Secularist efforts to change the meaning of our First Amendment freedoms threaten all forms of free expression.
Did you know that you could die tonight? And some of us will die tonight. And some tomorrow, and so on.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
26 - Temple Stark
David, I tried asking God and got no response. What should I do now? Seriously, if it works for you, great. It ain't happening for some of us. Something about the desire not being there and being cool with that.
"Most everything" "A few." "Core issues." Jeez save me from pedantic. On this site, at least, you agree with David a lot. I don't know if you have some type of conversational relationship on another site but here on non-religious issues you've been sympatico. Go ahead, parse sympatico.
(I've got to start using those RSS feeds for particular sections.)
27 - Dave Nalle
Temp, I haven't been paying that much attention to what David F. has been saying. I just know that we don't agree on religion or gay marriage or abortion. Of the issues we've both been involved in discussing that's over 50%, but there's no reason why you'd have been following all those discussions.
Dave
28 - bhw
David:
And, again, my point above is that, if there is no God, then slavery is OKAY, as long as the dominant society proclaims it to be okay.
But the dominant society in this country, including the founding fathers, did once proclaim it to be okay. So where was god? If we have god, then we know slavery isn't okay. If slavery is okay, which it once was, both legally and morally, according to this country, then what does that say about god and his existence?
So, perhaps you should argue that there must be no God because some Christians for a time in this country defined slavery as "okay." Try that angle.
That's basically what your argument says. You might want to rethink it.
29 - Mark Saleski
so nothing is worth doing if 'god''s approval isn't the reason?
yow.
all those poor stupid buddhists.
;-)
30 - Dave Nalle
You make David sound like god's stalker...
Dave
31 - gonzo marx
David Flanagan sez..
*Do we have scientific laws? Absolutely. I'm not talking "Law of Gravity," I'm' talking laws of humanity.*
oh..now you are talking about Laws...and here you had been on the topic of Truth in your Article, which is what i commented on...
go on back up and read it again..i'll wait....
ya see it?...good
now..about those Laws...can i ask your source material?...old Testament...new Testament...which Laws are you putting out as "Truth"?
maybe the ones with all the Stoning?
or those kooky dietary Laws of the old Testament?
i'll stick with the secular humanists Rule of Law , thanx much...because what seems like a "Truth" in the Law of one Faith appears downright silly to those of another...
we are talking about Seperation of Church and State here as the main issue, which you are attempting to place in a First Amendment context..
i contend that it is a fallacious argument since not only are any person of Faith's Rights protected under the Rule of secular Law..but encouraged by society as a whole...does your Church pay taxes?....are there any prayer police to stop you from practicing the tenets of your Faith?...umm...no
i would say there are LESS restrictions on practicing Faith in this country than there are on smoking a cigarrette
but i am more than passingly interested in hearing how you are equating this to a first amendment issue when the instances you talk about , in specific, seems to fall into the "seperation" clauses...
Excelsior!
32 - David Flanagan
Dave,
You never know until you try.
David
33 - David Flanagan
i'll stick with the secular humanists Rule of Law
Hmmm... Didn't the Soviet Union subscribe to that concept? What was their record? 20-30 million citizens murdered? How about Nazi Germany? 10-12 million murdered. China? God knows how many, mainly because of all those abortions that women in China were forced to have because of China's one-child law. Secular humanists have a long and dismal list of dark episodes, with an enourmously high body count to boot.
But what I'm arguing is that changing the meaning of the First Amendment so that it is turned into a tool to sterilize public life of all religion is far more dangerous and far more destructive to the country than simply having to put up with a bunch of kooks like myself, telling you to talk to God and espousing the virtues of faith.
If you want the First Amendment to provide a mandate to government to control religion, then you've also given them a mandate to control the media and peaceful assembly. Original intent was to handcuff the federal government when it came to interfering with religion. Religious people could influence govnernment, but not vice versa. Today, a small minority in this country want liberal judges to put the handcuffs on anyone with religious beliefs, so that we cannot influence society or the government.
And that means that the federal government can handcuff the media as well, and other fundamental rights you enjoy. So what would you rather have, weirdos like myself spouting off, or the federal government telling you, in effect, to shut up?
Thanks,
David
34 - Steve S
"Secular humanists have a long and dismal list of dark episodes, with an enourmously high body count to boot."
Like the Crusades, the Inquisition, Jihad, suicide terrorism, ancient sacrifices, the middle eastern conflict that has killed countless....
The point being, the religious and the non-religious can point fingers all day at if religion saves lives or takes lives. But it becomes just another reason, like racism, genocide, hunger, territorial disputes, etc. Throw oppression from religion, or an oppressed religion in the mix and it's the same result.
It's not the religion or the secularism that kills, it's the human.
35 - JR
David Flanagan: Hmmm... Didn't the Soviet Union subscribe to that concept? What was their record? 20-30 million citizens murdered? How about Nazi Germany? 10-12 million murdered. China? God knows how many, mainly because of all those abortions that women in China were forced to have because of China's one-child law. Secular humanists have a long and dismal list of dark episodes, with an enourmously high body count to boot.
I think most people would distinguish "secular humanism" from any value system which places the State above the individual. And your examples are all of the latter.
36 - Temple Stark
We're just attacking the idea that the non-religious can't see truth, and we disagree with your idea of truth.
At least you're thinking and caring about something. You're just not going to be very convincing on this to the rest of us non-believers (and neither to some believers).
37 - Dead Zombie Kung-fu Jesus
"It's very simple really:
No God? No truth."
These two lines completely destroy the argument. Assuming there is a God (or any god) that doles out final judgment based on morality of behavior, there is no reason to think that its existence necessarily proves the existence of [moral] truth. It seems to me that truth must be anterior to and somehow more transcendent than God if God is to know the truth and act as a judge. Otherwise, how would God know this truth and determine right from wrong? To argue God knows truth because God created truth seems to be a recourse to an arbitrariness that defeats the argument.
If God ultimately determines truth without reference to an external and anteriorly transcendent truth, then God determines truth arbitrarily. Following determination, the morality of various actions is asserted based on an unrooted judgment and not on any unchanging standard. In short, good is good because Gods says so and nothing else. God can always change what is good, right? Like on slavery? God judges then by whim relative to his/her/its own motives, desires, etc. How much more arbitrary and relative can you get?
If some sort of [moral] truth exists prior to God, then there is no reason to expect that one cannot come to truth on their own. God, in short, is irrelevant to the truth of moral behavior. Thus, those that don't believe in god and final judgment can access truth and construct non-tyrannical governments.
There is no reason that existence of truth necessitates an afterlife either. Meaning, as any cross-cultural study will tell you, is entirely arbitrary as well. Ultimately, if you add the layer of human interpretation to God's interpretation of truth, it seems you get a very distorted picture of what is right and wrong.
Based on the original piece and the author's additional comments, it seems to me that the he is really positing that good can only come about through the threat of punishment & force by God or one of its earthly proxies. Is one really being moral if you aren't choosing morality for its own sake? Is being "good" good enough because you're afraid to be bad enough?
So, "it" really *isn't* simple.
38 - Temple Stark
What Jesus said.
Also, understatement of the decade nominee: Ultimately, if you add the layer of human interpretation to God's interpretation of truth, it seems you get a very distorted picture of what is right and wrong.
39 - Eric Olsen
I would imagine David is saying God IS truth.
Very interesting thread, and while I don't follow the reasoning that the absence of God negates the possibility of truth, I also think David did a very fine job of presenting his perspective. Many of the responses have been quite illuminating as well.
Thanks!
40 - Dave Nalle
You know, David F.'s denial of the idea that morality can ever come from any source but God suggests that if he were to lose his faith he'd immediately beocme a serial killer. Perhaps that explains the BTK killer?
But then it doesn't explain all the millions of people who live moral lives and don't worship God. Perhaps their crimes haven't been discovered yet, or they retain the appearance of morality because they just haven't found a horrible sin they really wanted to commit yet.
Dave
41 - Eric Olsen
that view would seem to presuppose a debased humanity held in line only by fear of eternal retribution
42 - Lisa McKay
A particularly joyless view of life, if you ask me.
Much of Christianity is predicated on the notion that we are scum at heart - kinda makes me wonder why the creator bothered, you know?
43 - bhw
Well, the God of the Old Testament was kind of a grouchy fellow, if you ask me.
44 - copygodd
LM: So David, in the absence of an afterlife or eternal reward of some sort, you'd have no interest in improving society so that your children and their children might inherit a better world?
DF: Nope! Next question!
David
so the only reasons you have for being a "moral" person are either a) fear of eternal damnation, or b) desire for an eternal reward.
no, that's not selfish at all.
45 - Shark
I've been very restrained in NOT COMMENTING on this "Philosophy For Dummies" thread...
...but for Flanagan's sake, I do want to add:
Somewhere, it is written:
"God fucking HATES people who use smiley-face emoticons -- and lo, He will send them to Hell."
So watch yerself, boy.
'kay?
Kay.
xxoo,
Shark (a Biblical scholar for 30+ years)
46 - Shark
David Flanagan: A "truth"...is something that does not change. It's a perfect measure that always gives you the same result. One inch is always one inch, a mile is always a mile."
um... Sir Isaac Flanagan, I'd like you to meet Mr. Einstein.
Yer welcome.
47 - Mango
Temple Stark:
By "What Jesus said", I'm assuming you meant Dead Zombie Kung-Fu Jesus, not that other Jesus. Otherwise, I'd be confused.
48 - Temple Stark
kung fu jesus - yep.
49 - DZK Jesus
How do you know we're not the same Jesus?
50 - jwalke
i know this is super old & all but i just read it for the first time & some of your comments sounds like you are atheists. if that is in fact true then God help you. it doesn't seem like some of you understand the underlying purpose and order to the world. it doesn't matter if you spend your whole life rich of worldy things (lets say 60 or 70 yrs) if you spend eternity in hell. all i have to say is keep on denying God & see where you end up.
51 - Christopher Rose
About understanding the underlying purpose and order to the world - and you do?
Not!