On 2001-11-07 10:13, Brian Rush wrote:
HopefulCynic:

Brian, all societies without exception are built directly or indirectly on a basis of religious law from one belief system or another. You can adjust the degree of application, and draw from more than one religion to undergird a society, but you can't escape the presence of religious rules.

I don't agree. What I would agree is that there was a time when all societies were founded on religious law, and all modern societies are descended from older ones where that was true. But our own society explicitly rejected that foundation, and evolved a secular legal system based on humanistic principles. So did every other modern society.

Granted. But those humanistic principles show a distinct resemblance to the religious culture that proceeded them. The foundation of the West is Judeo-Christian, specifically Western Christian (Roman Catholic and Protestant). Most Middle Eastern cultures are based on Islam without any leavening of secular thinking. Even in Soviet times, Russia's culture and law were influenced deeply by Russian/Greek Orthodox thinking.

Likewise, even today, many elements of Japan are Shinto based, though in Japan there is a powerful Western admixture as well. Of course, I realize that the Emperor worship was a relatively recent and somewhat artificial development of Shinto, but that doesn't nullify the connections.

I may not be posting much tonight, I'm having some odd technical troubles.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2001-11-07 19:57 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2001-11-07 19:47, HopefulCynic68 wrote:
[quote]
On 2001-11-07 10:13, Brian Rush wrote:
HopefulCynic:

Brian, all societies without exception are built directly or indirectly on a basis of religious law from one belief system or another. You can adjust the degree of application, and draw from more than one religion to undergird a society, but you can't escape the presence of religious rules.

This thread, concerning the underpinning of society to religious belief is being echoed by CORDONE57 and MOLLUSEGATE, both new to this forum. Welcome. I hope that in bringing up the concept of some enduring "old-time-religion" to this group, you are not ostrichized as you could be on open thought on other taboo subjects, (like me on race and nationality issues). See the early p. 140's.

The real person to offer an apologesis, (if that is the correct word) to the religion question is BOBBUTTLER54, our avowed "secular humanist".

Let me take the first shot accoss the bow by agreeing with that Joe Sobran guy, in identifying the absolute need for a religious foundation to a enduring society. You might call it the religious imperative to culture. I'd say cultures that renounce their religious roots, with no equal replacement, are doomed. We would have an America not worth saving.

An author, James Hitchcock, wrote a seminal work called simply "Secular Humanism" on this subject. One of my fovorite books, available at Ignatius Press.

The relevance to T4T is that in discussing roles and phases of culture, S&H describe time as a spiral. The seasons add the cyclic periodicity, but the linear portion could be called "progress", marching to an "end" With respect to western culture in the past 200 years, religious progress is more aptly religious decay. When the secular componnent rules our culture entirely, we may collapse internally faster than any terrorist group could do it to us.

[quote]
On 2001-11-07 21:50, sv81 wrote:
[quote]
On 2001-11-07 19:47, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2001-11-07 10:13, Brian Rush wrote:
HopefulCynic:

Brian, all societies without exception are built directly or indirectly on a basis of religious law from one belief system or another. You can adjust the degree of application, and draw from more than one religion to undergird a society, but you can't escape the presence of religious rules.

This thread, concerning the underpinning of society to religious belief is being echoed by CORDONE57 and MOLLUSEGATE, both new to this forum. Welcome. I hope that in bringing up the concept of some enduring "old-time-religion" to this group, you are not ostrichized as you could be on open thought on other taboo subjects, (like me on race and nationality issues). See the early p. 140's.

The real person to offer an apologesis, (if that is the correct word) to the religion question is BOBBUTTLER54, our avowed "secular humanist".

Let me take the first shot accoss the bow by agreeing with that Joe Sobran guy, in identifying the absolute need for a religious foundation to a enduring society. You might call it the religious imperative to culture. I'd say cultures that renounce their religious roots, with no equal replacement, are doomed. We would have an America not worth saving.

An author, James Hitchcock, wrote a seminal work called simply "Secular Humanism" on this subject. One of my fovorite books, available at Ignatius Press.

The relevance to T4T is that in discussing roles and phases of culture, S&H describe time as a spiral. The seasons add the cyclic periodicity, but the linear portion could be called "progress", marching to an "end" With respect to western culture in the past 200 years, religious progress is more aptly religious decay. When the secular componnent rules our culture entirely, we may collapse internally faster than any terrorist group could do it to us.

As an atheist and a secular humanist, I would have to totally disagree with you on that. The Soviet Union did very well without religion.

