Law above all laws

[4gold]

During the Nuremberg Trials, the German generals' lawyers belabored the point that their clients never broke any law at the time they were committing the atrocities. In fact, the lawyers were correct. The laws that the generals were eventually convicted of weren't even created until the London charter of August 1945.

Frustrated by the lawyers' correct point that the generals broke no laws, Justice Jackson responded, "The refuge of the defendants can only be their hope that International Law will lag so far behind the moral sense of mankind that conduct which is crime in the moral sense must be regarded as innocent in law. Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance...."

It seems to me that if an atheist were logically consistent, he or she would defend the German generals, but that is not what I see in the real world. Many atheists are morally horrified by the atrocities of these generals and feel that justice was properly executed against them.

I understand how a theist could support Justice Jackson's worldview -- theists believe there is a moral law that supercedes all human laws. However, I would welcome any theist's response that may help me understand better.

How does an atheistic worldview explain this? What is this law that supercedes human laws? Should the generals have been convicted for their atrocities despite breaking no laws at the time they were committed?

[Vladd44]

During the middle ages, it was considered morally acceptable to drive a people out of a territory simply because they did not have the right religion. This is not considered morally acceptable today.

Why do Bosnia, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel immediatly spring to mind?

During the first several decades of the existence of the the United States of America, it was considered legal and morally acceptable by many Christian apologists, to hold slaves. This is not considered morally acceptable today.

I only wish slavery no longer existed in the world. Yes, we have become more "enlightened" in the US, even to the point that Many christian organizations lobbied hard to keep the Jim Crow laws on the books in Alabama in 2004 (successfully).

During WWII, it was considered morally acceptable to indiscriminately fire-bomb Dresden and drop a nuclear bomb on a city and then on another. Today we don't do that.

I believe we have continued to show what we are willing to put civilian populations through hasn't exactly improved. The violence that has plagued Africa for the past 2 decades would be an excellent example. Islamic Fundamentalism and our myopic response also serve to show how brutal we can be to each other.

Sixty years is hardly enough time to discern some rapid change in our willingness to use Nuclear weapons. I have little doubt that many nations would not hesitate to use Nuclear arms if they felt it was in their own self interest.

When I was a kid, it was OK to discriminate against gay people and call them faggots. It is not OK now.

They may not use the word, but either one of us can hear the same intolerance any sunday morning in America, all you have to do is turn on a christian service.

How can you not see that what is accepted by society as a standard of morality evolves?

The nuances change from time to time, and place to place, but any "standard of morality" fails the test of duration when faced with a simple task like survive.

I wish I could agree with you, it would be great to think that given enough time we will become enlightened beings. But personally, I don't see the evidence for that hypothesis.

[r~]

The more accurate phrase might be 'endowed by their existence'.
... I think Thom. and Ben would approve of my re-interpretation.

I don't. They obviously credit their existence to their Creator.

Thom & Ben both understood that Theists tend to idolatrize their image of the Creator, and that this leads to religious tyranny.

'Endowed by their existence' does not dispute belief in the Creator. It simply states a fact and removes an excuse for religious tyranny. It also opens the understanding of inalienable rights equally to all; even to atheists. Thom & Ben would understand the importance of this even as you do not.

ItS
Peace
r~

[arayhay]

The more accurate phrase might be 'endowed by their existence'.
... I think Thom. and Ben would approve of my re-interpretation.

I don't. They obviously credit their existence to their Creator.

Thom & Ben both understood that Theists tend to idolatrize their image of the Creator, and that this leads to religious tyranny.

'Endowed by their existence' does not dispute belief in the Creator. It simply states a fact and removes an excuse for religious tyranny. It also opens the understanding of inalienable rights equally to all; even to atheists. Thom & Ben would understand the importance of this even as you do not.

ItS
Peace
r~

You seem to be fixated on some religious tyranny to the point of paranoia.

[r~]

You seem to be fixated on some religious tyranny to the point of paranoia.

Tell that to all the people in jail because they transgressed societies 'moral' codes and laws.

It is closer to the truth that you are blind to religious tyranny; if not that you accept and even support the religious tyranny that put them in jail in the first place.

ItS
liberty and justice for all
r~

[Flail]

God and morality have nothing to do with Religion and vice versa.