Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:56 pm
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.
