Yeah, whatever. I’m not sure how that matters, but I don’t care enough to argue the point.
Well, I do agree with that. In fact, and especially compared to the Declaration of Independence, it is rhetorically lame; e.g., a “more perfect” union.
Well, in theory it’s because religion is an institution that developed both to justify economic inequality and exploitation and to provide a palliative against such exploitation. So, when Communism happens, people will be free of such exploitation and won’t need to rely on the myths that religion brings.
In practice, though, it’s often been as you laid out.
How much success did the Soviets (or any other Communist country) actually have with this? When I was in Christian school, the people who “martyred” themselves for the Christian faith were mentioned frquently.* I have little doubt that most of these tales were the equivellent of urban legends, but I’ve got to wonder-- how easy or difficult was it to seperate people from a thousand years of religious tradition?
- One tale which I remember clearly was of a little girl who was shot for refusing to spit on the Bible.
The trouble is that the first and the third do not imply the second. The existence of people who don’t look, talk or act the same as we do has always been grounds enough, whether or not they pray like we do.
(I likes me some multimillionaires who sing about imagining no possessions, I surely does.)
This seems to be what the OP is talking about. The state deciding that religion is no good, which would give them the (ultimate) authority to punish those who practice it and impose it’s own commandments. Communism has a much easier time at such enforcement, but it could be possible, and arguably predicted in Christian scripture*, that it will happen worldwide.
- though a false religion with a false ‘god’ is a more common prediction then no ‘god’, a no ‘god’ or a state as ‘god’ is sometimes stated.
I don’t think it possible for the state to ban religion, but they can make it’s practice very uncomfortable as we see in China with their spiritual/ focused practice called something I can’t remember but perhaps like fia-gong. We also have in the Book of Revelation such a prediction with the mark of the beast, which will prevent those without such a loyalty mark from engaging the buying and selling of goods.
Such move by the state would be seen as a sign of the end times and drive Christianity underground IMHO.
Myths, unlike fantasies usually have some lost core truth to them and I appreciate the term. If I understand you, if you eliminate all religions that man(kind) will be free. I tend to disagree, there are too many things that happen to people on a spiritual / personal level that a form of religion will always be with man. The only thing you would loose is the old religions and a bunch of new religions developing.
Yes it was late, but better late then never. Have you ever read the 4th verse of the Star Spangled Banner?
Again better late then never, I won’t condemn them for being late.
The Constitution is a skeleton framework which establishes the federal government body and function, in a pretty clear manner. But even so ‘God’ is hinted at, as well as the imperfectness of man’s ability to set up authority in the preamble:
- Does not say in order to form a perfect union, or most perfect - acknowledges man’s authority is imperfect.
Does not say secure liberty to ourselves and our posterity, but the blessings* of liberty. Nothingness does not bless anything, God does.
Since the text is in English, we should probably just use the English meanings of the words without jumping through odd hoops of exigesis.
Liberty provides the blessings in the passage cited. Liberty, in turn, (the authors hoped) is guaranteed by the document they had created and the civil contract that the citizens governed under that document would continue to maintain. God has no part of that particular discussion and the word “blessings” is not used in any particularly religious context.
You mean the verse few Americans know exist that is part of the song officially made the anthem in 1931? That verse?
Just for laughs, what would happen if religion vanished tomorrow from the minds of men? Would the republic of the United States of America (you know, the one the flag stands for) vanish along with it? If not, doesn’t that suggest that religion is not a critical element in the republic’s foundation or maintenance? If so, can you explain how this would happen?
The Chinese religious movement you’re referring to is Falun Gong. The reasons why it was suppressed remain hotly debated, but the Chinese goverment seems (at least from my limited knowledge on the matter) to be more concerned with the group’s political aspects than the religious ones.
From what I’ve seen regarding Communist nations like China and Cuba, it doesn’t seem like these countries focus on trying to keep the populace from worshipping but try to curtail the power that the churches (as an institution) have.
Is my interpretation correct?
Yup; it’s called eliminating the competition. It’s no different than the Catholics and and Moslems and Protestants trying to destroy each other’s religion in so many wars and Inquisitions and Crusades.
As pointed out, that’s just a phrase added a few decades ago, not the source of the government’s authority. Fortunately, since that would make it far easier to take away to take away our rights; trivial in fact. God, being either imaginary or silent, “wants” whatever the believers in him want. If our rights were determined by “God” and not the Constitution, eliminating them would consist of Bush or Congress or the states or you local mayor simply declaring all rights null and void. If Bush decided tomorrow that all women should be enslaved and put in chains or that all Quakers should be executed, the Constitution would stop him, not God.
Pretty much the way that, (now that their numbers appear to be growing), a few atheists are attempting to do the same thing through ridicule. 
If such a thing happened, it would be taken by many as the sign of the end times and the tribulation, a event that is suppose to happen, and the faithful must resist falling under that authority to the death or the second coming of Christ. So in the minds of many, if the Constitution does fail in that way, God will overrule, having ultimate authority and victory over every nation.
So are you saying the founding fathers were a bunch of atheists.
Didn’t think so
All this proves is the influence and acknowledgment of God as ultimate authority was/is and will be.
I’m not sure the Chinese government is forthcoming as to why, but I think it’s pretty safe to say it is disruptive to how they want their people to think and act. In other words, the government is the untimate authority under this system.
By doing so you change the religion itself, in such you make it meaningless, or drive it underground.
Well I was referring to the verse written during the war of 1812, which shows the belief in God by men back then, it was also noted that men acknowledged God back when the DoI was written, again man’s acknowledgment of God was/is and will be.
Can’t happen according to scripture. But ok…
Yes, like it or not God and belief in God is intertwined into society.
Many people turn to the guidance of God, and His Spirit for guidance, and they get answers, answers that help society, people in high and low places, answers that may not seem like the correct way to act, but turn out to be far more correct in the long run. These people would have different answers and act differently without a belief in, and answers from God. This would allow the state to become God in God’s absences and become very abusive.
Now would the US become different overnight, Well I expect the flag to still fly, but the country to be far different the next day.
I also went to a Jesuit high school, and while I agree that rational Christian parents can recognize an anti-religious agenda when they see it, there are people out there who are decidedly not rational about things.
I have a fundamentalist co-worker (he says he’s ‘evangelical’), and he plans on homeschooling his daugher because he views the teaching of “evolution as fact”, and the acceptance of homosexuality as being “anti-Christian”.
I tried to tell him that scientifically, evolution is where it’s at- there’s no objective proof for creationism outside of the Bible, and that in a scientific context, you can’t really use it as proof.
I also tried to explain that public schools have to try to be everything to everyone, in a sense. They can’t really favor one group over another- they can’t condemn homosexuality any more than they can endorse Christianity. His response was that by condoning homosexuality, they’re essentially condemning Christianity.
There’s no real discussion with folks like that- everything, EVERYTHING is viewed through a big Bible-colored religious lens. Things that don’t usually have a religious component become a religious matter, such as investments and scientific matters.
I think the real atheist/theist argument seems to be between the atheists and these people and ignorant soccer moms.
I don’t see a lot of garden-variety Methodists, Presbyterians or Episcopalians getting too worked up over much of this crap.
Actually, it’s rather more likely the faithful would be the ones cheering it on, given the way the faithful behave towards women and religious minorities, given the chance. Except the Quaker faithful, of course, since they are the ones being executed.
God has no authority at all, being both imaginary and unelected.
Deists, mostly IIRC; these days they’d likely be atheists, given the intellectual backing evolution has given atheism. Not that it matters, since whatever religion they were they did not intend America to be a “Christian nation”; that’s modern Christian historical revisionism.
It “proves” nothing of the sort.
So ? Scripture is wrong all the time, both morally and factually.
That doesn’t mean that the US would “vanish”; racism and sexism are just as intertwined, and if they vanished tomorrow, the US wouldn’t vanish either. And if I’m wrong and it did, that’s a pretty good reason for why America “vanishing” would be a good thing.
Answers like “beat up gays”, “keep women barefoot and pregnant”, and “fly planes into skyscrapers” ? There is no God, there is no evidence for God, and the ideas people say they get from God are terrible ones.
You mean they might act like civilized and rational people ? How terrible !
No, removing religion from politics makes government less abusive, as a rule. And it’s putting religion in government that makes government “God in God’s absence”, because there is no God - or if there is one, he says and does nothing. In a government run in God’s name, “God’s” opinion is simply whatever those in power want it to be. Running your life or a government according to “God’s will” is simply complete and utter licence to do anything, without restraint or conscience. Since “God’s will” is always identical to the will of the believer, following God’s will amounts to sociopathy.
Actually there is a way, and it is stated in scripture in various forms. The best way to counter a wrong belief of a believer is to point out scripture to the contrary, if he was truly wrong and you pointed out his error I would expect him to thank you. Now if you want to point out he is wrong because their is no God that’s a whole 'nother animal
In absents of knowledge of scripture I would suggest asking him what would Jesus do, and what would Jesus want you to do.
Many people would not only disagree with you, but back it up with personal experience.
And contrary to the example you like to bring out, where people intentional distort the message of God to bring death and destruction - which is not religion, religion has been a great positive influence, while state as ‘god’ has brought about some of the worst oppressions and atrocities humanity ever knew, add to that the intentional distortion of religion and I’d say that most of the atrocities were and will be committed by non-religions or various forms of worship of the evil one.
:rolleyes: Oh, come on. People have been doing that to each other for centuries. Responses like “heretic” and “Infidel” have been far more common than a thank you. That’s not the “best way”; it’s useless at best, and can easily spark violence at worst. The best way, at least practically, is either superior force ( like banning by law stoning of heretics or mandating vaccinations whether the believers like it or not ), or letting nature take it’s course and letting them ruin themselves or die.
And if the answer is "As Jesus said, ‘I come not to bring peace, but a sword’ ! DIE HERETIC ! " ?
And they are either deluded or liars. An assertion without evidence that you got a vision from God doesn’t “back up” anything.
First, there’s no need at all to distort the “message of God” to produce death and destruction; it requires distortion to make it bring anything but death and destruction. Second, I see no reason to consider religion a great positive influence; I regard it as the greatest negative influence that has ever existed. And finally, I actually agree with you that much evil has come from “worship of the evil one”; the evil one in question being God.
Thanks for the explanation; I agree that your citation is consistent with your original description of it.
Forget it, Der Trihs, it’s like debating someone who believes Tinkerbell will show up and save the day.
Same as you, then. I see some words, but why should I believe you wrote them? Just because you say so?
Because there is rather more reason to believe in the existence of fellow humans posting on the same Internet you use, than an undetectable physics-ignoring non material critter who communicates by methods which conveniently can’t be detected.