Side Effects Of The Bible!

[LaylieCalmMind]

I'm not extremely knowledgeable on early communist China, so I'll focus on the USSR. Stalin made a concerted effort to eradicate the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia he went so far as to imprison priests, tear down churches, seminaries, and monasteries among other things. His hatred of religion mainly stemmed from the fact that his mother forced him into a seminary when he was younger, and Lenin's influence on him (and consequently Marxism's influence on Lenin). This attitude towards religion in the USSR carried on for a long time after Stalin died; as they did the same thing to Catholics in Eastern Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

He basically just hated religion. He still didn't have any way to justify his acts beyond the material world. It's not like he can claim his murder is divine. That's where I step off of that issue though, because I'm not well-versed in the history of the USSR.

Basically I don't think Atheism itself was the main cause for the violence, but the various philosophies such as Marxism that call for a completely secular state caused violence for the same reason a Theocracy does. Both of those systems are set up in such a way that they can not tolerate religious diversity or else they would collapse. So yes Atheism can inspire people to violence; it's just done in a different way.

I would call for a completely secular state, in the sense that the government is completely secular, not that individuals can't believe whatever they want. It's good to see you realize theocracy doesn't need a god, look at North Korea. But theocracy is always a terrible thing, and most often it's based upon a religion.

I don't think atheists are terrible people as a whole, but I certainly would argue that faith or the lack thereof does factor into how a person acts.

I would argue that any claim that people of faith (or people of Christian faith) generally act more morally than atheists is based entirely upon personal ideas, and isn't backed up by fact or statistics. I really don't like hearing that faith makes people generally better, especially when the opposite is supported by the actual evidence.

 

[SantoSubito]

He basically just hated religion. He still didn't have any way to justify his acts beyond the material world. It's not like he can claim his murder is divine. That's where I step off of that issue though, because I'm not well-versed in the history of the USSR.

The thing is, Stalin didn't just hate religion, he saw it as an enemy of the Communist state. In his mind state atheism was the only acceptable belief.

I would call for a completely secular state, in the sense that the government is completely secular, not that individuals can't believe whatever they want. It's good to see you realize theocracy doesn't need a god, look at North Korea. But theocracy is always a terrible thing, and most often it's based upon a religion.

I would still have religion play a role in government in some way. Because there are never clear lines as to what "completely secular" is, and eventually you get to the point where you're arresting people preaching against homosexuality on the street (like has happened in England) or you have schools telling kids that they can't bring little candy canes with Bible verses on them at Christmas time (theres a case going through the courts in the US about this now). Completely secular or completely religious governments both lead to suppressing the rights of some group the only difference is the group whose rights are being suppressed.

Basically we need a balance between the secular and religious in government. The UK used to have this with the House of Lords, but now the bishops in the House of Lords just tows the line with whatever is passed in the House of Commons.

I would argue that any claim that people of faith (or people of Christian faith) generally act more morally than atheists is based entirely upon personal ideas, and isn't backed up by fact or statistics. I really don't like hearing that faith makes people generally better, especially when the opposite is supported by the actual evidence.

I didn't claim that having faith would necessarily make people act morally; I said that it affects the way people act. For example a devout Christian would be much less likely to engage in pre-marital sex then an atheist, and the reason is because the Christian's faith prohibits him from doing so. Faith or the lack thereof does affect the way we act for better or worse.

 

[LaylieCalmMind]

I would still have religion play a role in government in some way. Because there are never clear lines as to what "completely secular" is, and eventually you get to the point where you're arresting people preaching against homosexuality on the street (like has happened in England) or you have schools telling kids that they can't bring little candy canes with Bible verses on them at Christmas time (theres a case going through the courts in the US about this now). Completely secular or completely religious governments both lead to suppressing the rights of some group the only difference is the group whose rights are being suppressed.

Basically we need a balance between the secular and religious in government. The UK used to have this with the House of Lords, but now the bishops in the House of Lords just tows the line with whatever is passed in the House of Commons.

Consider me dropping everything but this, as I see them as either resolved or dead-ended. Anyways, the Constitution or otherwise initial framing of the government is what protects the religion. In the United States you have a freedom of religion in the Constitution, so it's a secular right. What I'm saying is that religion can't be a part of the law making process, and I think the US framers got it spot on with the separation.

As for preaching against homosexuality, I don't know about what incidents you're talking about, but I can see it needing to stop if it becomes blatant hate-speech, or encourages violence or other illegal acts. I'm not familiar with England's government nor this issue though. But I'm sure that children can bring candy canes with Bible verses on them into US schools, I'm sure the case won't be resolved to ban that. Children can bring Bibles into school. Now while I would never support the suppression of Christian rights, many Christians think it's one of their rights to suppress the rights of homosexuals or others, which needs to stop.

 

[SantoSubito]

Consider me dropping everything but this, as I see them as either resolved or dead-ended. Anyways, the Constitution or otherwise initial framing of the government is what protects the religion. In the United States you have a freedom of religion in the Constitution, so it's a secular right. What I'm saying is that religion can't be a part of the law making process, and I think the US framers got it spot on with the separation.

This part I do mostly agree with you on. The problem we're having right now in the US is that some groups (like the ACLU) have taken the establishment clause in the First Amendment to mean that there can be no expression of religion in the public sphere or in government. Also you may be interested to know that the US Constitution never actually requires the separation of church and state in fact that phrase is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

As for preaching against homosexuality, I don't know about what incidents you're talking about, but I can see it needing to stop if it becomes blatant hate-speech, or encourages violence or other illegal acts. I'm not familiar with England's government nor this issue though. But I'm sure that children can bring candy canes with Bible verses on them into US schools, I'm sure the case won't be resolved to ban that. Children can bring Bibles into school. Now while I would never support the suppression of Christian rights, many Christians think it's one of their rights to suppress the rights of homosexuals or others, which needs to stop.

For the most part your right; Christians generally don't face limitations on their rights, but in some places the schools in an effort to be more inclusive start trying to curb the rights of groups that they consider exclusive (generally religious groups). Some colleges here tried to do that recently by cutting all school funds for Christian clubs while still providing funds for things like the LGBT club. Eventually the college was taken to court and the court ruled that the college had to provide funds for the Christian groups or cut funding for all the groups. Sorry if that was a little off topic, but it seemed semi-relevant.

Now as for homosexual rights or gay marriage as it is otherwise known. What you wrote would only apply if marriage was a guaranteed right in the Constitution. As it stands the debate over gay marriage is not one of rights, but whether or not it should be allowed and as such it is a matter that is best left for state governments to decide. In the US we can marry whomever we please, within the limits that our state government has set.

It feels like US government and Constitutional law class in high school all over again!