The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

CA,

If "The Oz" won't mention the FACT, I will.

I have a real problem calling his voyage a complete voyage when he quit
in the Caribbean. Sold his boat. Went home buy Commercial transport and
called it finished.

Even he felt it was unfinished. He later brought another boat, larger
and better and sailed that back to Calif. I have trouble calling that a
Solo around the world voyage? That is the fact that bothers me. A hell
of a sail BUT:--------?

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ILLDRINKTOTHAT

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
CA,

If "The Oz" won't mention the FACT, I will.

I have a real problem calling his voyage a complete voyage when he quit
in the Caribbean. Sold his boat. Went home buy Commercial transport and
called it finished.

Even he felt it was unfinished. He later brought another boat, larger
and better and sailed that back to Calif. I have trouble calling that a
Solo around the world voyage? That is the fact that bothers me. A hell
of a sail BUT:--------?

Splitting hairs, Thom. Most sailors won't take their boats out
single-handed, let along sail 95% of the way around the world alone.

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 05:09:03 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
CA,

If "The Oz" won't mention the FACT, I will.

I have a real problem calling his voyage a complete voyage when he quit
in the Caribbean. Sold his boat. Went home buy Commercial transport and
called it finished.

Even he felt it was unfinished. He later brought another boat, larger
and better and sailed that back to Calif. I have trouble calling that a
Solo around the world voyage? That is the fact that bothers me. A hell
of a sail BUT:--------?

Splitting hairs, Thom. Most sailors won't take their boats out
single-handed, let along sail 95% of the way around the world alone.

Max


Max,
If you look at it from your POV, I've circumnavigated probably 5
times, probably even done a solo circum, but I'd need to check on from
wher I did each little section..

Nothing at all wrong with that perspective, Oz. As I said most sailors
won't sail single-handed, let alone venture offshore. Records, such as *the
youngest person to solo circumnavigate* require absolute veracity w/r/t
route and absence of passengers. Perhaps Robin L. Graham may not have
earned the record with which he has been associated, but it does not
belittle his effort or accomplishment. Would you have done a solo
circumnavigation in a crappy little boat when you were his age?

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

My 2 cents Worth:

It's very easy for some to say that religion lays no part in their lives
and that they live good, moral and decent lives because they choose to
do so. The truth of the matter is that the majority of people with
European backgrounds have had centuries of religion pounded into them.
By that fact, anyone now is simply reacting off the virtues of his
forefathers in regards to autonomous goodness. If religion and its'
tenants faded for several ventruies, or abolished altogether for a long
while, eventually the moral climate would change. Natural law would also
change to suit the environment that people live in. What we consider
natural law, not to murder, some sort of fair monogamous.polygamous
relationships, not stealing from those who have nothing, would all go
down the tubes. If the world was overpopulated at that point, natural
law would revert ot kill off the lowest layers, get rid of the
slough...so don't think religion doesn't touch your life just because
you choose not to practice or accept..without it man would survive a
completely different existence.

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

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.

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.

(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.

just my 2 cents



katy wrote:
My 2 cents Worth:

It's very easy for some to say that religion lays no part in their lives
and that they live good, moral and decent lives because they choose to
do so. The truth of the matter is that the majority of people with
European backgrounds have had centuries of religion pounded into them.
By that fact, anyone now is simply reacting off the virtues of his
forefathers in regards to autonomous goodness. If religion and its'
tenants faded for several ventruies, or abolished altogether for a long
while, eventually the moral climate would change. Natural law would also
change to suit the environment that people live in. What we consider
natural law, not to murder, some sort of fair monogamous.polygamous
relationships, not stealing from those who have nothing, would all go
down the tubes. If the world was overpopulated at that point, natural
law would revert ot kill off the lowest layers, get rid of the
slough...so don't think religion doesn't touch your life just because
you choose not to practice or accept..without it man would survive a
completely different existence.

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Jeff" wrote
just my 2 cents


More like half a mils worth.... You should read *Mere Christianity* by C.S. Lewis.
He explains so well how people have in innate knowledge of right and wrong and how
it's not there by accident. How it can only be there by design. Godly design.


Cheers,
Ellen

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
just my 2 cents


More like half a mils worth.... You should read *Mere Christianity* by C.S. Lewis.
He explains so well how people have in innate knowledge of right and wrong and how
it's not there by accident. How it can only be there by design. Godly design.

Anyone who attempts to "prove" the existence of God obviously has no
faith. Only children and simpletons fall for that approach.

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
just my 2 cents


More like half a mils worth.... You should read *Mere Christianity*
by C.S. Lewis.
He explains so well how people have in innate knowledge of right and
wrong and how
it's not there by accident. How it can only be there by design. Godly
design.

Anyone who attempts to "prove" the existence of God obviously has no
faith. Only children and simpletons fall for that approach.


You've just identified Neal!

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

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Jeff" wrote
Anyone who attempts to "prove" the existence of God obviously has no faith. Only children and simpletons fall for
that approach.

People come about their faith in their own way..... A scientific mind might find
greater comfort in deriving faith from logical thought processes. Others just believe
what they're told without thinking about it. They're called liberals.

Cheers,
Ellen

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"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.

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Jeff" wrote
Anyone who attempts to "prove" the existence of God obviously has no
faith. Only children and simpletons fall for that approach.

People come about their faith in their own way..... A scientific mind
might find
greater comfort in deriving faith from logical thought processes. Others
just believe
what they're told without thinking about it. They're called liberals.

And those same liberals are the ones who are convinced you and I should also
accept the contention that there is no God. They are unwilling to allow
religious people to have their faith. They're called fascists.

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

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.

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Jeff" wrote
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!


Jesus said exactly what you said up there offends you. Your saying Jesus is the work of the devil?
My oh my. Heaven help you, Jeff.
You must accept his offer-God's offer-or you'll not have everlasting life. Jesus lived. He died. He
came back to life. He did this after telling people he would do it and how he would do it. It that's not
proof enough he's God then may God have mercy on your soul....

Cheers,
Ellen

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

Max,

I truly don't have a clue to the answer of God, Faith, Morality but from
just observing our world and everything around us, Religion isn't the
answer.

Humans are the only species on the Planet that have churches. Humans are
the only species that have Wars. Humans are the only species that build
weapons and develop ways to use them to destroy.

Max, Humans and animals populated this planet without Religion, without
Sin and without Churches.

It plain to see that animals have no problem surviving without religion
or our, so called "Civilization" Man's problem is MAN. Man's creation
of his version on God is where Evil came from.

I haven't an answer but it obvious our Religion doesn't either!

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ILLDRINKTOTHAT

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:36:43 -0500, Ellen MacArthur wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Jeff" wrote
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!


Jesus said exactly what you said up there offends you. Your saying
Jesus is the work of the devil?
My oh my. Heaven help you, Jeff.
You must accept his offer-God's offer-or you'll not have everlasting
life. Jesus lived. He died. He
came back to life. He did this after telling people he would do it and how he

would do it. It that's not
proof enough he's God then may God have mercy on your soul....

Cheers,
Ellen



For someone who bases everything on fact you sure leave your self dangling
with lots of hope...good luck with that.

--
Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
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!


Jesus said exactly what you said up there offends you.

You have absolutely no idea what Jesus actually said. You only have
the myth and rumor that was written down at least 30-40 years after
the fact.

Your saying Jesus is the work of the devil?

Jesus was probably a reasonable guy. Many people have added layers to
his teachings, some reasonable, some not.

Its the misguided people who insist that their version is the only
path for everyone that are doing a disservice to his memory.

My oh my. Heaven help you, Jeff.
You must accept his offer-God's offer-or you'll not have everlasting life. Jesus lived. He died. He
came back to life. He did this after telling people he would do it and how he would do it. It that's not
proof enough he's God then may God have mercy on your soul...

You've just proven my point.

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"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

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Jeff" wrote
You have absolutely no idea what Jesus actually said. You only have the myth and rumor that was written down at least
30-40 years after the fact.

Wrong! You don't have to hear somebody say something for it to be true.
I never heard Kennedy say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what
you can do for your country." But I know he said it. There's historical records and
probably video tapes. But they can be faked. You can believe or not believe.
The Bible is an historical record. It's based on what people did and what people saw.
There's no reason to call Jesus and his followers liars just because you weren't there.
That's dumb, Jeff, dumb! Before there was writing there was oral tradition. People
were in charge of telling history. It was passed down from generation to generation.
American indians did it that way. It doesn't make it false.

Jesus was probably a reasonable guy. Many people have added layers to his teachings, some reasonable, some not.

The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all added the same layers?
Fascinating.... Prophesy come true written hundreds of years prior to Jesus even
being born was people adding layers. Incredible... Oh, and Jesus was a guy but he
was also God. But, he was anything but reasonable. He said it's his way or you never
have eternal life. I believe him. There's nothing to lose by believing him and everything
to gain.

You've just proven my point.

No sweat. It's easy to prove your ignorant, Jeff.

Cheers,
Ellen

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
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.

I'd never make that claim. Dispite Katy's claim to the contrary, I doubt if
ignoring religion at this stage of the evolution of human endeavor would
result in chaos and depravity. The fundamental concepts of morality brought
about by western religions over the centuries are as much a part of the
fabric of Europeans and Americans (including N, S, Central, etc.) as any
other aspects of our lives. It isn't likely to disappear overnight, nor
over the next few centuries. Of course Christianity isn't likely to
disappear either, so the point is moot.

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 were punitive slavery, innate
servitude, and religious sacrifice. China, to this day, has been at peace
with most of its neighbors for quite a while, but their version of morality
would be considered barbaric in many respects by western cultures. China
has never embraced Christianity, and only recently--within the last century
or so--tolerated it with a strong admonition of discouragement.

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.

Christianity didn't affect the current iteration of morality from its
inception. The Crusades were evidence of that. 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.

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.

The evolution of morality is not a straight-line, upward slope. There are
always setbacks to any evolving philosophy. Witness some of the exceptions
mentioned by Popeye. This is not a perfect world, but it is strongly
improved by morality brought about, primarily, by western religion. And it
continues to evolve.


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.

You obviously didn't read on before making that statement.


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.

Did I imply that? Re-read my statement. Or did you miss the "and other
prospering religions" part of my statement? But I am curious--what is your
take on Quakers? Their sense of morality is beyond reproach, at least from
what I've learned about them.

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.


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!

You seem to imply that ethics and morality are mutually exclusive. They
aren't. Not unless your version of ethical behavior extends to, for
example, the systematic elimination of genetically inferior individuals
(Downs, CF, CP, etc.) in order to serve the remainder of an orderly society
best. Without morality, ethics are merely a society's interpretation of
what is best for the masses. The Vikings had such "ethics."

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."

Yes, they do. And that is Christian bias, plain and simple, but still fails
to refute the influence of modern western religions upon morality. For
example, I'm unaware of the practice of human sacrifice in modern
Christianity.

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?

That would be asinine. They did exist, but were they moral in the modern
sense? Did Caligula possess a strong belief in the rights of individuals?

Or that chaos ruled the world until Constantine?

Chaos did rule the much of the world prior to Constatine. And it still
rules various parts of the world. Somalia comes to mind.


snip stuff where we largely agree

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.

I couldn't agree more, at least w/r/t the needs and beliefs of various
peoples and societies. I would not make a very good Christian with such a
belief, but I still contend that Christianity has led to a better world in
the final analysis. The fundamentals of our Constitution are based upon
Christianity. Have you taken a close look at the differences between Iraq's
new constitution and ours. You might be shocked at some of the disparities.
Have you read the Qu'ran? That's a real eye-opener as well.

