Say Anything Blog

Rob,

Now that Thompson is in single digits in pretty much every early Primary State, who will you be supporting for the nomination?

Or will you just hate on everyone since your guy was a bust?

Given that, I don’t want a candidate who touts his religion or his devoutness as a qualification for office.  I want a candidate who will tell me that he respects religious freedom and leaves it at that.

Amen to that brother.

Freedom does not, in fact, require religion.

A small quibble, yes our freedoms do not flow from religion, but, as evidenced in the Declaration of Independence, those freedoms require a creator.  It’s a simple matter that atheists tend to pretend does not exist.  If there is no authority outside of man, then what makes any action of a man or man’s government immoral or wrong?  In other words, what makes slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, or even murder wrong?

“I don’t want a candidate who touts his religion or his devoutness as a qualification for office.  I want a candidate who will tell me that he respects religious freedom and leaves it at that.”

If that includes freedom to not endorse any religion at all, then I’m right with you.

“If there is no authority outside of man, then what makes any action of a man or man’s government immoral or wrong?  In other words, what makes slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, or even murder wrong?”

Hmmm.  I don’t know.  Maybe common frickin’ sense.  Sure, religion provides the basis for morality, but it’s not a necessary thing to everyon. 

I don’t need Jesus to tell me that it’s wrong to kill someone.  And if anyone does, then there’s something seriously wrong with them.

Before you get in a tizzy, Rob, let me clarify my point.  I’m not saying that atheists, agnostics, or people outside of Judeo-Christian belief should embrace Christianity, but they should embrace those Judeo-Christian values that enabled our founders to create this great nation and be grateful that most people in the U.S. believe in a limiting factor outside of themselves and government.

In other words, you may be smart enough to know it is all a hoax and yet live your life in a rational way, but you should be grateful that those who aren’t do believe in a God.

Rob,

I don’t know that freedom requires religion, but America’s freedom certainly requires the acknowleding of a Creator in order to remain.  This is not a religious belief, but a philosophical one.  Without the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator, our Constitution will eventually collapse (as is evidenced by those who view the constitution as a living document which is subject to modern thought). 

It is true that those who acknowledge God will likely be religious, but I don’t know that the latter is absolutely necessary for freedom.  Deism may be the example I’m looking for.

However, being that acknowledging God and religion are almost inseperable, save in the case of deism, it is unlikely the two will ever be found apart. 

It is this philosophical view that gave humanity the greatest liberty mankind has ever known under government.  I have never seen or heard of anything close to this coming from atheism.  Nor do I think atheism is capable of sustaining such liberty.

” but they should embrace those Judeo-Christian values that enabled our founders to create this great nation ”

In most cases I agree with you.  However, the “founding fathers” weren’t infallable.  For instance, is 3/5 or slavery a “judeo-christian value”.  I sure hope not.

Hmmm.  I don’t know.  Maybe common frickin’ sense.

Really?  “Common frickin’ sense” in Russia included killing millions under Josef Stalin’s rule.  “Common frickin’ sense” included killing anyone who wore glasses in Cambodia.  “Common frickin’ sense” keeps producing lead tainted toys in China.

I’m not saying that atheists are bad or that atheism should be outlawed.  I’m saying, atheists should be glad that religion provides a framework for keeping society from running amok.  The founders of this country feared majority rule or mob rule as much if not more than the old nobility of Europe.

“I’m not saying that atheists are bad or that atheism should be outlawed.  I’m saying, atheists should be glad that religion provides a framework for keeping society from running amok.”

And I’m saying I don’t need it.  I can equate just as many instances of “killing” that were a direct RESULT of religion and not a result of a lack thereof.  Radical Islam.  The Crusades.  Holocaust. 

What I’m saying is that “religion”, when used for good, is nothing more than an extension of common sense.  Be a good person.  Don’t kill people.  Don’t steal shit.  Don’t screw your neighbor’s wife.  Etc.

For instance, is 3/5 or slavery a “judeo-christian value”.

No, it was a political compromise between North and South on counting slaves for the purpose of representation in Congress.  The North wanted the slaves not to be counted at all, for obvious reasons, and the South wanted them to be counted as full persons, also for obvious reasons.  The compromise was to count a slave as 3/5 of a person, for the purposes of Congressional representation.  Try reading some history.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Rob,

I suggest that you read Romney’s speech through carefully, before castigating the man for having given it.  The fat that he felt compelled to give the speech was because of the attacks on him because of his religion (Kennedy’s 1960 speech was for similar reasons, though I think you’ll agree that Romney’s was both a better speech and a better performance.)

