Did I "forget the atheist regimes in Russia, China and Cambodia"? Certainly not, Haggai, and I think it's a great point you raise here. Again, this comes back to the problem of properly identifying the concept 'atheism'. Atheism in its broadest philosophical sense is best defined as absence of god-belief. Philosophically speaking, especially with regard to the proper area of concern to which atheism belongs, atheism is nothing more than a negation; atheism in its broadest sense (as I identify here above) is not a positive - i.e., atheism makes no existentially positive statement. Having said this, it is necessary to emphasize that atheism only precludes god-belief; atheism does not preclude or necessitate anything else.

The question I would ask, in conjunction to the statement made by me above and quoted in Haggai's response, is: What is the relevance of Russia, China and Cambodia to the statement I had made? I will identify what I think that relevance is.

First of all, let's look at the predominant philosophies that have prevailed in each of these nations for most of this century. In each case, it is a form of collectivism. Collectivism, broadly stated, is a political result of a philosophy whose moral system is altruistic in nature. Since political philosophy is basically morality applied to interpersonal relationships (and in the case of a society and its government, this extension is taken to grand scale), it is essential to understand the consequence of political doctrine as arising naturally from a moral system.

This may not be the *traditional* method of analysis one may find in undergraduate government courses, many of which I have experienced first hand. Again, the problem is a failure to define one's terms, which I see plagues many folx in this forum, and to their own detriment only. Apparently many folx find comfort in the ambiguous and the uncertain. I am not one of them.

Morality, the third province of a philosophic scheme (coming after metaphysics and epistemology), is defined here for purposes of my argument as a code of values which guides man's actions and choices. This definition is key to understanding its relationship to political ramifications. Notice that the definition includes several important terms: a code of values which guides man's actions and choices. No, this definition did not come from the Bible, and I would say anyone would be desperate to find any explicit definition of the concept 'morality' in any of its pages in spite of the incessant posturing that the Bible is an authority on moral matters.

A value is anything one acts to gain and/or keep. This definition identifies the essential principle of the concept 'value'. Whether it is a bowl of soup, a new pair of shoes, a weekly paycheck, a loving relationship, or life itself, if one takes action to pursue it, to achieve it, and to protect it, it is a value to him by this definition.

A code of values infers that values are hierarchically stratified, i.e., some values will always take primacy over others in one's code of values. This fact necessitates that one identify a *standard* to his values-hierarchy. For the rational man, that standard is his life itself, for without life, no values are possible to him. There can be no value above one's own life for the rational man. All values are measured by their relationship to his life. Whether it is that bowl of soup, that pair of new shoes or that loving relationship, they each possess the distinction of a value to him by reference to his choice to put a value on them, by his action to pursue them, and by his decision to keep them. One cannot value anything outside reference to himself in some manner or another. For this reason, values are the foundation of selfish morality. 'Value' is by nature selfish. This fact is made obvious by the question: Of value to whom?

It is this code of values, where one's life is his standard and his own highest value, that acts as the guide to his actions and choices. It is because man faces a single fundamental alternative: life or death, existence or non-existence, man has no alternative to identifying and pursuing his values should he want to live. This again is a matter of choice, and this recognition takes into account the fact that man is a volitional being. He must pursue his values by choice. A rational man will not pursue the arbitrary and call it a value. His choice to nominate something as a value and apply his effort to achieve it is constantly put in reference to his own, selfish hierarchical code of values.

Notice also that this definition takes into account that morality is properly concerned with man the individual, which is also not in tune with traditional conceptions of morality. Traditional conceptions of morality usually inform imperatives (i.e., commandments, not guides!) for man's conduct in his relationship to others. This conception of morality merely leaves man the individual in the dark, so to say, as it provides no principles to guide him in constructing a rational code of values that enable him to equip himself with the tools required by his existence. In this sense, traditional conceptions of morality neglect not only man the individual, but also the concept 'value'. This negligence (which Ayn Rand terms intellectual default) leads to a deontological view of morality (i.e., a morality based on the notion of 'duty' - which states that man *must* behave in certain ways because it is his duty to do so) as well as to altruism, which is the morality of sacrifice.

Sacrifice is the surrender of a higher value for the sake of a lesser value, or for the sake of a non-value. The morality of sacrifice is NOT concerned with the establishment of a code of values, nor is it concerned with the pursuit and achievement of values. On the contrary, altruistic morality is concerned with the exact opposite: the surrender of values and the destruction of values-hierarchies. Its aim is not the achievement of values, but precisely their deliberate loss. The purpose and motivation of altruism and deontological ethics are not the general benevolence of humanity, as its spokesmen and apologists will tell you, its purpose is the annihilation of the individual.

This is exactly why we've all been told that *selfishness* is immoral, depraved, indeed "sinful". Considering oneself as the standard of his own values-hierarchy - in fact, having a values-hierarchy alone, is scorned with religious passion throughout all primitive philosophies. "Don't be so self-centered!" they scream at you, all the while never identifying in any rational manner whom one should put at the center of his life and WHY! (The religionists just say 'god', which is a meaningless term.)

The motivation behind this sabotage of individualism and values-oriented morality is the morality of sacrifice. Who stands to gain if YOU sacrifice your values? Never forget that every victimizer needs willing victims.

Now apply altruism and deontological ethics to interpersonal relationships. Basically, in terms of politics, altruism and deontology both work in tandem on the unidentified premise that man does not have the right to exist for his own sake, but must consider himself a sacrificial animal to the ends and devices of others. Literally, "dog eat dog" is the result of the abnegation of the concept of individual rights.

In the case of Soviet Union, for instance, a nation whose philosophical roots are found in NINE CENTURIES of Orthodox Christianity (Russia was Christianized by Vladimir I in 988 C. E.), the soil of the average Russian's mentality was plagued with altruistic and deontological morality. A nation of self-sacrificing individuals holding obedience as such to be the moral good, is begging for a totalitarian regime to come along and lead the selfless, collectivized populace by one neck, and behead them with the fall of one axe. Tell the people that they do not have the right to exist for their own sakes, and tell them that they have a duty to sacrifice themselves to each other, and that the greatest meaning they can achieve in their lives is the selfless service they can render to their 'comrades', and you have a statist regime, a Soviet Union, a People's Republic of China.

Man is a tool in service to the ends of others, reads the party headline; he does not have the right to exist for his own sake, he does not have the right to pursue his life, liberty and his own happiness; man has one "right" and one "right" only: TO SERVE THE STATE. (Sound familiar? Serve the State, or serve God; the principle is identical.) This is the political consequence of the morality of sacrifice taken to its logical conclusion in the political province of a philosophy.

Identify the philosophy, detect its premises, connect the dots. What is at issue in a nation whose means is the sacrifice of its citizens to the will of the State is no different that a religious philosophy that demands from its adherents their sacrifice to its god. The 'atheistic' Statist philosophy is in every primary essential identical to its religious counterpart. The only difference is one of insignificance. In each case, there is no questioning in regard to the nature of its sacrificial moral underpinnings, the only question is one of WHO IS THE COLLECTOR OF THOSE SACRIFICES?

In the case of the Soviet Union and any other collectivistic regime, the State merely replaces God. In every other detail, the two - 'atheistic' communism and religion - ARE THE SAME. In each case, man is denied recognition of his right to exist for his own sake. No religion makes this recognition, and neither does any communist.

As for today's "religious conservatives" who fail to understand the essential principles in operation here, their posturing against communism during the latter half of this century amounts to a sickening reversal: the competition for the collectorship of sacrifice. Why would the religious conservatives today fight to get 'god' back into the schools, into our social institutions, yea, into our very government? For one reason and one reason only: TO BENEFIT FROM THE COLLECTION OF THE SACRIFICES THEY CLAIM THEIR GOD DEMANDS. So, the battle between religion and communism is not a battle of the just against the unjust, it's a battle between the unjust and the unjust who are vying for the same position: to benefit from the unearned. The parallels are precisely identical. Whether they are bureaucrats building a slave empire of the 'dialectic', or priests and pastors organizing their sheep to prepare for a "war against the world", the motivation is the same: THE PURSUIT OF THE UNEARNED.

So, back to Haggai's question, I would not expect any nation whose philosophic roots fail to identify man's right to exist for his own sake, to be a place I would like to visit. Would you? If you do not subscribe to and defend man's right to exist for his own sake, perhaps one of these collectivistic nations would better suit you than me, for I declare my independence from others - be they men or be they gods - on a daily basis. That is why I choose to live in a nation whose Constitution recognizes my right to my life, to my liberty and to my pursuit of my happiness. In essence, America is the first nation that recognizes man's right to exist for his own sake.

No Bible ever makes this recognition.

No discussion of the overwhelming proclivity of religious thought to dispense with man's right to exist for his own sake would be complete without including some material devoted to this issue. Therefore I include the following links: