crazyfingers

This letter to the editor appeared in my other newspaper today.

I'm working on a response.

Any helpful ammunition would be appreciated.

I've pasted the entire letter here because the Patriot Ledger does not save stories on the website. Tomorrow it will likely be over written.


<a href="http://ledger.southofboston.com/display/inn_opinion/opin04.txt" target="_blank">But here is the link anyway</a>

Bokonon

A few matters...

The significance of Deism in the founding fathers. That's the most obvious I suppose.

You could of course point out that "God" in fact supports slavery throughout the Old Testament. For specific quotes, consult <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com" target="_blank">http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com</a>

Surely the war angle can be turned right on top of this person. The fact that war inspired by religion has caused so much suffering. The countless evil people that said they fought on the side of God, etc. etc.

But then, I'm sure you thought of all those already.

Pomp

I’ll cherry pick a few of the more obvious problems:

Of course, no war would have been necessary had it not been for the existing Christian belief in the divine right of kings, which the Deist and secular belief in human equality opposed. Christianity, the prevailing religious system of Western society, has since absorbed the high ideals of its secular sisters.

This overlooks the fact that rights can be, and regularly are, granted by social or legal bodies. The notion that a right has no weight if it is not backed by the power of a supreme being is fallacious.

From the American Heritage dictionary, Right: Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature

The author, of course, would be unwilling to sacrifice him/herself for those people or ideals (s)he loved unless (s)he was guaranteed a heavenly reward. (S)he does not strive to protect his/her loved ones because (s)he values them, but because God has decreed that (s)he must in order to secure salvation.

trunks2k

Um I'm sorry, but did my AP History class skip over the War to "Free the Slaves"? Because I don't remember ever learning about such a war. Hmm... perhaps this person was referring to the Civil War? I mean, the Civil War was a war that was meant to preserve the Union, not free the slaves. And as for the soldiers "fighting to free the slaves" (not from this person, but I've heard it used in several similar arguments)if they were fighting on any ideolgical grounds, they were most often fighting to preserve the union. But either way, most men didn't join the army for any ideological reasons at the time, but rather because it offered a way of traveling and escaping the rather boring farmlife. So don't argue about the Civil War being fought on for religious reasons.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

IF there is no God, how does that make us inherrently unequal? Are we no different from each other by that fact? Do we still not bleed when struck, cry out in pain when beaten? When we kiss, do we not feel the warm embrace and enoy the surge of life that flows within us? Does not the presence of one that you love make you happy, regardless of your plight? How are we so different that we can be said to be unequal in all but the most trivial of manners: hair, skin and height? Those are but masks that cover the beauty of the mind that lies within. That is why we are equal--for within us all, there is the same spark that makes us man and not brutes, the same spark that brings hope where there should be none.

Man believes that he has certain rights because he HAS those rights--they are inalienable, as our Declaration of Independence states. Inalienable means that there is NO WAY to remove them--not even the death of God can do so. All are entitled to such pursuits, and to deny them is to deny humanity itself.

There. Hope that bit of rhetoric helps.

Sojourner553

Try some of these responses



Although this doctrine spoke of a “Creator”, it was deistic in nature, as opposed to having a Christian tradition! Indeed, the creed that "all men were created equal…" was a radical concept from the Enlightenment in direct opposition to the religious tradition that Christian kings held absolute power. For the previous THOUSAND years, European royalty had claimed they ruled by "divine right" from God Himself. This doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings was largely seen as mirroring the supreme absolute God in heaven vis-à-vis the powers of the king on earth.

The architects or founders of this "Enlightened" philosophy were a coalition of Deists (including Unitarians and Jews), more liberal Christians, and atheists.

REASON was repeatedly emphasized over dogma/faith!!!

You can look to the Founding US Fathers and architects of this philosophy as proof: Thomas Paine, the author of COMMON SENSE (handbook justifying the Revolutionary War), was a deist, with some accusing him of being an atheist. According to Paine, "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion"

* Thomas Jefferson was also a deist (likewise he was also accused of atheism). Jefferson argued passionately for reason and tolerance, as opposed to dogma and intolerance:

"Let us reflect that [the earth] is inhabited by a thousand
millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand
different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that
thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one,
we should wish to see the nine hundred and ninety-nine wandering
sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such
a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and
persuasion are the only practical instruments. To make way
for these, free inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish
others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves?"


