Moral Values Without Religion

I had to take time out of my holiday celebrations to celebrate this great editorial by Peter Schwartz. Found at Capitalism Magazine.

Moral Values Without Religion
by Peter Schwartz (December 25, 2006)


Does morality depend upon religion? Most people believe it does, which is a major reason behind the appeal of the religious right. People believe that without faith in a supernatural authority, we can have no moral values--no moral absolutes, no black-and-white distinctions, no firm demarcation between good and evil--in life or in politics. This is the assumption underlying Justice Antonin Scalia's assertion that "government derives its authority from God," since only religious faith can supposedly provide moral constraints on human action.

There is indeed morality without religion--a morality, not of dogmatic commands, but of rational values and of unbreached respect for the life of the individual.

Full editorial found here:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4875

Holidays

I'm gonna lay low till after the new year.

My best thoughts to all fellow bloggers and to my readers for a great Christmas and a healthy and prosperous New Year.

Back in Action

I don't know if other bloggers have noticed and already commented on it, but Ian of Banana Oil fame, is back to blogging from China. He seemed to have dissapeared for a few months and he isn't discussing what happened, but he's back!

Conservative Hack Criticizes Article in The Objective Standard

Orrin Judd of The Brothers Judd, attacks Objectivism, Rand and Brad Thompson's article.

Nick Provenzo @ The Rule of Reason responds to criticism of the essay, The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism, by Brad Thompson.
Read it here:

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2006/12/foxhole-theist-syndrome.htm

I also must add my two cents worth of criticism toward the Brothers Judd.

Citing, in his comments, that 8 or 9 of 10 Americans believe in God, is not proof that the supernatural exists. Neither sheer numbers, nor one's belief, should be the standard of proof on a subject so important to everyone. It is merely the product of a sloppy mental process, or more accurately, of 'feeling' that something is true.

Man's reasoning mind, studying the nature of reality, of existence, is the proof I seek.

Be sure to follow the links that Nick's article provides, to get both 'sides'.

The folly and deceptiveness of Gun-Control

A great article found at The American Daily [HT:Classical Values]

Excerpted here, but read the whole thing at:

http://www.americandaily.com/article/16614

There's No Such Thing As Sensible Gun Laws
By John Longenecker (12/02/06)


First of all, very first of all, when it comes to guns, there is no governing to be, with the exception of protection of the Bill of Rights. Since the right to bear arms is absolute, there is no governing over it. There can be only protection; you protect the rights of the people on that and that is your oath. Simple. Anything else is an attack.

Refusal to understand this not only reflects a poor understanding of the law and practical values in America, but reveals a hidden agenda to overthrow us all. All of us, not just those who support rights, but all of us. That would include Mr. Helmke, himself, unless he wishes to own a gun secretly.

In fact, if any anti-gun activist owns positively any sort of weapon in the home for self-defense And I don't care if it is a baseball bat! - he/she supports self-defense and the use of up to lethal force. Or, don't they realize what they are saying and doing? Most anti-gun nuts do in fact own weapons. Right, Rosie? N'cest pa, Dianne?