Secular Totalitarianism

[Dave Ellis]

Mark, the history of totalitarian states is the proof of the effects of pushing God aside and replacing it with "politics and power." So your worn out use of the phrase "bald assertion" doesn't apply here.

What do you have to say about religiously minded totalitarian states? For example medieval Europe, the present day middle east, a number of African countries / rebel groups, etc.

State control by Atheist does have a track record as embarrassing as that might be to your cause.

Actually, state control by Atheists has a fairly decent track record. Most people in the Scandinavian countries are Atheistic, as are numerous other modern European countries. There had to be a few Atheist heads of state in places like Sweden. Julia Gifford of Australia had a successful run as Prime Minister, etc.

If you're trying to refer to guys like Stalin, he can easily be countered by the theistic totalitarian butchers of the 20th century.

Christianity and the religion of Jesus are two different things.

No, it isn't.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Secular----->totalitarianism, that's the discussion, not the coexistence of religionist within a secular, democratic framework. Communism is the result of secularist eliminating the guidance of religious ideals resulting in a totally secular ideology. Just as religious people have failed in the past to live up to their own ideals resulting in bad behavior, so have your fellow Atheist.

The 50 states of America.

.... you are aware the United States of America is a constitutionally secular nation, and has been since its founding... right?

 

[Colter]

.... you are aware the United States of America is a constitutionally secular nation, and has been since its founding... right?

Constitutionally secular nation of religious people. Read the OP.

 

[Colter]

What do you have to say about religiously minded totalitarian states? For example medieval Europe, the present day middle east, a number of African countries / rebel groups, etc.



Actually, state control by Atheists has a fairly decent track record. Most people in the Scandinavian countries are Atheistic, as are numerous other modern European countries. There had to be a few Atheist heads of state in places like Sweden. Julia Gifford of Australia had a successful run as Prime Minister, etc.

If you're trying to refer to guys like Stalin, he can easily be countered by the theistic totalitarian butchers of the 20th century.



No, it isn't.

* The OP includes the blunt, negative assumption of the religiously totalitarian state. It is good for all mankind that we have broken free from totalitarian religious states and established peaceful secular states composed of religious people. But the secularist weren't content with that arrangement.

* It has become fashionable as of late to reference the Atheist wonderland of predominantly white, tiny by comparison, Scandinavian countries in political and religious debates who have turned away from religion and currently enjoy a secular tranquility. Some of these high minded nations maintained neutrality during WWII while profiting heavily from it.

* Pick any communist state and you have an attempt at Atheistic totalitarianism. (I already realize that some of you are good witches).

 

[Colter]

I have re-read it, and its just as wrong headed and full of fallacies and unsupported assertions as before. I think it gets worse every time I read it.

A secular society does not ignore ethics. A secular society is not based on "atheistic science". A secular state can be, but is not necessarily "tyrannical and dictatorial", nor does it "threatens to establish a new and godless type of mastery over the hearts and minds of modern man".

Secularists did not "institute a revolt against God himself". Most secularists are also religious individuals.

Secularism did not lead to the "unlooked-for harvest of world wars and international unsettledness." Yes, the 20th century was a violent one, but no more so than the 17th century, and in terms of death rates per capita (as opposed to absolute deaths) the 18th-20th centuries are most notable in their declining rates of violence, both in wars and between men.

There are few, if any, of the teachings of Jesus, that weren't recognised and preached 500 years before his ministry in Palestine. There is vastly more behind the gains of the 20th century that is attributable to the lessons of the enlightenment than there is to the teachings of the New Testament.


Again, for emphasis, I think you, and the quote in the OP, attribute vastly too much agency and intent to secularism, seeing totalitarianism where there is no evidence of it.

Rejection or exclusion of religious considerations does not equate to totalitarianism, in any sense. Ignoring something, or excluding it from areas where it has no role or business being, is not suppression of the free exercise of religion, beyond where is interferes with the free exercise of the rights of other people, who may or may not believe the same things.

* You are an Atheist, you have a bias towards a secular state of affairs where religion is marginalized in public discourse. You obviously view the history of the last 300 years through the rose colored glasses of your own ideology. Atheist are so smugly accustomed to confessing the faults of religion that they haven't the time or honesty to consider the godless endeavors of totalitarian states.


* Science has held the theory now for some time that life originated out of a "big bang" and subsequently evolved like a belief not a proven fact.

* The Atheistic Communist movements are what the OP is referencing not Mayberry USA.

* The "spirit of truth" of Jesus the Christ has been working towards the very enlightenment that you speak of.

* The fundamental revelation that God the Father has a creator Son who incarnate as "the Son of man", has achieved "all power and authority in heaven and on earth" and now sits on high as sovereign Lord and God was not a common teaching 500 years before Christ inside or outside Judaism.

* A current example of the totalitarian Atheist state and it's horrors is North Korea. Another would be China with its adaptation of western style capitalistic practice into its Atheistic totalitarian state of organized slavery.

* See Pol Pot, he had a wonderful run at Godless totalitarian experimentation.

 

[Colter]

.

"The majority of professed Christians of Western civilization are unwittingly actual secularists."

 

[PsychoSarah]

Constitutionally secular nation of religious people. Read the OP.

True, most people are religious, but by no means is that anything exceptional. I mean, is there even a country in which atheists aren't in the minority compared to theists?

 

[Eudaimonist]

* A current example of the totalitarian Atheist state and it's horrors is North Korea. Another would be China with its adaptation of western style capitalistic practice into its Atheistic totalitarian state of organized slavery.

* See Pol Pot, he had a wonderful run at Godless totalitarian experimentation.

Let's talk about the burning of witches and heretics, of bloody Crusades, of the torture perpetrated by the Spanish Inquisition.

History is just more fun when we can cherry pick bad examples of anything and ignore everything inconvenient to one's negativity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

Constitutionally secular nation of religious people. Read the OP.

How do you define someone as a religious person? Most people in the US know very little about religion, and never attend a church of any kind. Ticking "Christian" on the census doesn't make you a religious person.

 

[Colter]

Let's talk about the burning of witches and heretics, of bloody Crusades, of the torture perpetrated by the Spanish Inquisition.

History is just more fun when we can cherry pick bad examples of anything and ignore everything inconvenient to one's negativity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your point is completely true, it goes to the evil of the institutional totalitarian church which has a long history of willfully asserting human ideas to further spiritual ideals; it combines good with evil. Such behavior is a complete betrayal of the ideals of "the gospel of the kingdom of heaven" of Jesus.

In the wake of the failure to remain true to the ideals of Jesus' spiritual kingdom in the heart of the believer in fellowship with other believers, the institutional church became a substitute.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your point is completely true, it goes to the evil of the institutional totalitarian church which has a long history of willfully asserting human ideas to further spiritual ideals; it combines good with evil. Such behavior is a complete betrayal of the ideals of "the gospel of the kingdom of heaven" of Jesus.

You have an all-too-convenient escape clause.

I could just as easily say that communism does not live up to the ideals of secular liberalism or individualistic forms of secular humanism, but somehow you ignore all that and give yourself an easy out. It's a double-standard.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

You have an all-too-convenient escape clause.

I could just as easily say that communism does not live up to the ideals of secular liberalism or individualistic forms of secular humanism, but somehow you ignore all that and give yourself an easy out. It's a double-standard.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Escape from what? As a Christian I have to own it, I am owning it! Christian history is a fact and it is what my progenitors did. The same thing would go for Eves decision to combine her will with Gods will, leading to far reaching consequences for us all. Lucifer as well, a brilliant Son of God and celestial administrator who did NOT remain loyal to the will of his God.

You again make a valid point, not every secular humanist is the same. But I don't know what the established ideals are of the heritage of secular humanist that another humanist would betray and depart from.


.

 

[niye]

Escape from what? As a Christian I have to own it, I am owning it! Christian history is a fact and it is what my progenitors did. The same thing would go for Eves decision to combine her will with Gods will, leading to far reaching consequences for us all. Lucifer as well, a brilliant Son of God and celestial administrator who did NOT remain loyal to the will of his God.

You again make a valid point, not every secular humanist is the same. But I don't know what the established ideals are of the heritage of secular humanist that another humanist would betray and depart from.

You acknowledge that religious states have had a history of horrors. I think that you believe religion should remain with the individual, and have nothing to do with the running of a state.

You mention that some secular states have had a history of horrors. You also acknowledge that other secular states work very well. In fact, today, the only states that do work well are secular.

I'm confused as to where you're going with this. `

As far as "secular humanist ideals," to give you a sense, I think Scandinavian nations do very well: Religious freedom+decent safety net+reasonable income disparity+decent upward mobility+acceptable gender equality+low corruption in society+excellent health care+excellent life expectancy+good environmental controls+low crime rates.

 

[Colter]

You acknowledge that religious states have had a history of horrors. I think that you believe religion should remain with the individual, and have nothing to do with the running of a state.

You mention that some secular states have had a history of horrors. You also acknowledge that other secular states work very well. In fact, today, the only states that do work well are secular.

I'm confused as to where you're going with this. `

As far as "secular humanist ideals," to give you a sense, I think Scandinavian nations do very well: Religious freedom+decent safety net+reasonable income disparity+decent upward mobility+acceptable gender equality+low corruption in society+excellent health care+excellent life expectancy+good environmental controls+low crime rates.

I said this earlier on the thread, "It has become fashionable as of late to reference the Atheist wonderland of predominantly white, tiny by comparison, Scandinavian countries in political and religious debates who have turned away from religion and currently enjoy a secular tranquility. Some of these high minded nations maintained neutrality during WWII while profiting heavily from it."

I contend that the conceptual moral heritage among these very young, predominantly secular societies, is an inheritance from their previous Christian ideology (and the presence of the spirit of Christ). But suppose they continue to marginalize and eventually eliminate the presumptive blight of religion within their societies. It remains to be seen what the ideals of future generations will be and how the state will respond to the rise of any new ideas. I suspect it will be the same way secular states have always reacted, quash them for the good of the sate of coarse.

 

[Dave Ellis]

* The OP includes the blunt, negative assumption of the religiously totalitarian state. It is good for all mankind that we have broken free from totalitarian religious states and established peaceful secular states composed of religious people. But the secularist weren't content with that arrangement.

Actually, I think the secularists largely don't care if religious people exist. What gets them riled up is when religious people try to impose their religion on them through legislation or whatnot.

The only country where there is a huge Christian / Secular political battle going on is the United States, and that's the only country where the fundamentalists are trying to take over the government.

* It has become fashionable as of late to reference the Atheist wonderland of predominantly white, tiny by comparison, Scandinavian countries in political and religious debates who have turned away from religion and currently enjoy a secular tranquility. Some of these high minded nations maintained neutrality during WWII while profiting heavily from it.

The Scandinavian countries were also a lot more religious 70 years ago, what's your point?

The modern day Scandinavian countries enjoy a far higher standard of living than the U.S, especially in the Bible Belt states which has some of the lowest standards of living in the developed world.

* Pick any communist state and you have an attempt at Atheistic totalitarianism. (I already realize that some of you are good witches).

No, if you pick a communist state you have an attempt at Communist Totalitarianism. Religious views have nothing to do with it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

* You are an Atheist, you have a bias towards a secular state of affairs where religion is marginalized in public discourse. You obviously view the history of the last 300 years through the rose colored glasses of your own ideology. Atheist are so smugly accustomed to confessing the faults of religion that they haven't the time or honesty to consider the godless endeavors of totalitarian states.

What about the Christian Totalitarian states, like Fascist Italy, or Nazi Germany? I notice you're leaving those out of the conversation for some reason...

* Science has held the theory now for some time that life originated out of a "big bang" and subsequently evolved like a belief not a proven fact.

You have just betrayed your ignorance of Science. If you had any idea what a scientific theory was, you'd never make that argument.

* The Atheistic Communist movements are what the OP is referencing not Mayberry USA.

I'm not sure where you're getting all this Atheism / Communism connection from.... would it help to point out that very few Atheists are communists? In my case, I've consistently voted for the conservative party up here in Canada, and I've even worked on two election campaigns at the local level.

That being said, despite my centre-right political leanings, I could never bring myself to support the Republicans down in the States. That is a party of whack-jobs.

* A current example of the totalitarian Atheist state and it's horrors is North Korea. Another would be China with its adaptation of western style capitalistic practice into its Atheistic totalitarian state of organized slavery.

* See Pol Pot, he had a wonderful run at Godless totalitarian experimentation.

I've spoken enough on this topic, however just to wrap things up, by trying to equate Atheism or Atheists with people like Pol Pot or Kim Jong Un serves no purpose but to expose yourself as an ignorant bigot.

If you think launching ridiculous insults and strawmen of our position is going to make you look credible, you're wrong. Try having a little bit of tact and class, and listen to what our views are rather than trying to lump us in with people we don't identify with.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Your point is completely true, it goes to the evil of the institutional totalitarian church which has a long history of willfully asserting human ideas to further spiritual ideals; it combines good with evil. Such behavior is a complete betrayal of the ideals of "the gospel of the kingdom of heaven" of Jesus.

In the wake of the failure to remain true to the ideals of Jesus' spiritual kingdom in the heart of the believer in fellowship with other believers, the institutional church became a substitute.

Ah, I see.... so when the church perpetrates widespread crimes against humanity, the religion is fine and it's totalitarianism is the problem.

However when an Atheist is in charge, Atheism is the problem, and totalitarianism is not.


Nice double standard you have there.

 

[Colter]

Ah, I see.... so when the church perpetrates widespread crimes against humanity, the religion is fine and it's totalitarianism is the problem.

However when an Atheist is in charge, Atheism is the problem, and totalitarianism is not.


Nice double standard you have there.

As an Atheist bigot yourself your ignorance of the gospel of Jesus juxtaposed against what Christianity evolved into demonstrates your own double standard.

I've owned the misbehavior of my own kind but naturally your pride won't allow you to address the behavior of fellow atheist, or more accurately what happens when morality has no ultimate source and becomes a matter of opinion from one atheist to another.

 

[niye]

I said this earlier on the thread, "It has become fashionable as of late to reference the Atheist wonderland of predominantly white, tiny by comparison, Scandinavian countries in political and religious debates who have turned away from religion and currently enjoy a secular tranquility. Some of these high minded nations maintained neutrality during WWII while profiting heavily from it."

I contend that the conceptual moral heritage among these very young, predominantly secular societies, is an inheritance from their previous Christian ideology (and the presence of the spirit of Christ). But suppose they continue to marginalize and eventually eliminate the presumptive blight of religion within their societies. It remains to be seen what the ideals of future generations will be and how the state will respond to the rise of any new ideas. I suspect it will be the same way secular states have always reacted, quash them for the good of the sate of coarse.

Christian societies are moving away from Christianity naturally, without external force. No one's forcing the Europeans, or the American "nones," to stop being religious. I believe this movement started with the Reformation, so it's not a new development. Much of what we associate with such societies--Parliaments, democracy, an oligarchical or egalitarian structure--come from pagan European/Roman roots, as well as from various royal attempts to centralize the state and weaken feudalism via alliances using ancient custom.

I think these pagan/Roman institutions survived as a result of Christianity's strained relationship with Judaism and Judaic law. There is no Christian law, the way there is Judaic, or Muslim law. Even in the Middle Ages, canon law was separate from civil/common law, so Christianity did wipe out competing religions, but it never wiped out common law. This is almost obscenely simplified, but I believe that is the root of our separation of church and state.

As far as where we will go from here: idk. I think assuming a movement specifically to secular totalitarianism is bizarre. Sure, it could happen. So could anything else. Prediction is a very tricky thing.

 

[Colter]

Christian societies are moving away from Christianity naturally, without external force. No one's forcing the Europeans, or the American "nones," to stop being religious. I believe this movement started with the Reformation, so it's not a new development. Much of what we associate with such societies--Parliaments, democracy, an oligarchical or egalitarian structure--come from pagan European/Roman roots, as well as from various royal attempts to centralize the state and weaken feudalism via alliances using ancient custom.

I think these pagan/Roman institutions survived as a result of Christianity's strained relationship with Judaism and Judaic law. There is no Christian law, the way there is Judaic, or Muslim law. Even in the Middle Ages, canon law was separate from civil/common law, so Christianity did wipe out competing religions, but it never wiped out common law. This is almost obscenely simplified, but I believe that is the root of our separation of church and state.

As far as where we will go from here: idk. I think assuming a movement specifically to secular totalitarianism is bizarre. Sure, it could happen. So could anything else. Prediction is a very tricky thing.

I have a very different experience based perspective on the decline of Christian influence in America in particular, everything Christian, or perceived to be Christian, has been under constant assault for decades. If Christianity has ANY moral influence left in American secular life, it is very difficult to find it. And this decline I don't see as "natural" at all, everything in Christian culture has been consistently challenged, mocked and impugned in every medium there is. Pop culture America is a world wide disgrace!



.