Should the Islamic countries abandon their "morality?"

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

See above.

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!

To believe in the Devil implies that you also believe in God. Do you? Just
curious.


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...

Nope. I hope we aren't doomed to repeat that redundant mistake, but I fear
future leaders will do exactly that. Oil seems to be the catalyst.


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.

No one is. Not even the Democrats. Al Gore, maybe, but no one else. We
obtain less than 11% of our total crude requirements from the Middle East.
Brazil is totally independent of foreign oil as of last year. If a smallish
country such as Brazil can accomplish that, we certainly should be able to
wean ourselves from Mideastern crude. And alternative energy sources aren't
being exploited to any significant degree. Of course a Big Oil hit-man will
probably be paying me a surprise visit over the next few days. g

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Mundo" wrote in message

For someone who bases everything on fact you sure leave your self dangling
with lots of hope...good luck with that.

That's pretty much a definition of *faith.* Are you implying that you never
do anything on faith? Do you take risks? Or do you live such a monastic
(definition #2) lifestyle that nothing can bring harm to you?

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Max,

I truly don't have a clue to the answer of God, Faith, Morality but from
just observing our world and everything around us, Religion isn't the
answer.

Perhaps not for you, Thom, but it may be for others. Are you a fascist? Do
you believe that others should be denied the right to their beliefs because
yours differ?


Humans are the only species on the Planet that have churches.

Are you sure? Can you say for sure that a beaver lodge isn't a primative
synagog? g

Humans are
the only species that have Wars.

Um, take a look at some of the studies of primates and/or ants some time.

Humans are the only species that build
weapons and develop ways to use them to destroy.

See my comment on primates above.

Max, Humans and animals populated this planet without Religion, without
Sin and without Churches.

Religion is a creation of intelligent, self-aware beings. Early primates,
if you subscribe to the classic Darwinian theory of evolution, didn't
possess the mental attributes to create religions. Evolved humans did.

It plain to see that animals have no problem surviving without religion

It's plain to see that man has had no problem surviving with or without
religion.

or our, so called "Civilization" Man's problem is MAN. Man's creation
of his version on God is where Evil came from.

I haven't an answer but it obvious our Religion doesn't either!

There never are simple answers to infinitely complex problems, Thom. It's a
fool's errand to attempt to solve eternal and pervasive problems with a
single bullet. Solutions are as forthcoming as the increasing facets of the
problems, and of course nothing is ever solved. But for some religion is a
component solution to the world's problems. That it isn't for you does not
make it any less viable as a part of the solution for others. Your
statement is clearly intolerant in its implication.

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Maxprop" wrote
There never are simple answers to infinitely complex problems, Thom. It's a fool's errand to attempt to solve eternal
and pervasive problems with a single bullet. Solutions are as forthcoming as the increasing facets of the problems,
and of course nothing is ever solved. But for some religion is a component solution to the world's problems. That it
isn't for you does not make it any less viable as a part of the solution for others. Your statement is clearly
intolerant in its implication.

That's a nice way of saying the dude's stupid....

Cheers,
Ellen

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:46:31 -0500, Maxprop wrote
(in article . net):


"Mundo" wrote in message

For someone who bases everything on fact you sure leave your self dangling
with lots of hope...good luck with that.

That's pretty much a definition of *faith.* Are you implying that you never
do anything on faith? Do you take risks? Or do you live such a monastic
(definition #2) lifestyle that nothing can bring harm to you?

Max



Quite the opposite. The post however was focused towards Neil who forever
quotes and stands behind "fact" yet seems to be able to go baseless into gut
feelings, the realm of god and heaven. Pure faith. No Fact. He is an enigma.

--
Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
....
So
you can always make the claim that religion is responsible for everything
good, and all things bad are caused by ignoring religion.

I'd never make that claim. Dispite Katy's claim to the contrary, I doubt if
ignoring religion at this stage of the evolution of human endeavor would
result in chaos and depravity. The fundamental concepts of morality brought
about by western religions over the centuries are as much a part of the
fabric of Europeans and Americans (including N, S, Central, etc.) as any
other aspects of our lives. It isn't likely to disappear overnight, nor
over the next few centuries. Of course Christianity isn't likely to
disappear either, so the point is moot.

My claim would be that those "fundamental concepts" are part of human
nature. If anything, "western morality" was setback for many people.
It certainly didn't help the native-Americans, although they were
really done in by an accident of evolution.


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?

So were punitive slavery, innate servitude,

So that never happened in Christian countries, such as just about all
of them?

and religious sacrifice.

OK, human sacrifice has lost some if its panache since Jesus. But
Christians do seem rather fond of martyrs.

China, to this day, has been at peace
with most of its neighbors for quite a while, but their version of morality
would be considered barbaric in many respects by western cultures. China
has never embraced Christianity, and only recently--within the last century
or so--tolerated it with a strong admonition of discouragement.

You have a lot of trouble with this path - for every "evil" empire of
the past its easy to find a good one. And equally easy to find an
evil Christian country.



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.

Christianity didn't affect the current iteration of morality from its
inception. The Crusades were evidence of that. Morality evolved from
Christian ideology, and it took time. Lots of time. It continues to
evolve.

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?

Witness the changes in this country, from slavery to the relative
egalitarianism of today.

The evolution of morality is not a straight-line, upward slope. There are
always setbacks to any evolving philosophy. Witness some of the exceptions
mentioned by Popeye. This is not a perfect world, but it is strongly
improved by morality brought about, primarily, by western religion. And it
continues to evolve.

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.


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.

You obviously didn't read on before making that statement.

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.


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.

