XJW
Because, as a general rule, it is the Judeo-Christian ethic that has bettered the conditions of man.
So the JC world gets to rule with their own rules forever due to historical happen-chance? And all other people, of other religions and of secular viewpoints get to be grateful?
Not something I can agree with; and that's without taking issue on the claim "as a general rule, it is the Judeo-Christian ethic that has bettered the conditions of man". The improvements in standards of living, equality, human rights, life-spans, education etc. have largely been tracable from the start of the period society began to be secularised.
There's more evidence the betterment of the conditions of man have been due to secularism than a JC ethic. The JC ethic had failed to bring equality, education, justice, health - despite trying for almost 2,000 years. Secularism started the real beneficial changes.
Why not base society on the principles of humans rights?Who is the arbiter of those rights, Abbadon?
That's a strange question; you know the answer. Governments elected by people agree on the principles of human rights and have codified these on several occasions. You are as included in that process as your hypothetical atheist left wing next-door neighbour. Legal systems interpret and enfore those rights. If the people feel rights change (for example, allowing black people to vote), then in time they change.
If I understood this leftists article, then I would have no rights since I am unenlightened Christian.
I'm talking about human rights; you have as many of those as the next human. Why the sympathy card? There's no need for it; as a right-wing American male you belong to one of the largest and most influential groups on this planet.... not really any reason for you to sound so woe-begone. It amazes me how the white American Republican male can sound so sorry for itself when it has all the toys in the basket, on average.
You do not however have the right to force your religious beliefs on others so by using them as a basis to build society on.
You can be free and happy to worship as you want in a safe secular society. A humanist cannot have the same freedoms in a society based on a belief structure.
Most of the left believe that human rights come from humans, therefore when they find that a right is inconvinient to them or a hinderance to their power hunger those rights get suspended.
Please show me where this has happened in a modern democracy. In absense of such proof you are fear-mongering. Then for context, show me a JC ethic country that does not or has not violated human rights.
The American democratic-republic, says that human rights are endowed be the Creator, and hence not subject to the whims of human government or opinion.
Interesting point. Where in the document you have just cited (Declaration of Independence) does it say anything about a JC ethic being the basis of society? It might say that men are created equal in the sight of god, or words to that effect, but any doubt over the intent of this statement is cleared up by the 1st Ammendment, which clearly seperates government from religion.
Are you suggesting a humanist secular society (where people can believe what they like provided they do no harm to others) cannot work as well as a JC ethic society?No, I am suggesting the opposite. That a secular humanistic society cannot function with people that posess a Judeo-Christian ethic. They are polar opposites.
So the intolerence of certain religious individuals undermines a stable society? Because if some religious people believe god says x, and x violates human rights, it doesn't matter, as god said it? And this willingness to violate human rights due to religious beliefs is poison in a society based on human rights intrinsic to being a sentient human being that ride over and above any religious belief structure, being principles of fact rather than belief? Of course, you dont mean that, LOL. I do.
Me and people like me are quite happy to live with people like you provided you don't harm anyone or infrige their rights. You apparently are not happy to live with us. You are free to dissent. But you apparently want to impose your beliefs on others; that's not dissent, that's oppression.
What of the people (law-abiding good citizens) excluded by basing government on a JC ethic?Oh yes, the horror of not lying, stealing or murdering. What a terrible thing to force those prohibitions on people.
Would you be so kind as to answer the question?
Why not achieve the same fairness and tolerance a modern JC ethic society can attain in a secular way that includes all people of good will?If you could point out a secular humanistic society that has truly respected the rights of disenters, then I would have to reconsider my position. Until then, I'll stick to my guns.
Errr... well, we can discount the USA, as it isn't secular in the sense of the European countries. I happen to live in probably one of THE prime examples of a secular, as humanist as any other country and more than many, society. Now, you have not proved any point here; you haven't proved that secular humanist societies do not respect the rights of dissenters. You making an unsupported assumption; ya know, like WoMD's? You are asking me to disprove something you have not proved - a logical impossibility if that's of any interest.
But have a go; show how the Netherlands (famous for centuries as a place people run TOO to flee religious or other persecution) has NOT respected the rights of dissenters. And then show a JC ethic society that does better.