WorldNetDaily retards can't figure out rape
It's official : the people at WorldNetDaily (sorry Harry Browne, it's not my fault if you associate with them) aren't mature enough to understand why rape is wrong. They have the intellectual level of a five year old. But then again, they are all right-wing Christians (once again, sorry Harry), so what do you expect ?
(...) [D]espite reading hundreds of missives featuring varying degrees of hysterics, it remains a mystery as to what grounds these rape mythomoralists have for objecting to rape in the first place.
The Judeo-Christian moral ethic is clear – rape is a sin, a willful pollution of a temple that rightly belongs to God.
And while "might makes right" is the true essence of atheist amorality, it is not exactly the most convincing means of attempting to assert the moral evil of the rapist.
For one thing, any Christian who does not understand how rape is wrong outside of his religious doctrines is retarded. I see no way to put this more nicely, and I mean it in a technical sense - they have not grown the empathy to understand that other human beings suffer. Perhaps this is why they need Christianity so much... but now you can say accurately that the writers at WorldNetDaily are retards.
(Note that I don't think empathy is a proper justification for "rape being immoral or not", only that it should be enough for anyone to take a generally correct stance. It's simple brain development.)
Another little problem with this boasting, is that the Bible does not in fact speak up against rape from a moral perspective. In fact, it does not speak about anything from a moral perspective, because that would require to examine human values and human life. In the Christian worldview, nothing is to be examined morally, as God's understanding is said to be wholly beyond human understanding, and man's only role is to obey. There is no morality involved, only orders.
This aside, there's another little problem : the Bible does not speak up against rape as such. In its Ten Commandments (all versions), it says nothing at all about rape, and in many cases it speaks in favour of rape (as for all the instances when giving away your daughters for rape is accepted, or the Old Testament law that a rape victim must marry her attacker). In the Bible, a raped virgin is worthless. There is no reason to believe that the god of the Bible thinks rape is evil. So the Christian case crumbles on that level alone.
There was no utilitarian justification for Christian sects to consider rape as anything but a nuisance (insofar as families could complain), so they kept it hush-hush for centuries until public opinion turned and considered rape a heinous crime. Only now, in recent decades, are Christian sects finally owing up to their dark history.
Another problem is that secular values clearly indicate that coercing other people to have sex with you breaks the virtue of non-coercion, on which I have already written extensively. Also, rape is widely rejected in Western civilization because it is a clear case of harm being inflicted to an innocent person. Finally, its illegal status is also obvious, since rape as a crime breaks the right of action (in that the raped individual is being coerced into sexual intercourse).
So this little dance of ignorance from our friends at WorldNetDaily won't do. The only ones who believe that "might makes right" are God believers, who claim that God has absolute power over all human beings, and can wipe them all out, simply because it has the might. Now that's amorality for you. I have never heard of any atheist who believes this principle - in fact, most atheists tend to be relativists or utilitarians, which is stupid, but very different from "might makes right".
In fact, the only people I know who use power as a standard of morality are followers of collectivist belief systems, like Christianity. Historically, Christianity has always assumed a role of moral nad political dictatorship when it was in power. Christians still attempt to use the social power they have left in the United States to dictate the value-expression of other people.
Their whole moral mindset is that "might (God's might, that is) creates and dictates right", and the subversion of individual values in one's own mind, so how could Christianity possibly be conductive to free value-expression in society ?
My recommendations to the ignorant editors at WorldNetDaily ? 1. Read your Bible and 2. get yourselves fired so you can be replaced by people with at least average intelligence and basic maturity.
If you want to tell the lunatic author of this ludicrous anti-atheist article exactly how you feel about his bigotry, comment on his blog Vox Popoli.