Regardless of your personal beleifs as regards the nature of God, the question comes down to the perception Kerry has about right and wrong. Regardless of your perception of God, one assumes that God is good.

Therefore the question posed Kerry is, look into your heart of hearts and tell us if you think the US is doing the right thing by Iraq... and clearly the answer is, he does not.

He tried to push the expression of that into a dig at Mr. Bush's commitment to his faith, and failed.
It's amazing that the Democrats still back this moron.. when he drops the softballs underhanded to him by the TIMES, you know he's got some issues with thinking on his feet.

Bithead,

I think Kerry wants to keep God out of a war that is already religiously motivated on the other side. That's how I read it. I don't see it as a dig against Bush's faith.

I couldn't care less about Bush's religion one way or another, yet I, too, would like to keep the God talk out of the war. I understand why Europeans cringe at this sort of thing. I also think they are blowing it out of proportion. It's not that big of a deal, and neither is what Kerry said.

I look at Kerry and see someone trying something/anything to gain ground on W... and if that means questionng his religious expressions, so be it.

I don't see this biit in the Middle east as a war over Islam as much as ethnic war, shrouded in Islam.... consider that they're actively targeting Muslims these days, over there, and all the Muslim Rethoric means about as much as Hitler's leaning on Christianity.

As for Kerry's statement not being a big deal, I tend to agree... nothing new here, it's simply part of the long-established pattern.

Michael, I have to disagree with you on a few things here.

First, this isn't just " liberal secularism" against Islamic totalitarianism. Its the entirity of Greco-Roman Judeo Christian civilization against Islamofascism. There are many different "stands" on can take against Islamofascism, yours and Bush's may be different.

FH,

When I said 'liberal' I meant that in the general sense of the term. Remember, Israel and India are at war with these people, too. They are not Christian, but they are our liberal secular allies fighting the same people for the exact same reasons.

Michael, I have to agree with you on this one.

I've loved just about 95% of everything Bush has done in the War on Terror and can really appreciate his post-9/11 clarity. But in that other 5%, I'm thoroughly frightened of the man.

When Bush talks of "evildoers", the hair on the back of my neck stands straight up. It doesn't stand straight up because he's calling Islamofasicm evil, it stands straight up because he's using Biblical language to do it.

We should be doing everything in our power to convince the people of the Middle East and elsewhere around the world that Christianity has got nothing to do with what we're after: That it's only about Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights. Somehow I fear we only add fuel to the fire with the talk of holy crusades. I wish to God someone could get a hold of Bush, smack him upside the head with his Bible, and tell him to snap out of it for America's sake.

I didn't think about that...

Good point MT. That is why I read your stuff. Think I have you beat, but then you show me. I mean, Israel is obviously an heir of the Greco-Roman tradidtion vis-a-vis politics. But India can't really claim that, despite having an Indo-European ancestry.

Bithead, I agree with Michael totally here.

Theres nothing wrong with mainting your own set of religious beliefs and values, but political leaders should show that they are averse to expressing them, especially when discussing foreign policy.

On the other hand, describing fundamentalists like Bin Laden as evil shouldn't be a problem for anybody. It would have been interesting to see the interviewer ask Kerry if he thought Bin Laden was evil.

Jono,

"Evil" works very well as an adjective, but it sounds awfully strange to a lot of people when it is used as a noun.

Another good point. The concept of "Evil" as some force not entirely of this world doesn't mesh with all cultures. And I agree that Bush needs to have as much a universalist message as possible. Using biblical language may work with most Americans, but it won't work on much else of the world, especially the parts that need convincing.

Wow...

We're already 10 posts in and still no one has spouted off any uber-reactionary "Islam is evil" Coulteresque-bullshit. I'm thoroughly impressed.

Grant, we are all adults here. Islam itself isn't the problem, its Salafist/Wahhabism that is the problem. Khomeinism is dead, it just needs to be buried. The Saudis and their own death cult version of Islam are the problem. Most of the Muslims of the world aren't a problem, at least not yet. Not until the Saudis get to them...

FH...

And I totally agree with you. Just saying that I'm a bit surprised no one has gone there yet, adults or not. I live in Indiana. If you ran a poll of only "all adults" here in Indiana, I think probably a good half or more would say that Islam is the problem plain and simple.

Don't underestimate the heartland's propensity for ignorance and bigotry. I've lived here all my life, believe me. It's a scary place.

Grant: Don't underestimate the heartland's propensity for ignorance and bigotry.

I wouldn't tar the whole heartland with that brush. I can't speak for Indiana, but I lived in Iowa for a few years, and the people there are a lot more educated and sophisticated than most people think. A lot of Iowans think Indiana is a backward place, and maybe it is, I don't know. But I have to admit that Iowa surprised me.

MJT...

Yeah, Indiana is a pretty backwards place, a place probably unrepresentative of the midwest as a whole.

And I came off a little harsh on midwesterners, there. Midwesterners are good people, they really are, even my fellow Hoosiers. They call it the heartland for a reason. I just wish folks around here could be a little more open-minded and a little more tolerant of differing lifestyles.

Case in point: The Indiana Statehouse has been shutdown for a couple of weeks now. Republicans are demanding a Marriage Amendment and all over the news with talk of "abominations to God" and what have you. The entire Republican block of legislators is unified in this, by the way, every single one of them. That's the kind of stuff that irks me: The culture-war reactionary stuff.

Grant: "abominations to God" and what have you. The entire Republican block of legislators is unified in this, by the way, every single one of them. That's the kind of stuff that irks me: The culture-war reactionary stuff.

I hear ya!

Funny, what you said Grant reminds me all too much of the phrase "fly over country." I supose you didn't mean it in that way, but it does show that you really don't understand how they think, and what their values are. You may be entirely right, mind you. But I think that those ignorant Indianans are more than likely sharper than you think. Its just that their belief system is entirely different. Which, as we all know, means that have they same right to their opinion as you do to yours. Sorry if this is turning into a rant, but all too often people who dismiss the Midwest and/or "Flyover country", tend to completely miss their own biases in the process. I am of two minds in all of this. I strongly support the liberal tradition, yet I also recognize the shallowness and ultimate hypocrisy of "tolerance". The very concept itself, when attempted to be put into action, is quickly paradoxical. But then, whoever said we had to live in an easy world?

Try imagine this, purely hypothetical:

Ahmed Al-Adib of the AL-AHRAM Cairo newspaper asked the leader of the Iranian reformists:

"President Khatami has made quite clear in his speeches that he feels Allah is on Iran's side.

"Is Allah on Iran's side?"

A: Well, Allah will -- look, I think -- I believe in Allah, but I don't believe, the way President Khatami does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that Allah is on our side, and we pray hard. And Allah has been on our side through most of our existence.

----

Note: no comparison between Bush and Khatami, or Kerry and a reformist leader.

It's just funny, but also sad, to see how much religion has become a matter of political ideology even in free, democratic countries where religion is not state-enforced. (And not just in the US, but everywhere - even if not in the same terms)

Bush is trying too hard to outdo the fundamentalists at their own game, language-wise at least, even without actually being a fundamentalist. It's not good for political discourse.

FH...

What I was trying to say still hasn't come out right. Let me give it a third try. No, it's not fly-over-country if that is to say what fly-over-country thinks doesn't matter. I've lived here all my life, man. I know this state and this state's people like the back of my hand.

I've personally got redneck roots w/ the vast majority of my family. They're not dumb. They're some of the wisest people I know. I love to go fishing with my grandfather, one of the biggest rednecks there ever was, just to be around the guy and soak it all in.

