Religulous

[(Q)]

I disagree. They may have brought their religion with them, but I don't think their society was built on religion itself.

"Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America. The combination of keeping Judeo-Christian religious morality in the state, as opposed to the church it's self; and, additionally, setting up our laws based on reason and common sense has contributed to the American Character, and to what is known as "American Exceptionalism."

Our Founding Fathers were religious in a new way, the Judeo-Christian way, and they were the liberals of their day by deducing that our political and human rights come from a power higher than human government; but they were conservative to Biblical morality. There was and still is a connection between God and Liberty; He is the author of it."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html

 

[Balerion]

Funny, considering that most of our founding fathers weren't religious.

 

[(Q)]

Funny, considering that most of our founding fathers weren't religious.

But, it is relevant when you actually do your homework rather than making false assumptions.

 

[S.A.M.]

Funny, considering that most of our founding fathers weren't religious.

No which is why they massacred the natives to replace them with a "perfect society". This is typical of areligious figures who see anyone who is different as a threat to their social system.

What does atheism offer but the opportunity to sit around bitching about theists? Religion offers social order and regulation, guidelines for an ethical and legal structure as well as community and social interactions. American society is based on Judeo-Christian values not atheist principles. Because there is no such animal.

 

[spidergoat]

We offer non-religious approaches to society where we decide what's best for the people, not what's best for an imaginary sky-king.

 

[S.A.M.]

We offer non-religious approaches to society where we decide what's best for the people, not what's best for an imaginary sky-king.

You do? Like what? War on Terror? Structural Adjustment policy? Refraining from signing conventions on human rights? Supplying 50% of the worlds arms? Funding dictators and undermining nationalism? Supporting occupying regimes? Demanding goods and services for paper and using military aggression against those who disagree?

Its amazing to me that a country of people that [claim to ] worship [mostly] Jesus uses socialism as a bad word. Was there anyone more socialist than Jesus?

 

[spidergoat]

Socialism can be secular too. Note that all the problems you mention are just more America-bashing. What about every other successful secular nation? Secularism doesn't mean we are immune from making bad decisions.

I happen to believe it's best when we leave religion out of the process of governance. This tradition has been successful for hundreds of years.

 

[S.A.M.]

This tradition has been successful for hundreds of years.

It has been successful only because of the creation and maintenance of the Third world [as a market for goods and a cheap source of raw materials and labour]. As the Third World improves its economic status using the same tactics, it will start collapsing on itself, because its essentially a house of cards.

 

[spidergoat]

I think you have secularism confused with capitalism.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nope, I haven't, remember Islam was the religion of traders, even those who were not traders [Mongols, Turks] became traders.

 

[spidergoat]

Trading is the same thing, but I still don't see what it has to do with religion.

 

[SnakeLord]

I'll take that as a "no", Sam?

 

[S.A.M.]

Trading is the same thing, but I still don't see what it has to do with religion.

You're the one who spoke of ''non-religious" approaches. But all the approaches in society are through religion, what is a non-religious approach?

I'll take that as a "no", Sam?

You can take it with wine and cheese if you like. Look up any society that abandons its religious values.

 

[spidergoat]

A non-religious approach to trade? Trade almost certainly depends on multi-culturalism, the silk road was one such example.

 

[iceaura]

No which is why they massacred the natives to replace them with a "perfect society". This is typical of areligious figures who see anyone who is different as a threat to their social system.

Once again, it is time to point out that the evils you disparage in the US are closely connected with the religious factions in the US, that colonialism and its various evils were strongly religious in justification and execution, that the religion involved was theistic, and that the less theistic factions of the US have been less involved in these horrors, on average.

Most of the NA Reds that vanished died of disease and tribal war without ever meeting a White, btw. But many were killed by whites and there were several significant massacres as well as battles.

The NA Reds were not massacred to replace them with any kind of areligious society. They were more often massacred because they were heathen, therefore inferior, and a threat to white theists and their "civilization".

The early encounters between NA whites and reds involved many areligious whites, who often married and socialized and lived among the reds without abnormal strife.

The history of the US is full of religious groups seeing anyone different as either a threat or an inferior suitable for servitude. The religions of the US send missionaries, and the missionaries from US religions are often well armed. The Wounded Knee massacre, for example, was in two parts - the first was commanded by a West Point graduate (therefore a theist, then, as US military academies were and are strongly theistic) the second, more of an actual battle, happened the next day at the site of the Drexel Mission (theistic evangelical establishment) which the Lakota involved had burned down - recognizing it as an enemy establishment.

But all of that of course begs the question: say religion is necessary for decent human life - why is nonsense necessary for religion ?

You can say that, but I don't see any society that has been established by atheists. Why do you suppose that is?

The US was established by areligious people - they'd not fit anyone's definition of "theist" today. By established I mean the most significant of the people who made it up and gave it its structure. Many of the Red societies of NA, as well as the Yellow societies of China et al, are atheistic in the record - hard to say how they were "established", prehistory. You appear to be singularly and conveniently blind - or muddling religion and theism, for the umpteenth time.

 

[swarm]

iceaura
The US was established by areligious people

That's not exactly true. There was a disprapotionate number of people in key positions who were not exactly main strean religious, some examples - atheist (Geo. Washington), Deist (Th. Jefferson, Ben Franklin) or Unitarian (John Adams). There were also Quakers and a Huguenot.

But by and far the majority were Church of England (Episcopalian), Presbyterian and Congregationalist.

 

[S.A.M.]

A non-religious approach to trade? Trade almost certainly depends on multi-culturalism, the silk road was one such example.

And? The most successful multicultural societies [India and the Ottoman Empire] have been religious.

 

[SkinWalker]

You do? Like what? War on Terror? Structural Adjustment policy? Refraining from signing conventions on human rights? Supplying 50% of the worlds arms? Funding dictators and undermining nationalism? Supporting occupying regimes? Demanding goods and services for paper and using military aggression against those who disagree?

Its amazing to me that a country of people that [claim to ] worship [mostly] Jesus uses socialism as a bad word. Was there anyone more socialist than Jesus?

More often than not, these are people influenced by religious dogma and doctrine and not secular concerns. Indeed, most secular humanists, progressives and liberals in the U.S. oppose such policy. This isn't to say that the secularists necessarily have a better position; nor am I excluding the fact that there are secular conservatives (very few, however).

But the vast majority of those that approve things like "war on terror" will invoke discussions of "god's will" in the same breath.

I'm not against people having religious belief. But they shouldn't have this sort of domination in our government and national policy.

 

[Enterprise-D]

You do? Like what? War on Terror? Structural Adjustment policy? Refraining from signing conventions on human rights? Supplying 50% of the worlds arms? Funding dictators and undermining nationalism? Supporting occupying regimes? Demanding goods and services for paper and using military aggression against those who disagree?

Its amazing to me that a country of people that [claim to ] worship [mostly] Jesus uses socialism as a bad word. Was there anyone more socialist than Jesus?

Pardon...I may have misinterpreted this, but isn't the War on Terror championed by G.W. Bush, a self proclaimed christian running a self proclaimed christian state? As was structural adjustment policies? Aren't all of those socially unproductive efforts you list mainly championed by the world's largest religious community?

I.e. How was that list showing anything negative about a non-religious society?

 

[Enterprise-D]

And? The most successful multicultural societies [India and the Ottoman Empire] have been religious.

1. How do you associate successful multicultural relations to the respective societies' theism?

2. What exactly do you deem as successful? The Caste system? Islam leaders regarding citizenry of other beliefs as second class and worthy of less benefit? The refusal to acknowledge women as intellectual equals?