Atheistic politicians, specifically those on the left, have at first glance, secured themselves within the ironclad confines of a belief system conveniently referred to as “reality” (much like a set of individuals choosing to call a privatized monetary system The “Federal” Reserve) that is more slippery than a greased pig. It is a difficult fortress to penetrate mainly because its moral stances are never clearly defined, and therefore it is always changing for convenience’s sake under the guise of “new discovery” or “evolution”.
How easy it must be to cast stones at people who seek to live their lives by an organized set of values such as those ignorant religionists. What an asinine concept - don’t those ignoramus‘ know they’re bound to fail from time to time? And when you put your beliefs out there in tangible and documentable ways for all to see like that, people are going to know you’re not perfect. Then you’re going to look like a hypocrite and have to do that most humbling of all personal actions - admit you were wrong and apologize. How much better is it to be ever changing and never defined?! That way - you’re never wrong - you’ve just been “further enlightened”.
Do you want to know the rock center core foundational difference between people who believe in God (and I mean TRULY BELIEVE) and those who do not? People who believe in God know they’re hypocrites - which is why they spend the entirety of their lives trying to be less and less of one. When they mess up, they are instructed by their God to admit it, take responsibility for it, apologize, get back on track and try their best to never do it again. Crazy though it may sound - this is their commitment.
L. Ron Hubbard said, “You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, start a religion”. But the religious left has taken it to the next level by saying, “A religion is most certainly the most impregnable of forces and will make you rich, but if you create one, never refer to it by such a label, or they’ll start thinking you’re trying to control them.” It is so much easier to rule a people when they believe they’re living by their own code. What kind of jail is easier to manage than one where all the prisoners think they’re free? The left seeks to rule the masses by removing all sense of right and wrong and calling it “tolerance” - yet they seek to impose on us law after law after law and somehow, beyond reason, expect us to believe they know best, though they say what is best is for the individual to believe only in self.
Perhaps I’m jumping too far ahead without laying the ground work here. Let’s try a different tack. Below is the definition of “religion” as put forth by Webster’s College Dictionary - 1991:
Religion - n. 1) A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.
To be fair, the above definition is the most liberal definition of religion I could find so as not to be accused of adjusting information to my own end. A simpler, and much more classical definition of religion is “a faith based system of beliefs”. However, for the sake of complicating my position so as to make no one feel cheated, I’ve used the aforementioned.
As we can see by this first and chief definition of religion, it has two things that stand out: 1) a set of beliefs concerning the “cause, nature and purpose of the universe; 2) it often contains a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.
The word “especially”, abbreviated as “esp.” above means “as a more emphatic extension”, not as “a requirement” to the definition. In other words - a religion can still be defined as a religion without involving “a superhuman agency or agencies”. And though it “USUALLY” involves “devotional and ritual observances”, these too are not mandatory for the definition to stand. And as it only “OFTEN” contains a “moral code for the conduct of human affairs”, we are left with a singularly exclusive requirement that defines religion: “A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe”
Scientology wasn’t a religion a hundred years ago, but today it is called a “religion”. Yet the system of beliefs HAD TO PRECEDE the religion, else there would’ve been nothing to base the system of beliefs called “Scientology” on. It is the beliefs that make up a religion, not how long it’s been around or whether it has a formal title.
At the risk of being too thorough, I would also like to take this opportunity to define what constitutes a belief.
Belief - n. 1. Something believed; opinion; conviction. 2. Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. 3. Confidence; faith; trust
To condense, we can safely say that a belief is an unprovable concept one chooses to embrace regardless of present evidence, or lack thereof. Atheism most certainly has a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature (Evolution and The Big Bang), and purpose of the universe, and they also have a “set of beliefs” whether they like to admit it or not.
Some Atheist Tenets are as follows: 1) There is no God; 2) There is no accountability to our actions here after we die; 3) There is no such thing as inherent right and wrong; 4) If there is a right and wrong then everyone’s own innards will let them know about their own particular brand of personal morality; 5) Telling someone something they do is wrong is the only wrong thing you can do
For the sake of argument, the BELIEF that there is no God is as unprovable as the BELIEF that there is a God. And therefore one position requires no more, or less faith than the other. Though one most certainly bears a greater accountability than the other - the faith requirement is roughly the same, I would say.
This goes the same for the BELIEF that there is no inherent right or wrong. This is not provable, neither historically, nor biologically (well...not entirely). But these two are the more concrete arenas. To some degree, speaking foolishly, those particular beliefs have logical merit - at least from a flesh perspective. It’s the wishy-washy’s I want to address. I believe you can tell quite quickly whether or not someone truly believes their own chatter by drawing it out to the extreme and seeing if they still hold firm.
