putting religion in it's proper place

[gaffo]

oh joy, just noted i have an exra hour here, and to sleep before work tomorrow...........

[Immanuel Can]

Is China, Russia and the likes totally & purely socialist??
No they are not.

That argument is a bait-and-switch game.

According to today's Socialists, there has never been any Socialism so far. All the failed regimes of the past were "not pure." And then they want us to believe that the NEXT regime, the one they want to establish, would finally be the "pure" one.

One wonders how arrogant they can possibly be. The people in Russia, China and elsewhere, they want you to believe, were fools. And today's Westerners are wise in all the ways in which the North Koreans, the Zimbabweans, the Cubans and Venezuelans were stupid children. And we should now trust today's Socialists, because they alone are "pure," and mature, and would do Socialism right.

No thanks. We can't afford the corpses.

It is not a 'bait and switch' at all.

Yeah, it is. Every time, the Socialists promise "the good society." What we get is corpses.

Every??
I don't agree with this fallacy of faulty generalization.

Then name the actual Socialist regime (not the nonsense about "Nordics", which have very little actual Socialism, but one in which Socialism actually runs the system) that has not been an economic and human rights disaster.

You cannot blame socialist regimes like Russia, China and others as total failures,

In human rights? Absolutely, you can. In economics? Russia tanked out, and the only viable elements of China's current economy are "Red Capitalist," not Socialist anymore.

Failure in every dimension, I would say.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Then name the actual Socialist regime (not the nonsense about "Nordics", which have very little actual Socialism, but one in which Socialism actually runs the system) that has not been an economic and human rights disaster.

But socialism and conservatism are ranged on a continuum. When you write your polemics if you were influential you would be an agitator.

[attofishpi]

gaffo seems cheesed off at my statement here in red..(to sculptor)

Says you, someone that has NO experience and is extremely unlikely to ever be given any experience from God\'God' since IT requires a degree of faith first.

You do not know me.
I was a born again Christian when I was 14.

Really! No wonder you became atheist.

?? very haughty of you to assume knowledge of Athieists and why we are so.

I didn't assume anything you muppet. The fact that Sculptor advised he was a Christian at age 14 is irrelevant to my statement.

You should with your level of intelligence manage to grasp that I was inferring the fact that FAITH is required for gnosis. As in, God is unlikely to reveal its existence to an atheist.

around time Scupture became born again (assuming we are the same age), i lost my Christianity (never beging born again - only born into) and lost it at age 12.

42 yrs later still Athiest.

stick with your own kind - Chrstians, better yet dont even speak for them, speak only for yourself.

you nothing about me nor sculture, let alone "Athiests" so just shut the fuck up about why you think we ARE, and instead be Humble (a virtue) - and assume you don;t know anything about "us", and then ask us questions as individuals - not "athiests".

Er, actually I do know the ONLY thing I was referring to about Sculptor and now YOU.

YOU ARE BOTH ATHEISTS.

Are you drunk or do you have some sort of split personality issue?

[Immanuel Can]

But socialism and conservatism are ranged on a continuum.

What you'll see is that so-called "Socialist" countries, like the Nordic countries, are successful only to the degree they are not Socialist in various aspects of their economies. But in every aspect in which they are using Socialism, they are diminishing individual freedoms and choice, bleeding money, and being unsustainable. They only keep going to the degree to which they incorporate non-Socialist economic and distribution practices.

So, for example, the reason China is growing economically is because of "Red Capitalism." Every Socialist state that only uses Socialist economic practices ends up in the ash can, with places like Russia or Venezuela.

Not much of a "continuum," that.

[Sculptor]

You do not know me.
I was a born again Christian when I was 14.

Really! No wonder you became atheist.

?? very haughty of you to assume knowledge of Athieists and why we are so.

around time Scupture became born again (assuming we are the same age), i lost my Christianity (never beging born again - only born into) and lost it at age 12.

42 yrs later still Athiest.

stick with your own kind - Chrstians, better yet dont even speak for them, speak only for yourself.

you nothing about me nor sculture, let alone "Athiests" so just shut the fuck up about why you think we ARE, and instead be Humble (a virtue) - and assume you don;t know anything about "us", and then ask us questions as individuals - not "athiests".

you are being a dick in your reply - so returned the favor.

reflect Sir.

Stick it to that mutha!!

[Sculptor]

gaffo seems cheesed off at my statement here in red..(to sculptor)
Are you drunk or do you have some sort of split personality issue?

You'd do well to STFU. Since you have nothing to offer.

[attofishpi]

gaffo seems cheesed off at my statement here in red..(to sculptor)
Are you drunk or do you have some sort of split personality issue?

You'd do well to STFU. Since you have nothing to offer.

Actually, one of the things the sage insists is that I teach. So telling me to Stop Teaching Fuck Ups isn't going to stop me helping fuck-ups like U.

[Sculptor]

gaffo seems cheesed off at my statement here in red..(to sculptor)
Are you drunk or do you have some sort of split personality issue?

You'd do well to STFU. Since you have nothing to offer.

Actually, one of the things the sage insists is that I teach. So telling me to Stop Teaching Fuck Ups isn't going to stop me helping fuck-ups like U.

There is no "Sage".
You are not a prophet.
You are just a very naughty little doggy.
Now run along, have a poo in the garden and off to BED!!

[attofishpi]

You'd do well to STFU. Since you have nothing to offer.

Actually, one of the things the sage insists is that I teach. So telling me to Stop Teaching Fuck Ups isn't going to stop me helping fuck-ups like U.

There is no "Sage".
You are not a prophet.
You are just a very naughty little doggy.
Now run along, have a poo in the garden and off to BED!!

Hey, I just got up! I am not a prophet, but I intend to profit.

[Belinda]

But socialism and conservatism are ranged on a continuum.

What you'll see is that so-called "Socialist" countries, like the Nordic countries, are successful only to the degree they are not Socialist in various aspects of their economies. But in every aspect in which they are using Socialism, they are diminishing individual freedoms and choice, bleeding money, and being unsustainable. They only keep going to the degree to which they incorporate non-Socialist economic and distribution practices.

So, for example, the reason China is growing economically is because of "Red Capitalism." Every Socialist state that only uses Socialist economic practices ends up in the ash can, with places like Russia or Venezuela.

Not much of a "continuum," that.

Do you know what 'simplistic' means?

[Scott Mayers]

That the socialist 'regimes' have defaulted to what the American's First Amendment asserted with better clarity, does this include such systems that declared a divorce of religious people's right to impose laws that have no basis in JUSTIFYING lawmaking?

Sorry, Scott...I've tried three times to understand this sentence, but I just don't know what it means. Can you reword?

America's First Amendment was intent on preventing any PARTICULAR religious ideology from imposing laws based on the general because-God-says-it-is-right type of mentality. When we elect someone to represent ALL people, those who rule without consent to the people do so by declaring Nature (via God) as favoring their particular action. This is done to evade ACCOUNTABILITY and is a free get-out-of-jail type of leadership.

So,...

Governments by and for the people in ANY system cannot properly represent people if it favors ANY PARTICULAR religious laws.

If we drop the word "religious" in that sentence, we see that your statement is evidently not true at all. There's nothing inherently wrong, and everything quite right, in a government favouring particular laws. But when we add the word "religious" back in, we can see it still doesn't change that. What's wrong with choosing a law, for a government by and for the people, that ALSO happens to be supported by one or another religion? That would seem quite fine.

For example, only Christianity and Judaism provide rational grounds for our conception "universal human rights." Western secularism, such as that of the Americans or the UN, also assert "universal human rights." Did universal human rights suddenly become a bad idea for no other reason that a particular religious view -- Judaism or Christianity -- ALSO assert universal human rights?

...this is irrelevant because while one may have some particular religious affiliation or belief about some part of Nature speaking to or through them, when assumptions about what is 'right' or 'wrong' is relative and/or arbitrary, we cannot have our government acting on the JUSTIFICATION of some action as due to some particular assumptions not originating with people.

Why would you think it alright to permit your particular religion but not some others?

Also, considering that 'governments' are just 'management organizations' in general, just as a corporation or other potential voluntary organizations, would you think it fair to have a management system run by a tyrant? I mean, if it doesn't matter that they declare their 'superior' powers decide without concern to the humans who placed them in power, why should it even matter if a collection of people (a 'democracy') opts to rule with the same arrogance? That is, if you think that socialism, for instance is abusive, ask yourself how it matters if they too behave arbitrary relative to you?

Government IS a 'social' construct that prior to America, was run by arbitrary rulers who only thought of their own purposes to make laws. The reason of the First Amendment's inclusion to deny the management systems (particular elected governements per term) elected BY THE PEOPLE a right to make laws that establish particular religions was to evade dictators.[Note that the present American system needs to redress that to clarify the extention to 'specific cultures', which extend religious issues to non-religious forms of bias that we saw in places like the old Soviet Union. Religion evolves FROM prior non-religious or secular justifications that get lost in time. So even behaviors that are not 'officially' of some religion, still act AS religions or evolve to become them.]

