Letters: We need freedom from religion

In The Advocate’s two Thanksgiving appeals, for gratitude, justice and tolerance among citizens (Our Views, Nov. 22), the editors quote President Abraham Lincoln and President Lyndon Johnson, both of whom invoked God’s influence.

But God’s influence divides people. Even the best of friends debate God’s influence, often never discovering that each person defines “God” differently. People must look beyond God’s influence and focus on shared goals, such as justice. To achieve justice, people assume responsibility to each other.

The injustice of leaders promoting God’s influence is evident throughout American history. The First Virginia Charter, in 1606, commissioned colonists to “propagating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in ... ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God.”Colonial Christian barbarity was evident not only against the natives but among the colonists. For example, in the 1692 Salem “witch” executions.

By 1774, the Confederation of States urged personal religious freedom. In the Declaration of Independence, in 1776, the United States implied, in essence, that the deistic “Nature’s God” would defeat England’s Christian God.

God’s influence was weakened by the Civil War. In his Second Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln lamented, “Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.” America divided under God’s influence, and 750,000 Americans became casualties with untold misery in their families. Over a century and a half later, President George W. Bush used God’s influence to lead America to invade Iraq.

Today, Americans find themselves brooking the alienation of children and grandchildren, still urged by the president to follow God’s influence. But presidents report to the people. The evidence is ripe for Americans to conclude that the American republic’s promises to the world hinge on Americans deciding to understand and fulfill the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Fulfilling common ethical goals should be every citizen’s commitment to future generations.

To paraphrase the preamble: The citizens who want integrity, justice, peacefulness, defense, prosperity, liberty and continuity govern this nation. I chose “integrity” to replace the concept of unity, which in 1787 referred to the then Confederation of States. Practicing the preamble with integrity, my neighbor’s religion is as free to him/her and appreciable to me as mine. Each of the seven goals needs personal consideration and public debate in personal integrity.

The influence of God is predicated on the assertion that humans will not choose ethical behavior. However, most people want to behave so that they can live in freedom. Religions offer believers comfort in an uncertain world, but justice offers everyone freedom to live without civic harm.

If Americans will embrace justice, perhaps they’ll lead the human community to freedom.

Phil Beaver

retired chemical engineer

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by phil - 05/12/2012

Gee, everyone forgets to mention the influence of evil or lucifer the devil or whatever you want to call it. We do not get in trouble with the influence of God, we get in trouble due to the influence of evil. Read the Bible folks!

2) Comment by prbeav - 04/12/2012

Mr. Scott, I don't know how anyone could limit another person's opportunity to believe whatever they want to believe.>>>>If I was targeted in the phrase "they accuse people of faith," it is erroneous categorization: I am a man of faith.

3) Comment by Michael Gary Scott - 04/12/2012

What we really need is freedom from those who would take away our rights to have our own personal beliefs in the name of "freedom from religion". They pretty much do what they falsly accuse people of faith of doing, in the name of enlightment or some other bull.

4) Comment by gofigger - 04/12/2012

prbeav - It's ok to call it what you want

5) Comment by prbeav - 03/12/2012

potkcalb, the letter is about US citizenship and the imposition of God's influence by presidents. Oppressors always dislike facing the opposition. gofigger, moral behavior conforms to an ideology. Ethical behavior conforms to justice.

6) Comment by gofigger - 03/12/2012

prbeav - We must all make moral decisions every day of our lives. At a crossroad, I ask myself, what would Jesus do? If you know Jesus, you know what to do in any situation. He simply leaves it up to you.

7) Comment by potkcalb - 03/12/2012

I can add nothing to these weighty and profound pontifications about God and religion. It reminds me again of that pressing question as to how many angels (if there are any) can fit on the head of a pin. It would be an act of humaneness to the reading public if the subject was dropped. Believe or not as you will but try to leave the rest of us in peace. Conflicts of belief are not going to be resolved.

8) Comment by prbeav - 03/12/2012

ScotB, I’d be the first to admit my frailty. I do not pretend to write the truth and only state my opinion based on the evidence as I understand it.>>>>I could not touch the accomplishments of even one of the founding fathers. Yet, some two and a quarter centuries later I can benefit from considering their individual frailties. >>>>For example, Thomas Jefferson, chief author of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, wrote in 1800 a statement for which he wanted to be remembered: “"I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." I see self contradiction in Jefferson’s will to 1) swear an oath and to 2) base his oath on the “Altar of God.” He would have served himself better with a simple statement, such as “I oppose tyranny over the mind of man.”>>>>Of course, when it comes to his statements about himself, I yield completely to Jefferson, yet retain my opinion that he contradicted himself.>>>>So far, no one has helped me perceive an error in my thinking on Jefferson’s statement: maybe you can, and I would appreciate it if you did.>>>>Forget the request. My only point is that I have not come by my opinions lightly.

9) Comment by ScotB - 03/12/2012

Well, I'm betting, on average, the founding fathers were a little smarter than good ol' retired Phil. They mostly all believed in a God, in their own ways. In a more contemprary vein, even Einstein supposed a creator God, but was not religious in the traditional sense. One last thought......if we had freedom from religion, who would have created all our hospitals? I've yet to see the "There is No God Medical Center". Maybe I missed it?

10) Comment by prbeav - 03/12/2012

gofigger, a good exercise is to list decisions and consider what influences behavior.>>>>For example, on approaching a red light, what influences behavior, especially if the light is compromised. What about disciplining a child? What about the character examples the child observes.>>>>Is He responsible all the way through these considerations? In any of them?

11) Comment by prbeav - 03/12/2012

Bighug, thank you for returning to the dialogue with Whatnow and the points you have made.>>>>Taking my life as an example, one does not have to look to Hitler to illustrate your point: probably, many people can look within. >>>>Influenced by the traditions of my good parents and the community they provided, I BELIEVED that if I mastered Bible interpretation my life would be all it could be. I stayed in that tunnel until age fifty-one or so, then discovered better (non-contradictory) ethical arguments in classical literature, like Anton Chekhov’s “Rothschild’s Fiddle.” Then, I began to perceive that in all those decades I had rationalized bad behavior, one way or another under God’s influence.>>>>One influence was the sense that I was saved, which meant my misbehavior could be corrected later, since I am saved anyway. I wanted to behave--later. On reading your post, I now realize that I did not fear judgment: since I BELIEVED Jesus and said so publically, I was saved. In other words, under God’s influence, God’s judgment played second fiddle to what I BELIEVED. >>>>All those decades, each time I misbehaved, I knew I had failed my own character. After Chekov, as I continued to venture out of my cave by reading classical literature and American history, character became more critical to me than salvation in the Biblical sense.>>>>My life is a path, and I am more excited about what I will become (before the pain and dust) than in what I am. I flee from force, whether toward me or toward others, and would defend every person’s path toward intentional ethical behavior. I defend their inspiration and motivation according to their preferences and am happy to exchange ideas.>>>>I feel that I am working toward being one of We the People.

12) Comment by gofigger - 03/12/2012

Justice by what decree? You have to follow someone or something, I choose to follow Him.

13) Comment by Bighug - 03/12/2012

Sorry about that Whatnow. My bible states that you just have to believe Jesus is your saviour and proclaim it publically. Just read the bible more closely and read up on Hitler. Just because you and I agree that what he did was bad doesn't alter what he was. Right or wrong, Hitler thought he was doing God's will.

14) Comment by prbeav - 02/12/2012

Solving the problem of parents imposing their own immaturity onto their children must begin with awareness that it is happening and that it is not God's influence. The nation changes its attitude from personal chronology being a measure of maturity to character being a measure of maturity.>>>>The people's debate on justice begins with understanding the US Constitution and observing it in all phases of their lives. By so doing, they become We the People and begin to govern.>>>>Promote, publicize, and celebrate the attainment of character instead of celebrating God's influence.>>>>Make the goals of the preamble the national goals; update them if necessary; and encourage families and individuals to annually review their fulfillment of them.>>>> Celebrate justice, perhaps each September 15, with a larger national holiday than the celebration of independence from England. Perhaps modify the 4th of July celebration more toward independence from attachments to America's glorified past; for example, fixation on "freedom of religion," which in civic practice is freedom of theism.>>>>Solve our national problems by facing them rather than hiding them under God.

15) Comment by InPVille - 02/12/2012

@prbrev: Assert away! Now your task is to figure out how to stop parents from imposing personal errors onto their children. Given the fact that the only reason the U.S. population numbers are not in decline is because of immigration, both legal and illegal, you are going to have to deal with what those individuals believe and have taught their children on a continuing basis even if you accomplish your goal on those currently in country. Also you are going to have to obtain agreement on the definition of justice, which I believe will be like trying to get everyone to agree on what is "fair" which goes to the problem of separating the rational/logical from human rationalization/self-deception. . . apply the original intent version of what the constitution says or the living constitution version of what the constitution says.

16) Comment by prbeav - 02/12/2012

InPVille, your experience bears out the analysis of psychologist H. A. Overstreet, in his book, The Mature Mind (1949). He wrote, “the human being is born ignorant . . . irresponsible . . . inarticulate . . . a creature of diffuse sexuality . . . self-centered . . . to a world of isolated particulars.” His book is about what it takes to grow character, regardless of genes. He explains that few chronological adults have grown their character to adulthood. Thus, too often children rear children who have little chance to discover maturity of character on their own.>>>>The quest is to stop the nightmare of parents imposing personal errors onto their children.>>>>I assert that the way is to stop our multi-leveled governments from imposing religion into civic governance. Stop imposing God’s influence, which is diverse and divisive, into civic governance.>>>>Appreciate religious people being religious in private. However, in the civic arena, focus on the goals of the preamble to the US Constitution and let the people work it out. Vote out the politicians who do not conform to the preamble’s goals.>>>>The people conform to the US Constitution.

17) Comment by InPVille - 02/12/2012

@prbeav: Here is my take. I've never seen anything that lead me to believe people are born with genetic programming that inclines them to a specific view of what is civic justice or just government. 35+ years of working in various levels of several state social welfare programs has led me to conclude perceived personal self interest is the primary driving factor in determining people's view of just outcomes and will rule the day in determinations of what is just or fair in an overwhelming majority of cases involving either them or theirs. A very small minority would come into the office and find out what they needed to do to document the reduction of their resources to show they were eligible before applying for assistance or would do so after they applied and were found ineligible. The vast majority would seek some legal way to keep from spending down their resources and immediately get the government to pick up the tab for their care. Oh!, the stories I could tell. . . people with influence seeking preferential treatment for a needy relative, trying to find ways to make tremendous sums of money inaccessible by the owner so the state could be made to pick up the tab for the owner, unions seeking to insert their members ahead of the line of other(likely more needy) applicants for Food Stamp Benefits so they could receive a month's benefits before their strike, for which an end was imminent, ended and made them ineligible. Then there were agency staff determined to reject the applications of persons on the basis that they were known to have at one time been persons of means but were no longer. None of these issues had anything to do with religion. They all had to do with money, real property and self-interest. Take away all influence of God from government and you still will have diametrically opposed philosophies(held by significant percentages of the population) as to the best method to create a just society. Some say we need to redistribute wealth. Others think this has lead to too many citizens in multi-generational poverty. After all none of the efforts to reduce poverty taken thus far have led to a reduction in the number of those needing assistance. -[**]- Divisions are also created because culture changes today at a faster rate than social mores are able to keep up with. Also the rate of change that does occur seems to differ for urban and rural populations which adds to cultural disharmony. -[**]- I still think human nature has more to do with the problem than any divisions created by different ideas of religion. In brief, It is not the goal. It is incompatible views on how to go about achieving the goal that leads to the divisiveness. It is incompatible philosophies on what the goal should be.

18) Comment by NearBarbarian - 02/12/2012

What a thoughtful, informative letter. Mr. Beaver attempts to reflect the founders' balanced approach to the matter, as exemplified in the "Establishment Clause" of the Constitution's "Bill of Rights" (aka, "First Amendment"). Among the early proponents of the division between state/government (secular domain) and religion (sectarian/theological domain) were none other than the radical Protestants. They had suffered under state religions abroad and religious intolerance in the colonies, so for themselves, they wanted religious persecution to be a thing of the past. Therefore, it wasn't only the deist and atheist philosophs who greatly helped to construct the "wall of division" during the revolution and constitution of the US. Moreover, we should probably also remember that the brief period of fellowship (i.e., Thanksgiving) between the Pilgrims and the Native Americans occurred between people who practiced dramatically different religions (radical Protestantism and indigenous "paganism")--an early symbolic moment of American pluralism, as well as secularism. Turning to today, the number of Americans, including Christians, who are breaking from organized religion, as well as the number of citizens who are not religious, is growing rapidly. There has also been a rapid proliferation of Protestant sects and sub-sects, outside of the mainline denominations. Likewise, religious congregations in each of the Abrahamic faiths--whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim--differ among themselves regarding the interpretations of theology, scriptures, and ritual. With growing ethnic diversity, we are also seeing the increase of major non-Abrahamic religions, such as Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Confucian, and Shinto. ALL OF US--whether Catholic, Presbyterian, Shi'ite, Neo-Pagan, atheist, and so on--ARE PROTECTED by the absence of religion in the foundation of American society.

19) Comment by potkcalb - 02/12/2012

My, my what philosophical verbiage from our commenters. I'm certainly relieved that the God/religion questions have finally been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

20) Comment by Scrooge - 02/12/2012

Fear this

21) Comment by nimby? - 02/12/2012

too many christians interpret "god" as this thing to fear , a controlling creature demanding obedience . my higher power is a teacher , a bearer of wisdom . he has given me a choice of paths , and the wisdom to choose properly . from that point on it is your life , he can do little .

22) Comment by HRoark - 02/12/2012

Why would we expect agreement on a completely artificial human construct? I like John Lennon's view better than the religious idealogues. I agree with the views expressed in Mr. Beaver's letter. In fact people who are not influenced by religious dogma are probably better at meeting civil standards of behavior than those who are. Religions, denominations, churches, etc, are just surrogates for old fashioned tribalism and the various conflicts that go with tribal behavior and territoriality. Look at the religious landscape of war. If God has any influence on human conflict, then he/she certainly does not have our best interests in mind!

23) Comment by Chucky - 02/12/2012

I guess that would be the way to run the world or just our country if God did not exist. When you talk to God it is prayer, but when God talks to you, your schizophrenic. Blessed Be, BTW will vote as the Goddess indicates

24) Comment by prbeav - 01/12/2012

@InPVille, IMO you make some good, I opine valid, points about the human condition. However, the quest is to provide civic justice: just governance.>>>>Doing away with religion as a personal interest would be not only unjust but impossible.>>>>The letter proposes that citizens focus on the seven goals stated by “We the People of the United States,” and by their votes require presidents and other politicians to work to fulfill the preamble; reject the politician’s bid to impose God’s influence, which is divisive.>>>>The preamble is the purpose which the Articles of the US Constitution would fulfill. Through written laws that do not respond to divisive influence, We the People may address the problems of human frailty. So far, the people have not decided to fulfill the preamble, I think bemused by God’s influence.>>>>Those are my thoughts on your posts, and I hope you will respond.

25) Comment by brcitizen2010 - 01/12/2012

@DMJ, you ask why God would allow everyone to disagree about who he is and what he wants. The answer is simple. Everyone wants God to adhere to their individual perception of him, rather than really get to know him, thru the Word. Our free will has tainted our objectivity where God is concerned. This has been evident ever since Eve was seduced by the Serpent in Garden of Eden. We are seduced by our own god complex, thinking that we are in control of our lives. Just like Eve found out, we are in control of nothing.

26) Comment by InPVille - 01/12/2012

@DMJ: "If god was real, why does he allow everyone to disagree about who he is and what he wants?" Perhaps you could look at it this way. If god was real, you'd have about as much chance of understanding the mind of god as an fire ant or an amoeba has of coming to a complete understanding of how the mind of DMJ works.

27) Comment by InPVille - 01/12/2012

@wadep66: Absolutely! I intended to bring sociopaths, the mentally ill and the other problems I listed into the discussion of whether removing religion will for the most part resolve humanity's problems. Why wouldn't I? Of course I am not saying that if people will only adhere to religion it will fix all the problems I listed. Quite frankly I don't see how anyone could receive that message from what I wrote had they read it with any intellectual honesty. Are you being intentionally obtuse? My point is that people are a flawed creation and it is not possible to control enough of the factors that lead to everyone's social development to guarantee the development of a socially productive and moral person. Also people can move from one group to the other(in both directions) over the course of their lives. With or without religion the problems of people and society will continue to exist. That some or even most people could become socially productive and moral without religion doesn't change the fact that not everyone will develop into a socially productive and responsible person. The things I wrote in my second post are part of the reason this is the case IMO.

28) Comment by DMJ - 01/12/2012

If god was real, why does he allow everyone to disagree about who he is and what he wants? Man is made in the image and likeness of god? More like the other way around. Nice letter, Phil.

29) Comment by wadep66 - 01/12/2012

InPVille: You are seriously going to bring sociopaths and the mentally ill into a discussion about whether or not religion is the key to social order? Please explain how religion fixes sociopaths and the mentally ill. We're all ears.... No one here said doing away with religion fixes everything. But religion doesn't fix everything either and has created many ills. It should not be part of how we govern. It does not take religious belief to be socially productive and moral. That was my point. Several other posts here illustrate how much religion has made certain folks believe they are superior to others. That is the problem.

30) Comment by prbeav - 01/12/2012

@bourbon-soda. Sorry for the delay. The >>>> is a thought divider in absence of paragraphs.>>>>As I understand it, the preamble was added as a final thought after the committee of form assembled the convention's agreements into a formal statement--the Constitution. Gouverneur Morris added the preamble, with discussion but without objections. During ratification, Patrick Henry strongly lobbied to change "We the People," to "We the States." Thank goodness, his bid failed.>>>>My paraphrase is for others only for the purpose of stating what I would agree to. For example, I would not want the concept of "unity," because I appreciate my neighbor's opinions about what they want in life and governance without civic harm or in justice: my neighbor should be able to lobby against an injustice I do not perceive. Therefore, I chose the word "integrity.">>>>I do not know the Advocate's reasoning in captioning my letter as they did. However, I stand by my references to religion. For example, I stand by my sentence, "Practicing the preamble with integrity, my neighbor’s religion is as free to him/her and appreciable to me as mine.">>>>It is reported that on exiting the convention, Benjamin Franklin said, "You have a republic if you can keep it." God's influence has not seemed to preserve the republic.

31) Comment by InPVille - 01/12/2012

While not a religious person himself, Benjamin Franklin supported and had a family pew in more than one church in Philadelphia. It was part of his philosophy in supporting good works.

32) Comment by bourbon-soda - 01/12/2012

@ prbeav - I am not able to follow your last post. Are the angle brackets the equivalent of quote marks and if so what are you quoting and does it have a cite where I can read it or about it? Since Franklin was one of the signers of the Constitution, I assume he endorsed the wording of the Preamble. Aside from that, I do not have the temerity to paraphrase for others "one of the greatest sentences that exist."

33) Comment by prbeav - 01/12/2012

Sorry again: "Franklin well written," should read "Franklin, finding well written"

34) Comment by prbeav - 01/12/2012

Not to say he was any more virtuous than me, but Benjamin Franklin well written news articles, paraphrased them, converted the paraphrase to poetry, and then reversed the process.>>>>Franklin was not the author, but the preamble to the US Constitution is one of the greatest sentences that exist. The person who is motivated to understand it is fortunate, but must commit to considerable study of US history.>>>>The person who is so motivated that he would paraphrase it becomes involved in a continuing process of discovery, not of the preamble, but of himself. I am in my fifteenth year.>>>>Anyone who would dismiss the preamble has missed an opportunity.

35) Comment by bourbon-soda - 01/12/2012

I would not attempt to paraphrase so concise, eloquent, and expressive a passage as the Preamble to the Constitution. I am suspicious of the motives of anyone who attempts to do so. The Founders were pretty good with words. They chose "blessings" rather than, say, "benefits."

36) Comment by Whatnow - 01/12/2012

From 1965... http://stg.do/9LDc

37) Comment by brcitizen2010 - 01/12/2012

Religion is not the culprit, big government is. Take this same letter and replace the word “religion” with the word “big government” and you will have hit the nail on the head. “We the people” are just pawns in a big sea of corrupt politicians, warmongers, international bankers, and opportunist all willing and able to turn us effectively against each other. Call me a religious fanatic if you like, but that doesn’t change a thing because as we sit here in denial, refusing to acknowledge our sinful behavior and the need for God’s intervention, the earth is spiraling out of control. We are on a collision course with death and destruction. “In the last days, perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves (WANTING TO BE BAILED OUT FROM THE BAD DECISIONS THEY HAVE MADE), covetous (WANTING RESPONSIBLE TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR HOMES THEY CAN’T AFFORD, YET REFUSING TO RELISH THEM), boasters (BRAGGING ABOUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE CARE OF THEM, NOT GOD), proud blasphemers (ATTEMPTING TO DISCREDIT/ERASE GOD BY REMOVING HIM FROM ALL PUBLIC PLACES. ), disobedient to parents, unthankful (NOT GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY HAVE, ALWAYS WANTING MORE), unholy (LIVING EMPTY LIVES WITHOUT GOD IN IT), Without natural affection (ATTEMPTING TO LEGALIZE HOMOSEXUALTY AND GAY MARRAGE), trucebreakers, false accusers (BLAMING OTHERS FOR THEIR DIFFICULTIES. REFUSING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR SITUATION), incontinent (UNCONTROLLED, UNRESTRAINED IN SPENDING ON FRIVOLOUS UNNECESSARY EARMARKS) , fierce, despisers of those that are good . Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. From such turn away. 2 Timothy 3:1-5 SOUND FAMILIAR?

38) Comment by prbeav - 01/12/2012

The thesis is an element of the letter, and to claim that the thesis of the letter distorts the preamble is not anything I'd want to defend.>>>>The letter's conclusion asserts that justice is the path to freedom/liberty.>>>>The preamble speaks to two "blessings of liberty": "to ourselves and our Posterity." The letter laments that Americans, represented by their Presidents, expect God's influence and thereby are "brooking the alienation of" our posterity.>>>>Perhaps the letter should say, "effecting" instead of "brooking.">>>>What's your paraphrase of the preamble to the US Constitution?

39) Comment by Whatnow - 01/12/2012

@Bighug, sorry, Hitler was not a Christian. He SAID he was a Christian but did horrible deeds. God knew Hitler's heart. Just because you say you are a Christian doesn't make it so. God is the only one to judge, not man. Christianity does require moral and ethical behavior.

40) Comment by bourbon-soda - 01/12/2012

Why substitute a "thesis" for the short preamble other than to distort it. What about the blessings of liberty? That's in there. Is it in the "thesis?"

41) Comment by prbeav - 01/12/2012

"promrte" should read "promote"

42) Comment by prbeav - 01/12/2012

The letter laments Presidents promoting the influence of God when they should promorte the preamble to the US Constitution. The thesis is, 'To achieve justice, people assume responsibility to each other." The conclusion is, "If Americans will embrace justice, perhaps they'll lead the human community to freedom."

43) Comment by bourbon-soda - 01/12/2012

These evangelical secularists are a real pain.

44) Comment by InPVille - 01/12/2012

@wadep66: Are people born with a "moral compass" or is this something they acquire as the pathways develop in their brains from their experiences after birth? How would you explain sociopaths? Which brings to mind the mentally ill and the effects any of those who have it have on the development of any children they might have. If religion disappears the problems of rapists, child abusers, and murderers will continue to exist and this will continue to effect and cause social problems for those who fall victim to them and to those who care about them. The lust for power and/or wealth will continue to exist which will have an impact on the ethics and applications of justice, and etc, of those who seek them. The rate of cultural change in our modern society is faster than the mores can be created to adapt culture to those changes. Then we have natural disasters and the traumas they cause for people already impacted by the things I've already mentioned about and the myriad other faults human beings are subject to that I haven't mentioned. No! If you think most of societies problems are going to go away if you could only dispose of religion, IMO you are engaging in wishful thinking. Religions were created at some point in the past by people and it probably happened a number of times. If it was the creation of people, then the traits of the human species which cannot be shown to have changed any as far as I have been able to determine will continue to exert their influence and we will still have a far from perfect world.

45) Comment by nimby? - 01/12/2012

whether choose to or not acknowledge religion there is a power out there , god , Allah , mother nature , the flying spaghetti monster , whatever you may refer it to . we are not the center of the universe ..

46) Comment by Bighug - 01/12/2012

Christianity doesn't require moral or ethical behavior. Even Hitler, one of the most vile persons to ever live, will be in heaven according to Christians. He was a believer, and accepted Christ as his savior. Great letter.

47) Comment by wadep66 - 30/11/2012

Very thoughtful and well written letter Phil. People are born with a "moral compass" and know right from wrong. It isn't some indoctrinated belief system from childhood religion that gives us that. It amazes me that some feel anyone who doesn't read the same book they do or go to the same building on Sunday's are somehow morally inferior or doomed to some form or eternal torture. You give very good examples of how man has used mans own versions--of what God supposedly has communicated to a few appointed people thousands of years ago--to war, kill, alienate and degrade others in the name of being superior or somehow the "chosen" ones. Putting the good of others in priority and caring for one another would eliminate most of the problems you mention InPVille. This does not require religion.

48) Comment by InPVille - 30/11/2012

Completely dispose of religion in the United States and throughout the world and you will still have to deal with the root cause of the problems of the human race and that cause is the nature and flaws within each member of the human race. An example would be getting everyone to agree on what is justice. Another would be integrity. Numerous examples of human failings(politicians are a rich source of examples) in this area that have nothing whatever to do with religion because man is a rationalizing creature and not a graduate from the fictional Vulcan School of Ultimate Logic. Save us from utopians.