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.
It was quite a contrast from the content of the article.
Because it means someone, somewhere is having a good time, and we can't have that now, can we?
If He chooses, then there is no such thing as Free will and there would be no point to Him becoming man.
John 6:44-45 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
The keyword is draw, not pick. Also, "they will all be taught by God". Note He mentions the choice of listening and choosing to draw near.
I disagree. While he does specify a subset, he does not offer any evidence that such people, exist, are numerous, or important. There is a clear implication that most of not all Atheists included in that group. Further he generalizes his criticism of the group he invented when he concludes...
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.
"Really?? All those who decry theocracies have no problem with "a state religion of amorality"??? That includes not only Atheists but people of all religions who want a secular government. The author begins with a disingeious statement at best, and ends with an asininie one at best.
And now bow your head in shame and think about it!
Where does repent fit in atheism? Or is the philosophy so much lacking analytical ability it is unable to question its stance on God? Much like Bin Laden is unable to question his own stance on God?
It doesn't. Atheism is simply being without belief in the supernatural. It is not a philosophy, nor does it carry any dictates or prescriptions that any number of specific religions do.
The opposite of atheism is theism, and theism, in and of itself, also carries no dictates or prescriptions. Each specific religion (subset) dictates such issues as repentence or reflection, moral philosophy and governing codes.
An atheist must choose his own moral code and philosophy, that may or may not include self-reflection and repentence.
God may not be seen, but his effects may be very much visible. Slavery is inherently vested in the ability of certain natural or human wielded forces to leverage against our physical needs and other material powers.
YET! there are countless documented cases of people who are not wielded by such forces, there are countless cases of emancipation that do not ultimately depend on those forces, and there are also supernatural accounts of God emancipating people. Jesus emancipated people just as explained above, through simple belief. Jews were emancipated by miracles.
Why does atheism ignores the case of emancipation of man from nature???? While it is such a self evident FACT!!!
Unless atheism is another ideology for evil people that negates emancipation, inducing people to submit to their will and power, as those who can manipulate the atom would then have the ability to black mail all.
This seems to me the theme of modernity--choosing "safe" rationalism over "dangerous" belief. But Nietzsche and Rousseau made a compelling attack on living for rationality and safety: Is man's life enough without any cosmic support of goodness or justice? What is self-preservation for?
Some do.
Atheism IS a philosophy and a belief, because either one questions or one does not question.
That's a unique and, frankly, incorrect definition for "philosophy."
God may not be seen, but his effects may be very much visible. Slavery is inherently vested in the ability of certain natural or human wielded forces to leverage against our physical needs and other material powers.
Wow. Can you say that in English?
YET! there are countless documented cases of people who are not wielded by such forces, there are countless cases of emancipation that do not ultimately depend on those forces, and there are also supernatural accounts of God emancipating people.
Okay, I get it. But the personal experiences of someone who feels free of materialism and the limits of their own desires hardly constitutes any kind of proof.
Anecdotes are not documented cases.
Why does atheism ignores the case of emancipation of man from nature???? While it is such a self evident FACT!!!
A personal anecdote is hardly a self-evident fact.
Most atheists choose atheism because they are skeptics to begin with, and one person's account is sufficient to lead one to begin to believe in the supernatural.
Unless atheism is another ideology for evil people that negates emancipation, inducing people to submit to their will and power, as those who can manipulate the atom would then have the ability to black mail all.
Versus those who can manipulate church teachings and religious beliefs?
That's a false and baseless assertion. Many atheists embrace any number of philosophies and moral codes that directly contradict nihilism.
It isn't prayer that heals the sick and flies us through the air. (No offense intended to Christian Scientists or Hindus).
On the other hand, the case of judeo-Christianity that imposes a God Who obliges repent, and hence ideological and religious repent, is a case that encourages scientific analytical deduction from past acts and sharable data.
Let us compare that to the supernatural atheism that is not derived from repent and analytical look back, but simply as an assumption or a fear of how the universe works. Atheism is not liable for its mistakes since no one is liable for guessing. Yet religion impose moral liability because the data can be shared openly to evaluate validity. Atheism is a prophetic doctrine, it is not a repenting doctrine. I suggest that atheism is as far from science as is Bin Laden's religion (religions which by the way relies on secular powers of violent acts, not God, and hence Bin Laden's is a secular ideology).
The case of art comes to mind. I marvel how some claim that Picasso is a better artist than a child's drawing. How can anyone prove that one piece of art is superior than another piece of art? No can't do. All arts are equal. Facism is key in that facism imposes its art without repent, from Hitler to North Korea's Kim Il Sung's exclusive authority in art and movie making, all facists inherently view some art superior than others.
But again, atheists fall in the same trap as the facists, because atheists inherently want to explain it all and sanction it all in the Universe, including the evaluation of whether such and such art is positive or negative for future events.
Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and Lenin were atheist. Mother Teresa, George Wahington, C.S. Lewis and Johnathan Edwards were Christians.
Christains believe in hope, love, charity, mercy and honesty. Atheist believe in self.
Christians know GOD. Atheists pretend there is no GOD.
The Consitution and our Republic were based on Christian principles. The Communist Manifesto and Communist Control were based on atheism.
Yeah, I'm convinced.
THere is a difference between a nation under God, and Bin Laden cloaking himself with God while enslaving himself to secular means of violence. The nation under God implies a balance of powers competing to serve us, while Bin Laden's Jihad is a religious cloak over very secular beliefs.
The cloth does not make the monk indeed.
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.