Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: highball
Actually, I read this article (well, parts of it) more sympathetically. And I'm a "god damned atheist." Really.

While I am as certain that there is no God, just as certain as I presume the Pope is that there is a God, still I am certain that there is a moral truth, that we should all seek out and follow. And I recognize that some of the world's great religions (I do not count Islam among such) have led more people to seek that truth than any other way has. I live in a nation founded by Christians and like minded souls. I am proud and delighted that this is so. No one asks or mandates that I hold the same religion. But my fellow citizens do (or should, or once did) expect that I act in a responsible and moral fashion. As well they should.

When I see the word "God" I tend, rather unconsciously, to read it as "the Moral Truth", and see what sense I can make of a writing that way.

I will grant that the author of this piece probably didn't intend that meaning. But so read, it makes decent sense to me. It hits on the basic issue that divides us, whether the ultimate source of the best truth available is each man's own thoughs and feelings, or whether the truth exists a priori, for us to discover as best we can.

The hallmark of "Political Correctness" is the claim that one man's viewpoint is worth as much as the next. In other words, that there is no Truth which can distinguish between a terrorist and an innocent, between tyranny and freedom.

Janice Rogers Brown described it a whole lot better than I can. See her speech Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom,” Speech to the Institute for Justice, Washington, D.C. (August 12, 2000).

I suspect that she too believes in God. I sure hope so, and I hope Bush appoints her to the Supreme Court. She gets it -- good. I tend to only support and vote for public officers who follow a Christian or similar religion. Us atheists have made almost a big a botch of things as have the muslims. We are both an embarrassment to humanity, and a danger to civilization.

12 posted on 07/11/2005 1:21:12 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: ThePythonicCow
At the bottom of another FR post today I see a nice statement of what I was trying to say. In the post Ten Conservative Principles (Russell Kirk), the last paragraph is:
19 posted on 07/11/2005 1:42:03 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow (To err is human; to moo is bovine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: ThePythonicCow
While I am as certain that there is no God, just as certain as I presume the Pope is that there is a God, still I am certain that there is a moral truth, that we should all seek out and follow

How are you certain that there is no God? Have you searched throughout the entire universe? Do you possess omniscience? If not, then you cannot be certain of such a universal negative, and therefor your assertion of certainty is groundless and false.

You cannot account for morality apart from God. You cannot derive an "ought" merely from what is, which in your view, is nothing but matter in motion. There are no "good" and "bad" atoms.

Cordially,

72 posted on 07/13/2005 8:40:09 AM PDT by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson