The Danger of Secularism

[GarfieldJL]

I know some of you don't believe in God, and fine, but here is an interesting ethical argument.

 

 

If God doesn't exist, and/or we remove God from public life. Who gives us our human rights?

 

 

Here is the thing in the Declaration of Independence it states that God gives us our rights.

 

If you remove God, then who gives us our rights, the Government?

 

If government gives us our rights then how can we guarentee government can't take those rights away?

 

It's an argument I heard about that's quite scary if you look at the left-wing agenda.

[ET Warrior]

So you think that somehow acknowledging a creator is going to prevent a government from taking away the rights of its citizens?

 

At no point in the history of civilization has a god or gods stepped in to prevent a corrupt government from infringing on the rights of the people, even if those people believed that their rights were god-given.

 

And if what you say is true and our rights come straight from god(s) then why is it that the rights of people vary so dramatically from government to government?

 

I think it is safe to assume that our rights as citizens of a nation are given to us by the government in control, and we have no guarantee that they won't be taken away. A lesser man might make a Patriot Act reference here...

[Dagobahn Eagle]

If God doesn't exist, and/or we remove God from public life. Who gives us our human rights?

If God does exist, who gives us our human rights? If you set aside time to crack open and read through a Bible some day, I think you'd end up agreeing with me that if anything is the source of democracy and human rights, it's certainly not God.

 

Let me give you an example from Deuteronomy 21:10:

When you go to war against your enemies, and you take prisoners, put the entire male population to death. If among the prisoners you see a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her, you may take her as a wife. Bring her into your home, shave her head, cut her nails, and take off her prisoner's garb. She must stay inside your house and mourn for her father and mother for a full month. After that, you may have sex with her. Should she not please you, you will let her go where she wishes. Do not sell her for money or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

You'll be hard-pressed to find the freedoms of the US Constitution and various international treaties in the Bible. On the contrary, God's made it quite clear that He wants you to live in a dictatorship where people have no god but Him and follow His rules strictly, facing death sentence when they don't.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I know some of you don't believe in God, and fine, but here is an interesting ethical argument.

 

 

If God doesn't exist, and/or we remove God from public life. Who gives us our human rights?

 

 

Here is the thing in the Declaration of Independence it states that God gives us our rights.

 

If you remove God, then who gives us our rights, the Government?

 

If government gives us our rights then how can we guarentee government can't take those rights away?

 

It's an argument I heard about that's quite scary if you look at the left-wing agenda.

Counterpoint: some people don't have rights even if they are innocent and have supposedly been granted rights by their government and/or deity. People have to recognize that atheism and morality are not mutually exclusive and that people have to stand up for their own rights.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

If you remove God, then who gives us our rights, the Government?

If government gives us our rights then how can we guarentee government can't take those rights away?

You make it sound as if the US has never taken anyone's rights away and that God is to thank for this.

 

Slaves want a word.

[Vikinor]

Well if you think about it, look at the Vatican. You probably won't find more of God anywhere on this world. But, in the Vatican, it is the Pope who is caling the shots.

[Samuel Dravis]

If God doesn't exist, and/or we remove God from public life. Who gives us our human rights?

 

Here is the thing in the Declaration of Independence it states that God gives us our rights.

I believe the reason they're considered rights is because no one "gives" them to anyone.

 

Second, the government's job is illustrated nicely right after the bit about nature's god:

 

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Governments are just ways people have to protect those rights. They have no ability to grant them since rights by nature can't be granted.

 

So yeah, it's a "Who watches the watchers?" kinda thing. Last I heard, it was supposed to be the public who watched each other... fallible, sure, but what human endeavor isn't.

[GarfieldJL]

The idea here is if government tries to supplement God as the giver of rights, then what governments giveth, governments can take away.

 

 

That's the danger I'm referring to.

[mur'phon]

Tell me what prevents government from taking away rights given by a god? Government can take away anything we let it do, god givven or not.

[Q]

The Declaration of Independence does not define the policy of the US government; the constitution and it's amendments do. In the way they were written, they intentionally supplanted God as the provider of rights from the very beginning, because the founding fathers had the wisdom and the foresight to realize that not everyone is a believer and to put God into the constitution would be to violate their rights.

 

The constitution is by its very nature a secular document, and was intended as such.

[Sabretooth]

The idea here is if government tries to supplement God as the giver of rights, then what governments giveth, governments can take away.

In a democratic state such as the United States, the government is comprised of the will of the people, and if it fails to be such, will cause a revolution.

 

Rational self-interest is what creates rights in a non-believer world, and the will of the masses enforces it, which ultimately shows that there is no such thing as a 'right' in nature, it is a purely human invention to facilitate government and equality (or at least, some measure of socio-economic position).

 

[Rogue Nine]

The idea here is if government tries to supplement God as the giver of rights, then what governments giveth, governments can take away.

 

 

That's the danger I'm referring to.

You're right, we should let God start giving rights again, not the government. Then gay people can get married again instead of having their rights taken away.

 

Oh wait.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

The idea here is if government tries to supplement God as the giver of rights, then what governments giveth, governments can take away.

 

 

That's the danger I'm referring to.

Unless you take the view that the citizenry grants itself the rights it feels are owed to everyone, which is the view the founding fathers had, evidence of which can be found in Sam's post.

 

I wish you'd stop separating the government from its people, you refer to it and act as if they've been put into power by anyone but the people who elected it. Sure there are lobbyists and such, but ultimately it's the responsibility of the people to wade through the bull**** they get put out there and organize so that they can guide the government to their ideals.

[GarfieldJL]

The Declaration of Independence does not define the policy of the US government; the constitution and it's amendments do. In the way they were written, they intentionally supplanted God as the provider of rights from the very beginning, because the founding fathers had the wisdom and the foresight to realize that not everyone is a believer and to put God into the constitution would be to violate their rights.

 

The constitution is by its very nature a secular document, and was intended as such.

 

The writers of the Constitution were also highly religious people, while you can argue the Constitution is a secular document, you cannot argue that the writers were atheists.

 

The Declaration of Independence laid out that we all have basic rights given to us by God, and the reason the Constitution exists is due to the Revolutionary War.

 

If Government completely surplants God as what determines whether or not people have rights or not, i.e. they are the highest authority over everything you run the risk of a Totalitarian regime. While I'll agree having priests running government is about as bad as a Totalitarian Regime, there is problems with the extremes of both sides.

 

The idea is not so much just what government has the ability to do from a physical standpoint, it's also a question of belief in whether or not government has the right to do so.

 

You're right, we should let God start giving rights again, not the government. Then gay people can get married again instead of having their rights taken away.

 

Oh wait.

 

You're in the wrong thread for that topic.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

The writers of the Constitution were also highly religious people, while you can argue the Constitution is a secular document, you cannot argue that the writers were atheists.

 

The Declaration of Independence laid out that we all have basic rights given to us by God, and the reason the Constitution exists is due to the Revolutionary War.

 

If Government completely surplants God as what determines whether or not people have rights or not, i.e. they are the highest authority over everything you run the risk of a Totalitarian regime. While I'll agree having priests running government is about as bad as a Totalitarian Regime, there is problems with the extremes of both sides.

 

The idea is not so much just what government has the ability to do from a physical standpoint, it's also a question of belief in whether or not government has the right to do so.

 

 

 

You're in the wrong thread for that topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion

 

It may be Wikipedia, but it gets my point across, the issue of the Founding Fathers being religious isn't as black and white as you make it out to be, and a fair number of them were against organized religion and believed that the people were granted rights based on their own power.

[jrrtoken]

The writers of the Constitution were also highly religious people, while you can argue the Constitution is a secular document, you cannot argue that the writers were atheists.

They weren't atheists, but they weren't too ultra-Christian as well. They wanted to separate church and state, to allow people to freely practice their own religion, without being persecuted by the state or by others. That hasn't always been enforced throughout history, but the founding fathers were a bit more tolerant than others. Except for slavery.

The Declaration of Independence laid out that we all have basic rights given to us by God, and the reason the Constitution exists is due to the Revolutionary War.

The DoI was simply a statement, with no legal binding whatsoever. And the reason the Constitution exists is because the Articles of Confederation didn't do ****.

If Government completely surplants God as what determines whether or not people have rights or not, i.e. they are the highest authority over everything you run the risk of a Totalitarian regime. While I'll agree having priests running government is about as bad as a Totalitarian Regime, there is problems with the extremes of both sides.

Agreed.

The idea is not so much just what government has the ability to do from a physical standpoint, it's also a question of belief in whether or not government has the right to do so.

Well, they shouldn't. If they enforced people to take an oath to a certain deity, then that would be a violation of civil rights, as spelled out in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Rogue Nine]

The writers of the Constitution were also highly religious people, while you can argue the Constitution is a secular document, you cannot argue that the writers were atheists.

My favorite George Washington quote goes like this:

 

The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances, be made subservient to the vilest of purposes.

 

The Declaration of Independence laid out that we all have basic rights given to us by God,

No, the Declaration of Independence told England that we weren't gonna take their **** anymore.

 

and the reason the Constitution exists is due to the Revolutionary War.

No, it exists cuz the Articles of Confederation sucked, as PastramiX said.

 

If Government completely surplants God as what determines whether or not people have rights or not, i.e. they are the highest authority over everything you run the risk of a Totalitarian regime.

Uh, news flash for you Garfield. The government already determines whether or not people have rights. It's been this way for about... 233 years, give or take. So you're a little behind the times.

 

You're in the wrong thread for that topic.

I miss you in that topic, Garfy. Come back to us.

[SkinWalker]

If God doesn't exist, and/or we remove God from public life. Who gives us our human rights?

 

Humans. This is where, apparently, all rights, morality, laws and rules are derived from. There is no evidence that a god (and you haven't stated which god) gives rights, laws, or morals to humans). There is ample evidence that people come to a consensus on how they wish to live, what moralities they wish to uphold, and what laws they wish to follow.

 

Here is the thing in the Declaration of Independence it states that God gives us our rights.

 

This is a legal document using the language of the day, indeed one could argue that the Declaration's authors used a deistic language -one that is vague on what a god is, referring to it most specifically as a Creator, which is just as implicative of the Universe as it is a deity.

 

Regardless, the Declaration isn't an evidence that there existed a creator nor a god, nor is it evidence that if such a god exists that morality is dictated by it. There is, as I said, ample evidence that morality, laws, etc. are derived from human society.

 

If you remove God, then who gives us our rights, the Government?

 

Yes. And the people to whom our government is accountable. Which is why, as our great nation has evolved, more and more rights and morals are becoming truly inalienable. If a god provided these rights, would it not seem curious that since 1776 more and more disenfranchised and marginalized or excluded groups have gained ground in equality? The rights of people of color, gender-rights, age-related rights (i.e. child labor, senior citizens, etc.) and the rights of homosexuals is example. If we, as a nation, got it right the first time with a god's intended rights, why the need for an evolution of ideas? Clearly, this is indication that rights are derived from the current consensus of society.

 

If government gives us our rights then how can we guarentee government can't take those rights away?

 

By maintaining consensual oversight of government. Beyond that, there is no guarantee. Governments have long been known to succumb to the pressures of majorities and even minorities which results in the oppression of other groups. Hegemony is possibly inevitable -only access to government by the common class and the exclusion of theocratic superstition from government will prevent it or curtail it.

 

It's an argument I heard about that's quite scary if you look at the left-wing agenda.

 

One thing I notice about religious adherents who actually have an agenda (which is the indoctrination of their particular notion of god on everyone else) is that they accuse anyone who questions or is skeptical of them of having "an agenda." Complete and utter ideological bollocks.

 

The idea here is if government tries to supplement God as the giver of rights, then what governments giveth, governments can take away.

 

To which god do you refer? Lets be clear. Because if its that evil nut Yahweh, then I want no part of that mythical being's alleged "morality."

That's the danger I'm referring to.

[SkinWalker]

The writers of the Constitution were also highly religious people, while you can argue the Constitution is a secular document, you cannot argue that the writers were atheists.

 

You're wrong. Many, if not most were not "highly" religious. Highly religious people have deluded themselves into thinking this, but even a cursory glance at the biographies, autobiographies and letters of these people reveals a quite different story. In short: you're wrong.

 

A few were devout, but many were deists. A few were agnostic or atheist. The rest were marginally religious -more of a cultural adherence only.

 

The Declaration of Independence laid out that we all have basic rights given to us by God, and the reason the Constitution exists is due to the Revolutionary War.

 

What are you suggesting this is evidence of? That religious language common to the 18th century implies that a god actually exists?

 

 

If Government completely surplants God as what determines whether or not people have rights or not, i.e. they are the highest authority over everything you run the risk of a Totalitarian regime.

 

That logic doesn't appear to hold. Could you please define "surplant" so I can be sure? I'm not sure if you meant supplant or surpass. I'm not one to needle people on grammar and spelling, but this is a case where a spellchecker is your friend and makes discourse easier.

 

Regardless, if gods are anthropomorphic creations of humanity, then all governments and societies have established their own moralities regardless of whether or not they invoke superstition. There is no need for superstition in order to be moral -society does a far better job of establishing morals when the common citizen has access to government.

 

While I'll agree having priests running government is about as bad as a Totalitarian Regime, there is problems with the extremes of both sides.

 

When you allow the superstitions of a religion to determine which morals and laws are to be followed, established or adhered to, you begin the slippery slope of determining which religion and, more specifically, which cult of that religion?

 

The idea is not so much just what government has the ability to do from a physical standpoint, it's also a question of belief in whether or not government has the right to do so.

 

Government not only has the right, it as the responsibility to do so as long as the common citizen has a voice in government.

[True_Avery]

If God doesn't exist, and/or we remove God from public life. Who gives us our human rights?

The voting booth. You imaginary friend has nothing to do with it.

 

 

Here is the thing in the Declaration of Independence it states that God gives us our rights.

DoI is secular. Get your facts right.

 

It may say "god" in it, but it also states separation of church and state. Stop forgetting that fact.

 

If you remove God, then who gives us our rights, the Government?

You and your vote does.

 

Stop separating people from government. They are the same thing. You are government as much as a senator is. Your vote determines if some people get rights while others don't.

 

Gay marriage for example.

 

If government gives us our rights then how can we guarentee government can't take those rights away?

Vote them out of office.

 

This is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ironic coming from someone who thinks I shouldn't have the right to marry. It just makes you a hypocrite once again.

 

"God" isn't taking it from me. People with a religious "agenda" take it away.

 

Technically, yes, you imaginary friend does come into play. But only because the religious believe their friend exists and is telling them to vote that way.

 

I do not have an imaginary friend, neither do I have yours. So, until you conclusively prove the existence of a god and the proof that your religion is right...

 

Keep your god out of my politics.

 

It's an argument I heard about that's quite scary if you look at the left-wing agenda.

Your religious ideals are an agenda as much as the so called "left-wing" agenda.

 

I always find it amusing that the religious people with an agenda are the first people to call another group on an agenda

 

Stop being a hypocrite. This country does not work on your misguided fairy tales.

 

The writers of the Constitution were also highly religious people, while you can argue the Constitution is a secular document, you cannot argue that the writers were atheists.

They were not. They tried their hardest to get away from a country that was religious controlled. Why in the world would they set up a brand new country in which the religious ruled?

 

They may have believed in god, but they believed in a secular government. Thus why the papers exist.

[GarfieldJL]

You're wrong. Many, if not most were not "highly" religious. Highly religious people have deluded themselves into thinking this, but even a cursory glance at the biographies, autobiographies and letters of these people reveals a quite different story. In short: you're wrong.

 

A few were devout, but many were deists. A few were agnostic or atheist. The rest were marginally religious -more of a cultural adherence only.

 

Unless you met them, which you haven't, or they wrote somewhere that they didn't believe in God, which they probably didn't do that either, quit trying to make it sound like they were atheists when they probably weren't.

 

If you'd study how kings supposedly had rulership of a country, it was "divine right" and they were rejecting that, saying that it was easy for someone to say that it was something God wanted because they wanted it.

 

What are you suggesting this is evidence of? That religious language common to the 18th century implies that a god actually exists?

 

Actually there is no evidence out there that disproves the existence of God. The point is that if you put government in as the ultimate Sovereign you end up with a toltalitarian regime, because there is in people's mind no higher authority.

 

 

That logic doesn't appear to hold. Could you please define "surplant" so I can be sure? I'm not sure if you meant supplant or surpass. I'm not one to needle people on grammar and spelling, but this is a case where a spellchecker is your friend and makes discourse easier.

 

It's more likely to be supplant basically the idea was replace.

 

Regardless, if gods are anthropomorphic creations of humanity, then all governments and societies have established their own moralities regardless of whether or not they invoke superstition. There is no need for superstition in order to be moral -society does a far better job of establishing morals when the common citizen has access to government.

 

You have 2 problems with that argument. The first is there is the possiblity that God does exist, there is no way to disprove his existence. The second is that power corrupts people and those whom have power wish more power and tend to be afraid of losing power.

 

 

When you allow the superstitions of a religion to determine which morals and laws are to be followed, established or adhered to, you begin the slippery slope of determining which religion and, more specifically, which cult of that religion?

 

And I would define atheism as a cult as well.

 

 

Government not only has the right, it as the responsibility to do so as long as the common citizen has a voice in government.

 

But here is the thing, if you don't have a check as to who determines what rights people has, then Government is Sovereign. If you look at Star Wars Episode III, you can see the danger that can sometimes happen, a real life example would be Germany when it put the Nazi party into power.

 

 

One trick of a dictatorship is manipulating the vote, such as through intimidation, tampering with ballots, dead people voting etc.

[mur'phon]

The point is that if you put government in as the ultimate Sovereign you end up with a toltalitarian regime, because there is in people's mind no higher authority.

 

Authority which government is granted by the people. If government no longer folows the will of the people it looses its authority.

 

But here is the thing, if you don't have a check as to who determines what rights people has, then Government is Sovereign.

 

Tell me, how is a god a check? So far all the checks on government power, as far as I'm aware are secular. If the people in power are able to destroy those checks, I don't see how a god is suposed to make a diference.

[GarfieldJL]

Authority which government is granted by the people. If government no longer folows the will of the people it looses its authority.

 

If that is the case, then how are governments like the one in China, Iran, North Korea, etc. in existence.

 

 

Tell me, how is a god a check? So far all the checks on government power, as far as I'm aware are secular. If the people in power are able to destroy those checks, I don't see how a god is suposed to make a diference.

 

The check is more psychological, if you deem God as the ultimate Sovereign, and he gives you certain rights then if government goes to take those rights away for no real reason, people recognize that government has over-reached it's authority.

 

If people perceive government as the ultimate authority, then people will believe it's okay for Government to do so, because Government is the Sovereign.

[ET Warrior]

If that is the case, then how are governments like the one in China, Iran, North Korea, etc. in existence.

And there are countless instances throughout history of very religious governments that were more totalitarian than those you listed. What's your point?

 

If people perceive government as the ultimate authority, then people will believe it's okay for Government to do so, because Government is the Sovereign.

Your argument is entirely fallacious and based on nothing more than personal conjecture. I don't believe in a god or gods, I don't believe in any higher powers, and yet I have vehemently opposed things like the Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping and other instances of the government overstepping it's bounds.

 

So belief in a deity is completely unnecessary to recognize when a government is no longer acting in the best interests of its people.

[GarfieldJL]

And there are countless instances throughout history of very religious governments that were more totalitarian than those you listed. What's your point?

 

Yes, people have used religion as a justification for totalitarian regimes, particularly Iran, but China on the flipside discourages religion.

 

Your argument is entirely fallacious and based on nothing more than personal conjecture. I don't believe in a god or gods, I don't believe in any higher powers, and yet I have vehemently opposed things like the Patriot Act and illegal wiretapping and other instances of the government overstepping it's bounds.

 

Isn't the wiretapping accusation the same one that there is no evidence and some of the accusers ended up having to apologize? Seriously, there is more evidence to prove God's existence that you don't believe in, than there is evidence of them illegally wiretapping US citizens in the United States.

 

 

So belief in a deity is completely unnecessary to recognize when a government is no longer acting in the best interests of its people.

 

For some people it might, otherwise why is the government of China and North Korea still in existence. Seriously, survival of the fittest, the strong dominate the weak.