Yes, you are a mad scientist.
The Soviet Union killed at least as many people as Nazi Germany, and collapsed in a single lifetime.
This is doing well?

On 2001-11-07 23:38, Tom Mazanec wrote:
Yes, you are a mad scientist.
The Soviet Union killed at least as many people as Nazi Germany, and collapsed in a single lifetime.
This is doing well?

The number of people they killed has no relation to their choice of atheism, but rather because they chose to have an extremely closed society. If they chose to embrace Christianity, the result would be the same. My point was that the Soviet Union lasted for 75 years with atheism. However, if they had a more open society and free society, it would still be functioning.

In fact, when America was born, it was a largely non-theist society (ruled by deists). But even with their non-theism, they created a great society with wealth and individual freedom. America was founded upon the secular ideals that were born in the enlightenment. This enlightenment first became apparent in the 1680s with the writings of people like Cotton Mather. It showed up again in the 1770s and 1780s with the writings of Thomas Jefferson and of Thomas Paine. Secular enlightenment is what propels America forward. The 1980s and 1990s saw a deintellectualization of America with the rise of fundamentalism. It is time that we begin another "Age of Reason".

On 2001-11-08 00:03, madscientist wrote:
In fact, when America was born, it was a largely non-theist society (ruled by deists). But even with their non-theism, they created a great society with wealth and individual freedom. America was founded upon the secular ideals that were born in the enlightenment. This enlightenment first became apparent in the 1680s with the writings of people like Cotton Mather. It showed up again in the 1770s and 1780s with the writings of Thomas Jefferson and of Thomas Paine. Secular enlightenment is what propels America forward. The 1980s and 1990s saw a deintellectualization of America with the rise of fundamentalism. It is time that we begin another "Age of Reason".

I agree here, the American Bill of Rights, ensured by law that people have the freedom to worship any belief they want and that church and state were separate from each other, That was an first for any society.

Compare the USA say around 1800 to Europe, expect France. Where the various nations had offical religions and freedom of worship was not always ensured.

I think the transcendental awakening and the Civil War Crisis made America from a very secular society compared to Europe into a very religious one. I think the lack of a proper Hero generation in the Civil War Crisis, slowed down America's progress towards a more secular society. Hero generations are very non-religious, very rational.

Australia has always been a very secular society, as secular as England. The sectarian feud between Protestants and Catholic was more the Irish against the English. Australia is one of the most secular societies on Earth.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2001-11-08 02:52 ]</font>

On 2001-11-07 23:07, madscientist wrote:



As an atheist and a secular humanist, I would have to totally disagree with you on that. The Soviet Union did very well without religion.

Mr. Reed, the Soviet Union had a religion...it happened to be atheistic as in the Buddhist case and contra that faith believed in materialism. It had prophets, sacred texts, worked upon faith by those texts, tried to change "human nature", had conversions, heretics, schismatics, temples with dead "saviors", palaces of Atheism etc. etc.

That it pretended to being a "scientific" religion may cause some confusion. But, Christian Science made a like claim. HTH

On 2001-11-07 17:18, cordone57 wrote:
This all looks too much like the recent attitude that has truly frightened me about the future. What's wrong with "these kids today"? The thing that's wrong with these kids today is that they're rejecting decency and modesty as arbitrary and view sexual liberation as the only progress. Whatever happened to decency? Don't these kids care about order any more? Now only freedom is viewed as progress, from the all-time low of Victorian society to the Summer of Love, hailed as progress in the right direction from which feudalistic, biblical, chaos-fearing tradition was the lower order. I was always taught that there needs to be a balance between freedom and law and order, and both of them are good and neccessary in their own ways, but I can't tell you how many of the new crop I've seen on message boards speaking as if personal freedom and equality were the marks of cultural progress and everyone should be f--king like rabbits when the ultimate utopia is reached.......

Which "kids today" are you talking about???

From all that I've seen and read, today's high schoolers -- Millennials -- are BY FAR more modest and decent than Generation X teens were ten, or even five, years ago. That is not to say that there are no teens who -- like our own Craig '84 -- adhere to the anti-values that you describe. But they don't appear to be in the majority. (Thank God, I might add).

Moreover, the younger kids born in the 1990s, are positively squeaky-clean compared to Xers -- and even Boomer kids -- at like age.

Things are not nearly as hopeless as you imagine.

Brian, all societies without exception are built directly or indirectly on a basis of religious law from one belief system or another. You can adjust the degree of application, and draw from more than one religion to undergird a society, but you can't escape the presence of religious rules.
No society can.

