George Will On Religion and Founding Needs Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights

Posted by khalling 10 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
455 comments | Share | Flag

"He even says explicitly that neither successful self-government nor “a government with clear limits defined by the natural rights of the governed” requires religion. For these, writes Will, “religion is helpful and important but not quite essential.”"


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 6.
  • Posted by barwick11 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ewv, for the first time on this board, I've downvoted someone... you have earned that distinction. Congratulations.

    I tire of your rantings and ramblings. You make claims without any basis, you utterly refuse to look at facts I've presented, and you refuse to acknowledge that, possibly, someone other than yourself MAY have something valid to say. You rant about what this board is supposedly for, I explain something and you say "that doesn't matter", etc, etc, etc. You are blinded by your hatred, and not a single word I can ever say in and of itself will ever change that fact. I'm not mad at you, becuase if it weren't for the grace of God, I'd be doing the same thing you are, and probably would be even more vitriolic than you are. Have a good life, I pray some day God will have mercy on you and show you the Truth. And I'm sure you're seething right now about me even saying what I've said here, whether you admit it or not. Good day.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I call them as I see them, Scott. That Individual proselytizes his atheistic beliefs more vociferously than most of us with a belief in a deity. And does so in a very condescending manner. They get what they deserve.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by barwick11 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The basis for morality boils down to one thing... WHO says?

    Ayn Rand makes claims. We make claims. You make claims. The Chinese make claims. Plato made claims. The Nazis made claims. The Communists made claims.

    Every single person thinks they know what's best for themselves and often for other people. The only one who can trump our knowledge of what's best for ourselves is one who is omniscient. And rarely can we make determinations about what is best for someone ELSE better than they can do for themselves. But it does happen in certain circumstances.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes. A religion unto himself. Not a Christian.

    From Monticello's website (but hey, what would they know about TJ):

    With the help of Richard Price, a Unitarian minister in London, and Joseph Priestly, an English scientist-clergyman who emigrated to America in 1794, Jefferson eventually arrived at some positive assertions of his private religion. His ideas are nowhere better expressed than in his compilations of extracts from the New Testament "The Philosophy of Jesus" (1804) and "The Life and Morals of Jesus" (1819-20?). The former stems from his concern with the problem of maintaining social harmony in a republican nation. The latter is a multilingual collection of verses that was a product of his private search for religious truth. Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian[3], but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

    - Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Report, August 1997

    http://www.monticello.org/site/research-...

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    you support state run programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare programs. You support income tax, public education, Obamacare. Objectivism does not support any of these collectivist notions. You support laws that give certain groups of people extra rights.and you vote for candidates that support or initiate all of these types of programs. Not only that, you've said you are likely to help campaign for these candidates in the future.
    I would start with Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
    https://www.aynrand.org/novels/capitalis...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They didn't need to identify God in the Constitution, they had already done so in the Declaration of Independence. That is the document that sets the foundation of what we are and why we have our rights - they were given to us by our creator. The Constitution is a description of how a government of men is organized - there was no reason to mention God. Yet, the first amendment to that document expressly protects religion and religious thought.

    Some people really have an incomplete or naïve view of history.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Again this point I made had NOTHING to do with religion or God, only the twisted liberal mindset. Those who do not believe in God, and believe in Evolution have a construct that negates the arguments for Welfare at any level. Law of Nature. Strong survive Weak die. I prefaced that I do not believe this, Liberals do. Their own belief structure contradicts Welfare in any form. There is no compassion in nature, the Lion will eat the cub and not feel one bit of guilt about it. The Lioness will eat her own cub after it moves out and joins another pride, and not feel guilt. Feeling, logic reason are not part of Dawinian nature and evolution therefor propping up the weak with welfare is a violation of these laws of nature Liberasl believe in.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "While I disagree with CG on some issues that all Objectivists would disagree with CG on, on this point, CG is correct."
    Thank you for your words of support. Which ideas do you think *all* objectisits would disagree with me on? I've only read Fountain Head and AS, and I loved/agreed with most of it. So it suprises me there would be things _all_ objectists disagree w/ me on. It's possible, though, b/c I come up with my own ideas, and I haven't read non-fiction on Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No doubt. But was merely looking to counter the sweeping assertion. All religions are philosophy, not all philosophy is a religion (although there are some adherents of different philosophy who would be hard pressed not to describe their devotion to said philosophy as anything less than "religious," including some here who consider themselves Objectivists).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Based on your comments I am not so sure you actually read this book, or even really know its contents.
    http://americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonB...
    This book was a literal cut/paste from bibles and listed out the morality of Jesus and is in essence a transliteration in what appears chronological order tugging and pasting between the 4 Gospels. Wikipedia is not accepted in Collegiate circles as a "real source" either, but might just be good as an index on where to find the REAL sources.

    This is a direct Quote from TJ. "I am of a sect by myself, as far
    as I know."
    — Thomas Jefferson, 1819
    So by declaring himself a Sect, he is declaring himself a religion unto himself.

    But my point had nothing to do with religion or God, only the disingenuous nature of the liberal mindset based on THEIR construct of No God and the belief in Evolution, and the "Law of Nature", Only the strong survive, which in itself is the antithesis of Welfare and supporting and elevating the poor.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No disagreement here. But that wasn't the basic point. Adams saw that a free society must have a people that fundamentally regulate themselves - abide by a basic code of morality/ethics that does not depend on laws and a police force. A society that relies on laws and police must necessarily be a tyranny.

    I've probably said this a hundred times. More laws are not the answer, they are the problem. They remove responsibility of the individual. They instill a sense of getting away with it, instead of the shame of doing something "wrong." We have a culture of people who aren't ashamed of living off their neighbor (welfare), of a political class that feels they are so clever (the electorate is too dumb to know we just screwed them), and a business community that seeks profit via cronyism instead of being the best. It is a society that has already failed and is merely waiting to collapse on itself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    what's the supposed part. Plenty of Christians opposed slavery-in fact the quakers were the first to be commented on by Washington for developing routes in 1780. from Wiki-
    "Church clergy and congregations often played a role, especially the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Congregationalists, Wesleyans, and Reformed Presbyterians as well as certain sects of mainstream denominations such as branches of the Methodist church and American Baptists."
    I am not trying to saying Christians were superior in this effort-only stating the fact that many denominations were against slavery as a group. I'm certain individuals disagreed on this. Bt I don't see it as a coordinated religious movement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Anyone who calls themselves a Christian, but espouses hatred for anyone, let alone an atheist, doesn't understand their own theology. While there are many sects that espouse the requirement of following their particular rituals, I cannot find that specified in the Bible. Keeping holy the Sabbath (and there's certainly a number of interpretations of what that means) and breaking bread in remembrance are the two that come to mind. I think you are much closer to being religious than you want to acknowledge.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Many people hold ideas that are inconsistent. Doesn't mean that some of those ideas aren't correct. I know that eating a whole pint of B&J Choc isn't good for me, I sometimes do so anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True. Buddhism at it's core is a philosophy rather than a religion. And really not necessarily a philosophy in the western sense but a set of tools designed to assist one in experiencing the truth first hand. Or at least the truth as stated by buddhism.

    That said, many different buddhist lineages have taken this toolbox and turned it into a religion and meshed it with all sorts of gods and rituals (the Tibetans come to mind as a notable example).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry. I can't cite an entire book. He wrote an entire version of the gospel in which he stripped out any miracles. Familiarize yourself even briefly with TJ and you'll find he is not the Christian you're looking for. (old Jedi mind trick. lol) He was a deist.

    Actually, I'm probably closest to a deist. Thinking there might be some consciousness or intelligence behind the whole curtain but that said consciousness does not really care one whit about events on this puny planet.

    Here is a wikipedia article about the book:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_B...

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    While I disagree with CG on some issues that all Objectivists would disagree with CG on, on this point, CG is correct. His suggestion that we read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is a good one. This thread has been an interesting one, but would be far more enjoyable without certain individuals downvoting, berating others, etc. Each of us can make our points without having to be offensive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Barton is the author of the most popular college American History textbook. Do not dismiss him so cavalierly. If he was so full of crap, then he wouldn't have the reputation he has.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    On this one point, "Religious dogma is contrary to the nature of this country and its founding.", you are not supported by the historical record, ewv. Quite a few of the colonies were formed precisely because of individuals' desire to hold their religious dogmas. The situation is not nearly so clear cut as you make it. Yes, there were plenty of Founding Fathers who embraced Enlightenment ideas, but Robbie is correct to point out the importance of freedom of religion as being in the 1st Amendment. The Constitution's passing was actually delayed until the Bill of Rights was to be added to it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Under capitalism, the incentive to be productive is strong to most people. People tend to focus on thriving when opportunities exist. When there are less opportunities or society has created a culture that rewards people for not producing, that's when you have problems
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo