that moderate Democrats have
bought into this line of anti-religious "reasoning." It is a fool's errand
to attempt to show no relationship between Christianity and our governmental
foundations. And it's counterproductive to move away from Christianity
simply because it is injurious to the religious right. Christianity is a
large part of the foundation of morality in this country, I believe, and to
throw it out as a useless impediment to the progress of the country is like
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

This is nonsense Max; do you actually think anyone other then Ellen
would believe it? Removing overt religious symbols is not denying any
historical connection; its acknowledging that our founders felt that
it was inappropriate to favor any particular religion. Telling a
school system that they can't have a sectarian prayer at official
functions is *not* abandoning a Christian heritage,