Did I imply that? Re-read my statement. Or did you miss the "and other
prospering religions" part of my statement? But I am curious--what is your
take on Quakers? Their sense of morality is beyond reproach, at least from
what I've learned about them.

I don't know enough to understand the current "majority view," but
I've gathered that many believe in Deism, that God transcends Human
experience and thus truth can only be determined through rational
thought. Others are Pantheists, believing that God and the physical
world are one and the same. 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.



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!

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.


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!

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. 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.

They
aren't. Not unless your version of ethical behavior extends to, for
example, the systematic elimination of genetically inferior individuals
(Downs, CF, CP, etc.) in order to serve the remainder of an orderly society
best. Without morality, ethics are merely a society's interpretation of
what is best for the masses. The Vikings had such "ethics."

You're doing that thing you said you wouldn't do. The Eugenicists
were probably all good Christians, doing what they considered the
"moral" thing. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote "three generations of
imbeciles is enough" but I don't think we can call Ollie an
Evangelical! As for the Vikings, I don't think I would want to hold
them up as examples of the highest morality, but the did get a bad rap
based on their early habit of attacking monasteries, that is, where
the money was. Other than that, its hard to say that they were that
bad. Would you claim that the Spanish Conquistadors were any better?


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."

Yes, they do. And that is Christian bias, plain and simple, but still fails
to refute the influence of modern western religions upon morality. For
example, I'm unaware of the practice of human sacrifice in modern
Christianity.

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? Oh, wait,
as soon as the Pope became aware of the excesses of the Spanish
Inquisition, he sent his special representative make things more
respectable. That was Thomas de Torquemada.

Re-write? Are you claiming the great empires didn't exist?

That would be asinine. They did exist, but were they moral in the modern
sense? Did Caligula possess a strong belief in the rights of individuals?

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


Or that chaos ruled the world until Constantine?

Chaos did rule the much of the world prior to Constatine. And it still
rules various parts of the world. Somalia comes to mind.

Ah Somalia! That was certainly a triumph of Christian compassion.

....
Have you read the Qu'ran? That's a real eye-opener as well.

Yes, I've read part of it - its not exactly the easiest thing to make
sense out of. Of course, many Muslims have on read a small portion it.


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!

To believe in the Devil implies that you also believe in God. Do you? Just
curious.

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.

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.

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
You have absolutely no idea what Jesus actually said. You only have the myth and rumor that was written down at least
30-40 years after the fact.

Wrong! You don't have to hear somebody say something for it to be true.
I never heard Kennedy say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what
you can do for your country." But I know he said it. There's historical records and
probably video tapes. But they can be faked. You can believe or not believe.
The Bible is an historical record. It's based on what people did and what people saw.
There's no reason to call Jesus and his followers liars just because you weren't there.
That's dumb, Jeff, dumb! Before there was writing there was oral tradition. People
were in charge of telling history. It was passed down from generation to generation.
American indians did it that way. It doesn't make it false.

It doesn't make it literally true, either. It was common practice in
Greek history to completely make up speeches and dialog. The Greeks
(that is, the educated Romans in the Eastern Mediterranean) would
never have guessed that the Gospels were were the actual spoken words
of Jesus.



Jesus was probably a reasonable guy. Many people have added layers to his teachings, some reasonable, some not.

The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all added the same layers?

Duh! Have you not read the Gospels?

Fascinating.... Prophesy come true written hundreds of years prior to Jesus even
being born was people adding layers. Incredible...

Odd, these "prophesies" were mostly not considered prophetic by the
people who made them. The early Christians had a small industry going
in trying to show that they were the "fulfillment" of the Jewish
destiny. That way, they would inherit the benefits that Jews had, as
an "Ancient Religion" in the Roman Empire. This was evident in the
letters of Paul, which were written before the Gospels (except
possibly Mark). Its pretty clear that much of the New Testament was
written to appear as fulfillment.

But, believe what you must.

Oh, and Jesus was a guy but he
was also God. But, he was anything but reasonable. He said it's his way or you never
have eternal life. I believe him. There's nothing to lose by believing him and everything
to gain.

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs. But you really should
study your sacred texts a bit. That way, you might not sound like a
little child parroting the comments of her Sunday School teacher.

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

Jeff,

Well stated. Bible history and Biblical history should be a combined
study. Jesus was a wonderful teacher for that time of world development.

Faith is a wonderful thing but should be tempered with Knowledge. Blind
Faith can be a dangerous thing.

I like your approach

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ILLDRINKTOTHAT

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote

Well stated. Bible history and Biblical history should be a combined
study. Jesus was a wonderful teacher for that time of world development.

That's typical what your saying, Tom. People dismiss Jesus by calling him a wonderful
teacher. That's so soo soooo shallow of people to attempt to diminish him like that. You and
others say. "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a wonderful teacher but I'm not gonna accept his
claim that he's God." Duh!
That's the very thing you shouldn't say. Why? It's pretty obvious to me. Anybody who
was just plain human and said the things Jesus said wouldn't be a wonderful moral teacher.
Nope, he'd be a raving lunatic or he'd be the devil incarnate.
You've got to choose one thing or the other. Either Jesus was what he said he was - God -
or he was a wack job nut case man or even the devil himself. So stop with the patronizing crap
about Jesus being just a wonderful teacher. It's an insult. That's not the choice he gave us.
Either believe he's what he says he is or reject him outright as a fraud. That's the choice he
demands of us. Don't try to diminish him by insulting him.

Cheers,
Ellen

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
...
So you can always make the claim that religion is responsible for
everything good, and all things bad are caused by ignoring religion.

I'd never make that claim. Dispite Katy's claim to the contrary, I doubt
if ignoring religion at this stage of the evolution of human endeavor
would result in chaos and depravity. The fundamental concepts of
morality brought about by western religions over the centuries are as
much a part of the fabric of Europeans and Americans (including N, S,
Central, etc.) as any other aspects of our lives. It isn't likely to
disappear overnight, nor over the next few centuries. Of course
Christianity isn't likely to disappear either, so the point is moot.

