Tolerance indicates that there is a perception of right and wrong. Atheists cannot be tolerant, nor should they be tolerated-- because since they neither believe in right or wrong, but in what "works", and since what "works" is completely relative, not only is there is no room for tolerance, but tolerance itself is insignificant. Tolerance indicates an elitist sense of knowledge (right or wrong) over another; that one person thinks one way and has to respect another's thoughts or actions. But this, in itself, is futile in a god-free zone. One could say that, in an atheistic world, society determines what is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, virtuous or un-virtuous; however, the problem here is that society then takes the de-facto form of God over such atheists... Instead of following the dictates of a deity, controlling, defining, and/or determining what is right and wrong, atheists have to turn to society for the exact same thing. If there is no "right or wrong", only what "works", then not only is there no room for tolerance, but rather, like Santa Clause, it simply just doesn't exist. Let's just call it as it is.

The true Christian would agree with this, because only the atonement of the Christ can liberate; everything else is merely a guide/medium (bible, prayer, the spoken word, personal 'revelation', etc.) to help a person find their way. To an atheist, there is no liberation, because there is nothing to be liberated from. Loud speech is just that, loud speech; profusion of words are spoken organized accidents (Yes, I do realize the oxymoron of "organized accidents") billions of years in the making (the history of speech). But, in order to keep in line with atheistic thought, the only 'enjoyment' that can be felt is when certain chemicals are released into the body to create a euphoric feeling; however, all of these euphoric feelings cannot be really classified euphoric, because of relativity, personal perception, and error. To any other religious sect, shouldn't these words carry the same basic meaning as they would to Christians? That is, except for the reliance on the atonement? For instance: Buddhists do not need loud speech or profusion of words to attain their liberation from the strings of this world into nirvana.

Reston, thank you for proving my point! First of all, the "entirety of humanity" has not set forth what is right or wrong. You're right though, in an atheistic world, knowledge comes by democracy (whether through consent or force); or, in another term, "wikiality". In an atheistic world "We the People" are forced to define what is virtuous, and what is not. But there is a problem with this. In such a case, who is to say if the majority is right? What is "right" to begin with? Why is something right or wrong? Who is the virtue police? Is it un-virtuous for animals to kill? If not, then it shouldn't be wrong for us to kill; however, why is it wrong? If there is no God, we are all reoccurring accidents billions of years in the making and our present definitions of right and wrong are worthless; pain, suffering, joy, and happiness are all relative. Right and wrong are then concepts thought up by some majority thousands of years ago; who's to say if they were "right"? If we ask if the majority who made the definition or "right" was actually "right" their definition of "right", then our heads will explode. Maybe they were wrong in their definition of "right", or of "wrong"? Just because a majority votes a thing to be "Christian", virtuous, or wise, doesn't mean that it is. Thank God. I'm not arguing whether or not a God actually even exists; I'm just saying, let's call a spade a spade here. If there isn't a God, then we have to come to the cosmic reality of what that means. You cannot be an atheist and borrow upon religion's dogma of right and wrong; because, if there isn't a God, there is no cosmic right and wrong to define, because absolutely everything is relative. If there is a God, then we have to submit our pride unto the will of a God who has defined the infinite and eternal; a thing that this nation obviously hasn't done in a very, very, very long time.

From an atheistic standpoint, this quote is worthless. Virtue, if not determined by an "authority" figure or source (deity, God, etc.) is purely relative. Science cannot determine virtue. There is no right or wrong in science, only what works and what doesn't; accordingly, who's to say what works or what doesn't, or what is virtuous and what is not? What makes one man's opinion of what is supposedly right or wrong, virtuous or un-virtuous, over what someone else says? Someone could say that Edison was wrong a thousand times, before creating the light bulb; however, as Edison said, he never failed to create a light bulb, he just found thousands of different ways of not creating one. There is no way to scientifically solve the quandary of virtue; it must be resolved on a philosophical level of belief. Science is all that is left an atheist, because it is all that can be proven. Otherwise, his belief on the un-provable is on the same level of "faith" as a full-fledged-bible-bashing-southern-Baptist. No one can not believe in a God, and also believe in absolute virtue; it is impossible. Without an authority figure that is, for all intents and purposes, omniscient, everything is up to opinion, and can only be ruled as "fact" when it is in the presence of the majority ("democracy of knowledge", as it were). In science, there is never a solution, only more questions. Thank God there is more to this life than the perpetual confusion and non-resolving of atheistic science: the virtue of liberty being the one of these things.

Moral code originated with a belief in God. Otherwise, we're nothing more or less than animals in this world acting on mere insticnt. Is it wrong for a lion or tiger to kill? We would say no. Then, if there be no God, there is no right or wrong, because who is to say what is right or wrong? Murder is simply a means of survival (natural selection). Right or wrong is only a matter of opinion, originated by one man or another, and can be changed just as easily as it was originated, unless there is a God. The only absolute, if there is no God, is that there are no absolutes. It's simply impossible. Why is violence wrong? Violence is simply an application of the law of the survival of the fitest and means of self promotion, if there be no God. In such case, Hitler should be praised for his ability to survive.

Jack, no one expects you to get it.

Absolutely. This is why men who profess Christianity, but do that which is the antithesis of what Christ taught, are not Chrisitians. They can say they believe in the divinity of Christ and/or his teachings, but if they do not follow what he taught, they are not his followers. The same can be said for any religious leader. You cannot say you are a follower of a particular person and do everything against what they say-- it's a contradiction in terms. Only the man who does what he says is his own belief, code, religion, can actually be a follower of such a philosophy.

War is the antithesis of any peaceful religion (belief, thought, personal code of conduct, etc.), regardless of what 'God' is worshipped. Men like Christ (or Gandhi for that matter) knew that a man must change within before he tries to rule people without; both men taught that you cannot establish peace through war. As Christ said, “He who would be the master must be the servant of all.” There are few exceptions to the establishment of peace through war, the biggest being to protect oneself (or nation) against the depravity of personal liberty, freedom, responsibility and accountability by a physical or otherwise controlling outside force. The only other exception for war that I can find in harmony with a peaceful religion is in the defense of a weak nation against the ruthlessly encroaching hand of a greater nation; however, in accordance with my agreement of the Monroe Doctrine, the weaker nation must ask for aid before a finger is ever lifted. Both Gandhi and Christ are great examples, however, of how far good men will go to establish peace without war. It saddens me to see what vile, evil, and controlling men have done throughout history in the name of Jesus Christ, to bring “salvation”, “virtue”, and “life” to those who simply want to live in peace as Christ taught.

Well said.

"Sticks and stones..." I'm with Mike and Ken on this one. LoL, Joe-- "have a plan to kill everyone you meet"? Hey, that works with my plan to hang at least one politician a year.

In general, it's an overal good quote; however, Mike is right, friendship would have to be defined... as would the parties involved. What is friendship? Friendship to whom? To what? I like to consider myself a friend of freedom, but what of the man who is a friend of hatred itself?

Yes, restriction of knowledge to an elitest group should never happen; however, it is not government's job to create the avenue for standardized education either. It IS government's job to make sure that no one is actively hindered in seeking an education. For instance: Just because I don't have enough money, or maybe even the grades, to go to Harvard doesn't mean it's my right for the government to pay for my situation. Now, if someone was actively seeking to keep me out of Harvard, and curtailing my liberty and right to work towards getting into Harvard, then the government should step in and restrain this fellow from harming me.

Ah, isn't it a plank in the Communist Manifesto that all media and public information go through and be governed by the state?

Ah, the hypocrisy of the American public. We love to praise our indoctrinating public education... We praise what the previous quote of Einstein, that knowledge should not be restricted to an elite group; thusly, we support public education, because it is supposedly the best tool for providing and equalizing the education of the American student; however, public education is much more a master than a servant, in indoctrinating multiple generations into an entitlement attitude. In general, American’s, on the surface, will fight against governmental supervision in the formation of public opinion, while, in the same breath, supporting, with full heart, government-run public education. What hypocrisy! It’s not in government’s prerogative to train it’s citizenry to be self dependant; citizen’s of a government must depend on the government for their education, opportunity, safety, sustenance, accountability, and responsibility! You cannot be a slave to a government, receiving all the wonderful benefits that the master gives his slave, and also be the master. You are either one or the other. You either fight all forms of state supervision upon the formation of public opinion, and take education, the first and strongest source of indoctrination, out of the hands of the state--- Or you can do as Samuel Adams said, “crouch down and lick the hand which feeds you, may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” You cannot send your child to place of learning, knowledge, and education, that is governed, funded, and put together by the government, and be against the state’s right of the formation of public opinion.

As I said in the 2004 elections: It didn't matter who was elected, whether Bush or Kerry, I will still lose my liberty; however, at least with Bush, I would do it as an American. There are little differences between Republicans and Democracts-- the biggest being the name.

