Letter to the editor

[YankeyMCC]

A couple days ago there was an article published in the Globe essentially accusing secular people with amorality.

Here's my response published in the Globe today:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/03/12/amorality_isnt_linked_to_secularism/

Someone else also wrote a great response published today:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/03/12/guided_by_a_higher_moral_principle/

[Longhorn]

1. Your letter is excellent!

Well done! :yourock:

[fshrink]

2. The point is

that "moral" is a philosophical question (what is "right", what is "wrong" and why) and not exclusively a religious question. Philosophy exists independently of religion. It is a reflexive process (meaning: which takes itself for subject of study). What we think, what we do, what we perceive, what we know is being systematically questioned. When philosophy goes away, the very core of human knowledge withers and ideology (meaning: which takes a system as universal referent) takes over.
Ideologies and philosophy are thus mutually exclusive forms of making sense of the world, since one questions everything and the other questions nothing.
Lots of restraint in your response (both)... The idiot has a full, insulting, article published and we have modest letters to the editor, which are accepted only because they show restraint.

[trotsky]

3. Short, simple, to the point.

A perfect LTTE. Well done!

The other letter is sweet, too. Pointing out the failings of religious morality is key whenever some Christian bigot starts railing against secularism.

[Zenlitened]

4. Excellent letter. I think you made the case beautifully.

:hi:

[GOPFighter]

5. Thank you

You letter was so eloquent. Way to go. Thanks for linking the other letter too. Every time I try to write a LTTE in response to religious fanatics, I end up going for the jugular, which certainly makes me feel better, but the letters rarely get published. I admire your eloquence and your restraint!

[onager]

6. Outstanding!

Short, to the point but still covered the topic well. Great job!

Do you give lessons? :-)

I'm like GOPFighter and always end up going ballistic in print. Still, a few of mine have been printed.

It seems that some loon always manages to get my phone number and wants to chat about how I "don't have my facts straight."

I live in the Los Angeles area with a very common name, so finding me takes some work.

[YankeyMCC]

7. thanks for the positive responses

One reason for posting this was to see if I was doing a resonable job representing the atheist/secular view and response.

Thanks

[JNelson6563]

8. Well Done!

One point of interest to me is that it seems beyond the realm of comprehension of the believer that atheists can be "good" people for the sake of the greater good, not in order to secure a ticket to heaven. It seems if you don't have the threat of hell pending or the promise of heaven they feel you just can't be a "good", "moral" person.

Julie

[Phentex]

9. Nice job!

I'm still looking at the other thread wondering where it is that atheists "take the moral high ground"?

You explained this nicely.

[Phentex]

10. I hear this all the time!

This is the most common thing I hear when I tell someone I am an atheist. "Well, how do you know what to believe in? How can you be a good person just for the sake of being good?"

:eyes:

[JNelson6563]

11. They cannot understand the obvious.

There are issues of credibility for one thing. If you don't lie to people the eventually know with certainty they can trust your word. If you don't steal from people they know to trust you with their valuables.

Then there's killing. It's the inherent nature of all living things to perpetuate the species. Killing/murder goes against that instinct, the most base of all, survival.

It's all so simple. But no.

Still--don't be discouraged. Progress is a slow thing with our species. Patience is required. Think in terms of generations or even centuries. ;-)

Julie

[YankeyMCC]

12. The reactions continue

Thought people might be interested to see continued reaction to James Carroll's piece:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/03/14/the_secularization_of_christianity/

[trotsky]

13. Ooh, great observation.

The very fact that contemporary Christianity teaches tolerance despite centuries of biblically justified bigotry is testament to the significance of secularization in Christianity. Reason continues to replace blind faith as the root of Christian morals.

So very true. A couple of centuries ago, morality was what your priest told you. Now, Christians of all stripes tend to pick & choose to develop their own morality - witness the "cafeteria Catholics" and so on.

[fshrink]

14. Good point indeed.

Faith is the base of any feudal, pyramidal, system. It is about placing people under someone's domination in a continuous chain of ownership, which ends up with dependency of the top on a non-existent "being", which is very convenient indeed. This is the "compassion" trip: "I am about to kill you, but I am suffering too". The very principle of christianity is submission. And across history, it has naturally condoned, forwarded, facilitated, promoted and protected exploitation.

[Synnical]

15. Very nice - Congratulations n/t

[YankeyMCC]

16. Heh...nice surprise in the mail today

The "Humanist Association of Massachusetts" executive directory, Thomas Ferrick, sent me a hand written note of congratulations on my letter.

That was nice to get.