My claim would be that those "fundamental concepts" are part of human
nature. If anything, "western morality" was setback for many people. It
certainly didn't help the native-Americans, although they were really done
in by an accident of evolution.

This is typical of secular-progressive thinking. American indians, now the
so-called native Americans, ranged from peaceful, hunter-gatherers to
violent, warlike tribes. You've been watching too much TV and "Dances With
Wolves." Many tribes were so brutal and immoral that they simply
disappeared with time due to self-attrition, and without any intervention
from the imported European-Americans. They killed both other tribes and
even their own with no apparent conscience. Some powerful tribal members
killed the offspring of tribal opponents or pretenders to the throne in
order to maintain their stranglehold on power. And some simply killed other
tribal members for no apparent reasons other than being ****ed off by
something insignificant. If it is your opinion that such tribes were
"moral," you need to reconsider your definition. By the way, are you aware
that the producers of "D with W" cut the scene in which the tribe butchered
the white buffalo hide hunters who killed the animals and left them skinned
to die on the prairie? It was a brutal scene and didn't fit with the
popular warm-and-fuzzy image they were trying to portray. Instead they
portrayed John Dunbar as not wishing to join the tribe that evening because
of a guilty conscience, rather than what the original script called for,
which was shock and dismay at the brutality of the tribe against the white
hunters.

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.


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

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.

and religious sacrifice.

OK, human sacrifice has lost some if its panache since Jesus. But
Christians do seem rather fond of martyrs.

China, to this day, has been at peace with most of its neighbors for
quite a while, but their version of morality would be considered barbaric
in many respects by western cultures. China has never embraced
Christianity, and only recently--within the last century or so--tolerated
it with a strong admonition of discouragement.

You have a lot of trouble with this path - for every "evil" empire of the
past its easy to find a good one. And equally easy to find an evil
Christian country.

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.

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.

Christianity didn't affect the current iteration of morality from its
inception. The Crusades were evidence of that. Morality evolved from
Christian ideology, and it took time. Lots of time. It continues to
evolve.


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.

Witness the changes in this country, from slavery to the relative
egalitarianism of today.

The evolution of morality is not a straight-line, upward slope. There
are always setbacks to any evolving philosophy. Witness some of the
exceptions mentioned by Popeye. This is not a perfect world, but it is
strongly improved by morality brought about, primarily, by western
religion. And it continues to evolve.


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?


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.

You obviously didn't read on before making that statement.


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 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.

Did I imply that? Re-read my statement. Or did you miss the "and other
prospering religions" part of my statement? But I am curious--what is
your take on Quakers? Their sense of morality is beyond reproach, at
least from what I've learned about them.

I don't know enough to understand the current "majority view," but I've
gathered that many believe in Deism, that God transcends Human experience
and thus truth can only be determined through rational thought. Others
are Pantheists, believing that God and the physical world are one and the
same. 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 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.

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.

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!

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.*

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?

They aren't. Not unless your version of ethical behavior extends to, for
example, the systematic elimination of genetically inferior individuals
(Downs, CF, CP, etc.) in order to serve the remainder of an orderly
society best. Without morality, ethics are merely a society's
interpretation of what is best for the masses. The Vikings had such
"ethics."

You're doing that thing you said you wouldn't do. The Eugenicists were
probably all good Christians, doing what they considered the "moral"
thing. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote "three generations of imbeciles is
enough" but I don't think we can call Ollie an Evangelical! As for the
Vikings, I don't think I would want to hold them up as examples of the
highest morality,

I wasn't. My comment was sarcastic.

but the did get a bad rap based on their early habit of attacking
monasteries, that is, where the money was. Other than that, its hard to
say that they were that bad. 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.



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."

Yes, they do. And that is Christian bias, plain and simple, but still
fails to refute the influence of modern western religions upon morality.
For example, I'm unaware of the practice of human sacrifice in modern
Christianity.

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.

Oh, wait, as soon as the Pope became aware of the excesses of the Spanish
Inquisition, he sent his special representative make things more
respectable. That was Thomas de Torquemada.

Re-write? Are you claiming the great empires didn't exist?

That would be asinine. They did exist, but were they moral in the modern
sense? Did Caligula possess a strong belief in the rights of
individuals?

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.


Or that chaos ruled the world until Constantine?

Chaos did rule the much of the world prior to Constatine. And it still
rules various parts of the world. Somalia comes to mind.

Ah Somalia! That was certainly a triumph of Christian compassion.

I'd say it's more an example of fundamental Islamic sectarian animosity.
And abject poverty.

Have you read the Qu'ran? That's a real eye-opener as well.

Yes, I've read part of it - its not exactly the easiest thing to make
sense out of. Of course, many Muslims have on read a small portion it.

And many have memorized it in its entireity, especially the young extremist
radicals about to strap on a couple pounds of C-4 and walk into a crowded
marketplace.

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!

To believe in the Devil implies that you also believe in God. Do you?
Just curious.


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


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'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, particularly western
religions.

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." 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.

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Mundo" wrote in message
. net...
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:46:31 -0500, Maxprop wrote
(in article . net):


"Mundo" wrote in message

For someone who bases everything on fact you sure leave your self
dangling
with lots of hope...good luck with that.

That's pretty much a definition of *faith.* Are you implying that you
never
do anything on faith? Do you take risks? Or do you live such a monastic
(definition #2) lifestyle that nothing can bring harm to you?

Max



Quite the opposite. The post however was focused towards Neil who forever
quotes and stands behind "fact" yet seems to be able to go baseless into
gut
feelings, the realm of god and heaven. Pure faith. No Fact. He is an
enigma.

