Many people have come to same conclusions that the Universists have. Here’s another viewpoint:
I came up with a name, the Mutualist Alliance. The basic premise being that everyone born into this world has an equal right to existence.
I said that a Mutualist is someone who believes in the mutual right of humankind for food, clothing, shelter, health, and safety; has a strong desire for universal peace and goodwill; and has a high regard for the virtues of tolerance and charity. And, I said that a Mutualist would be able to carry and defend the message of humane coexistence when speaking with friends, family and others. That a Mutualist could accept that we don?t all believe in the same god and be able to at least tolerate the religion or spirituality of others. Finally I said that a Mutualist would seek out and support like-minded individuals for leadership positions in their community and country.
…I?m not ashamed of the conclusions I?ve drawn from the past sixty-five years. I despise capitalism for how it has elevated greed above all other human virtues, and I despise organized religion for how it has played it?s part in turning people against one another the world over. Between the two, the possibility of even the hope of peaceful and humane coexistence across the face of this planet is extremely remote.
…I remain staunchly agnostic. If there is a god, there is no evidence for me to presume that god is a benevolent spirit. Maybe the Mutualist Alliance was a pipe dream better left to the smokey haze of a lost evening. Perhaps the best anyone can hope for is to find those who share their values and pray that they are not preyed upon by the rest. As for me, I will continue to write about what I see, and continue to search for like minded people.
American Chronicle: Governments, Churches and the People
Guy is not alone. Maybe he should check out Universism since it sounds like some of the same views that he believes and feels. Read the rest of Guy’s article for a typical lament of an Agnostic that does not see the work of God in the world or the ability of religion to make people good.
The justices aren’t giving their stamp of approval to aberrant moral values. Instead, they are saying that the majority can’t impose its morality on people in a way that violates individual rights.
For example, the court, in upholding the constitutionality of abortion, is not saying that abortion is good, but merely that the government cannot take away a woman’s right to choose whether to have a child. The court isn’t saying that sodomy is moral, but that all people, gay people included, should be able to define their own sexuality and adult relationships.
The court has not kicked God out of public school; it just won’t let the majority impose a state-approved prayer on unbelievers. The court doesn’t approve of burning the American flag or nude dancing or pornography, but believes that the First Amendment protects even forms of free expression that most people hate.
In short, the court is agnostic when it comes to many social and moral issues.
KRT Wire | 08/16/2005 | U.S. Supreme Court: Agnostic on morality
I liked this editorial. The author suggests that the ideal belief system as a basis of morality for an impartial and fair court system is Agnosticism. Of course, I tend to agree with such assessments because I think the Agnostic viewpoint that we really have no clue is the right one.
Once we admit that the answers are really unknown, our minds are no longer clouded by faith and beliefs in things we don’t understand when we try to pass judgement on each other and our actions.
There’s an interesting interview with Julia Sweeney about “finding” her religion. The link to the whole article is below, but here are 2 interesting quotes. The first is about being an Agnostic because she wasn’t comfortable being an Atheist. I actually went the other way from Atheist to Agnostic just because of what I’ve read about both.
Was there a turning point in terms of your leaving behind religion? Did you just wake up one day and realize you were an atheist?
No. It was a long process. I just became a stronger agnostic, and then I started to realize that everyone who was saying they were agnostic really hadn’t thought about it that much. Still, I went with agnosticism for a long, long time because I just hated to say I was an atheist — being an atheist seemed so rigid. But the more I became comfortable with the word, and the more I read, it started to stick.
Here’s a funny quote that says a lot about why people follow their family towards a particular belief, but in this case it is disbelief.
And then my brother Jim was very funny. He said, “Well, Julia’s looked into it — I guess there is no God!” He goes: “She does good research. I believe her, because I would never read all that stuff! Well, she just saved me a lot of time!”
FINDING MY RELIGION / Julia Sweeney talks about how she became an atheist
Universism states that any action’s ultimate rightness or wrongness can only be determined by those involved in the action and that there is no universal morality and no moral authority. This brings up the question that in crimes, can only the criminal and victim decide what is right or wrong? Click here for an article on private law that has an answer for this.
Private law is a concept where people submit themselves to the “jurisdiction” of a private judge. Cynics of the concept dismiss this because the accussed would not willingly do this.
However, this glib dismissal overlooks the fact that most disputes in modern commercial society are not between an ?obvious? innocent and an ?obvious? malefactor. Rather, it is often the case that both parties to a dispute genuinely believe themselves to be in the right, and would be happy to make their cases in front of a disinterested third party.
I don’t think in practice this concept of private law would be able to hold, particularly under the anarchist environment that the author presents it in. However, the Objections section of the article and the following paragraph is applicable to laws and justice in general as it relates to Universism and enforcement of morality.
One major objection to such a system is that there wouldn?t be one uniform set of laws applicable to everyone. So what? If orthodox Jews want to have a rabbi apply the Mosaic Law to their disputes, while atheist libertarians want Stephan Kinsella to apply The Ethics of Liberty to their disputes, why shouldn?t they be allowed to do this? Yes, ?bad laws? might be produced under anarchy, but people would not be subjected to them, or at least not nearly to the extent that they are forced to submit to bad government legislation. (In the same way, bad books will be produced under anarchy, but no one would be forced to read them.) In any event, under the government right now, there isn?t a uniform set of laws applied to everyone, so this objection is silly on its face.
In an increasingly religious America, the nonreligious have begun painting themselves as a persecuted minority.
“It’s not OK to discriminate on the basis of race or sexual orientation anymore, but it’s perfectly valid for someone to say I would never vote for an atheist for president,” says Mel Lipman, president of the American Humanist Association.
USNews.com: Culture: Atheists claim discrimination (8/2/05)
Let’s see, we have the faithful and faithless both apparently painting themselves as a persecuted minority. Since the faithful have a majority in this country, who is the real persecuted minority?
Being Atheist, Agnostic, or just nonreligious in a generic sense is looked down upon by that religious majority and most of their claims of persecution is that their belief is not allowed to become law and be promoted by our government.
The nonreligious don’t want religion shoved down our throats and plastered all over our government. We want “One Nation, Indivisible” instead of “One Nation, Without God” or “One Nation, Under God.”