At least be honest in your arguments: nobody cared about the slaves. That's why manumission was still around in the north and they paid slave owners in northern slave states for their labor. And Lincoln loved them so much he wanted to send them back to Africa.
Rights and religion
6,913 Views |
104 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by Zobel
Sapper Redux said:Quote:
Would you not agree that the Civil War was actually a horrible thing that should have never happened and the north should have let it be?
Dunno. Let's ask the slaves how they felt about everything. Funny how in your mind it was all the North's fault that slave owning Southerners decided to secede and start a war because they lost an election.
Your overall history is garbage. Slavery was accepted in some form or another across Europe, especially in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The idea of slavery as a positive good was extremely popular in the U.S. after around 1820 and led to the creation of the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists. Slavery viewed as a moral failing was more common amongst deist founders than staunchly religious founders.
You're supposed to be advocating for your opinion over another man's, not me. If it's all just opinion then by definition it's the North's fault. The south said they wanted out, which you should agree is a legitimate opinion. The north disagreed, which you would say is an equally legitimate opinion, and sent troops south in order to force the union to stay together. The slaves also had their equally legitimate opinion. None of them were "right" and none of them were "wrong", correct? So there was no moral high ground here. You cannot make a claim that what happened was "good". It's just men killing men because they had different opinions and desired land and power.
Now I would say chattel slavery was objectively immoral, as recognized by the majority of the founding fathers, and their prediction that it would eventually and necessarily end was correct. I wouldn't say that it's the North's "fault". I would say the North fought for what was "right" because I believe "right" actually exists, even if their intentions were a bit mixed.
To the bolded, slavery was almost non-existent by the 8th century in Christian Europe. It doesn't become common place in Europe proper ever again, even if it does prosper in the colonies 700 years later. It is shut down again by Christian nations using Christian ideals as their support. Non-Christian countries that abolished slavery did so under western pressure and globalization.
You showing that slavery as a moral good popping up in the south in order to defend their economy, and leading to denominational splits doesn't go against my "garbage history" at all. I would agree with that, seeing as I said that firm support for slavery was found in localized areas.
AGC said:
At least be honest in your arguments: nobody cared about the slaves. That's why manumission was still around in the north and they paid slave owners in northern slave states for their labor. And Lincoln loved them so much he wanted to send them back to Africa.
Lincoln changed his mind after getting to know African Americans. And you underplay the strength of abolitionism in the North by 1860. It's common to try and drag the North down to make the South look better by comparison, but there were clear differences. Yeah, white Northerners were extremely racist. They weren't, on the whole, big slavers.
Sapper Redux said:Quote:
Would you not agree that the Civil War was actually a horrible thing that should have never happened and the north should have let it be?
Dunno. Let's ask the slaves how they felt about everything. Funny how in your mind it was all the North's fault that slave owning Southerners decided to secede and start a war because they lost an election.
Your overall history is garbage. Slavery was accepted in some form or another across Europe, especially in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The idea of slavery as a positive good was extremely popular in the U.S. after around 1820 and led to the creation of the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists. Slavery viewed as a moral failing was more common amongst deist founders than staunchly religious founders.
Slavery in the USA is the fruit of sola scriptura writ large.
Sapper Redux said:AGC said:
At least be honest in your arguments: nobody cared about the slaves. That's why manumission was still around in the north and they paid slave owners in northern slave states for their labor. And Lincoln loved them so much he wanted to send them back to Africa.
Lincoln changed his mind after getting to know African Americans. And you underplay the strength of abolitionism in the North by 1860. It's common to try and drag the North down to make the South look better by comparison, but there were clear differences. Yeah, white Northerners were extremely racist. They weren't, on the whole, big slavers.
I think the point he's trying to make is on what basis are you making an argument against slavery? I might be mistaken.
The Banned said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
Would you not agree that the Civil War was actually a horrible thing that should have never happened and the north should have let it be?
Dunno. Let's ask the slaves how they felt about everything. Funny how in your mind it was all the North's fault that slave owning Southerners decided to secede and start a war because they lost an election.
Your overall history is garbage. Slavery was accepted in some form or another across Europe, especially in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The idea of slavery as a positive good was extremely popular in the U.S. after around 1820 and led to the creation of the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists. Slavery viewed as a moral failing was more common amongst deist founders than staunchly religious founders.
You're supposed to be advocating for your opinion over another man's, not me. If it's all just opinion then by definition it's the North's fault. The south said they wanted out, which you should agree is a legitimate opinion. The north disagreed, which you would say is an equally legitimate opinion, and sent troops south in order to force the union to stay together. The slaves also had their equally legitimate opinion. None of them were "right" and none of them were "wrong", correct? So there was no moral high ground here. You cannot make a claim that what happened was "good". It's just men killing men because they had different opinions and desired land and power.
Now I would say chattel slavery was objectively immoral, as recognized by the majority of the founding fathers, and their prediction that it would eventually and necessarily end was correct. I wouldn't say that it's the North's "fault". I would say the North fought for what was "right" because I believe "right" actually exists, even if their intentions were a bit mixed.
To the bolded, slavery was almost non-existent by the 8th century in Christian Europe. It doesn't become common place in Europe proper ever again, even if it does prosper in the colonies 700 years later. It is shut down again by Christian nations using Christian ideals as their support. Non-Christian countries that abolished slavery did so under western pressure and globalization.
You showing that slavery as a moral good popping up in the south in order to defend their economy, and leading to denominational splits doesn't go against my "garbage history" at all. I would agree with that, seeing as I said that firm support for slavery was found in localized areas.
Sigh. You claim an objective morality that you can't actually prove. You just assert it. The lack of an appeal to God is not "an opinion." It's the same kind of work of logic and debate that marks theology and metaphysics. You can't even actually establish one objective Christian approach to slavery and human rights over time. Slavery was still quite common through Christian Europe. The Byzantines and other Orthodox states had huge slave populations. The Crusader states had tens of thousands of slaves. Slavery remained huge in Iberia and the loss of Muslim slaves after the Reconquista helped drive the economics of African slavery for Spain and Portugal. Italy had huge slave markets in Venice and Genoa and Scandinavia had slaves until the 14th century. Finally, it's pretty weak to ignore serfdom when discussing slavery. Serfdom was not chattel slavery, but it grew out of that and had much in common with popular forms of slavery.
Regarding the U.S., it's funny, the biggest proponents of abolition in the United States were liberal churches like the Unitarians and more secular/spiritual people and groups. Traditional conservative Christians and churches overwhelmingly said little or actively supported slavery.
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
Would you not agree that the Civil War was actually a horrible thing that should have never happened and the north should have let it be?
Dunno. Let's ask the slaves how they felt about everything. Funny how in your mind it was all the North's fault that slave owning Southerners decided to secede and start a war because they lost an election.
Your overall history is garbage. Slavery was accepted in some form or another across Europe, especially in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The idea of slavery as a positive good was extremely popular in the U.S. after around 1820 and led to the creation of the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists. Slavery viewed as a moral failing was more common amongst deist founders than staunchly religious founders.
Slavery in the USA is the fruit of sola scriptura writ large.
Buddy, I have news about the religion which governed the last state in the Americas to emancipate their slaves.
ramblin_ag02 said:
Can't watch the video at work, but the entire idea that human rights come from laws and governments is terrifying. Governments are run by the latest political party or autocrat who may last months, years or decades before the next. Pinning human rights to such an ephemeral construct might as well make the idea worthless.
Just goes to show that you can't give up on Christianity and still keep all the nice things about it, like human rights and charity. Those things are born from specific Christian beliefs. Take those away and the foundation for these is gone. Suddenly any yahoo with power can claim that humans are mere property of their governments, and all rights stem from there
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read this. . . . Yes, in practice, human rights come from laws and government. Always have. And until God decides to join the conversation, they always will.
Even when people claim their version of human rights come from God, they treat people like property. What were the big Christian societies through history? The Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, Spanish and Portuguese Empires, Russian Empires, the Papal states, Medieval West Europe, Apartheid South Africa, African European colonies . . . . where is the Christian nation that has not forced conversion, discriminated, murdered non-believers and heretics, committed genocide, subjugated women, or used slaves?
I read your statement above as a suggestion that with Christianity, we should see these sacred ideals of human worth and human dignity . . . . and at best, I think you can, in some cases, argue that Christian societies might have been somewhat better than others. Literally every single explicitly Christian nation and empire throughout history is guilty of the open support of the human rights violations, and in the name of the Christian God. And we aren't talking about minor missteps or a few bad actors. Every Christian society in history has openly (and in God's name) promoted violence, racism, discrimination, slavery, and hatred of all sorts.
None of that means that Christians are bad people or worse people than anyone else. It means they are on par with the rest of humanity that is equally guilty of those things. And none of that means that all that violence and hate is consistent with Christianity. What it does mean is that just because you adopt Christianity as your cornerstone, doesn't mean you aren't equally susceptible to the 'latest political party or autocrat'. You can criticize the idea of human rights from government as erratic and inconsistent all you want, but its the pot calling the kettle black.
This feels like a 'good 'ol days' type argument. Like when people talk about the good ol days in America . . . . you know when blacks were slaves and women had no rights and we ostracized everyone we hated. There is an equal romanticization of the history of Christianity. The reality is that was horrifically bloody. All of history is.
kurt vonnegut said:ramblin_ag02 said:
Can't watch the video at work, but the entire idea that human rights come from laws and governments is terrifying. Governments are run by the latest political party or autocrat who may last months, years or decades before the next. Pinning human rights to such an ephemeral construct might as well make the idea worthless.
Just goes to show that you can't give up on Christianity and still keep all the nice things about it, like human rights and charity. Those things are born from specific Christian beliefs. Take those away and the foundation for these is gone. Suddenly any yahoo with power can claim that humans are mere property of their governments, and all rights stem from there
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read this. . . . Yes, in practice, human rights come from laws and government. Always have. And until God decides to join the conversation, they always will.
Even when people claim their version of human rights come from God, they treat people like property. What were the big Christian societies through history? The Byzantine Empire, Roman Empire, Spanish and Portuguese Empires, Russian Empires, the Papal states, Medieval West Europe, Apartheid South Africa, African European colonies . . . . where is the Christian nation that has not forced conversion, discriminated, murdered non-believers and heretics, committed genocide, subjugated women, or used slaves?
I read your statement above as a suggestion that with Christianity, we should see these sacred ideals of human worth and human dignity . . . . and at best, I think you can, in some cases, argue that Christian societies might have been somewhat better than others. Literally every single explicitly Christian nation and empire throughout history is guilty of the open support of the human rights violations, and in the name of the Christian God. And we aren't talking about minor missteps or a few bad actors. Every Christian society in history has openly (and in God's name) promoted violence, racism, discrimination, slavery, and hatred of all sorts.
None of that means that Christians are bad people or worse people than anyone else. It means they are on par with the rest of humanity that is equally guilty of those things. And none of that means that all that violence and hate is consistent with Christianity. What it does mean is that just because you adopt Christianity as your cornerstone, doesn't mean you aren't equally susceptible to the 'latest political party or autocrat'. You can criticize the idea of human rights from government as erratic and inconsistent all you want, but its the pot calling the kettle black.
This feels like a 'good 'ol days' type argument. Like when people talk about the good ol days in America . . . . you know when blacks were slaves and women had no rights and we ostracized everyone we hated. There is an equal romanticization of the history of Christianity. The reality is that was horrifically bloody. All of history is.
"In practice" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, as is the idea of "rights". If the government is the arbiter and creator of rights, then a right is nothing more than whatever the government says. There are no such things as inalienable rights because the government can always take them away. "I have the right to defend myself" no you don't, if the government says you don't.
Where the magic happens is when you can look at the government and say "no, you can't do that, because xyz", otherwise all of society is merely might makes right.
Sapper Redux said:FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
Would you not agree that the Civil War was actually a horrible thing that should have never happened and the north should have let it be?
Dunno. Let's ask the slaves how they felt about everything. Funny how in your mind it was all the North's fault that slave owning Southerners decided to secede and start a war because they lost an election.
Your overall history is garbage. Slavery was accepted in some form or another across Europe, especially in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The idea of slavery as a positive good was extremely popular in the U.S. after around 1820 and led to the creation of the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists. Slavery viewed as a moral failing was more common amongst deist founders than staunchly religious founders.
Slavery in the USA is the fruit of sola scriptura writ large.
Buddy, I have news about the religion which governed the last state in the Americas to emancipate their slaves.
Please of great one! Bless us with your secret knowledge.
Rocag said:
And yet no one is even willing to attempt to answer my questions. I'm not saying that I don't appreciate the rights that our culture has come to believe people are entitled to, just that saying they are granted by God is an empty platitude. It means nothing. If the only thing defending those so called God given rights are governments and forces created by people then they might as well have been derived from those people.
I could just as easily claim to grant you some right but if I don't do anything to enforce that have I really given you anything?
I believe that human beings have certain inalienable rights that should never be infringed. I don't care where you think these rights come from, they are self-evident, but they don't come from the government.
You can't grant people rights, you can only take them away.
For instance, I think it is a good idea to restrict people's rights to kill other people. That is pretty self-evident. There is no law that grants me the right not to be killed. I have that right inherently.
