RoR: Forum

I would just like to say that I greatly esteem all of the Founding Fathers, failings and all, for the true gifts they left for posterity.

Post 1

Friday, May 21, 2004 - 4:43am

Unfortunately this is what comes of organised religion, or state religion. Christianity in its original form was never designed to be "in alliance" with government; its domain is the spiritual not the political; the individual not the social. This was Jesus's and Christianity's genius and contribution to democracy in that it made a distinction between the Kingdom of God ie the individual, and the kingdom of this world ie the political. This is clear in the gospels when Christ said "the Kingdom of God is within" and also"my Kingdom of this world". So we can see that true Christianity is not the oppressive force that Man has made it out to be. In fact it seems to support Objectivist ethics and values.
(Edited by Steven Lloyd on 5/22, 3:58pm)

Post 2

Friday, May 21, 2004 - 4:50pm

Christianity is not the oppressive force that Man has made it out to be. In fact it seems to support Objectivist ethics and values.

I quite agree Steven. The point was not lost on Jefferson, as I wrote here, or for that matter on Rand, as Dr Chris Sciabarra explained here.

By the way I just read your profile - I am Welsh myself :-)

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 5/21, 4:53pm)

Post 3

Friday, May 21, 2004 - 6:37pm

I disagree. There's no way faith could ever support Objectivist ethics, which is grounded in objectivity and rationality.

As for the Kingdom of God vs. this world, I don't buy that being positive either. The morality of Christianity is based on the will of god. It doesn't take much to show that politics is subservient to religion. Even if you manage to sever the two for some obscure reason, you're just abandoning politics to the realm of amorality. If god doesn't care about it, anything goes, no matter how bloody. If god does care, then obviously politics should be a function of religion.

Remember that faith and force are corollaries. And faith is an abdication of reason. Once you go down that road, there's no reason at all to expect a positive outcome. Trying to argue that some interpretations of the arbitrary claims aren't so bad misses the whole point.

Post 4

Friday, May 21, 2004 - 9:41pm

May I draw to your attention to the site entitled, "Thomas Jefferson on Christianity & Religion"?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

Part of the Introduction says:

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus

Two of the many anti-Christianity/God quotes included therein are:

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

and

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

I leave it to others to debate the merit of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance and what the Founding Fathers would have to say about it.

Paul Hibbert

Post 5

Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 2:29am

Joe,

There's no way faith could ever support Objectivist ethics, which is grounded in objectivity and rationality.

Agreed, but if Jesus was a more or less secular individualist, and the mysticism was added later by his so called followers, then its a whole different ball game, as you Amercians say :-)

By the way, the Neo-Tech crowd are really big on the whole idea. But then they are a bunch of cranks. Hmm....

Paul,

The so-called Jefferson Bible is a terrific piece of work. Jefferson obviously had no time whatsoever for mysticism, and I believe he even insisted that his beliefs represented true Christianity!!

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 5/22, 2:37am)

Post 6

Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 3:41pm

MH,

If you took out all the mysticism, what would be left? The morality is altruism, based on the will of god. Removing the base wouldn't just make it a secular altruism, it would make it a baseless altruism. Moral rules without reason are not compatible with Objectivist ethics, which is grounded on life as the standard of value. Even if the moral rules superficially were compatible, it's two different things entirely. So if someone gets up on a soapbox and claims we should be honest, productive, and rational because god says so, removing the god part doesn't make it Objectivist. It makes it arbitrary.

I've got a big problem with taking a religion, and trying to argue that you can remove the back bone and leave anything coherent. If god's will is the source of morality, then you're left with nothing. If faith is the proper means of gaining knowledge, removing the mysticism invalidates it all.

It'd be the same if you said you wanted Objectivist ethics, but get rid of the whole "life as the standard part". There's nothing there but arbitrary rules that become incomprehensible.

Maybe you think I'm missing something?

Post 7

Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 3:59pm

Joe:
big problem with taking a religion, and trying to argue that you can remove the back bone and leave anything coherent. If god's will is the source of morality, then you're left with nothing. If faith is the proper means of gaining knowledge, removing the mysticism invalidates it all.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way round. Rand's hunch (see Chris' piece linked above) was basically that Jesus was really a secular individualist, and the mysticism/altruism was added to his teachings later by his supposed followers. It's not a case of "removing the backbone", its getting rid of something that (if Rand's theory was right) ought never to have been there, if that makes sense.

MH

Post 8

Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 6:23pm