Well written, but I submit this entire discussion is mis- cast.

If we understand (as I have argued for years) that the purpose of government is to codify and enforce the values of the culture that gave it life, and also to hopefully extend the influence of that culture within the world?.. then the influence of religious values in our government will be a product of the degree to which religion is a part of the culture itself. This is not mandating religion; it is simply reacting to,a nd holding respect for the culture, as government should; this is the proper relationship.

This is not, therefore, a matter of chruch and state (And the mythical seperation thereof) as much as it is a discussion about the culture, and the influence of religion in it, which is another matter altogether.

Consider the words of John McCandlish Phillips, a former reporter at the NYT:

"The fact is that our founders did not give us a nation frightened by the apparition of the Deity lurking about in our most central places. On Sept. 25, 1789, the text of what was later adopted as the First Amendment was passed by both houses of Congress, and subsequently sent to the states for ratification. On that same day , the gentlemen in the House who had acted to give us that invaluable text took another action: They passed a resolution asking President George Washington to declare a national day of thanksgiving to no less a perceived eminence than almighty God.

That's president , that?s national, that?s official and, alas, my doubting hearties, it?s God?all wrapped up in a federal action by those who knew what they meant by the non-establishment clause and saw their request as standing at not the slightest variance from it."

While other religions (Or for that matter, atheists, which I will include as a faith unto itself) are accepted, by both law and the tradition of western culture, they are never more than a minority influence in our culture. And that seems ot be to be the most troubling to Hitches of the world and to the Randians as well.

The Republicans didn't win the last few cycles because they were or are religious... though in some cases that unquestionably helped. They won because they exhibited a healther respect for the cultural values of most Americans, which happens to include Religious values.

Our founders understood that relationship.

Well said, Mark; however, I don't believe Mr. Hitchens actually wants an answer to his question. After all, if he or any of his followers believed even an iota of good about the "religious right" the question wouldn't even be necessary. To accept that we're anything but homophobic, bigotted kill-joys would mean admitting that what we believe, at the very least, might have some bearing on them and their behaviors, and thereby, requiring some form of moral responsibility.

Although Mr. Hitchens dangles salvation and the name of Jesus around as if he has the slightest clue about either, he doesn't appear to have even a basic grasp on what either of them mean or entail.

Aside from that, the Bible clearly tells us the root of all evil is NOT money, but the LOVE OF money (1Tim6:10). Wealth and God aren't mutually exclusive of each other, you just can't serve both (Luke 16:13), but I'm sure that concept would fly over the "unreligious lefts" collective head.

What a thought-provoking topic. The fact that Christopher Hitchens is a blazing socialist lends some perspective to his comments.

Bithead stole most of my thunder, but the one thing I've never understood with regard to religion is why religion and secularism have to be mutually exclusive in most peoples' eyes.

I would classify myself as a mainstream Christian rather than an Evangelical. I accept Christ as my personal saviour, and try to live my life as though he was riding around on my shoulder. I'm one of those people who would likely have a difficult time with moral matters if I didn't believe in a power greater than myself. Scaramonga, on the other hand, is a self-professed atheist, but I seldom disagree with him on matters of morality. In fact, I know a number of Christians who regularly lie and cheat and a number of non-Christians who are models of morality. All things being equal though, I would trust my life, my wife and my money with someone with a religious moral foundation (Muslim terrorists excluded) more than I would with someone who believes they have to answer to no one but themselves.

Scaramonga, on the other hand, is a self-professed atheist...

One thing I think is true is that morals and religion have only a coincidental relationship to each other.

Morals, mine for example, are very similar to the Ten Commandments. I just didn't get mine from a book where a guy name Moses comes down from the mountain with some tablets. Morals are the compass that directs you through life. Unless you live as a hermit on some lonely island, your morals should reflect being a responsible member of your society. We could go through why I think you should not kill someone (thou shalt not kill) without any reference to religion. You'd see that the logic I use to determine that is a bad thing to do is pretty strong and since I developed it without some book or person telling me what to do, I am very likely to behave in such a fashion. In other words, my morals are easy for me to comply with since I developed them myself and I therefore believe in them.

The point of that is that although I find religion, all religion, to be something I cannot buy into, I am still moral. That is because you don't have to be religious to have good morals and you can easily be very immoral and be very religious - just look at the Catholic priests who molested the young boys.

Another area most people neglect is the difference between belief systems (based on no proof) and reality - based on observed truths. In the case of beliefs not only is proof not possible, it is also not desired. Reality proves itself every day and you deny the proofs at your own danger.

Being a Conservative is mostly a belief system with some reality tossed into the mix. Being supportive of the War on Terror should not be and is not based on any belief system - what happened on 9/11 is a lesson in the fact that it is pure reality. Attempts to deny this will get you killed.

Scar,

A mistake some religious made (and in some cases still make) is the desire to enforce moral virtue; when we say we can't legislate morality, what is really meant is that we cannot legislate virtue (but any law, of course, is an enforcement of morality)...the problem with our liberal friends is that while rejecting religion, they do firmly believe in legislated virtue. To the liberals, we have to be forced to help the poor because it is for our own and the poor's good.

I personally don't believe there is any such thing as a real atheist (look up in the sky at night and try to convince yourself its all an accident, you see?), but granting that some people have a very small place for God in their worldview, one can be a thinking atheist and come to the exact same conclusions as a man of the deepest religious hue.

Christopher Hitchens's article is well written, yet he fails to understand the meaning behind what the "religious factions" are doing with regards to the political landscape. One must understand that there is a difference between religious practice and religious values. I am an Orthodox Jew, which means that I observe the Jewish laws with regards to keeping Kosher, observing the Sabbath, and many other laws. I do not have any desire to see other non-Jews keeping the Jewish laws. Nevertheless, it is important that the Judeo-Christian values that both Judaism and Christianity share be taught to the general public, and have in fact been the basis for many of our laws. Without the values, everything becomes relative. For example, one cannot prove to me that murder is immoral without a code of laws higher than man. I could simply say that it is my feeling that murder is not immoral. Only if there is a higher being than man Who says that murder is wrong can one objectively say that it is immoral.

One thing I think is true is that morals and religion have only a coincidental relationship to each other.

Then you do not really understand religion, and the mindset that comes within it.

The problem that these types of folks encounter/create/bring up is not due to the fact that they are atheist, secularist, or whatever, when it comes to basic moral values. The TRUE problem seems to be that they do not beleive in the conept of right and wrong.

It seems to me that they shun religious values not because they are put forth by any particular faith, but because the mere notion of moral accountability is one they either (a) do not want it to exist, or (b) do not believe in morality as the general concept it is known as.
If this is reasonable, which I believe it is, then what they actually shun is morality itself, and not religion as a concept.

Of course, these notions are both absurd. Taking (a) one wonders WHY they would not want moral accountability to exist. Is it because (1) if they admit the existence of moral accountability they are consumed with guilt, or (2) knowing that if moral accountability were to exist (as indeed it does) they would be have no choice to cease living in the manner they do, as logic would not permit it.
Now both (1) and (2) are tied in to one's behavior, which could be either in accordance with morality or out of synch with it, given the conditions of (1) and (2) it is clear that these situations arise because of the latter.

Now, in order to escape from either of these conclusions one either has to cease their improper behavior or go on with it and leave in tormenting, ceasless guilt. Both of these solutions are obviously unfavorable for one in either of the conditions, hence the desire to erase moral accountability.

As for (b), the idea that morality itself does not exist, and that there are no basic moral guidelines that are definite, is obviously absurd. Without going through the proof here, as I am lazy, I will simply take the exampe of Scaramonga, who arrived at an (I am assuming here) identical, or virtually identical, set of morals as given in major religions around the world, and who arrived at his conclusions through the use of logic, disregarding religion.

Obviously, then, via the use of intellect, one may, as Scaramonga presumably has, arrive at a basic moral code which is the same for all people (or at least the same for all people who lead a moral life, and on the core principles), and is objective.

Accepting this proof of the existence of objective morality, it is clear then that the position of such people as Hitchen are denying logic, in order that they may fulfill simple desires, swayed by base emotions.

Thank you for the thoughtful response to an honest question about you beliefs, Mark. Neither side of the aisle does that enough these days.

Here's where I'm still having trouble understanding the viewpoint: Is it the fact that contrabution is required by law that makes things like welfare unethical once they pass a certain point? And if that is the case, aren't you approaching the idea that all taxes are immoral? Surely we can't expect a government to function on charity alone?

I'm not saying we should take all of everyone's money away and give it to everyone who can't or won't make money, but I have really hard time honestly feeling wronged when a few precentage points of my paycheck goes to helping the poor.

It may be that what we're really arguing over here is a matter of degrees, and it doesn't really go to what your post was addressing, but it's where my thinking wanders.

Anyway, thanks again for your thoughtful response to the orginal question.

look up in the sky at night and try to convince yourself its all an accident, you see?

Actually, I have no problem thinking that the universe is a product of something called the Big Bang. I have unsurmountable problems with understanding how it is the product of some imaginary supreme being. To me that is silly. I am a true atheist. I don't believe in any kind of unseen hand or superior invisible being who, in the vastness of the small part of the universe that we can see, decided to take a special interest in a bunch of unworthy creatures living on one of a trillion such planets. As a matter of fact the numbers CONVINCE me that I am right. I do not have any problem with people making up religions or witchcraft or any other kind of mumbo jumbo to give them a sense of immortality or to help them understand an unbelievably complex world. I only have a problem when they start acting like the Catholics did in the Inquisition or the Islam-driven terrorists do now. Perhaps I am a libertarian about religion - live and let live as long as you don't harm me. But don't for a second presume to claim that my system of beliefs and logic are not exactly what I say they are because of your mistaken belief that "there is no such thing as a true atheist." That is as silly a statement as the old WWII saw that said, "There are no atheists in foxholes." Of course there were.

Then you do not really understand religion, and the mindset that comes within it.

It is incorrect and arrogant of you to make a statement like that. I attended church for many years - I finished Catholic catechism and (Lutheran catechism later on), I was baptized Catholic and in elementry school again as a Baptist. I married a Catholic woman and our kids went to a Catholic school. I have read, and studied the Bible extensively. I know religion as mush as the next guy - and better than some, I'll bet.

What you may have based your statement upon is the fact that you didn't understand what I meant. Morals can and are taught in the context of religion. But they are also taught outside that context - like me for example. I'll bet my morals are at least as praiseworthy as yours. But mine did not come from religious teachings or church. They came from me examining my surroundings and deciding on what were the right and wrong ways to behave in society. My comment was meant to say that the concept of morals is not the exclusive domain of religion. There are many examples thoughout the history of religion where religious people did very immoral things.

I offer a bit of advice to you. If you did not know that I am an atheist, you'd probably stereotype me the same way that the liberals to as a right-wing religious fanatic. There are many just like me that are very moral, very conservative, and don't give two hoots in Hell about religion. When it comes to religion, I do not put it down, I do not think it is a bad thing. I do not accuse religious people of being ignorant or uninformed. I suggest that those of you that are religious offer the same courtesy to those of us who do not believe lest you prove the point of the liberals about religious people imposing their beliefs on people who do not believe the same thing as you do.

Up to this point, I have brushed aside the accusations from the left about the conservatives being controlled and driven by extreme religious fanatics. It is time that the religious right learn how to accept that some people just don't buy the story and yet they support the same goals - before you lose their support.

they do firmly believe in legislated virtue

I've yet to see clear evidence of this.

It is incorrect and arrogant of you to make a statement like that. I attended church for many years - I finished Catholic catechism and (Lutheran catechism later on), I was baptized Catholic and in elementry school again as a Baptist. I married a Catholic woman and our kids went to a Catholic school. I have read, and studied the Bible extensively. I know religion as mush as the next guy - and better than some, I'll bet.

Not if we base it on the specific line I was responding to. What else have I to go by but your words? Further, that you now claim atheism suggests you reject the central, core values of religion, thereby suggesting you do not truly understand them at a beyond-level.... however "book" educated you may be in the subject.
Belief, you see, is intergal to the understanding process... the two are inexorably tied.. and by your own admission, this is your lack.

(You cannot, for example, admit to yourself that God making a universe would make a rather big bang.... snork)

The problem I have with your claim of a coincidental realtionship between morals, is your method of derivng these morals appears arbitrary at best.... "They came from me examining my surroundings and deciding on what were the right and wrong ways to behave in society" ...and therefore, can be changed at need of some short term goal or another. Or in the words of Captain Barbosa, "they're more like guidelines, rather than actual rules, anyway"

It is time that the religious right learn how to accept that some people just don't buy the story and yet they support the same goals - before you lose their support.

(Shake of the head)
What it's past time for is for the Atheist to understand that they are by no means being persecuted, and indeed are already being well- accomidated by the majority... that we're not even close to a theocracy... else this conversation wouldn't be taking place. It's time for the atheist to return the favor and accomidate the majority, by not crying "foul" every time some fragment of religion (Christmas trees?) shows up in the public square.... lest we both lose the majority we now, the both of us, have for the first time in 7 decades.

And not jumping on the leftist bandwagon every time one of them starts hollering "theocracy" wouldn't hurt our relationship, either.

Not if we base it on the specific line I was responding to. What else have I to go by but your words?

That would be a good start.

Further, that you now claim atheism suggests you reject the central, core values of religion, thereby suggesting you do not truly understand them at a beyond-level.... however "book" educated you may be in the subject.

You've got me there. Hell, I don't even know what a "beyond-level" is. I don't "claim" atheism. It is the word that describes what I believe. The fact is that it has very little with rejecting core values of religion - rather it has everything to do with why core values are accepted and believed.

Belief, you see, is intergal (sic) to the understanding process... the two are inexorably tied.. and by your own admission, this is your lack.

That is an interesting statement which I cannot accept. I understand by learning and making sense of the world around me using logic. People believe in religion or a deity or whatever they believe in without any logic, proof, or evidence other than what they choose to believe.
(You cannot, for example, admit to yourself that God making a universe would make a rather big bang.... snork)

No, I cannot buy that there is such a thing as a god in the first place.

The problem I have with your claim of a coincidental realtionship (sic) between morals, is your method of derivng (sic) these morals appears arbitrary at best....

No more and maybe even less than yours.

and therefore, can be changed at need of some short term goal or another. Or in the words of Captain Barbosa, "they're more like guidelines, rather than actual rules, anyway"

I believe in my morals at least as strongly, and probably have less trouble following them, than most religious people do trying to follow theirs. My morals are not subject to change as you describe. My morals are based on my beliefs of right and wrong. Those are immutable.

What it's past time for is for the Atheist to understand that they are by no means being persecuted,

That's good because I don't feel persecuted.

and indeed are already being well- accomidated (sic) by the majority...

To which majority do you refer?

that we're not even close to a theocracy... else this conversation wouldn't be taking place.

Did I say anything about a theocracy. Religion itself is so fragmented that a theocracy is not possible. Everyone would have to be of the same religion - like Saudi Arabia for a theocracy to take place. I simply was pointing out that your intolerance and condescending attitude toward people like me tends to alienate them and you lose their support.

It's time for the atheist to return the favor and accomidate (sic) the majority, by not crying "foul" every time some fragment of religion (Christmas trees?) shows up in the public square....