There is little or no fact where religion is concerned. Only faith. If
you're waiting for a Christian to provide evidence (facts) of God, you're in
for a long wait. But you are of course right--to a Christian, his belief
*is* fact. That's part and parcel of the faith business.

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Maxprop" wrote
There never are simple answers to infinitely complex problems, Thom.
It's a fool's errand to attempt to solve eternal and pervasive problems
with a single bullet. Solutions are as forthcoming as the increasing
facets of the problems, and of course nothing is ever solved. But for
some religion is a component solution to the world's problems. That it
isn't for you does not make it any less viable as a part of the solution
for others. Your statement is clearly intolerant in its implication.

That's a nice way of saying the dude's stupid....

I'm far too polite to ever do such a thing. Mom brought me up right.

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

Nellen,

I want you to KNOW RIGHT NOW; it is you that put the ? on his status of
a man or God. You alone!

I've posted many times, I just don't know. It certainly appear that you
don't either. If you want to believe, that is your choice. Don't you
dare decide how anyone else believes.

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ILLDRINKTOTHAT

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote
I want you to KNOW RIGHT NOW; it is you that put the ? on his status of
a man or God. You alone!

Did you fail reading 101? I never said anything about a question mark. I believe
what Jesus said. He is God. There's no doubt in my mind about it. No man can be
crucified and then come back to life three days later. Only God can do that...

I've posted many times, I just don't know. It certainly appear that you
don't either. If you want to believe, that is your choice. Don't you
dare decide how anyone else believes.

I ain't deciding what somebody else believes. I'm just saying your stupid to say
Jesus was a good teacher but he wasn't God. Jesus said, "I'm the son of God." Who
are you to say he's not? Did you ever get tortured and killed and then come back to life?
Did you ever tell a bunch of people that was going to happen before it happened?
Your in no position to say God's just a good teacher and nothing else. That's
nuts. That won't get you to Heaven. As old as you are you'd better get your priorities
straight before it's too late.... Jesus gave you a choice. Believe he's God and
he died to forgive your sins and get eternal life. Disbelieve him and get oblivion.
Jesus said that. Not me. I'm just repeating what he said. That's all.
Anybody who chooses disbelief is a lost soul. Say Hi to God or say Hi to Satan.
You'll only be able to say Hi to God through Jesus. That's what he taught us.
Ain't nothing so difficult about it....

Cheers,
Ellen

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

Nellen,
Here is my post. Please note that I never said Jesus wasn't a God. It
was you that added it
-----------------------------------------------------
Well stated. Bible history and Biblical history should be a combined
study. Jesus was a wonderful teacher for that time of world development.
Faith is a wonderful thing but should be tempered with Knowledge. Blind
Faith can be a dangerous thing.
I like your approach
------------------------------------------------------
It sure looks like your reading comprehension needs a lot of improvement

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ILLDRINKTOTHAT



http://community.webtv.net/tassail/Pneuma

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

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,

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"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.

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.

Here your prejudice shows through with flying colors. First: you have no
idea what my religion is, or even that I practice a religion. I've not
implied anything w/r/t myself--you have made that assumption all by
yourself. Second, I've used the term "western religion" almost synonymously
with Christianity, despite that Christianity, while the majority shareholder
in western religion, is only a part. I've also used the term
"Judeo-Christian." So what am I, Jeff? Am I a Jew? Christian? Atheist?
Agnostic? Druid? Quaker? You'll have to decide, because my religion or
lack thereof is no one's concern but my own. I was attempting to discuss
this dispassionately and without prejudice, based upon historical fact. As
soon as you label me a Christian, it became a debate of a personal nature.

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.

Yeah, those damned framers of the Constitution and their Christianity. They
ruined everything.

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.

Please produce my statement where I implied that 99% of the country is
Christian. You're beginning to sound like Doug.

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

You and I will have to agree to disagree. This is becoming pointless,
mostly because you seem unable to differentiate between peace and morality.
They aren't anymore synonymous than "civilization" and "morality."

It's a pointless discussion anyway. The majority of 18th, 19th, and 20th
Century European historians concur that western religions played the
majority role in shaping the morality of the periods. Debate them.

Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

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?



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.

Here your prejudice shows through with flying colors. First: you have no
idea what my religion is, or even that I practice a religion. I've not
implied anything w/r/t myself--you have made that assumption all by
yourself. Second, I've used the term "western religion" almost synonymously
with Christianity, despite that Christianity, while the majority shareholder
in western religion, is only a part. I've also used the term
"Judeo-Christian." So what am I, Jeff? Am I a Jew? Christian? Atheist?
Agnostic? Druid? Quaker? You'll have to decide, because my religion or
lack thereof is no one's concern but my own. I was attempting to discuss
this dispassionately and without prejudice, based upon historical fact. As
soon as you label me a Christian, it became a debate of a personal nature.

Forgive me, its true that you did not reveal your personal thoughts,
even though you asked for mine. However, since you are clearly taking
the "Christian side" I think it isn't unfair of me to identify it as
"your religion" in the same sense that I might identify the Chargers
as "your team" even if you are not a member of the team and don't live
in San Diego.


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.

Yeah, those damned framers of the Constitution and their Christianity. They
ruined everything.

Well, this would be the real issue here. Obviously, all of the
framers of the Constitution were influenced by Christianity. And I
appreciate that books have been written trying to show that much of it
was derived from biblical sources.

However, the Constitution represents a massive break from our European
political heritage. Starting, obviously, with denying the divinity of
royalty, the Constitution is not an endorsement of organized religion,
but a rejection of it.

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of
Independence, was a Deist, that is, he rejected the divinity of the
Trinity. Although raised in the Church of England, he later seemed to
favor Unitarianism. He clearly did not favor organized religion,
writing: "the serious enemies are the priests of the different
religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind it's improvement is
ominous."

John Adams, another major force in the Constitution, also was a
Unitarian. He was trained as a youth to be a minister, but he felt
that being a lawyer was a more noble calling! He wrote of the
Catholic Church: "Since the promulgation of Christianity, the two
greatest systems of tyranny that have sprung from this original, are
the canon and the feudal law."

Both Jefferson and Adams approved of Christian morals. Adams even
said that the Bible is "the best book in the world." Of course, at
that time the Western world was not exposed to most of the world's
religions and philosophy.

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" was a protege of
Jefferson, and clearly shared many of his views. He was the author of
the Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of religion, and often
wrote about the complete separation of Church and State.

Unfortunately, the original Constitution was flawed in that it
permitted slavery. This was required, of course, because the southern
states refused to join the Union if slavery was abolished. I'm sure
they had good Christian morals supporting their position.


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.

Please produce my statement where I implied that 99% of the country is
Christian. You're beginning to sound like Doug.

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

You and I will have to agree to disagree. This is becoming pointless,
mostly because you seem unable to differentiate between peace and morality.
They aren't anymore synonymous than "civilization" and "morality."

The problem I have is that its hard to take measure of the motivation
of people from a distance of 2000 years. Its easy to look around
today and see numerous examples of "Christian" generosity or
compassion. Can you honestly say that the same moral motivations were
absent in other societies?

History does not record the motivations of the ordinary people,
especially in peaceful societies. In fact, unless a culture waged a
war, its hard to tell that it even existed! And even the opposite is
true - major societies that we thought existed because of the claims
of their conquests (such as the empire of David and Solomon) we have
trouble finding physical evidence for.

Since there is no way to determine the moral convictions of ordinary
people in societies from the distance past, all we have to go on is
how well the society functioned and how well did the government
provide for the needs of the people.



It's a pointless discussion anyway. The majority of 18th, 19th, and 20th
Century European historians concur that western religions played the
majority role in shaping the morality of the periods. Debate them.

Well Duh! Even a twit like Ellen can see that the morality of any
period is heavily influenced by the religion of the time. The issue
is whether Europe (or the world) would have been better off had some
other religion other than Christianity been allowed to grow and
develop. I claim there's no way to know this.

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"Jeff" wrote
Well Duh! Even a twit like Ellen can see that the morality of any period is heavily influenced by the religion of the
time. The issue is whether Europe (or the world) would have been better off had some other religion other than
Christianity been allowed to grow and develop. I claim there's no way to know this.


Hey! Is that really necessary? Not very Christian of you. ;-)

Cheers,
Ellen

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
Well Duh! Even a twit like Ellen can see that the morality of any period is heavily influenced by the religion of the
time. The issue is whether Europe (or the world) would have been better off had some other religion other than
Christianity been allowed to grow and develop. I claim there's no way to know this.


Hey! Is that really necessary? Not very Christian of you. ;-)

I meant that in the nicest possible way.

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"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.

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.

Here your prejudice shows through with flying colors. First: you have
no idea what my religion is, or even that I practice a religion. I've
not implied anything w/r/t myself--you have made that assumption all by
yourself. Second, I've used the term "western religion" almost
synonymously with Christianity, despite that Christianity, while the
majority shareholder in western religion, is only a part. I've also used
the term "Judeo-Christian." So what am I, Jeff? Am I a Jew? Christian?
Atheist? Agnostic? Druid? Quaker? You'll have to decide, because my
religion or lack thereof is no one's concern but my own. I was
attempting to discuss this dispassionately and without prejudice, based
upon historical fact. As soon as you label me a Christian, it became a
debate of a personal nature.

Forgive me, its true that you did not reveal your personal thoughts, even
though you asked for mine. However, since you are clearly taking the
"Christian side" I think it isn't unfair of me to identify it as "your
religion" in the same sense that I might identify the Chargers as "your
team" even if you are not a member of the team and don't live in San
Diego.

If historians had identified, say, football (European soccer) as the impetus
for morality, I would have taken that stance. Does that make me from
Liverpool?


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.

Yeah, those damned framers of the Constitution and their Christianity.
They ruined everything.

Well, this would be the real issue here. Obviously, all of the framers of
the Constitution were influenced by Christianity. And I appreciate that
books have been written trying to show that much of it was derived from
biblical sources.

However, the Constitution represents a massive break from our European
political heritage. Starting, obviously, with denying the divinity of
royalty, the Constitution is not an endorsement of organized religion, but
a rejection of it.

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.

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence,
was a Deist, that is, he rejected the divinity of the Trinity. Although
raised in the Church of England, he later seemed to favor Unitarianism.
He clearly did not favor organized religion, writing: "the serious enemies
are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the
human mind it's improvement is ominous."

John Adams, another major force in the Constitution, also was a Unitarian.
He was trained as a youth to be a minister, but he felt that being a
lawyer was a more noble calling! He wrote of the Catholic Church: "Since
the promulgation of Christianity, the two greatest systems of tyranny that
have sprung from this original, are the canon and the feudal law."

Both Jefferson and Adams approved of Christian morals. Adams even said
that the Bible is "the best book in the world." Of course, at that time
the Western world was not exposed to most of the world's religions and
philosophy.

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" was a protege of
Jefferson, and clearly shared many of his views. He was the author of the
Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of religion, and often wrote
about the complete separation of Church and State.

Unfortunately, the original Constitution was flawed in that it permitted
slavery. This was required, of course, because the southern states
refused to join the Union if slavery was abolished. I'm sure they had
good Christian morals supporting their position.

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. 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. It's no secret that for centuries men have misused religion to
further immoral activities. That in and of itself does not alter the
historical influence of religion upon morality in the western world.

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.

Please produce my statement where I implied that 99% of the country is
Christian. You're beginning to sound like Doug.