There is a sense in which this was true...namely, that the State became a kind of "god" endowed with supreme virtues by the minds of many of the followers of Socialism, and they "worshipped" it. But on the face, that statement is false. Marx himself called the elimination of religion "the first of all critiques" for Communism. And the Soviets turned churches into museums, and shipped religious people off to the gulags. The Maoists in China are still rounding them up and killing them. We could go on to speak of all the Socialists states.

There is no alternative that government should evolve AS the people's 'religion'. But it lacks specificity when it doesn't favor only some small subset of the population who DICTATES through their religious beliefs about what is 'right' or 'wrong'. Take abortion, as a prime example. HOW does this belief act relevant to today's societies? That is, how is it right that someone else of a religious-only stance think it appropriate to argue that abortion should not exist on the mere basis of disfavoring some God? The original secular reasons were plenty. In the past, there was sincere reasons to question someone to literally induce harm when such attempts could not be done safely prior to modern medical procedures. In the past, a couple in marriage, if permitted a right to abort, took away the power of understood contracts away from the male of the pair, which can (and still does by some) harm where considering things like inheritance. Most people in the past were also religious (the democratic majority of the times) and they presumed life to be 'sacred' acts of Gods thought to be the cause of impregnation. As such, to abort seemed to represent something that goes AGAINST Nature ('God' by extention).

We do not have a populous that agrees to which God or none to have justified natural behaviors. As such, the modern ideal of democratic systems (ie, governments), are to represent as much of the population's opinions as is possible. The one factor that cannot be proven NOR disproven regardless of how much argument or debate occurs, is to whether some statement of belief is itself as 'natural' as physics. The religious arguments for laws tend to merely STATE their beliefs and BEG that they be abided by with the presumption of 'superiority' over all others regardless of the other's concerns. As such, religious stated beliefs tend to be AGAINST a 'freedom' to express these issues if and where they have the power to dictate them in their laws.

Religious ideas are immature, irrational, and threatening if IMPLEMENTED in laws. It is still fair to SPEAK one's opinion without requiring rational arguments. But where it comes to governing, those who believe in Gods as the source of moral behaviors tend to find means to remove the power of free speech, as did the King of England during their imposed superior power to affect the American colonies' rights to trade locally. The guarantee of free speech permits ALL people's right to express but to limit the power of some government of particular religious ideals is a way to demand that when laws are made that they have to be approved BY THE PEOPLE. This cannot occur if some government gets in and then asserts God spoke to them in the night and told them that those who speak against him are 'evil', and then use this to justify taking away the right of others to ALTER the system from then on.

China? North Korea? Venezuela? Cuba? I can assure you that you are quite wrong about that.

You keep associating "Communism" with some form of Satan-worship, as though they are some decrepit criminal conspirators wanting to capture and torcher people. This is a faulty conservative tactic of RHETORIC that lacks sincerity to the LOGIC regarding religious issues. All that I (or other atheists) are minimally concerned with about any system of management (such as government) is that when one has a religious conviction about something they assert or trust is true, they lack direct means to compete logically by fair negotiating among others that are not like them. The tendency of those with wealthier wallets to BE such religious people tells us more that they are merely at a loss to defend their own reasons for CONSERVING their power that is sufficiently accepted by the majority of those born into this world without inherent power to rise to the same fortune. Religion then gets IMPOSED upon the poor: "You are not successful because you don't try; If you are unsuccessful, it is because you EARNED (deserve) it!" How can you compete against those in power who say this? If you take such beliefs, this only favors the wealthy while they snicker at you at how gullible you are. It promotes a conservation of poverty that simultaneously keeps those with fortunes from giving up their share AT their expense.

[Immanuel Can]

America's First Amendment was intent on preventing any PARTICULAR religious ideology from imposing laws based on the general because-God-says-it-is-right type of mentality.

Hmmm.

It was actually created for the opposite: for the prevention of government's "abridging" religion, meaning making edicts to prevent it. One's beliefs were to be guarded by a right of free conscience. It was not the government it was designed to protect: it was the "religions." So you're about half right, there.

When we elect someone to represent ALL people, those who rule without consent to the people do so by declaring Nature (via God) as favoring their particular action. This is done to evade ACCOUNTABILITY and is a free get-out-of-jail type of leadership.

This hasn't happened in the entire history of the United States, actually. So I can't imagine what you're talking about...it must be some sort of Dictatorial Theocracy, but I can't imagine which one.

...when assumptions about what is 'right' or 'wrong' is relative and/or arbitrary, we cannot have our government acting on the JUSTIFICATION of some action as due to some particular assumptions not originating with people.

But you've got that wrong. If judgments about right and wrong are "relative and/or arbitrary," then nobody needs to pay any attention to them, because they cannot be "justified" at all.

Why would you think it alright to permit your particular religion but not some others?

