God and Civics

[82Marine89]

Some weeks ago I made the argument that the beliefs of our nation’s founders concerning the nature of individual rights and the origin of those rights is important to our understanding and honoring of our American Heritage.

I was accused by some of bible thumping and trying to force my Christian beliefs onto other Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not a zealot. I am an American urging a return to the teaching of the foundations upon which our liberty is based.

The framers of the constitution believed that governments are necessary because men are flawed. The more virtuous men are the more liberty they have from government. In an 18th century world governed by Kings and Czars these men believed that men could govern themselves. But liberty, they argued, could be had only if built upon a strong moral and religious foundation.

Is it possible for men to be moral without a belief in something greater than themselves? Where does goodness come from? It may be an interesting philosophical exercise to debate if morality exists outside of an objective truth. However, that will be quite separate from the fact that the founders didn’t believe it possible. They founded a nation on the revolutionary notion that mans rights are granted by God and government derives its power from the consent of those it governs. If there is no God then from where do we obtain inalienable rights? And without these natural rights, the purpose of government cannot be to secure them for individual men.

And this is the lesson for our children: belief in God is not tangential to our civics education. A genuine faith in the almighty is central to our American heritage.

Click for full text... (http://www.therealitycheck.org/2007/12/14/god-and-civics/)

[AFbombloader]

I got your back bro. Nothing I have read in either the older post or this one supports any claim of Bible thumping. You are correct in your beliefs and do not change them for anyone. I will stand side by side with you all the way.

AF:salute:

[diuretic]

Is it possible for men to be moral without a belief in something greater than themselves? Where does goodness come from? It may be an interesting philosophical exercise to debate if morality exists outside of an objective truth

It certainly is possible for humans to be moral without a belief in something greater than themselves. There's absolutely no need for religion, except for those lamebrains who believe they would go crazy if a god wasn't watching their every more, ready to punish them after death.

"Goodness" is a human utility, that which is useful to human existence is "good", that which isn't is "bad".

Sorted. :cheers2:

[diuretic]

f there is no God then from where do we obtain inalienable rights?

For there to be a concept of "rights" there has to be a conception of society. Pre-society humans didn't discuss "rights", just what had to be done to ensure the existence of their small tribal groupings. So I suppose before "rights" there were duties, duty to one another to ensure security (food security and freedom from other harms). When humans, social animals that we are, formed larger groupings called societies then there had to be arrangements for rights and privileges as well as duties. The rich and powerful had most of the rights and privileges and no doubt they claimed they were gifted by the deity currently in fashion. It may have been because of the Enlightenment that the idea of "inalienable rights" was born. Rights are a human invention, they've got nothing to do with a deity.

[diuretic]

And without these natural rights, the purpose of government cannot be to secure them for individual men.

All government is tyranny, it's just some of it is disguised very well.

[avatar4321]

It certainly is possible for humans to be moral without a belief in something greater than themselves. There's absolutely no need for religion, except for those lamebrains who believe they would go crazy if a god wasn't watching their every more, ready to punish them after death.

"Goodness" is a human utility, that which is useful to human existence is "good", that which isn't is "bad".

Sorted. :cheers2:

I disagree. It's impossible to be moral without a belief in something greaeter than themselves. Because morals, in and of themselves, are something greater than the person who believes in them.

[avatar4321]

For there to be a concept of "rights" there has to be a conception of society. Pre-society humans didn't discuss "rights", just what had to be done to ensure the existence of their small tribal groupings. So I suppose before "rights" there were duties, duty to one another to ensure security (food security and freedom from other harms). When humans, social animals that we are, formed larger groupings called societies then there had to be arrangements for rights and privileges as well as duties. The rich and powerful had most of the rights and privileges and no doubt they claimed they were gifted by the deity currently in fashion. It may have been because of the Enlightenment that the idea of "inalienable rights" was born. Rights are a human invention, they've got nothing to do with a deity.

If rights are a human invention, then humans can take them away.

[actsnoblemartin]

dont rights come with RESPONSIBILITIES?

[diuretic]

I disagree. It's impossible to be moral without a belief in something greaeter than themselves. Because morals, in and of themselves, are something greater than the person who believes in them.

Morals are simply codes of behaviour. There's nothing supernatural about them. Get more than one human together for any period of time and an agreed code of conduct has to be worked out so we can all get along.

Morals don't exist separate from humanity, we invented them, we use them. The individual doesn't have morals imprinted in the mind when born, they have to be learned and they're learned in a culturally specific setting although there are some morals which are found in other cultures and across time.

