In God We Trust

Religion and Secularism
41
Widdershin said:

If it actually worked like that it would be perfect. Unfortunately it often doesn’t. Catholic hospitals dominate the country.


Dominate? You mean Catholics are more responsive to healthcare needs of the American public.

Not only do they provide less care, refusing any procedures the church disagrees with, not only do the doctors at these hospitals refuse to give important medical advice which conflicts with the church’s teachings, in some recorded instances causing patients to suffer and risk death unnecessarily, but they actually do less charity work than do public hospitals.
Then atheists should set up more hospitals to cater to people who subscribe to values of secularism.
Everyone should have exactly the same rights everyone else has. Everyone should have the same right to marry the person who makes them happy (a few legitimate obvious exceptions aside). Everyone should have the same right to worship or not as they see fit. And everyone should have the same right to express their religious views.
Who is stopping you from practicing your way of life?
Yet the same people fighting for public displays of the Christian faith fight against public displays of literally every other religious viewpoint. After a lifetime of that or so it starts to piss you off a little.
Nobody is fighting for public displays of the Christian faith. Those displays were set up all over the country since the Mayflower brought the first settlers to America. And removal of those displays, which have cultural and historical significance, just because you don’t like them is trouble-making. What faith are you practicing? Make your own displays. Call the ACLU and dial 911 if you are ever stop from doing your thing. America is a free country.

Where are you from?

42
Dominate? You mean Catholics are more responsive to healthcare needs of the American public.
No, I mean they've taken over, bought out and run out public hospitals. They don't just go around building a hospital wherever one is needed. They take over or replace existing public hospitals.
Then atheists should set up more hospitals to cater to people who subscribe to values of secularism.
This is a stupid argument that's just annoying because the person making it is usually intelligent enough to understand damn well why it's a stupid argument. Who do I go to with this suggestion? The atheist leaders? No such thing. "Lack of religion" and "organized religion" are completely different things with very little in common. A few of the things they don't have in common are basically ALL the things necessary for atheists to "do a thing" as a united, organized group. We have no leadership. We're members of no club. There is "atheist bank account" out there in Rome somewhere.
Who is stopping you from practicing your way of life?
Um, the US government. You either haven't been reading the responses or are choosing to ignore them. Do you know how the Church of Satan, essentially atheists with attitudes, get Ten Commandments shrines removed from public grounds? They apply to get THEIR shrine put there too. They have NEVER been able to erect their statue. Instead the Christian shrine is removed when there is no other choice. How is THIS conversation IN ANY WAY "equal"?

Atheist - You need to take your shrine off public lands.

Christian - We have a RIGHT to have it there!

Atheist - Okay, since it’s a right, we would like to put ours up.

Christian - Okay, we’ll take ours down.

If you think that even remotely represents “equality” then you’re just being an ass, because you’re obviously not that stupid.

Nobody is fighting for public displays of the Christian faith. Those displays were set up all over the country since the Mayflower brought the first settlers to America. And removal of those displays, which have cultural and historical significance, just because you don’t like them is trouble-making.
Did you even read the first post in this thread? It is LITERALLY about an Indiana law FORCING public displays of Christian faith into schools, no exceptions. Since the Mayflower? Most of this country didn't even EXIST in that time! The Louisiana Purchase was made in 1803. Don't quote me on this, but I believe the Mayflower came just a little before that. Not to mention that entire nonsense is an appeal to tradition fallacy.
What faith are you practicing? Make your own displays. Call the ACLU and dial 911 if you are ever stop from doing your thing. America is a free country.

Where are you from?


You’re just being asinine at this point. Call 911 because someone won’t let me erect a display? You’re talking as if putting something in my yard is the equivalent of government sanction of that thing on public property paid for with taxpayer money. Unless you think some local church is going to chip in there in Indiana to pay for the Christian signage now required by law to be placed in schools, that is. Oh, and did the Mayflower JUST get here? A public display of Christian faith is going up in every school in the state, so the Mayflower must be just about to arrive.

If you want to have a civil, intelligent debate about this I’m all for it. But your arguments are truly pathetic here, made with no attempt to resemble reality. One of them is literally disputed by the reason this very thread was started. If you want me to think about what you’re saying then you’re going to have to think about what you’re saying first, because you made no attempt here. Just the standard deflections, appeals to traditions, accusations that it’s the OTHER side being combative, idiotic completely refuted claims that it’s already “equal”, and finally a suggestion to call 911 because I’m denied a building permit. I especially like that one.

43

Sree, would this be an example of the “insults” you referred to. No doubt, your arguments are called “stupid” and “pathetic”. Those are not logical rebuttals. However, the difference between this post and your’s is, those words are followed up by reasons that address the arguments. You are not being called “stupid”, your arguments are.

I suspect whatever committee came up with the CFI rules had more reasoned debate in mind, but this forum is not a key part of CFI’s mission, so, it is what it is. When they fire me from this volunteer position, you can gloat all you want.

44
Widdershin: If you want to have a civil, intelligent debate about this I’m all for it. But your arguments are truly pathetic here, made with no attempt to resemble reality. One of them is literally disputed by the reason this very thread was started. If you want me to think about what you’re saying then you’re going to have to think about what you’re saying first, because you made no attempt here. Just the standard deflections, appeals to traditions, accusations that it’s the OTHER side being combative, idiotic completely refuted claims that it’s already “equal”, and finally a suggestion to call 911 because I’m denied a building permit. I especially like that one.
You are getting pretty agitated. Cool down. Perhaps, you and I are too close to the problem. Let's view it in another way that doesn't incite our emotions. Indonesia is a secular state, and so is Turkey and India as stated in their respective constitutions. Forget about the benefit of secularism you envisage to society, for the moment. Do you think it is prudent to advocate your brand of atheist activism in those countries? Just because American Christians don't run riot in the streets in their tens of thousands hacking off heads of atheist activists doesn't mean nerves are not getting frayed in the USA. Our country has enough social problems as it is.

One of those problems is illegal immigration. This is where I find Christianity a contributor to our misery. Churches are sanctuaries for illegals and helping them to resettle all over the country. I don’t have facts to prove this. Pope Francis openly disapproves of our attempt to close the southern border.

45
Who do I go to with this suggestion? The atheist leaders? No such thing. “Lack of religion” and “organizedreligion” are completely different things with very little in common.
Who we go to is our elected secular government. Some of them are "inspired" by their religion, and that's fine. Be inspired by whatever you want, but when you come in to the public square, you have to consider everyone, otherwise it's not a fair system. If Catholics want to set up hospitals and have them supported by laws like malpractice insurance, and licenses for private ambulance services, and tax breaks, and police protection so people can come in who just got shot in a gang fight, and all the other benefits they enjoy as a result of my tax dollars, then they need to play by rules that are fair for everyone who supports them.

The sad thing is, they are the first to cry when they aren’t allowed to do something like let a woman a die instead of performing an abortion. They have lost that argument so many times, yet they continue to claim the right. You imagine a landscape of fair and equal access to health care products, and judge our decisions based on that. I look at the real world when I make judgments.

46
You are getting pretty agitated. Cool down.
Telling someone to cool down is possibly the worst thing you can say. You assume you know something that you don't, and you attempt to take the dominant controlling position. Taking some responsibility for your bad arguments would be a better move. Bringing up illegal immigration is not.
47
Sree said: Indonesia is a secular state
Yes, in name only.

Indonesia’s Secular State under Siege

Indonesia is a nominally secular democracy. But the influence of conservative Islam is gaining in the world's biggest Muslim country. A further step away from tolerance may be just around the corner.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/sliding-towards-conservative-islam-indonesia-s-secular-state-under-siege-a-476068.html

I would hate to see the same thing happen here in the US. Atheists do not infringe on theist rights, Theists infringe on atheist rights.

Hence the Establishment Clause. It forbids the establishment of religion, not of secularism.

48
You are getting pretty agitated. Cool down.
A standard deflection. It's much easier to pretend that I am being overly emotional than to give a reasoned response.
Perhaps, you and I are too close to the problem. Let’s view it in another way that doesn’t incite our emotions. Indonesia is a secular state, and so is Turkey and India as stated in their respective constitutions.
Let us not pretend that a constitution actually dictates the reality of government. Our own Constitution has many rules which are routinely broken. The Fourteenth Amendment is broken all the time by laws.
Forget about the benefit of secularism you envisage to society, for the moment.
I mentioned no such benefit. I think this is one of your problems. You apparently think I'm anti-religious. I don't care what you believe. I don't care what you teach your children to believe. I just want equal representation for everyone and right now we don't have that. If I give you a multiple choice test right now which listed 100 examples of religious displays on public grounds and ask you which religion they represented ALL the questions would have a single choice: A) Christian. And you would get 100% on that test.
Do you think it is prudent to advocate your brand of atheist activism in those countries?
My "brand" of atheism? Equality for ALL, regardless of religion? Yeah. I'd say that's "prudent".
Just because American Christians don’t run riot in the streets in their tens of thousands hacking off heads of atheist activists doesn’t mean nerves are not getting frayed in the USA. Our country has enough social problems as it is.
Can't we all just get along? Another deflection.
One of those problems is illegal immigration. This is where I find Christianity a contributor to our misery. Churches are sanctuaries for illegals and helping them to resettle all over the country. I don’t have facts to prove this. Pope Francis openly disapproves of our attempt to close the southern border.
And this is just way off topic. I'm not even going to address this because it's a different topic altogether and one which I have strong feelings about.

