This would apply as well to issues such as the debate over suicide for the terminally ill, 'drug' use, sex education, etc. which appear to be opposed mainly on the basis of a profoundly selfish 'moral' ideology and not on the basis of the wishes or needs of individuals. It's funny how 'fearing' God seems to correlate nicely with wanting to 'play' God. (and wear small shoes, and drive BIG trucks - LOL)

An example of clear thinking.

Thanks for the reference. I found the text helpful. I happen to think, if it's true, that it's absurd to ban any text, from any school, under any circumstance, if it's not being used to proselytize. Everyone, just by virtue of history if for no other reason, really needs to understand the role of religion in society. I also appreciate tradition - it's as much history as any weighty tome. Christianity may, inside of its own paradigm, be testable -but only by God alone - NOT by mere mortals OR the village idiot. WE don't get to judge - unless, of course, we're eager to breach Christian teaching - which would make us - what? Are we now willing to breach our own teachings to justify our personal views. Pardon my noticing, but that's just exactly what you've accused Hitler of doing. I'm not contending that Hitler had integrity or that he was honest. I'm clearly convinced he was anything but honest. I'm contending that by the tenets of Christianity itself, no one gets to judge another. OUTSIDE ... of Christian tenets ... we get to judge all we want - to our heart's content - till the cows come home - pick your allusion. | Matthew 7:2 - For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. | Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: ... Once individuals resort to 'culling' members of religions on their own, the exercise boils down to name calling - it changes nothing, least of all the Biblical teachings that warn against and forbid such postures and behaviors. You don't get to play God if you're Christian.

Logan: "You can't merely say you're a member of some group in Religion and have it be true" That's exactly how that works by the tenets of the Christian faith. There's no voting on that issue. You nor I nor anyone else gets a vote on that. There's no other way to 'test' or 'evaluate' what makes a member of a religion other than their profession that they're a member. No one can pass judgement on whether you believe or not. If you're Christian, you're not in a position to make that judgement. If you're Christian, God makes that judgement. Are we now God? You get to be 'God' if you're Hindu - only not in the way it's understood in the Judaio-Christian system. You don't get to be 'God' if you're Christian. In Christianity you suck up to and shift responsibility to God with declarations like "It's God's Will" when something undesirable happens. 'Morality' (newsflash!) is not the exclusive purview of adherents any single belief system or any particular subset of belief systems. 'Virtuous conduct' (morality) is a human value - not a value for only the 'chosen' ones. BTW, with respect to atheists, where exactly are these "endless examples of this fact"? Details would be helpful.

It DOES sound eerily familiar, doesn't it? Since Christianity isn't testable like, say, eating meat and claiming you're a vegetarian, and considering that the ONLY thing that makes a person a 'Christian' is the fact that they say so, and NOT what they do, Hitler was, by definition, a 'Christian'. If only the folks recognized by other individuals as 'virtous' were allowed to be 'Christian', there would be precious few, if any 'Christians' running about, wouldn't there? You or I don't get to pick and choose unless of course you're 'God'. I'm not quite up to making THAT leap unless you show me a couple of really cool, spectacular 'miracles' maybe - LOL. Just curious - what's your George Washington reference source? PS to Anon, Raleigh: This quote original purpose was, as part of his propaganda machine, to illustrate what a simple, virtuous man Hitler was. 'Drinking' (alcoholic beverages) and smoking were, at that time regarded as vices prevalent in decadent places like Berlin. Being pious was also highly valued at the time, as it is today, at least by profession of ones 'faith'. Hence, the reference to 'Christianity' as a 'virtue'. Not much has changed.

Wishful thinking aside, just for the moment, the only authority on whether one is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or any other belief system is the person themselves - period. You're a Christian if you say you are. There are no other factors that can change that. No one can come along and say you're not a Christian if you say you are. There's no other way to know whether a person is Christian except by way of their own assertion. It's between them and their 'god'. Unless you're Catholic, you can't be excommunicated - especially not by some self appointed judging individual or group. You can be kicked out of a 'church' but you can't be kicked out of 'Christianity'.

Morality (virtuous conduct) may indeed be useful when not facing tyrants. Religion in government has, as a matter of historical record, NEVER improved its functioning. To the contrary, religion has always, inevitably led to the mistreatment and marginalization of some subset of the population as a whole by virtue of the high-handed behavior of the majority religion's notion that their way is the 'Right' way. The trouble is that every religion thinks this is so - they have it right and the 'others' have it wrong. Technically this is referred to as sanctimony.

This may, on the face of it, sound a bit reckless but it's not. The key word here is 'misuse'.

Apropos the Danish cartoon kerfuffle by people who want to 'constrain' actual free speech under the banner of 'preventing offensive speech'. We, of course, have our own versions of attempts at intimidation in pursuit of the same sort of homogenization of ideological notions that we condemn in others. For example: Ralph Reed's (plagiarist; Apr 14, 1983 - for which he was fired, first executive director of the Christian Coalition during the early 1990s and long-time pal of Jack Abramoff - In college Reed would sleep on Abramoff's couch) statement that "I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag." - Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 11/9/91. How Christian of him to brag about his intimidation tactics in pursuit of ramming his notions down the throats of others - not entirely unlike, though still perhaps a bit less violent than, the Islamist thugs or Bill O'Reilly wanting to impose their silly restrictions on others. Given a chance he and his cronies would impose a plethora of restrictions on free speech - like this entry. Oh, I'm sorry; you weren't expecting skim milk were you? I imagine the skim milk is on its way.

Notice how, mainly, the evangelically 'religious' seem to miss the point - on the basis of 'religious' belief - again. Sad but predictable - hence the quote. Dick - I think the avoidance of information functions as a barrier to the inevitable cognitive dissonance one would experience were it to enter through any rational crack in the armor - LOL.

Bravo Robert. This quote seems to be a parallel to the old Ayn Rand idea that "It is moral to let ten guilty men go free rather than execute one innocent man." One would naturally hope to never be faced with this extreme sort of choice.

Anon, Raleigh: Point taken. Thanks.

I'm busy smoking; a Vintage Churchill Maduro - but go ahead without me. - hahaha

Hitler was raised a Catholic. As far as I can ascertain, excommunication is still the exclusive purview of the Roman Catholic Church and not that of self-appointed individuals eager to pass judgement. The Vatican's Pope & bishops never disowned him. Instead they blessed him. In the protestant world, a person is Christian if they say they are - period. It's between them and their god not between them and their critics - even if their critics have a point - even if their critics have an EXCELLENT point. HITLER: "In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942) Actually, 'slander' is an ORAL function: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone. - AHD 'Libel', on the other hand, is a written function: A false publication in writing, printing, or typewriting or in signs or pictures that maliciously damages a person's reputation. b. The act or an instance of presenting such a statement to the public. - AHD The key words for both definitions are 'false', 'malicious', and 'person'. There's no mention of 'group' or 'group(s) with crazy views'. Careless expression implies careless thinking.

I Googled "Ancient Law of Liberty" and came up with 4 (count 'em - FOUR) hits - all of Mormon origin - in other words, NOT indicative of a 'universal' tenet. Well, du-uhhh, it's no wonder I'd never heard of that particular phrase - who has?. I Googled "Why I am Not a Christian" and came up with 13,863 hits. You'd think the Mormon Church could do a better job of publicizing such a major tenet of their belief system in view of what they must surely view as a slanderous attack on their dogma. I too recommend "Why I am Not a Christian" (an essay in Russell's book by the same title). I just hadn't mentioned it because it's really the logical antithesis to blind belief. In other words, it's unlikely to be apprehensible by bible thumpers and street corner prophets.

I admire Winston Churchill greatly. This is one of his less memorable utterances - not terrible but definitely not great.

Hitler was also rabidly Christian. A clean, sober, non-smoking Christian - what could be more 'moral'? He was a genuine 'role model' when you spin the 'facts' correctly. There are more than a few of those around, even today. You can tell them from the sane members of society by their mindless soapbox diatribes about 'morality', 'ambition', 'God', 'envy', 'faith', 'perversion', and a host of other 'talking points'. Personally, I'll take a 'Clinton' having a little 'nookie' over a 'Hitler' having a little holocaust any time.

It would happen again were the religious to get their agenda into place (recall Bush's 'faith based' initiatives) and gain enough power to pull it off. Witness Fred Phelps and his band of idiots or Pat Robertson with his hateful posture. What makes anybody think that religion is a good thing? Oh, yeah (headslap), ignorance of history maybe - or it could just be general ignorance.

It seems evident that the 'MORAL' hypocrites currently operating under the banner of religion and 'God' are intent on controlling the lives of and passing judgement on others while living in an ethical sewer themselves. Oh, but God will forgive and save them (from themselves), won't he?

Dead on Andi! Dead on Anonymous - 'truth', by definition, is 'fidelity' to something. The degree of truth is subjective, in any context, in its relationship to that 'something' even if that 'something' is just a concept like a deity, a standard of behavior, or a standard of accuracy. Truth: Fidelity to an original or a standard. - AHD

Governments can ignore this idea more easily than can individuals who are generally answerable to a larger community. Our Constitution is designed to address this issue by purportedly having government 'of the people'. Alas, it's now government (by any means necessary) 'of the interests (mainly corporate) who can pay for it'.

Human nature isn't naturally inclined towards freedom. It's inclined to look for a leader who promises (no delivery necessary) to keep them safe and fed.

Are we talking about GOD here? Or are we ignoring the demands of the sheep to be herded?

And will continue to do so.

Kudos Robert. When exactly did 'liberal' become a dirty word anyway? Does anyone wonder who is ACTUALLY running the country? Could it actually be our Alfred E. Newman? Could it be interests outside of the US? It seems not entirely unlikely.