don't listen to g@lt's bs, man. it is impossible to abolish religion. soviets hammered it to the point of desperation so that it wouldn't be able to pose any serious competition for soviet ideology, but they never tried to actually destroy religion.Spark wrote:
They brought it back during WWII, didn't they? Don't remember if it was temporary though.
You're missing the point.Shahter wrote:
don't listen to g@lt's bs, man. it is impossible to abolish religion. soviets hammered it to the point of desperation so that it wouldn't be able to pose any serious competition for soviet ideology, but they never tried to actually destroy religion.Spark wrote:
They brought it back during WWII, didn't they? Don't remember if it was temporary though.
no, i don't. you was a replying about how soviets didn't base anything on religion, which is... well... true. sorta. soviets had what i'd call an "organized atheism" in place - and that, if you have a closer look, is just another side of the same coin.Jay wrote:
You're missing the point.Shahter wrote:
don't listen to g@lt's bs, man. it is impossible to abolish religion. soviets hammered it to the point of desperation so that it wouldn't be able to pose any serious competition for soviet ideology, but they never tried to actually destroy religion.Spark wrote:
They brought it back during WWII, didn't they? Don't remember if it was temporary though.
well... i'd say it takes about the same level of loonacy to actually beleave in communism and its principals that it takes to beleave in religion.Uzique wrote:
yes but shahter the soviet union wasn't organised around a RELIGIOUS principle or belief system, was it?
yeah, but look the the methods soviets used, propaganda and blatant indoctrination they imployed, symbolism - even certain... ehm... mysticism so to say. that 's not religion in its classical sence, but very much alike in a lot of ways.it was a government with an ideology and system quite separate from religious belief or theology.
i understand that. what i was trying to point is that ussr is a bad example - what they had in place of religion was exactly the same shit only deffirent color.that's what we're arguing: that you can have a society with morality and laws that do not depend upon religion. arguably all western societies in modern history stem from 'christian values', but that's getting into a chicken-and-egg argument, again.
and isn't law derived from some form of moral code and consequence?Jay wrote:
A moral code? Then you mean law.lowing wrote:
Any organized society that have set moral guidelines they follow. I would include tribes, since tribes have "chiefs", "elders" etc....Uzique wrote:
well how do you define 'government'? a political power structure? tribes are a form of (self) government.
I do not see how you can have a govt. without a rule of law or moral code established. and for me the question becomes where did that moral code derive
You are correct. Any system of government requires two basic pillars to be considered government: a justice system and a system for common defense. Anything else is window dressing. Those two are the foundation.
lowing, you might be surprised to find out that in most cases in human history, secular law came first and was implemented via religion. Egyptian Pharaohs were considered gods as well as kings. Instead of standing before their people as king and demanding obedience, they simply took the form of a god and threatened people in that way. Threatening people's lives only has so much effect. Threatening their eternal soul or whatever tends to scare people quite a bit more.
A more modern example would be what Henry VIII did. He wanted a divorce (several) and the Catholic Church wouldn't grant him an annulment so he told the Pope to piss off and made himself the head of the Church of England. I wonder if he granted himself his divorces.
So they both get their way and use religion as a tool to get it. I'm fairly certain that Henry VIII didn't give a fig about religion otherwise.
No, law = moral code.lowing wrote:
and isn't law derived from some form of moral code and consequence?Jay wrote:
A moral code? Then you mean law.lowing wrote:
Any organized society that have set moral guidelines they follow. I would include tribes, since tribes have "chiefs", "elders" etc....
I do not see how you can have a govt. without a rule of law or moral code established. and for me the question becomes where did that moral code derive
You are correct. Any system of government requires two basic pillars to be considered government: a justice system and a system for common defense. Anything else is window dressing. Those two are the foundation.
lowing, you might be surprised to find out that in most cases in human history, secular law came first and was implemented via religion. Egyptian Pharaohs were considered gods as well as kings. Instead of standing before their people as king and demanding obedience, they simply took the form of a god and threatened people in that way. Threatening people's lives only has so much effect. Threatening their eternal soul or whatever tends to scare people quite a bit more.
