Government back religion

[SithDoughnut]

I understand your satiric position, but I take no offense at how you portray me. There is no room for reciprocal retaliation the way I see it, because most atheists are too nice to be fascist towards Christians, even though I support fascism to influence you with the word of God.

I get this funny feeling that you may not be everything you seem to be...

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

If you think Bush was the conclusion of such reasoning, then you are misled. He is but a first step along a long road which will end in some anti-Christ figure. Even without anything supernatural happening, tying in government and religion will result in some figure head who gains control over both, and abuses it for his/her own selfish ends, creating vast amounts of pain and suffering, which I call the anti-Christ figure.

I apologize i was only trying to end the post on a comical note.
I have not seriously considered any connections between bush and religion so it is beyond me to make any well thought out statements on the matter.

 

[BlackCherry]

I get this funny feeling that you may not be everything you seem to be...

I realize that my honest ways of reasoning can produce funny feelings, but I get a bad taste in my mouth whenever people lie about their true intentions. Even children understand that demanding freedom for yourself, while not granting others the same, is a violation of the golden rule, but God's will must come first. What parts of the logics don't you understand?

 

[Infernalfist]

Unfortunately, the constitution has proved to be an obstacle towards a faster implication of the Lord's will in today's US. The constitution provides a hard-to-change foundation for religious diversity and freedom of speech, allowing for ridicule like the FSM "church." Scandinavian countries, like the Country where the philistine who called my opinions "disgusting" originates from, do not have a political environment where the minority is protected from the majority, or where the majority is restricted by freedom-of-speech rules that are hard to change. That would be a good thing in the US, but in Scandinavian countries, this has the unfortunate result to produce a more secular society, given the blossoming of immoral atheists everywhere.

In France, this has turned out really, really bad, where secularism and freedom-of religion is used as an excuse to fight war on religion through symbolism, manifesting itself as a persecution of those carrying hijab. Problem is that this can easily spill over to involve Christians as well.


Yet, for some reason, many deluded atheists seem to hold that my value base for politics is less worth than their value base, and I should somehow be obliged to separate my value base from the political result of those values. That is insane. Everyone's opinions are formed out of cognitive resonance, not dissonance.

i am not from a scandinavian country and i find your ideas to be disgusting as well. carrying on as if you alone have the right idea on how one should believe is completely counterproductive and foolish. it is like the annoying child in the school yard who makes the claim that he has a "force field that stops everything". he finds out quickly that this method will leave him alone and his "force field" useless. you however will take comfort in your loneliness, because there are verses in the bible that support such close minded views on the world, and that help empower those who would put themselves in that position. the one comfort i can take in people with your type of theological conviction is the fact that your ideas will isolate you from people who can generate rational thoughts, and thankfully after another generation or two wont have to hear it as often.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I see your point, but the Lord's will doesn't allow for me to factor that into consideration, as it would impede the implementation of a more, and better Christian world. Following the word of God is more important, than following your emotional need to do unto others as you wish be done unto yourself.

I should admit that i somewhat expected this reaction. Although i am glad you do say you see the point.
I am curious as to how you would imagine two fascists believes clashing would play out as neither would be willing to concede the possiblity of being wrong there is no need for a compromise as the other is wrong by default but the issue would then need to be dealt with another way, which would you supose it is?

Some time ago ive found this series on youtube which i found very interesting to watch for several reasons. One of which actually being that it reminded me to have the ability to consider the possiblity of god.
I mention that as i want to make clear it is not a Atheist centred series and hope that it will help you to give it a chance.

YouTube - The Doubting Approach vs. Complete Certainty - part 1

It brings up a great deal of points i would like to make but i figured that giving a source would work out better as it is put better then i can do in just text.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I realize that my honest ways of reasoning can produce funny feelings, but I get a bad taste in my mouth whenever people lie about their true intentions. Even children understand that demanding freedom for yourself, while not granting others the same, is a violation of the golden rule, but God's will must come first. What parts of the logics don't you understand?

The point where you appear to be convinced that your interpretation of God's will is correct while everyone else's isn't. I think God would consider that to be quite an arrogant point of view.

 

[b&wpac4]

Your example doesn't lead to your conclusion. Yeah, Jews had to practice their religion in secret. How is that hurting us Christians?

If the Islam faith ever overtakes Christianity for the #1 slot, you'll be begging for the freedoms you are now so casually trying to take from me.

 

[ebia]

Yet their problems were not from secularism, but through corruption and bad politics.

Where as the inquisition, and the slowing of science and it's progress are caused by religions such as christianity being given a power seat in government.

It seems to me that you are making convenient distinctions where they aren't needed. The problems in both instances are people and ideologies. The setting can equally be religious or secular.

 

[OllieFranz]

It seems to me that you are making convenient distinctions where they aren't needed. The problems in both instances are people and ideologies. The setting can equally be religious or secular.