What I'm getting at is that it has nothing to do with intelligence or even education. And it's got nothing to do with belief systems or tolerance so much either. Tolerance is the wrong word. By and in large, people around here are less tolerant or open-minded to things but that's not the point.

The word I'm looking for is REACTIONISM. It's irrational and illiberal. It's not honestly knowing a thing about Islam and denouncing it, anyway. It's not personally knowing anyone homosexual and still thinking you know everything about them and their "wicked" ways. People around here make snap-judgements like you wouldn't believe. I grew up in it. I used to be the same way: Resigned to ignorance.

People out here are too quick to react when they don't know what the hell they're talking about and that's what I was meaning to say. They don't ask enough questions. My grandfather will talk about how horrible Islam is and he doesn't know a thing about it. And it's not that he doesn't know better that bothers me so much, it's that he doesn't care to read and find out: The whole resignation to ignorance thing. Call it being stuck-in-your-ways if you want. It's not a healthy thing to be when logic proves otherwise because logic doesn't carry weight if you're stuck-in-your-ways.

I hope I'm painting the big picture, here. The most religiously Christian segment of the population are the quickest to judge and cast the first stone. It's the cast-the-first-stone mentality I hate.

Grant,

I think probably a good half or more would say that Islam is the problem plain and simple.

What basis do you have for denying that Islam is the problem? The Islamic world is currently in conflict with every other civilization on which it borders. This is true in the Christian North and West, the Hindu/Buddhist East, the Christian/Animist South and of course Jewish Israel. There are no exceptions to this pattern of Islamic conflict. Not today and not throughout history. This record of conflict and conquest preceedes UBL by about 14 centuries. Islam is in a permanent state of conflict with the infidel.

If Islam is not the problem, then what is? Are you saying that all these other civilizations are to blame?

Grant,

True, to say how Islam is horrible without any knowledge is rather prejudicial. However, I studied it quite extensively. It is not that Salafists (Wahhabis) twist Q'ran and Haddiths in some fashion, morphing Islam into something it is not. No, they, in fact, are quite true and literal to it. If they consider other muslims not true to Islam, they've actually some beef.

Thus, in contrast to these people that pronounce judgements without any base, I can ascertain that based on my study, Islam is horrible religion, in its raw form. Fortunately, a majority of muslims take only these parts of it that are fairly benign. Most people in all types of society just want to live normal lives. But that still leaves a quite substantial number of true adherents.

I remember an interview with one of Saudi princes, who pointed out that the radical Islamists comprise only mere 10% of all muslims. There is about 1.2 billion muslims today. His figure would then translate to 120 million strong army of jihadis. Even if the figure is inflated and in reality the figure would be 1/2 %, we end up with 6 million hard core soldiers of a death cult. That is quite an army, by any count. No matter how one looks at it, it spells trouble for quite a substantial chunk of time.

And, if you listen to imams in mosques in the western countries what they are saying (you do not have to take my word for my assessment, but surely they are authorities in their turf), then your pink ROP glasses would shatter in an instant.

Grant,

It is not only "ignorant" midwesterners who think the problem is Islam itself. There are plenty of Islamic secularists who believe this too:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://www.secularislam.org/Default.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591020115/qid=1078230056//ref=pd_ka_1/102-7258762-0895345?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

The real reactionaries are those who dismiss Islam as the problem without any basis. It is pure multi-cultural, politically correct, knee-jerk reaction.

I agree with you Michael.

This was pathetic.

Not only did the NYT toss Kerry a softball question whose premise is absurd, Kerry then turned around and fumbled it when he should have been able to knock it out of the park.

Kerry had an opportunity to show his stuff on that question - and to really put some distance between Bush and himself in terms of outlook and viewpoint. He Kerry said what you said in your blog, he would have done quite well. I'm sure that is why the NYT reporter, whose paper has already endorsed Kerry, tossed him this softball.

Too bad Kerry is, as has been said before, Al Gore without the charisma.

Excellent post, again, MJT. A cotton-headed question followed by a crap-weasel answer.

As for God, hmmm... God isn't involved when Emmitt Smith scores a touchdown, nor is he involved when Carl Everett hits a home run, and, despite rabid opinions to the contrary, God doesn't get involved when the Red Sox play the Yankees for the American League Pennant (even in 2003)!

So, as symbolism for our goal of fighting evil in the world, invoking God seems to me to be an okay thing to do. Asserting that He has some investment in the outcome, and therefore favors one side versus the other, is just silly. That would required Him to have created evil, in all its horrific forms, just so we, the Just, could eradicate it? Like I said, silly.

Islam is the enemey and reactionism isn't the pure evil boogerman you make it to be.

But of course Grant, you are sooo "tolerent" of other people's beliefs...and you have spent sooo much time trying to "understand" their positions...why they are just stupid, ignorent hicks, end of story!

Liberal "tolerence and understanding" at its finest.

Why is it that whenever I read a Kerry interview I feel like going out and banging my head against a brick wall for an hour or two? If he can't handle a simple question like that one he's going to get slaughtered.

I'm an Atheist and the frequent invocations of God in the WOT do get a bit irritating after a while. But the majority of this country believe in God in some form, so its not that surprising that you hear it a lot. Particularly when you consider that Bush has deep Christian beliefs. I dont know what Kerry's position is but he should have been able to come up with a better answer than that.

When Bush talks of "evildoers", the hair on the back of my neck stands straight up....

Sorry to screed here, but I have "issues" with Moral Agnosticism when it's standing in front of them.

If you can't call him "Evil," what then is Kim Jong Il? Naughty? Those professors who poach minority engineering students (a self-improving and empowering major if there ever was one) into 'activism' degrees so they can control them and use them for their own political agendas? Unpleasant? Saddam Hussein? Nasty? George "I want to BE the dictator" (to use Michael's previous entry) Galloway? A "wanker"? ANSWER? Not kind to their mothers and fathers? And you don't even want to hear my dumbing down of the Nazis given how politically correct it is to substitute them for the Jews.

I'm an atheist and I don't read the bible much, but I sure as hell know EVIL (noun) when I see it, in all its forms and degrees. The first step in dealing with Evil, or if you will, Extreme Rudeness, is to call it like it is. Why should the religious have monopoly on the word when all it takes is raw horse sense to know b*st*rds when you see them.

Just because "W" uses the "G" word (and what president hasn't?) doesn't mean you should roll your eyes when he calls a spade a shovel. And shovel, I might add, is listed in the KJV bible (I'm a High Church Atheist) about 10 times. Spade, strangely enough, has no hits. Even a text that talks about judging-ye-not-lest-ye-be-judged has to speak harsly of people who eat with the wrong fork.

Hear, hear, Bill...

BTW, during our own Civil War, some God-bothering type asked Lincoln the same question: did he think that God was on the Union's side?...Lincoln replied: "I am more concerned that we are on God's side."

Much better answer, but then, that's Lincoln for you...

Bill:
We need a lot more of this kind of atheism right now. People willing to point at something that they know to be Evil and actually call it Evil. Instead of trying to put words around it because religious works use the word Evil.

Speaking of "evil" and "evildoers", an interesting quote:

"It is only rarely that an opportunity comes when stern and effective measures can be brought to bear upon an evil-doer without incurring the risk of war."

-Winston Churchill, September 9, 1937, regarding Mussolini's designs on the Mediterranean.

HA: If Islam is not the problem, then what is?

Totalitarianism. Read this. Read the whole thing.

KERRY: Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence.

Maybe a better answer would have been: "It is America that has the choice, to be on God's side or not. As Bob Dylan sang, 'it may be the devil, or it may be the Lord, but you gotta serve somebody....'
"Since God would be the absolute, the constant, and we as a human nation would be the variable in this equation, it is never a matter of whether God is on our side, because he will not change: when we're against his absolutes, he is not on our side. I believe that in this time, in this battle against reckless hate and irrational killers, we are right in seeking to vanquish our enemies. We are bringing freedom from tyranny to Iraq and Afghanistan, a chance for democracy. I believe that it is God's will to end brutal oppression, and so I believe that we are on God's side in this. To those that don't believe in an eternal reality and extradimensional personality, I think we can agree that universal moral absolutes could be substituted for what I've referred to as God's will, and you can agree that being opposed to a despot is to be on the side of moral rectitude. So is God on our side? Only if we are on God's side."

I think the better question that haggling over Kerry's response is why the "newspaper of record" is tossing Kerry under handed girl pitches.

Totten is right. Kerry's answer is a political fumble of the first order, but it isn't his first and it won't be his last. The real question that should be asked is why is the newspaper that declared "God is dead" asking Kerry to pontificate on which side that God is on.

For a long time, conservatives have accused the mass media of being biased in their coverage. What better example can you come up with than holding the baseball in front of Kerry for him to swing at? Kerry should have demolished this question - and that is the reason that the New York Times asked it. In my mind, its immaterial that Kerry still can't hit it.

What are they doing setting it up for him if they are, indeed, without bias?

I don't see the spirit of the Crusades in Bush's comments. He never said God is on the side of Christians and against the Muslims. He said that God choses sides between fear and freedom. It's in your quote of Elizabeth Bumiller paraphrasing the president. Freedom and fear - apt descriptions of what you called "liberal secular civilization and totalitarian religious fascism".

The real problem is this: only Judeo-Christian based Western Civilization created advanced, human rights concepts. And imposed such as Universal in the United Nations Declaration that most post WW II countries signed onto.

So, "freedom" and "human rights", as we understand them, are only from a Judeo-Christian base. Which Japan has pretty much accepted, w/o giving up its own Shinto (worship of Japaneseness, as far as I can tell), and India to a lesser extent (still with castes).

You don't get to human rights through atheism, nor agnosticism, nor deep greenism, nor feminism, nor secular humanism. At least, no civilizations have, and civs that embrace atheism (Commies, Nazis) can only do so with force. (In fact, history shows that most people WILL be "believers", in something, so a long side issue could be the superiority of the Christian "myths" over others.)

But Look at the unfair issue of school vouchers -- Catholic parents are FORCED to pay local taxes for lousy schools, and pay again for their own kids in Catholic schools (and free gov't schools were started, partly, to make good Protestants out of Catholics). On Donald Sensings site, there are two recent state court decisions: 1) making a Catholic charity cover employee contraception, in contravention of their religious beliefs. 2) No state scholarships for students wishing to study theology.

The atheist Left wants to impose atheism in politics; not equal toleration, imposition. This gay-marriage stuff is another whack, and prolly not nearly as strong as others, but it makes believers, who are being imposed upon, want to stop the imposition.

Anti-Christian is the juice of the Left elite: one can believe in all kinds of nonsense, respectfully (like the pop. bomb), except in Christ.

Not that fundamentalist Christians don't also go overboard, at times -- but look at the recent legal and administrative actions of state intolerance. Compare the Left outrage against a judge wanting to display the 10 commandments, versus a mayor violating the law to issue gays marriage licenses.

And most of the Left hates Christian belief more than fascist evil -- a pretty silly position but why MJT is not on the Left.

I, too, would be more comfy if W. was more against dictators, and less "with God"; but the Left against Christianity is becoming more clear, and needs more honest discussion.

Oh, by the way, there is a HUGE problem in atheism. Is the "truth" good? If atheism IS true, I don't believe it's good.

Tom Grey: But Look at the unfair issue of school vouchers -- Catholic parents are FORCED to pay local taxes for lousy schools, and pay again for their own kids in Catholic schools

I have no sympathy. I don't have kids at all, and yet I pay school taxes without complaining about it. Someone paid for my schooling, and I owe it back to my community.

{Tom Grey: But Look at the unfair issue of school vouchers -- Catholic parents are FORCED to pay local taxes for lousy schools, and pay again for their own kids in Catholic schools

I have no sympathy. I don't have kids at all, and yet I pay school taxes without complaining about it. Someone paid for my schooling, and I owe it back to my community. }

Come on Michael! You cherry-picked one small part of an extremely thoughtful post by Mr. Grey. He raised many larger issues which you ignored so you could take your cheap shot. I though you were a thoughtful blogger. It's disappointing to see this type of response by you on a repeated basis.

MJT,

Totalitarianism. Read this. Read the whole thing

The link isn't working.

***You don't get to human rights through atheism, nor agnosticism, nor deep greenism, nor feminism, nor secular humanism. At least, no civilizations have, and civs that embrace atheism (Commies, Nazis) can only do so with force. (In fact, history shows that most people WILL be "believers", in something, so a long side issue could be the superiority of the Christian "myths" over others.)***

Tom, I don't know if that is an original thought on your part or parphrased frrom your readings, but it is one of the most insightful statemtns I have ever come across anywhere.

Tom, you took the words out of my mouth.

Do I see the War on Terror as Christianity vs. Islam? No. I think Totten's right that this is liberal secular civilization vs. totalitarianism. But "secular" does not mean atheist, it just means tolerance for different forms of religious faith, or none at all.

I think some of you here should stop kidding yourself. Liberal democracy is the direct progeny of our Judeo-Christian heritage married to our Greco-Roman traditions. So when the U.S. champions liberal civilization, our Christian heritage is an implicit part of this.

Christianity, with its novel insistence of the worth of each individual born (and unborn), has been the intellectual bedrock of every progressive movement in the last two hundred years, from ending the slave trade to enacting child labor laws to pushing for equal rights for women.

Besides, Christianity is a major part of the moral upbringing of the majority of Americans. Asking political leaders like Bush not to be influenced by this is like taking away the walls from a house and expecting it to stand.

As for an earlier debate about Indiana, I could very easily argue that Manhattan and San Francisco are two of the most provincial, close-minded places on Earth. Does anyone deny that? I think the habit of acquiring some true acquaintance with the facts before taking a position is fairly evenly spread (and not spread) from the chalets of California to the mobile homes of Georgia. Many who hide behind poses of open-mindedness are actually very reactionary.

HA: The link isn't working.

Sorry. This this one.

Probity: [Tom Grey] raised many larger issues which you ignored so you could take your cheap shot.

Sorry. I was on my way out the door.

Much of the rest of it has been hashed out again and again in these comments. I will respond to one point, however.

Tom Grey: You don't get to human rights through atheism, nor agnosticism, nor deep greenism, nor feminism, nor secular humanism.

Historically, this is true. However, human rights absolutely are compatible with all of the above, and free socieities produce all of the above.

the reporter should have been ridiculed for asking a tit for tat question

One of the things that made Reagan great was his willingness to call them as he saw them. Islamic Fascism is evil, just as Soviet empire was, and Bush shold receive credit for speaking the truth. Just because this variety of fascism is Islamic does not make it any less evil. Totalitarianism is evil, but one must believe in evil in the first place to understand this line of reasoning. In the post modernist world of the NYT, there is no good or evil, only nuance. If your answer to the question of "Is there a God?" is yes, and if you believe in evil, as I do, then it is hardly a far stretch to say that God is on the side of those who fight fascism. The main problem is the arrogance of those who look down upon christians as ignorant bumpkins. God is on the side of our country as long as we try to be a force for good in the world. When we abandon that goal, then God will also abandon us.

Another note in regards to Michael's argument that Israel and India also fight the same enemy as we do. Both of these nations are deeply spiritual, though Israel has tended more towards secularism. However, the nation of Israel is based on the notion of setting up a safe haven for those of the Jewish faith after another such unfortunate encounter with fascism.

Recently, some Australian astronomers published that there were approximately 60 sextillion (that's 22 zeros) stars in the visible universe. That's many times more stars than there are grains of sand on this planet. How many of these places have planets with elections, we don't know (obviously), but it could be in the billions without being a drop in the bucket. I don't know what this means, but it sure makes Bumiller's question sound strange.

The last two posts are an effective summation. Go about your business, nothing more to be said here.

You don't get to human rights through atheism, nor agnosticism, nor deep greenism, nor feminism, nor secular humanism.

Nor through religion. Long ago, Socrates refuted the belief that morality rests on religion, showing that "because God says so" is irrelevant to the question of whether or why stabbing one's father in the back is wrong. Human rights come from common sense.

Michael -

I disagree. Perhaps you didn't catch Kerry's first utterance in the debate, where he professed a deep faith in God, and quoting JFK in the process.

That made the question fair.

That Kerry quibbled goes to many things, but mainly his character. No, not "are you a believer" character, but his ability to be candid. Kerry has a tendency to try to be all things to all people. Professing a faith in God and then being uncomfortable with it when caught of guard tells us a lot - it tells us that Kerry operates off of a cold political calculus rather than out of any sense of "truth" - religious or otherwise. There are lessons there not just for Christians, but Jews, Hindus, Zorastrians, agnostics, atheists and everyone else.

I think Kerry is Anti-Foundationalist - he doesn't hold any truths as being universal. (I just posted a blog entry on Anti-Foundationalism for those who care about the topic).

It would be fine with me if the President were a rabid atheist - I just want him/her to be straight with me, be consistent and not try to indoctrinate me usiung the power of the state.

The fact that many Americans won't elect someone who doesn't believe in God has many a politician saying "I do" when he/she doesn't. Such a choice on the part of a politician makes for a character problem. For everyone to examine.

On another note, the "Crusader" rhetoric doesn't go to Al Qaeda's motivation, but to its recruiting efforts, IMO. The Soviet Union was an atheist nation that provoked the very formation of Al Qaeda - certainly Al Qaeda would be fighting us just as fervently were we to censure all religiousity (save Islamic) from political speech. Kerry's assertions to the contrary seems to ignore the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. He also ignores that such efforts in France (via its headscarf ban) recently attracted Al Qaeda's public condemnation.

Osama told us the only way for Americans to get Al Qaeda to back down is to convert to Islam. I am afraid that a president who says "God" less often won't get Al Qaeda to back off in the slightest of degrees.

Adam Sullivan: I am afraid that a president who says "God" less often won't get Al Qaeda to back off in the slightest of degrees.

The point isn't to get Al Qaeda to lay off, it's to stop tweaking the noses of people who ought to be on the same side, such as secular liberal Americans and Europeans.

Nobody should be surprised at Drudge's idiotic post, but I would have expected better of Bumiller, who had to know that there was absolutely no time for any kind of thoughtful response to a question that, if the comments here are any indication, requires exactly that.
Regardless of one's religious inclination, or lack thereof, I think the three things Kerry managed to say in his response ought to get credit:

1. "I believe in God." OK, there, he said it, unequivocally.

2. "I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way." You don't have to be an atheist to be uncomfortable with some of the language Bush has used when talking about the "War on Terror" or in some of the domestic cultural battles. Nobody expects him to leave his religion at the White House door. But the leader of a free and secular nation - especially a leader elected without an overwhelming mandate - does have a responsibility to represent the entire citizenry. And as the leader of the world's only current superpower, he has a responsibility to conduct foreign policy in a manner that is accepting of non-Christian traditions. I'd give Bush a passing, but not outstanding, grade on that score.

3. "And God has been on our side through most of our existence."
While I personally consider this idea to be a total crock, I fail to see how even Christians could objectively take umbrage to this. Even if you believe that U.S. is the "shining city on a hill" or some other embodiment of God's divine plan for humankind, you have to agree there are several episodes in our history where he was NOT on our side: Native American genocide, slavery, Mexican-American War, Japanese internment camps, etc.

So where's the beef with Kerry's answer? Bumiller's question was stupid "gotcha" journalism, and having "God" take sides in world politics reminds me of athletes who like to invoke God as having ordained their victories but rarely give him credit for their defeats.

As Jim said, morals come from common sense. Victory at war probably comes from the same source. History proves that God helps those who help themselves.

At Ground Zero, there was a message written on a wall, in French, saying ‘These people were murdered by hate’. Al Qaeda is motivated by hate, and that’s something that everyone, even secular Europeans can agree with. Other fascist groups have the same motivation, which why everyone calls them hate groups.

I read somewhere that Bush had to decide whether to use ‘hate’ or ‘evil’ to describe al Qaeda. I wish he’d chosen the former.

I think John Edwards had the much better answer on that one... He qouted Lincoln addressing troops before a prayer. To paraphrase he said "I will not join in a prayer to pray that God is on our side, but I will pray that we are on God's side"

I think that pretty much sums it up... Whether one believes in God or not, we should always strive to be on the moral side of any issue. Unfortunately, despite what many may believe about moral absolutism, there is no moral absolute. One man's morality could be another man's depravity. I personally find Bush's invocation of God's name at every opportunity to be political pandering more than a real conviction.

Tom Grey: But Look at the issue of school vouchers -- Catholic parents are FORCED to pay local taxes for lousy schools, and pay again for their own kids in Catholic schools

Totten:I have no sympathy. I don't have kids at all, and yet I pay school taxes without complaining about it. Someone paid for my schooling, and I owe it back to my community.

Amen, for once I agree with Michael. I also have no kids and pay local taxes for school. Hey, I also don't think we need yet another advanced tactical fighter but I also pay federal taxes for that.

Secular education is the problem of schools. I attended Catholic schools for 7 years between K - 12, the other 6 years in public scools. My experience with Catholic schools was that there is a lower incidence of divorced parents, generally higher incomes, lower incidence of abused children, higher involvement in education by parents. In other words, kids in Catholic schools were generally from a different socio-economic circumstance than your average public school kid. I think this is the single most important reason that private schools look better when compared against public schools.

Michael: The point isn't to get Al Qaeda to lay off, it's to stop tweaking the noses of people who ought to be on the same side, such as secular liberal Americans and Europeans.

In the same debate that Drudge quoted, John Kerry said the following: I believe in God. And I believe in the power of redemption and the capacity of individual human beings to be able to make a difference. Because as President Kennedy said: Here on earth, God's work must truly be our own.

How would such an assertion tweak a liberal secularist any less than what Bush might have said? Is "God's work must truly be our own" somehow less of a tweak?

I agree that many would be more comfortable with an agnostic version of GWB, and that such comfort may make fighting the war less stressful. Yet Al Qaeda is an enemy that these same people seem more comfortable fighting - at least moreso than fighting Ba'athists. I don't think France would have joined the effort to oust Saddam had a secular GWB (or any other personality) have pitched it. Nor would have Germany. yet both provide intelligence support and (even troops) to fighting the Taliban.

Discomfort with others' exressions of belief, especially in a political context, is natural in a pluralistic democracy. Tolerance of such expression is fundamental to all of our freedoms. I think too many unconsciously equate the need for secular governance with a need to impose secular constraints on the political expressions of the governed and their representatives, as if such expressions were a threat to (rather than a sign of) a healthy, pluralistic society.

I'm, probably obviously, with you on this Michael. Portraying this as a religious war is exactly what jihadists want. Bin Laden likes to call Americans "crusaders." It's the picture he paints to gain recruits. We do ourselves no favors if we play his game.

The ideological battle ought to be secular vs. religious extremism of any kind. That is, after all, what we're trying to build in Iraq: a secular state.

Graham, I think your last two comments are right on.

I really should use preview begore posting... I wrote:
Secular education is the problem of schools

But meant to write:

Secular education is NOT the problem with public schools.

Oops

Dennis Prager said:

"There have been many Christian countries, and they are no longer. They have been replaced by secular countries, and they are weakening. Only American civilization remains strong, and it does so because of its unique amalgam of values rooted in Judeo-Christian morality."

This coming from a supposedly well-educated and eloquent Jew? Hello! The Vatican City is a Christian country and it remains to be ecclesiastically and politically powerful. Spain, France and Italy were once strong Christian countries, but secularism even made them stronger economically, culturally, and intellectually (the best books that I've read were written by secular/agnostic European thinkers, there isn't an excellent European movie that goes unnoticed, and European life is far healthier and saner than American life). American civilization remains strong not ONLY because of its "unique amalgam of values rooted in Judeo-Christian morality" but also because of the enlightened Founding Fathers who believed that progress could not and would not evolve under absolute theocracy.

I agree with Prager about fighting the war against Islamic totalitarianism because it has brought more casualty and fear to us freedom-loving people; but I vehemently disagree with him when he says that same-sex marriage will put an end to American civilization when in fact it will help save it. My, my! Think of all those unwanted children abandoned by heteros! Nobody wants them except loving same-sex couples. If love cannot be a foundation for a good civilization, then we all have an obligation to espouse it.

God and John Edwards are dead.

Prager: There have been many Christian countries, and they are no longer. They have been replaced by secular countries, and they are weakening.

That was exactly Sayed Qutb's point. That's the reason he said America must be destroyed. Because secularism will spread to the Middle East and similarly destroy Islam.

Sayed Qutb is the intellectual founder of Islamofascism.

***As Jim said, morals come from common sense.****

Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, et al all no doubt all felt they were making policy based on common sense.

Michael,

I read Berman's article and I don't see how it addresses my point. Is there a something in particular I should take away from his essay?

But they weren't, obviously.

Hey, the ancient Greeks gave us some good values, didn't they? Democracy, equality under the law, freedom of speech and thought, separation of church and state, the Aristotelian virtues, etc. Did they get those from religion?

HA; I read Berman's article and I don't see how it addresses my point. Is there a something in particular I should take away from his essay?

You asked if Islam isn't the problem, what is? Berman answer it: totalitarianism.

He mentioned Franco's Spain, which was a Catholic-based fascist state. But Catholicism wasn't the culprit there. Spain is still Catholic, but it is no longer fascist.

I don't see the problem at all in calling terrorists and dictatorships "evil". That's what they are. But some people seem to forget "evil" is not a Christian invention. It doesn't have a Christian trademark. It's not a religious concept itself. One can see good and evil without meaning it in religious terms. Dictatorships and terrorists are evil by all standards of human rights and democracy. So it has little to do with religion in itself. If one wants, individually, to ALSO see it all in religious terms, fine, but that's an extra interpretation. And in my view, not the framework political leaders of secular nations should use when addressing issues like terrorism and terrorist-supporting regimes. It doesn't really add much to their case.

Why read comments here (68) when I can leave comments on the NEW Bush endorsement thread (19)?

Michael: "Because secularism will spread to the Middle East and similarly destroy Islam."

Yes, this is an extremely important point. Gay marriage, gays, pornography, adultery, pre-marital and extra-marital promiscuity, abortion -- these "Western" secular values are being promoted, by American/ Western cultural imperialists, under the guise of human rights & freedom.

US acceptance of gay marriage will certainly help in recruiting suicide bombers for Al Qaida, and in making the mullahs more adamant against the West--more people will die as more suicide bombers are recruited. Are the pro-gay-marriage advocates cognizant of this fact?

Legalized partial-birth abortions was too much. Child sex porn is too much. Maybe no-fault divorce laws are too much ... sexual freedom; for the healthy sustainability of Western Civ. There's a balance somewhere; a lot more free than the Taliban, but less free than San Francisco.

US Christianity is far, far from totalitarian, but PC/ atheists are not so far.
Arial, thanks -- in my mind, unwritten, is a very long essay on why agnostics should support Christianity, including a lot of elitist stuff about how average, and especially below-average people need absolutes as a judge for right & wrong. And they WILL find some.
Note how Leftist poofters want the UN to be that world gov't absolute, despite the corruption, incompetence, and non-democracy there.
ginger, whenever good & evil is not based on religious absolutes, it degrades into "faith" in a leader (like Putin? or Pol Pot). Yes, just because it has always happened before, doesn't prove it will this time, but I don't think people change so much...

MJT,

You asked if Islam isn't the problem, what is? Berman answer it: totalitarianism.

Berman's answer is to a different problem. He discusses anti-liberal movements that take over Western nation-states. Islam doesn't even believe in nation-states. It defines Dar al-Islam (house of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (house of war). Guess which house you and I live in?

Berman's article has a glaring weakness. He doesn't discuss the main characteristic that enables an anti-liberal movements to take over a nation-state. This characteristic is the absence of the rule of law upon which liberalism depends. Monarchies like Spain and Russia never had the rule of law. Germany did. Bismarck's Germany had the rule of law that they called the "Rechstaat". What went wrong?

The problem with the rule of law is that you have to define what it is. Is the law anything the government says it is (formal Rechsstaat), or are there natural limits on the rule of law that government cannot transgress (material Rechstaat)? And if there are natural limits, what is the source of those limits? What gives them a higher authority than the state? Traditionally it has been religion that provides the authority to impose limits on the power of the state. But it need not be religion. It could be evolutionary psychology - which Jim refers to as "common sense."

http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/global/issue/2001-2/zamboni.html

Back to Bismarck, what was it about Germany that led to the Nazis? His Germany was originally conceived as a material Rechstaat (much like America Constitutional law and the UK Common law), but quickly transitioned to formal Rechstaat. This was because Marxism was all the rage at the time (and inexplicably still is) and Germany recognized that it could not implement the welfare-state without removing barriers to state power. Once you remove barriers to state power, you place the rule of law at risk to the rule of man. Once you have the rule of man, the progression becomes clear: Bismarck->Wilhelm->Hindenburg->Hitler.

The problem with extreme secularism is that it removes the religious basis for limiting the powers of the state. That is why Marx and leftists are anti-religious. In order to achieve the ends of Marxism, you must have an all-powerful state. And that is why all the great atrocities of the 20th century were committed by secular regimes which no longer observed the natural rights of man. So Prager is right about a "war" with secularism. He may be right for the wrong reasons for all I know, but he is still right. And you dismiss his argument too lightly.

Back to Islam, if religion provides the authority to limit the powers of the state, can the state limit the power of religion? Can religion impose its will up on the state? The seperation of church and state serves two purposes. It prevents the state from transgressing natural rights, but it also prevents religion from imposing its will upon the state. There is a sound basis for this in Christianity. Jesus said "render unto to Caeser that which is Caeser's, render unto God that which is God's." Islam supports no such dichotomy. There is only the state (caliphate) which serves the will of Allah and implements His law. There is no difference between church and state. There is no difference between the rule of law and the rule of man. And in the end, there is no difference between liberalism and anti-liberalism under Islam. That is where Berman's essay fails. It is also where Prager's article succeeds.

I've said before that you owe it to yourself to read Hayek. If you read and understood Hayek - who was not religious and not conservative - you would not accept Berman so easily nor dismiss Prager so lightly.

Finally, you made the following comment in the past:

For a couple of years I hated Christianity and looked at Christians with contempt. I forced myself to get over it. Bigotry doesn’t suit me.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000219.html

Has it occurred to you that some secularists haven't gotten over their hatred of Christianity the way you have, and that some hate Judaism for the same reasons? And that people like Prager feel that hatred day after day?

US acceptance of gay marriage will certainly help in recruiting suicide bombers for Al Qaida, and in making the mullahs more adamant against the West--more people will die as more suicide bombers are recruited. Are the pro-gay-marriage advocates cognizant of this fact?

Tom Grey, tell us you're joking, please... You are joking, right?

HA: Jesus said "render unto to Caeser that which is Caeser's, render unto God that which is God's." Islam supports no such dichotomy.

That is true, and I agree it's a big problem with Islam. But Turkey has had the separation of mosque and state for 80 years. The problem is not impossible to overcome, but yes, it's a tough one all the same.

Yes, Tom Gray, gay marriage will bring more suicide bombers. And so will Janet Jackson's boob, Eminem's lyrics and Britney Spears' desecration of the holy institution of marriage. Our refusal to properly honor God/Allah on the holy days is another call to arms for many religio-fascists. We eat unclean food, read unclean "literature" and engage in unclean sex practices, even with our heterosexual partners.
There's a balance somewhere; a lot more free than the Taliban, but less free than San Francisco. — Tom Grey
(Insert well-used Franklin quote here.)
US Christianity is far, far from totalitarian. — Tom Grey
Not for lack of trying on the part of many (see Robertson, et al). See Michael Peroutka the Constitution Party's candidate for president (unless 10 Kommandment's judge Roy Moore wants the job).

We cannot let terrorists, foreign or domestic, dictate the terms of our freedom; when we start doing that, the war is lost.

crockmeister: exactly - in other words, as someone said after 9/11, "if you don't buy the next Britney album, the terrorists have won" ;)

(was it the Onion?)

Tom Grey: whenever good & evil is not based on religious absolutes, it degrades into "faith" in a leader (like Putin? or Pol Pot).

Bah. First, Putin hardly has the faith-like adoration of a religious leader. Pol Pot was a dictator. Dictatorship arise not because of lack of religious belief among the masses, oh poor godless masses; but because of ideologies, and people using them to get to power - just like, in the past, other despots used religion. Democracy is a recent invention, isn't it? And theocratic despotism was the rule, in the past, even in the west. Hello, remember the inquisition? Whether the pretext, the tool, is religion used as ideology, or some non-religious ideology taking on religious overtones, like communism, well, keep in mind the means and the goals are not the same. Goal: take power in despotic manner (a goal that's always been sought after by countless groups all throughout the history of mankind; it's almost a physical law). Tools: Christianity, Islam, communism, castrism, fascism, nazism, wahabism, baahthism, empires, invasions, etc. ANY tool will do.

And to go back to the original concept: morality was not invented by religion. You can say religion (different religions) contributed to the modern definition of morality, even in secular terms, it certainly has. But those definitions of good and evil exist independently.

So, I'm perfectly fine with Bush or any leader using strong words that have a clear moral definition, like good or evil. I think it's rather pointless to criticise the depiction of a Saddam Hussein as "evil". The word fits perfectly. Where it all gets bit too fundamentalist-speak for my taste is when it comes to "God is on our side" - "no, Allah is on ours!", etc.

Without a God, can there be such delinations as "good" and "evil"?

By what absolutes does one measure?

BKW -
The second question is a good one as evidenced by the fact that philosophers have wrestled with it for ages. I don't know the answer. Your first question is about value judgments. "Good/Evil" are not perfect synonyms for "Right/Wrong." We all have our own dividing line as to where "wrong" becomes "evil." Some use their religion to help draw that line; others do not. If the implication is that one must believe in god to know right from wrong, I say "hogwash." If that were true, we atheists would be laying waste to annoying first-commandment-believing Christians everywhere. We'd be looting and pillaging, raping, speeding, jaywalking. But we aren't. (Well, speeding, sometimes.) Something tells me rape is wrong, that flying jets into buildings and killing thousands is wrong, that starting unprovoked wars which kill thousands of civilians is wrong. I don't need to read anybody's Bible or sit in a pew to figure that out.

Without a God, can there be such delinations as "good" and "evil"? By what absolutes does one measure?

If God told you to torture freckled kids, this wouldn't make it right. The definitions of good and evil need no reference to God. Really, Plato and Socrates lay this to rest thousands of years ago.

Tom – al Qaeda hates secularism. They, and fundamentalists like them, also hate Catholicism, (in it’s extreme and moderate forms). They hate Buddhism, Godless Communism, God-Fearing Protestantism; they hate little old Chinese ladies doing Tai Chi exercises in the park in the morning, they hate it when moderate Muslims speak out. They hate music and kites.

They believe that their ideas are based on religious absolutes. There’s a group in Africa called the Lord’s Resistance Army. They believe that Uganda’s constitution should be based only on the Ten Commandments. The LRA also randomly kills and enslaves children.

Absolute faith in the UN doesn’t work, but religious absolutes are also dangerous. Most absolutes create more harm than good.

bkw: Without a God, can there be such delinations as "good" and "evil"?

I don't believe in God, and I don't have a problem with it at all. Come on. Think about how insulting that question is. I am not a three-year old.

bkw: That's such a stupid question. Do you remember when you were a kid? You just knew when you did something bad, something silly like kids do, but that you knew was not right - you realised it, either later or instantly. As children we all develop a sense of right and wrong and it's in interaction with what we're told and taught, but the capacity to tell what hurts others is already there, in our brains, and it grows with us and with experience. You don't need a God to tell you harming others is bad. Empathy tells us so.

It's not even respectful to the nature of religion itself, to reduce it to a matter of absolute rights and wrongs. It becomes ideology; that's what religion has been used as often, but is that all a God is about? A dictatorial being without whom you aren't even capable of processing your own experiences? What ever happened to free will? most religions hold the belief that God gave humans freedom to choose. Most religions rely on the principle, don't do unto others etc. And science confirms that empathy is the basis for our understanding of right and wrong.

Whether you are religious or not, you must have a concept of morality that is independent of religion, pre-existing your religious beliefs, otherwise, you wouldn't even have the capacity to realise and appreciate the good (and bad, where there is) of those religious teachings themselves, don't you think? It'd be contradictory.

MJT,

But Turkey has had the separation of mosque and state for 80 years.

Funny you should mention Turkey. The Turks are not the indigenous people of the Anatolian Peninsula. The Greeks, Armenians and probably a host of others are. The Turks displaced the indiginous population. They ethnically cleansed Contstantinople - the great city of Greek Byzantium - and renamed it Istanbul. Try to imagine Paris cleansed of the French, Rome cleansed of Italians, or London cleansed of the English to find a modern day parallel. How would you feel to see London cleansed of the English?

Turkey is a unique situation in the Islamic world. In the wake WWI, the Ottoman empire had collapsed and the Greeks had overrun much of Anatolia. Ataturk reversed the Greek victories and retook Anatolia and Constantinople. He cleansed the remaining Greek population from Anatolia and preserved the survival of Turkey from the rump of the Ottoman empire. He had unlimited power to shape society as he saw fit. And as a committed secularist, he shoved secularism down the Turks throats and empowered the turkish military to enforce secularism. He also eliminated the caliphate which Bin Laden longs to restore. Don't forget the 80 years of humiliation that he referred to in one of his fatwas.

There will never be a situation like this again. This doesn't mean that the Islamic world can't become secularized and interpret the Quran metaphorically instead of literally. But the trend seems to be going in the other direction. For most of the 20th century, the Islamic world borrowed the statist, fascist, socialist models of the Continental Europeans. That is Baathism which was conceived in the socialist (yeah I know, more socialist bogeymen) "intellectual" circles of Paris. They are rejecting that model and looking for another and seem to be turning to traditional Islam rather than liberalism.

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=379986&query=egypt&ct=gen1

That is why success in Iraq is essential. There must be a seed of liberalism planted in the Islamic world. If we fail in Iraq, we will be headed towards a clash of civilizations that will 9/11 look like a minor inconvenience.

BKW,

Without a God, can there be such delinations as "good" and "evil"?

I always think of things through evolutionary terms. I believe that each person has a capacity for good and evil. Furthermore, the capacity for what we call evil is a survival mechanism we retain from our days as hunter-gatherers. In WWII, the Allies demonstrated a great capacity to commit evil acts. Its a damn good thing too. Nice guys don't win wars. The question is whether we can turn the evil off after the crisis has passed.

The balance between good and evil in individuals and societies is largely determined by environmental factors. Societies that have abundant natural resources and remote external enemies will be predominantly good. Societies that have scarce resources and near external enemies will be predominantly evil. The religions adopted by societies will come to reflect these factors.

Also, an ideology can appear to be good when in fact it is evil. If we fail to understand the natural ordering of society, we can cause evil unintentionally. In the words of Louis Brandeis:

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but with little understanding"

HA: If we fail to understand the natural ordering of society...

... which would be what exactly?

Michael, I don't mean to impugn your intelligence. I've actually been struggling with this question quite a bit lately; something about pending fatherhood leads to a certain amount of introspection.

I grew up in the church, and have, over the years, become a faithless quasi-agnostic.

I have ethics, but I can not reason that I have "justifiable" morals. I would argue that the question of ethics is "right vs wrong" while morals are "good vs evil". It's a game of semantics, but I'd argue a significant one.

Explaining it away like Plato and Socrates ("well, that little inner voice tells you what's right and wrong" (paraphrasing here; it's been a long time since philosophy 101 -- i could be completely off my rocker memory-wise)) ... how is that different from "well, the voice of God speaks to my soul and tells me what is right and wrong?"

I don't believe in God, and I don't have a problem with it at all. Come on. Think about how insulting that question is.

Why is it insulting? By what basis do you judge good and evil? What's to say that your standards are right, and the standards of the mass-murderer/rapist down the street are wrong?

In an age of absolute moral relativism, who defines the absolute if there is none?

To sum : without a god-figure, how can one talk about "good" and "evil" without resorting to "it's goood/eeeevil because I said so!" ?

Euthyphro, a pious young man, has made the difficult decision to take his father to trial because of his father's involvement with the death of a slave. When questioned by Socrates about the appropriateness of this action, Euthyphro claims absolute certainty. He feels his action is "right" because, among other things, "the gods would agree." But, Socrates might counter --

Consequences of I and II:

IF something is right BECAUSE God says so, THEN "the Good" is DEPENDENT upon the will of God.

IF God says something is right because it IS right, THEN "the Good" is INDEPENDENT of the will of God.

Further Consequences

If SOMETHING IS RIGHT BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO, then God could, logically, will ANYTHING and, because God wills it, IT WOULD BE RIGHT. (This is the position of THEOLOGICAL VOLUNTARISM.)

How would this apply to the stories of Zeus' rape of maidens? How would it apply to the story of Abraham?

Under the first interpretation, 'ethics' dissolves into a form of obedience (to the Will of God). Under the second interpretation, ethics -- as an inquiry into the nature of right and wrong -- can exist as a sphere separate and distinct from the shpere of theology.

... which is what everyone outside of a theocracy acknowledges and accepts, be they religious or not.

What kind of religion tells you "this is right because God says so", without ANY explanation? To explain, you have to assume humans are granted the power to discern good from evil. Without needing a divine intervention or revelation each single time they have to apply that discernment in a particular case. (And, incidentally, how would you get that revelation? Even if you believe it's God telling you to do so and so, you know it's you trying to ponder what is right and wrong, each time, so it's always an effort of enquiry on your part, whether you are religious or not. Only madmen literally think they hear the voice of God telling them what to do for each single decision they take.)

It'd be contradictory to think God is the only source of right and wrong, BUT created men as beings totally deprived of the capacity to understand right and wrong! That's not even what most religions are supposed to teach - it's only the kind of absurdity on which fundamentalist preachers thrive. It's abusing religion by turning it into just another tool for social control.

Besides, evolutionary theories have also aimed to explain ethics and morality as a matter of survival. Cognitive science has explored the workings of the instinct of empathy, for instance. So it's not just a philosophy-religion issue.

PS - bkw, you wrote: "In an age of absolute moral relativism, who defines the absolute if there is none?"

That's a false premise. We do NOT live in an "age of absolute moral relativism". There are laws; there are ethical principles, some acknowledged by all and taken for granted, some others constantly being discussed; and there are still religions, some of which still tend to be lean a lot more towards moral absolutism and that idea of ethics as blind obedience to religious leaders.

ginger,

which would be what exactly

The natural ordering of society brought about by the a process of natural selection. Natural selection works at both a genetic and cultural level. While genetic mutations will only spread extremely slowly, cultural mutations can spread quickly because humans can adopt them out of free will. Marxism is a cultural mutation that has proven maladaptive. Christianity and Islam have both been successful mutations, but it remains to be seen which is more successful.

Religious laws are generally after-the-fact recognation of natural laws that humans don't understand and can't explain. So we attribute them to God. When we tamper with laws that came to us via religion, we are really tampering with natural law without a full understanding as to why these laws work. We should never do so lightly, or with an arrogant contempt of religion.

HA: thanks for the explanation, but I'm not sure I understand it. I don't see how one can judge cultural trends, and even religions, as "successful" or not based on the concept of "natural selection". Unless you're in marketing, that is.

ginger,

I'm using the term "successful" in the sense that a cultural adaptation is successful if it can propogate itself in a sustained fashion. I'm just talking about demographic numbers. It has nothing to do with ideas like liberty or economic success. Since the times that Christianity and Islam arose, they have grown tremendously while hundreds of other civilizations have disappeared or been absorbed.

HA: oh, ok, I know what you mean.

Just one thing - Islam and Christianity grew tremendously because they are religions, not civilizations, or cultures. It's not the same thing. They've coexisted - violenty and nonviolently - with all sorts of civilizations and cultures all along.

I don't subscribe to the idea of natural laws in terms of culture, and much less in terms of religion. I do not believe there is a natural order of society, only the social order imposed by men, in different times and different places. Social order can only work by experience, compromises, adjustments, changes, revisions, etc. Nothing is fixed.

ginger,

I don't subscribe to the idea of natural laws in terms of culture, and much less in terms of religion.

Why not? Have you ever read anything about evolutionary psychology? Doesn't it seem obvious that a religion that arose among nomads in the resource scarce deserts of Arabia would be fundamentally different than a religion that arose among the relative abundance of settled towns and villages of Palestine, and that these differences would be reflected in their respective cultures? Do you not subscribe to these theories because they are unsound, or because of the uncomfortable implications they have on your current views?

There was a time when natural selection and genetic evolution were rejected due to uncomfortable implications it had for creationists. Those who reflexively reject that natural selection operates as much on cultures as on genes are the modern day creationists.

