Treason and absolute Truth

Politically incorrect to call others traitors:

Mr. Hyatt said he isn’t calling Democrat leaders and politicians traitors but he goes on to basically do just that. He said Harry Reid, Murtha, etc would have been hanged in 1944 or 1951. How about 1999? That was the year that almost 2/3 of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to cut off funding for the Bosnian war. So, should these gentlemen and gentlewomen have been strung up too or was it ok because they were opposing a war supported by a President who was a democrat? Now, I don’t believe these individuals should have been executed. They opposed a war that they believed was wrong and they should have opposed it, including cutting off funding since they believed it was wrong. Should Mark Twain have been executed for opposing the Spanish American War? Mr. Hyatt is not politically incorrect as he probably imagines himself to be. He is just wrong and if he does not support the same harsh treatment to republicans who opposed and voted against the Bosnian war as those democrats who oppose the current war, then he is also guilty of hypocrisy. I do not oppose the Iraq war but I oppose this idea that equates disagreements and dissent with a war as treason. Now, if the term politically incorrect has any real logical meaning then it would be the idea that taking unpopular positions while there are calls of treason and even hanging for taking them. So, I guess the democrats who have oppose the Iraq War are kind of politically incorrect then.


Absolute Truth:

Many Christians believe in absolute truth, and usually they believe their religion is the truth. I doubt Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos or a host of other religions believe that Christanity nor any other religion that is not theirs is “the truth” but believe that they have “the truth.” As an atheist I believe that is an absolute reality to the universe and that in all likelihood it is purely natural in nature. I believe based on various scientific evidence. Some ask how is it possible for someone to know the difference between right and wrong without a reference point beyond themselves. Well, atheists and even many humanist theists (including Christians) base moral principles on harm. That something is moral or not depends on limiting harm and actions further human happiness. For example the bombing of Hiroshima by an atomic bomb was moral because it saved many more lives then would have happened with an invasion of Japan. But what of the idea that whatever a God says is moral, makes that action or concept, moral? Ok, where did that deity get his moral sense? Is it based on ultimate reasoning ability because he is all wise and intelligent? If so, then such a deity comes to those moral rules/principles/sense that exist outside of himself. These rules are discovered then. So, even if a God exists or doesn’t exist then moral rules/principles are a matter of using reasoning to acquire them. Our rights aren’t based on a creator. Rights are a product of a desire/yearning for happiness and liberty and not to be harmed. Another question is, is Christianity a motivating factor behind most reform in US history? I do not discount that many Christians have done wonderful work in terms of making the nation a better place but humanists or the term more in vogue in the 19th century, freethinkers, accomplished and helped accomplish much reform. Susan. B Anthony, Cady Stanton were not Christians and at best were vague agnostics on the question of religion but they helped start the Women’s suffrage movement. Many of those who supported the Revolutionary War were non-Christians such as Thomas Paine or Ethan Allen. Indeed, it is amazing what non-theists (atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, freethinkers, etc) have helped accomplish in terms of reform in America while being a relative small minority. Atheists don’t want to impose themselves on Christians. No atheist favors the government making a statement in the Pledge of Allegiance or on coins that a God doesn’t exist. Atheists don’t urge for organized readings of the works of Robert Ingersoll at public schools football games. That atheists are perceived as a threat to the freedoms and rights of Christians is a simply not true anymore then rank and file Christians are a threat to the rights of atheists or other non-religious Americans.