Stuff I figured out years ago.

[Diogenes]

Harvard Prof: If you take away religion, you can't hire enough police


http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/g ... u_take.php



Of course Edmund Burke figured this out about two centuries ago.



The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.

[GIThruster]

It wasn't just Burke. It was in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract. This was all heavily debated for 14 years before the Declaration of Independence was penned, by most if not all our founders. In England and France they didn't institutionalize separation of church and state though they have great religious liberty. Most European states have a state church but still provide huge religious liberty. The US approach is the odd man out, and probably made because of the large number of deists in the constitutional crowd. They were never going to be a majority. What they never figured was that atheists would become so aggressive as to force religion completely out of public functions. Were our forefathers to have foreseen how religion has become so maligned and the separations between church and state (a phrase they did not pen) so abused, you can bet we'd have a state church just like the UK. If they heard that atheists would force the courts to remove nativity scenes, public prayer and common crosses from cemeteries, they would gasp in stark disbelief that we put up with this nonsense. No one in the history of humanity has ever put up with such nonsense. I am always surprised we never see hunting season on atheists. It's just a matter of time before some unbalanced psycho takes a rifle to some famous atheist and although we'll need to lock that person up, he'll get a lot of sympathy.

[williatw]

Well...I find myself in agreement with you two (and the Harvard professor); as an aside hope he has tenure, otherwise he is liable to be forced out. Don't agree with the late Christopher Hutchens about "moral atheism". Sure in theory you could have a viable moral basis without the religious underpinnings but the results in practice seem to indicate that once you get rid or greatly muzzle the Judea-Christian religion you lose the moral governors it provides. Then you seem to either end up being supplanted by some virulent other religion like Islamic fundamentalism (ISIS etc.) or some equally insane idealogy like Communism, Fascism, Nazism, etc. Not a good idea to tell the masses that there is no big Daddy in the sky that will punish them in the afterlife for their misdeeds assuming no other human does in this life.

[Betruger]

Religion is part of "nothing" in: "the choice is the Universe or nothing".

[hanelyp]

The problem with the church of England 200 years ago, the roman catholic church at it's peak, and many other religious institutions through the years, is they become more political institution in religious garb. In my observation this is effectively unavoidable any time government gains too much authority over religion, or a religion too much unchallenged influence in government. The first amendment prohibition on Congress establishing a religion was in large part to avoid repeating the same. There is also an element of keeping government out of where it isn't needed, and avoiding a monopoly of religious authority.

[Teahive]

I do believe that you can have a solid moral foundation without a Big Daddy punisher in the sky, but I don't think that's something worth discussing in this forum again.

There's another area of this argument that doesn't seem to get as much attention, though. The "if you take away" part. I don't think religion is being taken away as much as it is simply failing. Why are there so many atheists and part-time believers? It's not that they've been robbed of religion or that they're being prevented from going to church.

Religions, to me and to many other atheists, simply hold no sway, are unconvincing, literally unbelievable. That does not mean they hold no truths. But if you have to swallow the whole package, and part of that package is badly tainted, then it's easy to see why lots of people refuse it.

[GIThruster]

The problem with the church of England 200 years ago, the roman catholic church at it's peak, and many other religious institutions through the years, is they become more political institution in religious garb. In my observation this is effectively unavoidable. . .

It's not just religious institutions. The problems most people have with the Church as an institution, they have with all institutions. They are the problems caused by institutionalization itself. The problem is, once you create any sort of institution, be it religious, governmental or even corporate, those things people wanted to honor and protect end up being bent to the will of unscrupulous men in the future. Institutions represent some form of power or authority, and bad men go after them like flies to shit. So of course it is not surprise that we have the psycho teachings pop up during the dark ages in the institutional church, or that Skunkworks eventually can not function the way it did and functions instead like the rest of LockMart--a bloated, unguided, soulless, lazy, overpaid collection of people walking in circles. That from the cutting edge they held just 3 decades ago. All institutions suffer this progression into mediocrity and often decadence.

[GIThruster]

Why are there so many atheists and part-time believers?

You can check the stats with Barna if you like, but I don't think Atheism has wavered much in it's popularity. It generally runs about 10% and is as popular as drug addition, homosexuality and several other forms of social deviance. The difference is modern atheists have been pushing the boundaries now for the last few decades, just as drug addicts and homosexuals have, testing the bounds and seeking to popularize themselves and make themselves mainstream. Tolerance for diversity is holding the vast bulk of culture back and allowing these deviant forces to grow. If they can grow without perverting society, then they'll be accepted. If not, they'll be persecuted and pushed back into the closet. Only time will tell but it appears they'll be pushed back into the closet, since they are all still making the mistakes like the gay rights movement back in the 70's and being deliberately offensive to those who are normal.

Normal. Don't object to the term. Normal is not gay, or atheist or a drug addict. Normal is something no one really is, but statistically most are. People in these groups like atheists are not normal, and if they push on those who are long enough and hard enough, those who are normal will push back.

It really just all has to do with deviance. No one cares if you frick your brother, your sister or your dog unless you tell them about it. No one cares if you smoke weed unless they have to put up with the consequences. No one cares if you go to church unless you tell Christians they have to stop displaying a 150 year old nativity scene. Pull that shit often enough and we'll put a stop to that atheist crap by opening hunting season on them. Figuratively speaking of course, but note it is very easy to make atheists uncomfortable and put them back in the closet. All they have to do is piss off enough people and you'll see.

[paperburn1]

That reminds me of a mel brooks movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZegQYgygdw
The Inquistion, what a show
The Inquistion, here we go
We know you're wishing
That we'd go away
So, c'mon you Moslems and you Jews
We got big news for all of yous
You better change your point of views today
'Cause the Inquistion's here and it's here to stay

[choff]

Thought I'd throw this one in for a late night funny. Received an email wanting me to support the U.N. 's climate change goals.

