Posted on 10/17/2003 4:04:27 PM PDT by TXLibertarian
Excerpted from a longer op-ed. Author discusses the danger of legal proselytizing by a few firebrand secularists. Worth a read, IMHO.
What Atheists Want
By Chris Mooney
....
Unfortunately, in my experience, the U.S. atheist and secularist communities contain a number of activists who are inclined to be combative and in some cases feel positively zestful about offending the religious. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, easily America's most famous atheist firebrand, wasn't dubbed "the most hated woman in America" for nothing. Despite her landmark 1963 Supreme Court victory in a case concerning the constitutionality of school prayer, O'Hair's pugilistic and insulting public persona hurt atheists a great deal in the long run. A head-on attack on the pledge seems to epitomize the confrontational O'Hair strategy.
....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
There's evidence all around you.
Finally we reach the true point of contention here! No, I am not limited by own, personal intellect which is of course limited and finite. I can look to the God of the Bible who stands above human wisdom and experience, who does not change even as human beings do.
You must use your intellect in your efforts to understand god. Therefore your understanding of god, as well as your understanding of everything else, is limited by your intellect. If god's reasoning on some issue exceeds your intellect, then it is hopeless for you to understand. You might quote an abstract notion that Einstein wrote down, but if the notion exceeds your intellect, you cannot understand it, and you cannot know that it is true. Of course, you can still choose to lead a life whereby you claim that his words, mysterious to you as they are, are true. That you and I are limited by our intellects is about as prima facie true as any fact can be. I'm sorry if you've deluded yourself otherwise.
I can say, without equivocation, that certain things are right or wrong in all times and in all places.
That is because, as I have said, you erroneously equate your values with the concept of rights. The concept of rights, as I have repeatedly said, is simply a product of human nature and is as right or wrong as the rain or the soil. The values we hold, which leads us to establish rights with other people are how we determine right and wrong. Values can be chosen and can be rational or irrational. They can be purely emotional or merely stipulated. Someone can hand you a book that says "this is moral" and you can say, "okay, that is moral, that is what I will value." You can even take those stipulations and say "these are unequivacably true". Such is the power of free will.
your reasoning is no more legitimate than the one who wants to take away your rights.
Oddly, you keep saying this. I'd like to think that your mental block on this very simple notion is intellectual, maybe even just semantic, but because it is so obvious, I fear it maybe self-imposed. This statement is not so much wrong as it is a non sequitur. The reasoning for the origin of rights that I have used is simple and based on pretty obvious common observation. The person who wants to take away my rights may understand the true origin of rights, as I do. He may also understand the Krebs cycle or how a submarine works. However, he clearly does not share my values.
"Rights" mean something very different in Sudan than they do here in America which still retains something of it's Christian heritage. In Sudan, you have no "right" to live if you are not Muslim. They "observe" that Christians and animists are too filthy to live.
I suppose if even you cannot understand rights, then why should anyone in the Sudan. However, getting back to objective fact again, the problem you speak of in the Sudan is once again a problem of values. Fluid dynamics, sexual reproduction, psycological defense mechanisms, and the origin of rights are not a matter of choice. Values are. I am again dismayed that you appear to deny the existence of an objective reality by your strange use of "observe". They may or may not believe Christians are animists, but it is not an observation they make.
But you stated earlier that someone who dies has no "right" to live, and someone who has their property stolen has no "right" to their property.
No I did not. If this is going to be your game, then perhaps we should stop here. The above statements are and were your misinterpretation of what I wrote. If you would understand, and I can still hardly believe you do not, the origin of rights that I have presented to you, then you would see that those sentences cannot be classified as right or wrong so much as they simply make no sense. I will say that once you are dead, then the issue of rights for you, as far as your efforts to protect your value for your own life, are moot.
A tyrant doesn't make a case for taking them away, he just does it. That is why he's called a tyrant.