One aspect of the Boom Awakening (?Consciousness Revolution?) that set it apart from almost all others was its non-religious nature. This is opposed to the Soviet ideology, which set itself up as a kind of religion by directly competing with religions in their own sphere, as Virgil K. Saari points out. There was a book by French author Jean-Francois Revel in the 60?s called (English version) ?Without Marx or Jesus? that declared America to be the only hope for real revolution, because of the non-ideological nature of the movement. Jerry Rubin, in ?Do It?, declared that ?ideology is a brain disease.? The beliefs most fervently pressed by Boomers are based on pragmatic considerations of what?s best for society, not on any arbitrary set of rules passed on from the past. There is, of course, a strong reaction from traditional believers, but it is just that ? a reaction ? not the essence of the movement itself.
In sexual morality, for example, there is a pragmatic consideration for the needs and rights of all those involved that overshadows all rules from religious tradition. The aspect of that which was overlooked until recently, is the effect of family instability and the developmental needs of children.

On 2001-11-08 00:03, madscientist wrote:

The number of people [the Soviets] killed has no relation to their choice of atheism, but rather because they chose to have an extremely closed society.

The number of people the Soviets killed is merely a function of their desire to minimize the risk of losing control, consistent with human nature. However acceptance of atheism does tend to diminish respect for human life as people are ultimately reduced to mere carbon matter intrinsically of no greater value than livestock killed for human consumption. I am in no way saying that all atheists cannot distinguish between people and animals. But a degree of man's intrinsic value is certainly lost and respect for human life diminishes accordingly.

If they chose to embrace Christianity, the result would be the same.

This is an interesting statement and I am not certain that it is true. The ruling elite in the Soviet Union had a definite interest in promoting atheism. Communism called for a shift of allegiance from God to the State as the State was to be God. This was necessary in order to render people compliant so as to reform society according to communist ideals. Had the right of the people to worship been unchallenged, then there is a greater likelihood that more would have been able to place the evil inherent in communism into a philosophical context. This might have allowed for spiritual awakening and a popular rising against the state. In other words, there is a greater likelihood that the Soviet Union would not even have lasted 75 years had people been free to worship.

My point was that the Soviet Union lasted for 75 years with atheism. However, if they had a more open society and free society, it would still be functioning.

And I would look for a shorter lifespan with unfettered worship. Communism's co-opting of spiritual allegiance is all-important in keeping the people engaged in a deliberate reformation of society. If they had a "more open society and free society," then that would have eliminated the possibility of making the necessary reformation of society. In other words, the Soviet Union would not have functioned at all.

In fact, when America was born, it was a largely non-theist society (ruled by deists).

America was actually a highly theistic society as virtually everybody went to church. A minority of the founding fathers identified with deism and few if any of the common people did. And even deism shared theism's belief that God created the universe. The theistic/deistic dispute centered upon God's role in everyday affairs.

But even with their non-theism, they created a great society with wealth and individual freedom.

The emphasis was on religious toleration. We are not talking about a cadre of atheists imposing atheism on the population. The point was that no mere mortal is competent to speak for God so no mere mortal should stand between the individual and his God. Every individual should be free to pursue the truth on his own terms.

America was founded upon the secular ideals that were born in the enlightenment.

Exactly. And those secular ideals called, not for atheism, but for religious toleration.

On 2001-11-08 10:05, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2001-11-08 00:03, madscientist wrote:

The number of people [the Soviets] killed has no relation to their choice of atheism, but rather because they chose to have an extremely closed society.

The number of people the Soviets killed is merely a function of their desire to minimize the risk of losing control, consistent with human nature. However acceptance of atheism does tend to diminish respect for human life as people are ultimately reduced to mere carbon matter intrinsically of no greater value than livestock killed for human consumption. I am in no way saying that all atheists cannot distinguish between people and animals. But a degree of man's intrinsic value is certainly lost and respect for human life diminishes accordingly.

If they chose to embrace Christianity, the result would be the same.

This is an interesting statement and I am not certain that it is true. The ruling elite in the Soviet Union had a definite interest in promoting atheism. Communism called for a shift of allegiance from God to the State as the State was to be God. This was necessary in order to render people compliant so as to reform society according to communist ideals. Had the right of the people to worship been unchallenged, then there is a greater likelihood that more would have been able to place the evil inherent in communism into a philosophical context. This might have allowed for spiritual awakening and a popular rising against the state. In other words, there is a greater likelihood that the Soviet Union would not even have lasted 75 years had people been free to worship.