* George Washington emphasized individual reason and freedom to worship God according to the dictates of one's own heart. In a speech before the members of the New Church of Baltimore, he stated:

"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of
truth and reason have triumphed over the power of bigotry and
superstition, and that every person may here worship God according
to the dictates of his own heart."

George Washington played a role in the negotiation of the Treaty of Tripoli
(1796), (signed between the United States and Muslim north Africa)
which states the following:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in
any sense founded on the Christian religion, it has, in itself,
no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility
of Mussulmen [Muslims}…" (Article 11)

* James Madison, "father" of the American constitution, fought passionately
for toleration and reason.

"During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits?
More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the
clergy, ignorance, and servility in the laity -- in both,
superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

And,

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind, and unfits it
for every noble purpose." (Letter to William Bradford Jr, 1774)

*John Adams, second President of the U.S., wrote late in his life how,

"Twenty times in the course of my Reading, have I been upon the point of
breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there
were no Religion in it.'

*Benjamin Franklin was a deist, and did not believe Jesus was divine. In a
letter to Benjamin Vaughan in 1779, Franklin announced that metaphysics
had disgusted him at a very early age, so much so "that I quitted that kind
of reading and study for others more satisfactory."


* Abraham Lincoln was NOT a Christian, but a deist. Lincoln refused to join a Church during his lifetime, stating that "When you show me a church based on the Golden rule as its only creed, then I will unite with it." (He apparently did not find one.) The following has been attributed to Lincoln by historians, "The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." When Lincoln's wife was questioned once whether he was a Christian, she replied,

"My husband is not a Christian but he is a religious man, I think”


Almost all Christian theologians and scholars have had to acknowledge the existence of nonbelievers and atheists who have lived good moral lives. Religious studies have found no correlation between atheism and criminal behavior. Indeed some tentative studies have pointed to there being a higher incidence/percentage of believers in prison than nonbelievers. Also the divorce rate among atheists is not higher than the rest of the population. (Interestingly, atheist divorce rates were lower than among Evangelical Christians who had the highest divorce rates of all Christian sects.)

Non-theists/skeptics maintain there is a natural empathy in most humans to care about one's neighbor. Indeed most mammals seem to possess an instinct whereby they react sympathetically to others within their social circle – such as when a mother defends her baby, or even the dog his human master.

As G.A. Wells noted in his book RELIGIOUS POSTURES, the natural tendency
towards kindness and self-sacrifice that are found in most cultures--were
"established during the course of social evolution":

"…One does not need a theist's creed in order to sympathize with one's
neighbor. Because a few sound maxims are to be found in sacred books it is
not reasonable to credit religion with their dissemination; they were
recognized in the most primitive societies because they were based both on
instinct and on social necessity.

… We can all observe in ourselves natural promptings to kindness,
generosity and self-sacrifice which have no relation to any religious or
metaphysical beliefs. Nor does theistic creed at all ensure sympathy with
one's neighbour.

The state of mind we call faith has often been correlated with hatred for
the large majority of mankind, and it is very doubtful whether devoutly
religious people are in any way better citizens, friends, or parents than
people who have deliberately rejected religion."



Southern slaveholders were conservative Christians who insisted that slavery was permitted in the Bible. First there were no prohibitions against slavery in the Bible (There is NO commandment forbidding slavery NOR torture either in the Ten Commandments nor elsewhere throughout the Bible.) Some of the Old Testament patriarchs--Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even Job held slaves. The Genesis story of Ham (see Genesis 9:21-27), was interpreted to mean blacks were condemned to be the slaves of the other races (even though it never mentions that Ham was a black man.)

Even the Golden Rule was interpreted as justifying slavery. "If you were an ignorant savage wouldn't you want a master to take care of you" went the apology.


Most wars do indeed claim God is on their side. You leave out BOTH sides usually proclaim this. We see this today in Israel today between the Jews and the Muslims, where both insist they have a divine mandate to occupy Palestine.

But this was also true during WW II, as Germany was always officially a Christian country (primarily Lutheran and Catholic). There were Christian leaders who supported both sides of the war. Pope Pius XII did not officially take sides (until AFTER THE GERMANS HAD SURRENDERED!) advising all Catholics (who fought on both sides in WW II) to fight with valour and charity. After the war was over, of course the pope had nothing but denunciations for the Nazis.

Overall, the principles so highly esteemed in the article are actually based on the principles of REASON and TOLERATION established during the Enlightenment.

May it always be so!


Sojourner

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>