That statement is dripping with bigotry. I have a Christmas tree in my home every Christmas. I never protest against any religious observation. I respectfully bow my head when I am somewhere and the speaker says "let us pray," I rail at attempts to take the mention of God out of the pledge, I hate it when children can no longer celebrate Christmas at school. Not because I believe in all that mumbo jumbo, but because I respect the rights of those that do.

lest we both lose the majority we now, the both of us, have for the first time in 7 decades.

You lose the majority by alienating those who make it up. Keep attacking atheists, whom you obviously have stereotyped and don't understand, and they will leave your majority and then you will know persecution. Not from us, but the majority who will take power.

And not jumping on the leftist bandwagon every time one of them starts hollering "theocracy" wouldn't hurt our relationship, either.

No one said anything about a theocracy. That statement again shows your paranoia. One thing you have managed to do by accusing me of "jumping on the leftist bandwagon" though is to convince me that I don't particularly want to have a relationship with you. Your unwarranted attacks on my belief system without understanding it have convinced me that you are the kind of person I have no desire to know.

Beleif is inextricably related to understanding because you understand something you must first except the possibility of its existence, and thus beleive in it.

However, that point has nothing to do with the discussion

Also, the universe wasnt created by the big bang, although i do know where youre coming from, Scar.

However, it seems as if both of you have skipped over my lovely proof in which i show that through reason one can arrive at objective morality.

On to the atheist thing...this is a position i cannot understand at more than a creative level, as i fear that it is devoid of logical examination. However,in my mind a conservative atheist is WAY better than a liberal one, and further more, any athiest that is merely athiest by default, and actually believes in something (ie sticks to their guns on moral grounds) is fine by me. What i do not like, though, is the type of atheist that closes their mind to the idea of God because they cannot grasp it (im not saying this is you Scar).

Further more, i think you are both getting a little ahead of yourselves with this religion stuff, calm down, you used to roast donks side by side, what happened with you two? Anyways, i think you should both not get aggrevated with the other and should make amends.

Beleif (sic) is inextricably related to understanding because you understand something you must first except the possibility of its existence, and thus beleive (sic) in it.

That is just malarkey. Proof of existence is what leads to understanding. Belief systems, e.g., religion, are based purely on faith. No proof is possible, and for most of the faithful, none is needed.

Also, the universe wasnt (sic) created by the big bang, although i do know where youre (sic) coming from, Scar.

What? What does that mean? I am much more convinced, based on my background in science, that the universe came into being in some phenomena very similar to the Big Bang. You seem to be sure that didn't happen. And your proof is...

On to the atheist thing...

Is that like the religious "thing?"

this is a position i cannot understand at more than a creative level, as i fear that it is devoid of logical examination.

You'd have to give me some explanation of what that statement means. I guarantee you that if you work purely in the realm of logic, you'd have one Hell of a time trying to make a case for religion.

However,in my mind a conservative atheist is WAY better than a liberal one,

Following the logic of "some of my best friends are ________"

and further more, any athiest (sic) that is merely athiest (sic) by default, and actually believes in something (ie sticks to their guns on moral grounds) is fine by me.

Boy! That is such a comfort to me.

What i do not like, though, is the type of atheist that closes their mind to the idea of God because they cannot grasp it (im (sic) not saying this is you Scar).

What do you mean by "closes their mind to the idea of God?" If you mean to totally discount the possibility that such an entity exists, I'm your man. If you mean by that statement that I should be tolerant of those who do believe in some kind of spiritual being, I'm your man. If you mean that my sorry-assed ignorance prevents me from seeing the wisdom of believing in some supreme being, you are not talking about me.

calm down,

I'm getting real tired of people telling me to calm down. I haven't been uncalm. I have merely stated my beliefs. I don't need to calm down.

Anyways, i think you should both not get aggrevated (sic) with the other and should make amends.

Thank you, Ann Landers.

Zach,

An argument may be made that any enforced contribution for the assistence of another is immoral; it is, by definition, legislated virtue...on the other hand, we as a group do have a moral responsibility towards those members of our group who, through no fault of their own, are currently incapable of providing for themselves. As for me, I figure that at best we've got welfare like a dog has fleas...we just have to put up with it; and while we're stuck with it, let us see if we can do some actual good along the way...thus a conservative Christian welfare ideal would be "workfare"...doing some sort of productive work for society in return for welfare support. The only people outside the moral pale on the issue of welfare are those who advocate in public for increases in welfare spending (of any type); they are the worst of the worst...moral exhibitionists! They are trying to tell us what wonderful people they are...if you think that welfare should be increased, then you should quietly lobby your Congresscritter for increases...not take to the airwaves and say that Granny will starve unless increases are passed...

Scar,

I might be wrong (at work and can't really look at the whole thing right now) but I believe I said that I believe there is no such thing as a true atheist...this is different from me saying definitively that there are none...you might end up being the first person I can't shake from the complete atheist position. Stranger things have happened. :o)

Still, I'll take a stab at it...if there is a Supreme Being capable of making the Universe, why wouldn't be have the time for all of his tens of trillions of creatures? If you can whip up a Universe, you can talk to 100 trillion people a day, easy....ergo, this immense, remote being can have revealed himself to his creation...

if there is a Supreme Being capable of making the Universe, why wouldn't be have the time for all of his tens of trillions of creatures? If you can whip up a Universe, you can talk to 100 trillion people a day, easy....ergo, this immense, remote being can have revealed himself to his creation...

I don't know what difference it makes no matter what I answer to that kind of question, but here's the way I read it:

1. If there is a supreme being - Big if. In my mind, there is not. Prove to me that there is.

2. Why wouldn't he.... - since this dude is purely mythical, I guess he/she/it could do just about anything that YOUR mind could imagine. So could Superman, I suppose.

3. ergo, this immense, remote being - ergo normally means that some logical conclusion can be made from presented evidence. You have presented none. Everything you said was based on if's, supposes, and would it not then be possibles... hardly a call anywhere for an ergo.

Perhaps the Universe was created by a mad scientist in an alternate dimension as a lab experiment that got out of hand. There's as much proof of that as there is of any God.

Perhaps the universe only exists in my mind - you could be a figment of my imagination. Perhaps I am God.

See how silly these games get? I respect most of your writing and ideas, but this little game you're attempting to play is nothing short of ridiculous. I would ask you why you bother? I am not trying to dissuade you of your beliefs, nor would I. I do not look to recruit or to convince others that I am right and they are wrong. I don't need a congregation or a crowd around me constantly assuring me I'm thinking "correct" thoughts. I am perfectly happy in my belief system. My system is based purely on science and the ability to reach logical conclusions based on proof. For example, I firmly believe that the Law of Gravity is true. Every time I attempt to disobey it, I get a rude reminder of that truth. Scientists have measured it, calculated it, and explained it as a phenomena sufficiently for me to accept it as a truth.

No such evidence exists for a supreme being. There is no proof. I keep saying, and apparently no one listens to it, but religion and the concept of a supreme being is a belief system based wholly on faith. There is no evidence. There is no proof. But because it is based on faith, to the faithful that should be more than enough reason to believe. To someone without this faith, it is all no more logical or true than astrology, witchcraft or Voodoo. Why is it that religious people are always trying to make a logical case for their religion? It is impossible unless you buy into the concept of a supreme being for which there is absolutely no evidence.

An interesting take on the "Big Bang Theory":

Try to think of any explosion that has produced order. Does a terrorist bomb create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos. How could a Big Bang produce a rose, apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, hummingbirds, polar bears, thousands of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose, and mouth?