Our constitution is based on the foundation that these inherent inalienable rights should never be infringed upon by the government. Our constitution does not grant individuals rights, it restricts government from infringing on inalienable rights. That distinction sounds like semantics, but it is not, it is very important to understand the foundation of the government and where it draws its authority.
I would argue that these inalienable rights are granted by God, but, I understand that not every one would believe that.
But, any philosophical system that says that all rights are granted by governments is a house of cards.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Christianity has indeed been the banner of many people who did unspeakable evil. But, I think you stretch a little to far here.
One thing about Christianity that is a net positive is that it recognizes that human beings have inherent value that are not derived from the government or status or wealth. Christianity is not the only belief system that supports that, but it is a very important belief when it comes to government.
Men have rationalized a lot of really evil oppression in the name of Christ or Christianity, but you can't really justify a government that treats its citizens like cattle. The worst atrocities in the history in Christianity are arguably related to the conquest of the Western Hemisphere, where the natives were treated as sub-human. The American practice of slavery was and is obviously evil.
But here, you overstate:
There are indeed sectors of humanity that are much, much more guilty of being evil than any Christian nation, and most other non-Christian nations in the history of humanity that were not similarly evil.
I am not aware of a Christian nation that treated its own citizens as if they had no inherent worth, like you see in the CCP, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the USSR and Ukraine, or Nazi Germany.
It is also fair to say that world-wide, the mores around the world related to war are much less brutal than the time period before Christ. It is disingenuous to disregard the impact of Christianity on this gradual change in world-wide mores.
The truth is probably somewhere between your point and the point you were arguing against. I firmly believe that out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever wrought. That includes human institutions related to Christianity. These institutions are all going to be fallen in some fashion, because they all rely on the support of fallen men (to be explicit, most flavors of Christianity would describe all men as fallen, none perfect).
But I still find Jesus Christ to be the most impactful human being (even if you believe he is nothing more than myth) in the history of the world, and a force for good. I think that to argue against that is a bit myopic.
I would say that Buddha is probably number 2 on the list. While I don't agree with Buddhist theology or philosophy (depending on your flavor of Buddhism), I find that the religion is on net a force for good for humanity. Same with the Sikhs and Mormons.
One thing about Christianity that is a net positive is that it recognizes that human beings have inherent value that are not derived from the government or status or wealth. Christianity is not the only belief system that supports that, but it is a very important belief when it comes to government.
Men have rationalized a lot of really evil oppression in the name of Christ or Christianity, but you can't really justify a government that treats its citizens like cattle. The worst atrocities in the history in Christianity are arguably related to the conquest of the Western Hemisphere, where the natives were treated as sub-human. The American practice of slavery was and is obviously evil.
But here, you overstate:
Quote:
they are on par with the rest of humanity that is equally guilty of those things.
There are indeed sectors of humanity that are much, much more guilty of being evil than any Christian nation, and most other non-Christian nations in the history of humanity that were not similarly evil.
I am not aware of a Christian nation that treated its own citizens as if they had no inherent worth, like you see in the CCP, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the USSR and Ukraine, or Nazi Germany.
It is also fair to say that world-wide, the mores around the world related to war are much less brutal than the time period before Christ. It is disingenuous to disregard the impact of Christianity on this gradual change in world-wide mores.
The truth is probably somewhere between your point and the point you were arguing against. I firmly believe that out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever wrought. That includes human institutions related to Christianity. These institutions are all going to be fallen in some fashion, because they all rely on the support of fallen men (to be explicit, most flavors of Christianity would describe all men as fallen, none perfect).
But I still find Jesus Christ to be the most impactful human being (even if you believe he is nothing more than myth) in the history of the world, and a force for good. I think that to argue against that is a bit myopic.
I would say that Buddha is probably number 2 on the list. While I don't agree with Buddhist theology or philosophy (depending on your flavor of Buddhism), I find that the religion is on net a force for good for humanity. Same with the Sikhs and Mormons.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
kurt vonnegut said:
Yes, in practice, human rights come from laws and government.
Literally every single explicitly Christian nation and empire throughout history is guilty of the open support of the human rights violations, and in the name of the Christian God.
Buster already addressed some of the hyperbole in your post, so I'll stick with the irony of these two lines. If rights come from the government, then how can the government not giving equal rights to all be a violation of human rights? If they say the right didn't exist, and the right comes from them, what right did they violate?
Sapper Redux said:The Banned said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
Would you not agree that the Civil War was actually a horrible thing that should have never happened and the north should have let it be?
Dunno. Let's ask the slaves how they felt about everything. Funny how in your mind it was all the North's fault that slave owning Southerners decided to secede and start a war because they lost an election.
Your overall history is garbage. Slavery was accepted in some form or another across Europe, especially in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The idea of slavery as a positive good was extremely popular in the U.S. after around 1820 and led to the creation of the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists. Slavery viewed as a moral failing was more common amongst deist founders than staunchly religious founders.
You're supposed to be advocating for your opinion over another man's, not me. If it's all just opinion then by definition it's the North's fault. The south said they wanted out, which you should agree is a legitimate opinion. The north disagreed, which you would say is an equally legitimate opinion, and sent troops south in order to force the union to stay together. The slaves also had their equally legitimate opinion. None of them were "right" and none of them were "wrong", correct? So there was no moral high ground here. You cannot make a claim that what happened was "good". It's just men killing men because they had different opinions and desired land and power.
Now I would say chattel slavery was objectively immoral, as recognized by the majority of the founding fathers, and their prediction that it would eventually and necessarily end was correct. I wouldn't say that it's the North's "fault". I would say the North fought for what was "right" because I believe "right" actually exists, even if their intentions were a bit mixed.
To the bolded, slavery was almost non-existent by the 8th century in Christian Europe. It doesn't become common place in Europe proper ever again, even if it does prosper in the colonies 700 years later. It is shut down again by Christian nations using Christian ideals as their support. Non-Christian countries that abolished slavery did so under western pressure and globalization.
You showing that slavery as a moral good popping up in the south in order to defend their economy, and leading to denominational splits doesn't go against my "garbage history" at all. I would agree with that, seeing as I said that firm support for slavery was found in localized areas.
Sigh. You claim an objective morality that you can't actually prove. You just assert it. The lack of an appeal to God is not "an opinion." It's the same kind of work of logic and debate that marks theology and metaphysics. You can't even actually establish one objective Christian approach to slavery and human rights over time. Slavery was still quite common through Christian Europe. The Byzantines and other Orthodox states had huge slave populations. The Crusader states had tens of thousands of slaves. Slavery remained huge in Iberia and the loss of Muslim slaves after the Reconquista helped drive the economics of African slavery for Spain and Portugal. Italy had huge slave markets in Venice and Genoa and Scandinavia had slaves until the 14th century. Finally, it's pretty weak to ignore serfdom when discussing slavery. Serfdom was not chattel slavery, but it grew out of that and had much in common with popular forms of slavery.
Regarding the U.S., it's funny, the biggest proponents of abolition in the United States were liberal churches like the Unitarians and more secular/spiritual people and groups. Traditional conservative Christians and churches overwhelmingly said little or actively supported slavery.
Let's skip ahead of the following conversation.
You: you can't prove objective morality
Me: you can't prove that objective morality can't be proven
You: You made the positive truth claim that objective morality exists so the burden of proof falls on you
Me: you made the truth claim that I can't prove objective morality exists so the burden of proof for that claim falls on you
You: Fine. Give me measurable data of some kind that proves objective morality
Me: Prove to me objective morality needs to be measurable.
And round and round we go in an attempt to put me on the defensive. This thread started by claiming rights come from God. You counter argue that they are not from God. The objective conclusion of your world view is that there is no objective way for us to determine which side of these major social disagreements are right or wrong. It is just opinion. Even if we use logic and debate which option is best, that means we're left with a logical opinion, because there is no way to prove that logic actually works, as it is not something that can be measured. We believe it works, but that is an immaterial conclusion that we're reaching.
I'll go through the effort of rebutting the history you've offered here if you're willing to finally admit that you have no firm ground to stand on when you claim slavery was wrong, LGBT rights are good, or any other number of social issues that are framed as "right" or "wrong". It's time for the agnostic and the atheist to defend their position on this for once: you believe your conclusion is right, you want it enforced on the general population, and the only backing you have for your conclusion is that it just seems right for some reason, because a true "right" or "wrong" don't exist.
You have zero ground to stand on and you cannot ever admit it. You have no way to demonstrate an objective morality. Even if you could establish there is one, you have no way of establishing that your preferred objective morality is the correct one. So you are just pushing your opinion, according to your own definition, but adding, "God says so" at the end as if that makes it objective.
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Sapper Redux said:FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Sapper Redux said:Quote:
Would you not agree that the Civil War was actually a horrible thing that should have never happened and the north should have let it be?
Dunno. Let's ask the slaves how they felt about everything. Funny how in your mind it was all the North's fault that slave owning Southerners decided to secede and start a war because they lost an election.
Your overall history is garbage. Slavery was accepted in some form or another across Europe, especially in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. The idea of slavery as a positive good was extremely popular in the U.S. after around 1820 and led to the creation of the Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists. Slavery viewed as a moral failing was more common amongst deist founders than staunchly religious founders.
Slavery in the USA is the fruit of sola scriptura writ large.
Buddy, I have news about the religion which governed the last state in the Americas to emancipate their slaves.
Please of great one! Bless us with your secret knowledge.
Wanna guess what the state religion of Brazil was?
Quo Vadis? said:
"In practice" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, as is the idea of "rights". If the government is the arbiter and creator of rights, then a right is nothing more than whatever the government says. There are no such things as inalienable rights because the government can always take them away. "I have the right to defend myself" no you don't, if the government says you don't.
Where the magic happens is when you can look at the government and say "no, you can't do that, because xyz", otherwise all of society is merely might makes right.
You are correct. At one point, I had expanded on exactly that 'in practice' phrase before deleting it.
I don't have an objection to the idea of 'inalienable rights' or 'God given rights', its just that defining those rights seems arbitrary. My post above was in response to ramblin's suggesting that without these God given rights, people will be subject to the whim of the latest political party or autocrat. And my point was that if you were alive in the 15th-18th ish century Spain, you could be put to death for not following the correct Christian faith. You could argue with your assailants that they can't do that because of your xyz, but it wouldn't have helped. In that society, you were subject to the whim of the 'political party' of the day. And it was the might of the Catholic Orthodoxy in Spain was what made it 'right' for you to be tortured and executed.
I'm hesitant to post a Hitchens quote, but in this case, I think he says it better than I could. I sorta shy away from Hitchens, because I think he has too skewed of a view and never really acknowledges the positive contributions that Christianity (or religion) has made. But, in my opinion, the below quote touches on an important partial truth that religions don't like to grapple with. When given real power, Religions are at best as bad as any other government. . . and maybe worse because they operate under the pretense that they are doing God's work.
"Religion now comes to us in this smiley-faced, ingratiating way, because it's had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had God on its side".
Sure, probably some truth in your post. I've stated it before on this board many times that I do acknowledge the contributions that Christianity has made. I just object to the sanitized version of Christian history and suggestion that societies built on religious foundation aren't subject to every single objection that religious people have about secular government.
The Banned said:
Let's skip ahead of the following conversation.
You: you can't prove objective morality
Me: you can't prove that objective morality can't be proven
You: You made the positive truth claim that objective morality exists so the burden of proof falls on you
Me: you made the truth claim that I can't prove objective morality exists so the burden of proof for that claim falls on you
You: Fine. Give me measurable data of some kind that proves objective morality
Me: Prove to me objective morality needs to be measurable.
And round and round we go in an attempt to put me on the defensive. This thread started by claiming rights come from God. You counter argue that they are not from God. The objective conclusion of your world view is that there is no objective way for us to determine which side of these major social disagreements are right or wrong. It is just opinion. Even if we use logic and debate which option is best, that means we're left with a logical opinion, because there is no way to prove that logic actually works, as it is not something that can be measured. We believe it works, but that is an immaterial conclusion that we're reaching.
I'll go through the effort of rebutting the history you've offered here if you're willing to finally admit that you have no firm ground to stand on when you claim slavery was wrong, LGBT rights are good, or any other number of social issues that are framed as "right" or "wrong". It's time for the agnostic and the atheist to defend their position on this for once: you believe your conclusion is right, you want it enforced on the general population, and the only backing you have for your conclusion is that it just seems right for some reason, because a true "right" or "wrong" don't exist.
The take away that I get from the hypothetical exchange above is an argument that we both ought to be humble and conciliatory about what we claim to know. Your position, as far as I can tell, is that allowing for my idea to coexist in the public square is an unacceptable tyranny against Christians. My position is that we are both trying our best and we should be willing to make room for both ideas in the public square. I'm sorry that I'm so arrogant.
Secular defenses have been provided for the issues above. We don't provide a long defense every time this challenge comes up because every time it is provided, its simply dismissed. So, if you want, I'm happy to 'for once' (eventhough I've done it plenty of times before) defend my personal subjective views. But, here's how it will go:
me: here are the reasons why I believe what I believe
you: but, those reasons are subjective and can change as the population changes
me: yes. is religion any different?
you: yes, religions have static morals, the only difference is in action and application.
me: So, as long as you believe that you are working toward God's plan, any and every action is permissible?