To understand history is to know that this is rarely, if ever, the case. Communism...led it's leaders to the understanding that killing millions was justified in the name of world socialism... The Nazis carefully built their case over time that Jews were subhuman... The Roman Emperors constructed a system of emperor-worship...making it possible for them to go to any lengths necessary to crush opposition...
Hmm. So those millions the communists killed, all those subhuman Jews, all that crushed opposition, they were all disposed of voluntarily? Yet another tough sale for you. I'll stick with my original statement.
Do those animists and Chrsitian have a right to live? What do you think and why?
Like most of what you write, you use the term "rights" in a nonsensical way. So let me say the following in response. Animists and Christians are human. My observation of humans has been that they typically want to live and will act in ways to promote and preserve their lives. The animists as well as the Christians I've met have apparently held values that did not seriously conflict with mine, and we've had no problem politely agreeing not to obstruct each others' interests.
If a particular animist or a particular Christian, however, was determined to murder me or my loved ones, then I wouldn't hesitate to kill him if I had to to preserve my values (my life and my loves). That would represent a situation where rights had become moot and to each other we are as wild animals or clashing stones.
Now, if a Sudanese Muslim was determined to murder an innocent Sudanese Christian or animist, then that Muslim is also determined to conflict with my value for a safe and peaceful civilized world. If I could stop that hypothetical Muslim, but whatever means, provided it did not seriously compromise my other values, then I would.
In some circumstances this is true. Yet there are plenty of examples...
The exceptions don't matter. This is, in fact, a trait that humans possess. It is relevent to the origin of rights. Still, I would not say that the examples you have provided are exceptions and that people acting as such are not acting to preserve their values. Humans have great freedom in what they may value.
Fact 3: humans, among all things we observe in our environment, are uniquely controllable through peaceful persuasion.
I disagree here. Human history teaches us that human beings are, more often than not, uncontrollable through outside peaceful persuasion. That is why we have a government
Really! You've NEVER observed a human AT ALL controllable through peaceful persuasion? For my FACT#3 to seem false to you, your answer to this must be "yes". If this FACT#3 were false, then in their interactions humans are no different than the trees, the wild animals, or the weather. But of course it is the truth of this statement that leads to rights as well as to the development of laws. Your view of the government may be the nightmare of some supreme entity manipulating its unpersuasive population around like so many marionettes, but I don't think that is a very good representation of reality in most cases.
Fact 4: rights, as they are practically manifested in this world, stem from the truth of facts 1 and 2 and the personal recognition of fact 3.
Well then you and I will disagree here. I am not sure that human beings always act to preserve their own values.
Of course whether they "always" do or not has no bearing on the FACTS I have listed.
I do not believe that human beings can be controlled through peaceful persuasion.
Again I am stupified by your extraordinarily limited observations. Why just yesterday I was carrying some boxes and said "Excuse me" to a guy, and he politely openned the door and stepped aside. That's right, I did not have to hog tie him and drag him away from the door. I tried the same thing with a rock and the rock just wouldn't budge. You must live in a bubble. Don't you even communicate with whoever brings you your food?
If human beings act to preserve their own values, does this equal a "right"?
It is a human trait that leads to rights.
there is no right to cable television, or even to a job.
This carries the discussion to a new level. However, we haven't even agreed on the basics. Still I'm tempted to respond. Following from the obvious FACTs of nature as I have described them, the issue soon arises among groups of humans, each wishing to preserve his values, how they should live together. The results of this process, as we have seen, are varied. It often results in one group massing enough shear force together to exact slave labor on another (unwilling) group. The so-called "right to a job" is a manifestation of this. As an act of force rather than persuasion, it eliminates the freedom of choice in its victim. The victim is being denied the ability to act to preserve his values. FACT#3 is not observed and rights for that individual are moot. His only alternative is to treat his captors as he would the weather or a wild animal. Civility is lost if he resists. Morality (which requires freedom of choice) is denied if he does not.