Another comment from the same site, talking about evolution:

The Book of Genesis tells us that everything was created by God - nothing "evolved." Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own kind as is stated ten times in Genesis. Dogs do not produce cats. Neither do cats and dogs have a common ancestry. Dogs began as dogs and are still dogs. They vary in species from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, but you will not find a "dat" or a "cog" (part cat/dog) throughout God's creation. Frogs don't reproduce oysters, cows don't have lambs, and pregnant pigs don't give birth to rabbits. God made monkeys as monkeys, and man as man.

Each creature brings forth after its own kind. That's no theory; that's a fact. Why then should we believe that man comes from another species? If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false. However, the whole of creation stands in contradiction to the theory of evolution.

Dr. Kent Hovind of Florida has a standing offer of $250,000 to "anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution." Evolution - true science fiction. His website is www.drdino.com.

The statement that jumps out at me is "If evolution is true, then it is proof that the Bible is false." That's a pretty bold statement. If most believe this statement, then it explains the reason that secularists do not want Creationism taught in conjunction with Evolution in schools.

An interesting explanation of The Flood.

Only about three percent of the earth today is habitable for man. The rest is under water, ice, deserts, mountains, etc. If the earth before the Flood were, say, seventy percent habitable, it could have supported a huge population. The vast amount and worldwide distribution of fossils shows that the Flood was global and that God hates sin enough to judge the entire world."

Dr. Kent Hovind "About 85% of the rock surface around the world is made up of sedimentary rock, indicating that at some time in the past, the world was covered by water."

(My point to these posts has been that logic and science have been used to prove the Bible correct. The reason that Christians feel the need to "prove" the Bible correct through science is mainly for those who are skeptical and say that science "disproves" the Bible. I think it is a way of evangelism. The way Christians are taught to evangelize is to talk to each person as an individual and touch on their specific life. Thus, those who are not Christians because of science, Christians attempt to evangelize on their level: science.)

I think Scaramonga asked why Christians feel the need to convince non-believers of their faith. My understanding is that we as Christians believe that we will go to Heaven through accepting Christ as our Savior and becoming Christians. We also believe that those who do not accept Christ will not go to Heaven. That said, we are taught not to simply want this Salvation for ourselves, but to also help others to this Salvation. I don't think that atheists and agnostics believe in an afterlife, thus there is really no imperative reason to convince others of their belief system other than living a life on earth without that belief system. However, since Christians believe in Heaven, and passage into Heaven depending on accepting Christ as our Savior, it is the selfless goal of every Christian to hopefully bring everyone they can to Christ (and thus Salvation and passage to Heaven).

Unfortunately, many Christians do not understand how to bring people to Christ and end up turning people off to Christians and Christianity, and thus to Christ. This is something that is a very big problem, especially in American Christians. People are either too extreme in their evangelism ("You must accept Christ or you will go to Hell!") or too lenient (Episcopalian Church adapting to American culture instead of trying to affect American culture with Christianity).

So the basic answer to why Christians continually try to convince non-believers is because, ideally, they are concerned for the eternal life of others. The true Christian cares not only for people's lives here on earth, but also their Salvation in Heaven. If we did not try to bring non-believers to Christ, it would mean that we did not care that they would go to Hell. The key for Christians though is not to force or push people to accept Christ as their Savior, but rather to invite them to accept Christ.

Hot topic. I feel for Scaramonga...he's being ganged up by well intended people who can't believe, or accept, that he's an atheist. I find this fascinating.

If he were a believer in any organized religion known to man would everyone be openly frothing to change his belief system? I seriously doubt it. So what is the phenomenon of Atheism being so incomprehensible to so many of us. After all, it isn't a wacked out concept to believe only in nature or science but not God.

What's more, ideologically he shares many common values with people of faith. Shouldn't that be enough for us? Why do we seek to change this guy's mind so fervently? I myself must consciously restrain myself from the temptation to get him to open the door to the possibility of God atleast a crack. But why?

God only knows ;)

Seriously, I am a religious Jew and I strongly believe in God, but I really don't think it's right, or productive, to force feed anybody religion. I think many atheists, including Scar, develop a chip on their shoulder from the endless badgering -- which only serves to push him and other atheists farther away.

I suggest just living life by a positive example that reflects well on your faith, and the desire for religion will attract, not repell, those who don't "buy the story." Stressing common ground with our friends is more important than forcing them to think like we want them to, and in the end much more welcoming. Atheists, too, would be best served living by that philosophy, as Scar seems to be trying to do himself.

Many atheists, though, have been as guilty of unwanted prosthelizing as over-zealous religious folks, and Christopher Hitchens, in the column that started all of this contention in the first place, is guilty of this in the first degree.

Speaking of Creationism and Intelligent Design:

Explosive memo reveals Darwinist strategy for Kansas

This week, the leading lights of the Intelligent Design movement – Drs. Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe among them – will make their way to Topeka, Kan. There, they will make an appeal to the state's elected school board to allow in-class criticisms of Darwinism and its derivatives, which are now taught not as theory – not even as fact, actually – but as something close to dogma.

Scar,

Beg pardon if I have offended; meant no disrespect. As for your conversion, that is up to God, anyways... :o)

To get us back on the subject at hand...

In the discussion of the place of religion in the public square it would stand as a difficult concept for the atheist or strong secularist to understand the worldview of the believer. You, Scar, seem a bit flabbergasted at faith (I might have got this wrong, but this is how it appears to me)...and this is an understandable thing, and this lack of understanding of faith can, at times, interefere with mutual understanding. Truth be told, if you are, indeed, flabbergasted by faith, then I am equally dumbfounded by lack of faith...at least to the point of someone saying that they cannot believe in some sort of Creator (we get nothing from nothing, and the universe had to come from something...that something, in the view of faith, is God).

And that brings us to our current debate - and the wonder of a Christopher Hitchens about how the religious can fit into modern, secular society. In Mr. Hitchens apparant view, we are either hypocrits or idiots (though I doubt he'd use such harsh language). If we really believe in our faith, then we must do A, B and C...and if we don't do such things, then we're hypocrits. To the person of faith, however, it doesn't quite work that way...a great deal is in the hands of God, and His will, not ours be done. We as human beings can only do what we can with what we've got.

The fallacy of the secularist argument, as presented in the political debate today, is that because we are strong believers in our faith we must therefore seek to impose it upon everyone. "Fundamentalists" are, you know, the men who strap bombs on themselves and the only thing stopping me from doing so is that I still hope to impose belief in the Real Presence via democratic means here in the United States. You know as well as I do that this is not the case; but this is the argument presented, and you know that most people who hold to your view of faith subscribe to it in one degree or another.

What it boils down to in our society is: Who's civilization is it, anyways? Is this secular civilization with a religious element, or are we a religious civilization which tolerates secularism? The argument of the people like Christopher Hitchens is that that this is, or ought to be, a secular civilization and we Christians (especially) should learn how to behave ourselves...most importantly in the bit about not "judging" by means of pointing out error and sin. Religious believers are having none of this...this is our civilization, built up from extreme savagery over two millenia and we know full well that without the underpinnings of our faith, then the whole thing will collapse...taking with it, it should be noted, the secularists.

MadZionist,

I hope my response to Scar answered well for me...and I hope that you, I and the rest of the believers can carry out the true tenents of our faith vis a vis the unbelievers...

Mark,

In yesterday's Miami Herald, nationally syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts wrote a very anti religious right column entitled "Gay Holocaust". Below is my letter of response to him and the editor. It particularly outraged me that he would write such a column which trivialized the Holocaust to fit his radical Gay-rights agenda on Yom Hashoah, or Holocaust rememberance day, when Jews reflect in the most somber of tones to what happened just 60 years ago.