A more modern example would be what Henry VIII did. He wanted a divorce (several) and the Catholic Church wouldn't grant him an annulment so he told the Pope to piss off and made himself the head of the Church of England. I wonder if he granted himself his divorces.
So they both get their way and use religion as a tool to get it. I'm fairly certain that Henry VIII didn't give a fig about religion otherwise.
I think ancient egyptian belief went deeper than just worshipping a pharaoh. How did the first pharaoh get to power? Something had to convince the people he was a god.
Last edited by Jay (2011-04-03 10:14:59)
well I will say religion was probably the earliest form of govt. imposed on the people. I think this, because like I said, there is no example of govt. that had no religion before it. and like you said, it is a chicken and egg discussion.Jay wrote:
No, law = moral code.lowing wrote:
and isn't law derived from some form of moral code and consequence?Jay wrote:
A moral code? Then you mean law.
You are correct. Any system of government requires two basic pillars to be considered government: a justice system and a system for common defense. Anything else is window dressing. Those two are the foundation.
lowing, you might be surprised to find out that in most cases in human history, secular law came first and was implemented via religion. Egyptian Pharaohs were considered gods as well as kings. Instead of standing before their people as king and demanding obedience, they simply took the form of a god and threatened people in that way. Threatening people's lives only has so much effect. Threatening their eternal soul or whatever tends to scare people quite a bit more.
A more modern example would be what Henry VIII did. He wanted a divorce (several) and the Catholic Church wouldn't grant him an annulment so he told the Pope to piss off and made himself the head of the Church of England. I wonder if he granted himself his divorces.
So they both get their way and use religion as a tool to get it. I'm fairly certain that Henry VIII didn't give a fig about religion otherwise.
I think ancient egyptian belief went deeper than just worshipping a pharaoh. How did the first pharaoh get to power? Something had to convince the people he was a god.
"Do not commit murder" is both a secular law and a biblical imperative.
"Do not commit rape" is both a secular law and a biblical imperative.
Law is simply a moral code that people decide among themselves or which is handed down from on high. Generally, it's grounded in logic: "I can walk down the street and don't have to worry about murder, yay, I'll be a more productive member of society now".
In the US, our system of laws IS our moral code. Laws change year to year to reflect the national moral conscience. Back in the 1920s, they passed Prohibition and it reflected perfectly the views of the teatotalers in power at the time. Before that it was the suffragists that changed our nation by fighting for women's right to vote. Those laws were a reflection of the current trends in national morality (for lack of a better word). Today we look at something like Women's Suffrage and go 'duh' while the very idea of Prohibition makes us laugh. Times change, opinions evolve over time, morality is subjective and prone to flights of whimsy.
Edit - And as for western nations being grounded in "Christian Values"... the Ten Commandments were ripped off from secular Hammurabi and the Babylonians.
Don't think there is definition of govt. that religion has not played a part in.Spearhead wrote:
I think someone needs to clearly define "government" and "religion" here. those are two very broad terms.
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-04 04:39:18)
Uhh, how is religion used to control the masses here in modern America?lowing wrote:
Don't think there is definition of govt. that religion has not played a part in.Spearhead wrote:
I think someone needs to clearly define "government" and "religion" here. those are two very broad terms.
Govt. is used to control the masses, and I think some form of supernatural belief was probably the first example of that.
Why does anyone even mention the 10 commandments and law in the same sentence. They have nothing to do with each other, or has no one actually read them??Jay wrote:
Edit - And as for western nations being grounded in "Christian Values"... the Ten Commandments were ripped off from secular Hammurabi and the Babylonians.
I thought we were talking about what came first, the chicken or the egg.Jay wrote:
Uhh, how is religion used to control the masses here in modern America?lowing wrote:
Don't think there is definition of govt. that religion has not played a part in.Spearhead wrote:
I think someone needs to clearly define "government" and "religion" here. those are two very broad terms.
