There is a new stone monument to atheism in Florida. On it is inscribed:
"An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a
church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer
said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into
death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated."
The problem there is how many hospitals have been founded and run by Christian groups, how much good is done by Christian groups other than prayer, and how involved Christians are in the pursuit of saving unborn life. And, of course, Christians also want disease conquered, poverty banished and war eliminated. So, it's kind of an odd choice for the atheists, but pretty powerful proof of Christianity's goodness always winning out, to me.
I haven't been happy at all over groups desirous of ridding the Ten Commandments, for example, from public property, but the atheists have been so utterlytraumatized from those things that they decided to give up trying to get Christian messages and symbols banned and now will have their messages installed next to the Christian messages. This, I'm very happy about because, as I took apart that quote on the new atheist monument, we see what will always win out.
"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38, 39
I am, too. Thank God.
How do you feel about THIS SITUATION?
Have a beautiful Sunday.
z
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
67 comments:
Many of our best universities were founded and built by Christians. Many of our hospitals were founded, built, and in some cases, still are administered by Christians.
Some of the greatest libraries in the world were built by Christians.
On the other hand, like most other groups, we've done some notorious wrongs...
But to deny the good is pure poppycock.
The atheists may believe all those things, but I only thing I hear them DOING is filing lawsuits against Christianity.
When they start DOING the things they list instead of insisting Christians remain silent about their faith, maybe their reputation would improve.
Z - I say let them have their monument - it is empty compared to the Christian monument and I believe that the quote from Romans tells us that.
I don't think there is such a thing as an athiest - anyway.
Just disgruntled Christians who want to start their own religion - of nothing.
Have a great Sunday - Z.
As a Christian, I am not offended by the fact that atheists believe in nothing. What does puzzle me, however, is why atheists are offended because I am a Christian.
If atheists are put out now, they’d better hope America isn’t eventually taken over by proponents of Sharia Law. Those boys and girls will be hanging from street lights from LA to NYC.
As a reformed atheist, I can attest that most are really agnostics (usually the non-hostile type).
Then there are the hostiles. They have a grievance against a God the don't believe in.
Give us the marketplace of ideas, them to.
As Rita and Z pointed out, the Red Cross is a Cross for a reason.
I know how to spell, trust me.
Stupid tablet.
Such stupid and ignorant writings. Those people should travel across Europe and visit medieval hospitals like Hospices de Beaune and they'll realize who started the concept of hospital and hospices.
Or they should come to Hollywood and see who started feeding the homeless too.
It's one thing to not believe in God. I'm ok with that. But the intellectual dishonesty is really bothersome.
I think a session with Bertrand Russel's "Why I AM Not a Christian" may give you some insight.
If you think you are able to understand God's nature then fine. Use that to live your life but do not expect you can impose your beliefs, simple.
Dave, absolutely. And the comparison is silly, really....the atheist monument seems to suggest "but WE are better because..........." and the comparison falls so flat.
Rita, excellent point! I have yet to hear about "Madeline Murphy O'Hare Hospital" :-)
Sue, that's an intriguing thought; really set me off to thinking, thanks! I believe you're right in many cases.
Mustang; right! Who cares what they think? It doesn't affect us or our country until they ask us to get rid of symbols that have upheld our country, so this 'we're not telling you to take yours down anymore, we'll just put one up' sits me...... But the bigger point is the writing on that stone; as if it's not totally negated by truths about Christianity.
I'd have admired them more if they could come up with things Christians have NOT done!
Sam...I wonder if they think they'll be immune to moslem violence because at least they weren't INFIDEL CHRISTIANS!
Robert..the Christians I know are good people, if not perfect by a LOOONG shot. But yes, hell on earth for me would be not having God in my heart and mind.
Ed, there does seem to be such a bitterness in these people who are so strident and angry at Christianity.
FrogBurger...EXACTLY. The intellectual dishonesty is bothersome but it helps show people that Christianity still stands strong...no matter what.
Everybody: that there are quotes from Franklin and Jefferson, suggesting THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE NOT CHRISTIANS is also HUGE intellectual dishonesty because for every 'anti Christian' phrase by Franklin or Jefferson, there are probably 50 beautiful affirmations of Christianity having been the building blocks for this country.
Well Froggy, the medieval activity is all well and good and the talk about hospitals and universities is fine but have the posters here been involved in that?
We take a look around the world and see what religion means today and it shouldn't be a surprise to see it in serious decline.
Ducky, I suggest reading the comments.
NONE of us care what atheists believe. We have imposed nothing, as you know.
And, of course, I did say I welcome the atheist stone bench there; they deserve to have it there, and what they chose to imprint on it is such a strong affirmation of Christianity in the truths we know about hospitals, saving life, etc., that I wonder at their choice.
Ducky; OUR FAITH has "been involved in this" and still is. And, of course, you know nothing of what some of us might do regarding charity, etc.
Why are you so very angry at Christianity?
and Ducky, it's worth pondering a drop in Christian faith and exactly what you say about the "serious decline" in the world.
It's so clear Europe and America were thriving so much better when church attendance was part of life.
Well Froggy, the medieval activity is all well and good and the talk about hospitals and universities is fine but have the posters here been involved in that?
And what's your point? Your intellect is so weak, it's incredible. I have to spell everything out for you.
The Big State has replaced the church in our modern society. With nationalized healthcare, the State has replaced the Church.
Do I need to elaborate more Mr Pseudo Intellectual?
I don't really understand the need to have monuments built, to advertise one's personal creed, or their personal relationship with a deity.
Instead of living our lives by our chosen set of personal values, we get to bicker about who has the better PR.
Public property should serve all citizens, and be devoid of this drama.
We take a look around the world and see what religion means today and it shouldn't be a surprise to see it in serious decline.
It's in decline b/c of Marxist people like you. You are guilty of erecting the State as a way to reach individual and collective salvation. And that's the main mistake of Catholics in particular. Which makes sense since the Catholic Church was the State. So it's just logical that Catholics eventually turned to Marxism, mostly in Europe.
The Huffington Post article says that it was motivated as a response to the public display of the Ten Commandments. Being offended by the bench and its statement could be a logical reaction, but they've also cleverly cited Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin as being examples of the Founding Fathers who could not be classified as rabidly Christian, although believing in a Supreme Being.
Should one be offended by the presenting of an opposite view in an allegedly free society supposedly founded upon the ideals of freedom of expression?
It's hard to do without seeming to be intolerant of of other views, unless you're fine with squelching other ideas.
Personally, i'm more offended by the Ten Commandments expressed upon the Georgia Guideposts:
"1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.
These Ten Commandments sound like something the fossilized Fabian Bertrand Russell would authorize.
Wow. A list that is so dreamy that only an authoritarian state could enforce it.
#7 could certainly be a keeper though.
The following is a list of charities and social organizations that are not affiliated with a religious organization and do not include religious themes in their charters.
In alphabetical order
Accion micro-lending
Action Aid
Afghan Children's Fund National Geographic fund to educate Afghan children
Alternative Gifts International
American Civil Liberties Union
American Humanists
American Lung Association
American Red Cross
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Americares Delivering medicines, medical supplies and aid to people in crisis around the world.
Amnesty International
Atheist Centre of India runs 3 charities: disaster relief, women's empowerment, criminal tribes
Atheist Volunteers
Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation working to find a cure for spinal cord injuries. It is ironically satisfying that this goal is very close to that of "healing amputees", yet Christopher Reeve was an atheist.
Coalition to stop the use of child soldiers
Direct Relief International
Doctors Without Borders <== Haiti Earthquake Relief
Feeding America formerly known as America's Second Harvest
FINCA International
Freedom From Religion Foundation
The Halo Trust Princess Diana apparently supported this land mine charity.
Fred Hollows Foundation preventing blindness
Heifer Project International
Humane Society US
Humanist Charities same as American Humanists
International Committee of the Red Cross <== Haiti Earthquake Relief
Kiva person-to-person micro-lending
Lions Club International
Meals On Wheels some local affiliates may be run by churches
Mercy Corps
Orbis saving eyesight worldwide
Oxfam America
Pathfinder International
Partners In Health
Peace Corps U.S. government org
Planned Parenthood
Rotary International
Ryan's Well Foundation Digs wells in Africa
Secular Coalition for America
Secular Student Alliance supports freethinking kids on college campuses
The Smile Train funds surgeries to correct children's cleft palate
SOS Children's Villages
TechnoServe
UNICEF
There may be more, but this is the result of one quick search.
No one is denying the great contributions religion has made to art and culture, but as Dave rightly pointed out, because humans were and are involved, there is always a downside to upside.
@ Constitutional Insurgent
#7 could certainly be a keeper though.
-----
Possibly a keeper, but also the possibility of some added window-dressing to misdirect attention from the real thrust of the guidepost ideals—absolute power and control on a global basis.
@ Shaw Kenawee
The following is a list of charities and social organizations that are not affiliated with a religious organization and do not include religious themes in their charters.
-----
If not religious themes, are there any with overt or covert political agendas?
I can spot several f those, including even (but not limited to) the American Red Cross and UNICEF.
The American Red Cross was deeply involved in the imposition of Communist tyranny of the Soviets upon the Russian people. UNICEF, as Henry Wallace Rosenthal, the former able assistant to Senator Jacob Javits of New York succinctly stated about the United Nation "is the trap door to world tyranny" (before he met his unfortunate demise at the hands of "terrorist" at the El Al ticket counter at the Istanbul airport).
@Waylon - Fair point. But that's the risk we run, we we either rely on or have nothing more than soundbites and bumper sticker phrases to interpret from.
Shaw, were I not on my phone I would point out the fallacy of so many of the groups you listed as being charitable, but a large number are just padding.
they wont rest Z till we are seeped in immorality sigh...
Planned Parenthood is a charitable organization in the same way that Jeffrey Dahmer is an excellent host.
C Yoda wins The Best Comment award.
As usual, I have a different view of the situation.
First, I believe that actions speak louder than words. Therefore, I have long been aware that many of my liberal, agnostic, atheist or apostate friends are in actual fact TRUE Christians, because of they way they behave. They abide by the basic tenets of our faith in most of what they do in their interpersonal relationships and community affairs. I call them de facto Christians.
A case in point:
Years ago I had a Jewish friend who insisted he didn't believe in God, yet he strongly identified himself as a Jew, and played an active role in administering the affairs of a local Synagogue, and contributed quite heavily towards its financial well being.
He said he disliked Christianity partly because he had encountered so many hypocrites among self-professed Christians, but mostly because he resented the historic role institutionalized Christianity had played in the persecution and deprivation of his people. And YET, he ACTED more like a Christian than most of the Christians I'd grown up with.
I used to tease him about being one of the best Christians I'd ever known, -- and to do him credit he took the ribbing with good grace, -- and even found it flattering.
SO, I say let the atheists have their say just the way Elijah encouraged the prophets of Baal and their followers to have theirs. You all know the outcome of that story, I'm sure.
Rest and take comfort in the knowledge that the Holy Spirit, who is the embodiment and perfect expression of Truth, Love, Principle, Intelligence, Character and Life, itself cannot HELP but prevail, because in TRUTH, which is God, no power opposed to God can survive.
THAT, I believe, is what Jesus came to show us through His SACRIFICE and SURVIVAL.
Let "them" put up monuments to SATAN in the public square, if they want. It won't do "them" a particle of good, nor could it possibly harm Almighty God.
If we imagine it could harm our God, our faith is very shallow, indeed. After all Christian was born in a climate of militant, brutal opposition, and it thrived anyway, didn't it?
It's only when Christianity became institutionalized, grew dominant, then became fat, insolent, worldly and cruelly self-protective -- like ALL established POWER BLOCS -- that it began to lose ground. It bean to lose ts grip, because it lost its credibility with thinking people.
I believe a new climate of extreme adversity may be EACTLY what is needed to cultivate a climate right for serious REVIVAL of -- primitive Christianity.
Ed Bonderanka's right:
Lions’ Invocation..
The Lions' Club prayer
"Lord, as we Lions gather here, we pause to offer up this
prayer. Bless now this food that we partake and every
effort that we make to build the towns in which we live and
put it in our hearts to give to worthy causes. Bless the blind
and all we do to serve mankind. Be with us till we meet
again and bless our hands and homes. Amen."
Rotary has lovely prayer invocations, too.
Most charitable groups' morality has come directly from Judeo-Christian writings/practice, so it's a bit tough (and sadly empty) to list a bunch of groups which are DEVOID :)
And yes, Yoda...PLANNED PARENTHOOD is charitable if you consider it charitable to kill babies before they're born.
What always rather amuses me is that people will kill a child with fingers, toes, heart, brain, etc., but the MINUTE it comes out of the vaginal canal and something's wrong it's "GET HELP! STAT!!!!"
Get help for WHAT? Inside that 1/8" lining of the vagina where the baby was finally dragged through is a blob worthy of death, but the minute it's seeing the light of the OR it's human and must be saved.
Hm..
Woman Honor Thyself: Well said. So sad and true.
HERE IS THE DEAL:
The Founding Fathers' faith in Jesus Christ/Scripture (please let's not argue that, it's silly and not too smart, if you don't mind my saying so; look it up...) gave them the inner goodness, righteousness, ability to establish governments better than most others around the whole world, ...I could go on and on and you probably have FAR better examples of their faith and its reflection on this country...but...I think I make it clear.
And, by the way..re abortion; If others can do that, it's between them and their god...it's THEIR BUSINESS...but I don't want to pay for it. And I shouldn't have to.
We have to pay for that, but let a Ten Commandments monument be in a public space and it's all about the RIGHTS of those who don't feel that way?? really?
Z - I'd like to ask, what the benefit of these memorials are?
Ft, thanks...I believe the point of my post and many of my comments say exactly that "let the Atheists have their say".
Nobody here yet as said they feel their stone bench should be taken away.
MANY nonbelievers are excellent people...and many Christians are not.
Salvation is not based on our excellence. Hard to swallow, hard to grasp...I know.
And, of course, excellence so often flows from Bible believing Jews and Christians.
I think memorials are expressions of our values, CI. The popular monuments in Washington DC represent sizeable expenditures that express our admiration for the men to whom dedicated, and what they stood for… We find memorials throughout the United States, with the same intentions and perhaps, to remind us of our history and those who helped to make it.
Well, Z, that depends on what may be meant by "excellence" - a term I did not use. I never come to disparage, deny or argue against other points of view, but only to share what I have learned in my now rather long life.
I believe in FREEDOM -- freedom of thought, freedom of choice and freedom to believe only what may seem credible and justifiable to each individual's sense of conscience.
Just because I may dislike or disapprove of someone else's beliefs, does not mean that I would endorse legislation against those beliefs. I have to say, however, that I would take exception to the free expression of militant Islamists, because their beliefs sanction deception and violence, and are thus diametrically opposed to the genuine liberality I champion.
In general I am very much against negativism -- i.e. the eagerness to condemn, forbid and punish what we may not understand -- and of defensiveness -- i.e. the assumption in general that the introduction of any idea seemingly foreign or out of line with locally established norms or patterns of thought must be regarded as "hostile," -- so I suppose the enthusiastic endorsement of ideas that may appear contrary to orthodox views may seem like an attack to those possessed of a habitually negative-defensive mindset.
@Jack - Your explanation speaks to the reasoning behind people wanting to erect memorials. For historical figures and events, I can better understand their existence, since in large part, our education system does not adequately address these issues.
But for a Christian desiring the Ten Commandments on public property, for example......what is the benefit of such a memorial? The same question applies to Atheists and their memorial.
FT "I never come to disparage, deny or argue against other points of view," that's good!
And who are you disparaging by insinuating they have negative-defensive mindsets?
Jack, well said. I'd add that many of those monuments reflected their beliefs and so, here they are still today; as monuments to the mindsets, or things they admired and believed in, which these monuments are dedicated to.
Do you agree?
CI, I'm not sure I disagree with you on that.
I believe the Ten Commandments are important and none of us could argue with one of them; so they've rather become generic, in a sense.
But I wouldn't put one up in front a court house built today, necessarily.
Sad, but true.
Years ago, they'd never have built one without it, or something displaying belief in God, near or around a public building.
I have to venture my truth that since we've stopped, things have decayed in every way (I almost wrote 'almost every way' but aside from slavery, I'm not sure. And I only mention slavery at all because if I don't, someone will use that as a smokescreen against all the other things that HAVE decayed)
And, of course, as strong as the left likes to say slavery was a Christian thing, it was Christians who overcame and showed it as immoral.
I’m not sure I understand your objection, CI … we have expressions of religion on public property from one coast to the other. We call them national cemeteries. I think you will find displayed, at the Supreme Court building, representations of the ancient lawgivers, including Moses, Mohammed, Justinian, Charlemagne, John of England, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshal, and Napoleon. We offer nonsectarian prayers at the beginning of congressional sessions. The Supreme Court building is considered the “temple of Justice.” IMO, the argument is much ado about nothing.
Its not so much of an objection as it is a quest for the logic behind the arguments. For historical memorials.....these represent a proven event or personality. For those lf a religious nature.....they represent a belief system. What I'm asking is this....what benefit exists to those who clamor for a memorial to something they already believe in?
The Christian and Atheist memorials have equal standing in my pursuit of this question. Further......national cemetaries indeed contain recognition of religious preference.....usually at the behest of the deceased or their families. I think its fair to say that these places exist as a place for us to visit...to remember and memorialize our fallen.
What I'm asking is this....what benefit exists to those who clamor for a memorial to something they already believe in?
I am hard pressed to answer your question because I am not clamoring. I do see a difference in the argument posed, however. On the one hand, atheists want to erect a bench with some writing on it that has meaning to them. I’m okay with that, really. But in my weakened brain-housing mechanism, the atheist bench isn’t the equal of icons found at courthouses. We are a nation of laws, and, as our laws are handed down to us from these lawgivers, an historic basis is thus established. Neither can we say that the symbol is totally religious, as Justinian, Blackstone, Marshal were not religious leaders.
I do not see a historic relationship to the bench, but then there may be and I just don’t know enough about it.
CI, cultures should have an ethos and reminders of that ethos.
The monuments and memorials with religious inscriptions reflect our ethos.
Like Jack said at 1:53.
The Ten Commandments have been a part of Western Civilizations ethos for a very long time.
There are some who would have us abandon that ethos.
Change you can believe in, etc.
"An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated."
Why can't all those things be done?
Many people get hung up on the idea that it has to be one or the other.
It seems atheists don't want to see religious influences, yet they want to force their views on everyone. What's the diff?
Everybody wants to rule the world.
Atheism: all neckbeard, no intellect
Z,
What passes today as discourse is on display from Shaw. Those majority of those organizations are not charities. The listing to them passes with the left for discourse. Or more childishly: "because I said so, that's why."
Atheism: all neckbeard, no intellect
This is apropos to the discussion:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKhVnAgt0EY
Found it at Old NFOs blog.
Ed "Change you can believe in" BRILLIANTLY said.
really really good...
unbelievable, isn't it.
Law and Order and Kid.....yes, all can be done simultaneously and yes, they're not charities.
And it's a really silly argument there.
@Jack - "I am hard pressed to answer your question because I am not clamoring."
I didn't imply that you specifically were clamoring, but it' fair to say that it occurs.
I can appreciate that the Ten Commandments can be viewed as incorporated into our system of laws, though only some of these are; the others would be antithetical to liberty.
I'm also not clamoring for their removal.
But statements of religion on public buildings and property often take the form of more than merely an acknowledgement to the sources of our judicial system. This tends to dovetail with what Ed wrote:
...cultures should have an ethos and reminders of that ethos.
The monuments and memorials with religious inscriptions reflect our ethos.
If religion [and specifically Christianity in most cases] is part of our national ethos [which again is subjective and therefore arguable], then is the framework of religious institutions not adequate to propagate this part of said ethos; especially when the proscription of government endorsement of a particular religion....and opposition to that proscription, is so contentious?
If the affairs and property of the State [and philosophically, the people] took a completely neutral/secular approach to it's business....does that somehow harm or hamper the religious belief of some Americans?
*edited for grammar
We should recognize that the establishment clause really refers to denominations.
And was a federal concern.
Many states still had state religions.
Most of our founders felt that religion was a good force in our nation and should be encouraged by the government.
But the population could not be constrained to a religion, (denomination).
Therefore the scriptural references in monuments.
The video I referenced earlier shows numerous examoles of tuis.
I think a better question is if it would hamper America.
And I believe the answer is YES, and I know atheists and Jews who believe the same of Christianity...that it has been something excellent upon which this country was founded and which has kept it strong.
There is, today, very very little faith involved in any of America's business.
But I won't rest with the understanding that Christian symbols only reflect our history and, therefore, are nice reminders to have around.
You have every right to feel faith is better off the public square, I have every right to believe its been a saving grace to have it there.
Also, with the increasing attempts (whether you see them or not) at banishing Christianity from the public square, I don't know how many times I can ask if we're better off or if we are not because of that. I think the answer is truly clear.
I have to leave...I look forward to returning tonight and hope to see a lot more comments; I appreciate everyone's chiming in.
Ed, have you seen most of the States' bi-laws, etc? Astonishing amounts of Christianity in their wording... it's really amazing how much a part Christianity played in their foundings.
Z - "I think a better question is if it would hamper America."
That's sort of the fundamental question I have. Is religious faith a personal relationship with one's creator...or is it a collective identity? You say yes to your rephrasing of the question, but why? Unless you somehow believe that if the number of adherents fall below X, and that a proscription against imprinting religious reminders in government affairs dooms us in some sort of supernatural sense [and there are indeed those who proffer that], then how?
Where you say banishment, I say free market decisions.
Ed - I'm not sure that that is correct. In founding era papers such as the Virginia Statue for religious Freedom, the Founders were quite aware of adherents of other religions residing with the Colonies; the references seem clearly in regards to religions rather than Christian denominations, and every SCOTUS and lower court ruling that I have come across, have continued their referral in that way....such as the 'Lemon test' and the Everson ruling. The Founders were quite capable to limited government non-interference only as it applied to Christian denominations. They did not.
*stupid response boxes aren't big enough for me to adequately proof my posts.
CI, it's late here (EST).
I'm trying to grasp the last phrase (before the asterisk), and I want to review the references you gave.
Yet still, the government had no compunction against biblical references in documents and architecture.
Thank you for the reasoned discussion.
"Yet still, the government had no compunction against biblical references in documents and architecture."
Architecture yes, Constitution, not so much. And various courts have ruled on occasion, that religious holiday displays on public ground are "indirect, remote, and incidental" to any violation to the Establishment Clause.
And thank you as well.
You're never going to get honest respectful dialogue out of an atheist because they're so far out of touch with reality that they actually get offended when you point out that they are blithering idiots.
That seems like a silly statement.
Atheists and fundamentalists have reasoned debate with each other all the time, without either side being offended.
Religion is good for société in a number of ways:
1. A system of values
2. It guide our actions
3. It is a fondement for social harmony
4. It teaches humilité
5. It encourager clear thinking of purpose of action
6. It provide balances in life
7. It aide us to improve as individuals
8. It entraver desensitization and inhumanité
9. It encourager mercy
10. It demands that we care for others more than ourselves.
Do atheists serve so well?
Je ne suis pas un défenseur de la religion d'Etat, mais il est insensé d'exiger l'absence d'expressions religieuses.
Louis - Not being an Atheist, I'm not going to delve into that larger debate. I'm more interested in how much government intrusion or entanglement in religion we should allow, given our enumerated rights.
But to your list - why can't Atheists subscribe to all of them? There is nothing in the list that religion has a monopoly on.
Perhaps explain the basis for atheist values, you will.
I'm probably ill equipped to speak on behalf of someone else; but aren't values influenced or informed by our belief systems? I believe that Atheists, or Humanists, desire no less a harmonic society than the religious do.
Harming no other and stealing from no other do not necessarily spring from religious teachings. These sorts of societal norms have existed in some fashion before the bible. I think that religion has, all told, had a net positive on society....but that doesn't really answer my earlier questions.
CI, I absolutely do feel that people of Christian faith make a better society, yes...obviously, I wouldn't pick a number or percentage!
am not quite sure where you see intrusion or any of our backing religious intrusion into our government unless you mean some old 'salutes' to God and the faith that was the basis for so much of America...?
Louis...j'aime bien votre commentaire/liste...merci beaucoups.
Atheism is a religion, like any other. And it has more than its share of arrogant zealots who believe that those who do not share their faith are idiots. Such Atheist zealots, when they have gained power, have killed more people than the victims of other religions (theists) combined.
Ducky: are you sure you want us too look around the world? The worst hellhole on the planet is also the most Atheist nation also.
Post a Comment