Dear Mr. Pitts,

Your latest column(http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/11540600.htm) comparing Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews in the 1930s with America's treatment of homosexuals today really drew my ire, so I am forced to express my great disgust in writing this letter of response.

Since it is difficult to narrow down what is the most offensive portion of your op-ed, I'll just start at the beginning.

First off, you use this "Chris" lunatic as some kind of voice of reason to set the premise for your story. This man is clearly a delusional, paranoid bigot, whose own opinions of those who aren't on board with the radical gay-rights agenda are in fact dehumanizing. Yet, despite this crazed man's disturbed, fanatical rant of a "Gay Holocaust," you unbelievably find yourself in agreement with him, and are somehow compelled to defend this insanity with a column of your own.

Think about this, Mr. Pitts.

It is so insulting and racist when your buddy Chris rationalizes his deranged fantasies of a "Gay Holocaust" by saying, "We are not dealing with normal people here", when referring to social conservatives. I'm sorry, but who gives him, or you, the right to determine who qualifies as "normal" and who qualifies as "subnormal". Are the overwhelming majority of people in Florida "subnormal" for voting against implementing homosexual marriage? I think this is intolerant, elitist, and offensive on your part, and deserves a full retraction and apology. The hypocrisy of preaching against hate, as you claimed to be doing in this column, while at the same time vilifying any who disagree with you as being "Nazis", is the worst kind of hate speech, and you need to face rebuke for this prejudice.

Next, the lame qualifier of, "The Holocaust is an atrocity unique in history, and I'm wary of appending modifiers... There's a reason the word takes a capital h", was horribly condescending and dishonest. As soon as you finished this little blurb, on you went with casual comparisons to the Holocaust you claim was so "unique". Why not just say "Some of my best friends are Jewish, however..."

Listen, just because you give Holocaust a capital "H" doesn't give you the right to spout off about how homosexuals are being treated like Jews in Nazi Germany. Again, your insensitivity to Jewish persecution borderlines on anti-Semitism, and is thinly veiled by that pathetic qualifying statement of capital "H".

Then, the audacity for you to suggest that the Holocaust was simply a lesson of "humanity vs. inhumanity", or, "hatred allowed to be carried out to its logical extreme", but, "not about Jews or Aryans", is a common way for those who deny the truth about Hitler's Final Solution, which was anti-Semitism and not some blind, generic hatred carried out without reasoning. There is a difference between "hate", which is just a natural reaction to things we don't like, and
anti-Semitism, which is the manifestation of scapegoating Jews to be responsible for everything
that upsets you.

Finally, you flippantly added at the end of your column that "while nobody is interning gays, nobody is mass-murdering them, [but] how many would if they could?"

Are you kidding me? What proof do you have to make these wild allegations. Show me any conservative politician, or columnist, or public figure of any kind whose ever said anything like this. Your charge is a blood libel against people you disagree with for the sole purpose of demonizing and dehumanizing them for your own personal satisfaction.

In other words, you, Mr. Pitts, you are the one responsible for trying to fan the flames of hate under the false pretense of tolerance. Shame on you. I want an apology.

You, Scar, seem a bit flabbergasted at faith

I had to look up the meaning of flabbergasted to know what you meant. It means to be dumbfounded. I guess that means that you think that I cannot understand how you could believe in what you do. Nothing could be further from the truth, and maybe I haven't made that clear. The fact is, I don't care what you believe. You have every right to believe whatever you want. I support your right to sign up to any belief system that you think makes sense to you. I would (and have) defended yours and everyone else's right to believe.

What I believe for myself should also fall into that same category. It is what I choose to believe for whatever reasons I might have. Yet most here have either tried to convince me that I am wrong (You and Michael in MI are prime examples of that). I do not attempt to convince you that you are wrong about your beliefs, even though I cannot believe what you do. I should be afforded the same level of respect, I would think.

What this discussion has done for me is make me question why I stand up for the rights "people of faith" a lot more than before it ensued. I still do, but I now am starting to wonder why. I am looking for mutual respect and what I get is condescending attitudes and attempts to show me where I am wrong. I sense that you think you are just trying to "help" me or "educate" me, but I perceive it as hubris.

Please, don't waste your time trying to "prove" your case - you can't. Please, Michael in MI, stop trying to dig up "proof" - it is not convincing nor could it ever be. My religious or non-religious beliefs should not matter one iota in the realm of politics as long as we agree on the goals of the party. Having a strong country, fighting terrorists, having the right to express your religion, increasing the quality of life for all Americans - those are the noble goals of the political discussion. And please, stop grouping me with that bunch of hedonists who are pushing everything from euthanasia to homosexual marriage. They may or may not be religious - Andrew Sullivan is, for example, a devout Catholic, yet he brags about having homosexual encounters without any protection from AIDs. Being an atheist has nothing to do with not having morals or ethical values.

"Beleif (sic) is inextricably related to understanding because you understand something you must first except the possibility of its existence, and thus beleive (sic) in it.

That is just malarkey. Proof of existence is what leads to understanding. Belief systems, e.g., religion, are based purely on faith. No proof is possible, and for most of the faithful, none is needed.

Also, the universe wasnt (sic) created by the big bang, although i do know where youre (sic) coming from, Scar.

What? What does that mean? I am much more convinced, based on my background in science, that the universe came into being in some phenomena very similar to the Big Bang. You seem to be sure that didn't happen. And your proof is..."

Scar, i dont mean to insult you, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Obviously this isn't meant to offend, although you do have a terrible temper which you should have checked out by someone educated in that particular feild. However, i do recomend short walks through serene surroundings, and many a study has shown this to be superior to one's traditional lie-on-a-couch sessions.

Also, you should pay much more attention, maybe this has something to do with your inability to have a civil discussion, which i reckon it is, and which is clearly related to your emotional deficiencies, but i didnt say that the big bang didnt happen, just that it is not what created the universe (please keep in mind that i didnt say God created it, either). If your understanding of the physical world leads you to this conclusion, then you dont have a very good understanding of the physical world.

Anyways, this discussion is clearly beyond your understanding, so we may as well stop, however, if you would like to continue it, i would not mind, as long as you keep your fingers civil.

One the question of morals though, i commend Scar as he (you) seem to be a moderately ethical guy. I personally have no qualms with anyone who arrives at a moral code via the use of logic, and for the people on the board who do (ie Mark Noonan et. al.- not meant to offend) i submit that the system is not completely arbitrary, for if it were, then any system of morals would be completely arbitrary, including ones set forth in various religions, and this position, then, eradicates the entire notion of objective morality.

Oh, and I agree 100% with Scar. that his beleifs on the grounds of religion have absolutely NOTHING to do with the realms of politics. Of course i said this earlier and he merely attacked me, so i dont know the use of repetition...HOWEVER! I must restate that as long as he holds the values of the PARTY at heart and the interest of the country, he is fine by me, as he should be for any good GOP'er.

MadZionist,

I, too, dislike the concept that Hitler was about "hate" and the lessons of the Holocaust being to fight against "hate"; Hitler had a specific vision of the world, twisted, but very consistent...I've read extensively into Hitler's background and as far as I can determine he never smashed a Jewish shop's windows, nor desecrated a Jewish cemetary; he wasn't, as it were, just a Jew-hater...he believed that the preservation of humanity required that certain people die; mostly the Jews, but also Slavs, etc.

The lesson of the Holocaust, in my determination, is that we can never allow an ideology to gain power which presumes to know what is best for humanity as a whole...invariably people who hold they know what is best for all have a codicile which requires part of the all to die.

What the gay rights activists are trying to do by tying themselves to the Holocaust is to usurp the moral high ground for themselves; taking 6 million dead Jews and turning it into a reason for gay marriage. This is sick and disgusting. While there are Americans who hate gay people (just as there are Americans who hate Jews), there is no ideology current which says that in order to preserve humanity we must kill all gay people...opposition to varied aspects of gay rights is not necessarily tied up in hatred of gays, but in disagreement about the proper place of homosexuality in society.