Dear friends across Canada,




The world is about to sign up to a 100% clean energy future! But the goal to completely cut carbon is at risk at the Lima climate talks. Let's flood negotiators with messages now to make sure they know the world is watching, and to stand strong for climate action!


SEND A MESSAGE

Something huge is happening this week -- our governments are about to set a goal to cut carbon pollution completely, putting us on a path to 100% clean energy! This target is now in the draft Global Climate Agreement, but it is at risk.

Right now, Ministers from all over the world are on their way to Lima, Peru to hammer out the agreement. But oil, coal and fracking companies, and countries that want to keep polluting are lobbying hard to pull this crucial target from the text. That’s where we come in.

People power forced through this crucial goal, now we have to protect it! If we don’t, scientists are clear -- catastrophic and runaway climate change is inevitable. Our best chance of blocking back-room deals with polluters is bombarding our Ministers with thousands of messages.

If enough of us act, they’ll know they're being watched and expected to stand strong for the goal of 0 carbon, and 100% clean energy. Send your message now!

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/lima_summit ... eb&v=49807

The Avaaz team is on the ground and will ensure each country’s delegate and media know how many messages have been sent per country, and our messages could even be projected onto screens right in the conference hall and hand delivered to Ministers.

Long time climate activists are saying there is more hope for action now than ever! After hundreds of thousands of us took to the streets in September demanding climate action, the EU, US and China finally started to move in the right direction. Getting their commitment to reduce carbon pollution to zero would be a massive step forward. Let's lock in this progress before the lobbyists can unravel it. Send a message now:


https://secure.avaaz.org/en/lima_summit ... eb&v=49807

For years we've been campaigning for climate action. And now our governments are finally moving in the right direction, but the stakes could not be higher, and what happens next will depend on us. Let’s do everything we can to win the deal we need to save the world!

With hope,

Alice, Iain, David, Emily, Laura, Oscar, Fatima, Ricken and the whole Avaaz team

To which I replied:

Dear Friends,

I have never heard such complete horseshit in my entire life, our governments are selling out to the banksters who have brought up carbon currency, credits and caps. 100% clean energy is another scam meant to ruin the economy in order to bring in a new Marxist dark age, it doesn't work. The only reason they shut down coal industries in N.A. was to keep the price of oil artificially high, they know from S. Africa's apartheid era that coal can be economically converted into gasoline. The only climate change risk is another ice age, we are being forced to prepare for the wrong disaster. I don't want zero carbon, I want 100% carbon, I love carbon, plants love carbon, people who hate life hate carbon.

There is no global warming, the pause is now 18+ years and counting, satellite data confirms the increase in troposphere co2 has been offset by a reduction in humidity causing 16 times greater cooling effect. This has been corroborated by satellite and weather balloon studies. Their is no hot spot over the equator required by the models.

I could go on all day long telling you what complete horseshit global warming is. But a U.N. study shows it's dead last on a list of 16 concerns world wide. But useful idiots like yourselves and the U.N. believe that if they keep throwing the shit against the wall long enough, some of it will stick.

Kindest Regards,

CHoff

[mvanwink5]

CHoff, well put.

[Diogenes]

Well...I find myself in agreement with you two (and the Harvard professor); as an aside hope he has tenure, otherwise he is liable to be forced out. Don't agree with the late Christopher Hutchens about "moral atheism". Sure in theory you could have a viable moral basis without the religious underpinnings but the results in practice seem to indicate that once you get rid or greatly muzzle the Judea-Christian religion you lose the moral governors it provides. Then you seem to either end up being supplanted by some virulent other religion like Islamic fundamentalism (ISIS etc.) or some equally insane idealogy like Communism, Fascism, Nazism, etc. Not a good idea to tell the masses that there is no big Daddy in the sky that will punish them in the afterlife for their misdeeds assuming no other human does in this life.

Christopher Hutchens has an argument regarding the viability of "moral atheism"? I think I would like to see it. I suspect it contains the same sort of flaw as communism theory. A complete lack of understanding of human nature.

[Diogenes]

The first amendment prohibition on Congress establishing a religion was in large part to avoid repeating the same. There is also an element of keeping government out of where it isn't needed, and avoiding a monopoly of religious authority.

I think constitutional requirements prohibiting an establishment of religion were a pragmatic solution of how to deal with 13 colonies all with differing official state religions.


The founders used the term "religion" in the manner we use the term "denomination." It was tacitly assumed by all of them that the US would be some sort of Christian nation, but it was certainly intended that it should be non-denominational. Too many wars had been fought in Europe as the result of Inter-denominational conflicts. So it was just better to avoid exacerbating the religious differences between the states, and leave the collective government above religious conflict.


Now in support of my assertion that it was tacitly assumed by all of them that the US would be some sort of Christian nation, I offer the following two small bits of proof.


Article I Section 7, Paragraph 2.

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.



done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

[Diogenes]

I do believe that you can have a solid moral foundation without a Big Daddy punisher in the sky, but I don't think that's something worth discussing in this forum again.

I cannot grasp such a concept. If you leave out spirituality of some sort, then the whole universe is just a bunch of nuts and bolts. Morality for nuts and bolts makes no sense at all. It's like saying the "morality of chemistry." It's nonsensical.


Eugenics is the morality of Atheism, and there are noises of it stirring again.

[krenshala]

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

While I can see your first point, this one was the generally used method of officially stating the date and may not denote an actually religious preference for the government. It may, but then again it may not.