Matthews and guests lauded Romney's "Faith in America" speech, ignored attack on "secularism"
SUMMARY: Panelists on The Chris Matthews Show praised Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, but none noted that Romney attacked unnamed people who "seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God," claiming: "It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong." Nor did they note Romney's claims that "[f]reedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," and "[f]reedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
On the December 9 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker claimed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) December 6 "Faith in America" speech will help Romney's presidential campaign in New Hampshire because "New Englanders tend to respond to religion more in terms of liberty and tolerance than in terms of emotional responses." Host Chris Matthews called it "a great speech" and "the best speech of the campaign so far." However, neither Matthews nor his guests -- Parker, NBC chief White House correspondent David Gregory, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, and National Public Radio All Things Considered host Michele Norris -- noted that Romney attacked unnamed people who "seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God," claiming: "It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong." Nor did they note Romney's claims that "[f]reedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," and "[f]reedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
During the segment, Gregory praised Romney for his "conviction" and "authenticity" in delivering the speech, adding: "The guy looked presidential, it was a speech that was bigger than sort of the politics of the moment." Washington Post columnist David Ignatius claimed: "I thought it was a good speech. I still felt that it was a careful speech. I didn't feel that I saw the inner man."
By contrast, as Media Matters for America noted, during the 10 a.m. ET hour of the December 6 edition of MSNBC Live, journalist Sally Quinn said of Romney's speech: "I'm really stunned because I think it was an obliteration of the idea of the separation of church and state. He eliminated anybody who was a doubter, an atheist, an agnostic, a seeker. It's like, if you believe in God or Christ, you're on my side. If not, you're not."
From Romney's December 6 speech :
ROMNEY: There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution" he said, "was made [sic: only] for a moral and religious people.'"
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.
[...]
ROMNEY: It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter -- on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.
On the blog TPM Election Central, reporter-researcher Eric Kleefeld wrote in a December 7 post that Romney's campaign has "thus far" refused to say "whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday."
From the December 9 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Well, let me just tell you, that may be the sort of the cosmetic attitude people have, but there is this sectarian problem that Huckabee's exploiting against him. So, that speech this week, a lot of people thought it was a great speech. I thought it was a great speech. Do you think it's going to have a big impact on Iowa? Later in New Hampshire as his firewall, where he might do better? Or later on in the campaign when he has to run for president?
PARKER: I think it's going to help him most right now in New Hampshire because it is a speech about big ideas, and we know that New Englanders tend to respond to religion more in terms of liberty and tolerance than in terms of emotional responses. But I think in the general election it will also help him. I've just been following some of the threads online and people are saying that they have completely changed their position on Romney. That he has raised - you know, he's elevated in their eyes because of this speech. So I think it's had a strong effect. Whether it helps in Iowa, I don't know.
GREGORY: I think it's positive, Chris, primarily because he had conviction, he had authenticity, this is a subject he knows and believes in --
MATTHEWS: And he's not flipping on his religion.
GREGORY: And he's not flipping around. And that's his biggest problem, is that he's a flip-flopper and he's compromised -- that's how a lot of people see him. He did not appear compromised here. And, so, I think, you know, whether it helps him in Iowa or New Hampshire, I mean, voters are going to look at him and have a visceral reaction. The guy looked presidential, it was a speech that was bigger than sort of the politics of the moment.
MATTHEWS: He got verklempt there, you know, to use the Saturday Night Live term. I mean, he really got emotional when he talked about the patriotic meaning of the First Continental Congress and how everybody had a different religion and they got together on prayer. Well, it worked for a lot of us.
GREGORY: You can dissect this, but it still had a - it was still tactical, in that he was still trying to slow Huckabee down in Iowa.
MATTHEWS: Michele.
NORRIS: I think that it will help him outside of Iowa. I'm not sure that -- when you're there you get the sense that they've -- voters have sort of turned the corner. Huckabee has picked up so much momentum in Iowa I think it's going to be difficult --
MATTHEWS: The Christian leader.
NORRIS: -- to slow his roll in Iowa. But, you know, Romney is also -- he's a manager. He always takes the long view. So I think in giving this speech he was looking beyond Iowa and looking at New Hampshire and beyond.
MATTHEWS: David?
IGNATIUS: I thought it was a good speech. I still felt that it was a careful speech. I didn't feel that I saw the inner man. On a topic like this, you know, you really want to see into someone's heart, and I still felt that he was being cautious and careful. When Huckabee talks about religion, when Huckabee says immigrants are the children of God, you have a sense of the passion of the man, that I didn't feel even with this fine speech.
MATTHEWS: How much work went into this?
PARKER: A lot. This is not something that came up suddenly, this was not really timed for Huckabee, this sort of Huckabee wave just coincided with it. They really wanted to deliver this speech at Thanksgiving, but recognized that Americans don't really want to talk about politics when they're getting together for the family. But they've been working on this for months, he reached out to other denominations to get the words right and the ideas right. He really wanted to make a big ideas speech.
MATTHEWS: I thought it was the best speech of the campaign so far.
NORRIS: One thing some people were looking for is the sort of shame-on-you quality also for people who were questioning his faith, and if he had used some of Huckabee's rhetoric - "America's better than this" --
MATTHEWS: I - that --
NORRIS: -- it may have served --
MATTHEWS: In other words: Huckabee, back off. OK, we'll be right back.
"Freedom requires religion" is in on my short list of Dumbest Things Said During This Election Cycle.
Romney can go to hell.
I heard that they are going to make you go to church and keep a score card. If you do not attend so many days Rudy is going to lecture you on Marriage. Welcome to Jesusland where reality has a liberal biased and fox is the only thing allowed as news.
Congratulations - you win idiot of the day.
Guess that brings your amazing winning streak to an end.
Still clueless are you Marv?
No he never was. Still a moron I see WD40
Still licking your wounds from our last debate So-long. Don't take is so bad - one day perhaps you will win one.
Yeah right. I mop the floor with you more regularly than you breathe. Keep deluding yourself that you even hold your own here. You are barely batting practice.
Someone lacks understanding of sarcasm.
also "free speech"
WD40 lacks a lot - mainly functioning brain cells.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. // ROMNEY
I'm agnostic, I also served honorably in the Navy. I pay my taxes. I voted in every federal election since 1976. I obey the laws, which is more than the Republican can say.
Romney believes that I'm not entitle to the same freedoms that a Christian is? That is what the Republican Plank has been since LBJ signed the Equal Rights Amendment! The Republicans have been cloking their bigotry in the Evangelical Movement ever since.
I am an citizen of the United States of America, and opposed to Republican criminality of the past 7 years! I swore an oath like the President, and every serviceman/woman has, like every public servant in federal government to protect, defend, and preserve the constitution, and rule of law.
I obeyed my oath to this day, Romney can't seem to even rap his head around what that oath means, or even what an oath is!
Wake up my fellow citizens, they speak in terms that treat the constitution as though it were an recipe that can be used, or not according to one's pallet, OPTIONAL!
The Constitution speaks to the world and a nation as to who we are, who we wish to be, and who we should aspire to be, a more perfect union. A representive democracy that has devoted it's self forever to the pursuit of freedom, and liberty!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"Romney can go to hell."
I thought progressives stood for raising the level of debate and showing respect for everybody. I thought we are all equal?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
- john174541842 / Monday December 10, 2007 11:53:06 AM EST
I hope you are not attibuting that quote to me!?!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Not all ideas and expressions thereof are equal. If someone says all liberals are terrorists, that's not acceptable. If someone says that freedom requires religion, that is not acceptable. Those statements, and the sort of people who make them, don't deserve respect.
It would be nice to raise the level of debate. So therefore we criticize people who make intolerant comments. It's really pretty easy to understand.
Deeznuts, if there is no heaven, how can there be a Hell?
Attacking unbelievers or secularism is the safest attack in politics. Romney is wrong.
Atheists need to unite for their own good. Develop some myths, a cannon of ethics, etcetera.
they have united. it is called The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
pastafarism is the new creed... All hail the noodly appendage....
I'm more of a fundamentalist atheist - it's the Invsible Purple Unicorn for me! (Can you PROVE that the FSM exsisted BEFORE the IPU? I thought not!) LOL
Yep. Instead of doing what JFK actually did, he decided to do a two-prong attack, each which is different. He actually quoted the constitution, but said that the constitution only applies to people of faith. "Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me." That neccessairly says that any believer in religious freedom must also be a person who has knelt in prayer to God.
it's the best of both worlds for romney. the press compares him to jfk, when he is not, and romney still throws in all the buzz words for the religious right. instead of proclaiming his independence, he asserted his dependence on dogma. his references to "under god" and "in god we trust" are just evidence of that. those were phrases added by later congresses, not the founding fathers.
Nick Romney is no JFK and never will be
Who's Nick Romney?
Mitt it doesn't help to post when you are medicated lol Bad allergies here today sorry about the mistake.
Saint, I like Nick better than Willard or Mitt. Mitt sounds like one of those ultra preppy names like Biff, Skip, Chip or Tad. Not exactly oozing with gravitas.
He has a son named Tad, or Tagg, Chad or something close.
Hey, they all sound the same to me, Cookie.
Or is it Buzzy?
I can tell you from certain knowledge that folks who worked with and for "Cookie" at DeLoitte & Touche are chuckling over his current situation. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Joe Conason in Salon magazine has written an excellent article about the intolerance of Romney and Huckabee,its a good read and raises some pertinent points to this discussion. Romney says that "...Freedom and religion endure together or perish alone." Before you throw up though as Mr. Conason points out if this true then how does Mitt explain his own churches hostility to liberty for Afro-Americans and women. The founders of his church blieved that God had cursed the dark skinned people of the world. They rejected abolistionism and later the civil rights movement and "their acceptance of full membership for Afro-Americans in the LDS church dates back only 30 years. If Romney is going to attack humanist and secularist as 'wrong' then let him explain why they were so far ahead of his church on the greatest moral issues of the past half-century." Huckabee has some "splaining" to do too, like does he believe the earth to be less than 10,000 yrs old, and that man and dinosaurs walked the earth together and how would such crazy ideas shape his science policies? Is Huckabee a believer in the "end times" eschatology, and how would that shape our Middle East policies? As Joe Conason so eloquently states in his article "cherishing the Freedom protected by a secular society need not imply any disrespect for religion. But when candidates like Romney and Huckabee press the boundaries of the constitution to promote themselves as candidates of faith, it's time to push back."
Absolutely right, Cong. Here it is.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/07/religion_presidency/
I wonder if Romney (or Matthews for that matter) has ever seen this short video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg
Thanks , PJ, I hope everybody checks out that video. Of course, it was produced by Satan.
Your Welcome! I've only started visiting You Tube regularly in the past few weeks. Before that, because of links like one's friends had ocassionally emailed to me in the past, I was under the assumption that it was nothing but juvenilles having their fun. Now I can see why Republicans are so fearful of websites like this and are so intent on projecting that stereotype. There are some profound deep thinkers publishing to the site - and we all know how fearful conservatives are of free-thinkers!
The internet has been such a blessing to politics. When it comes to debunking stereotypes, promoting truths, and exposing injustices - there is no better media. Sure there are the pervs and wackos, but look at the bright side - at least now we know just how prevelant these types are in our society. As a whole, you will never get a better sampling of "real America". Take away the politcal correctness and fear of losing your job, should you happen to offend some advertisers or viewers - and we now have a whole new ballgame. Finally free-thinkers can anonymously speak their minds and readers or viewers can think for themselves in the privacy of their own desk or laptop - absent the usual peer pressure or pundit spin that accompanies TV viewing or radio listening.
I am confident that history will show this media to be the force behind the revolution (Before BillO makes something out of my use of this word here - I mean that figuratively, wingnuts!) in America that finally puts our government back into the hands of "we the people". Our biggest fear is the fight we have ahead from the corporate and religious right-wing fascists who are trying to take control and turn the www into just another commercial (Fox) network. We must stay vigilant and vocal!
<Off soapbox>:)
If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend the video "The Power of Nightmares".
Downloading it now - Thank You!
[link to www.mittromney.com]
[link to www.jfklibrary.org]
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."
Apparently that means there was no religion for 1783 years more or less. Since when does religion require freedom? I am a Unitarian Universalist, which originated in this country among the Puritans in New England. While Unitarian Universalism today is among the freest religions in the world, this was certinly not true in the early days of the colonies. I would not say that the Puritans were not religious. They suppressed the Quakers, Baptists, Jews, and anyone else who did not agree with them. If the Mormons were around in Puritan Massachusetts Romney would have probably been burned at the stake instead of being elected governor.
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," is nothing but pandering. Romney is saying whatever he believes people want to hear in order to get elected. However, I agree with him that his being a Mormon should have nothing to do with the presidential election. My problem with Romney has nothing to do with his religion. I dislike him for being a wealthy, power-hungry male Republican. As a WASP (if you consider Unitarian Universalism as Protestant) I think it is time for someone other than another wealthy WASP male as President.
In John Adams' words: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. ... Our Constitution" he said, "was made for a moral and religious people.
Apparently that means you don't know American History. John Adams was one of the founding fathers of the country.
Where governments endorse a state religion, that religion suffers. People resent it, and whatever demand there was for it wanes.
The religious should most want a seperation of church and state.
We agree on that point. Nobody is endorsing a state religon.
Newsflash:
John Adams was not the only founding father, and they were not all robots. They had many differing opinions that were discussed and compromised upon to come up with the Constitution. Maybe you've heard of the Constitutional Convention.
I know its hard for right-wingers to imagine a group of people that don't all march in lock-step, but that is the way the whole rest of the world operates.
Perhaps you misread my description of John Adams as one of the founding fathers.
No, I read it just fine. My point was that you were making an argument about our country based on the (supposed) opinion of one of the authors, but not the finished product, which discounts your point.
I'll see your John Adams and raise you a George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and a Thomas Jefferson.
Our constitution was made for a free people. Free to worship or not worship as they choose.
I don't see anyone trying to force anyone else to worship in a particular way - do you? Are there propositions out there to make a state religon? Please enlighten.
Or worship at ALL as Jefferson said
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
John Adams also said "Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
So if you believe what John Adams says, we were doomed as a nation from the start.
If you are trying to prove Adams words and ideas faulty you failed miserably. The quote you cite was his rational against a true democracy and for a Representative Republic - which we became and still are. Adams was and is still right.
The framers of our country understood that the appointment of natural rights must be from something beyond ourselves and humanity. Believing in the uniqueness of humanity to interact upon each other collectively, and it was those gentlemen's experience that people were not deemed worthy of personal freedom that demanded that those rights be given, not by man for man but from something greater, a Creator. Otherwise, man could take those 'man-made' rights away.
Philosophically, the idea of a greater being allowed for the universality of human experience and relation to freedom. Anyone, anywhere could claim the same rights as Americans. To deny the existence of a creative force meant they were only based on the whims of other humans, government or dictators.
Most of the framers were not Christian by today's standard. Coming out of the Enlightenment, they were probably deists who recognized this utilitarian principle that rights should not be bestowed by equals but by something beyond human experience, apriori, "a Creator". As deists, I believe that they did not believe in personal relationships with God, but recognized that the wonders of creation itself made the existence of God evident.
All the candidates from both parties have spoken of their interest in spiritual matters, but none, including Romney have said that it is their intent to fashion the country along the lines of their belief systems. Romney himself identified those who have no belief in God as rightful participants in this representative republic. Knowledge of the value system that guides the candidates should be of assistance in helping us choose who we see as the individual who deserves our vote.
My problem with the concept of secularism, is that the foundation of what or who grants us these 'rights', its universality and permanence does not exist. If these rights exist, who is to say that we won't go back to pre-Revolutionary days when the course of history may change sentiments. The fathers of this country knew that belief of a Creator was absolutely necessary to underpin these new concepts of inalienable rights, and that this Creator, not some government offical brought them into existence.
Secularism is itself a religion, it is a faith that believes nothing beyond this existance, either preceeding or following our living, indeed exists. It's a faith tradition that we should put trust only in our experience of life, deciding morality extemporaneously, and the with the hope that others, especially those in power, should have no reason to deny us our experience. Try telling that to those who have suffered under regimes who expoused secualrism, Khmer Rouge, USSR, communist Chinese in the 20th century.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
"Secularism is itself a religion, it is a faith that believes nothing beyond this existance, either preceeding or following our living, indeed exists. It's a faith tradition that we should put trust only in our experience of life, deciding morality extemporaneously, and the with the hope that others, especially those in power, should have no reason to deny us our experience. Try telling that to those who have suffered under regimes who expoused secualrism, Khmer Rouge, USSR, communist Chinese in the 20th century."--PC
The implicit comparison of the secularist demographic in this country to those totalitarian regimes is innaccurate. The secularists here don't want an anti-religious government, just freedom to not be religious if they so choose.
"Secularism is itself a religion, "
This is ridiculous. How can the absence of faith be considered a faith? Like silence is a sound - black is a color - Deaf people hear - paraplegics can feel?
If it's a religion, then why can't secularists get our own tax breaks and publically subsidized schools and TV shows allowing us to preach that our way is the only way?
Secularists are simply looking for, or would be willing to tolerate, more of a "Don't ask - don't tell" approach to religion in America. Just as with gays, the demonizing of secularists should not be tolerated - escpecially by politicians who use their religious beliefs to do so.
Pb & j,your question about religion requires further review and one that philosophers have debated for centuries, What actually defines a religion? For my purposes here, it seems to me that action, any action, we take is based on some set of principles, survival, enjoyment, etc. Those principles have been created by something, including our experience, which determines the value in it. A religion is a collection of values shared by experience, (Hegel and Whitehead), that effects personal conduct.I perused a website regarding secular-humanism in which declares that progressive humanism is“who has made philosophy his career, came up with a modern answer that I think puts the old argument in a useful perspective: "...both theism and atheism rest on some kind of faith...because everything we believe rests on some kind of faith...the question is not 'what can I show' but 'how will I live?'...because we are existing particular human beings and not abstract theoretical entities!" As an "existing particular human being" I accept the need for some kind of faith, but I want as little as possible"Faith, even in the outcome of present behavior, is inherent in our process of deciding action.
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=atheism&cdn=religion&tm=27&gps=57_8_966_566&f=20&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.progressivehumanism.com/faith.html
Atheism and secularism can't be categorized as "religion". If that were the case, then everyone on earth would be religious.
Atheism and Theism are not two different sides of the same coin. Atheism is the lack of faith, not faith in the lack of a God. If there were any evidence of God, then I would accept that. That's the opposite of what fundamentalists do, which is to ignore or pervert evidence in order to suit their purposes (the world is 6,000 years old, evidence of evolution was planted by the devil to fool us, etc.).
Barbarino,
Our use of a term like religion are easily exchanged with morality/ethics/values. Your judgement of fundamentalism demonstrates that you have a code of beliefs and ethics that differ greatly from them. However, religion is not going to church, praying,etc but the possession of a value system that guides you. Atheists, deists, agnostics, muslims, evangelical fundamentalists all possess a guide for behavior.
So my question comes back to the issue of an 'apriori' existence of certain human rights or a secularist view of a moving target that can change with each individual. What are the limits of inalienable rights?
No YOUR views easily CONFUSE religion with a moral and ethical code. Not the same thing. There is no reason beyond bigotry to believe that those who do not believe in God can have absolute and basic unchanging moral standards.
As Solon said, you are the one who is confusing those things. The problem for you is that Romney said that secularism is a faith. That makes the "religion" of it more than just any set of values. He's using it as in "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".
But secularism absolutely does rely on logical proof and material evidence. That's what distinguishes it from religion, in the manner that Christians, Jews, Muslims have religious beliefs.
As for the limits of inalienable rights, that relies solely on the society a person belongs to. We can have respect for people and their rights without injecting fear of an eternal hell into it.
Right, Brab. I'll bet Loudcon wishes he/she would've looked up religion in the dictionary before doing all that typing.
Oh well, the Emily Litella award has to be given to somebody. ;0)
OK, by your definition sighted (Hegel and Whitehead) I have no problem with calling athiesm a "religion". Let's just add the word "organized" ahead of any of my posts that contain the word religion. In that casem I guess it is only "organized religion" that I have problems with.
To me, and probably most people - a religion requires some sort of written manifest or creed, a place of worship, rituals, and a hierarchy of leaders - And even if athiesm ever got to that point, I doubt I would attend services. Hell, I even hated going to "mandatory" union meetings.
I just hope you're not trying to say that Huckabee would take me under his umbrella of worthy Americans because "athiesm is a religion"?
Oops meant to say "Romney would take me under his umbrella" - my bad (same difference)
edmeister,
Marx stated in his response to Hegel, was that religion was the opiate of the people and went to describe how once removed, real happiness would ensue. The plan was that economic justice would replace the need for the illusion of peace that formalized religion was providing. The construct of any religion was that a shared set of values by a community, worth followning, created guide for human behavior, ie morality. In Marx's case, it was economic agreement for a just society. My observations about secularism was not intended to demonstrate a desire to force religion upon anyone, (I assure you, I relish in all of our freedoms) just ask how secularism provided the basis for establishing personal rights.
Each of the governments I mentioned, put forth a rationale of a Marxist world view for ruling a country. Your view of secularism and present secular-humanism in the US may be radically different, but what assurance philosophically do you have that your views will continued to be the norm?
On the other hand, what assurance do you have that YOUR views will continue to be the norm?
Because they existed before me, in others, in the future beyond my lifetime. They are not around just because I am here on earth at this time.
My assurance is that inalienable (not deniable) rights exist beyond, before, and after my existence. They do not exist because of me but for me.
Actually, those rights are deniable. It happens all the time. The slaves dying in the holds of ships and "witches" burning in flames probably thought they had rights, too, but it didn't help them, did it? Then, as throughout human history, human rights were at the mercy of the civil or physical authority which held sway at the time. To simply assert that rights existed before we "discovered" them does not make it so. Apparently, you believe that those rights were "revealed" to us by God. I would point out that they were "revealed" by humans who claimed to speak for God.
PC - you hit the nail on the head - however you must undrestand what you rightfully point out does not fit the anti-religous agenda of the left. Religon does not allow for the moral relitavism that so many on the left value as a virtue above all else.
Romney was defending his Christian beliefs - but in the eyes of the Left a defense of Christianity is an attack on everyone else.
It's alright for you to be a relativist but nobody else?
Heaping derisions on people who disagree with you isn't moral relativism?
Check yourself son.
roundabout,
How is my position a demostration of moral relativism?
And to the contray, I think that presenting my philosophical belief about the nature of freedom and asking someone else to defend their's is not deriding anyone, just asking them to stand up and debate.
Is morality absolute? If it is, wouldn't it apply to everyone, even God? If God is exempt from His own Laws, then they are not absolute.
But what is it about the creator that implies immorality?
And yes, morality is absolute. If you travelled 1 million light years away from earth, mankind would you still be under a moral code?
Yes, if you choose to adhere to it. If you choose to ignore it, who will stop you?
No one can force you to recognize it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Only in a practical sense, just like a 'process philosopher' would see.
Was it "moral" for God to kill all the inhabitants of the Earth in Noah's Flood? (If you believe the fairy tales) Would it be moral if I killed all the people of the Earth?
N,
Now you have come over to my side and judging the quality of a moral existence. I cannot claim to understand God or how he reveals himself and judges man, I just am grateful for his gift, an opportunity for reconciliation and living in his presence that we celebrate this time of year.
If you think that nothing exists beyond ourselves, who are we to judge God's or anyone else's conduct? By what right can we say something is moral or not?
Then the whole conversation is moot. If God is beyond moral restraints, then morality is not absolute.
I think I misunderstood your question. We make judgements about moral behaviors based on societal norms. Every culture has done so throughout history, and what is and isn't moral varies from one culture to the next. These norms evolve over time, and only have the power that we can enforce upon ourselves and others. We have the "right" to make these judgements only if we have the power to enforce them. Otherwise, it relies on voluntary compliance. Religion does help in this regard, but it is only one tool used by society to enforce these norms. There is no evidence that morality has any source beyond our brains.
"How is my position a demostration of moral relativism?"
Because of your implied morality.
You claim morality is absolute yet you have no problem abandoning it when it comes to assigning spurious motives to skeptics. An absolute code of morals would preclude you from debasing yourself with such antics relative to your opponent.
In other words you ceded the high ground when you castigated lefties as anti-religious instead of basing your argument in reality. You fabricated a liberal argument in order to more easily refute it.
You made stuff up because that's what situation required in order to score a political point. That is relativism. Tailoring your argument to fit the situation instead of pouring universal truth into your argument is relativism.
The very statement that secularism is a religion is dumb. It is factually incorrect to then tie them to the horrific regimes you did is pure bigotry. I dont know why some religious people feel such a need to denigrate those who dont believe. The idea that men cannot believe in inalienable rights unless they believe in God cannot be supported. Believing in the innate dignity of man is enough. Thomas Paine wrote the Rights of Man he was the foremost polemist of his day on enlightenment principles and he was an outright Athiest. Why is it some who believe in God just cant believe that those who dont can be decent people with strong beliefs about what is right and moral. Its silly.
Solo,
When did our inalienable rights come into existence?
When we were able to claim and defend them by force. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.
Did our rights only begin when we claimed them? Do they end when are no longer able to defend them?
For all practical purposes, yes. "Rights" are a human invention. It doesn't mean they aren't real, but I see no evidence that they exist outside our own minds.
So if I meet someone who has never heard of inalienable rights endowed by our Creator, then their rights only exist in what I say they are? Or do they share the same rights even if I choose not to tell them?
In a vacuum, if you're bigger and stronger, then that person's rights literally depend on your mercy. In a society, that person's rights are protected by laws and societal norms. If you choose to ignore the laws, you can be punished. No Supernatural element is needed.
Yes, we have only those rights we can defend, ONLY THOSE RIGHTS. Rights that people HAD have been taken away in many societies.
When we recognized their necessity and demanded them. Nothing beyond human decency is necessary
"Secularism is itself a religion..."
Aside from being the exact opposite of religion, yeah, I guess.Night is itself day, too.OK, I'm going to leave wacky-world now.
Hunting baby!
Couldn't respond in time to our last debate. So let's pick it up here:
Can you define what religion is or isn't?
More to the point I can define SECULAR
sec·u·lar (sky-lr)
adj. 1. Worldly rather than spiritual.2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.Adj.1.secular - of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations2.secular - characteristic of or devoted to the temporal world as opposed to the spiritual world; "worldly goods and advancement"; "temporal possessions of the church" worldly, temporalearthly - of or belonging to or characteristic of this earth as distinguished from heaven; "earthly beings"; "believed that our earthly life is all that matters"; "earthly love"; "our earthly home"profane, secular - not concerned with or devoted to religion; "sacred and profane music"; "secular drama"; "secular architecture", "children being brought up in an entirely profane environment"sophisticated - having or appealing to those having worldly knowledge and refinement and savoir-faire; "sophisticated young socialites"; "a sophisticated audience"; "a sophisticated lifestyle"; "a sophisticated book"3.secular - not concerned with or devoted to religion; "sacred and profane music"; "secular drama"; "secular architecture", "children being brought up in an entirely profane environment" profaneAny claim that secularism is a religion is just dumb.I don't want to be accused of putting my own spin on it, so here are the first two online definitions I got;
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.See? you're exactly, completely backward.PC, all of your philosophical mumbo jumbo aside, religion is man made. Interpretations of all holy books is made by man. The concept of God is too big a concept and is confined by religion since it's man made. If you really want to open yourself to god, you would abandon religion. Religion perverts god (big or little G). Religion is a confining thing and doesn't promote freedom of any kind. What Romney said was indeed dumb.
It's a faith tradition that we should put trust only in our experience of life, deciding morality extemporaneously
I would argue that atheists are much more moral people than religious people. That is because they recognize that there is no evidence for an afterlife, and the only reason that people have imagined all varieties of it since the beginning of civilization is because our brains have a hard time imagining the end of our existence. Despite not really believing in an afterlife, we treat all living things with respect because they deserve it, just as we believe that we deserve respect from others. You know, golden rule and all. This is much more moral than religious moralism because they are moral for its own sake, while religions teach people to be moral either for some payoff in the afterlife, or to avoid some smiting by their daddy, I mean their imaginary puppet-master in the sky.
And as for deciding morality extemporaneously, it is the Judeo-Christian belief that human are not born innately moral. You know how Catholicism teaches that infants who die before baptism are doomed to an eternity in Limbo because they are not born good, they must earn it by having water splashed and funny smelling stuff smeared on their heads by a guy in a funny suit, and only then are they worthy of getting into heaven.
Jawdropper,
But your defintion of morality rests upon the idea of some type of universal concept, correct?
Morality of atheists versus non-atheiests cannot be judged soley upon our version of what constitutes acceptable conduct. Where do the ideas of decency, fair treatment, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness come from? If those rights are limited to a few centuries of time or a sector of habitation here on earth, they cannot be universally applied.
Our own understanding of those absolutes of freedoms outlined in the declaration of independence and bill of rights were not created then, Rather, they were a reflection of what already existed, improved by our application to all humans and will continue to exist beyond our time here on earth.
Acceptance of a being, force, creator. loving God, is necessary for the permanence of these rights.
How so? Human Rights have been ignored and abolished throughout history. Rights are a philosophical construct. Certainly the idea of rights dates further back than the founding of this country, but the concept of rights is a human creation...no magic is needed.
I agreed with everything you said and my post reflected those views all the way up until you made the leap to the opinion that these universal rights and morals were proof of some higher power.
Quite the contrary, morality can very convincingly be explained as a hard-wired set of genetic code in our DNA, and in the DNA of other animals that practice societal rules. There is strong evolutionary pressure to adhere to those morals and strive for those rights that you are assuming were implanted by a supernatural being.
There is also a convincing argument to be made that it partially has to do with the higher cognitive level of thinking we a re capable of, and we have, throughout history, developed these codes because we realized that they are necessary for a functioning society.
The religious aspect that people have repeatedly inserted into the issue throughout the ages is a very easy and powerful way to get the masses to adhere to them.
Bad News for Proud Conservative...if our earthly governments don't recognize our "God Given" rights, then those rights arent' worth squat. Basing our rights on alleged pronouncements from a mythical deity doesn't make them any more real. We only enjoy the rights that we can claim and hold as a people. History gives us plenty of examples of this uncomfortable fact. Whenever human rights have been asserted, it has always been through human activity...usually violent. You can pretend otherwise, if it makes you feel better, but history doesn't support you. I know that references to the Inquisition are overplayed, but it is a cautionary tale of what can happen when Religionists have too much power.
Nertz,
You have just defined 'process philosophy' which itself is very secular in basis. It is that our actions in part judge our morality but the creation of behavior is a process of collecting experience including its foundational beginnings, Process philosophy recognizes an a priori creative force, much like our forefathers.
You are correct, practical experience reflects ethereal matters, but I ask you as well, when did our natural rights come into existence?
When we (humankind, not just Americans) were able to claim and defend them by force. Can you demonstrate any other manifestation of those rights?
Inalienable Rights are a fantasy. Human Rights are extremely fragile, and exist only if human power centers allow them to exist. Cynical, but true. For example, African slaves, by argument, had "inalienable rights". A fat lot of good it did them as they were chained in the bottom of slave ships. The millions killed by Hitler, Stalin and Mao had rights too. However, since their governments chose not to observe them, those rights were meaningless.
N,
Again, you are talking about the practical and I am trying to make a philosophical point as well.
Do you believe that THEROETICALLY the rights of the slaves, those killed by governmental or human whims were violated?
Yes because WE recognize the inherent dignity and worth of man and find it anathema that he be treated in ways that deny that dignity and inherent worth. It is part of being HUMAN. No divine intervention is necessary to say that. It is part of what it is to be human. To say ALL have an inherent dignity and worth that we aknowlege is saying WE are human. It isnt necessary to say it is demanded by God. The idea freedom cannot exist without religion is ludicrous.
Moreover, if everyone has a religion, and that's the way that Romney was using the term, then his comment means nothing. It doesn't provide any difference or improvement to aspire to, because if it requires something that everyone has no matter what.
The only way the comment has any meaning is if he's drawing a distinction between those who have a religious faith and those who don't.
I just watched Tom Brokaw's show on 1968 on the History channel. It was a profoundly turbulent year, which I lived through, my own self.
But Brokaw's show concluded with the Apollo mission to circle the moon. The MOON. It happened. Magical, mystical thinking had nothing to do with it. Great Supernatural Ooga-Boogas had nothing to do with it.
Rational thought and the scientific method had everything to do with it.
When I heard Romney's speech, lauding magical, mystical thinking, I knew he was just another charlatan.
Magical, mystical thinking should have died when we reached the moon. Instead, it has just increased. I despair. We deserve extinction.
Keep thinking like that and you will one day realize the extinction you so fondly wish for.
Show me where OGG is fond of human extinction. He never said that. He said "We deserve extinction." Big difference.
I really hate it when you right-wing freaks twist what we say. it's truly disingenuous - and sadly, quite common.
"Keep thinking like that and you will one day realize the extinction you so fondly wish for."
Of course I will. As will you. What's to stop it -- a Great Ooga-Booga? Oh, Yeah, Great Ooga-Boogas stop extinctions. Unless they cause'em. Whole different deal.
Pfui.
Be nice, OGG. Can't you understand that somebody who has only come this far in understanding nature and his own mortality at adulthood might really need to believe in a sequel?
Ogg and HBL,
If you both want to better understand extinction and the ways of the Almighty, might I suggest a little trip to Kentucky.
Go to the Creation Museum and saddle up the Triceratops. I promise you'll have a great ride.
[link to www.flickr.com]
Great bumper sticker from the creation museum.
Hey King. I hate to nitpick, but is that a Navajo-style saddle blanket on a TRiceratops? Give me a break, Tri-tops was almost exclusively a Blackfoot -domesticated dinosaur.
Nice catch,, HB.
Now I'm starting to wonder what else they got wrong at the Creation Museum.
Proudconservative what you wrote makes absolutely no sense. And makes no sense at all when juxtaposed against reality. You raise so many inaccuracies its hard to know where to start, but even your last quote about all men being equal the framers looked at some being more equal then others since at the inception of this nation only those with property could vote,and slaves were considered only 3/5ths human , i guess then the self evidence of the rights of men depended on who was considered human. The rights of women at this time were not even considered since they did not have the right to vote until the early 20th century. Mitt Romney's own sect until 30yrs ago considered Afro-Americans to be cursed by God and fought against the abolistionist movement and the civil rights movement and just recently granted full membership in their sect. to Afro-Americans,something the secularist and progressives stood for and fought to achieve. If these rights were so self evident why did so many "christians" stand against them when it pertained to women and people of color? Solon was right on the money in his post,and it seems that secularist are more tolerant of religion than those who profess to be religious. I won't bore you with the countless details of the war fought between the different christian sects,the different deniminations of the religious, and the persecution of the non-believers by those who professed to believe in the "inalieable" rights of all men. Mitt Romney has said he would discriminate against muslims being in his cabinet,contrary to to the constitutions prohibition against religious litmus test for holding public office. I could write all night providing facts to refute your nonsense but your not interested in facts only your close mind view of the world, which is not based on historical or recent reality. I don't begrudge your belief in God, but don't deny my humanity if I choose not to believe. The framers of the constitution and founders of this country placed checks and balances to check the drive toward absolute power by a MAN or people who would strive to be King. Someone who thought that they had the absolute power to rule derived from God, A King so to speak, something they knew alot about. The right to govern is given by the consent of the governed, not by some higher power but by WE THE PEOPLE! We the the people of various shades,sizes,backgrounds beliefs etc. we the people not God or some higher power will also be the ones to abolish it if it works contrary to the public good and establish a new one that will. This permanence you speak of makes no sense either, since even our understanding of God hjimself has changed throughout the ages and will continue to change as our knowledge and understanding of how to manipulate nature to better suit our needs grow. We no longer believe that the earth is flat or that it is the center of the universe or that it is being held in place by some supernatural power, we would laugh and rightly think someone was a fool to expound such things today,but historically people were executed if they professed otherwise. You see I feel that knowledge and public education the so-called leveling of the playing field has enabled this country to grow. The slave master knew this all to well that is why those who dared to teach slaves how to read were punished severly even executed. In this country today there is an assault on reason, to borrow from the title of Al Gore's book, a dumbing down of the people,our public education system is crumbling and with it so is our society, I don't care about Mitts personal beliefs about Jesus Christ(although if he expoused what LDS church believes many "christians" would find them perculiar)our founders put their faith in the survivability of this democracy in the wisdom of an informed public. The freedom of the press. The marketplace of ideas and a reasoned debate over the best ways forward. What someone's personal beliefs about God have no place in it, and that is why I believe in the "seperation of Church and State."
Conga dancer,
What particular meaning, if any do the words inalienable rights have for you?
My comments are about the foundation for such belief in the rights of humans. Philosophically, a secularist doesn't believe in anything beyond their own existence. Human rights then are limited to time and space and as such have no permanence. To the contrary, I agree with our founding fathers that those rights exist beyond ourselves and experience.
You pointed out the discrepancies between those words and what happen to many people in this country. Without an inherent or inalienable right, present before they were granted by man, then how can you say that the slaves had their rights violated. You believe their rights to freedom were there before the emancipation proclamation, correct?
So our view of human rights have not changed, just how they were, have been and will be implemented. The pre-existence of those rights, fashioned by some greater force than us, makes us able to recognize that all humans deserve rights. These are not granted by governments, not even by each other to one another. The concepts exist on their own, are not attributed to our knowledge of them alone for if they did, they would be soley dependent upon the whims of mankind.
ProudMoron you cannot show what you assert. You seem to say AGAIN that without a belief in God no consistant moral foundation is possible, only bigotry can lead to that conclusion. There is NO reason a secular person cannot believe in the innate dignity and worth of a person. That he has rights inherent in BEING a human being that cannot be taken away only surrendered. That while a person can be killed he is FREE he has rights he can ASSERT. That all humans by dint of BEING a human deserves a certain level of dignity and freedom that no one can take from them without DENYING the humanity of both parties involved. Your entire argument is based on the flawed and frankly bigoted premise that without a belief in God there is no permanance in their belifs of a base moral standard. That premise is ludicrous on the face of it.
Mitt is a pandering buffoon.
Romney talked about faith, but he didn't talk about his faith. He mentioned his Mormon faith, what? Once? Twice?
I don't care that he was afraid to say he is a Mormon, I'd just as soon see a Buddhist or a Pagan elected. But Romney is definitely being a coward here and we all know cowards will say and do anything to avoid taking a stand on principles. He was making an appeal to the evangelicals and in the process he managed to exhibit no foundational principles of his own
Keep up the good work Mitt.
"[f]reedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," and "[f]reedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
This biggest lie ever told, buy an institution that exsists soley on the basis of telling BIG LIES.
I'm more of a Hitchen's man myslef (paraphrased, not direct quoted): "In a secular sociuety those of good will will do good and those who are evil will continue to shirk their public duty and responsibility. But to make a GOOD person do EVIL things, you must first make them religious."
Religion takes credit for all the GOOD that would be done anyway, and then tries to explain away all the HARM it does. It's all bull$#!+. If you want to practioce religion, FINE - do as you wish, but don't expect every other memeber of society to be legally bound to the (mostly ridiculous) beliefs of your little club.
If religion were wiped off the face of the earth, U.S. law would change very little. But if CHRISTIAN LAW was made into FEDERAL LAW, you can bet there would be significant changes, and they would be for the worse, and they would be to the DETRIMENT of FREEDOM. You've got to be an idiot to even try and claim otherwise.
Wow...just wow. After reading some of these posts, I now fully realize how backwards our society is becoming, all because people still cling to their artificial superstitions.
I'm also completely vexed about how we as American's hold up the founding fathers as some sort of truly wise council that was and shall forever be the only arbiter of democracy and freedom.
Ridiculous
Romneys speech was an affront in a number of ways. Here's a few.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square."
The founders of course did not countenance elimination of religion from the public square. That's the whole point of freedom of religion. They did not want religion in politics, in government. How Romney freely exchanges ruling government with the term "public square" demonstrates a purposely dishonest intent.
While expressing the need for tolerance, he did a I'm a Jesus guy, wink-wink, I'm just like you, and thats why you can tolerate me. Kennedy in his speech did not even approach justifying his own religion in support of tolerance. Kennedy unlike Romney had some grasp of the issue.
"It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism."
This is just so blatantly stupid. It's like saying every corporation in America is promoting the "religion of secularism" since they do not screen candidates on their religious proclivity to Jesus or lack there of. Every sports team apparently is also promoting the "religion of secularism".
When Romney was Governor of Massachusettes his Morman religion was never brought up, it was a non issue - no one cared - it is a private affair only concerning his family and religious community. Simply put, he was elected on his merits which did not include religion. That is not good enough now, so he is preaching tolerance to the very people intolerant of him, by enforcing their intolerance all things not Jesus. Makes the head spin.