Scar,

Now, that is a little unfair to me at this point: I apologised for earlier remarks and wanted to get it back on to the subject of the thread. I respect your views, do not demand your conversion and wont in future try to engage on the issue of faith vs no faith unless you wish to.

Hermit,

Actually, it is only the ultimate bit, the verified proof of the existence of God, which is impossible to obtain...all other aspects of faith can be proved with reason. We can reason out an argument which, say, leaves a place in creation for a Creator...it'll be as much proved as any other reasonable argument; faith and reason are not incompatible and, indeed, are held to be necessary one for the other (especially in Catholicism).

"What the gay rights activists are trying to do by tying themselves to the Holocaust is to usurp the moral high ground for themselves; taking 6 million dead Jews and turning it into a reason for gay marriage. This is sick and disgusting."

Mark, I whole heartedly agree. The left loves the Holocaust and Hitler because any liberal cause they want to promote, but don't have support for, ends up being cheaply played with the "Nazi" card. Everyone becomes a Nazi who disagrees with liberalism...

I feel if you need to use the Hitler tactic in order to make your point, you've lost the argument.

It's the same with religion. Militant Liberal secularists don't hesitate to play the Bible card to justify why their socialist or anarchist policies are rightous. When they want to free a criminal from prison, or a terrorist from custody, they give "turn the other cheek" references.

When people are abusing the Welfare State, which rewards decadence and punishes self reliance and personal responsibility, they give "feed the poor" speeches.

When racist affirmative action policies are being defended by liberals they say, "Jesus believed we should be compassionate and give a helping hand."

And if that doesn't work, of course, they then just compare conservative positions to Adolf Hitler.

When they see behavior that is abhorent to society, they refuse to ever condemn it, but rather justify it with "love thy neighbor" speak. It is the lowest level of hypocricy and manipulation.

I agree 100% Mark.

My only point, or at least the point i tried to make, is that a moral code arrived at through reason is as good as any other. This is something i believe we agree on.

On the idea of aspects of faith being proved through reason, i halfly agree on. Articles of Faith cannot be proven through reason, reason can only prove the possibility of those Articles of Faith, the actual beleif part is where Faith comes in.

Anyways, i think we are on the same page here.

What the gay rights activists are trying to do by tying themselves to the Holocaust is to usurp the moral high ground for themselves

I think you are correct, but you must look at the longer view. They first needed to get their behavior de-criminalized via the courts - which they have done. Next they decided that they needed to be considered as just another option on the sexual spectrum, so they appealed to people via things like "gay pride day" and "diversity" programs which were largely successful. Then they decided to push the envelope and demand a Constitutional right to engage in their warped version of marriage. For the most part that has so far failed. Many states have reacted by modifying their constitutions to prevent it and many others have passed laws stating similar restrictions. That was their first set back. Now they realize they can't get the public acceptance that they long for, so they're trying to find some legitimate historical analogy - the Holocaust - and claim that they're victims just like those who were killed by the Nazis. This too will fail. When it does, look for their next tactic - one that they also think will change minds. It will fail too.

I think the biggest problem they have is that they are attempting to force their views on other people. Another problem they have is that they are exceptionally militant to anyone who doesnt praise the homosexual lifestyle.

On the bright side, though, is that this type of behavior (i.e. playing the "Holocaust" card etc.) will undoubtedly cost them in elections. However, it will also serve to marginlize them further, which will cause them to have even more venom. Also, it may well end with the destruction of their party, which, if another is not created in its place, could pose a serious threat to the democratic process.

Scar,

I know we have had our differences in the past, so I don't want you to think I'm being sarcastic or anything by a question I have for you.

Being an atheist, how do you feel about the inclusion of God in state-wide and local Republican "Creeds"? For example, my home state and city both include the following: "That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fibre of the Nation." (You can see the whole thing at http://www.vagop.com/contents/resources/creed.shtml). I was just wondering your thoughts?

I know we have had our differences in the past, so I don't want you to think I'm being sarcastic or anything by a question I have for you.

I am always willing to answer a question if I can.

Being an atheist, how do you feel about the inclusion of God in state-wide and local Republican "Creeds"?

As a rule, I would not have any problem with that concept. They certainly aren't necessary for me, but I do see the need based on the amoral hedonists who want to attack and destroy religion and any public recognition of a deity.

For example, my home state and city both include the following: "That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fibre of the Nation."

That one depends on how you interpret it. I, of course, do not subscribe to the idea that faith in God is essential to my moral fibre. I do, however, agree that for most people it is about the only method they have access to and/or even remotely understand that tells them what is good, what is evil and what the rules should be. I have no problem with the phrase being included in the party creed since is means absolutely nothing to me.

I looked at the Michigan GOP site and they have something similar called I am a Republican Because... but it has no such reference to morals or God. I prefer what is there to what you've linked to, but that's just me.

One sense I did get from that VA GOP creed was that it implies that you MUST buy into religious faith in order to have a moral nation - an implication with which I do not agree. If that is the intended meaning, and if I had to sign something to join the VA GOP that said I believed in that, I would not become a Republican in VA.

The bottom line for me is that I have no problem with the party being inclusive enough to welcome religious peoples and good moral values. I know you can have good moral values without any hint of religion and that people like me who behave in that fashion should also be included. I would NEVER support any move of any kind to restrict the recognition of religions and/or to include God in public places. Being an atheist does not imply that I am against religion or religious people.

Now I have a couple of questions for you. Do you believe that one can lead a virtuous and moral life without the benefit of religion? If you say no, please explain your answer. If you say yes, then I have another question. If that is true, why is a faith in God ESSENTIAL to the moral fibre of the nation?

Being an atheist, how do you feel about the inclusion of God in state-wide and local Republican "Creeds"?

I will not answer for Scaramonga, but the way I see it is that while the Founding Fathers believed "...faith in God...is essential to the moral fibre of the Nation", they also believed in the free exercise of Religion, including Atheism, AND the prohibition of establishment of a National Religion. While the Founders probably would have liked everyone to be Christian, or at the very least, have a faith in God, they also did not require it (though I think in the beginning stages of the country, government representatives were required to be Christian or at least have a faith in God, though I am not completely sure on that).

Scaramonga has stated in the past many times that he supports others' rights to worship as they may as long as he receives the same respect to worship (or not worship) as he sees fit. This would lead me to believe that he accepts the Religious "faith based" fouding of our nation, but does not share in their beliefs. But so long as this country doesn't start to force people to worship, or force people to do "faith-based" things which contradict his logic-based belief system, there would probably not be a problem either.

However, that is just me. I know Scaramonga can explain how he feels much better.

"If you say yes, then I have another question. If that is true, why is a faith in God ESSENTIAL to the moral fibre of the nation?"

I'd like to give my thoughts on this. I believe that the main reason people look to a faith in God over a faith in people is mainly because of a desire to believe in something higher than oneself. People change from year to year. Morals change from generation to generation. It is seen throughout history and even in our own country with issues such as slavery and abortion (sanctity of life).

We can also see it in terms of how our nation deals with things in times of war. During WWI and WWII, I understand that Hollywood would actually make movies identifying the enemy as the enemy. Now, we have PC propaganda movies such as Kingdom of Heaven as well as other past movies whose directors went out of their way to talk to people about the content and even revise history so as not to offend people (take that Gov Arnold movie which was held back from release after 2001 and then other movies which refuse to use Muslim terrorists when they are the most prominent terrorists in the world today).

So, the main reason I believe people tend to say that a faith in God is essential is because God and God's Laws never change. Sure, people may try to interpret things differently, but the Laws and the Bible are non-changing. So it made sense for them to believe that a nation needed to believe in a moral system which did not change. (Slavery was considered immoral in the New Testament as far as I understand, before someone brings that up, but I could be wrong and am open to being proven wrong there)

Scaramonga -- You have stated that your belief system is based on logic. We have discussed this before and it made sense to me. However, is logic a constant or can logic change to fit a man's agenda? Can someone find logic in euthanasia or abortion for example? Or would that be considered false logic or "twisting of logic" to fit an agenda?

Also, I just thought of this, since you believe that God does not exist and therefore the Bible was not divinely inspired, do you believe that the 10 Commandments were then created by man? And, leaving out the first 3 relating to God, are the other 7 based essentially on a system of logic at the time?

I'd like to give my thoughts on this.

I believe that the main reason people look to a faith in God over a faith in people is mainly because of a desire to believe in something higher than oneself.

That is a straw man argument. I never asked for an explanation based on faith in God over faith in people. I have very little faith in people myself - but that is beside the point.

People change from year to year.

Yea, so?

Morals change from generation to generation. It is seen throughout history and even in our own country with issues such as slavery and abortion (sanctity of life).

I disagree about this. Most people today do not even have a set of morals. But morals themselves haven't really changed, just that people don't accept or practice moral behavior.

We can also see it in terms of how our nation deals with things in times of war. During WWI and WWII, I understand that Hollywood would actually make movies identifying the enemy as the enemy. Now, we have PC propaganda movies such as Kingdom of Heaven as well as other past movies whose directors went out of their way to talk to people about the content and even revise history so as not to offend people (take that Gov Arnold movie which was held back from release after 2001 and then other movies which refuse to use Muslim terrorists when they are the most prominent terrorists in the world today).

You wandered completely off the point there into a dissertation of what motivates Hollywood. Who cares what motivates Hollywood?

So, the main reason I believe people tend to say that a faith in God is essential is because God and God's Laws never change. Sure, people may try to interpret things differently, but the Laws and the Bible are non-changing.

Would you care to tell me how you can explain the Inquisition or the Crusades as products of today's thinking in religious circles? Or has it changed? How do you explain the fact that Catholic priests cannot marry when they used to be able to marry? Is that not a change? What about eating meat on Fridays? Used to be a sin, no longer is a sin? We have some Christian churches now which willingly welcome homosexuals and even marry them with the blessings of God. No change? Change in the interpretation of what right and wrong are is just as evolving in the religious sector as outside of it. The new Pope is being criticized precisely because he will not allow changes in the Catholic church to accommodate homosexuals, for example. The Muslim radicals who fight us in the Middle East are trying to prevent changes in their societies that discount or deny their Muslim laws. But still the changes come. The Ten Commandments have not changed since they were first written down, but the interpretation of them changes all the time - by religious seers and prophets both honored and false.

You have stated that your belief system is based on logic. We have discussed this before and it made sense to me. However, is logic a constant or can logic change to fit a man's agenda?

Any system based on logic is based on observed facts. If the facts change, the conclusion must change. At one time scientists thought the world was flat. New evidence came in and they changed their logical conclusions to reflect the new facts. At one time, scientists thought that the Earth was the center of the Universe. New facts were acquired and the logical conclusions were changed - despite the church's torture and killing of those who changed their logic to fit the facts for "heresy." So yes, the conclusions change based on new factual evidence. But you confuse changing facts with changing styles, whims, or fancies. Facts are hard things to change without even stronger facts.

Attempts to twist factual evidence to fit whims abound. Political Correctness is the best one to use as an example. Twisting the facts to meet their agenda has done immeasurable damage to the culture and society that is/was America.

Take my system of values. I believe that it is wrong to take an innocent life. I believe that because the facts point me to the conclusion that every example you can supply of doing that leads to damage and disaster for the society - which is bad. Being bad, makes it wrong. I do not see these facts changing any time soon. Therefore, it is unlikely that my values on that subject will change any time soon. That belief is behind my opposition to abortion and euthanasia. So those too, will not change.

Can someone find logic in euthanasia or abortion for example? Or would that be considered false logic or "twisting of logic" to fit an agenda?

The facts are against those practices and are easy to find. Therefore, anyone who supports them based on "logic" is a liar. Why do you think that they never attempt to use logic? All of their arguments appeal to feelings and emotions precisely because they have no facts to support their desire to kill innocents.

...since you believe that God does not exist and therefore the Bible was not divinely inspired, do you believe that the 10 Commandments were then created by man?

Yes.

And, leaving out the first 3 relating to God, are the other 7 based essentially on a system of logic at the time?

I believe that they were well-intentioned rules set forth to bring social order and avoid hedonistic chaos. They were wise to do that. Lacking sufficient authority to enforce them, they couched them as coming from the burning bush - God - in hopes that people would follow them out of some fear of eternal punishment. The jury is still out on whether it will work. There has been much evil done under the cover of "God." But we have not yet descended into the chaotic morass of anarchy and worse like the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah yet either. We are close, though.

"At one time scientists thought the world was flat. New evidence came in and they changed their logical conclusions to reflect the new facts."

Thank you for the response, Scaramonga. I did go off on a tangent with Hollywood, though I was trying (I think) to use that as an example of changing morals in society. Though I agree with your point that morals do not change, but rather people adhering to those morals or thinking those morals important is what changes.

One comment I have in reference to the quote above is that I read that the Bible states that the world is round, yet scientists at the time believed it to be flat. Eventually they changed their position to be that the world was a sphere.

3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote).

Granted, I would guess that these things could be interpreted to be much like the Nostradamus writings in which people consider him to have predicted the future in his writings, when really people are just taking things that have happened throughout history and interpreted his writings to fit the historical happenings. I would anticipate that you (and probably a lot of people) feel that is what people are doing when they find that Science proves the Bible correct?

"The Ten Commandments have not changed since they were first written down, but the interpretation of them changes all the time - by religious seers and prophets both honored and false."

This is basically to what I was referring when I said that God doesn't change. I understand that different religions have interpreted the Bible different ways and the things you mentioned (priests marrying, etc) have changed over the years based on Biblical interpretation as well. But the basics (10 Commandments) have not changed. However, the different interpretations of the Bible and teachings among the different religions is what has caused me a lot of confusion the last few years the more I have come in contact with different people of different religious (or non-religious) backgrounds. The struggle for me is that I was raised to believe in an Absolute Truth (The Bible) and it has been difficult for me to defend my religious beliefs when there are so many different interpretations of the Bible out there and so many different "rules" put out by different churches and religions, all claiming to be "right" and everyone else "wrong". I guess the only thing that keeps my faith sometimes is that I can't imagine any other way the miracle of Life and the Earth could have been created and of course the last resort of "If God doesn't exist, no harm done when I die, but if He does exist and I turn away from Him, Hell waits for me."

"Lacking sufficient authority to enforce them, they couched them as coming from the burning bush - God - in hopes that people would follow them out of some fear of eternal punishment."

This is really such an amazing statement to consider. That religion and God were just a big lie perpetrated by men so as to reign in people from bad behavior. If that were true, God and religion would then be the biggest lie ever told in history.

Also, you mentioned something about the Crusades. From all I have read, the Crusades defensive wars waged against the spread and conquering of Islamic armies taking over the Christian holy land. Were it not for the Crusades, the world would probably be living under Islamic rule right now. I'm not sure what your question was in relating the Crusades to current thought?

"Do you believe that one can lead a virtuous and moral life without the benefit of religion?"

Yes, of course.

"If you say yes, then I have another question. If that is true, why is a faith in God ESSENTIAL to the moral fibre of the nation?"