A society based upon force is an amoral society (morality requiring individual human choice), except for its leaders who alone retain freedom of choice. A society created to allow each individual maximum exercise of his values is a free society. Perhaps the one common value in a society is civility. A society constructed consistent with the facts of human nature and the common value of civility is also a rational society.
Numerous events in the Middle East have demonstrated that religious teachings can be quite effective at creating killers. Any government that forcibly imposes any religious belief, or lack thereof, is dangerous.
I disagree to a certain extent here. When a person believes the Bible teaches that God's Spirit enters that person and changes them from the inside out, enabling them to understand God's Word and live in communion with Him. You might call it "being born again." This does not depend on a person's intellect.
In addition, I can consult God's Word, which was written by man but divinely inspired. So while my understanding of it may depend to an extent on my own intellect (though not completely; see above) the text I am consulting is not of mankind's intellect.
The concept of rights, as I have repeatedly said, is simply a product of human nature and is as right or wrong as the rain or the soil.
This is where you and I simply disagree. I do not believe that rights are human in origin. I believe they come from God. You take the humanistic view. I take the Christian view.
I am again dismayed that you appear to deny the existence of an objective reality by your strange use of "observe".
I affirm an objective reality. That is God.
If this is going to be your game, then perhaps we should stop here. The above statements are and were your misinterpretation of what I wrote.
Direct quote from you: "But, if your property is stolen, then you've lost your right to property. If you are murdered, you've lost your right to life. What actually happens is the only thing that is relevant."
If I misunderstood you, my apologies, but surely you can understand why. I guess you mean that, by your logical construct, rights are only rights if they are observable, and someone who is dead cannot exercise observable rights.
But I would still say of the murdered person, "He should not be dead. He has the right to live."
So those millions the communists killed, all those subhuman Jews, all that crushed opposition, they were all disposed of voluntarily?
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Indeed I am not certain that I have ever understood, after all this time, what your basis for human rights are.
All I can say is that I've seen no persuasive evidence of such an intellect-elevating process, nor can I imagine a mechanism whereby it could possibly occur.
I do not believe that rights are human in origin. I believe they come from God. You take the humanistic view. I take the Christian view.
Rights are uniquely (as far as we can tell) as well as inevitably human. The facts are plain and from them it is clear how rights must develop. These facts of rights are neither irreligious nor anti-Christian anymore than arithemtic or archeology are. I remain dumbfounded that you claim not to understand it.
I affirm an objective reality. That is God.
Reality IS god? How can you think such a sentence makes any sense at all? The square root of 9 is 3 is god? Judy Davis's hair is god? Drosophila droppings are god? A whisky sour with a lemon twist is god? Ignorance, hatred, child molestation, and murder are god?
If I misunderstood you, my apologies, but surely you can understand why.
I can understand only that my quote and your paraphrase have obviously different meanings. But I'm sure you have more imporant things to do on a Friday night than be thoughtful to an anonmyous poster. At any rate, having written to you extensively already on this simple issue, I don't know how I can make myself more clear.
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
ME: A tyrant doesn't make a case for taking them away, he just does it. That is why he's called a tyrant.
YOU: To understand history is to know that this is rarely, if ever, the case.
You then gave historical examples of tyrants killing people. So unless those victims were persuaded by the tyrants' cases for killing them, and agreed to being killed, then my statement above holds. And of course, it must hold. A person is not called a tyrant because of his use of friendly persuasion.
Indeed I am not certain that I have ever understood, after all this time, what your basis for human rights are.
How can I be more clear on this very simple point? I don't know. I've listed the plain facts of human nature that clearly lead to the development of rights. I've distinguished those facts of rights from any type of value statement whether religious or not. There's no reason why a Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, atheist, or Mary Kaye rep should feel the need to deny it on any ideological grounds. And yet, you do. Is there no fact so obvious but that you won't claim that your religion denies it?
That is not what I said. Perhaps you have misunderstood. I said "more often than not." I did not say "never." If human beings were always, or mostly, controllable through peaceful persuasion then we would not need police forces, governments, armies and we would never fight wars. Do you see my point?
