by Jim Watkins
A group called Good Without God wanted its city to remove a cross that was erected to honor a World War I veteran.
The case, like many, seeks to uphold the seperation of Church and State, with which I firmly agree. The State should never foster or inhibit religion, it’s in our Constitution, and it is relevant because no government should ever pick sides on which faith it supports.
But by the same token, Good without God is a misnomer. How can good without God be real? Good comes from God, good is God in action, his three personality traits are Truth, Beauty and Goodness. God is the source of all that is good, for goodness would not be possible unless human beings could percieve such a divine attribute; as spiritual beings we observe good, therfore, Good Without God contradicts reality.
I understand there are people who choose to believe there is no such thing as God. To many the idea is slavish, unreasonable and archaic. Humanism is exalted as altogether reasonable; hence it becomes defacto materialistic to assume that since no one can prove God exists, such a belief is unreasonable.
But Humanists miss the point. To assume there is no deity is to profess ignorance of origins. We have no idea why human will creatures have evolved, Science can tell us how, but not why.
Only a belief in a first or original source personality can explain why there is personality. If all things material have a source point of origin, then where does individual perception, personality interpretation find its beginnings?
The ‘why’ is God’s purpose.
If one chooses to believe there is no ‘why’ or purpose to the existence to life, then that is a belief system, a postulate that is also unverified.
An argument could be made that any Athiest group who demands the removal of religious symbols is asking for the prohibtion of religion – which is unconstitutional – and is asking the government to assert on one specific belief system or the other. In this case a non-believer is asserting his/her non-belief as factual, but unverifiable, over another who does believe in deity purpose, a belief which is also yet unverifiable.
Here’s the irony. That such sons of God should debate the ethics of governing is in and of itself, proof of mans’ desire to be godly and more perfect in his governorship, a spiritual principle.
To the Humanist, no thanks. I’ll stick with my belief system until you can prove to me that God does not exist.