Posted on 03/21/2002 10:00:24 AM PST by edmundburk
screams the 3.25.02 cover of The New Republic.
The New Republic editor Peter Beinart had a vision: Neither Bush nor Atty. General Ashcroft have mentioned nonbelievers since 9-11, meaning they are trying to write atheists out of America’s moral community. That’s what The New Republic editor Peter Beinart claims in his TRB (The Real Bologna? Tom Robinson Band? ).
It’s impossible to prove a negative, so we must take his assertion on faith, as it were. Among Beinart’s non-corporeal evidence: After 9-11,
“Muslim dignitaries were invited to pray in the East Reception Room before listening to Bush tell the assembled that ‘America seeks peace with people of all faiths.’ And with that line, Bush exhibited the same moral blindness as his attorney general. Of course the United States seeks peace with people of all faiths. But what about people of no faith at all? In fact, the Bush administration never mentions nonbelievers….And when he and his top advisers, in hundreds and hundreds of statements, never miss an opportunity to exclude nonbelievers, it's hard to believe the exclusion is purely accidental….for this administration, celebrating the dignity of all believers has become a way to impugn the dignity of those who believe in no religion at all.”
But 9-11 has nothing to do with atheists or agnostics, God bless’m. Why bring in atheism when discussing a holy war pitting a Muslim jihad against a Jewish state and a majority Christian country?
“If Bush and Ashcroft really think that, then they should have the courage to say it, and open up their arguments to scrutiny and rebuttal. What they are doing instead is worse: implicitly writing atheists and agnostics out of America's moral community. When they describe the country they love, they describe a place where people of different faiths live in harmony and equality, and where people who follow no faith simply do not exist.”
So Beinart takes his opinion of what “many cultural conservatives believe,” projects it onto Bush and Ashcroft, then accuses them of not owning up to “writing atheists and agnostics out of America’s moral community.”
Beinart’s God-like assurance that he can see into Bush’s and Ashcroft’s hearts makes Justice William O. Douglas’ constitutional “penumbras and adumbrations” look positively modest.
Besides, mature adults (atheist or otherwise) don’t rely on a presidential pat on the head to reassure themselves of the rightness of their teleology. Where that leaves Beinart I don’t presume to know. But then, I don’t have a hotline to Heaven.
I am an atheist and I don't believe in gods.. so how can I see myself as a god?
Because you occupy the center of your universe?
Good point! Can ayone point to a public statement by a modern president regarding atheists and agnostics? This is just another instance of grasping at straws to bash Bush. Funny but pathetic.
Yes, and relying on religion for your morality is what Paul called the "ministry of death" in Corinthians.
God's law of morality is written on our hearts, not in a book (or stone tablets). You should know what is moral as a matter of reflex, and if you need to consult with your bible or ask God, then you really don't have any morality at all. An atheist who listens to his heart and uses it as an instrument of moral clarity is closer to God than some fundie who must always resort to his stone tablets for guidance.
This is the essential problem with all claims of afterlife reward -- it reduces morality to the level of the jihadists' Mustang Ranch in the sky.
Morals are a function of faith. If you believe in nothing how can you derive a moral foundation from emptiness? Atheist don't believe in heaven hence the name "atheist".
I am not really an athiest, but I think it might be too strong of a statement to say that athiests believe in "nothing." In any case, I imagine that it might be possible to deny the existence of moral absolutes while at the same time recognizing the inherent utility of behaving as though there were.
It's not impossible. Clinton came close to mentioning every single special interest group in every single speech (he would have hit 100%, except that he left out the interest groups he didn't like). For Bush to do the same would result in speeches as long as Clinton's, and that just isn't his style. Thank goodness.
I would say some people were just spoiled by eight years of this contrived "inclusiveness", but I'm afraid it goes a lot deeper than that. I think it shows that a huge percentage of the country is no longer capable of self-government. Why would anyone whine about not being mentioned by the President, why would anyone feel slighted by a lack of "validation" of their personal beliefs from their nation's leader, unless at some level they really are seeking the notice and favor of a king?
Free people don't need that crap. For that matter, mature people don't need that crap. It's bad enough that people want the government to satisfy their material needs, but when they also turn to Washington for their emotional needs I fear the game is REALLY over.
Sorry, I dont buy it.
And one who has a faith in god is clearly capable of leading an immoral life. So one is obviously not dependant on the other.
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.