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

You and I will have to agree to disagree. This is becoming pointless,
mostly because you seem unable to differentiate between peace and
morality. They aren't anymore synonymous than "civilization" and
"morality."

The problem I have is that its hard to take measure of the motivation of
people from a distance of 2000 years. Its easy to look around today and
see numerous examples of "Christian" generosity or compassion. Can you
honestly say that the same moral motivations were absent in other
societies?

According to historians there were early societies that lacked any moral
compass. 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. While it proves nothing, the relationship
appears to be more than casual; enough so that historians point to the
relationship as causal.

History does not record the motivations of the ordinary people, especially
in peaceful societies. In fact, unless a culture waged a war, its hard to
tell that it even existed! And even the opposite is true - major
societies that we thought existed because of the claims of their conquests
(such as the empire of David and Solomon) we have trouble finding physical
evidence for.

Since there is no way to determine the moral convictions of ordinary
people in societies from the distance past, all we have to go on is how
well the society functioned and how well did the government provide for
the needs of the people.

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.

It's a pointless discussion anyway. The majority of 18th, 19th, and 20th
Century European historians concur that western religions played the
majority role in shaping the morality of the periods. Debate them.

Well Duh! Even a twit like Ellen can see that the morality of any period
is heavily influenced by the religion of the time.

Thank you for finally agreeing with my position.

The issue is whether Europe (or the world) would have been better off had
some other religion other than Christianity been allowed to grow and
develop. I claim there's no way to know this.

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


Max

The Empire Crumbles: More American Buffoonery
 

"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.

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.

Here your prejudice shows through with flying colors. First: you have
no idea what my religion is, or even that I practice a religion. I've
not implied anything w/r/t myself--you have made that assumption all by
yourself. Second, I've used the term "western religion" almost
synonymously with Christianity, despite that Christianity, while the
majority shareholder in western religion, is only a part. I've also used
the term "Judeo-Christian." So what am I, Jeff? Am I a Jew? Christian?
Atheist? Agnostic? Druid? Quaker? You'll have to decide, because my
religion or lack thereof is no one's concern but my own. I was
attempting to discuss this dispassionately and without prejudice, based
upon historical fact. As soon as you label me a Christian, it became a
debate of a personal nature.

Forgive me, its true that you did not reveal your personal thoughts, even
though you asked for mine. However, since you are clearly taking the
"Christian side" I think it isn't unfair of me to identify it as "your
religion" in the same sense that I might identify the Chargers as "your
team" even if you are not a member of the team and don't live in San
Diego.

If historians had identified, say, football (European soccer) as the impetus
for morality, I would have taken that stance. Does that make me from
Liverpool?


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.

Yeah, those damned framers of the Constitution and their Christianity.
They ruined everything.

Well, this would be the real issue here. Obviously, all of the framers of
the Constitution were influenced by Christianity. And I appreciate that
books have been written trying to show that much of it was derived from
biblical sources.

However, the Constitution represents a massive break from our European
political heritage. Starting, obviously, with denying the divinity of
royalty, the Constitution is not an endorsement of organized religion, but
a rejection of it.

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.

Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence,
was a Deist, that is, he rejected the divinity of the Trinity. Although
raised in the Church of England, he later seemed to favor Unitarianism.
He clearly did not favor organized religion, writing: "the serious enemies
are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the
human mind it's improvement is ominous."

John Adams, another major force in the Constitution, also was a Unitarian.
He was trained as a youth to be a minister, but he felt that being a
lawyer was a more noble calling! He wrote of the Catholic Church: "Since
the promulgation of Christianity, the two greatest systems of tyranny that
have sprung from this original, are the canon and the feudal law."

Both Jefferson and Adams approved of Christian morals. Adams even said
that the Bible is "the best book in the world." Of course, at that time
the Western world was not exposed to most of the world's religions and
philosophy.

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" was a protege of
Jefferson, and clearly shared many of his views. He was the author of the
Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of religion, and often wrote
about the complete separation of Church and State.

Unfortunately, the original Constitution was flawed in that it permitted
slavery. This was required, of course, because the southern states
refused to join the Union if slavery was abolished. I'm sure they had
good Christian morals supporting their position.

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. 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. It's no secret that for centuries men have misused religion to
further immoral activities. That in and of itself does not alter the
historical influence of religion upon morality in the western world.

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.

Please produce my statement where I implied that 99% of the country is
Christian. You're beginning to sound like Doug.

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

You and I will have to agree to disagree. This is becoming pointless,
mostly because you seem unable to differentiate between peace and
morality. They aren't anymore synonymous than "civilization" and
"morality."

The problem I have is that its hard to take measure of the motivation of
people from a distance of 2000 years. Its easy to look around today and
see numerous examples of "Christian" generosity or compassion. Can you
honestly say that the same moral motivations were absent in other
societies?

According to historians there were early societies that lacked any moral
compass. 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. While it proves nothing, the relationship
appears to be more than casual; enough so that historians point to the
relationship as causal.

History does not record the motivations of the ordinary people, especially
in peaceful societies. In fact, unless a culture waged a war, its hard to
tell that it even existed! And even the opposite is true - major
societies that we thought existed because of the claims of their conquests
(such as the empire of David and Solomon) we have trouble finding physical
evidence for.

Since there is no way to determine the moral convictions of ordinary
people in societies from the distance past, all we have to go on is how
well the society functioned and how well did the government provide for
the needs of the people.

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.

It's a pointless discussion anyway. The majority of 18th, 19th, and 20th
Century European historians concur that western religions played the
majority role in shaping the morality of the periods. Debate them.

Well Duh! Even a twit like Ellen can see that the morality of any period
is heavily influenced by the religion of the time.

Thank you for finally agreeing with my position.

The issue is whether Europe (or the world) would have been better off had
some other religion other than Christianity been allowed to grow and
develop. I claim there's no way to know this.

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


Max