My point was that the Soviet Union lasted for 75 years with atheism. However, if they had a more open society and free society, it would still be functioning.

And I would look for a shorter lifespan with unfettered worship. Communism's co-opting of spiritual allegiance is all-important in keeping the people engaged in a deliberate reformation of society. If they had a "more open society and free society," then that would have eliminated the possibility of making the necessary reformation of society. In other words, the Soviet Union would not have functioned at all.

In fact, when America was born, it was a largely non-theist society (ruled by deists).

America was actually a highly theistic society as virtually everybody went to church. A minority of the founding fathers identified with deism and few if any of the common people did. And even deism shared theism's belief that God created the universe. The theistic/deistic dispute centered upon God's role in everyday affairs.

But even with their non-theism, they created a great society with wealth and individual freedom.

The emphasis was on religious toleration. We are not talking about a cadre of atheists imposing atheism on the population. The point was that no mere mortal is competent to speak for God so no mere mortal should stand between the individual and his God. Every individual should be free to pursue the truth on his own terms.

America was founded upon the secular ideals that were born in the enlightenment.

Exactly. And those secular ideals called, not for atheism, but for religious toleration.

I totally agree with Stonewall Patton, (and that hasn't happened as long as I can remember).

A true student of U.S. history wouldn't suggest that the popular political leaders in the 1700's that were deist constituted the whole of the society. The founding members of our society, the rank and file, were predominantly western european, christian, and tollerant of others, (they had tasted oppression in the old country).

Just as the soviet union fell after 75 years of atheism, I believe it a given that our society, with its religious toleration - mutated to religious antagonism, has less than 75 years to go.

The great American experiment ended once we became a global empire, and the divisions in the world will likely split us up as it did the soviet union. We try to play: banker, cop, moralist, entertainer, and a hundred other roles worldwide because we believe that they are "right". Right for us isn't right for people 15,000 miles away. And in turn, the religious convictions (or lack thereof) in China, the middle east or South America are none of our business.

I can believe that missionary programs are good, but how we press the world for conformance to our standards is neither considerate nor beneficial to others. It may be the Last Turning we will see.

On 2001-11-08 14:09, sv81 wrote:

I totally agree with Stonewall Patton, (and that hasn't happened as long as I can remember).

A true student of U.S. history wouldn't suggest that the popular political leaders in the 1700's that were deist constituted the whole of the society.

SV81, I am going to have to disagree with you again. If Robert were not a "true student of U.S. history," he would not even be at a site such as this.

On 2001-11-08 09:00, Carl Fitzpatrick wrote:

Brian, all societies without exception are built directly or indirectly on a basis of religious law from one belief system or another. You can adjust the degree of application, and draw from more than one religion to undergird a society, but you can't escape the presence of religious rules.
No society can.

One aspect of the Boom Awakening (?Consciousness Revolution?) that set it apart from almost all others was its non-religious nature. This is opposed to the Soviet ideology, which set itself up as a kind of religion by directly competing with religions in their own sphere, as Virgil K. Saari points out. There was a book by French author Jean-Francois Revel in the 60?s called (English version) ?Without Marx or Jesus? that declared America to be the only hope for real revolution, because of the non-ideological nature of the movement. Jerry Rubin, in ?Do It?, declared that ?ideology is a brain disease.? The beliefs most fervently pressed by Boomers are based on pragmatic considerations of what?s best for society, not on any arbitrary set of rules passed on from the past. There is, of course, a strong reaction from traditional believers, but it is just that ? a reaction ? not the essence of the movement itself.
In sexual morality, for example, there is a pragmatic consideration for the needs and rights of all those involved that overshadows all rules from religious tradition. The aspect of that which was overlooked until recently, is the effect of family instability and the developmental needs of children.

Sorry, but pragmatic consideration are just now words I can make myself associate with most the Boomers' social agendas (right-wing and religious based ones included). No offense, but it doesn't match my experience with the activist Boomers at all.

The aspect of that which was overlooked until recently, is the effect of family instability and the developmental needs of children.

Are you saying the Boom Awakening made family instability better or worse?

On 2001-11-08 00:03, madscientist wrote:

In fact, when America was born, it was a largely non-theist society (ruled by deists). But even with their non-theism, they created a great society with wealth and individual freedom. America was founded upon the secular ideals that were born in the enlightenment. This enlightenment first became apparent in the 1680s with the writings of people like Cotton Mather. It showed up again in the 1770s and 1780s with the writings of Thomas Jefferson and of Thomas Paine. Secular enlightenment is what propels America forward. The 1980s and 1990s saw a deintellectualization of America with the rise of fundamentalism. It is time that we begin another "Age of Reason".

When I spoke of a religious basis of societies, I was not only referring to the United States, but to the entire West, of which the United States is a cultural part.

The history of the West (and with it the roots of the U.S.) go back to the Middle Ages culturally, and the basic shape of all the Western nations was shaped in the pattern of Western Christianity in those days. In many subtle ways, even the highly secular Europe of today retains this pattern.

This isn't a theological statement, by the way, but a social and political observation.

The Age of Reason was not just a function of the Civic generations of the period. It was a cultural phenomenon that was probably unique on its own terms, like the Age of Faith in the Middle Ages. Neither will come again, in the same sense that they came before.

Will the upcoming Civic Millenials create a more secular-oriented society? Almost certainly, for a while, barring disaster. Will religious faith, both Fundamentalist (depending on the exact definition of that, of course) and 'moderate' (ditto) survive it? You bet, just as science has survived the Boom Awakening and the 3T.

Since the topic of this thread is 911 and the most recent war in Afganistan, I would like to reflect and express my feelings on that great desicive issue. Definitely, US should fight in Afganistan until the taliban order is overthrown and replaced by preferably a new government with a constitiution and democrary. In the case of 911, the only reply US can give is by using force. There is no other way. That might lead the country (and it is already leading) into what S&H call the 4th Turning, but US should work for the final result by trying to completely destroy all governments that support terrorism and root out al-queda.

What identifies if US is in 3T or 4T is not how culture and values change, but how the world and problems are changing. For instance, my peers might lay aside all the 3T culture they were raised in and act according to their Millenial archetype, and Boomers mnight push all remaining Silents out of power, but if the outcome of the war on terrorism turns out to be incomplete (perhaps with bin ladin still plotting, taliban government still in Afganistan, etc.), then US would still be in 3T.
However, if either Boomers gain all power or if something drastic happens, but there is no right generational allignment, then there wold be a pre-mature 4T.

PErsonally, I support the current war, and I also wish that Sadam's order in Iraq as well as Hezbola's rule were also considered threats and later also waged war against. Fundamentalist and theocratic governments in the Middle East are lately (c.1980-present)are getting too much power in world politics and too much voice in the UN. IN my opinion, US can't let them expand any further.

I think with the 6000+ victims of 911, the current times are well of a 4T already.. So many sacrifices were made already that it is no longer possible to turn back to the 90's world. Even if MTV still shows degrading celebrities and Silents are still in power, US is now fighting to save its existnce. US is reconsidering and changing its status on world stage. US is strengthening its armed forces. US might soon start replacing defunct world istitutions such as UN with ones more appropriate for the times and the problems. US is beginning to eradicate some barely touched world conflicts. SO it is 4T...

Quote:

"In fact, when America was born, it was a largely non-theist society (ruled by deists)."

I don't care what you say, that isn't correct. Deists may have been in positions of power, and formed the genesis of our constitution, BUT, we had largely a sectular society, not secular. Several denominations, but very few people were unassociated with churches or a strong faith in God.

All leaders, (regardless of affiliation) draw their power from the public mass below them. That is how leaders rise to power. Conversely, a leader that ascribes to values not supported by the public falls from favor quickly, (like Churchill post WWII).

The U.S.of A. may be more "non-theist" now than before, but at the founding of our country, the vast majority did believe in God.

No revisionist history allowed on that one.

Hmm. My position would be in the middle of the secular / theist debate.

During the colonial era, there were no police force, and very little in the way of established courts. Most colonies had an established protestant denomination as an official church. For minor cases, an offender was brought to his clergyman to establish penance and restitution. This is one reason distrust of Catholics was strong prior to the Civil War. The churches had a significant role in running the society, and Catholic priests were perceived as loyal to a foreign power. When the major waves of Catholic immigration started coming, full time secular police and court systems completed the separation of Church and State.

None of this showed up at the federal level. Originally, the federal government had no police powers. Originally, the various colonies had populations dedicated to different churches. While churches had a significant role in what currently are police and court functions, they never had a direct role in legislative or executive functions. By the time the federal government started assuming police powers, the churches had been excluded from their court function, and multiple religions in any given area was the norm.

