No Monopoly On Virtue

This file is ANSI text version of
<URL:http://www.deevans.net/pubs/monopoly.xhtml>
This file is not necessarily an up to date reflection of the original.


Responding to Roger Kartchner's Reader's Forum comments (April 5),
once again an individual has attacked the humanistic desire to live
ethically without god(s) or religion.
   Religion does not have a monopoly on virtue. Religion, historically,
instead of being a buttress to virtue, has been an impediment. Referring
to Christianity as an example, let me quote Arthur Schopenhauer: "The
fruits of Christianity were religious wars, butcheries, crusades,
inquisitions, extermination of the natives of America, and the
introduction of African slaves in their place."
   Contrary to impunity, the humanist finds him or herself responsible
for his or her own actions. We have deviated from correct principles
because we (the legislatures of the varying states, as well as the nation)
are cramming God down the nation's throat. Religion is a private matter,
not a matter of state. This includes state laws funding the public
posting of the Ten Commandments, allowing religious functions in schools
(including prayer or seminary), or pushing the fundamentalist Christian
agenda in the guise of science (Intelligent Design).
   Ironically, as Roger started his anti-humanistic missive, evaluation of
the "consequences of natural law" is a humanistic concept, not a theistic
or supernatural one. If "it is requisite that national sins be punished
in this life," does it not make sense that our national laws should be
requisite to this life as well, and not the next?

   Published in the 16 April 2002 Deseret News.  This article was written
in response to Not Too Late To Turn Back.

Copyright (c) 2002, 2006, 2007 by D. E. Evans.
Updated (UTC, GMT): $Id: monopoly.txt,v 1.2 2007/06/24 19:36:57 sinuhe Exp $