Those who do that are not acting in a Christian manner. I also think you are a bit off as far as foundations of our nation and it’s government. Judeo Christian beliefs were among the many philosophies that were drawn upon by the founders.

Judeo Christian morals weigh heavy in the idea of Ordered Liberty.

And this has nothing to do with being religious. It is just an acknowledgement of the morals that the founders felt would be best for a prosperous and free society.

You don’t have to be a Christian to embrace the morals that are contained within the Bible.

Showing hostility at the mere mention of it makes you seem like a self righteous hater rather than a libertarian.

personal liberty, they just want it without the personal responsiblity and accountability which it requires.

You end up getting far more of your message through, its worth the effort. I’ve understood and respected several of the arguments you and civil_truth have made, because they were made in a respectful way. I try to do the same.

As for the comments about cults of personality and communism and that… straw men!

Thats not what I’m talking about, and when you frame my argument that way, it is something I would be against. Its hard to say this in a few sentances without being vapid, but I’ll try.

Secular does not equal Communism. Of course communist countries have not lasted. Thats because they were communist. We all know communism doesn’t work. It wouldn’t have mattered if they were religious or not, its just bad theory.

There is a difference between culture and nation as well. Most cultures have been around for thousands of years, but that is because a culture is not defined by its government, only influenced by it. In any case, I don’t think the Middle Ages is a great example for the benifits of a Christian state.

And yes, I may owe the development of my views to the enviroment Christianity provided, but that does not make them Christian. I owe a thanks, nothing more. It is illogical to assume the creation must take the form of the creator. Should youl pay homage to pagan culture, because without it Christams and Easter would be different? Or simply acknowlege the influence but accept that the end result has no real relation to paganism? Just as the Constitution may have been inspired in part by religion, but the end result was something different.

Yes, my parents are religious. So are my siblings. What of it? I am not like them. My values have changed with reason, logic, and the observation of the world around me. Had I simply accepted my parent’s values I would be a liberal like them.

And I don’t buy the assumption that secular societies ALWAYS loose values over time. Cites? Evidence? I have not seen one example that secularlism is to blame, and not communism or some other, equally flawed, theory. Just because a government is secular does not mean its people have to be. Take our country for example! We are the most religious Western country aside from Ireland because of our nation’s blind eye to religion, not in spite of it. I am not arguing against religion. Only that the government should be blind to it.

In the end, I think that it is a lack of respect for the values themselves that causes their erosion. Liberals do not respect freedom and liberty anymore. They would trade it for a welfare state. That is what seperates us from them, and that is the cause of the great divide. I doubt a religious liberal would be any more agreable to a conservative, because their political views are still un-American.

Always happy to talk to an open mind.

Every atheist is different, but I believe in the observable and the testable. I don’t believe in God because there is no logical formulation for his existence. I can’t find a way for it to make sense without leaving the realm of logic. I’d rather not get into the details; it tends to spark even ugly debate. If you’re really interested there are plenty of resources elsewhere.

As for morality, let me explain.

Being an Atheist, this life is pretty important to me. I’m not sure what happens afterwards, and I’d rather not find out until I have too. I’ve found my own purpose in life, to enjoy what I have while I’m here. Given that, it rationally follows that society must have some boundaries, some morality, if we are to function together and be happy. A social contract if you will.

Hence, I believe that everyone should do what they want, as long as they do not keep others from doing the same. We need to enjoy our lives as much as possible while we are here. That caveat is important, because it is what defines this social contract version of morality. Running around doing whatever you want with no restrictions is counter productive, because your life is not only shorter, but less enjoyable.

For instance, murder is wrong. I believe this firmly. Not because of God, but because murder takes away the right of the victim to enjoy their life. The murderer kept the victim from doing what he wanted.

When two interests conflict, there is the principle of priority. If I come into your house and smoke against your wishes, it is wrong, because it is your house and you asserted control over the area first. However, if you come into my house, it is wrong of you to try and stop me from smoking, as you placed yourself in this already established situation.

This idea of morality has led me to conservative libertarianism. The idea that government should just let us be, and only exist to protect our existence from those who would not just let us be.

Yes, I have different views than you on drug use and other social issues, but that is academia. We believe the same in practice. I feel its wrong to keep someone from using drugs in the privacy of their own home, but given the current welfare system, its even more wrong to allow it. In theory people should be left to do what they want with their bodies because they bear the responsibility of their choices. However, the welfare system has changed that, making taxpayers bear the responsibility when drug addicts become wards of the state. Until the welfare system is removed, I have to hold my nose and pick the lesser of two evils, violating the rights of drug users over the rights of the responsible taxpayers. An easy choice, mind you.

So I can be moral without God, because being moral to me means acting in such a way as to let all enjoy the time we have on this earth to the fullest.

I’ve learned quite a few things from you as well.

Its been hard to shake my pre-concieved notion that most religious people are inherently intollerant. Your openess is refreshing. Soo too are your insights. I sometimes get so caught up into my own argumentation that I forget to take into account the way someone with a different world view would approach the problem at hand.

Its nice to talk about these things with an open mind such as yourself. Re-affirms my own faith in learning by dialectic.

As for waking up tomorrow, I agree. I hope we both retain our own special goodness. The world would get borring if we were all the same, no? =P

Well, aside from leaving out the details, good job. And thats what I meant. I don’t think a blog post is enough space to do an entire life philosophy justice. Its unfair to ask that. I’d be happy to write a diary post, if that wasn’t sure to get me banned for being irrelevant and inflamatory.

civil_truth:

I think the problem is we agree in broad strokes, but get caught up in the details. I would have to admit you have opened my eyes to the importance of Christianity in the progression of Western society. I have already agreed it served as the substrate for the Enlightenment. I would only add that it was a necessary component, but just as necessary as any other. Remove any slight detail, religion or not, in the progression of Western culture, and the outcome is radically different.

You argue, quite passionately I might add, for the recognition of this historical legacy. This pride is understandable. But I am cautioning as to the difference between recognition (which I am for) and reverence.

Christianity has played an important part, but that does not mean it continues to do so. There is no need for religion at the national level, and its inclusion there can actually be harmful.

I see that you draw heavily on the political theory of Leo Strauss (a popular social conservative theorist), so I’ll try and frame it in those terms. Strauss argued that a culture needed religion and a common enemy to hold together. I would argue that his formulation begs the question of why religion? I believe that secular values can serve this role just as well. You disagree.

Perhaps in this case your historical view is somewhat revisionist.

Yes, secular societies have failed, but the ones you cite were also built upon unstable political theories. Marxism does not work, secular or not. And it is Marxism that is to blame for the fall of those countries, not secularism. There have been plenty of Christian societies that have failed as well, dating back to the fall of the Roman Empire. I would not say the middle ages were Western culture’s finest hour. The concept of a modern nation-state was opposed by the Pope until as recently as Vatican II.

All I am arguing is that classical liberal societies do not need religion, just shared values. State religion caused numerous religious wars in Europe (see Kulturkampf), but this was avoided in America because of the permissiveness our society allows. Only a society held together by values and not religion could maintain such a melting-pot type culture of varying race and creed.

I would say the recent decline in social cohesion is not due to a decline in religion (if there even is one, the evidence can be interpreted many ways), but rather to a decline in these shared ideas. As an above poster put is so eloquently, its not a decline in the popularity of liberty, just a decline in accepting the personal responsibility that comes with it.

And when you have one half on the country advocating for liberty and personal responsibility, and the other half arguing for welfare and government, the rift opens wide. There is nothing holding these two sides of the country together, and this is something even religion could not fix.

Certain things can be argued in a constructive manner, but I don’t see either of us learning from, or changing our minds because of, what we say to each other. And again, we seem to be talking past each other.

I don’t think we all search for a higher being specifically, we just search for purpose and direction. Religion fills that void nicley, hence its popularity, but its not the only way, in my opinion.

I agree that religion should be free from the government, but vice versa as well. I’m not advocating a secular society. Just a secular government.

We might as well just agree we have two different perspectives on the process to one shared goal. Nothing wrong with that.

Soil and water very well may be necessary for a plant, but that has nothing to do with government.

There is no logical reason that just because something is a part of creation it must too be a part of continued existance.

For example, American was founded in a bloody revolution. Is this still necessary?