On a more abstract level, morality has not changed that much. Theft, murder, assault, rape and other basic criminal acts were perceived of as wrong in biblical time, colonial times, and today. They are perceived as wrong in Communist China, Islamic Saudi Arabia, Jewish Israel, Catholic Italy, and the United States. Once churches had a greater role in implementing and dispensing justice. In modern democracies, this role is generally reduced to teaching basic morality. However, every society needs mechanisms to protect the law abiding from the criminal elements. It is not surprising that as secular government started taking a more active role in enforcing the law, and as legislatures started taking an active role in setting the law, that cultural rules were frequently taken from the religious Great Books. The basic principles of religious law were passed with few essential changes into secular criminal statutes.

Did our current system of laws evolve from religious rules? Yes. Are variations of these rules now entirely in the hands of secular authorities? Pretty much. Were the founding fathers deists? Mostly, though of different denominations. Did they separate church and state when creating the federal government? Yes. Have state and local governments since followed the federal government in separating from churches? For the most part, yes.

My suspicion is that the founders drew from a tradition which told them of the basic evil and corruptibility of mankind. To prevent this evil from dominating in the form of tyranny, they conceived of a government that would constantly be hobbling and wobbling along its 3 legs (judicial, executive, legislative).

The Christian influence is undeniable, because of the core doctrine that humans are in a fallen state and in need of divine (ergo not state-administered) redemption. To make the best of this evil situation, the oringinal intent was to limit powers.

The Theist influence also was important, because it draw from very Rationalist ideas--i.e., Newton's clockwork universe of natural physical laws was an inspiration for what they considered to be natural human laws that were not dictated from above but simply "Self-Evident."

You really can't deny the influence of either religion in this ragtag bunch of hothead revolutionaries.

On 2001-11-08 22:33, bg115 wrote:
What identifies if US is in 3T or 4T is not how culture and values change, but how the world and problems are changing. For instance, my peers might lay aside all the 3T culture they were raised in and act according to their Millenial archetype, and Boomers mnight push all remaining Silents out of power, but if the outcome of the war on terrorism turns out to be incomplete (perhaps with bin ladin still plotting, taliban government still in Afganistan, etc.), then US would still be in 3T.

BG115, what time frame are you anticipating for the outcome "war on terrorism" to be "incomplete". I think most of us on this thread believe that the last 4T began on 10/29/29 with the stock market crash. However, if you imagine Hoover and FDR waging a "war on the Depression", that war wasn't won until we entered WWII and geared up our production of military goods. Yet, even with the "war on the Depression" incomplete in 1932 or 1937, noone can deny that both years were very 4T.

If past history is any guide, this "war on terrorism" is not going to be solved with a quick surgical strike, ala the Gulf War. Things are going to be muddy and confused for quite a while. It may also be compounded by a world wide economic slump. It will be well into the 4T before things start to get resolved.

On 2001-11-08 23:45, sv81 wrote:

I don't care what you say, that isn't correct.

To quote Al Gore: "There is no need to get snippy." The point of my message was not to endorse what Robert stated as I had already challenged him and you even intoned your agreement with me. The point of my message was to demonstrate to you that you snubbed Robert whether you intended to or not -- no more, no less. When insulted in such a manner, a gentleman really cannot rise in his own defense without looking like a fool. It is incumbent upon a second to defend him and I played that role. Now, to quote Bill Clinton and George W. Bush: "Let's move on."

On 2001-11-08 22:01, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2001-11-08 09:00, Carl Fitzpatrick wrote:
In sexual morality, for example, there is a pragmatic consideration for the needs and rights of all those involved that overshadows all rules from religious tradition. The aspect of that which was overlooked until recently, is the effect of family instability and the developmental needs of children.

Sorry, but pragmatic consideration are just now words I can make myself associate with most the Boomers' social agendas (right-wing and religious based ones included). No offense, but it doesn't match my experience with the activist Boomers at all.

The aspect of that which was overlooked until recently, is the effect of family instability and the developmental needs of children.

Are you saying the Boom Awakening made family instability better or worse?

What I?m trying to say is that the ideals pressed in the Boom Awakening were not based on any particular creed or doctrine, and in fact, the very idea of any restricting rules from the past was felt to be ridiculous and oppressive. It was considered important not to limit one?s behavior for the approval of moral or religious leaders (especially older ones). Marriage itself was thought by many to be oppressive. Love was an important theme, but not attached to any religion. Restrictions of sexual morality were thought to be arbitrary and unnecessary, too much so to interfere with mutual pleasure. After the 2T, as Boomers matured (a slow process which, I hope, is not finished), experience taught many that the stability of families is important, even to adults, and the needs of children are a priority. I agree with S&H that the nomad children born in the 2T were badly shortchanged and neglected. This is one area in which the Boomer-youth demands for freedom were shortsighted. The drug culture is another.
The original point about freedom from doctrine is important to the course of this saeculum because it approaches its final Turning at a time when the world is rapidly shrinking, and all cultural and ethical traditions are rushing together, coming face to face. They may not have to merge into one, but they will at least have to give up pretensions to being the one and only revelation of Truth.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Carl Fitzpatrick on 2001-11-09 13:07 ]</font>