For instance: many atheists believe people should be in charge of their own morality; that they should be able to live by their own code of right and wrong. However, if this were truly the case - in other words, if this is truly their belief, they should in no wise believe in the order of law and/or the concept of crime - or government for that matter. Taken to the extreme, if in fact they do believe everyone should be able to do as they please according to their own personal moral barometer, it would be wholly unethical to institute a single law by which all citizens of a society were forced to obey.
By this philosophical position, the only citizens that would obey such laws would be those that agreed with them - those whose moral compass‘ were in harmony with that particular law. And if that were the case, what would be the point of having law at all? All in all it is pretty unlikely that people who truly believed a certain thing to be wrong would ever actually commit to doing that thing.
At the base of the matter, Atheist’s have two choices: 1) To be Chaoticians who believe in no system of law and believe in no one’s right to impose their views or rules onto anyone else, or 2) to admit they are religionists who believe that their moral imperative in the world is to impress upon other people as to why their value system is the best value system and do what they can to make a better society according to their system of beliefs. Everything else - everything in the middle, is little more than half iron, and half clay... hogwash.
If you, as an Atheist, are a Chaotician - so be it. Just step away from the podium and stop trying to impose “laws” when you don’t believe in right and wrong. Because there is no getting around the fact that laws are created and imposed to institute the concept of right and wrong within a given society. Or, if you prefer, they are to institute what is “acceptable” and what is “unacceptable” within a society. But if you should choose to utilize that kind of terminology, please be careful - as it’s simply roundabout wordplay stating the exact same thing. Because if you are willing to deem something “unacceptable”, you have imposed your opinion about some thing or another, and in doing so, you have assigned a value to it, and in order to do that, you have to have some belief about it and here we are back again at the same spot.
Or, if you prefer, step up to the podium and admit that you have a set of beliefs about right and wrong, and let’s get on with it then. But if you commit to that action, please zip your lip about those darn religious Conservatives who are trying to do the same thing. Because this incessant hem-hawing is grinding the national nerves - don’t you know, and yet for decades the democratic party can’t seem to figure out what it’s doing wrong. And I am not saying there are not Atheists in both parties - I specify Democrats here only because that’s the party that seems to complain the loudest about a “blending of religion and politics”. To illustrate the point that the religious left has perhaps fooled itself better than anyone else, I’ve taken an excerpt from the jacket of the book TAKE IT BACK by James Carville and Paul Begala:
“In this important book, James Carville and Paul Begala show Democrats how they can take it back. They offer a clear-eyed critique of their party’s failures and make specific, concrete recommendations on how Democrats can avoid losing elections on divisive issues such as abortion, gun control, gay rights, and MORAL VALUES and start winning them on health care, political reform, energy, the environment, tax reform, and more”.
To condense: “We Democrats need to ignore THEIR morality, and focus more on OUR morality.” It’s amazing to me that, in this excerpt, the reviewer doesn’t view “health care” or “the environment” or “tax reform” as “moral values” - else he would not speak of them in contrast to “morality”. Apparently Liberals don’t view their “opinions” as being “right” or “wrong”, but simply fact. So they comfortably ascribe that label of “morality” - a term that conjures up images of racism, judgment, and favoritism only to Conservatives and then say, “Well these moral values come from their religion and since we must separate church and state, these values can not reside in government and therefore these people should not be in public offices, they should be in churches”.
There’s just one problem with this: Atheists and the religious left have churches too. And under the cover of those churches, with decidedly more socially acceptable names such as Politics, and Media, they comfortably worship the god of self and purport their doctrine not under the identity of the “religious”, but rather the “compassionate” or “humane”. There is absolutely no way to form a government without a system of beliefs. The foundation of every structure and set of laws is morality.
Because, without the ability to tangibly and scientifically prove what is right and wrong, we have no choice but to form our governmental laws on our own concepts of what right and wrong are. In fact, it could be argued that we appoint, support, and elect our politicians solely based on their moral values and whether or not they agree with our own. The subjects of illegal immigration, abortion, the death penalty - all these things and whether or not they are moral or immoral fall without exception under the heading of “a system of beliefs”.
Be we right, left, or center, the fact is we all, without exception, live by a code. Some of us choose to follow the beliefs of another; the laws of God, the rules of an organized doctrine. While others choose to follow a system they’ve created through their own blending of emotional and experiential happenstance. But the two, whether originating from self, or somewhere other than self, are not all that different at the core. It is all belief. Because until we quite literally know EVERYTHING, we have no choice but to live by faith - or perhaps better said - by our unprovable beliefs. Be we Christian, or not, there is no such thing as a life without faith. The question is simply: What do we put our faith in?