Govt. is used to control the masses, and I think some form of supernatural belief was probably the first example of that.
Its more that religions control the govt in modern America, or at least they pander to them so much they might as well be in control.Jay wrote:
Uhh, how is religion used to control the masses here in modern America?lowing wrote:
Don't think there is definition of govt. that religion has not played a part in.Spearhead wrote:
I think someone needs to clearly define "government" and "religion" here. those are two very broad terms.
Govt. is used to control the masses, and I think some form of supernatural belief was probably the first example of that.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-04-04 06:07:15)
Clueless as usual.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its more that religions control the govt in modern America, or at least they pander to them so much they might as well be in control.Jay wrote:
Uhh, how is religion used to control the masses here in modern America?lowing wrote:
Don't think there is definition of govt. that religion has not played a part in.
Govt. is used to control the masses, and I think some form of supernatural belief was probably the first example of that.
LOL OKJay wrote:
Clueless as usual.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its more that religions control the govt in modern America, or at least they pander to them so much they might as well be in control.Jay wrote:
Uhh, how is religion used to control the masses here in modern America?
But again, those same 'laws' you ascribe to christianity were pulled from elsewhere. They didn't simply arrive in the heads of the writers of the bible. They took from elsewhere, made it their own, and passed it on in religious format. For an example of this look at the christian usurpation of pagan holidays. Christmas was Yule. Halloween (or La Dia de Los Muertes) replaced Samhain. Religion is not monolithic. It evolves too. In what way does it evolve? It evolves to reflect the customs and morality of the people that ascribe to it. Do you think Joseph Smith received a command from god that he and his people should become polygamists? No. They simply had far more women than men in the early Mormon church so polygamy became the way to go. They adapted their church laws to cover a real life situation.lowing wrote:
I thought we were talking about what came first, the chicken or the egg.Jay wrote:
Uhh, how is religion used to control the masses here in modern America?lowing wrote:
Don't think there is definition of govt. that religion has not played a part in.
Govt. is used to control the masses, and I think some form of supernatural belief was probably the first example of that.
But how is religion used to control the masses here in modern America? Through laws, that were established through morality, that was established through religious belief and consequence. I mean we have the 10 Commandments and other religious connotations dotted all over our govt.
Question should be, how is govt. NOT influenced by religion in modern america?
Religious types make up a very small, if very vocal, portion of the overall American voting populace. So yes, you are clueless and are picking and choosing stereotypes designed to annoy people, nothing more.Dilbert_X wrote:
LOL OKJay wrote:
Clueless as usual.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its more that religions control the govt in modern America, or at least they pander to them so much they might as well be in control.
Well, it is true that "The Family" (aka The Fellowship) has a lot of power. Also, evangelicals clearly have a considerable amount of political clout despite not representing the majority of the public.Jay wrote:
Religious types make up a very small, if very vocal, portion of the overall American voting populace. So yes, you are clueless and are picking and choosing stereotypes designed to annoy people, nothing more.Dilbert_X wrote:
LOL OKJay wrote:
Clueless as usual.
I understand this, but you asked how religion controlled the masses in modern America. I answered.Jay wrote:
But again, those same 'laws' you ascribe to christianity were pulled from elsewhere. They didn't simply arrive in the heads of the writers of the bible. They took from elsewhere, made it their own, and passed it on in religious format. For an example of this look at the christian usurpation of pagan holidays. Christmas was Yule. Halloween (or La Dia de Los Muertes) replaced Samhain. Religion is not monolithic. It evolves too. In what way does it evolve? It evolves to reflect the customs and morality of the people that ascribe to it. Do you think Joseph Smith received a command from god that he and his people should become polygamists? No. They simply had far more women than men in the early Mormon church so polygamy became the way to go. They adapted their church laws to cover a real life situation.lowing wrote:
I thought we were talking about what came first, the chicken or the egg.Jay wrote:
Uhh, how is religion used to control the masses here in modern America?
