I am all for prayer and worship. Rededicate 250 was that, plus a message: rip down the separation of church and state. I'm not comfortable with that message.
This, 1000%: "But the United States’ motto is “e pluribus unum,” from many, one."
And this line caused me to pause and question how and where we are today: "then perhaps we don’t deserve the kind of government that counts on moral fiber to operate."
Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
James Madison: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all Sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right & necessary; that the true Religion ought to be established in exclusion of all others; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true Religon."
From the same letter: "We are teaching the World the great truth, that Governments do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson, that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government."
From the Treaty of Tripoli, created while Washington was POTUS, ratified by the Senate and signed by John Adams while he was POTUS: "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish nor a Mohammedan nation; it has not religion established by law, and all religions are upon a perfect equality before the constitution and laws of the country."
Also from the same treaty: "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Simply put: we are not a Christian nation, we are a nation in which one is free to be Christian. Oppose theocracy, no matter the source.
I don't need a magic sky wizard to tell me that hurting you is wrong.
If the only thing that keeps people from acting like animals are holy texts, then maybe we do deserve to drive ourselves extinct and make room for a more moral creature.
At this point, I don't either. But we are millenniums removed from the starting point. Maybe you believe that, like Tarzan, you would be a perfect human if raised by apes.
I think the key element was the development of empathy and a theory of mind.
If I don't want X done to me because it hurts me, IF I have empathy and attribute to you a mental state where I think that you wouldn't like me to do X to you, then we have the Golden Rule and a lot of what we call morality logically arises out of that.
Unfortunately, in some quarters, the E word (empathy) is a dirty one[1] and other humans cease to be people like you and I, and more like livestock to be exploited.
That's one thought with some logic if the belief is that empathy is a product of natural evolution. If not, then you might believe God is female who bestowed empathy in response to newborns crying for comfort and food.
I am somewhat agnostic and do not know the true origin of morality. I do believe that the ideas encompassed in modern moral codes were spread by religious disciples - whether they worshipped a God or a charismatic prophet.
Empathy is an evolutionary development in social animals that helps with group cohesion. Animals that rely on packs or herds (or tribes in human context) evolved the ability to instinctively share and assist others in distress.
"The law code stele of Hammurabi was carved into a single block of black diorite, which was over two metres in height and written in Akkadian cuneiform.
A carving at the top showed the Babylonian king standing before Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice, who hands him a rod and ring as symbols of rulership.
These items were often linked to religious measurement and moral order, and supported the image of Hammurabi as a religious lawgiver.
This divine endorsement placed Hammurabi in a position to administer justice with sacred authority."
First a mea culpa: there were others that came earlier, like Ebla, Ur-Nammu and Urukagina.
And yes, the monarchs - as almost every monarch in history - claimed divine authority to make laws based on their whims. Ebla had dead king worship, too.
But that's not the religion itself having a moral code. The religion is basically irrelevant to the law.
When you know it was the grace, mercy and protection of God that actually made this country great, it makes perfect sense. Plus, it signals to islamist their theocratic dreams have run into a wall.
Exceptional piece Steve.
This, 1000%: "But the United States’ motto is “e pluribus unum,” from many, one."
And this line caused me to pause and question how and where we are today: "then perhaps we don’t deserve the kind of government that counts on moral fiber to operate."
Thomas Jefferson: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
James Madison: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all Sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right & necessary; that the true Religion ought to be established in exclusion of all others; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true Religon."
From the same letter: "We are teaching the World the great truth, that Governments do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson, that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government."
From the Treaty of Tripoli, created while Washington was POTUS, ratified by the Senate and signed by John Adams while he was POTUS: "The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish nor a Mohammedan nation; it has not religion established by law, and all religions are upon a perfect equality before the constitution and laws of the country."
Also from the same treaty: "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Simply put: we are not a Christian nation, we are a nation in which one is free to be Christian. Oppose theocracy, no matter the source.
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. And start with government.
The problem for most of us is there has to be a starting for the difference between right and wrong. It is always rooted in religion.
I don't need a magic sky wizard to tell me that hurting you is wrong.
If the only thing that keeps people from acting like animals are holy texts, then maybe we do deserve to drive ourselves extinct and make room for a more moral creature.
At this point, I don't either. But we are millenniums removed from the starting point. Maybe you believe that, like Tarzan, you would be a perfect human if raised by apes.
I think the key element was the development of empathy and a theory of mind.
If I don't want X done to me because it hurts me, IF I have empathy and attribute to you a mental state where I think that you wouldn't like me to do X to you, then we have the Golden Rule and a lot of what we call morality logically arises out of that.
Unfortunately, in some quarters, the E word (empathy) is a dirty one[1] and other humans cease to be people like you and I, and more like livestock to be exploited.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/toxic-empathy-weakness/683355/
That's one thought with some logic if the belief is that empathy is a product of natural evolution. If not, then you might believe God is female who bestowed empathy in response to newborns crying for comfort and food.
I am somewhat agnostic and do not know the true origin of morality. I do believe that the ideas encompassed in modern moral codes were spread by religious disciples - whether they worshipped a God or a charismatic prophet.
Empathy is an evolutionary development in social animals that helps with group cohesion. Animals that rely on packs or herds (or tribes in human context) evolved the ability to instinctively share and assist others in distress.
It's not unique in humans.
The starting point was tribal, and the earliest known legal codes were from Hammurabi.
Morality does not require religion based on the whims of a deity - it's ultimately just social.
"The law code stele of Hammurabi was carved into a single block of black diorite, which was over two metres in height and written in Akkadian cuneiform.
A carving at the top showed the Babylonian king standing before Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice, who hands him a rod and ring as symbols of rulership.
These items were often linked to religious measurement and moral order, and supported the image of Hammurabi as a religious lawgiver.
This divine endorsement placed Hammurabi in a position to administer justice with sacred authority."
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/code-of-hammurabi/
First a mea culpa: there were others that came earlier, like Ebla, Ur-Nammu and Urukagina.
And yes, the monarchs - as almost every monarch in history - claimed divine authority to make laws based on their whims. Ebla had dead king worship, too.
But that's not the religion itself having a moral code. The religion is basically irrelevant to the law.
When you know it was the grace, mercy and protection of God that actually made this country great, it makes perfect sense. Plus, it signals to islamist their theocratic dreams have run into a wall.