Another good reason for separation. If they are separate, with separate goals and corruptions, they can serve to some extent as a check on one another. United there is no counter to any harmful ideology.

 

[ebia]

Another good reason for separation. If they are separate, with separate goals and corruptions, they can serve to some extent as a check on one another. United there is no counter to any harmful ideology.

Where's your evidence that works? Even having an established church does not inevitably mean a monolithic train of thought - as you can see in those western european countries that have such. On the other hand secularism tends to become a replacement ideology in systems of goverment that try to exclude religion.

Ultimately you cannot separate worldview from politics - you can try to allow all worldviews to participate (which is a real challenge) or you can privilege one of them, and just as much goes wrong when that one is secularism as with any other.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I apologize i was only trying to end the post on a comical note.
I have not seriously considered any connections between bush and religion so it is beyond me to make any well thought out statements on the matter.

I don't think Bush was purposefully connected with religion, but it did become that way, at least among the religious folks around where I live. Then again, it may have just been because he was Republican.

 

[OllieFranz]

Where's your evidence that works? Even having an established church does not inevitably mean a monolithic train of thought - as you can see in those western european countries that have such. On the other hand secularism tends to become a replacement ideology in systems of goverment that try to exclude religion.

Ultimately you cannot separate worldview from politics - you can try to allow all worldviews to participate (which is a real challenge) or you can privilege one of them, and just as much goes wrong when that one is secularism as with any other.

I am not advocating anything like what you seem to be implying by "secularism."

All I'm saying is that having two or more competing authorities is better than one monopolistic one, whether it is based on one church working as an arm of the government (as during feudalism -- both Western and Japanese versions) or when government restricts all religion as in fascism in the early 20th Century and Communism as practiced in the later 20th Century

 

[mpok1519]

Religion sponsered by governement is bad; we've learned throughout hisory that nothing good comes from it.

And I find blackcherry's ideas to be scary. Diversity of faith and freedom of speech are staples of civillized society. Censorship and religious persecution are fudamental to draconian societies. Please; never run for office on any level.

 

[ebia]

I am not advocating anything like what you seem to be implying by "secularism."

All I'm saying is that having two or more competing authorities is better than one monopolistic one, whether it is based on one church working as an arm of the government (as during feudalism -- both Western and Japanese versions) or when government restricts all religion as in fascism in the early 20th Century and Communism as practiced in the later 20th Century

The question remains whether an artificial "separation of church and state", as though religion and politics can be divided, is a meaningful or effective, let alone the only way, of having power distributed.

 

[OllieFranz]

The question remains whether an artificial "separation of church and state", as though religion and politics can be divided, is a meaningful or effective, let alone the only way, of having power distributed.

No, not the only way. Having different levels of government, mostly independent of one another (like federalism in the United States is another way) The more power is spread, the less any one corrupt entity can use it to oppress others.

And of course a person's beliefs will affect his ideology and thus his decisions, even the political ones. But the more different power centers that are needed to compromise and consolidate on a law, the less likely that any one ideology will dominate at the expense of minority views.

A separation of church and state is entirely on the organizational level; not on an individual's beliefs. With a "state church" it is possible (and through most of history was common) to ensure that the ideology of the state and the ideology of the church were in agreement -- often for the enrichment of those organizations at the expense of "the little guy."

 

[Tielec]

I understand your satiric position, but I take no offense at how you portray me. There is no room for reciprocal retaliation the way I see it, because most atheists are too nice to be fascist towards Christians, even though I support fascism to influence you with the word of God.

All is not right in the state of Denmark. Poe anyone ?

 

[BlackCherry]

Sorry, I didn't get it. You are quoting Shakespeare, yet asking about Edgar Allan Poe? You Kiwis are so illiterate, I suppose you thought you could even pass history lessons by playing the newzealand story at arcades.

 

[mpok1519]

I don't think he was referring to Edgar Allen. A Poe is someone who is so radical in their views their goal is to sway others away from the very ideals they endorse.

 

[BlackCherry]

Not everyone has followed every discussion on these forums all the way back to 05 to recognize your stupid inside jargon, so maybe a link to Poe's Law would have been appropriate? I have to laugh at your feeble attempts to discredit me and my opinions by petty labeling.

 

[Tielec]

Sorry, I didn't get it. You are quoting Shakespeare, yet asking about Edgar Allan Poe? You Kiwis are so illiterate, I suppose you thought you could even pass history lessons by playing the newzealand story at arcades.

Oh come on, it's a touch too heavy here.
On the other hand you are spot on about those dirty Kiwis...

Here's another post from blackcherry from another thread in the 'Ethics and Morality' section:

I have discovered that I treat everything that suits me as facts. At least, I like all the facts, I hardly believe in facts that I dislike. Maybe my mind is just a wee bit biased. But I am just a human, so help me God.

Good opening post, maybe you should consider to read more Christian Theology.

Hmm, either you are brutally honest about yourself blackcherry or...