Yes, sometime "we do need a little external help"; however, it is not government's job to help those who cannot help themselves, except to protect the individual from the encroachment of another individual or the masses. Leave private enterprise, religious charity, and philanthropy to help those who cannot help themselves; at least these sources know when to stop when something doesn't work. It is a proven fact that more money goes directly to help the poor by using private enterprise, religious charity, and philanthropy than by government welfare. Did anyone else see the special on ABC's 20/20 last week that said the United States is far behind other nations in sending government aid to distraught nations; however, the private sector of the United States sends more money to distraught nations, that actually gets to those in need, than nearly all the rest of the world's governments combined? Amazing! Capitalism, philanthropy, and personal accountability DO work to help and provide for the poor. Damn bureaucracy! Using government as the source of charity only creates theft by due process, and creates an extremely unecomical system of waste; all at the expense of the both the rich and the poor.

Figures.

Absolutely!

oops, I accidentally pressed "Enter"... It should continue... "and the expression of my liberty, to persecuting someone for what he thinks and says, when he is not threatening the exercise of my liberty, we see the vile threads of tyranny quickly weaving our destruction."

I have absolutely no qualms with how a man thinks or believes. It is when he uses what he thinks to destroy the expression of my liberty in which I become enraged (hopefully to action). It has been my experience, philosophy, and observation that Communism, in any form, destroys my naturally inalienable and individual rights. So would social democracy (the rule of the many over the few), and trade unions (forced compliance upon men who own and run business to do things against their will to capitulate to the masses). I have no qualms with government ridding out forces, organizations, threats, causes or measures, or any group that encroaches upon my liberty -- that is it's function and purpose: To protect me from the onslaught of the masses against my liberty! However, when government goes a step passed protecting me and the expression of my liberty,

I agree with Mike; Hitler, though considered a mad-man, was a genius in controlling the masses. So much so that his techinques are still being adopted in America.

You're right, David, Low standards are not limited to government; however, since we are living in such a mixed society of socialism, fascism, and capitalism, we cannot apply purely capitalistic principles to our present situation. Be this as it may, and as it has been said, philanthropy is still better than government, because philanthropy generally knows when to stop when something doesn't work or goes bad. If I'm spending my own money to do something, I'm much more cautious to see things work than if I were spending someone else's money. Government standards create an absolute minimum standard that absolutely everyone can get away with; free enterprise and privatization of an industry's standard cannot live upon a minimum standard, unless corporations get together and create a scam against the entire people; this, however, can be protected against in a people's Republic, while avoiding all aspects of socialism and communism. Can corporations do as much harm as Government? Yes and No. It can only do as much harm as government when (1) the government promotes the corporation's encroachment upon the little man's ability to provide for himself (as with Wal-Mart), or (2) the government is incompetent, and through either purposeful or ignorant neglect, fails to protect the individual's ability to provide for himself and be protected from the intimidation of the big corporation. The main difference between the big-bully corporation and the big-bully government is that the big-bully government does not have the legal ability to use coercion. So long as government does what it was originally intended to do (protect the individual from all encroachments upon his absolute liberty), there should be no threat from big-business.

It's sad to think that there are people who think that complete "natural" freedom and liberty (as by original intent) equate to anarchy; as if, somehow, freedom to every person would result in complete lawlessness. As to David's response: I'm not against red traffic lights, nor are they against our Republic, so long as we can use our own discretion when no one is present to go through the red light. If I am stuck at a red light, and I can look down as far as possible in all directions and see that my crossing a red light wouldn't harm anyone, it's against our Republic to hold another there against their will-- so long as they do not infringe upon another's right-of-way. Victimless crimes are perhaps one of the most destructive trends to our Republic in America.

Personally Associated Risk. Absolutely, yes, do away with all licensing, housing codes, mandatory compliance to move in inalienable right (mandatory insurance), etc. The problem is this: It's taken over a hundred years for us to arrive at this place, and it will take just as long for us to go back to "original intent". No, we can't suddenly get rid of housing codes; however, yes, we can start moving towards a society that we don't need it. In a capitalistic society, quality is king -- The man who is well known for shotty work will find himself out of a job very quickly. Competition for the best quality at the best price will take over. The problem with creating a minimum standard is that the lazy will do just the bare minimum to pass the standard-- thus, creating shotty work. And, again, if I'm going to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an investment, I'm going to know who built the house, when it was built, and what "privatized" standards were applied and followed when it was built.

It's all about personal accountability. Should we have housing codes? Absolutely not. Such things are there for an apathetic people to gain some level of confidence in their laziness. If I am going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars buying a home, and I took care of my own responsibility and accountability, I would look up all records pertaining to the house and all things concerned, and then I'd either buy it or leave it. Giving the only entity that has the power of legal coercion the ability to provide for the populace, through the redistribution of wealth, is a dangerous and destructive road to follow.