In all of that you did not address one single thing I said. You admitted no fault for the blatant falsehoods I pointed out. That entire post was nothing more than a distraction from the previous post.

49
Lausten said:

Sree, would this be an example of the “insults” you referred to. No doubt, your arguments are called “stupid” and “pathetic”. Those are not logical rebuttals. However, the difference between this post and your’s is, those words are followed up by reasons that address the arguments. You are not being called “stupid”, your arguments are.


Personally, I am not offended by any insults. Words like “troll”, “stupid”, “pathetic”, are not in the vocabulary of people, especially professionals and academics, engaged in critical discussions of multi-disciplinary matters of mutual concern. Be that as it may, I overlook such rebuttals to my arguments and persist in making my points as I see them. If I don’t succeed, I drop the conversation and move on.

I suspect whatever committee came up with the CFI rules had more reasoned debate in mind, but this forum is not a key part of CFI’s mission, so, it is what it is. When they fire me from this volunteer position, you can gloat all you want.
Why would I gloat? Do you suspect that I am praying for your downfall? As moderators go, you are as good as they come. I did rummage through some old posts and came across Doug Smith. He came across as a pretty good moderator. It's a pity that he's gone.
50
As moderators go, you are as good as they come. I did rummage through some old posts and came across Doug Smith. He came across as a pretty good moderator. It’s a pity that he’s gone.
Doug was good. I miss him. You do talk a good game. Inconsistent. But good when you want to be.
51

I think it best to have a secular government as long as that government is religion friendly. Problems arise when government is either anti-religion or when it protects radical religion. We should not deny the people the freedom to practice their religion. If we do they will just take it underground. I think the best definition of a radical religion is one that would threaten a secular government and we should not protect it.

Probably the best way to identify a radical religion is when it officially allows or promotes among its members what the secular government has identified as human rights and civil liberty abuses. We should prosecute all who commit, facilitate or promote those abuses including their leaders regardless of their particular religious affiliation.

I expect everyone recognizes that the most prominent religion today that officially allows and promotes what western governments call human rights and civil liberty abuses is Islam. Also most people can recognize that many of the problems in China are and have been because the secular government in China is anti-religion. We should be careful to not allow religious law, such as Twelver, Shia or Sunni law, to infiltrate into our secular law and to not allow our secular law to become anti-religion like the law in China.

52

What you described as “best” is exactly what I believe and exactly what your government is promoting.

What you say about Islam is prejudice. That is, you are taking the actions of a few, the extremists that we keep defeating in our actions in the Mideast, and claiming that is the basis of their religion. Islam might be, as Sam Harris said, “a mother lode of bad ideas”, but there are Islamic countries around the world that are peaceful and modern. There are roots of Western science in Islamic history. The works of Socrates and Plato were split up and some went to Baghdad long before Jesus or Allah. It was when those were reunited that we developed “Western” civilization. Transmission of the Greek Classics - Wikipedia

53

I sympathize with Bob’s aversion to religions that threaten secular govts. If Islam is too broad a category to say is threatening to secular govts, then how about certain sects within Islam, like Wahhabi-ism for example? Now we cannot constitutionally make laws effecting the establishment of any religion in the USA, but we can have laws that over-ride particularly egregious attempts by religions to, themselves, make laws.

And Islam holds the Koran most dear, and the Koran encompasses a detailed plan for a Theocracy.

I am biased against Islam, generally speaking and I believe that I am quite rational in my bias. But I agree that as long as Muslims are not trying to establish a theocracy, and they are peaceful, let them have their religion.

 

54
Bob: Also most people can recognize that many of the problems in China are and have been because the secular government in China is anti-religion.
I don't think China's government is anti-religion. Jesus made a clear distinction between religion and the secular world: give to God what is God and give to Caesar what is Caesar's. China's government get miffed when western religious organizations in China don't observe Jesus' teaching and confine themselves to the afterlife and spiritual matters. For instance, the Chinese Communist Party do not want Catholics in China taking orders from the Vatican. Pope Francis doesn't confine himself to matters of the soul and messes with US immigration policies. Xi Jinping won't allow that. Catholics in China must access Jesus direct, not through Rome.
55

Lausten: “What you say about Islam is prejudice.”

I have read the Koran all the way through - slowly enough that I get it. Its mostly a re-hash of the Bible with the Muslims winning. In it the true believer is commanded to offer Islam to the unbeliever and if they do not accept it they are to be killed. I believe this is rather clearly an official sanctioning of a violation of human rights. There are other examples. It is true the way Islam is practiced today varies from country to country. None of the Muslims I know and have known have, to the best of my knowledge, committed violent acts. I doubt you have missed the reports of fathers killing their daughters for various actions most secular governments accept as normal.

Wikipedia: “Death threats were made against [Salman Rushdie], including a fatwā calling for his assassination issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, on 14 February 1989.” This is official sanctioning of murder.

I would not suggest we try to ban people from practicing Islam or any other religion, only that we cannot accept violations of human rights even if they are prescribed or allowed by the religion. The laws of the secular government must take precedence over religious practice.

56

Sree: “I don’t think China’s government is anti-religion.”

I suggest you read any of the many stories of the Christian missionaries who have been there. They cannot get a visa if they tell the truth about being a missionary. They usually get in by claiming to be teachers or medical people. They report that it is against the law for a foreigner to hand a Bible directly to a Chinese citizen. If you do, you will be “detained” and “educated”.

That China’s government is anti-religion should not be a surprise at all. A socialist government cannot allow anyone to accept that there is a “higher power”, one that would in any way supersede the authority of the state. Under socialism the individual has neither the ultimate authority nor the total responsibility for his or her life, but must function as part of the collective.

Wikipedia: “The government of China officially espouses state atheism. … since 1949, China has been governed by the Communist Party of China, an atheist institution that prohibits party members from practicing religion while in office. … Christianity not only represents a small proportion of the population, but its adherents are still seen by the majority who observe traditional rituals as followers of a foreign religion that sets them apart from the body of society. … The Associated Press reported in September 2018 that “Xi is waging the most severe systematic suppression of Christianity in the country since religious freedom was written into the Chinese constitution in 1982.”, which has involved “destroying crosses, burning bibles, shutting churches and ordering followers to sign papers renouncing their faith”.”

 

57

Those things are in the Bible and those crimes are committed by your government Bob. You’re not going to convince me with anecdotes.

58

Lausten, I have also read the Bible all the way through - again slowly enough to get it. I remember no instruction for me today to force people under threat of death to accept what’s in it or any suggestion that I should take orders from any religious leader to violate someone’s civil rights. On the contrary, I remember admonitions against interfering with another’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and to obey the laws of our government.

I suspect you’re talking about prosecuting war and/or the death penalty in our criminal law. I don’t consider either to be a crime.

I will not try to convince you of anything about religion. You obviously have been exposed to and have considered many ideas about religion; what you choose is your decision. I hope you do well with it.

59

TimB: " I agree that as long as Muslims are not trying to establish a theocracy, and they are peaceful, let them have their religion."

Yes indeed. I think the problems will come when a majority of the population wants and votes for either an anti-God government or some official religious-based government. When that ugliness starts to happen how do we, or do we, try to protect the public from itself?

The people in Iran, Turkey and China (and other countries) have opted for, or at least have consented to, governments that don’t meet our expectations in terms of freedoms. How do we in good conscience not try to “lead” them in a different direction?

60

Our Constitution protects us from the extremes of, on the one hand, favoring/persecuting any religion for it’s dogma, or the other extreme of allowing religious laws to be imposed.

Now if we just had a POTUS and a Senate that was interested in protecting our Constitution (instead of breaking their oaths for their own political benefit). The latter being the essence of corruption.

Government corruption is one of the main things that lead to the govt breaking down, not protecting the public, and hence paving the way for a ready made Theocratic franchise. Extremist violent Islamic groups have followed that formula over and over.

But in T rumpian times, more and more Americans are coming to accept corruption as a good thing. (That seems so crazy to me.)

 

.