Jenny Genser writes? If past history is any guide, this "war on terrorism" is not going to be solved with a quick surgical strike, ala the Gulf War. Things are going to be muddy and confused for quite a while. It may also be compounded by a world wide economic slump. It will be well into the 4T before things start to get resolved.

Amen. In my ongoing attempts to summarize in an ever more succinct form, I shall return to Toffler?s Three Waves of Civilization model.

A minimum change approach to the Millennial crisis would be a claim that the US, NATO and company form single global power structure that can continue to exercise the same sort of power world wide as Imperialist powers traditionally did. Democracy can outfight or outlast Isamism as it outlasted the remnant royal nations in World War I, the fascist nations in World War II, and the communist nations in the Cold War. From this perspective, Islamism is only the latest in a series of challenges, and a not very impressive one at that. Let?s call this the Second Wave position, continuing under the same basic political rules as during the age of gunpowder.

The maximum change position would be that imperialist powers cannot throw their weight around abroad in the face of weapons of mass destruction, guerilla warfare and terrorists. In order to be rid of terror, a reasonable balance of wealth and political power would have to be achieved in a world of increasing population and limited resources. This would be the Third Wave position, a hypothesis that a world of computer networks and nukes is inherently very much different from a world of printing presses and gunpowder. The world order governing such a world has to be very different.

And then there is bin Ladin?s First Wave agricultural empire position. If one does not worship my god my way, one ought to convert or die? Tis not quite that simple, but that?s the gist of what seems to be coming through the censors. Even if one gives bin Ladin a bit more credit than that, ethnic troubles of various flavors will continue to crop up as Somalia ? Balkans ? East Timor type hot spots continue to erupt. A systematic approch to ending such violence seems necessary, whether Second or Third Wave methods are used.

Anyway, the First Wave approach or anything like it has got to go. The debate during the regeneracy might be between the Second and Third wave approaches. The success or failure on the military and counter terror campaign may determine if the US will reaffirm traditional values or try to transform into something new.

On 2001-11-08 10:05, Stonewall Patton wrote:

The number of people the Soviets killed is merely a function of their desire to minimize the risk of losing control, consistent with human nature. However acceptance of atheism does tend to diminish respect for human life as people are ultimately reduced to mere carbon matter intrinsically of no greater value than livestock killed for human consumption. I am in no way saying that all atheists cannot distinguish between people and animals. But a degree of man's intrinsic value is certainly lost and respect for human life diminishes accordingly.

That largely depends on the person. It depends on what type of atheist or religious person you are. For some people, religion removes their respect for life. Examples of these are the Al Queda, and many American hate groups. For other religious people, it gives them respect for life. These are everyday people. As for atheists, there are many types of atheists, and many reasons why people became atheists. If someone became an atheist because they thought god was evil, or they became angry at god (these are usually atheists in foxholes), then it is likely that the person will have a more dimished view of life. For many atheists (usually the ones who became atheists because they are rationalists), biology, and the laws of physics replace religion, and give a new dimension of the sacredness of life. For me, the laws of physics, complexity, and biology tells not only a much more convincing story, but also a much more interesting story. If you haven't already, you might want to read The Millennial Project. I don't know if the author is an atheist, but he gives a compelling secular view of life, and why it is important that we preserve it. The book is outdated, as it was written in 1992, but it gives a very wonderful view. So it largely depends on what type of atheist you are. Besides, secular humanists like me really value life.

This is an interesting statement and I am not certain that it is true. The ruling elite in the Soviet Union had a definite interest in promoting atheism. Communism called for a shift of allegiance from God to the State as the State was to be God. This was necessary in order to render people compliant so as to reform society according to communist ideals. Had the right of the people to worship been unchallenged, then there is a greater likelihood that more would have been able to place the evil inherent in communism into a philosophical context. This might have allowed for spiritual awakening and a popular rising against the state. In other words, there is a greater likelihood that the Soviet Union would not even have lasted 75 years had people been free to worship.