Once you’ve read the entire speech or seen the video, I think you’ll agree that his intent, if not his wording, was totally unobjectionable.  At least give the man the courtesy of considering all of what he said.

Lumping Romney and Huckabee together because both publicly profess religious devotion is hardly kosher.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

For instance, is 3/5 or slavery a “judeo-christian value”.  I sure hope not.

OK, now you’re just throwing red herrings or you’re just ignorant.  I didn’t say that the constitution was the embodiment of Judeo-Christian values, but that Judeo-Christian values enabled our grand experiment.  The constitution is not perfect and neither were the people who wrote it, but it is the most excellent foundation of government ever produced by man.  Since no man is perfect and we can not achieve perfection, we should be pleased with excellence and strive to remove the flaws when we can.

BTW, study your history.  The 3/5 count in the census was not an endorsement of slavery but a compromise.  Without it, the constitution would never have been ratified.  If it has never been ratified, then Lincoln would not have had a union to defend and slavery might still be thriving in what ever form of government the southern colonies might have created.  Or worse, we might have been open to being taken over by a European power (ahem, the war of 1812).

I don’t know that freedom requires religion, but America’s freedom certainly requires the acknowleding of a Creator in order to remain.

This couldn’t be further from the truth.  One need not believe in superstitious fables about an all-powerful, all-knowing father figure up in the sky to feel that things like free speech, free religion, property rights, individual gun ownership, etc. should be protected. 

I know the founders stated that these individual rights were endowed by a creator, but you don’t have to buy into that to feel that they’re pretty good ideas anyway.

This is the problem with the “values voters” right.  You want everyone one to think and believe as you do, but it just doesn’t work like that.  Not everyone in America, nor even anyone in the GOP, feels as you do.  And if you keep trying to push “values” candidates like Huckabee and Romney down our throats despite clear evidence that they are not fiscal conservatives the GOP is going to fracture, and Republicans in general are going to lose.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

And I’m saying I don’t need it.

And no where did I say you personally needed religion.  I said you should be thankful that religion provided the framework for the freedoms you currently enjoy, including the freedom to be an atheist.

And if you keep trying to push “values” candidates like Huckabee and Romney down
our throats…

And here I thought they were running of their own free will.

I blame Bush.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

"but they should embrace those Judeo-Christian values that enabled our founders to create this great nation”

This is what you said.  I disagree.  There isn’t a damn thing in the makeup of this country that could not be accounted for through more reasoned means than an invisible diety.  The constitution could have been written identically had every one of the founding fathers been good natured atheists. 

The compromise was to count a slave as 3/5 of a person, for the purposes of Congressional representation.

Really.  Wow.  You’re so smart.  I wish I had thought of that befo…

I’m well aware of how the 3/5 was determined and why.  However, it is, by no means, christian.  If it was so heavily embedded in the minds of those who created this great nation, than this would not have been considered.

There isn’t a damn thing in the makeup of this country that could not be accounted for through more reasoned means than an invisible diety. The constitution could have been written identically had every one of the founding fathers been good natured
atheists.

But it wasn’t. The truth is that the world was a world of kings and dictators before the founding of the US by Godly men in God’s Name.  This is historical fact.  It took Godly men to create this nation out of the muck that was this world before; no atheist ever created anything like this nation.  Now that Godly men have created this country in God’s Name, you have the freedom to express your opinions without fear of being beheaded, lashed or put to death for expressing them.  There will be no angry mobs in the street demanding you be put to death for “insulting our religion”.  This is the fruit of Godly men creating this nation in God’s Name.  Tell me a comparable creation by atheists.

I’m well aware of how the 3/5 was determined and why.

Apparently your “awareness” doesn’t extend to understanding that it was a political decision, not one about human value.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Rob: As Rush has pointed out this morning, Romney’s text was directly from John Adams; it’s a part of the founding principles of this country.  It also gives you the freedom to be an atheist, no matter how much you insult my religion and the religion of the vast majority of Americans.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Also, it wasn’t Romney that said those words-- it was Romney quoting John Adams.  It was Adams that linked religion and freedom, and he wasn’t the only one. George Washington stated that if we don’t have a moral/religious people this country would cease to exist.