No. I'm with John Locke on that. We all have an unalienable right to free conscience, and those who prevent free conscience are acting against God, who gave men free conscience and holds them ultimately accountable for themselves, individually. So even wrong and bad "religions" are to be permitted, if they do not issue in direct harm. People have to be left free to choose how they will live, die and be judged by God.

... would you think it fair to have a management system run by a tyrant?

Of course not. That's a strange idea.

That is, if you think that socialism, for instance is abusive...

I think human beings are often "abusive." Socialism just gives them broadest scope to be abusive, because it quickly dissolves into an ideological dictatorship...as we have abundantly seen from Socialism's own history.

The reason of the First Amendment's inclusion to deny the management systems (particular elected governements per term) elected BY THE PEOPLE a right to make laws that establish particular religions was to evade dictators.

This is incorrect. The first amendment was to hedge against monarchist-style governments, or even democratic ones, denying the rights of "religions" as a free exercise. I've studied your history...I know.

Take abortion, as a prime example. HOW does this belief act relevant to today's societies? That is, how is it right that someone else of a religious-only stance think it appropriate to argue that abortion should not exist on the mere basis of disfavoring some God? The original secular reasons were plenty.

Whoa, Tiger. You're taking for granted that something called a "right to abortion" exists. It does not. Nobody has the right to murder another human being, nor should anyone ever have one.

However, a woman does have a right to her own body, given by God...to the extent that she is responsible for what she does with her body, and will answer for it at the Judgment. She exercises that right by whom she decides to sleep with, how, and when...not by killing babies.

Abortion is a moral disaster for everyone. So it's a particularly poor example for you to select. No "rights" exist concerning it, except the right of every person to be allowed to live.

Religious ideas are immature, irrational, and threatening if IMPLEMENTED in laws.

Heh. There are plenty of secular ideas that fit that description, for sure. But your claim depends on what "religion" you're talking about, because they're quite different, and rationalize different laws.

Have you ever asked yourself if it isn't consummately arrogant for secular persons to assume that their own view is the only legitimate one, especially when Atheism cannot show anything is legitimate? It's all too easy for somebody to assume their own view is unimpeachably good because they are the only right one; but if secularism assumes that, then how does it get off with indicting religious views for being "too narrow"? Some religious views are at least tolerant...secularism of that sort, not so much.

China? North Korea? Venezuela? Cuba? I can assure you that you are quite wrong about that.

You keep associating "Communism" with some form of Satan-worship,

I have not said this even once.

That said, Socialism is naive about human nature, and human nature contains possibilities of evil. If Socialism were right about the leaders always being unwaveringly good, kind, generous, public-minded and unselfish, then Socialism might work; but it's dead wrong about that, and because it's wrong, people end up dead.

We can't afford that kind of wrongness.

Religion then gets IMPOSED upon the poor: "You are not successful because you don't try; If you are unsuccessful, it is because you EARNED (deserve) it!"

Well, I can grant you this: that would be true of Hinduism, say...it holds that if you're a poor "Untouchable" it's because of your karma; and it's your dharma (duty) to be untouchable. That's why Hinduism is not a charitable religion. But that's patiently untrue of many other religions, which are often rather charitable to the poor -- statistically, vastly more charitable than secularism ever has been. The truth is that most humanitarian work, most educational, medical, anti-poverty, prison-reform and finance charities are affiliated with a "religion." Check it out.

Perhaps I can speak plainly. I think you don't know much about "religion," actually, Scott. You seem to think you can lump them all into the same thing, and then dismiss the whole bunch at once. Meanwhile, you're not presently speaking as if you're very reflective about your own secularism, if you don't mind me pointing that out.

Thanks for your thoughts, though. You are an interesting person to talk to.

[Greatest I am]

"It was actually created for the opposite: for the prevention of government's "abridging" religion, meaning making edicts to prevent it."

Many laws prevent religions from doing what their creed tells them to do.

That is why the brain dead religionists cannot stone gays and fornicators or unruly children, as they would want to.

If secular law had not brought the inquisitionist and jihadist religions to heel, we would likely have to outlaw the murderous mainstream religions.

Good riddance to the homophobic, misogynous and satanic gemocidal god lovers.

Regards
DL

[Sculptor]

More harm has been done in the name of religion than any other cause but profit. And to say that most of it was not good or legitimate religion is another mark against it for being so easily corruptible.

Jesus was a socialist.
How is it that in the USA it seems to be the right-wing who are the most obsessively Christian.
How can it be that Trump ordered the police to crush a peacefull BLM rally in DC, so that he could wave a Bible for a photoshoot after dragging citizens off the patio of the church in chains?