On this, I totally agree. Sure, I may be an atheist, but above it all, I believe in the right to worship. Although they didn't call it such, Stalinism (a messed up version of Marxism) did function as a state religion, and they imposed their rule just as the Catholic Church did in the 15th century and before. Very near the core of my entire being lies a belief in free inquiry. For there to be any freedom of religion, there must be free inquiry. Every individual should have a choice in what to believe. In my case and others, free inquiry led to atheism or agnosticism. Of this, some people became secular humanists, some became transhumanists, some became nihilists, and there are man diversities of non-theism that people follow. Other people chose religion. Some became Buddhists, others became Wiccans or Pagans, some became Muslims, some became born again Christians, some became New Age, and of course, there are many other religions. When there is free inquiry, people are allowed to choose what destiny best suits them. With that, the individual can pursue his goals to te fullest extent, and therefore, contribute significantly to the advance of civilization.

America was actuall a highly theistic society as virtually everybody went to church. A minority of the founding fathers identified with deism and few if any of the common people did. And even deism shared theism's belief that God created the universe. The theistic/deistic dispute centered upon God's role in everyday affairs.

I've likened to refering 18th century Deists as pseudoatheists. The reason is that since Darwin didn't come along until the mid 19th century and since the Big Bang theory came along in the 20th century, there was no rational reason to not believe in the existence of a god. Granted, many, or maybe most Deists were actually godly people who thought that god did not have an active role in the affairs in daily life. Many of the Deists, such as Thomas Paine, really sounded like atheists. Perhaps, they would become atheists if they knew about 20th century science.

The emphasis was on religious toleration. We are not talking about a cadre of atheists imposing atheism on the population. The point was that no mere mortal is competent to speak for God so no mere mortal should stand between the individual and his God. Every individual should be free to pursue the truth on his own terms.

Exactly, and that's how it should be.

Exactly. And those secular ideals called, not for atheism, but for religious toleration.

That's true. But not only that, it encouraged people to use free inquiry. It encouraged people to question religion. For some, it caused them to divert from Christianity. For others, it only made their beliefs stronger. So in this way, it didn't call for non-theism (in my definition, includes atheism, agnosticism, and deism), but provided a platform that many would later use to become non-theists. This type of thinking has led to scathing indictments of Christianity by people like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, among others. It caused many to eventually accept non-theism.

On 2001-11-09 16:47, madscientist wrote:

On 2001-11-08 10:05, Stonewall Patton wrote:

... However acceptance of atheism does tend to diminish respect for human life as people are ultimately reduced to mere carbon matter intrinsically of no greater value than livestock killed for human consumption. I am in no way saying that all atheists cannot distinguish between people and animals. But a degree of man's intrinsic value is certainly lost and respect for human life diminishes accordingly.

That largely depends on the person. It depends on what type of atheist or religious person you are. For some people, religion removes their respect for life. Examples of these are the Al Queda, and many American hate groups. For other religious people, it gives them respect for life. These are everyday people. As for atheists, there are many types of atheists, and many reasons why people became atheists.

Respectfully, I submit that there are not different types of atheists. To believe otherwise is to be mistaken. Most christians understand that there many types of good, but only one type of evil. If you want me to lecture on that subject, and quote my sources, I will.

Suffice to say, not believing in God could mean you believe in something else, (like Big Bird or the Cookie Monster), but an atheist is an atheist. To not believe in God, (as many choose not to do), is a single thing, and that thing only.

With respect to the American Hate Groups, of which I have no official memberships, but instead seek to understand, I can say none that I know devaluate life as you suggest.

Most scream for justice, a justice that perhaps the majority believe is deluded. Nonetheless, they can be more easily reasoned with, primarily because they are not atheists. Sure they can be labeled evil, wrong and a thousand other things, but internally, they adhere, for the most part, to an ideology that (1) is God fearing, and; (2) value life in a significant way.

I don't stand ready to defend Al Queda, but I'd rather try to understand someone who believes in God, even an different God than mine, than try to understand an atheist.

Basically there is much less hope for the atheist. He has chose to be beyond reach of both God and the one who believes in God, and thus is impaired in a dimension of understanding that quite literally 'makes all the difference in the world.'

On 2001-11-08 22:33, bg115 wrote:... but US should work for the final result by trying to completely destroy all governments that support terrorism and root out al-queda.

Use care in what you wish, for you may get it. Global war.

Read that Joe Sobran guy, he shares that point.

National ID cards are next! Then checkpoints. A destruction of our liberties, brought to us by our apathy in addressing our own government and it's proper place in the world.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-10 18:06 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-11-14 12:47 ]</font>