In response to:

The Atheist Response to Sandy Hook

ECGTB Wrote: Jan 16, 2013 2:54 AM
Natural law is law based upon nature as opposed to positive law which is based upon human decree. Natural law is supported by what works as opposed to what he want to work, e.g. genetic inheritance (natural) versus lysenkoism (positive). Progressives supported the latter but the former won because it was consistent with nature. An adherence to natural law means you are willing to change as you learn more. The Bill of Rights doesn't contemplate our rights, it recognizes them. The question is never where do we get our rights but where does the state get its powers. Progressives see the state as bearing collective power by default. Conservatives and libertarians, including atheists, believe the state has only what powers we give.
Last week the New York Times published an opinion piece that offered atheism's response to the evil/tragedy in which 20 children and six adults were murdered at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut.

What prompted Susan Jacoby to write her piece was a colleague telling her that atheism "has nothing to offer when people are suffering."

She wrote the piece, "The Blessings of Atheism" ("It is Here and It is Now!" screams the subhead) to prove her colleague wrong by offering a consoling atheist alternative to religion's consoling belief in an afterlife. Atheists cannot believe that there is any...

Related Tags: Guns Atheists Sandy Hook