Posted on 12/01/2001 10:28:24 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
By Gary L. Morella
I have a question for those who believe that the atheistic worship of the state is to be recommended over an appreciation of a "higher" or "natural" law as the foundation for the rights that government ought to secure for the common good.
Natural law can be readily appreciated in the American experience, given the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary ... to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ..."
Natural law is something above power or force that gives content to the notion of justice. This notion suggests that there is a higher law by which the positive law of the state is to be measured and judged. Slavery was ultimately abolished in America because of the recognition of this "higher law."
Thomas Aquinas sets the most famous variation of this approach in his Summa Theologica. His natural law is a participation in the wisdom and goodness of God by the human person, formed in the image of the Creator. It expresses the dignity of the person and forms the basis of human rights and fundamental duties. This was the approach later used by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," which contains references to Aquinas.
Simply put, what has state worship done for us lately? We only have to look at recent history for an answer. We saw the deaths of six million Jews and 20 million Ukrainians in the concentration camps and gulags of Hitler and Stalin, respectively. Today, we see the killing of 40 million innocents in what should be their safest place of refuge, their mothers' wombs.
If the state is the final arbiter of the law, the sole dispenser of rights, we're in big trouble, given the lessons of history. The state can easily take these rights away with catastrophic consequences. This is inevitable when each man is a universe unto himself, courtesy of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which ignored a very important question: What happens when each citizen's "personal universe of rights" collides with another's? In the absence of some absolute, immutable, higher law, knowable through reason and not just faith, we're left with anarchy.
But more to the point, the traditionally recognized goal of a respected political regime is the common good. Does killing our children when they're most vulnerable and promoting aberrant behavior that leads to physical ruin meet that goal?
The fact is that ignorance of the necessity for human law to be rooted in the natural law has led to the major ills plaguing society today. This has nothing to do with theocracy. It has everything to do with common sense and the rule of right reason. This is obvious to any Christian who knows that God's supreme gift to us was the opportunity to choose him freely.
Interestingly, those decrying theocracies have no problem accepting a "state religion of amorality," which is promoted by demagogues who won't stand for any opposition. This is the current state of affairs in a "politically correct" but "morally bankrupt" America for which we can thank the example of the former "adolescent-in-chief," whose main claim to fame was making the country more comfortable with its vices.
Hope I got that right ;-)
theist...positive
agnostic..neutral
atheist...negative!
Therefore atheist means "without belief in god(s)."
To hamfistedly attempt to equate atheism with statism.
Doesn't do a very good job of it.
It's a poor flame that needs dishonesty to stoke it.
The good news is eternal life offered unconditionally. See post #35. There is no light in condemnation of a conclusion that can neither be proven, or disproven. Without light, there is darkness.
Heck, religion is killing us again. The events on Sept. 11th were driven by religion.
Religion strikes again.
It's not the benevolent spiritualism of the individual I am against just the organized "holier than thou" crapola that has layed waste to countless innocents in human history.
The title is false. You'd understand if the article was entitled: What has Religion Done For Us Lately , and the first sentence was:
"I have a question for those who believe the religion that inspired killing of tens of thousands of innocents at the WTC is to be recommended over an appreciation of a more rational way of life."I have no problem with anyone's religion as long as it values the welfare of its members. But if the moron who wrote this is going to slander all atheist in the title, only to start discussing something or someone else in the first sentence, then I'll point out what an idiot he is. You see, thickheaded newbies like Norvokov still don’t get it.
Not per se, but still sinful, at least according to several thousands years of Judeo-Christian morality.
OK, so that's not it. Masturbation is OK;
No, still sinful, at least according to several thousands years of Judeo-Christian morality.
condoms are bad
Your analogy is what is bad. Condoms are neither good nor bad; they just are. They are highly ineffective and, along with the advent of the pill, helped to engender the sexual revolution, with its skyrocketing rates of marital infidelity/divorce, extramarital sex, STD's and eventually abortion on demand to clean up the "failures" of the contraceptive mentality/lifestyle.
These things are "bad."
Communism killed thirty-five million people in China alone.
It's not that I want to defend a false religion like Islam, but atheism is a lie as well.
Sorry, but that's very wrong. It's:
apolitical--without politics
asymmetric--without symmetry
atheist -- ( well… you get the idea.)
Better now? ;-)
That is your opinion, and you are clearly entitled to your opinion. That said, this author is not in ignorance. He defines his subset and makes observations that are indeed correct.
WILL THERE BE A NUCLEAR WORLD HOLOCAUST?
a book by Dr. Desmond Ford.
In the light of the events of September 11, the words of Jesus, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, . . ." (Matthew 5:43) have to be seen not as nice little aphorisms to be framed and hung on a wall, but as urgent "life or death" imperatives for us to be more like God, who make the sun to rise on the evil and the good (Matthew 5:45).
This little volume by Desmond Ford examines the nuclear peril in the light of the radical love of God expressed in Jesus. It is full of faith and hope. For example: "The problem is not the nuclear weapons. It is the nuclear man. No one would be worried about nuclear war if Mother Theresa was put in charge of the nuclear weapons. It's not the hardware, it's the heartware." "The bomb is limited in its range. The worst it can do can only last until the resurrection."
Order your copy of this inspiring book now. $3.00 Post paid. Good News Unlimited
11710 Education Street
Auburn, CA 95602
Phone: 530.823.9690
Email: gnu@goodnewsunlimited.org!!
This is a great example of setting up a straw man. Just because someone does not believe God exists does not mean they "worship" the state, any more than believing in God means one wants a theocracy. There are many, many, libertarian atheists.
Bill Clinton is a CINO. I am not positive, but I would say the odds are good, that he is, indeed, an atheist.
Hardly. In his actions he lived as a pragmatic atheist, i.e., even if he believes God exists, he does not let that impact his decisions or actions, and does not draw his guidelines for living from Judeo-Christian morality.
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.