"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
However, civilized societies have emerged all over the world, without
the benefit of Christian salvation.
"Civilized" and "moral" are not synonymous.
Which is better? Is un-civil behavior acceptable if you say a prayer
while doing it?

"Moral" and religious are not synonymous either. You've missed the
entire
point of the discussion.

I haven't missed your point; I've been giving you the benefit of the
doubt. Or are you claiming that morals are always "good" and they only
come from Christianity? So far, that's about all you've said.

That's only what you've chosen to hear. My point has been that what we
consider to be moral today has been *largely* due to the influence of
western religion. I wasn't aware I had to provide all the exceptions, but
there are plenty, I'm sure. There are quite a few historical treatises
which bear out my belief. You may feel free to dispute them as well.

I believe that is a bit harsh. I've never interpreted our document as a
repudiation of religion, but rather as an affirmation of the need to
separate religion and affairs of state.

You have to look at where European politics was at the time. Almost all
countries were hereditary monarchies. Organized religion ordained the
divine right of kings. British monarchs are still anointed with holy
oils. The feudal contract was church supported. Even the seemingly
"liberal" movements did not involve much toleration - The Maryland
Toleration Act made denying the divinity of Jesus a capital crime. The
Act of Toleration in England tolerated certain dissenting Protestant
sects, but not Catholicism, and so on.

Tolerance of Roman Catholicism depends upon who was the ruling monarch at
the time. It flip-flopped regularly. And the protestants were probably no
more brutal toward the Catholics than vice versa. But tolerance isn't
necessarily moral. Sometimes it was just expedient to be tolerant, as the
taxes levied against those with differing religions were just as important
as those from the church of the moment. That, and purges were costly.

Further, the rejection of organized religion as a political authority
is not a rejection of religion in its entirety. It is a rejection of the
concept that a religious authority has the right to dictate to others what
is right or wrong.

From a political standpoint that is moral. But I believe the current trend
exceeds the normal separation of church and state as envisioned by the
framers of the Constitution. Placing the ten commandments on a public
property is probably not what they were worried about. It seems logical to
assume that if we truly wish to purge all governmental activities and
processes from religion, we'll have to remove "In God We Trust" from
currency, and stop swearing in witnesses in courts. How will that be done?
"Raise your right hand and swear that you will tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, um, whomever you choose
provided that figure is in no way associated with any religion, diety, or
sectarian figurehead." ?


Once again you are having a tough time distinguishing between morality
and
civilized government. All of the quotes and attributions you cite above
really have little or nothing to do with morality.


They certainly imply that the founding fathers did not feel that the
Church had the moral authority to control our lives. God bless them!

Indeed they did, thankfully. But most, if not all of them, were Christians
and believed that their Christianity was an important part in determining
how men should be regarded by the new government. This was their way of
looking to their religion for guidance in the framing of the new
governmental documents. In other words, they morality was based in
Christian principles.

As for slavery, it was
grossly immoral, and I suspect that those who supported it cited *sound
Christian principles* to justify continuing the practice. They were
immoral positions, not fostered by Christian principles, rather economic
motivations.

All you're claiming here is that anything bad that happened was not
"Christian" and that anything good was the result of Christian morality.

No. What I'm claiming--and have been all along--is that Christian
principles were used in formulating the morality of many of the governments
of the western world. Saddam was considered by many to be a "very poor
Muslim." He really was quite secular for a leader of a Muslim country. Yet
he almost always cited Islamic principles as the justification of his regime
and what they did.

It's no secret that for centuries men have misused religion to
further immoral activities.

If this was only true of isolated individuals, you might have a case. When
its the official position of the Pope and the Church of England for
extended periods then it becomes something different.

What you've failed to acknowledge about my argument is that I've never drawn
conclusions as to whether western religions and their principles are good or
evil. I've only stated that the preponderance of our present-day accepted
morality has grown from western religion, not from secular origins.


They also lacked a religion based upon the principles of
Christianity as we recognize it today. Undoubtedly some of those
societies
were complex and relatively stratified, making the isolation of certain
variables difficult, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to draw conclusions
based upon general principles. Morality, as we tend to define it today,
held a far greater presence in later societies and civilizations which
also
had Christianity to deal with.

What basis do you have for this statement??? It sounds like self-serving
hogwash to me.

Whatever. I could have saved us both a lot of time and frustration if I'd
just provided some links to references supporting my position.
Unfortunately it's been far too long since those college classes.

While it proves nothing, the relationship
appears to be more than casual; enough so that historians point to the
relationship as causal.

Christian historians, no doubt.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Historians are always suspect, given to the same
biases and disparate beliefs we all possess.

Historians have also shown a direct relationship between the teachings of
the Church and the Holocaust. So where does this leave you?

Recent history points to a direct relationship between the teachings of the
Qu'ran and world-wide terrorism. There will always be those who use the
religion excuse for their bad behavior. That proves nothing. There are
many good people for whom religion is a guiding influence to moral behavior,
and they undoubtedly outnumber the members of al Qaeda and the Branch
Davidians by a substantial percentage.

Why is there no way to determine the moral convictions of the people?
From
literature, missives, and various other documents we can draw many
conclusions about people and their beliefs.


You can't be serious. Are you actually saying that societies that did not
leave literature behind could not have morals? There's plenty of evidence
that ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians led a good, orderly life - how
are you going to prove that this was not because of moral conviction?

The ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians were deeply entrenched in belief in
their gods. How are you going to prove that their morality was not strongly
influenced by their faith? Don't forget, however, that the Pharohs, upon
death, requested the sacrifice of many of their slaves so that they might be
accompanied by servants into the next life. Not terribly moral, now was it.

Thank you for finally agreeing with my position.

I've only agreed that your position is understood by a twit.

. . . who might just be more perceptive than thou.

I won't dispute that. But since we both have acknowledged the role
religion
has played in shaping the morality of this country from its inception,
why
take the unproven and unpredictable path of abject secularism from here
on
out?

When have I ever advocated "abject secularism"? This show the fundamental
flaw in your logic.

Do you support the activities of the ACLU? They most certainly support
abject secularism. They'd sue to ban religion in churches, if they could,
citing that such edifices are *public* facilities, given tax-exempt status,
and therefore subject to the separation of church and state. Of course the
definition of "state" has been perverted by the ACLU of late.

You've been assuming that without Christianity we would have "abject
secularism." All I've been saying is that without Christianity we would
have had some other religion, and there is no evidence that the morals
that would have derived from that religion would have been any worse than
those that came from Christianity.

You might have noticed that I frequently referred to *western religion* as a
general term to include the majority shareholder, Christianity, plus others.
And while you might not advocate abject secularism in all public matters,
there are many who do.

Further, by describing any alternative to Christianity as "abject" you're
pretty freely claiming that you are not willing to listen to any other
possibility. I suppose that's a lot better than trying to claim you're
open minded.


Experiment with someone else's country. I like this one the way it
is.

Fine. You can be frozen in amber. The rest of us will move on into the
future. Oh, and we'll be taking our country with us.

What a self-serving statement.

Progress doesn't imply that one must discard everything that has been part
of the fabric of our country in the past. Change in inevitable and
necessary, but some things are worth keeping. If you really advocate change
for the sake of change, perhaps it's time to throw out the old, traditional
Constitution and come up with a new one. Maybe Logan's Run had the right
idea. The only problem is that you and I would both be dead.

Max