Consider this article from Thinking Matters in New Zealand.
Excerpt:
There is an objection to the moral argument for God’s existence, specifically the premise which states the best explanation for the foundation for objective moral values and duties is God. It is the idea that moral values and duties can be plausibly anchored in some transcendent, non-theistic ground. That moral values and duties exist objectively, but as brute facts, not needing an explanation for their existence. They are sort of eternal unchanging ideas that are necessary features of the universe. This position we shall call Atheistic Moral Platonism, and there are three ways we could respond.
I actually used to hold to Deistic Platonism before I became a Christian, and that’s all documented in my testimony. To learn more about this topic, here is my series on how morality cannot be rationally grounded by atheism, and the series includes links to lectures and debates for further study. The relationship between a cosmic designer and objective moral values and duties is the easiest topic in the world to discuss with non-Christians. It takes only a little preparation, compared to more difficult issues like scientific evidence and the historicity of the resurrection.
A judge has ruled in favor of two Florida school administrators who faced contempt charges for saying a prayer at a school luncheon, according to a group that helped represent them.
U.S. District Judge M.C. Rodgers ruled Thursday in favor of Frank Lay, principal of Pace High School in Pace, Florida, and school athletic director Robert Freeman, the Liberty Counsel said.
Lay and Freeman could have faced up to six months in prison and fines if convicted. They were accused of violating a consent decree banning county school employees from initiating prayers during school events.
[…]But the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawsuit led to the consent decree, has maintained students have a right to be free from administrators who foist their personal religious beliefs on them.
Fascism is the idea that the state suppresses the inalienable rights of its citizenry by substituting the values and duties of the government (the rulers) for the values and duties of individuals.
Here’s how it works:
Inalienable human rights are granted by the Creator
Only the Creator of the universe can grant inalienable human rights to his creatures
Freedom of religious expression is self-evidently an inalienable human right
Christians exercise their freedom of religious expression
Atheists in the ACLU don’t believe in a Creator
If there is no Creator, then “rights” are just social conventions that vary by time and place
So atheists in the ACLU cannot ground inalienable human rights
Without an inalienable right to freedom of religious expression, suppressing the religious liberty others is permissible
Atheists in the ACLU can use government to silence, suppress and imprison unwilling Christians
Atheists in the ACLU are offended by the free expression of Christianity in public
Therefore, atheists in the ACLU find it rational to suppress the human rights of their neighbors using state coercion
There is no such thing as human rights in an atheistic “survival of the fittest” universe.
Atheists in the ACLU prefer to use the state to suppress any public religious expression, because the public expression of religion makes them feel badly. The feelings of atheists is sufficient to justify silencing, suppressing, imprisoning and in even killing people who make them feel bad. They are not so much interesting in debating the merits of the cosmological argument – they just want to shut down dissent so they can feel comfortable about their atheism.
Here is my entire series of posts explaining why moral behavior is irrational on atheism. Their worldview just doesn’t ground objective moral values, objective moral duties, self-sacrifice and the significance of moral decisions. And when the chips are down, they show their fascist colors. Atheists want to dismiss the claims of objective morality so they can pursue pleasure, and they don’t want you using your freedoms to remind them of their own depravity.
UPDATE: Kreitsauce is from the panhandle and writes this comment below:
I’m from the Florida panhandle, and we thought this whole thing was ridiculous because:
1. Lay and Freeman have done an unbelievable amount of good for the school and the community. It’s real Christianity making a difference that has had such a profound impact.
2. The school already teaches a Bible elective.
3. The school meeting where the prayer took place was housed in a church.
4. The prayer was spontaneous, not a willful violation of criminal law.
5. All protests have been peaceful, even in the face of opposition. The believers have mostly been praying and singing hymns.
6. Lay and Freeman have strong student, community, and parent support.
“Unbelievable”, is a show broadcast every Saturday in the UK. Every week, they feature a debate between a Christian and a non-Christian. The debate this week was on the moral argument, which argues that meaningful morality, including free will, human rights, moral rules, moral obligations, and moral significance, must be grounded in God.
THIS IS A MUST-LISTEN.
The debate starts a bit into the podcast, after they review audience reactions to last week and preview the next week’s topic.
morality is meaningless unless there are moral absolutes
cultural relativism doesn’t rationally ground moral judgments
the Bible does not teach that slavery is good
One of the best parts of the debate is when David contrasts H.G. Wells, an atheistic socialist who embraced socialism and fascism as a natural extension of his atheism, and a Christian, William Wilberforce who spent over two decades of his life trying to free the slaves in the UK.
This page contains a link to an excellent lecture on the ontological foundations of rational morality, as well as a number of debates between Christians and atheists on whether morality is rationally grounded by the worldview of atheism. And you can find some other apologetics posts here, including an article on whether the the moral statements of atheists are even intelligible, on atheism.
The best book ever written on this topic is Greg Koukl and Francis J. Beckwith’s “Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air“. You can see Greg deliver a lecture about relativism to an audience of students and faculty at UCLA (MP3 audio here). If you want to read something free on the web that explains the problems with moral relativism, which is the view of morality that is grounded by atheism, look here.
WINTERY KNIGHT 