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 9.
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Scare the hell out of them with the Devil and saddle them with Original Sin" does not show anyone how and why to be productive and take responsibility for his own life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Objectivist code does not include compassion. It does include morality, but with a different set of values.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The biggest difference between socialism and altruism is that socialists do their "altruism" with other people's money. Altruism really is something that has to be given with a person's own time or money. Before I get downvoted repeatedly, I am not endorsing altruism with this comment.
    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.
    It would not (and cannot) work in a society that doesn't have a moral/ethical basis. Religion has been the primary mechanism for establishing such. Without it, we have immorality and lack of ethical behavior. We find the US on the precipice of such a culture. There are no atheistic mechanisms to instill a corresponding code of morality/ethics.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Religious conservatives are constantly gratuitously baiting and attacking "The Atheists". They make no distinction between what different "atheists" believe, only attacking them for rejecting the supernatural, as if a negative could define anyone's beliefs.
    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.
    Moral and ethical. Which the current admin has demonstrated it is not. Thus, the constitution does not constrain it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Religious ideas were and are irrelevant to the constitution. They weren't evading anything.
    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.
    How so? By living morally? By treating my fellow human with compassion? Doesn't your moral code call for the same?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Religious dogma is contrary to the nature of this country and its founding. Enlightenment ideas rejecting it permeated the culture and the thinking of the founders, which they wrote about explicitly. Your theory of invisible reasons claimed to be religious makes no more sense than invisible spirits claimed to explain the world, and comes from the same nonsensical source.
    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.
    Socialism isn't altruism - it is control of the few over the many, pure and simple. Anyone who believes that socialism is about altruism is fooling themselves.
    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.
    Depends. I don't have to choose to live according to those rules. And, I assume, may at any time choose to stop living those rules. It is my choice, even if another presents the conditions. I still live my life for me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    By now you are expected to be familiar with Ayn Rand's formulation of ethics and the reasons for it. She challenged the thousands of years of philosophy that caused so much destruction.
    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.
    Yes, just as it is when I agree to live my life for my children. A choice freely given, for value received.
    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.
    Oh, I certainly do. Otherwise I couldn't freely give myself to glorify God. Without it, it would only be puppetry.
    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.
    How so? Part of Christian theology is the concept of free-will, which would necessitate "owning yourself," otherwise it wouldn't be free will.
    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.
    Well, in truth, that's because if you first try to get it on a child who is likely freaking out and screaming/squirming, you'll pass out from no oxygen. If that happens to the kid, it just makes it easier to put the mask on so that they get the oxygen. Purely pragmatic.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 5 months ago
    I would recommend my fellow humanist / atheists first read "How to Win Friends and Influence People".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Prohibition of religious wars through the force of government is not an endorsement of the supernatural. Religious dogma is not "oxygen" and played no role in the formulation of the founders' ideas on establishing our form of government and the reasons for it. The ideas of the Enlightenment advocating individualism and reason permeated the culture, and they still referred to them in their writings, not Augustine's dogmas condemning life on earth. If those notions of other-worldliness, submission and faith in supernatural animism has continued to dominate the culture they way they had before the Enlightenment, this country would never have been founded.
    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.
    Herb: Other than your assertion that "religious folks for the most part tend to demonize atheists or agnostics", I'm in agreement. I don't think that's the case for most main-stream religious today. It certainly has been in the past, and those on the extreme (see Muslims for example) certainly have those beliefs, but not most Jews/Christians.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "God is not mentioned ONCE in the Constitution."
    Yes! I think they wanted to say that rights are a human birthright and pepole grant power to the gov't, not the other way around. They thought this was so monumentally important that they didn't want to get bogged down with the question of where does humankind's birthright come from. That's up to everyone to decide for themselves. They weren't making a statement on that point. They were trying to avoid this very discussion of whether they endorsed particular religiouis views.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo