Or elect, or whatever method worked best after such a cataclysmic event.

__________________
Hedonistic Lemming

Billy Bob: "From now on I don't want to be quoted. EVER! "

Knowing my neighbor as I do, I would invite him in, being glad that he has already armed himself, and openly receive his good council on OUR next move.

Would you? So you’d become a Conservative? Fascinating…

But your neighbor's were among those that determined the government's course... the course heading to rid the culture of Atheists... At LONG LAST our scenario represents the Government responding to 'the will of the MAJORITY' wherein an excited majority is anxious for CHANGE... a MAJORITY who felt that atheists were inconvenient... just a clump of sub-par cells that were prone to stir up trouble and considering that given they're in the minority, unable to defend themselves; who cares what they think... and besides, now that the law is passed; killing Atheists is legal and as long as it's legal that's all that matters; as LEGALITIES ARE ALL ANYONE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH… At least that’s what SOME THINK… Perhaps you disagree.

Now given that the vast majority of the population moved the government to advance this legislation; the people have by default rejected the principles laid down in the US Declaration; specifically they’ve rejected those principles as irrelevant, because it’s not the Constitution; it’s not even a legal document of this country… and even if it were, it’s passé, old fashion along with the protections established to protect those principles, in the US Constitution; YOUR IDEAS ARE: irrelevant, passé and old fashion.

Beyond that, the problem with the 'ideas' you mentioned, is that those eternal, immutable ideas are founded on the authority of Nature's God... what you're selling are old fashion ideas on the authority of your own individual perspective; which were perhaps, at one time, debatable. However… in case you missed it, the majority of the population, along with the full scope and power of Government now sees you and your ideas as being so dangerous that they’re hunting everyone who holds them down and killing them on sight…; even mentioning them is almost certainly going to result in ones death; so convincing that majority to listen to you, is fairly unlikely, considering that your neighbor is probably going to kill you the minute he enters the door and if you kill him, then the next Citizen who is legally obligated to kill you; knowing you’re a deadly menace, having killed your own NEIGHBOR; will be less likely to set himself in a position which might allow you a chance to do the same to him… making a conversation of any depth, exponentially less likely. So it's a effort in futility; I mean after all; the Atheist belief is once you die; your means to advance and defend your ideas dies with you. So it’s going to be a short selling season and one finding VERY few who will be willing to listen, given that doing so is HIGHLY ILLEGAL, not to mention lethal… After all: Atheists are KILLERS!

I keep thinking how a majority today rejects the rights of the most innocent among us, to their lives...

Isn't it ironic that you’re in effect claiming that all the rights advanced in the US Declaration apply to YOU; this while rejecting their stated source: Natures God and demanding that the old fashion protections of those rights, established in the US Constitution do NOT apply to those who are wholly unable to defend themselves… YOU stood among a majority that rejected THEIR RIGHTS... DECLARED THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS AS BEING SUPERIOR TO THEIR RIGHTS< THAT THE LAW WAS THE FINAL ARBITER OF RIGHT AND JUSTICE.

All the scenario does is replace YOU and YOUR rights, with those that were initially used to establish the precedent, which YOU endorsed, when the lives being infringed upon were those who couldn't take up arms; THOSE THAT COULD NOT HOPE to pull their neighbors aside and beg them to understand the rights and protections advanced through the ancient mores of a long forgotten breed of narrow minded religious zealots.

Ahh… Humans… AKA: The people? Yet another irony… in that ‘The Human People’ just hung you and your atheists people out to dry… “The People” want you along with your ideas... DEAD! So it seems that the ideas, vis a vis 'Human Rights' that come from ‘The People’ are subject to change without notice…

Not much meaning to be discerned from rights that change whenever a majority decides they're no longer convenient. I mean one minute you're an Atheist pounding sand clambering on about your right to not beleive in God and the next minute you've no right to live at ALL!

It just seems so fluid, like a foundation of shifting sand or somethin'... I guess I'm just a bedrock kinda guy. Tell me where the value in constantly changing 'rights' might be found? I frankly don't see it...

Dissolve the Government? LOL… The Government has never been more popular, it’s never enjoyed more strength; the problem I see is that ‘The People’ and their Government are hunting you down and killing you where ever you’re found. As I recall, you and the atheist left spent most of your time prior to the Scenario disregarding the source and the principles on which those ideas rest.

I mean YOU WON! You realized success! You rinsed the most powerful human force on earth, in the HISTORY of earth of those ideas… you’ve managed to strip the nation of a sense of religious principle… you’ve FINALLY separated Church and the passé ideas of religious zealotry from State.

The only problem is that the State which you shaped wants you dead. Now all of a sudden you’re forced to re-establish a Government based upon ideas you’ve long sought to discredit, while running for your life, from a citizenry who is legally obligated to destroy you…

LOL... Man, that is irony of the SWEET variety, right there…

I mean, after all, as I SEE IT.... it could NOT have been a good idea to strip the most powerful force in the history of humanity of any accountability beyond that which is found on this earth; given that the force in question IS the most powerful on earth… that would necessarily mean that they’re not accountable to anyone but themselves and sis… there is NOTHING good that can come from THAT.

Yet that was the goal... Weird huh... Yet ANOTHER 'unintended consequence...' yet to be realized by those good intenders on the left.

During the period of the late 18th to the latter 19th century, Christian thought, as expressed by one Tom Jefferson and adhered to by the whole of the Continental Congress, through the US Declaration of Independence, established that the rights you’re speaking of, are rights which emanate from Nature’s God. Who endowed certain Rights to man, thus making those rights inherent in man at his conception on this earth... thus the authority on which those rights rest, is well beyond the scope of man to rightfully give or take... meaning man can neither give nor take rights to or from anyone. At BEST man can through whatever power he may possess at a given time, advance a privilege, meaning a practice which will be tolerated for what ever time that power is able or sees fit to enforce… However while privilege is often erroneously confused with rights, it is not Right, nor is it even CLOSE. Rights rest on the bed-rock authority of Nature’s God, privilege rests upon the whimsy of power.

Well you see the problem… Our resident Atheist Kitty comes and declares Rights to rest on nothing more than the thoughts of human beings; human beings prone to changing their mind. Resulting in what once was a protected Right, no longer being such…

Human thought… a rather low authority indeed; given that what one man thinks is only valid as long as the power he wields to enforce that thinking provides for such… Isn’t that the premise behind “Majority Rules?” Isn’t that the thinking behind “IT’S LEGAL! SO I CAN KILL AS MANY PRE-BORN BABIES AS I CONCEIVE? Isn’t THAT the thinking behind all leftist thought: SOCIAL SUBSIDIES ARE LEGAL AND I AM ENTITLED TO THEM! IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT TOUGH! WE WILL HAVE YOU ARRESTED < STRIPPED OF YOUR PROPERTY AND LIBERTY BECAUSE YOU WERE TOO SELFISH TO PAY YOUR TAXES AND HELP THE POOR!

Well you referenced the Greek concept of the judiciary a moment ago… holding that pre-Christian culture up as something special… but here you reference a practice which the ancient Greeks were very much into… their women had no rights… Suffrage, the notion that all people are equal came to this earth precisely at the time when Christ demanded that the women and infirmed, along with the poor be allowed into the temple; AS EQUALS. As a matter of some fact, that was why they killed Christ; he was upsetting the applecart; an applecart which provided for the judicious trial, which sentenced him to death.

SO, it turns out that Christ and the pursuant "Christianity" is in fact the source of human rights and that without Christ and his inherent authority, Human Rights are whatever those wielding the most power say that those right are…

Where a citizenry is disarmed, he who advances the most power is THE GOVERNMENT; behind THEM is THE MAJORITY and the ONLY THING THAT STANDS BETWEEN THOSE TWO: IS THE DIVINE AUTHORITY ON WHICH YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS RESTS< WHICH GIVES YOU THE AUTHORITY TO CONTEST ANY WRONG< WITHOUT REGARD TO THE POWER ADVANCING IT.

No Human Being can sustain themselves against a superior physical force for very long. But God and his divine authority lives beyond the physical; the RIGHTS endowed by God exceed the individual’s limitation… they are inherent in each individual and cannot be taken by any other… human rights rest wholly upon GOD’S AUTHORITY.

Now all that simply means, is that If the right is something which YOU claim, on your OWN authority, then when you’re gone, the Right YOU CONCEIVED goes with you. These are concepts which you people seem NEVER ABLE TO COMPREHEND! RIGHTS ARE NOT POWER! RIGHTS ARE ROOTED IN OBLIGATION, RESPONSIBILITY AND A SACRED DUTY TO SEE TO THEM PROTECTED AND THAT THE ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEM IS MAINTAINED.

GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHTS! GOVERNMENT HAS POWER and THE ONLY VALID USE OF GOVERNEMNT POWER IS TO PROTECT AND MAINTAIN THOSE RIGHTS… You have rights… but part and parcel of THOSE RIGHTS, IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO defend them by LIMITING THE SCOPE OF POWER WHICH YOUR GOVERNMENT WEILDS! But you can’t seem to understand that… At every turn the ideological left is determined to increase the scope of government power, on this spurious notion or for that specious reason…

“If you take a million dollars from a billionaire, it doesn’t affect his lifestyle, but a million dollars can help a lot of poor people and it REALLY HELPS THEM!” << That is a rationalization which ONLY serves to INCREASE THE SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT POWER. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TAKE THE PRODUCT OF ANY MANS LABOR… for the benefit of anyone else. IT’S THEFT! You’ve violated the PRINCIPLE… You’ve rationalized around the principle; you’ve claimed a right by MIGHT… YOU’VE GIVEN THE GOVERNMENT TYRANNICAL POWER. Which you feel is fine as long as that power is not focused against you.

The OP Scenario merely focused that power against you… The majority, the government, “The People” came after YOU!

What you found out is that you needed the means to defend yourselves; your rights were being egregiously violated by an overwhelming POWER… Many of you placed your faith in the assumed goodness of your neighbors, which has historically been a lethal error in such circumstances. The story Oskar Schindler and Anne Frank are noteworthy because they are an illustration of rare courage. When the Jews of Europe were realizing the OP Scenario, they were faced with a reality so far from the realm of reason that they stayed put and tried to argue against overwhelming POWER. They appealed to the kindness of their neighbors, who week after week turned their backs as Jew after Jew was thrown from their homes and businesses and forced into the jails, streets and ghettos and later onto the trains which took them to their long suffering deaths. Their appeals fell to turned heads as people were sure that if they hadn’t done something wrong, they wouldn’t be getting thrown out of their homes…

OH! It was all quite LEGAL!

If you think the same can’t happen here, you’re fooling yourself. Now… the question is: “ what will you do, now?” Will you close your mind and pretend it can never happen to you? Or will you realize that your ideology feeds this very evil and work to return to a reasoned frame of reasoning and work to support the CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS WRITTEN and the immutable principles on which it rests?

There is no possibility anyone is going to read those 3 giant posts! You are going on about gibberish! You really might as well be talking about zombies, your scenario is probably even less likely than zombie attack!

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!



Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?

The problem, PI, is that you mistakenly assume that because people don't think God is the ultimate source of morals, that they must therefore think that either a) morals don't exist or b) morals are whatever the majority says they are.

But there's a third possibility: that we think morals can be reasoned out, without reference to either majority opinion or supernatural beings. And that those reason-based morals can, in fact, be considered absolute and immutable, precisely because they rest on a foundation of reason, not on arbitrary rule makers.

Me, I think that society is the start-point for morals: the morals that have developed over time are those that tend to support social harmony. Murder is considered wrong in nearly every society because it is disruptive to the social fabric, not because some supreme being stated the obvious.

But society is only the start point. Society can often be wrong about what is good for it, and quite often what it considers good for itself is not so good for the individual. So we take that starting point and extend it through reason.

That reason is informed by values, of course. If you place a premium on individual freedom, you will arrive at a different set of morals than someone who values social stability at all costs.

But if one can agree on the underlying values, then one can reason out a set of morals that supports those values.

As a practical matter, few societies are ever unanimous on the underlying values. So the best, most durable moral systems are one that impose only the minimal restrictions necessary -- IOW, granting as much individual freedom as possible (while still protecting bedrock values) means the system will be supported by as wide a swath of the populace as possible.

One does not need either God or society to reach those conclusions. One needs only logic.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Ahh the vaunted "Third Way." Now where have we heard THAT before Ray? Nice straw man Ray… But here’s the thing; I’ve never advanced any such reasoning. If you’ve some evidence which you feel is illustrative of my having done so, I’d be happy to discuss it, but for the moment let’s let it rest that my belief is that God has already established what it moral and anything else is just a rationalization to accommodate some specific ‘heretofore determined to be unacceptable’ behavior.





Hmm... Gee Ray, I was under the impression that the taking of human life without valid moral justification was wrong because it takes life without a valid moral justification... which in and of itself would necessarily be disruptive of to the social fabric; this assumes the fabric of your given society is woven from the thread of inalienable human rights, where the exercise and maintenance of those rights provides for inherent social justice…

Oddly enough Ray that's Christian reasoning... Does it make you feel better falsely believing that you came up with it and that you’ve thought it through to a conclusion which provides for a more judicious, balanced end? ‘Cause Ray, we’ve discussed this at length and you’ve HUGE gaps in your reasoning.

But that distinction Ray, is founded in the certainty that the advocate of social stability through whatever means necessary is a person who is incapable of reason... Leftists do not possess the means to reason Ray; this is why the history of every single leftist policy ends with the noting of the UNITENDED CONSEQUENCES... Unless the history is written by a person of reason who notes the policy ended in PREDICTABLE CATASTROPHE< CALAMITY OR some specific foreseeable CHAOS.


Well Ray, whether you feel you need God is not at issue here. What IS at issue here is that God has already provided the bedrock moral principles and you simply refuse to accept it; choosing instead to reinvent the moral wheel through any number of spurious rationalizations which can ONLY LEAD TO DISASTER and my pointing out that immutable fact ... (which to be perfectly honest is my favorite part... )

This entire thread is predicated on the idea that "leftists" believe that morality is whatever the majority says it is. If you wish to abandon that premise, be my guest.

You are entitled to that opinion. I will only note that it has already been pointed out that many moral systems predate and postdate Christianity, and Christianity's moral system looks quite similar to the others. The 10 Commandments -- the half that don't deal with the rules for worshipping God, that is -- don't say anything that hasn't been said hundreds of times before.

My point is that what constitutes "valid moral justification" has varied considerably throughout history, depending on the effect various forms of killing have on society. The Aztecs captured people in order to sacrifice them to their gods. That was considered "valid moral justification" in their society; it helped stabilize the society by binding the far-flung Aztecs together with belief.

Indeed, if you look at the history of murder, it has generally only been outlawed when applied *within* a society. As a rule, it's generally been okay to kill outsiders. The exception: if that killing brings down bad repercussions on the tribe as a whole.

Only in the last two or three centuries have we really established the idea that "right to life" is a fundamental, inalienable right -- that killing, except in certain extreme circumstances, is wrong regardless of who the victim is. It's an example of secular reasoning improving on what went before.

Christians were neither the first nor necessarily the best practitioners of what you call "Christian morals." The legal and moral code laid down in the OT, for example, bears a striking and entirely unsurprising resemblance to other legal and moral codes of the time.

They can be a fine set of morals; just don't claim authorship. You can go to your workshop and make a wheel; you can't then claim that wheels are a PI invention.

Hardly. How can you draw that conclusion? They simply have different priorities.

Conservative tribal societies place almost zero value on individual freedom. As long as there is sufficient buy-in to the culture, such societies can survive for millennia nearly unchanged.

And thus PI once again ignores everything that went before and restates his opinion as fact. I wish I could say I was surprised.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

There's nothing to win
And there's nothing to lose
To see what you have:
The ability to choose!

Life has no winners
No losers, no quitters, no blame
Tisk tisk, your Ego is much too large
Freedom is leaving the Game!