>Dragan,
>
>I think you are waging an ancient battle against the wrong person!
>
>However, in response I have a question for you: why is it wrong for religious people to claim ownership of morality when it is apparently perfectly acceptable for agnostic/atheist people to claim superior intellectualism and pragmatism, when actually they are often just as dogmatic, sloganistic and judgmental as they like to accuse religious people of being?
>
>Regards
>
>j.R

PMFJI

There is, after all, only one truth. The problem is determining which of the several possibilities represent reality.

The True Believers of any dogma cannot, almost by definition, admit any other version might have validity. Having found "The Truth" (as opposed the "Their Own Truth") they are therefore obligated to promulgate it so that others will see it (benefit from it) as well. This has been true of religions, political ideologies, economic movements, racial theories, etc.

Which is why I understand (although as one who has not yet found "The Truth" I certainly don't approve) the prosletysing ferver of Christians, Muslims, Marxists/Capitalists, and Democracyists even to the point of conversion by force.

The above partly explains my views on why the attitudes of the atheist/agnostic are frequently as you describe. They mirror the attitudes of just about all who believe strongly in any particular dogma.

The first half of your question requires a different answer.

It is "wrong for religious people to claim ownership of morality" because it assumes that moralilty is derived from religion. If God had left "Thou shalt not Kill" or "Thou shalt not steal" out of the ten commandments, IT WOULD STILL BE WRONG TO STEAL OR KILL. One of my truths is that things are right or wrong because THEY ARE, not because "God said so." I believe that there is a universality about morality that is comletely independent of religion.

Along with EVERYBODY else, I am willing to impose my version of morality on the rest of you. I don't have a problem with the idea of the "Religious Right" trying to impose their version of morality on the rest of society. I don't have a problem with the "Liberal Left" trying to impose their version. I do have strong opinions on the veracity of their moral code, but they certainly have the right to try to make it universal, just as I do.

The difference between me and others is in where we draw the line on what is universally moral, and what constitutes my particular moral code but which I am willing to conceed might not be universal.

My own views were best expressed by Robert Heinlein in his novella Coventry. (To paraphrase)"Things are immoral which cause harm to others."

Therefore, I agree with the "Religious Right" about stealing, murder, rape, forgery, libel, etc. I disagree with them about things like bigamy/polyandry, prostitution, homosexuality, etc.

Therefore, I agree with the "Liberal Left" on concepts such as hate speech, but disagree strongly with them on how it has degenerated into Political Correctness.

At any rate, I'll get off the soap box now.