[Note: The depiction of Jesus in this entry is non-satirical.]

Which one is Jesus?

It wouldn't mean we'd be more moral without God. It just means that the motivation for being good should be independent of the rewards or penalties that God might provide. So Derrida's idea that one should act as if God doesn't exist doesn't exactly follow, though it's dramatic in a Derridean way.

What does follow is that one should do what's right independent of whether one will get an eternal reward, but not necessarily independent of whether God exists. After all, it may be God's teachings that point you in the direction of the Good and that draw you to the Good, again, independent of his carrots and sticks.

Though, when it comes to the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus seems to offer remarkable incentives for doing good.

Derrida is basing his paraphrase of Kant, it seems, on the distinction Kant draws (at the end of the first General Observation in the wonderfully titled "Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone") between religions that are "endeavors to win favor" and "religions of good life-contact" (a category with one member: Christianity). Kant then writes, "It is not essential, and hence not necessary, for every one to know what God does or has done for his salvation; but it is essential to know what man himself must do in order to become worthy of this assistance." This doesn't entirely remove God from the (moral) picture, but it certainly seems a significant reduction in His responsibilities: It ain't about His "favor" (or, in Jesus' terms, His "reward"); it ain't about knowing His purposes. It does seem, consequently, that an increase in morality ("good life-conduct") is dependent in this passage from Kant upon some reduction in involvement with God. And this logic -- that some forms of dependence upon and knowledge of God can be impediments to "true" moral behavior (disregard of self-interest, for instance) -- is hard, with or without Kant (or Derrida), to ignore. Does this logic not, in some sense, reduce the need for God to exist?

One point of view which everyone seems to miss is that morality is a part of "the good" that God is attempting to get through to people. But that imparation of morality can't be understood unless a person accepts Gods whole package, namely the covenant that Jesus Christ initiated and dedicated by His own blood. God sent Jesus to be the benchmark of an agreement so that anything that contravenes the essence of the covenant could be named as evil in nature. ie: what was typically called the anti-christ spirit since it contended against the covenant. From Christ's point of view the way in which democracy has set out to be anti-christian in law, begs the question how christians could believe in a democratic system that is morally defunct and in no way acknowledges the authority of religious ideas, but instead forsakes everything for the sake of the god of economics.

"part of "the good" that God is attempting to get through to people"--Pauli M

The impotent God, attempting? A God who works in "mysterious ways" is hard to argue with, but one that "attempts" to communicate and fails is just nutsville.

Better be good for goodness sake. (Or because you want those toys!)

I am sure you read this but it is pretty go http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

I am sure you read this but it is pretty good http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557