mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

Imagine a World with No Religion
Tom Trinko ~ May 1, 2018
Atheists, agnostics, and people who just don't give a darn about God keep telling us they are just as moral as, if not more moral than, people of faith.

Really? All the following exist because countries reject religion and adhere to moral codes generated by men.

• The casual k*****g of those whose lives "aren't worth living"
• Murdering 56 million unborn babies each year because they are inconvenient, or because they are women to be
• The mass murder of 100 million people in the last century
• Sexual objectification of women
• The use of violence to silence "offensive" speech
• A hedonistic ruling class oppressing all who object to its "values"

The reality is that without God, men become monsters.

The only God-free cultures we know of, the various c*******t regimes of this and the last century, have been the most oppressive, evil, and aggressive "civilizations" that the world has ever seen. In less than 100 years, they k**led around 30,000 times as many people as the Inquisition, which was mostly a governmental, not a Church activity, did in 500 years.

In religion-free Cambodia, roughly 25% of the population was exterminated for the "greater good."

It's true that many people in those hellholes still had faith, but the people who made the rules and who oversaw the horrors rejected God. From a purely functional perspective, those countries had no religion.

How can this be, given that we all know atheists, agnostics, and those who just don't care who are decent folk?

The answer is that in a Christian society, even those who don't believe in God absorb through the culture Christian values – what Catholics call the Natural Law.

Take the Golden Rule, for example. It says, "Do onto others what you'd have them do onto you."

Faithless people often point out that one doesn't need to believe in God to believe in that rule. That's true. The problem is that without God, there can't be any objective moral code.

If there is no God, then morality is defined by people, since there is no other option. But people disagree on what is moral and what isn't. Many people thought the Holocaust and black s***ery in the South were perfectly moral, for example, and there are even groups, small in size at the moment, thanks be to God, that support raping children.

But since people don't agree on what is moral, and there's no objective way to decide which people are right that means that morality is subjective. It's what an individual says it is.

History has taught us that when people believe they are the source of morality, horrible things tend to happen.

For example, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot rejected the Golden Rule. Yet without God, all we can say is that we disagree with their opinions on morality. Those who lack faith can't say that Stalin, et al. are wrong or evil – only that they, good people with no faith, disagree with them.

It's true that in societies where religion exists, things aren't perfect, but if that religion is Christianity, we see that the horrible things that happen go against what Christianity teaches – though there are always those who feel they can redefine what Christ taught to support their beliefs. Jesus told us to love one another as we love ourselves, which would clearly rule out s***ery of the sort practiced in the South, yet there were some people who professed Christianity but rejected that t***h. But there were many more Christians who rejected that bizarre interpretation and who eventually died in huge numbers to end s***ery.

In a sense, religion is like the speed limit. If the speed limit is 55 mph, a lot of drivers will go 65, but few will go 75. If we relax the speed limit to 65, a lot of people will drive 75, and some will drive 85. In a world without religion, a world with no moral speed limit, the Gulag becomes common.

If a society relaxes its moral rules by rejecting God, it gets more evil and greater evil. That's why in England, the government can prevent parents from trying to save the life of their own child with their own money. That's still not something that can happen in America, because America is far more religious than England.

Sadly, the left in America is working hard to oppress and eliminate religion. The left speaks of freedom of worship, being able to go to a church in private and worship, rather than freedom of religion, being able to publically live one's faith by condemning s***ery, for example. The left has ensured that teachers in public schools can safely extol the wonders of sexual hedonism and atheism but must fear instant termination if they proclaim the Gospel.

The reality is that the left rejects religion because religion stands between the left and the total control of others that the left wants. Like their ideological fathers Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, l*****ts in America believe they have the wisdom to rule over the rest of us rubes. We see this in large things, the left denying science and saying men can become women, and little things, the left telling us how big our glasses of soda can be.

America was founded on the uniquely Judeo-Christian belief that individuals have intrinsic value and rights that the State can't take away:

We hold these t***hs to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note that if rights aren't endowed by our Creator, then they can come only from government, which means that government can take them away. This means that the powerful have literal life-and-death control over the lives of the powerless.

Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, not a Christian, also said our rights wouldn't be respected if people weren't religious:

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.

Imagining a world without religion means imagining that America had never been founded, or that if it had, it wouldn't have been different from the hundreds of other countries where rights flow from the powerful few, not from God.

Religion can be bad; witness Islam. But Christianity, for all the faults of Christians, supports the fundamental American belief in the value and e******y of men. Without Christianity, what's wrong with r****m, income ine******y, or raping children? After all, if we're all just meat machines with no free will – Hawking points out in The Grand Design that without God, we can't have free will – what's wrong with any of those things?

If everyone, from a crack addicted inner-city baby to the president, isn't of equal value, then what's wrong with the more valuable oppressing the less valuable?

The left wants the benefits of religion – belief that we need to help the poor, belief that r****m is bad, etc. – without actually allowing people to live religious lives. We've seen how that works out in the c*******t regimes, and there is no reason to believe that if l*****ts succeed in throwing God out of public life, America will turn out any better than the Soviet Union did.

We need to fight the left and keep Christianity as the moral bedrock of our nation while allowing all people to live their faith, no matter what they are, if we are to avoid descending into a f*****t state where the government controls every aspect of our lives.

greenmountaineer Loc: Vermont

You must have had a really bad history teacher, to put you to sleep in class like that. Ever since Emperor Constantine adapted Christianity to the political needs of the Roman Empire, Christianity has been used to oppress and terrorize the common people into submission. Arian Christians were slaughtered, thousands were k**led in the Albagensian Crusade, the Thirty Years War, by the Inquisition, etc. Islam is at least as bad. Union of church and state seems to be part of the religion. We have lots of Christians in the U.S. but we don't let them practice the darker parts of their religion. Because of that separation of church and state, most of them have forgotten that there was a dark side. Bill Clinton did try to make us conform to the standards of a "Christian Country" when he had 59 heretics burned in Waco TX about 30 years ago, but it didn't catch on. Keeping religion out of politics, allows religion to do what it does best, ministering to the spiritual needs of people.

greenmountaineer Loc: Vermont

You must have had a really bad history teacher, to put you to sleep in class like that. Ever since Emperor Constantine adapted Christianity to the political needs of the Roman Empire, Christianity has been used to oppress and terrorize the common people into submission. Arian Christians were slaughtered, thousands were k**led in the Albagensian Crusade, the Thirty Years War, by the Inquisition, etc. Islam is at least as bad. Union of church and state seems to be part of the religion. We have lots of Christians in the U.S. but we don't let them practice the darker parts of their religion. Because of that separation of church and state, most of them have forgotten that there was a dark side. Bill Clinton did try to make us conform to the standards of a "Christian Country" when he had 59 heretics burned in Waco TX about 30 years ago, but it didn't catch on. Keeping religion out of politics, allows religion to do what it does best, ministering to the spiritual needs of people.

greenmountaineer Loc: Vermont

You must have had a really bad history teacher, to put you to sleep in class like that. Ever since Emperor Constantine adapted Christianity to the political needs of the Roman Empire, Christianity has been used to oppress and terrorize the common people into submission. Arian Christians were slaughtered, thousands were k**led in the Albagensian Crusade, the Thirty Years War, by the Inquisition, etc. Islam is at least as bad. Union of church and state seems to be part of the religion. We have lots of Christians in the U.S. but we don't let them practice the darker parts of their religion. Because of that separation of church and state, most of them have forgotten that there was a dark side. Bill Clinton did try to make us conform to the standards of a "Christian Country" when he had 59 heretics burned in Waco TX about 30 years ago, but it didn't catch on. Keeping religion out of politics, allows religion to do what it does best, ministering to the spiritual needs of people.

Carol Kelly

I agree except that there were more s***es in the North than in the South and s***ery in England and in Europe and all over the world before it finally arrived South of the Mason Dixon line. Hannibal took s***es, everyone had s***es, the Romans had s***es. The South fought for states rights to make their own decision and would have done away with s***ery in the the next few years because of the expense incurred. It was politically convenient to force war and fight it with immigrants right off the ships who had no Idea what they were fighting for except a small pay check. The North has kept the South down for far too long. Our government did far better by Japan and Germany than they ever did for the South. Mississippi produced an army officer and West Point Graduate who later became a Senator and then President of the Confederacy and we’ve been maltreated ever since. Compared around the world to all the most heinous evils. Yes, I’ve been there and heard it. I know! One Sunday morning in England, I heard a minister on the radio condemnMississippi and Mississippians and I’m certain he didn’t know any of us. I
overheard a conversation in the Allied Officers Club in Naples, Italy the made my face burn with anger. I know what I’m talking about. Maybe the b****s in America need to know there was s***ery in Africa before they were sold out by their own people. S***ery was not invented for b***k A******ns.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

That isn't Christianity. That's politics. What do you think every theocracy in the ME is?

greenmountaineer Loc: Vermont

More s***es in the North?????? Sacre vache! Where did you ever hear that? S***ery was legal in the British Empire until about 1839, so of course it was legal before the Revolution. But for economic reasons, it was not very profitable in the northern colonies. The "Fall Line", where the high rocky land drops off, is close to the coast in the North. In New England, it comes right down to the coast. The glaciers left us soil full of big rocks and heavy clay. The Republic of Vermont outlawed s***ery in July 1777. It's the first article in our Constitution. Farms in New England were small and s***ery wasn't cost effective, so there were relatively few s***es. Rhode island outlawed s***ery before the end of the 18th century, and other northern states soon followed. In fact, by 1791, the split between s***e states in the south and free states in the north was already plain. When Kentucky was ready to join the Union as a s***e state, both New York and New Hampshire suddenly changed their attitude and gave up land claims to Vermont and allowed us to join the Union so as to keep the balance in the Senate even between free and s***e states. The broad fertile land between the coast and the Piedmont made s***ery more profitable and almost necessary before the age of machinery. That's why s***ery persisted in the South. Without tractors to pull plows and harrows, you couldn't grow Indigo, or tobacco or cotton commercially, and make a profit if you had free labor and your neighbors had s***es. They'd undersell you 'cause their labor costs would be lower. That's what Lincoln meant when he said that the country could be all s***e or all free, but it couldn't be part one and part the other.

Carol Kelly

Lincoln’s mouth opened and closed but it was no prayer book. I’m s**k of the attitude of dogooders in the North. Every word I wrote was true. It’s time all Americans stand together and not cast aspersions on others of whom they know nothing. My point was that Southerners we’re not the only S***e owners, s***ery did not begin in the 19th C,
and that around the world ignorance of Mississippi has grown from word of mouth.