Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:24 am
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?
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?
If you think that it is alright to impose religious laws,
I do not. And have never said such a thing was "alright."
Communism (or socialism) historically have been religious, not 'atheistic'.
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.
The only surviving communism is in literal communities, like cults,
China? North Korea? Venezuela? Cuba? I can assure you that you are quite wrong about that.
Hitler had more attrocities with clearer evidence than the Communists of Russia's U.S.S.R.
Well estimates for Stalin are as high as 20 million. But the problem of "evidence" is true -- it's harder to prove what's being done when a despot is killing people within his own country, rather than waging a world war. One thing is certainly clear...Stalin was no better, and perhaps even worse, than Hitler.
In contrast, National Socialists
Ummm...this doesn't help your case at all. Did you notice? "National
Socialists".
And, as I pointed out, and that you cannot seem to follow, is that IF there was no GOD, why would the atheist be more at fault for being correct than to the religious persons?
Sorry...yes, you're right...I don't "follow" that sentence. I can't tell what it means. For you write, ..."why would the atheists be more at fault (dangling qualifier) for being correct (about what?) than to(?) the religious person." I'm not trying to be difficult; I just can't understand that wording. Can you reword?
You seem to have some intrinsic belief that Atheists actually BELIEVE in God but are the Devil in disguise pretending to be non-religious.
I'm sorry, Scott...again, I cannot ever remember having said anything like this. Can you point back to when I did, so I can clarify? Or can you clarify what's concerning you?