I read an interesting piece on the CNN Belief Blog today about Atheism and Alcoholic’s Anonymous written by Marya Hornbacher. She does give the AA program credit for helping her attain sobriety, but she also sites that the way in which religious principles influence the organization:
But if you are of an atheistic or strongly agnostic mindset, chances are you’ll walk into a meeting, see the steps hanging on the wall and want to scream, laugh or walk back out.
Note: this post discusses what I see as a logical paradox in the current debate about abortion as a means of gender selection. Pro-choice advocates who are of a utilitarian persuasion may disagree. This is more aimed towards pro choice libertarians. Full disclosure: I am personally pro life.
(more…)
Brilliant British cosmologist Stephen Hawking was the premier of a new Discovery Channel series called “Curiosity” last night. Part of his focus was why God is not necessary for the existence of the universe.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is suing Texas governor Rick Perry, and asking courts to keep Perry from attending a prayer event in Houston next month.
Perry has publicly advocated for this event and encouraged people to participate in the event dedicated to prayer and fasting. FFRF argues that the head of a state participating in this event violates the First Amendment clause forbidding an established religion.
In regards to the lawsuit, the FFRF states:
“Perry’s actions as governor give “official recognition” to a devotional event, endorse religion, have no secular rationale, and seek to encourage citizens to pray and non Christians to convert to Christianity.
These actions violate the Establishment Clause by “giving the appearance that the government prefers evangelical Christian religious beliefs over other religious beliefs and non-beliefs, including by aligning and partnering with the American Family Association, a virulent, discriminatory and evangelical Christian organization known for its intolerance.”
I think that FFRF is proverbially grabbing at straws. Yes, Perry is in the government, but he is also a person who has a right to have his own beliefs. The First Amendment does say congress cannot establish a religion, but it also says congress cannot limit an individual’s free speech or right to peaceably assemble.
While the constitution does not allow an establishes religion, the following clause says that they also may not prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Saying a person who happens to be in politics doesn’t have a right to participate in religious activities because of the First Amendment is a contradiction to other rights granted in the same sentence within the First Amendment.
I doubt the FFRF seriously plans on winning the suit. I would assume that this is more about principle and gaining attention, however I believe these tactics could backfire.
It’s interesting to me that this organization considers its members free thinkers but they are trying to have someone forced into not participating in something in accordance with his own values. That is simply tyrannical.
I have several friends who are irreligious, and for the ones value liberty, I think they would agree that Perry should have the right to participate and personally endorse this event.
jrb
I saw a link to this article on Facebook this afternoon.
A nationwide atheist organization called the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has been posting billboards that focus on individual atheist’s own personal statements pertaining to how they can be moral without the belief in a higher power. The signs have been posted in a handful of cities throughout the country, including my hometown of Columbus, Ohio.
Over the past couple of weeks, there has been controversy about a billboard that has been removed from two locations.
The billboard (pictured at the top of this post) was originally removed last week, after a local church complained and insisted that it be taken down. The billboard was posted on property owned by the church.
The sign was reposted in another Columbus location, and was removed on July 5, after a local business complained, according to FRFF.
Supporters of the billboards are pointing to societal intolerance of the atheistic viewpoint. Dan Barker is the co-chairman of FRFF and stated through the organization’s website:
“Probably the number-one myth we need to dispel about atheism is that people can’t be good without supernatural beliefs, rewards and punishments, that people who don’t believe in a god are incapable of morality. Nonbelievers know that it isn’t what you believe, but how you act, that makes you an ethical or unethical person.”
Certainly an atheist can decide what he or she thinks is moral and virtuous and act in accordance with those beliefs. And, an atheist can act in ways that would be viewed as ethical by the much of our society; I think that very few Christians would disagree on that level.
But the problem is that the atheists are doing this out of a Judeo-Christian ethic, and simply removing God. For people to try to say they don’t believe in God and that they are moral is appealing to a standard that exists with mankind because there is religion.
Without a God, I think it is nearly impossible to establish an actually working ethical theory.
Here are some questions to think about pertaining to morality in a world without God:
• What makes something good? Maybe you could argue that things are good because they cause happiness, and are enjoyed, but why are those things good? What about the things that cause happiness and which are enjoyed but which society deems to be bad? Why are those things bad if they produce happiness and are enjoyed?
• Why do we have rights? I think most of us like to believe we have certain rights, but why do we have them? According to whom? In America, are the rights that we have established as rights rights just because we’ve established them? What if the founders had judged differently? Then would we not have those rights?
• For instance, why is murder wrong? Because it deprives someone of life? But then why is that wrong?
• In some parts of the world, people don’t enjoy the same rights that we do, is that right or wrong? When people are mistreated in other countries what is it that makes the mistreatment wrong? Is there an intrinsic belief that they have some type of value because they are humans? But that’s just an opinion, some would disagree. Perhaps someone like Kim Jong Il would disagree with you. Who would be right, you or him? Who wins? How do you decide? What is ultimately moral?
• Why are people like Hitler considered evil? Without a divine giver or objective morality and purpose, how were his actions bad? Was it because he was depriving people of basic human rights? In the grand scheme of things, how do those actions or those people even matter?
I think Ravi Zacharias puts it very interestingly:
“When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But when you admit a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law.”
jrb