That is why I do tend to take issue with that being included in the Virginia Creed. I do not believe that a faith in God is essential for the moral fibre of the nation or for membership in the Republican party. You're a Republican and you're atheist. That's why we're an inclusive party.

I would anticipate that you (and probably a lot of people) feel that is what people are doing when they find that Science proves the Bible correct?

Your explanation claiming that the Bible said the world is round (spherical would be more correct) is tortured to say the least. Science has no obligation to prove or disprove the Bible. Science is the realm of observation and analysis of facts, and conclusions based on logic that result in scientific rules. The Bible is a religious document based on no facts at all, but rather totally on faith. When Science and the Bible happen to agree about something, it is usually coincidental.

"The Ten Commandments have not changed since they were first written down, but the interpretation of them changes all the time - by religious seers and prophets both honored and false."

This is basically to what I was referring when I said that God doesn't change. I understand that different religions have interpreted the Bible different ways and the things you mentioned (priests marrying, etc) have changed over the years based on Biblical interpretation as well.

But the basics (10 Commandments) have not changed.

If you mean the words haven't changed, I'd agree. But the interpretation and guidance from religious leaders has changed significantly. Let's take a few examples:

Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

Do we kill? Does that commandment give any wiggle room? Does is say "except in the following circumstances?" Does the church sanction killing? Remember, Muslims also believe in the 10 Commandments. I remember the Navy chaplain blessing our bomber pilots on the carrier just before they launched to go bomb Viet Nam. A large number of wars have been fought (with millions of killings) in the name of God, the Bible and one religion or another. None of that squares with that commandment unless the interpretation has changed.

Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Sounds to me like that says that you shouldn't lie. YMMV. Do we lie? Does the church lie? Are there situations where the church sanctions lying? Has there been a change in this commandment's interpretation?

Commandment: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Well, you get the picture, don't you? The written words have not changed. What is allowed, sanctioned and tolerated - even by the church - has changed over time and continues to change.

and it has been difficult for me to defend my religious beliefs...

Defend from what or who? I would grant that you should be able to explain what you believe, but I certainly don't think for a second that you should ever have to defend your beliefs. Religious belief systems are based on faith - faith follows no form of logic or proof - you believe because you believe. Period. You have nothing to defend.

I guess the only thing that keeps my faith sometimes is that I can't imagine any other way the miracle of Life and the Earth could have been created

I can, and quite easily too.

...and of course the last resort of "If God doesn't exist, no harm done when I die, but if He does exist and I turn away from Him, Hell waits for me."

Hedging your bets, in other words?

This is really such an amazing statement to consider. That religion and God were just a big lie perpetrated by men so as to reign in people from bad behavior. If that were true, God and religion would then be the biggest lie ever told in history.

I never said it was a lie. I don't doubt for a minute that the people who wrote the Bible and set forth the 10 commandments believed that they were being "inspired" by God. That doesn't mean they were, just that they believed they were. If they did, then they weren't lying at all. But calling on a mystical and omnipotent power to give weight to the rules you want to impose is quite a frequent practice even amongst primitive religious types like the Polynesians.

From all I have read, the Crusades defensive wars waged against the spread and conquering of Islamic armies taking over the Christian holy land.

This quick summary from Wikipedia pretty much nails what the Crusades were all about:

The important bit is that the wars were fought as Roman Catholic endeavors under sanction of the Papacy. The word Crusade has now evolved to mean any holy war, hence the reference to jihad.

My question was simply that since the Crusades were a militaristic imposition of the Catholic doctrine by force, would the Catholic Church and the Pope think of doing this in today's world? The question is rhetorical because the answer is obvious - of course they wouldn't. It was another example of the changing values of religion over time.

You're a Republican and you're atheist. That's why we're an inclusive party.

And don't you find it somewhat refreshing that an atheist takes the position that the phrase you quoted was OK to leave in while a Christian (I'm guessing you are one) feels unconfortable about it? There is hope for us after all!

Reading over the excellent comments, I can't help but think that "religious right" might come down just just meaning "religious people involved in politics"; I know, we've got lots of liberals/leftists who claim deep faith involved in politics, but from my view I've never seen a devoutly religious liberal/leftist who actually allowed any known religious creed to interfere with liberal/leftwing politics. "Religious right" does, it seems, imply a desire to place religion in the public square.

As a religious rightist, this just makes all kinds of sense; after all, the liberal, forward-looking civilization we all adore is bedrocked in Judeo-Christian theology and any attempt to separate the City of God and the City of Man will undermine the City of Man. The problem with any reason-based moral system is that one can rationalise all sorts of behaviour; for their to be social stablity, some things need to be forever off limits even if one cannot immediately demonstrate why this should be so.

The end result of this is that we religious rightists need to tread with care; the propaganda put out about us is that we're just a step away from reinstituting trials for witchcraft...but we must inject our religious faith into politics nonetheless because if we don't, the whole system will crash.

All Relgious Right, Moral Majority, People of Faith, Christian Right, Religious Conservatives, Radical Ultra-Orthodox Right Wing Extremists, and the Atheist who loves them:

Our weekly reading this week (for Jews) was Leviticus: Kedoshim, 19:19-20:27. This portion highlights why Leftist Secularists like Christopher Hitchens hate us, as it states some 38 very clear DO NOTS, or negative commandments, that people who reject broad, clear concepts of right and wrong (or good and evil) have big problems with.

While there are positive commandments sprinkled in (e.g. helping feed the poor, loving your neighbor as yourself), it is not what liberals like to "glean" from Bible for political expedience.

In 20:13, says God to Moses, "A man who lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they have both done themselves an abomination. They shall be put to death, their blood is upon themselves."

The way this commandment was meant to be interpereted regarding being "put to death" is a bit different than the pure translation. What is often meant by put to death is a spiritual death, a death of your place in society and with your people, and a life without the opportunity for rebirth in the World to Come after the coming of Messiah.

The one clearly irrifutable fact in this commandment is homosexuality is NOT an equal lifestyle choice in the eyes of God or mankind.

But doesn't this fall in the face of love your neighbor as thyself?

No, it is not related in that sense. To love your neighbor doesn't mean, obviously, that all behavior is permissable because all we need is love. It means love your neighbor, but your neighbor is still subject to the laws of God and society, therefore love is not a free pass, but a commandment for how our souls must live inside our lives. We love our children, but we punish them when they misbehave.

This is a universal truth, and one the liberals selectively omit from Bible when criticizing conservatives for insisting it is possible to love the person you punish, or love the person society punishes. Punishment and rebuke are loving things to do to those who choose disfunctional paths, which is why we show more love for those we reprimand than we do if we let them act badly but simply turned the other cheek.

-MZ

"And don't you find it somewhat refreshing that an atheist takes the position that the phrase you quoted was OK to leave in while a Christian (I'm guessing you are one) feels unconfortable about it? There is hope for us after all!"

To be honest, I wasn't sure what position you would take. That's why I asked. I had always wanted to ask a Republican, atheist about this but I don't know any (maybe I do and I just don't know it), so I wanted to get your perspective. ;)

Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

Do we kill? Does that commandment give any wiggle room? Does is say "except in the following circumstances?" Does the church sanction killing? Remember, Muslims also believe in the 10 Commandments. I remember the Navy chaplain blessing our bomber pilots on the carrier just before they launched to go bomb Viet Nam. A large number of wars have been fought (with millions of killings) in the name of God, the Bible and one religion or another. None of that squares with that commandment unless the interpretation has changed.

This is often mis-translated, as such.
The proper translation is 'Thou shall not MURDER', which is a different matter altogether.

You are correct, Bithead. The proper translation of the commandment is "Murder" not "Kill". Big difference.