This means they're cultural artifacts. As I said, we invented them, we use them.

[diuretic]

If rights are a human invention, then humans can take them away.

Not just take them away but trample all over them. And they are taken away, they're trampled, they're infringed and generally pretty badly treated, all with impunity.

And some rights, because they're a human invention, can be positively offensive. Le droit de Seigneur for example.

This isn't that much different from the slave owners of colonial America and America before abolition - the owner thought nothing of slipping down to the slave quarters and taking a woman who took his fancy, it was his right, they were his property, he owned them. But the human rights of those slaves, already trashed, were even more damaged by the owner's proprietary behaviour, having sex with the slaves (their willingness or lack of willingness isn't relevant).

[diuretic]

dont rights come with RESPONSIBILITIES?

Uh-oh, here it comes.....NO

Is that clear?

[glockmail]

It certainly is possible for humans to be moral without a belief in something greater than themselves. There's absolutely no need for religion, except for those lamebrains who believe they would go crazy if a god wasn't watching their every more, ready to punish them after death.

"Goodness" is a human utility, that which is useful to human existence is "good", that which isn't is "bad".

Sorted. :cheers2:


I disagree. Humans are like kids on a playground. Without a higher authority watching, chaos will occur.

[diuretic]

I disagree. Humans are like kids on a playground. Without a higher authority watching, chaos will occur.

I'll grant that religion is an effective form of social control but it's a form of social control along with others (education, law, surveillance etc). Religion can be removed from a society and the other forms of social control will still exist. Accepting there are no gods hasn't seen me run amok (well, not while sober anyway :cheers2:)

[Dilloduck]

Uh-oh, here it comes.....NO

Is that clear?

:lol::lol:

[Dilloduck]

Morals are simply codes of behaviour. There's nothing supernatural about them. Get more than one human together for any period of time and an agreed code of conduct has to be worked out so we can all get along.

Morals don't exist separate from humanity, we invented them, we use them. The individual doesn't have morals imprinted in the mind when born, they have to be learned and they're learned in a culturally specific setting although there are some morals which are found in other cultures and across time.

This means they're cultural artifacts. As I said, we invented them, we use them.

What was the motive for the ORIGINAL cultures to arrive at what was moral ? Did they get bored with everything being "natural" instead of good or bad ?

[April15]

Outside of the rights having responsibilities, I agree with Diuretic on his points. I think his concepts are very valid.

[glockmail]

I'll grant that religion is an effective form of social control but it's a form of social control along with others (education, law, surveillance etc). Religion can be removed from a society and the other forms of social control will still exist. Accepting there are no gods hasn't seen me run amok (well, not while sober anyway :cheers2:) Its not about you, or any specific individual. A certain, large, percentage, of folks will "run amock" if they think they can get away with it. You don't have police in every corner and every room, so knowing that God will make you pay is a strong incentive for the 99% of the time that the authorities are not around.

[April15]

Its not about you, or any specific individual. A certain, large, percentage, of folks will "run amock" if they think they can get away with it. You don't have police in every corner and every room, so knowing that God will make you pay is a strong incentive for the 99% of the time that the authorities are not around.A fairy tale is going to change a persons hostile acts? You either have morals and a sense of duty to be civil or you are an animal. Parents give you that, not god!

[glockmail]

A fairy tale is going to change a persons hostile acts? You either have morals and a sense of duty to be civil or you are an animal. Parents give you that, not god! Who gave it to your gawddamn parents, dipshit?

[April15]

Who gave it to your gawddamn parents, dipshit?The Brownshirts of Adolf Hitler!

[glockmail]

The Brownshirts of Adolf Hitler! So you're parents were socialists as well. Apple-fall from-tree.

[April15]

So you're parents were socialists as well. Apple-fall from-tree.Not quite. Try oppressed germans in a Nazi environment. I do believe they would be amazed at what has become America with Bushco. From what I remember of the stories about the 20's and 30's we are living history again.

[82Marine89]

Not quite. Try oppressed germans in a Nazi environment. I do believe they would be amazed at what has become America with Bushco. From what I remember of the stories about the 20's and 30's we are living history again.

Tell us what you remember. I want to hear your comparisons.

[April15]

Tell us what you remember. I want to hear your comparisons.Mostly it is the quest for power and secrets kept from the people. Also the way the economy and patriotism was used to manipulate fear and insecurity.
Curious how the mind remembers until asked for specifics. Then you don't know which blurb to put where to make a logical thought. Sort of like being asked how would you describe your life. So many thoughts of incidents and experiences. Where do you start and how do you make someone else understand the emotion of these events in your life?

[glockmail]

Tell us what you remember. I want to hear your comparisons.
Yes I'm all ears as well. When does Bush grow that funny little moustache?

[April15]

Yes I'm all ears as well. When does Bush grow that funny little moustache?So stupid. You deserve the fate you are backing!

[glockmail]

Mostly it is the quest for power and secrets kept from the people. Also the way the economy and patriotism was used to manipulate fear and insecurity. ... Gee this sounds exactly like the Hillary Presidency and her media useful idiots.

[glockmail]

So stupid. You deserve the fate you are backing! Just as expected- you failed to provide the evidence you claimed would support your theiry, so now I'm the idiot. :lol:

[diuretic]

What was the motive for the ORIGINAL cultures to arrive at what was moral ? Did they get bored with everything being "natural" instead of good or bad ?

I think they thought "nature red in tooth and claw" wasn't getting them anywhere. I mean in the tribe or extended family group. What was "good" was what enhanced chances of survival for the individual and the group and what made living more pleasant. What was "bad" was anything (say forms of behaviour) that threatened survival and the enhancement of existence.

Let me give an example. I'm trying to think of a culture where work - as a physical activity - is frowned upon. I can't think of one. Work has always been necessary for human survival, directed physical activity with an objective. That objective could be hunting or gathering among prehistoric humans, for example. And cooperative work is far more beneficial than singular work. No single human could take down a mammoth but a group of wily humans could drive one over a cliff.

[82Marine89]

Mostly it is the quest for power and secrets kept from the people. Also the way the economy and patriotism was used to manipulate fear and insecurity.
Curious how the mind remembers until asked for specifics. Then you don't know which blurb to put where to make a logical thought. Sort of like being asked how would you describe your life. So many thoughts of incidents and experiences. Where do you start and how do you make someone else understand the emotion of these events in your life?

You have that problem quite often I see.

[diuretic]

Outside of the rights having responsibilities, I agree with Diuretic on his points. I think his concepts are very valid.

And I appreciate that. But I do get cranky (as I think I have revealed - sorry Martin nothing personal) when rights are put up with responsibilities and the bargaining begins. Apples and oranges. Rights can exist without duties (responsibilities), if they didn't then we'd all be searching for the corollary duty of every right and we might be tempted to argue that a right shouldn't exist because we can't find a duty to act as its corollary.

[diuretic]

Its not about you, or any specific individual. A certain, large, percentage, of folks will "run amock" if they think they can get away with it. You don't have police in every corner and every room, so knowing that God will make you pay is a strong incentive for the 99% of the time that the authorities are not around.

I'm not trying to argue I'm perfect, just arguing I'm an average person who wouldn't run amok if convinced there were no deity. There's more likelihood of people going crazy when the cops go on strike. A significant proportion (I would think) of those people would at least nominally be religious but that apparently doesn't stop people running amok when the most obvious form of social control is absent, not just from the immediate vicinity, but absent from society for a period of time.

I'm not sure where that takes us but it's there for discussion.

[glockmail]

I'm not trying to argue I'm perfect, just arguing I'm an average person who wouldn't run amok if convinced there were no deity. There's more likelihood of people going crazy when the cops go on strike. A significant proportion (I would think) of those people would at least nominally be religious but that apparently doesn't stop people running amok when the most obvious form of social control is absent, not just from the immediate vicinity, but absent from society for a period of time.

I'm not sure where that takes us but it's there for discussion. God and cops are both authority figgers. With that as a given do you think that your argument above is consistent?

[April15]

You have that problem quite often I see.It comes with age. Sorry.

[Hagbard Celine]

I disagree. It's impossible to be moral without a belief in something greaeter than themselves. Because morals, in and of themselves, are something greater than the person who believes in them.

Nah. I think you're incorrect. Morals at their basic levels are simply ideals that ensure the individual's security. It's a natural code of survival. Every person has it within him or her self to be nice to others, resist committing murder, resist theft, etc. Doing so simply protects that individual from enduring physical harm--usually doled-out by others because of the percieved "moral" infraction. The idea that being "moral" comes from God is a misnomer. "Morality" is something that humans have attributed to their idea of God or "perfection," not the other way around.