Posted on 12/22/2006 4:41:44 AM PST by shrinkermd
...The hell-hath-no-fury scientists, however, are only one division in the army arrayed today against the believers...
Amid last November's elections a reader emailed me this stiff summary of the anti-evangelical complaint: "I cannot and will not continue to support a party that seems to be dominated, for whatever reason, by people who wish to legislate for me my lifestyle, my beliefs, my 'morals,' my rights to my body...
This rift is unfortunate, because it upsets a useful institutional and historic balance in American life. Religion has been the supplier of virtue necessary to American exceptionalism...
Virtues can vary by religion, but in the U.S. religiously originated virtue by and large organizes behavior toward civic good. Critics such as Richard Dawkins argue that utilitarian virtue can occur without religion. In "The God Delusion," Mr. Dawkins offers his own "new" Ten Commandments, such as "Do not discriminate or oppress"...
The socially formative virtues I have in mind, most of them expressible in a word and widely understood as a matter of tradition, would include: fortitude, prudence, temperance, justice, charity, hope, integrity, loyalty, honor, filial respect, mercy, diligence, generosity and forbearance. There are others. No one possesses them all, but all should possess some. By now the people of the West are agreed that virtue should allow society to progress. Religion's current critics, of course, say its politics are impeding scientific and medical progress, as with stem cells.
Whatever the truth in that, their own antireligious absolutism risks throwing out the baby with the holy water. The idea that we could get along fine without a public religious presence in American life -- dating back at least to the Episcopal congregation in Falls Church -- is a risky, untried proposition.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
'...Do virtues matter as ballast in a dynamic, complex society? If yes, where will they come from? Do secularists simply expropriate them from religion? Or do they create their own, such as "do not oppress"?
"Atheists and the unchurched undervalue the extent to which they are getting a free ride on the social strength that religious-based virtue provides. It's one thing to write in a book that we don't need them. But I'd rather not run the real-world experiment of navigating without them. And this is why this weekend so many will spend an hour with virtue's originalists.
Second big question is: Do we have free will? If so do we have a soul? How you answer that and what it implies answers a lot.
Third big question is: Are the religious observant as bad as they are portrayed? Or, are their critics merely projecting their own guilt upon the faithful?
There are other questions you may have as well.
We were just called this on another thread by a member of the Anglican church.....
>>In discussing the late pope and traditional Christians, Meyerson tosses about insults like “benighted,” “tribal” and “Phobics.” He charges the Catholic Church with “backwardness,” and draws a direct parallel between Catholic teaching and “tribal norms” and “traditional morality and bigotry.”<<
You tell me if our critics are projecting or not.
...Do virtues matter as ballast in a dynamic, complex society? If yes, where will they come from? Do secularists simply expropriate them from religion? Or do they create their own, such as "do not oppress"?
"Atheists and the unchurched undervalue the extent to which they are getting a free ride on the social strength that religious-based virtue provides. It's one thing to write in a book that we don't need them. But I'd rather not run the real-world experiment of navigating without them. And this is why this weekend so many will spend an hour with virtue's originalists.
In a nutshell, all law seeks to impose someone's view of morality on someone else who doesn't like it. The groups who oppose the judeo-christian ethics do not understand human nature.
Boy will that person be suprised when he figures out that the demonrats are doing this to him. That is, if he is smart enough to realize it.
"I cannot and will not continue to support a party that seems to be dominated, for whatever reason, by people who wish to legislate for me my ____, my ____, my ____, my rights to ____...."
Me, me, me, me, me, ad nausea... to hell with the country, your family and everyone else...
"I cannot and will not continue to support a party that seems to be dominated, for whatever reason, by people who wish to legislate for me my lifestyle, my beliefs, my 'morals,' my rights to my body...
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
see #5...
["The God Delusion," Mr. Dawkins offers his own "new" Ten Commandments,...]
Another misnoemer. The athiest Dawkins should have named his work, "The Godless Delusion", methinks. God's word teaches;
Psalms 1
1. Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.
I promise, he will not be smart enough to know.:(
Sir Francis, that was a dashing wood beam of unfeigned faithfulness. And I thoroughly agree.
I believe it was originaly intoned as , Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.. It should have been left that way. It's much better.
For later read.
Well, maybe here in America. But the Russians, Germans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians and Cubans have had some experience with this risky proposition.
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.