I'll be honest with you. I disagree with Fact #3 but after all this time I don't understand what that has to do with your case for human rights. Why not define for me, in one sentence, what you think rights are?
Let me tell you again, very briefly, where I think rights come from.
I believe that human rights are given by God. If we can observe them in nature this only makes sense. I believe that without God the case for human rights collpases completely. Why? Because if human rights are truly "rights" then they must be based on a set of universal values that are always true, in all places and at all times.
Only God can provide these values. Without calling this higher law, human beings cannot logically apply universal truths. Why? Because human beings are not universal. They cannot logically, without applying to a higher authority, make a moral judgement on all of mankind.
Consider this: If you have a property line dispute with a neighbor, the first thing you would probably do is call local authorities (that is, a higher authority than you or your neighbor) to discover what the truth of the matter is. You wouldn't claim that you know the answer without calling on that "higher law" if you will.
So you may observe human beings values and how they act in concert with these values, but a Sudanese Muslim may observe something else, or may not care what you observe, and you would have to call on something higher to judge his actions against others.
Okay - and Hitler decides he "likes" to kill Jews. How would you logically oppose him? Is that all that "right and "wrong" is - what you like and dislike?
Huh? I never claimed this...I never claimed that they were...Many of them may have been misinterpreting the their observations...
Your quote: "Some of them may have been lying, some of them may have been insane." At the very least, you speculated that the Apostles were lying, insane, or misinterpreting.
We have no record of anything that they actually wrote.
Of course we do. Go to a church and ask for a Bible. As I stated in a previous post, you can claim that the Apostles were lying or insane, but you can't claim that we don't have a very accurate record of what the Apostles wrote, unless you are prepared to throw out every document of the ancient world. Let post a quote from Vanderbilt Divinity, hardly a fundamentalist source:
Most scholars agree that there is more manuscript support for the New Testament than for any other body of ancient literature. Over five thousand Greek, eight thousand Latin, and many more manuscripts in other languages attest the integrity of the New Testament. Moreover, no other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Illiad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. Furthermore, to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no document of the ancient period are as well attested biographically as the New Testament.
ME: Fact 3: humans, among all things we observe in our environment, are uniquely controllable through peaceful persuasion.
YOU: I disagree here.
In other words, you think FACT#3 is false. That means you do not think humans among all things we observe in our environment are uniquely controllable through peaceful persuasion. Therefore you must think that trait applies to things other than humans (you gave no indication of this) or you think that humans are NOT controllable through peaceful persuasion. I need give only one of the many many many daily examples of such control to show that your disagreement with FACT#3 is false.
The point is, it is a fact. The statement needs no modification, as far as I can tell, to make it true. The truth of the FACTS I have given is relevant to the origin of rights. That they are plainly true (maybe I can understand temporary disagreement in FACT#4) in common human experience is why I am dumbfounded at your persistent disagreement.
define for me, in one sentence, what you think rights are
Rights for an individual are those individual's values for which another individual is willing to alter his behavior in order to avoid conflict. Facts#1-3 give necessary traits for these individuals in order for this recognition of rights to take place.
Because if human rights are truly "rights" then they must be based on a set of universal values that are always true, in all places and at all times.
Like 2+2=4 is always true in all places and at all times? I guess you do bring god into arithmetic.
Because human beings are not universal.
The laws of nature, including all the ones applying to human beings, are universal. Human beings are part of reality. Reality is the universe. The universe is universal. Or maybe you mean something else by "universal".
They cannot logically, without applying to a higher authority, make a moral judgement on all of mankind.
You mean one man cannot make a meaningful judgement on some other man that he knows nothing about?
If you have a property line dispute with a neighbor, the first thing you would probably do is call local authorities (that is, a higher authority than you or your neighbor) to discover what the truth of the matter is. You wouldn't claim that you know the answer without calling on that "higher law" if you will.
You've got to be kidding. I need the local authorities to dictate the truth to me? First of all, the truth I must, in the end, determine for myself. Dictates from other people may or may not be true. I still need to figure it out. Second, both me and my neighbor, consistent with the FACTS of human nature, may choose to settle the dispute ourselves, may allow a third party like another neighbor or the law decide, or we may simply fight it out. I would hope that we would both learn the pertinent truths and come to mutual agreement.
a Sudanese Muslim may observe something else, or may not care what you observe, and you would have to call on something higher to judge his actions against others
And what makes you think the said Sudanese Muslim would care about your higher judgement? At any rate, I don't HAVE to do anything the laws of nature don't require of me. And though I doubt the Sudanese Muslim would care, I don't need to call on any power of any height to make a moral judgement on him. I am a human being and have the freedom to pass whatever moral judgements I wish.
Your dislike is not a fit opposition to Nazism I am afraid. The reason for this is simple: your dislike</I. is your opinion only. No one else need share it. Certainly Hitler did not share it. Is his "like" of killing Jews any morally better than your "dislike"? You must call on something higher.
You're not actually saying that the Apostles were the authors themselves? No reputable Biblical scholar makes that claim.
What led you to believe that? In fact an enormous number of Bible scholars believe that Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, John wrote the Gospel of John and 1, 2, and 3 John Epistles, and so on. In the orthodox community there is in fact very little disagreement about this.
I presented three possibilities, I didn't claim to know for certain which possibility applied.
That's why I said you "speculated." An outright denial on your part is a bit misleading, though.
I just don't accept your word that the Apostles themselves were the authors of the Gospels when no Biblical scholar worth his or her salt agrees with you.
I have no idea where you got the notion that no scholar of note believes that the books of the Bible are written by those who claim to have written them. Matthew was an apostle, John was an apostle. Mark and Luke were not, but there accopunts correlate very closely with Matthew's and John's.
You didn't answer my question about the verse. The manuscript evidence of the NT suggests that the copies we read from today and amazingly close to what the Apostles actually wrote. Therefore the only logical inference that can be drawn is: where they lying, insane or telling the truth?
I think #3 is mostly false. I am not making an absolute statement. Some human beings would slow down at an intersection even if there wasn't a stop sign or a law. Christians should be open to peaceful persuasion, because they should be self-governing, as I pointed out in an earlier message. But primarily, the existence of police, armies, and wars and other negative sanctions for uncontrollable behavior suggests that human beings are not always peacefully persuadable.
Rights for an individual are those individual's values for which another individual is willing to alter his behavior in order to avoid conflict.
Thank you! Here is why I disagree. Your definition is not an absolute statement, thus by your definition human rights are not absolute. There are certain people (I needn't go back over the history) who will not alter their behavior.
So if in a given culture the government will not alter it's behavior to avoid conflict over human life, do these people not have a right to life? I believe that they do whether society alters it's behavior to avoid conflicting with it or not.
Like 2+2=4 is always true in all places and at all times?
That's right!
You mean one man cannot make a meaningful judgement on some other man that he knows nothing about?
No, I mean that without the validation of a higher law your judgments mean nothing more than his. So you cannot tell whether someone else is right or wrong without calling on a higher law.
First of all, the truth I must, in the end, determine for myself. Dictates from other people may or may not be true. I still need to figure it out. Second, both me and my neighbor, consistent with the FACTS of human nature, may choose to settle the dispute ourselves, may allow a third party like another neighbor or the law decide, or we may simply fight it out.
Sure, you could settle the dispute yourselves, but you would appeal to a higher law than just your opinion - to whit, the property boundary. You could just fight it out, but in that case the person who wins is the strongest, not the most just. Or you could bring in a third party to mediate and agree to go by his judgement - i.e. a higher law.
I am a human being and have the freedom to pass whatever moral judgements I wish.
Sure you can - but you can't be consistent without a law higher than yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.