[watchin]

I've never taken a course on logic (wow, is that an opening for a flame, or what?) - but is that the same as an argument from history/experience?

Nations that have rejected God as the foundation for human rights have historically - sucked. It's predictable - unless you have a idealistic view of human nature.

[NeoCrusade]

I would say that you would be right in the cases of governments that have actively suppressed religion. Big difference.

[Dimensio]

is that the same as an argument from history/experience?

Not at all -- appeal to tradition is typically done when arguing methodolgy; you argue that a method should not change because it has "always been done that way".

Appeal to the consequences is citing what might be considered the undesirable "consequences" of a proposition being true or false -- ie, there being no gods means that there are no unalienable rights -- and using that as "evidence" for the truth value of the proposition.

[Zack Nguyen]

Nations that have rejected God as the foundation for human rights have historically - sucked. It's predictable -unless you have a idealistic view of human nature.

Your theology is correct, and has a nice homey ring to it. :) (Couldn't resist.)

[rustbucket]

Nations that have rejected God as the foundation for human rights have historically - sucked.

Many governments that favored state-sponsored religion have historically sucked too. Read about how the people of early Massachusetts persecuted religious dissenters (whipping, branding, jailing). Read about the massacres and burnings at the stake in Europe during the Reformation.

One of the beauties of America is that it protects the views of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.