American Democracy Demands a Creator
April 1st, 2008 | by admin |After reading, and listening to several philosophers and great thinkers I believe I’ve constructed a solid argument for the necessity of God in America.
I’m asserting that belief in God and a fixed moral standard are both essential ingredients in American Democracy.
There are plenty of places to begin, but let me try to use a brief analogy first. Imagine a playground with all sorts of kids playing on it. These kids come from all sorts of different backgrounds. They come in different sizes, different ages, different races, different genders, etc. They play on the playground and are for the most part peaceful and safe. Why is this? They are peaceful and safe because there are rules in place. There’s a sign at the edge of the playground with rules for using the equipment, interacting with other children, and other safety precautions. These rules are universal rules and apply to all of the children. Why do the children accept the rules and follow them? They are being watched by a governing authority which is different from the children. They’re being watched by their teacher. The teacher is not one of the kids, and theoretically has no desire to take advantage of the kids but is there to guard them from each other and themselves. If they break the rules, they may suffer punishment. Because of the rules, there is order and peace.
If there were no teacher, and there were no rules, chaos would ensue. The children would inevitably make up their own rules which they see fit for themselves. One child’s definition of rules may differ from another child’s. This would lead to fights, arguments, and children taking advantage of other children. You can’t have this going on forever so what would probably happen next is one of the children, or a group of the children would decide to take charge because they are bigger or stronger than the other children. Now you have children ruling children. The problem with that is that while there may be good intentioned children you will inevitably have children who are more concerned with their own interests than the good of the group. They would be willing to take advantage of things and manipulate the group to benefit themselves. After all, there are no universal rules and the most important thing to that child would be finding a way to help yourself. That is not a democracy but instead more closely resembles a dictatorship or a form of tyranny.
Democracy is dependent upon the belief in universal truth or a fixed moral standard. This fixed moral standard cannot come from other people because they have a conflict of interest. They are also people! Instead the standard needs to comes from an outside source. A Creator which is above and beyond people. This is the concept upon which the great American experiment of democracy was founded.
Monotheism is central to American democracy. Atheism is central to tyranny. In simple terms, atheism denies a fixed moral standard because it denies a Creator or God. There cannot be a fixed moral standard when just humans are involved. Some humans can agree that some rules are universal but others may disagree. No human is divine in nature or greater than another so it doesn’t make sense that some humans can make the rules for all of the other humans. That is, if you truly believe that all human life is equal. Therefore there is no fixed morality in the mind of the atheist. The natural tendency with a society of atheists is to have a system of government solely dependent upon flawed humans as a ruling class. One person or group of people tend to find a way to take advantage of the others because they’re bigger, stronger, smarter, or whatever and this leads to tyranny.
So I reiterate that the American version of democracy is dependent upon a belief in God and fixed morality. I would also argue that to truly value all human life as equal, one would have to believe in a fixed set of morals which necessitates a God.
By Chris on Apr 1, 2008
I was with your for a while, and then I kinda got lost. Let me ask you about this statement: “Theism is central to democracy as atheism is central to socialism and communism.” Can you expand a little on the idea of atheism being central to socialism? How would you respond to those who suggest that the first-century Church was essentially a socialist sub-culture?
By Andy Barnett on Apr 1, 2008
As I understand it the first century church version of “socialism” was smaller communities of believers which individuals joined by choice.
This is a far cry from a nationalized government enforced version of socialism which is forced upon citizens.
Just because I’m for charity and charitable organizations doesn’t mean that I think government should force it upon us, giving should be the free will decision of each individual.
None the less, I should probably avoid confusion by just saying that atheism is central to tyranny rather than specifically singling out socialism and communism as forms of a national government.
By Chris on Apr 1, 2008
So, if atheism is central to tyranny, then governments who adopt Shariah law are not tyrannical? I thought that Islamo-fascism was the great demon of our day; that’s a pretty far cry from atheism, isn’t it?
By Andy Barnett on Apr 1, 2008
Islam is a false religion with a false god. A false god is the same as no god. Radical followers of Islam are serving man’s laws not God’s laws.
Take that!
By Chris on Apr 1, 2008
Ok, then, how about the “Christian tyranny” of Nazi Germany? Are you going to keep changing your definitions or just admit that your thesis was flawed?
By Andy Barnett on Apr 1, 2008
Absolutely not! I stand by the fact that radical jihadists are serving man’s laws not God’s laws just as Hitler and the Nazis were serving their own set of rules not a fixed morality from God.
By Chris on Apr 1, 2008
So your definition of atheism is every system of thought except for evangelical Christianity (although it sometimes includes some strains of that, too). I think you have made your definition so broad that it’s more or less useless.
Let’s go a little different direction, then. Are you suggesting that democracy is the only type of government that can result from a theistic worldview?
By Andy Barnett on Apr 1, 2008
Nowhere did I say that every thought but”evangelical Christianity” was atheist. Judaism and Catholicism both believe in a set of fixed moral principles that come from a Creator do they not?
I am by no means suggesting that a theistic world view necessitates a democracy, I’m saying the exact opposite. A democracy necessitates a theistic world view.
By Chris on Apr 1, 2008
I made that inference because you classified Hitler’s regime as atheistic, despite its clear ties to the Roman Catholic church and its support by Protestants as well.
You say that democracy necessitates theism. What about the ancient Greek system of democracy? They were serving false gods, i.e. no god, so what was the basis for their system of government?
By Andy Barnett on Apr 3, 2008
First, there have been many times in history when man has perverted religion to serve his own purpose. This again would fall into the category ultimately of serving man’s sense of morality not a fixed sense of morality from a Creator.
Second, when I say democracy I’m referring specifically to the American experiment with democracy as I state several times in the essay.
By Chris on Apr 3, 2008
So your thesis is that the American democratic experience requires a Judeo-Christian theology? That’s a far cry from your original statement that “Theism is central to democracy as atheism is central to socialism and communism.” The problem is, words have meaning. Atheism means “no belief in God or gods” or “a belief in no God or gods.” Theism means “belief in God or gods.” You can’t just change the definition of the word to suit your purposes.
By Andy Barnett on Apr 3, 2008
Chris - Very well, I have taken your criticism into consideration and the paragraph which you have a problem with in my essay.
I’ve adjusted the language to correctly specify the “American version of Democracy” and I’ve also adjusted Theism to the more specific belief in Monotheism.
I still believe that Atheism is central to tyranny. Atheism, the belief in no god, puts man on the highest pedestal of authority (ie; god). I believe many regimes (such as the Nazis) have used “religion” as a disguise for their true belief that man is the ultimate authority (ie; god).
I did not expound upon Polytheism in the essay but it is worth noting that I believe it also poses problems to American Democracy in that it does not offer a single fixed set of morals (with multiple gods come multiple sets of rules).