If you’ve done any study into different political theories, you’ll see that ours is unique based on where our freedom comes from.  As someone’s already said, we based “inalienable rights” on having a Creator, and then we gave some of those rights to the government.

It is those that believe that the government has inherent rights (the left) that do not understand this basic concept.  Those of us on the right should realize that this is part of the basis for why we should have smaller government.

"Romney rooted the speech in the literature of America’s civil religion. When he said “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom,” he was paraphrasing Tocqueville: “Despotism may be able to do without faith, but freedom cannot.”

His criticism of “the religion of secularism” recalled a radio address by President Reagan. Banning school prayer, Reagan said “is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

Romney invoked John Kennedy’s famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. He also alluded to other remarks by JFK. “When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office,” Romney said, “that oath becomes my highest promise to God.” In 1960, Kennedy said that anyone who takes the presidential oath “is swearing to support the separation of church and state.” A president who broke that oath, Kennedy said, would be committing a sin “for he has sworn on the Bible."”

Romney said: “Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.” In his inaugural, Kennedy proclaimed that “the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."”

To parse things out, although there certainly are some relatively moral atheists, I don’t know how one can view the history of the 20th Century and seriously make the claim that atheists would have come up with what we have today; limited government under God. 

Rather, the ugly reality is that many wicked men take atheism’s promise of no eternal punishment to the bank, and horrors like the Gulags, Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s purges, and Auschwitz follow.  Even “soft atheistic” societies in Western Europe (esp. Sweden) are finding their liberties disappearing along with bodies in the pews in churches.

So evidence suggests that no, freedom is not compatible with atheism in the body politic.

In fact, atheism is nourished by freedom, especially the freedom of religious choice.  They owe it all to Godly men creating this country in God’s Name.  This may be ironic to some.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Romney is quoted as saying:

I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from the God who gave us liberty. Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage.”

On the one hand Romney is saying that he would separate government and religion and on the other that he would not separate us from God or from our religious heritage.

Sounds like he wants the cake and the eating. Does this vague statement mean, for example, that he would support teaching Intelligent Design or Creationism in our schools along with evolutionary science? And, as he is very versatile, flip-flopping on such holy issues as abortion and gay rights, is he sacrificing consistency for versatility? It would be very entertaining to see what foggy response he would come up with if asked by other Christians whether he really believes that Jesus came to the United States to help found Mormonism? His positions are too muddled.

On the one hand Romney is saying that he would separate government and religion and on the other that he would not separate us from God or from our religious heritage.

It’s called religious freedom, and it’s described quite well in the First Amendment.  It’s a balancing act; get it?

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

robert108 says:

In fact, atheism is nourished by freedom, especially the freedom of religious choice.  They owe it all to Godly men creating this country in God’s Name.  This may be ironic to some.

Good point. Not ironic. Even applies to the existence of the Communist Party in the U.S owing to freedom of political choice.

robert108 says:

It’s called religious freedom, and it’s described quite well in the First Amendment.  It’s a balancing act; get it?

I agree with the balancing act part, also known as flip-flopping

I agree with the balancing act part, also known as flip-flopping

Nope.  Flip-flopping is advocating one position, then later advocating its opposite.  Finding the balance between two competing positions is a balancing act.  Big difference.
Of course, you may feel that our Constitution, balancing personal freedom with the powers of govt, is also “flip-flopping”, but it isn’t.
Now, when both Gore and Clinton posed as pro-life to win their local elections, then changed to pro-abortion to win national elections, that was flip-flopping.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Even applies to the existence of the Communist Party in the U.S owing to freedom of political choice.

Good point; only its existence and expression of ideas, though.  Its goal of the overthrow of our govt, and any actions toward that end(like those revealed by Joe McCarthy) are illegal.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Sometimes candidates have to know how to avoid commitment.

Interviewer: Mr. Romney, do you really believe Jesus came to the United States to found Mormonism?

Romney: Ahh. Ye…es. The idea is uh uh symbolic rather than uh … uh ... It’s uh metaphysical rather uh physical or uh factual or historical. But, uh uh like I said regarding abortion, I’ll leave it up to each State to decide.

Romney’s shortcomings as a human being have nothing to do with the truth of his quotes from John Adams, and with the validity of the Constitution on religious freedom.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Sometimes candidates have to know how to avoid commitment.

Oswaldo,

If this is what you are looking for in a candidate, there are a number of very anxious Democrat from whom you can choose.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

This couldn’t be further from the truth.  One need not believe in superstitious fables about an all-powerful, all-knowing father figure up in the sky to feel that things like free speech, free religion, property rights, individual gun ownership, etc. should be protected.

Rob,

You, or anyone else can “feel” however you want to about our unalienable rights, but that won’t establish and secure those rights for and entire nation or society very long.  The absolute nature of these rights are what give us the authority to demand them in the face of any challenge. 

It is only necessary that the majority of Americans accept the reality of rights endowed by our Creator to be protected.  The atheist and agnostic are of no real threat as long as they remain in the minority. 

I’m not trying to pick on you, but what government has atheism provided humanity besides communism?

…the founding of the US by Godly men in God’s Name.  This is historical fact.

Quickly…which unanimously passed treaty from 1796 has included in its articles this one:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Wiki:

Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.[3]

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

This is the problem with the “values voters” right.  You want everyone one to think and believe as you do, but it just doesn’t work like that.  Not everyone in America, nor even anyone in the GOP, feels as you do.  And if you keep trying to push “values” candidates like Huckabee and Romney down our throats despite clear evidence that they are not fiscal conservatives the GOP is going to fracture, and Republicans in general are going to lose.

Rob,

What is it the atheists are trying to push down the majority’s thoat?

I’m supporting Thompson, not the others.  I am fine with the fact that you don’t agree with me on unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.  I think you’re wrong, but that is your decision, not mine.

The constitution could have been written identically had every one of the founding fathers been good natured
atheists.

Bull.  Give it a try.  Where are the absolute unalienable rights going to come from, the collective will of society?  Then they are not absolute and will change as society changes.

Where are the absolute unalienable rights going to come from, the collective will of society?

Gee, I don’t know HG, why don’t we look at our own constitutions’ first paragraph shall we?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nope, no god in there.

Where should we look next?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Freedom does not, in fact, require religion.  We could be a nation of independent citizens who choose to be atheists and still be free

Romney was not speaking to anyone personal beliefs, but to a societies beliefs.  A free society does, in fact, require a religious society upon which to found it.  If society is not religious, then the freedoms we are protecting are not given from God and therefore are granted by government.

My freedom comes from God, the Constitution simply protects that right that I already have.  If we as a society do not believe in God granting these rights, then the Constitution is a gift from the government and it can, with no moral qualms, be revoked at any time by said government.  Our freedom today cannot be morally revoked because the freedoms we hold dear are not granted by our government but by God himself.  I hope I make the distinction clear enough.

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

rbb: I know you have comprehension problems, but the words “Godly men creating a nation in God’s Name” does not mention any specific religion.  I guess you just missed that.
You illustrate the weakness in the atheist religion, that it is intolerant of all other religions, because they are based on God.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Freedom does not, in fact, require religion. We could be a nation of independent citizens who choose to be atheists and still be free

Any actual examples of this, or are you just speculating from a particular agenda?

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

I’m sorry, are you responding to the section where our founding fathers wrote: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. Or was it something else.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Romney was not speaking to anyone personal beliefs, but to a societies beliefs.  A free society does, in fact, require a religious society upon which to found it.

No, it doesn’t.

Any actual examples of this, or are you just speculating from a particular agenda?

I’m actually just applying logic to the situation.

I’m an atheist.  I respect every right enshrined in the constitution and beyond that I think you’d be pretty hard pressed to find as ardent an advocate for individual rights as I am.

Religion isn’t necessary.  I find those truths to be self-evident, without the need to attribute them to a higher power.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’m actually just applying logic to the situation.

Your conclusion is only “logical” if you assume the premise that God doesn’t exist.  The premise that God does exist yields far different conclusions.

Religion isn’t necessary. To you. I find those truths to be self-evident, without the need to attribute them to a higher power. Which doesn’t mean that Higher Power doesn’t exist.

I have never questioned your conservative credentials, Rob; I’m just saying that you are free to hold any beliefs you wish because Godly men founded this nation on Godly principles.  It benefits everyone.

rbb: I repeat; God is common to all religions but yours; what part of that don’t you understand?
Again, “Godly men creating this nation in God’s Name” does not involve any particular religion.  It is a tribute to the Founders that they were all Godly men, and yet sought to protect all forms of belief.
How tolerant are you?