And around and around we go.
kurt vonnegut said:The Banned said:
Let's skip ahead of the following conversation.
You: you can't prove objective morality
Me: you can't prove that objective morality can't be proven
You: You made the positive truth claim that objective morality exists so the burden of proof falls on you
Me: you made the truth claim that I can't prove objective morality exists so the burden of proof for that claim falls on you
You: Fine. Give me measurable data of some kind that proves objective morality
Me: Prove to me objective morality needs to be measurable.
And round and round we go in an attempt to put me on the defensive. This thread started by claiming rights come from God. You counter argue that they are not from God. The objective conclusion of your world view is that there is no objective way for us to determine which side of these major social disagreements are right or wrong. It is just opinion. Even if we use logic and debate which option is best, that means we're left with a logical opinion, because there is no way to prove that logic actually works, as it is not something that can be measured. We believe it works, but that is an immaterial conclusion that we're reaching.
I'll go through the effort of rebutting the history you've offered here if you're willing to finally admit that you have no firm ground to stand on when you claim slavery was wrong, LGBT rights are good, or any other number of social issues that are framed as "right" or "wrong". It's time for the agnostic and the atheist to defend their position on this for once: you believe your conclusion is right, you want it enforced on the general population, and the only backing you have for your conclusion is that it just seems right for some reason, because a true "right" or "wrong" don't exist.
The take away that I get from the hypothetical exchange above is an argument that we both ought to be humble and conciliatory about what we claim to know. Your position, as far as I can tell, is that allowing for my idea to coexist in the public square is an unacceptable tyranny against Christians. My position is that we are both trying our best and we should be willing to make room for both ideas in the public square. I'm sorry that I'm so arrogant.
Secular defenses have been provided for the issues above. We don't provide a long defense every time this challenge comes up because every time it is provided, its simply dismissed. So, if you want, I'm happy to 'for once' (eventhough I've done it plenty of times before) defend my personal subjective views. But, here's how it will go:
me: here are the reasons why I believe what I believe
you: but, those reasons are subjective and can change as the population changes
me: yes. is religion any different?
you: yes, religions have static morals, the only difference is in action and application.
me: So, as long as you believe that you are working toward God's plan, any and every action is permissible?
And around and around we go.
This is your stated position. In practice, you are perfectly fine with forcing the majority to accept the minority position. The humble thing would be to put these issues to a vote and let the chips fall where they may, no? But when that happens and your position loses, you want the federal government to enforce your particular flavor of "fairness" despite the what the majority wants. I would say you lose the humble ground at that point.
I'm not asking you to defend your subjective views. Anyone can do that. We can argue til we're blue in the face that this type of architecture is more beautiful than that type if we want. Here I'm just looking for you or Sapper to admit that there is nothing inherently wrong about slavery and that abolishing it was nothing but the whim of some people that decided millions of other people should have their lives ruined and that the result of the war wasn't objectively "good". All of that war and destruction was done for the preference of one group over another. And the chattel slavery that the war got rid of wasn't objectively "bad" because the belief that Africans were sub-human was just an opinion of the times.
ETA: this
Quote:
So, as long as you believe that you are working toward God's plan, any and every action is permissible?
is not something historical Christianity teaches. Quite the opposite actually.
Sapper Redux said:
You have zero ground to stand on and you cannot ever admit it. You have no way to demonstrate an objective morality. Even if you could establish there is one, you have no way of establishing that your preferred objective morality is the correct one. So you are just pushing your opinion, according to your own definition, but adding, "God says so" at the end as if that makes it objective.
Again you try to turn this around with your own unproveable truth claim (I have no way to demonstrate objective morality) that you adhere to because your subjective bar of evidence (that you believe is objective) hasn't been cleared, all to avoid just typing the words: there was nothing objectively wrong about chattel slavery and a war was fought in order for the government of the north to enforce their beliefs on people of the south at a radically high cost. Justice was not done. Fairness was not instituted. It's just people killing people so they can get their personal goals accomplished.
I'm happy to try and prove objective morality in another thread that I've been working on for a bit. My sole goal here is to drive this home: you have no "good" and you have no "bad" because neither exist, but you operate as if you do because without it the world becomes a monstrous place in about .2 seconds.
Quote:
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read this. . . . Yes, in practice, human rights come from laws and government. Always have. And until God decides to join the conversation, they always will.
Trust me, I'm right there with you in crazy town. I never thought I'd be in a serious disagreement over the idea that humans have basic rights. I agree that governments control the ability of someone to exercise their rights, but the idea that the rights themselves come from government is madness. Let me try an example. Saddam Hussein was a dictator. He completely ran the government. His son Uday was famously a sadistic monster that enjoyed the rape, torture and murder of innocents. If rights only come from government, then Saddam can just give Uday the right to do all those things, and take away the rights of his victims. Here's the key point: once the government has given and taken those rights, then you can't say Uday did anything wrong. You could maybe say that his victims were in pain and sad, but Uday was very happy. So it all becomes very subjective and probably no one else's business. I don't see how any rational person could accept that.
I'm not saying you have to believe that rights come from God. There are plenty of agnostics and atheists that believe in basic human rights for some other reason. Call it human dignity, human exceptionalism, and just common decency for all I care. Any worldview should be able to look at the powerful preying on and abusing the powerless with legal permission and say "That's wrong, it should be stopped, and it deserves punishment". If you can't look at the state backed actions of Uday Hussein and condemn him based on your own moral system, then your moral system is worthless
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I don't think I'd argue that all rights are granted by the government because there are some obvious exceptions to that. Does a right that you have in theory but not in practice actually exist? I think what we're seeing in this thread is one side arguing that rights can only exist by divine decree and the rest of us reacting to that. Some would argue that no, rights can be created by other means. But I'm not sure I would put myself in that crowd. Instead I'd argue that rights don't exist, at least not in the same way that the Christians are arguing they do. I don't believe rights are inherent, they are instead a human social construct we use to identify key values.
You may call it a house of cards because it's subjective, but in reality that's all we have to work with. Even if we had an objective list of rights we'd be arguing about their hierarchy, about which rights take precedence in situations where two peoples rights conflict. The idea that we don't to put any thought into that because there's a clear standard that tells us exactly what to do just isn't true. Even in societies where the vast majority of people share the same religious beliefs that isn't the case. We have nothing to rely on but our subjective understandings no matter how you think the idea of rights came about.
The original post was stating that it's dangerous to believe rights don't come from God, a point I don't think has been well defended here. If the idea is that it's dangerous because what we conceive of as beings rights could change then I'd argue that they're always changing anyway and have been for as long as people have been discussing who has which rights.
