Maxprop wrote:
"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.

Yes, I understand what you've been saying. And I said in my original
post, and in most of those following, that religion is clearly a major
influence on morals, and that obviously the Western sense of morality
derives largely from Christianity.

The question I've asked is whether this has been a positive influence,
or at least better than any of the alternatives.

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.

I could also interpret what you say as sometimes what people call
"morality" is really not.


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.

I think you're underestimating the framers. While for the most part
the were not Atheists, a lot came pretty close to that. Many
certainly would have objected to the evangelical nature of many modern
religions.

Placing the ten commandments on a public
property is probably not what they were worried about.

Actually, this is one of the more egregious symbols, since it is
specifically a Judeo-Christian symbol. In essence, by placing it in a
courtroom it is saying that this court will deal fairly only with Jews
and Christians, all others are on their own.


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,

Odd, the founders didn't think it belonged on currency, it was only
added almost 90 years after the Revolution. At least this is more
inclusive the the Ten Commandments, in that most of the world puts
their trust in some god. But does it make the money worth more?

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." ?

Yes I'm sure that would be necessary. As everyone knows, Atheists
feel free to lie at every opportunity if they are not compelled to say
"so help me God."


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.

This is pretty circuitous logic. Let's see: founding fathers born
into Anglican Church or other Theistic religions, became Unitarian
Deists, then insisted that religion has no part in government.

I can see why you're so insistent that they actually believed that
Christian morality should be part of government.


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.

What's your point? I'm certainly not a fan of Saddam, but is it that
clear the world is a better place now that he's gone? Is Iran a
better place because its government is based on religious morals?


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.

That seems to be a pretty bold faced lie. I guess that's what happens
when you don't say "so help me God." Or are you claiming you didn't
say any of the following:

"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,'"

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

"Morality evolved from Christian ideology, and it took time. Lots of
time. It continues to evolve. Witness the changes in this country,
from slavery to the relative egalitarianism of today."

"Chaos did rule the much of the world prior to Constatine."

"I still contend that Christianity has led to a better world in
the final analysis"



I've only stated that the preponderance of our present-day accepted
morality has grown from western religion, not from secular origins.

You went waaaaaaaaaaay beyond that.

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.

never let facts get in the way of what you believe.

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 many good people who don't need religion to justify moral behavior.

and they undoubtedly outnumber the members of al Qaeda and the Branch
Davidians by a substantial percentage.

But when people speak in the name of religion, they have a lot of
leverage. There may have only been a few like Father Coughlin, but
millions received his form of hatred on the radio and in his
newspaper. I'm sure that many Catholics assumed that since he was
allowed to continue until 1942, he had the full blessing of the Church.



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?

I'm sure it was. I never tried to say otherwise. Perhaps you should
go back and read my original post in this thread. I never argued
against the religious basis for morality, I argued against the
imposition of one form of morality over another.

Slavery, the Inquisition, Expulsions, the Crusades, Witch Hunts,
forced conversions, intolerance of sects, the list goes on, even
today. These are all symptoms of a religion that believes that its
path is the only path. While these issues may appear to be only minor
problems for those within the dominant sect, the rest of the world
suffers.

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.

I'm sure they thought it was a great honor. And are you sure this
applied to all Pharaohs or just a few of the many?

And you shouldn't forget that one of Pharaohs, Akhenaten (husband of
Nefertiti, father of Tut), imposed monotheism as the state religion.
Since this was just before the traditional date of Moses, there is
much speculation that this is foundation of Hebrew, and thus Christian
monotheism. Freud, amongst many others, even wrote a book about this.



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.

Who claims that anyone who disagrees with her will burn in hell? Is
that what you mean by perceptive?


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?

I don't think I've given them any money lately. That's usually a
point when I look carefully at an organization's activities to see if
I can fully support them. However, there have been a number of cases
where I've supported their position.

They most certainly support abject

Before we continue, lets be clear on what we mean by "abject."
Webster's defines it as
1. utterly hopeless, miserable, humiliating, or wretched
2. contemptible; despicable; base-spirited
3. shamelessly servile; slavish

Since you seem to feel the need to add this adjective to every
reference to "secular," you must be comfortable with phrases like
"contemptible Christianity" as an appropriate way of showing a healthy
skepticism of that religion.

secularism.

Most certainly? I think they believe they support the values of our
Founding Fathers. I, for one, think that anyone who calls our
Founding Fathers "abject" is an asshole. Are you an asshole, Max?
Are you a "contemptible Christian"?


They'd sue to ban religion in churches, if they could,

most of them were strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian morals.

citing that such edifices are *public* facilities, given tax-exempt status,

the tax-exempt status of churches is a reasonable issue to discuss

and therefore subject to the separation of church and state. Of course the
definition of "state" has been perverted by the ACLU of late.

Which position of the ACLU pushed you over the edge? They are only
trying to protect your rights. This anger of your is very
un-Christian. And especially since I never once took what I consider
a truly secular position, I'm quite taken aback by this tack of yours.


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.

And what of it? Odd as it may sound, there are people who claim that
their religion is the "only path to salvation." Should my children be
forced to say their prayers in public school?

Why don't you tell us, Max, which "public matter" requires religion to
best serve all of the people?


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.

Well, it was really an attempt at humor. As I assumed your
"Experiment with someone else's country" comment was poking fun at the
apparent need of Christians to meddle in the affairs of everyone
around the world.


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.

I wanna go back to Dixie,
I wanna be a Dixie pixie
And eat corn pone till it's comin' outta my ears.
I wanna talk with Southern gentlemen
And put that white sheet on again,
I ain't seen one good lynchin' in years.
- Tom Lehrer

Actually, I'd like to go back to the days when everyone sang Tom
Lehrer songs - I miss him!


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.

As long as the ACLU is here to protect us, the one we have is good
enough for me.

Maybe Logan's Run had the right
idea. The only problem is that you and I would both be dead.

Nah. We should get rid of everyone who thinks their religion is
better than anyone else's.