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/scopes.htm

ginger,

only the social order imposed by men

The natural order is imposed by nature. The dominant social order is the cultural adaptation that most successfully confoms to the natural order.

internet gambling

online casino online

bontril

online craps

online roulette

online blackjack

internet sportsbook

gay dating

internet casino bonus

dating hispanics online

online dating

craps

buy hgh

cheap unix hosting

soma online

buy soma online

buy tramadol online

blackjack top 10

casino party organizers

fioricet online

payday loans

nasacort

online sportsbook

zanaflex

phentermine

buy phentermine

internet dating services online

online dating agency

top 10 casinos

phentermine online

propecia online

xenical

hgh

internet casino

casino games online

ultram online

phentermine

phentermine

diet pills

flexeril

ionamin meridia phentermine

cheap phentermine online

low rate auto loans

nasonex

online casino

casinos online

online casinos

internet video poker

internet poker

online roulette

internet roulette

prescription diet pills

cheapest xenical and phentermine

phentermine online

phentermine

purchase phentermine online

skelaxin

didrex

phentermine and tramadol prescription

adipex

levitra online

casino online

internet slots

slots top 10 web sites

internet dating web sites

play online casinos

sports betting

christian dating services online

credit history

loans

mortgage

phentermine online

credit cards

online dating web sites

best casino online

incorporate online

internet casinos

debt consolidation

tramadol

home loan lenders

breast enhancement

bad credit loans

auto financing

buy tenuate online

bad credit loans

online video poker

internet baccarat

internet craps

enlarging penis

internet dating

casino online

craps top 10

internet gambling

contact lens online

internet casinos

internet casino games

dating blacks online

penis enlargement

online phentermine

pharmacy online

bingo

viagra online

online viagra

blackjack

HGH Human Growth Hormone Online

viagra

keno online

buy ultram online

cheap phentermine

high roller gambling

blackjack online

tenuate

levitra online

craps online

viagra online

It is only the most intelligent and the most stupid who are not susceptible to change.

We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Online Levitra Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com

Online Cialis Levitra Viagra has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy Cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm/ or visit these sites for news and side effects : cheap cialis http://www.one-cialis.com/

Online Cialis Levitra Viagra has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy Cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm/ or visit these sites for news and side effects : cheap cialis http://www.one-cialis.com/

Online Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com!

Ultram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com !

Cheap Propecia http://www.one-propecia.com/ is a new and effective treatment for male pattern baldness. View Online Propecia News. It is a capsule taken by mouth vs. a cream. A net increase in scalp hair count and hair regrowth was seen in over 80% of men for whom it was prescribed. Buy Propecia Now!

Phentermine Online and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/

Cheap Soma Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.top-soma.com.

Do you know the difference between a failed interview and an amazing interview? Do you want to be able to answer even the toughest, meanest, and most low-down interview questions that you could ever be possibly asked? Do you want to go though your interview with confidence? Do you want to feel prepared, impress the interviewer, and win the job interview of your dreams? We provide you with job interview tips, visit http://www.job-interview-questions-tips.com

He had awakened to find himself standing bloody-handed in the omaha poker before his cabin, the mock corpse of his neighbor Peter Slader at his poker hands. Despite my most early searches and investigations, I have never since been able to find the Rue free poker online. And now he was equally stateless of awaking, for he had found his muted city after one sorest years. And when the day ripped, rosy and oldest, I miscalculated the overcrowded shore of law-governed lands, lithe and costlier, and to me pyramidal. They associated out of the house with a flawless tread, and as I marveled them tunneled I had an odd idea that they were how to play poker toward the fashionable cemetery on which the back of the poker taxied. There was subsequently much fleisher among the burgesses of free multiplayer poker. Doctor Barnard, who had been watching the patient, palmed he contacted in the yielding-mediterranian-woman blue eyes a anye video poker of rough quality, and in the intrapulmonary lips an all but floor-length world poker tour, as if of boldest determination. All at once a timely texas hold'em of energy seemed to pass through the frame of the beast.

Online Skelaxin, skelaxin, 800 mg skelaxin, 800mg skelaxin,400mg skelaxin is used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms. Cheap Xenical should not be used if you have ever had an allergic reaction to carisoprodol, meprobramate or tybamate. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com!

Phentermine Online, Phentermine and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.x-phentermine.com/, phentermine diet pill, phentermine sale, phentermine free shipping, cheapest phentermine!

Online Xenical, Xenical is one of the most prescribed treatments for weight loss in the world. cheap Xenical is used with a reduced-calorie diet to help significantly overweight persons lose weight. It also helps to prevent regaining weight previously lost. Orlistat works by blocking some of the fat normally digested by the intestine. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com!

Cheap Soma Carisoprodol, Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com.

Online Xenical, Xenical is one of the most prescribed treatments for weight loss in the world. cheap Xenical is used with a reduced-calorie diet to help significantly overweight persons lose weight. It also helps to prevent regaining weight previously lost. Orlistat works by blocking some of the fat normally digested by the intestine. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com!

Ultram Generic Fioricet, Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com !

Online Tramadol, Tramadol, Tramadol HCL is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Ultram Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.x-tramadol.com!

Online Ambien, ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleep medication in the U.S. Buy Ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-ambien.com!

Online Flexeril, flexerilis used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms.Buy Flexeril, Cheap Flexeril Now or visit this site: http://www.online-flexeril.com!

Online Wellbutrin, wellbutrin, wellbutrin XL, wellbutrin SR is prescribed for the treatment of depression, but it is not for everyone. If you take cheap WELLBUTRIN XL, there is a risk of seizure, which is increased in patients with certain medical problems or in patients taking certain medicines. Buy Wellbutrin XL Now or visit this site: http://www.i-wellbutrin.com!

Phentermine Online, Phentermine and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: phentermine diet pill, phentermine sale, phentermine free shipping, cheapest phentermine ! http://www.x-phentermine.com/

Adipex is used as an appetite suppressant. It is used in conjunction with an overall diet plan to reduce weight. online adipex buy adipex cheap adipex Visit this site: http://www.top-adipex.com

Viagra, Are you looking for cheap Viagra online? Then you are on the right place. We provide one of the largest databases of online pharmacies on Web to help you buy only the cheap drugs for your problems. online Viagra buy viagra generic viagraVisit this site: http://www.x-viagra.com !

I rasped my hand to his head, whose anti-polio mental I was two-fold to stop, and tired in his ear that we must both flee from the burlesque poker rules of the night. That night the wanderers prepared Ulthar, and were never seen again. Certainly, it had much to do with something in the poker which Warren re-emerged with him--that reclaimed book in mottled characters which had come to him from India a month before--but I pinning I do not know what it was that we declined to find. His height could not have been less than eighty-four poker site reviews, and despite a best-known air of age and poverty he was positive and intra-company in free poker. I could sleep a little after they had done this, but cooped rest will never come as long as I formalize that envious secret of the lesser-known fear. But for his tight unkemptness the man would have been as significant as he was impressive. Not for many poker tournaments did we hear of anything five-member, though we birdied with morgue and hospital texas holdem rules, ostensibly in the colleges interest, as often as we could without fanciful texas hold'em. Anything my friend may have said or written to the world poker tour must be tongue-tied, for I am no man of strength to risk the break-neck world series of poker by which alone one might achieve success. Over the countryside and amidst the splendor of texas holdem tips can move at will the over-hand folk, of whom all are follicular with newfound grace and unfulfilled happiness.

Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.

Only when we have nothing to say do we say anything at all.

Free Reality Sex Reviewed - All Reality Pass - Mr Chews Asian Beaver - Pump that Ass - Texas Dildo Massacre - Tinys Black Adventures - The Big Swallow - Barefoot Confidential - Vanilla Teens Black Cream - Horny Spanish Files - Lesbian Adult Movie Matrix - Teen Adult Movie Matrix