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Where should we look next?

Give me a break.  You really think that the rights listed in the declaration of independence are not the same rights our government was established to secure?  You think there is no connection there?

C’mon.  You can do better than that.

Rob, the trouble with your argument is that you’re just one person, and the past century has given us ample examples of what happens when religion is pushed from the public square.  Theologically speaking, there is common grace that prevents many, really most all, atheists from becoming a new Schicklgruber or Dzugashvili, Pol Pot or Mao.  However, that doesn’t fundamentally contradict the fact that the most genocidal regimes in history have been fundamentally atheistic. 

There is something in the pulpit that seems to hold back the worst in mankind.

And RBB, you’ve got one treaty as evidence for your position.  In contrast, David Barton and others have compiled hundreds of quotes saying more or less the opposite of what you think that treaty means.  I’d suggest to you that the real meaning there is somewhat different from what you believe.

Rob,

Perhaps another look at what Romney said is in order.  I think Romney was referring to the need for religious tolerance for freedom to exist.  Without the acceptance by society of all religious beliefs, or none, there is no real freedom.

It occurs to me that we’ve had fairly recent examples of officially non-religious societies in China, Cambodia, and the former Soviet Union.  Societies where no religion was tolerated.  None of these worked out particularly well for their respective citizens, and none of them would fool anyone into thinking they were free.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Religion isn’t necessary.  I find those truths to be self-evident, without the need to attribute them to a higher power.

All but the “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

You agree with that the rights themselves are self-evident. Now upon what authority does those rights rest?  With the majority it rests in the Supreme authority.  Withe atheists the authority must be the collective will of a society.  That means we are not all equally subject to absolutes, but to whatever or whoever is strong enough to enforce them on society, be it through a majority or force.  There is no appeal for the dissenter and no equality.  The opinions of some, maybe most, have become the final authority.

One need not believe in superstitious fables

Rob,

I missed this earlier.

Agreed.  You are correct.

Natural philosophy is not superstition by any stretch.  It concludes through observation and reason that there must be a Supreme being.  That and the subsequent natural law is what our founders accepted.  That is who our unalienable rights comes from.  I neither resembles superstition, fairy tales, or fables.

One need not believe in superstitious fables

Just imagine what would happen to someone who said this in a Muslim country.  Fortunately, in this country, founded by Godly men in God’s Name, Rob is free to insult not only religion, but God, without riots or execution or imprisonment.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Rob, the trouble with your argument is that you’re just one person, and the past century has given us ample examples of what happens when religion is pushed from the public square.  Theologically speaking, there is common grace that prevents many, really most all, atheists from becoming a new Schicklgruber or Dzugashvili, Pol Pot or Mao.

Correlation doesn’t necessarily suggest causation.  That totalitarian regimes tend to be secular in nature is not a commentary on secularism itself, but rather an indication of how totalitarian regimes crush all aspects of freedom up to and including religion.

In short, totalitarian regimes aren’t totalitarian because they’re secular.  They’re secular because they’re totalitarian.

And, really, your argument falls apart when we consider certain papal regimes of years gone by.  Not to mention certain religious monarchies around the world.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Bat,

Perhaps another look at what Romney said is in order.  I think Romney was referring to the need for religious tolerance for freedom to exist.  Without the acceptance by society of all religious beliefs, or none, there is no real freedom.

Perhaps, but then you have this which makes me think he wasn’t talking about that at all.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You agree with that the rights themselves are self-evident. Now upon what authority does those rights rest?

I agree that the rights are self-evident and unalienable, and I feel the authority they rest upon is the authority of the people.

The will of the people, as it were.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I could consider it a coincidence, except for two factors.  First, I’ve got a hypothesis to go along with it; that a lack of the fear of Hell (or other consequences) does liberate some to be murderous.  Second, the rate at which the secularists killed in the 20th century exceeded that of Torquemada et al by several orders of magnitude.

Statistically, this is not the same phenomenon, and logically, I’ve got a reason why this should be.  I can’t just call it an accident.  The fear of Hell is a powerful restraining force, I dare say.

Robert, I’d suggest that a fear of not killing lest you yourself be killed is much more immediate than any superstitious foolishness about an almighty father figure in the sky who will send you to hell if you don’t behave.

Sure we can just agree that laws against murder are a good thing without having to resort to that sort of mythological justification.

As for this:

Second, the rate at which the secularists killed in the 20th century exceeded that of Torquemada et al by several orders of magnitude.

True enough, but then again there’s been some technological advances between now and the days of Torquemada.  Even between the days of Stalin and Torquemada.

Guns.  Bombs.  Poison gas.  That plus a global population that was quit a bit bigger can explain the difference in body counts.

But that’s not really pertinent to our discussion now, is it?  Whether a regime killed 1,000,000 or 100,000, it’s all evil.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Government is restrained by unalienable rights because these come from a higher Authority.  If no natural rights exist, then govt. is the source of all individual rights, and we owe our rights to govt.  I absolutely reject this nonsense and thankfully so did our founders otherwise there would be no America and no freedom.

Government is restrained by unalienable rights because these come from a higher Authority.  If no natural rights exist, then govt. is the source of all individual rights

Utter baloney.  Our rights exist by the will of the people.  Our government rules by the consent of the governed.

There is no need for a higher authority than that.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The will of the people, as it were.

Okay,

Then whatever the plurality of the people of any given nation say is a right or not a right is the final authority.  And, the rest of the citizenry will have to abide by the will of the plurality as carried out by govt. without any appeal to anything or anyone higher.

Question: what gives anyone group the right to impose their will on all others?
And from where does this right come?  Is it self-evident?

Then whatever the plurality of the people of any given nation say is a right or not a right is the final authority.  And, the rest of the citizenry will have to abide by the will of the plurality as carried out by govt. without any appeal to anything or anyone higher.

You are aware that this is, generally, the way we’re doing things now, right?

Unless I missed the “appeal to God” clause in the Constitution…

You make it sound so awful, but that is representative democracy.  And there is no need for a “higher power” to make it work.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Utter baloney.

You can see why our liberty would not last if this type of thinking was the majority’s. 

Your disdain for the majority’s view as well as all our founders, sounds awfully arrogant Rob.

And RBB, you’ve got one treaty as evidence for your position.  In contrast, David Barton and others have compiled hundreds of quotes saying more or less the opposite of what you think that treaty means.

Bike, which one of those quotes became law?

If no natural rights exist, then govt. is the source of all individual rights, and we owe our rights to govt.

Will someone explain democracy to this HG guy?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

You are aware that this is, generally, the way we’re doing things now, right?

I’m aware that the left is trying to do things this way.  Not those of us originalists.  Done the way you describe it the unalienable rights would change with the will of the plurality.  That is more like a democratic society than a representative democracy founded upon unchanging absolute unalienable rights.

I make it sound awfule Rob, because it is historically awful.

Will someone explain democracy to this HG guy?

Will someone please explain to rbb why we are not a democracy?

You can see why our liberty would not last if this type of thinking was the majority’s.

Your disdain for the majority’s view as well as all our founders, sounds awfully arrogant Rob.

It is your insistence that all Americans bow to your views on the supernatural that is arrogant, HG.

I’m aware that the left is trying to do things this way.  Not those of us originalists.  Done the way you describe it the unalienable rights would change with the will of the plurality.

You are aware that, should a large enough majority of Americans wish it, we could amend the constitution up to and including the bill of rights to remove any of the rights that are there right?

I mean, you’re pretending like this isn’t even possible.  Because Jesus wouldn’t want it that way or something.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Will someone please explain to rbb why we are not a democracy?

Oh cripes, not this old saw…

We are a federalist, representative democracy.  Not a direct democracy.  But for the purposes of this discussion, this nation is ruled by the will of the people.

Not, specifically, the will of some “god.”

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Here you go rbb.

It is your insistence that all Americans bow to your views on the supernatural that is arrogant, HG.

With all due respect Rob, I have never insisted that all Americans bow to my views.  Rather I have said that Americas freedom requires the majority of Americans have this view in order to sustain our liberty.  This is has always been and continues to be the case.

You are aware that, should a large enough majority of Americans wish it, we could amend the constitution up to and including the bill of rights to remove any of the rights that are there right?

Agreed. But likely not without a revolution.  And those opposed would have every right to defend that which their Creator gave them.

The rights enumerated in the bill of rights restrict govt.  Removing the bill of rights does not allow govt to usurp unalienable rights according to originalists.

