Posted by
voice_of_reason on Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:00:13 AM
Dr. Kengor describes "Each and every human being is his or her own moral arbiter" as a Maoist justification for the horrors that they perpetrated.
But doesn't "Each and every human being is his or her own moral arbiter" sound suspiciously like "individual freedom", the very antithesis of Communism?
IMO, religious conservatives like Dr. Kengor make too much of the atheist-communist connection. Communism was (and is) an abject failure - for economic reasons, because it destroys the incentive structure in society. Communism's pernicious evil would lead to the same results in religious societies as well.
It was Mao's use of Communist 'ideals' that gave him the 'right' to enslave, starve and kill millions - in the name of the State. That is the true nature of collectivism.
But, isn't religion also a form of collectivism? Observe that it is/was easy to 'unite and rule' millions of present-day Muslims OR crusades-era Christians.
Mao (and others like him) were able to exploit a human weakness for being communal, for succumbing to the tear-gas of altruism. All he did was to replace religion's collectivizing and supposedly benevolent force with that of the State.
Religious Conservatives cling to the theory that God-given human rights are the foundation of a Capitalist society. This abstraction is then extrapolated along with Communist-atheist statements to create a false linkage between Capitalism_and_Religion.
Granted, many of our Founding Fathers were deists; and a lot of good ideas came from their religion-inspired thinking. But, thankfully, they also knew to separate the Church from the State.
Q) would it have made a difference to the history of the United States if the inalienable rights of Americans came, not from God, but from the fact that they are free human beings protected by the Constitution?
Q) what is more important, that our rights are inalienable, or that our rights are granted by God?
Q) If our individual rights are endowed by our Creator, then why would we even need the protection of a Constitution?