You may call it a house of cards because it's subjective, but in reality that's all we have to work with. Even if we had an objective list of rights we'd be arguing about their hierarchy, about which rights take precedence in situations where two peoples rights conflict. The idea that we don't to put any thought into that because there's a clear standard that tells us exactly what to do just isn't true. Even in societies where the vast majority of people share the same religious beliefs that isn't the case. We have nothing to rely on but our subjective understandings no matter how you think the idea of rights came about.
The original post was stating that it's dangerous to believe rights don't come from God, a point I don't think has been well defended here. If the idea is that it's dangerous because what we conceive of as beings rights could change then I'd argue that they're always changing anyway and have been for as long as people have been discussing who has which rights.
Rocag said:
I don't think I'd argue that all rights are granted by the government because there are some obvious exceptions to that. Does a right that you have in theory but not in practice actually exist? I think what we're seeing in this thread is one side arguing that rights can only exist by divine decree and the rest of us reacting to that. Some would argue that no, rights can be created by other means. But I'm not sure I would put myself in that crowd. Instead I'd argue that rights don't exist, at least not in the same way that the Christians are arguing they do. I don't believe rights are inherent, they are instead a human social construct we use to identify key values.
You may call it a house of cards because it's subjective, but in reality that's all we have to work with. Even if we had an objective list of rights we'd be arguing about their hierarchy, about which rights take precedence in situations where two peoples rights conflict. The idea that we don't to put any thought into that because there's a clear standard that tells us exactly what to do just isn't true. Even in societies where the vast majority of people share the same religious beliefs that isn't the case. We have nothing to rely on but our subjective understandings no matter how you think the idea of rights came about.
The original post was stating that it's dangerous to believe rights don't come from God, a point I don't think has been well defended here. If the idea is that it's dangerous because what we conceive of as beings rights could change then I'd argue that they're always changing anyway and have been for as long as people have been discussing who has which rights.
Thank you for giving the honest conclusion here. Now to the bolded, I'll use the same civil war example I've use with Kurt and Sapper: would you agree that the slave owners did nothing objectively "wrong" and that the war was essentially murder, destruction of property and tyranny of the north forcing the south to accept their preferred position?
If there was a resurgence in in pro-slavery positions in America that actually became a majority view, would you consider our lack of inherent rights dangerous then?
You mean something very specific when you talk about things being "objectively right or wrong". It's a premise I reject from the start. I just don't use those terms to describe things. It's like asking if I would call slavery a sin. The answer would be no, because sin doesn't exist in the absence of some divine law. Do I believe slavery was wrong? By my moral code, absolutely yes. Do I believe it is wrong because it went against some objective standard for morality? Well, since I see no evidence that standard exists, then no. I know you seem to think this is some huge gatcha moment, but I really don't see it that way.
Furthermore, I don't think the idea of inherent rights is the rhetorical tool you seem to imply it is. As if a resurgence in people being pro-slavery could be simply and quickly stopped by someone standing up and saying "Well actually guys, slavery goes against an inherent right to freedom". They'd just reject that, probably by arguing that they have inherent, God given rights that supersede some else's right to freedom.
Furthermore, I don't think the idea of inherent rights is the rhetorical tool you seem to imply it is. As if a resurgence in people being pro-slavery could be simply and quickly stopped by someone standing up and saying "Well actually guys, slavery goes against an inherent right to freedom". They'd just reject that, probably by arguing that they have inherent, God given rights that supersede some else's right to freedom.
Rocag said:
You mean something very specific when you talk about things being "objectively right or wrong". It's a premise I reject from the start. I just don't use those terms to describe things. It's like asking if I would call slavery a sin. The answer would be no, because sin doesn't exist in the absence of some divine law. Do I believe slavery was wrong? By my moral code, absolutely yes. Do I believe it is wrong because it went against some objective standard for morality? Well, since I see no evidence that standard exists, then no. I know you seem to think this is some huge gatcha moment, but I really don't see it that way.
Furthermore, I don't think the idea of inherent rights is the rhetorical tool you seem to imply it is. As if a resurgence in people being pro-slavery could be simply and quickly stopped by someone standing up and saying "Well actually guys, slavery goes against an inherent right to freedom". They'd just reject that, probably by arguing that they have inherent, God given rights that supersede some else's right to freedom.
Not a gotcha. I actually applaud you for saying what many won't. I think the second half of my question is important though: Was the civil war not just essentially the murder and pillaging of southern states because the north wanted to impose their views on the southern states? Under this world view that each moral opinion is subjective, and therefore has equal merit, shouldn't the civil war be taught more as an example of force doctrine than a nation righting a wrong?
The bolded is exactly how these issues get worked out. "Women have the right to choose!" "A person has the right to marry any person they wants!" It goes on and on. You say there is no objective right and wrong, which leaves it up to a matter of opinion. But when these issues come up, there is ALWAYS and appeal to right and wrong as if it's a thing that we can know. If we can't, then it should be a simple majority vote and leave it be. Basically every civil rights win of the past, where the will of the people was overturned by the federal government, is just another example of force doctrine in action, not a moral victory. But it is never framed that way. It's always wrapped up in "fairness" and "justice" lingo. It seems to me that the non-believer wants all the benefits of an objective morality without recognizing it's existence.
kurt vonnegut said:Quo Vadis? said:
"In practice" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, as is the idea of "rights". If the government is the arbiter and creator of rights, then a right is nothing more than whatever the government says. There are no such things as inalienable rights because the government can always take them away. "I have the right to defend myself" no you don't, if the government says you don't.
Where the magic happens is when you can look at the government and say "no, you can't do that, because xyz", otherwise all of society is merely might makes right.
You are correct. At one point, I had expanded on exactly that 'in practice' phrase before deleting it.
I don't have an objection to the idea of 'inalienable rights' or 'God given rights', its just that defining those rights seems arbitrary. My post above was in response to ramblin's suggesting that without these God given rights, people will be subject to the whim of the latest political party or autocrat. And my point was that if you were alive in the 15th-18th ish century Spain, you could be put to death for not following the correct Christian faith. You could argue with your assailants that they can't do that because of your xyz, but it wouldn't have helped. In that society, you were subject to the whim of the 'political party' of the day. And it was the might of the Catholic Orthodoxy in Spain was what made it 'right' for you to be tortured and executed.
I'm hesitant to post a Hitchens quote, but in this case, I think he says it better than I could. I sorta shy away from Hitchens, because I think he has too skewed of a view and never really acknowledges the positive contributions that Christianity (or religion) has made. But, in my opinion, the below quote touches on an important partial truth that religions don't like to grapple with. When given real power, Religions are at best as bad as any other government. . . and maybe worse because they operate under the pretense that they are doing God's work.
"Religion now comes to us in this smiley-faced, ingratiating way, because it's had to give so much ground and because we know so much more. But you have no right to forget the way it behaved when it was strong, and when it really did believe that it had God on its side".
Yeah, I think people are subject to the whim of latest political parties or autocrats regardless of whether they have God given rights or not, it's just whether or not they are morally capable of asserting their rights against such a government.
The Banned said:
This is your stated position. In practice, you are perfectly fine with forcing the majority to accept the minority position. The humble thing would be to put these issues to a vote and let the chips fall where they may, no? But when that happens and your position loses, you want the federal government to enforce your particular flavor of "fairness" despite the what the majority wants. I would say you lose the humble ground at that point.
I'm not asking you to defend your subjective views. Anyone can do that. We can argue til we're blue in the face that this type of architecture is more beautiful than that type if we want. Here I'm just looking for you or Sapper to admit that there is nothing inherently wrong about slavery and that abolishing it was nothing but the whim of some people that decided millions of other people should have their lives ruined and that the result of the war wasn't objectively "good". All of that war and destruction was done for the preference of one group over another. And the chattel slavery that the war got rid of wasn't objectively "bad" because the belief that Africans were sub-human was just an opinion of the times.
Where am I advocating that the minority opinion be imposed on the majority? Where have I asked that the democratic process be circumvented to appease me? Now, its very true that I could be arguing from a minority position for the purposes of convincing some of the majority to see things my way. Is this something treacherous on my part?
While I understand that the majority of the country is Christian, there is very much variety in how those Christians see the role of government. Christians may not see a great many things as 'moral', but may also hold the opinion that morality should be forced. This is what I am largely appealing to.
My worldview does not support the idea that slavery is objectively wrong in some cosmic, absolute, or universal sense. Slavery is objectively wrong according to my subjective views and opinions. And I would say that it is objectively wrong according to many secular philosophies that appeal to me. But those secular philosophies hardly rise to the level of absolute and universal truths the way that a proposed God could.
This isn't some gotcha that I'm hiding from or afraid to admit. I've 'admitted' it ten thousand times on this board. If I make it my signature on this board so that it appears at the bottom of every post, can we move past this claim that we won't 'admit' to this?
I own the messiness of my own set of values. And I understand that not being able to universally argue slavery is wrong is uncomfortable. I am interested in what I think is correct, not what makes me feel comfortable or wraps everything in a neat philosophical bow. For someone who is not convinced of a God or in the existence of some cosmic universal moral standard that exists outside of material conscious beings, this is how reality appears.
It would be lovely if everyone who has been wronged in life, gets justice after death. And it would be wonderful if there existed some omni-benevolent created source to the universe. And it would certainly be comforting to be able to take every unknown and explain it with an all powerful God. I just don't think its true. And I'm open to being wrong.
What you have to also understand is that if you are wrong about God and moral objectivity, then that means that "All of the war and destruction was done for the preference of one group over another. And the chattel slavery that the war got rid of wasn't objectively "bad" because the belief that Africans were sub-human was just an opinion of the times." If there is no God, then we are just talking about opinions and changing populations, and whims, and all that. And that is uncomfortable. The fact that your beliefs tie things into neat comfortable boxes of right and wrong has precisely zero to do with what is true.
ramblin_ag02 said:
Trust me, I'm right there with you in crazy town. I never thought I'd be in a serious disagreement over the idea that humans have basic rights. I agree that governments control the ability of someone to exercise their rights, but the idea that the rights themselves come from government is madness. Let me try an example. Saddam Hussein was a dictator. He completely ran the government. His son Uday was famously a sadistic monster that enjoyed the rape, torture and murder of innocents. If rights only come from government, then Saddam can just give Uday the right to do all those things, and take away the rights of his victims. Here's the key point: once the government has given and taken those rights, then you can't say Uday did anything wrong. You could maybe say that his victims were in pain and sad, but Uday was very happy. So it all becomes very subjective and probably no one else's business. I don't see how any rational person could accept that.
I'm not saying you have to believe that rights come from God. There are plenty of agnostics and atheists that believe in basic human rights for some other reason. Call it human dignity, human exceptionalism, and just common decency for all I care. Any worldview should be able to look at the powerful preying on and abusing the powerless with legal permission and say "That's wrong, it should be stopped, and it deserves punishment". If you can't look at the state backed actions of Uday Hussein and condemn him based on your own moral system, then your moral system is worthless
Ah, well maybe I misunderstood. Yes, I believe humans should have basic rights. Those rights do not come from God. They come from collective human experience, opinion, and understanding. I would represent my idea of basic human rights as my opinion and as something that people should work together to agree on and implement. As we gain knowledge and information and understanding of our neighbors, we should be permitted to modify our understanding of basic rights rather than be held hostage to unverifiable and unquestionable claims.
My moral system has zero problems with condemning the Husseins. My issue is not with forming my own moral views. My issue is with presenting my moral views as unquestionable and as though I speak for God.
kurt vonnegut said:ramblin_ag02 said:
Trust me, I'm right there with you in crazy town. I never thought I'd be in a serious disagreement over the idea that humans have basic rights. I agree that governments control the ability of someone to exercise their rights, but the idea that the rights themselves come from government is madness. Let me try an example. Saddam Hussein was a dictator. He completely ran the government. His son Uday was famously a sadistic monster that enjoyed the rape, torture and murder of innocents. If rights only come from government, then Saddam can just give Uday the right to do all those things, and take away the rights of his victims. Here's the key point: once the government has given and taken those rights, then you can't say Uday did anything wrong. You could maybe say that his victims were in pain and sad, but Uday was very happy. So it all becomes very subjective and probably no one else's business. I don't see how any rational person could accept that.
I'm not saying you have to believe that rights come from God. There are plenty of agnostics and atheists that believe in basic human rights for some other reason. Call it human dignity, human exceptionalism, and just common decency for all I care. Any worldview should be able to look at the powerful preying on and abusing the powerless with legal permission and say "That's wrong, it should be stopped, and it deserves punishment". If you can't look at the state backed actions of Uday Hussein and condemn him based on your own moral system, then your moral system is worthless
Ah, well maybe I misunderstood. Yes, I believe humans should have basic rights. Those rights do not come from God. They come from collective human experience, opinion, and understanding. I would represent my idea of basic human rights as my opinion and as something that people should work together to agree on and implement. As we gain knowledge and information and understanding of our neighbors, we should be permitted to modify our understanding of basic rights rather than be held hostage to unverifiable and unquestionable claims.
My moral system has zero problems with condemning the Husseins. My issue is not with forming my own moral views. My issue is with presenting my moral views as unquestionable and as though I speak for God.
That's really reassuring. Honestly, when I first posted on this thread I was expecting more of a discussion about the source of basic human rights. As a Christian, I obviously believe they come from God, and I was willing to discuss the validity of basic human rights derived from other non-religious worldviews. Then the conversation turned to people actually believing that human rights exist only at the whim and sufferance of the powerful. That idea is so appalling to me that the first discussion seems trite by comparison
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
kurt vonnegut said:
Where am I advocating that the minority opinion be imposed on the majority? Where have I asked that the democratic process be circumvented to appease me?
on the other thread, when the method in which gay marriage became legal was brought up, you defended it quite staunchly. Just 10 years ago the will of the people was overturned by a SC interpretation of an amendment that had been on the books for over 100 years while homosexual marriage was illegal. Propositions were repeatedly voted against, and all of those voters were told to shove it. This is how every major societal change has been made.
I'm am not making a value judgement on gay marriage right now. What I am saying is that since both sides' views were subjective, it would seem like you should have an issue with the opinions of the majority being trampled on. But since you think gay marriage is a good thing, you believe overturning the will of the majority to be the right thing to do.
Quote:
My worldview does not support the idea that slavery is objectively wrong in some cosmic, absolute, or universal sense. Slavery is objectively wrong according to my subjective views and opinions. And I would say that it is objectively wrong according to many secular philosophies that appeal to me. But those secular philosophies hardly rise to the level of absolute and universal truths the way that a proposed God could.
This isn't some gotcha that I'm hiding from or afraid to admit. I've 'admitted' it ten thousand times on this board. If I make it my signature on this board so that it appears at the bottom of every post, can we move past this claim that we won't 'admit' to this?
I own the messiness of my own set of values. And I understand that not being able to universally argue slavery is wrong is uncomfortable. I am interested in what I think is correct, not what makes me feel comfortable or wraps everything in a neat philosophical bow. For someone who is not convinced of a God or in the existence of some cosmic universal moral standard that exists outside of material conscious beings, this is how reality appears.
With this you are advocating for teaching your subjective moral principles (empathy, compassion, understanding of others experiences, etc) over your objective fact that might makes right. If you are interested in what is "correct", that is the only objective "correct" you're gonna find. Stop appealing to "right" and "wrong" and stick with force doctrine. But that doesn't work very well in the public square, so "right" and "wrong" will continue to be invoked in order to manipulate citizens into complying rather than rebelling.
I don't mean to be overly dark, but that is exactly what is happening if a true right and wrong don't exist. It's a group A emotionally manipulating group B into doing what A wants, while also emotionally manipulating them into a standard that violent resistance to Group A is somehow "bad".
kurt vonnegut said:
Sure, probably some truth in your post. I've stated it before on this board many times that I do acknowledge the contributions that Christianity has made. I just object to the sanitized version of Christian history and suggestion that societies built on religious foundation aren't subject to every single objection that religious people have about secular government.
I generally agree with this point of view. However, I want to point out that, unless your society has some solid foundation on the idea that human beings have inherent worth, you run the risk of seeing the deaths of human beings that are beneficial to society as a whole as anything other than tragic.
You don't get to The Gulag Archipelago if you believe that every individual has inherent worth.
Christianity is a pretty good protection against a line of philosophy that is not built on the assumption that individual human beings have inherent worth.
That idea was not novel, but definitely controversial, at the time of Christ. By the end of the enlightenment, not so much.
I also tend to agree with Dostoevsky on this subject. Once you destroy the Gods of a nation, whatever that nation's Gods are, the nation ceases to exist. You can't have a nation without Gods; something will fill that void, whether you call it a God or not, or the nation will fold upon itself.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
I've defended gay marriage pretty adamantly, but I don't know if I placed a judgement on the process by which it was made legal. Maybe I did. . . .
Either way, what was the will of the people in 2015 during Obergfell v Hodges? What percentage of Americans supported gay marriage? Or am I not asking the right question?
Either way, what was the will of the people in 2015 during Obergfell v Hodges? What percentage of Americans supported gay marriage? Or am I not asking the right question?
Something like a Constitution and Bill of Rights maybe?
And what are the Gods of our nation? I interpret 'Gods' above as simply being core principles. And so what are America's core principles?
Popular sovereignty (rule by the people), individual rights (like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), equality, limited government, freedom of speech and religion, due process, protections against unreasonable use of government power, right to a fair trial, separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, checks and balances to prevent abuse of power.
Or are the core principles of this country as established by the founding documents, keep holy the Sabbath, worship only the Christian God, no blasphemy, don't be jealous of your neighbor, honor your parents, and don't lust?
Destroying the Gods of America, as I see it, means removing of individual rights, invasive government, limits on freedom of speech and religion, giving government excessive power, etc. Which of those am I advocating for?
Quote:
I also tend to agree with Dostoevsky on this subject. Once you destroy the Gods of a nation, whatever that nation's Gods are, the nation ceases to exist. You can't have a nation without Gods; something will fill that void, whether you call it a God or not, or the nation will fold upon itself.
And what are the Gods of our nation? I interpret 'Gods' above as simply being core principles. And so what are America's core principles?
Popular sovereignty (rule by the people), individual rights (like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), equality, limited government, freedom of speech and religion, due process, protections against unreasonable use of government power, right to a fair trial, separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, checks and balances to prevent abuse of power.
Or are the core principles of this country as established by the founding documents, keep holy the Sabbath, worship only the Christian God, no blasphemy, don't be jealous of your neighbor, honor your parents, and don't lust?
Destroying the Gods of America, as I see it, means removing of individual rights, invasive government, limits on freedom of speech and religion, giving government excessive power, etc. Which of those am I advocating for?
This thread reminds me of something a friend once told me. My friend was a Christian and professor of philosophy at a major university. He said that a non-Christian colleague had complained to him that Christians were taking over most philosophy departments. The reason was that non-Christians were abandoning philosophy as they eventually realized that they had no concrete basis on which to form any coherent philosophy.
Featured Stories
See All
Ten season-defining moments along Texas A&M's championship run
by Richard Zane
5:44
4d ago
4.4k
The Film Room: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Stephen McGee
6:00
4d ago
5.2k
Defense in Review feat. Sean Porter: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Billy Liucci
5:21
4d ago
1.9k
LB Blitz: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Sean Porter
Three Things: Top Christmas movies, portal reminders & more
by Jason Howell
AozorAg
For those wondering why coaches use deep drop zones so often late in games…
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
32
TrueTechZen
Billy, David, Brauny, Olin, Zane, Jason, Luke, et al...
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29