Calling Secularism a religion is just dishonest...it's a talking point fabricated by the Theofascists to put their political opponents on the defensive. Secularism, by definition, is the ABSENCE of Religion. It's like referring to Creationism as "Science".
N,
our debate thread has moved all over the posting board.
I don't think I am being a facist, theo or otherwise at all. I think that morality, a collection of beliefs that direct our actions and judgement of those actions constitutes a religion. Not in the bible thumping type, although that is religion too, but belief that we are behaving correctly according to those standards.
Can atheists be moral, judging by that person and anyone else, certainly. Can someone who claims traditional religiousocity be immoral, you bet. But my point is that those values that we use to judge have to be rooted in something beyond human experience. Plato discussed the realm of the ideals of which man only could glimpse in relfection here on earth but the universals had to exist for us to judge.
If there is no foundation beyond ourselves then my judging you as immoral or you me cannot occur. Camus basically recognized that when we alone define right and wrong, (his example)there is no moral difference between allowing an old lady to cross in front of our car or plowing her with its grill. Existentialism and absurdity were terms that came from his writings and allowed for the concepts of relativism and secularism. Humanity devoid of responsibility beyond itself.
If however a universal moral code exists, then it must exist beyond mankind, whether we see it enbodied in a force, creator that makes it to be true before, beyond and after us.
Well, I will concede this: the CONCEPT of a universal code, i.e. religion, has been a common device used throughout history by which to enforce social mores. The fear of eternal damnation is a powerful deterrent. However, it has always had the backing of some form of physical/civil authority. It would be interesting to do an experiment in which you set up two societies. One with only secular law and human enforcement, the other with no secular or physical authority, depending only on the notion of "universal morality" to govern their actions. In essence, the honor system. Any bets as to which one would dissolve into chaos first?
"I think that morality, a collection of beliefs that direct our actions and judgement of those actions constitutes a religion."
That's your opinion, I guess, and you're welcome to it.I, and most dictionaries, would disagree.
" But my point is that those values that we use to judge have to be rooted in something beyond human experience."
Interesting theory. Anything to support it, or just another "feeling"?
"If there is no foundation beyond ourselves then my judging you as immoral or you me cannot occur."
If by "beyond ourselves" you mean the good of Society at Large, lessons learned through history, or values gained from the people around us, then we're in complete agreement. If you mean magic supernatural forces, then we part ways, and you're relying, once more, on a "feeling" with absolutely no evidence.
"... relativism and secularism. Humanity devoid of responsibility beyond itself."
True. Fortunately, most of us consider the responsibility within ourselves just as important as you consider your supernatural obligations.
"If however a universal moral code exists, then it must exist beyond mankind..."
Duh. That one answers itself , as you designed it, with that "if" at the beginning. Big "if". ("If" an interstate highway exists, then it must exist beyond my state". See how pointless that is?).
I would only add that if you can see no other reason to follow our generally accepted rules of civilization and morality than that there is a larger, supernatural force judging your final destination, I'm glad you have those beliefs, and would encourage you to continue believing.
Those of us who don't need the extra incentive will just keep on being good because we want to. ;0)
Those of us who don't need the extra incentive will just keep on being good because we want to. ;0) - HBL
-----------------------------
Excellen post, HBL. May I borrow your quote above? I have a religious hell-raiser in the office next door.
You can BELIEVE anything you want including the sky is green or supply side economics actually makes sense. What you CANNOT do is substantiate THIS statement
But my point is that those values that we use to judge have to be rooted in something beyond human experience.
NO THEY DONT. There is no reason why they must. Camus was an existentialist his belief is no more definitive of the matter than yours. He was a good writer that is all. The bottom line is there is NO reason nor have you even tried to show one, why basic respect for each other, that is a basic moral precept seperate from religion that what WE would want for ourselves is how we ought to treat others. That is all that is necessary for us to respect and recognize each others rights. There is NO necessity to bring God into this issue. Again the very statement that freedom depends on religion is flat out ridiculous.
"If there is no foundation beyond ourselves then my judging you as immoral or you me cannot occur."
Of course it can, if by "beyond ourselves" you mean some supernatural being. We have secular courts that judge our actions, based on human laws. You could argue that man-made laws have no "moral authority", but you cannot enforce that viewpoint without physical force. Philosophy is just that...philosophy. Just because some profound philosopher said it doesn't make it true.
But my point is that those values that we use to judge have to be rooted in something beyond human experience.
No it doesn't. The minimum conception of morality requires that our conduct is based on good reasons and gives equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by what we do. A supernatural being is not necessary.
Existentialism and absurdity were terms that came from his writings and allowed for the concepts of relativism and secularism. Humanity devoid of responsibility beyond itself.
Non-believers tend to agree with the basic concept of moral relativism because some morals are not based on good reason and are quite arbitrary (ex: sex before marriage, cursing occasionally, drinking). That doesn't mean they don't adhere to some objective moral truths.
If however a universal moral code exists, then it must exist beyond mankind, whether we see it enbodied in a force, creator that makes it to be true before, beyond and after us.
Why do you mean by "a creator that makes it to be true"?
"The minimum conception of morality requires that our conduct is based on good reasons and gives equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by what we do. A supernatural being is not necessary."
That's exactly right. The well-being and security of individuals is societally beneficial, and so laws and morals can (and are) based on those factors, not because of what's written in an old book. A society that allowed theft and murder would be absolute bedlam, and so obviously it would have to be possible to address that without involving any religious foundation whatsoever.
I would take it a step further, and argue that the primal underpinnings of behavioral norms can be seen in higher animals that live in groups. It would be a stretch to call this behavior "morality", but they do have certain conventions, or "rules" that they live by. Chimpanzees, for example, have a relatively complex social order...and have even been observed exhibiting tribal behavior. It is easy to see how morality could have developed as humans gradually acquired the ability to reason. No magic required.
Certainly, such a social order is a form of a society, just less refined. That's an excellent point. Since secular morality is based on societal standards, behavioral norms are just a simpler version of that morality. If another species can pick up on that process, that's an excellent way of showing that religion is clearly unnecessary in influencing behavior.