That had nothing to do with the fall of Communism. It was trying to keep the USSR
ahead of the USA in weapons etc. they could no longer afford it. and Communism has never worked, not enough people would want to share everything in common(even the first Christians were communistic to start with but that didn’t last either for very long) People in this country call themselves Christian but many do not follow their own 9said) beliefs.
That had nothing to do with the fall of Communism. It was trying to keep the USSR
ahead of the USA in weapons etc. they could no longer afford it. and Communism has never worked, not enough people would want to share everything in common(even the first Christians were communistic to start with but that didn’t last either for very long) People in this country call themselves Christian but many do not follow their own (said) beliefs.
And? That’s not much like religion. “Everyone” actually exists; souls, gods and the afterlife don’t. Faith is a defining feature of religion.
They aren’t close at all. I’ve often called Communism a religion or a very close relative, and been yelled at for doing so. Communism is faith based. And a personality cult is only “secular” because for cultural reasons we don’t like to admit the similarity between worshiping a ruler and worshiping a god.
It’s really hard to have a religion without gods, supernatural morality systems, holy texts, received wisdom, clergy, liturgy, or sacraments.
Nah. A religion is a way of life. The rest of that may just be myth and superstition.
Heh. It’s been a while since I’ve brushed against an unreconstructed Communist, much less one that would get angry at claims that were after all rather ordinary during the Cold War.
It’s the religious people not any Communists who get angry at the comparison. I don’t think I’ve ever actually (knowingly) talked to a Communist in fact.
Should the term in question be on the money? No.
Why did it get there in the first place? Because the folks who wanted to prove how un-Godless America is wanted it there.
Why is it still there? Because religious people freak out if anyone even suggests that it might be the right thing to remove it.
Why do they freak out? Because it’s very important to them to have their religious faith supported in one way or another (or as many as possible) by the government.
Do they admit that’s the reason? No, they lie about it not really being religious and hide behind the BS term “ceremonial deism,” of which there is, at least in America, no such critter.
I don’t care one way or another. I’m not at all religious, but it doesn’t bother me that it is there: it’s just money. Why get your knickers in a twist about something so essentially meaningless? There are so many important things to care about.
Communists don’t worship a ruler! They follow out of fear, modern communists are not truly Communist there are the haves and the have not’s. The first Christians were communistic, they shared all things in common. it doesn’t work for long, there is always the people who want more than their share. There can be godless communists and people who are communists that believe in a God.
Never heard the letters DPRK, have you?
I don’t know what are suggesting.
I had a lovely chat with one, in college, back in the Reagan/Thatcher era. He put forward the very argument which (I think) the “No True Scotsman” fallacy was originally coined to parody. Stalin? Not true communism. Mao? Pol Pot? Not true communism.
At that point, his argument was so obviously circular, I bowed out (um…impolitely, I confess.)
(Later, the college newspaper published a political cartoon, showing his face grafted on to a horse’s ass. So wasn’t the only one to scorn the chump.)
I can think of one rational reason to object: It’s a trivial thing and not worth the time, money, and effort to retool the printing presses just because of someone taking offense.
Now, if it’s as simple nowadays as removing it from a computer, then I go from slightly opposed to totally indifferent.
The presses are being retooled now, anyway, aren’t they? I just saw something about a new design for the $100 bill. Seems to me, that’s the perfect time to remove the thing.
That’s mentioned by Human Action just upthread, actually.
Of course, there would still be the vast political cost of proposing or even allowing the removal of phrase. “Duurrr! Obama is making us atheists like his radical muslim daddy!”