Religion versus Constitution

I always thought of the USSR as being complete atheist with religion essentially forbidden. I never had considered the possibility of deification of the state. Now that you mention that, it seems to me that while never explicitly stated or overtly implemented, that indeed may have been the effect. The state did intend to be everything to everyone.Except of course the ruling class. They were the men behind the curtain.

This whole analysis does depend on what one calls a "religion", as well as what one calls "atheist".

quote:

---

Except of course the ruling class.

---

And this statement may not make sense, either, depending on what one means by "ruling class".

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

In the context of the message, I meant that the ruling class did not deify the state. They knew they were the state and they were not deities, althought they probably wanted to be treated as such. Yes it does! And despite any number of dictionary definitions and proclamations of respected people, there will continue be be huge differences in how people use the words and concepts of "religion", "atheist", "deity" and the such. The masses will tend to mold the words so that their opinion is, in their opinion, "Right."

quote:

---

Except of course the ruling class.

​

In the context of the message, I meant that the ruling class did not deify the state.

---

What I meant was that the former USSR may not have had a ruling class.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

You (cherry)pick two examples of totalitarian government, both based on slavish devotion to an ideology used as a mask for the authority imposed by a hegemony.What is the difference between them that makes any choice valid?{abe} "Xian" is christian - based on the greek name of the letter "X" {/abe}This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*23*2005 04:23 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's just one of the common ways that the believers discriminate against atheists - the constant and inaccurate association of the crimes and oppression of the Soviet Union with atheism. It's not surprising that you were under that misapprehension. Sure. One example would be the constant paranoia, a belief that the State had powers of survellience that, if real, could only be supernatural in nature.Or speaking or making observances to icons of state leaders, as though the icon was the state leader, right there in the room.Religion.

Let me put on my evangelical hat here.The constitution was written by men. The christian religion was written by god. God knows best! If we become a theocratic state, there will be no possibility of the government becoming corrupt because christians are good people and secularists are bad people.

Hello bkelly; When I wrote the OP, I was basically referring to Protestants, mainly because they seem to be the largest and most vocal group at this current time. I'm not sure that there are any other evangelical groups out there that seem so hell bent on destroying the Constitution as it curreently exists. In a broader sense, however, I guess this thread could include any evangelical group, so perhaps your second definition is more applicable.

Hello Lam: Which is kind of my point...I think. I'm not sure how to put this, but let me see if I can get my point across. Evangelicals say all they're trying to do is make this a better country, while at the same time they're destroying one of the basic principals of the Country...Religious freedoms.
It's all fine and dandy if you're intent is to change this Country into one ruled by evangelical Protestants, but then, it would no longer be the United States of America. So I guess my point (and my primary question) is how/why can such a desire be considered the "American thing to do?"
I can't get my head around it. I doubt if I'll ever understand how they themselves can do it. I'm stymied.

quote:

---

It's all fine and dandy if you're intent is to change this Country into one ruled by evangelical Protestants, but then, it would no longer be the United States of America.

---

Except that the fundamentalist (and, I presume, even some non-fundamentalist but conservative Christians) believe that the US was founded to be a Christian nation, based on Christian (read fundamentalist) principles.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hello Lam,
I just cannot resist this one. I am with you on the first sentence. (I don't know your position but those founding fathers WERE NOT Christians. If you agree on that point, I withdraw the statement)But the answer to the second half is the same as the first. The christian religion and god were created by man so that they would feel better about the world (mostly their fear of death) and could establish control over others. As I have said multiple times, look at the history of christianity. It has been one of brutal conquest and control.Do you have any evidence that god created anything? I mean actual evidence, not self referential texts that people claim to be from god. (Again, I don't know your position but claimed discrepancies in other theories {imagined or real} is not evidence for any deity.)

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

Yes I did indeed. But those two were not intended to be limiting in any way, just examples of religious and secular government gone bad. Just to be fair, I included one of each.Does anyone have an example of a religious based government that was not oppresive and generally bad for the people?Secular governments do not have a great history, but I submit that have been far better than religious based governments. Or maybe I should say secular governments have been less evil and malignant that have theocratic governments.Qualification: To me, dictatorships may be secular, but they are not legitimate governments, they are brutal people forcing their will and control on to the populations.

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

Feudal Japan? I don't know how much oppression we should consider as government in origin, and how much was simply the problem of trying to grow a year's-worth of rice in a country wracked by constant civil war and a warrior caste who had the right to kill peasants for any or no reason at all.

But you still have two examples where government is driven by ideology.That makes it a corrupted "secularism" at best, the "god" being the ideology there. You're going for contrast and picking shades of grey.A much better contrast would be theocracy versus anarchy. Or some Democratic Socialism (if you can't find an anarchy handy).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You asked for evidence from me and you made your own unsupported assertion.The other thing. Americans slaughtered thousands of Native Americans and enslaved millions of Africans. The same thing could be said about every group of people that have ever existed. Just look up at the stars. Where do you suppose those came from? God created them.There is only one god, Jesus is his only son, and christians are his only people.This message has been edited by Lam, 10-25-2005 02:04 AMThis message has been edited by Lam, 10-25-2005 02:06 AM