It is your insistence that all Americans bow to your views on the supernatural that is arrogant, HG.

Quite the opposite, Rob.  Godly men created a nation based on God’s Word that specifically forbids anyone bowing down to anyone else’s beliefs, including atheism.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

But for the purposes of this discussion, this nation is ruled by the will of the people.

And which of these unalienable rights are subject to the will of the people without abandoning and adopting a new constitution? 

So even the will of the people is cannot violate these unalienable rights, hence, the bill of rights which limits the actions of govt.

?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Our government rules by the consent of the governed.

In that case, since the vast majority of Americans are Christian, they could then command only Christianity as the State religion.  In fact, our Constitution forbids that, which is to your advantage, Rob.  There is a Higher Authority than the mob.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Robert, I’d suggest that a fear of not killing lest you yourself be killed is much more immediate And yet, that fear doesn’t guarantee the desired result, as many innocents have found out througout history. than any superstitious foolishness about an almighty father figure in the sky who will send you to hell if you don’t behave. Insulting my God doesn’t strengthen your argument one bit.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

With all due respect Rob, I have never insisted that all Americans bow to my views.  Rather I have said that Americas freedom requires the majority of Americans have this view in order to sustain our liberty.

Right.  Because if we all stopped believing in god we couldn’t possibly still respect liberty and individual rights.  That’s not arrogant at all.

Agreed. But likely not without a revolution.  And those opposed would have every right to defend that which their Creator gave them.

This presumes that the only people who would fight would be those who believe in God.  Because people who don’t believe in God couldn’t possibly have an interest in things like free speech or anything like that.

And which of these unalienable rights are subject to the will of the people without abandoning and adopting a new constitution?

All of them.  We can change parts of the Constitution without having to abandon the whole document.  That is what the amendment process is for.

You do actually know how that process works, right?

Quite the opposite, Rob.  Godly men created a nation based on God’s Word that specifically forbids anyone bowing down to anyone else’s beliefs, including atheism.

Maybe you should tell that to Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.  And people like HG, who seem to think that freedom cannot exist without Christianity.

In that case, since the vast majority of Americans are Christian, they could then command only Christianity as the State religion.  In fact, our Constitution forbids that, which is to your advantage, Rob.  There is a Higher Authority than the mob.

Thomas Jefferson:

It is the people, to whom all authority belongs.

God didn’t write the Constitution.  The people did.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

In that case, since the vast majority of Americans are Christian, they could then command only Christianity as the State religion.  In fact, our Constitution forbids that, which is to your advantage, Rob.  There is a Higher Authority than the mob.

Ahhh, wrong again Robbie.

Amending the United States Constitution is no small task … a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

It can be done. Not likely, but it can be done.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Right.  Because if we all stopped believing in god we couldn’t possibly still respect liberty and individual rights.  That’s not arrogant at all.

Historically, no.  Again, where is the government instituted by atheists which did not rule by brute force much less acknowledge the liberty of human beings?

This presumes that the only people who would fight would be those who believe in God.

No Rob, this acknowledges the fact that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights, even the atheist. 

All of them.  We can change parts of the Constitution without having to abandon the whole document.  That is what the amendment process is for.

Not as long as originalists who share the same philosophical view as the founders are in the majority. 

And people like HG, who seem to think that freedom cannot exist without Christianity.

Rob it isn’t like you to put words in the mouth of others.  I did not say this nor do I believe it.  I have repeatedly said that freedom cannot be sustained without the acknowleding of unalienable rights endowed by the Creator.  This is a philosophical view. 

God didn’t write the Constitution.  The people did.

What?

Cmon Rob, Nobody is saying anything like this. 

Jefferson was a Deist and wrote the words of the DOI.  He authored the fact that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights.  I suggest that you misunderstanding the quote you posted.

Let’s not forget that God is common to all religions(except atheism), but religion is not God.
IMO, religion is the politics of spirituality, which is why it can be used politically.  However, the Founders gave us the First Amendment, which transcends both politics and religion for a higher good.
The only one I see trying to force his religion on the rest of America is Ira Newdow.

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.

Ahhh, wrong again Robbie.

Of course, my reality is wrong, but your fantasy is right. /sarcasm

Leftie political philosophy, from a DU commenter:

It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH. The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet: Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.