But how is religion used to control the masses here in modern America? Through laws, that were established through morality, that was established through religious belief and consequence. I mean we have the 10 Commandments and other religious connotations dotted all over our govt.
Question should be, how is govt. NOT influenced by religion in modern america?
The world is really not as black and white as you wish it to be lowing. Because of the constant evolution that we experience socially, morals change, even (and especially) inside religions. There is a whole lot of gray area out there.
Dude, modern America is about as secular as it gets in the historical era. Pre-historical is anyone's guess.lowing wrote:
I understand this, but you asked how religion controlled the masses in modern America. I answered.Jay wrote:
But again, those same 'laws' you ascribe to christianity were pulled from elsewhere. They didn't simply arrive in the heads of the writers of the bible. They took from elsewhere, made it their own, and passed it on in religious format. For an example of this look at the christian usurpation of pagan holidays. Christmas was Yule. Halloween (or La Dia de Los Muertes) replaced Samhain. Religion is not monolithic. It evolves too. In what way does it evolve? It evolves to reflect the customs and morality of the people that ascribe to it. Do you think Joseph Smith received a command from god that he and his people should become polygamists? No. They simply had far more women than men in the early Mormon church so polygamy became the way to go. They adapted their church laws to cover a real life situation.lowing wrote:
I thought we were talking about what came first, the chicken or the egg.
But how is religion used to control the masses here in modern America? Through laws, that were established through morality, that was established through religious belief and consequence. I mean we have the 10 Commandments and other religious connotations dotted all over our govt.
Question should be, how is govt. NOT influenced by religion in modern america?
The world is really not as black and white as you wish it to be lowing. Because of the constant evolution that we experience socially, morals change, even (and especially) inside religions. There is a whole lot of gray area out there.
Now you are back to addressing the origins of morality and law again. the chicken or the egg? Of this it would appear govt. can always trump religion and vice versa. As I said my opinion is based squarely on the inability to produce a govt. that has no ties to any supernatural beliefs.
regardless as to how modern america evolved in your eyes, it can not be denied its govt.is found in the roots of religion.Jay wrote:
Dude, modern America is about as secular as it gets in the historical era. Pre-historical is anyone's guess.lowing wrote:
I understand this, but you asked how religion controlled the masses in modern America. I answered.Jay wrote:
But again, those same 'laws' you ascribe to christianity were pulled from elsewhere. They didn't simply arrive in the heads of the writers of the bible. They took from elsewhere, made it their own, and passed it on in religious format. For an example of this look at the christian usurpation of pagan holidays. Christmas was Yule. Halloween (or La Dia de Los Muertes) replaced Samhain. Religion is not monolithic. It evolves too. In what way does it evolve? It evolves to reflect the customs and morality of the people that ascribe to it. Do you think Joseph Smith received a command from god that he and his people should become polygamists? No. They simply had far more women than men in the early Mormon church so polygamy became the way to go. They adapted their church laws to cover a real life situation.
The world is really not as black and white as you wish it to be lowing. Because of the constant evolution that we experience socially, morals change, even (and especially) inside religions. There is a whole lot of gray area out there.
Now you are back to addressing the origins of morality and law again. the chicken or the egg? Of this it would appear govt. can always trump religion and vice versa. As I said my opinion is based squarely on the inability to produce a govt. that has no ties to any supernatural beliefs.
You can't have a government completely free of religious influence unless the people the government leads is completely free of religious influence. Government is a reflection of the people, not vice versa. I really don't get your point, or if you even have one.
Last edited by lowing (2011-04-04 07:36:38)
Last edited by Jay (2011-04-04 07:38:49)
Well then, if "YOU CAN NOT HAVE A GOVERNMENT FREE OF RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE UNLESS THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE FREE OF RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE." Then that pretty much answers the question as to religion intertwined in modern America then doesn't it?Jay wrote:
lowing, the United States Government does not have references to common supernatural belief in it. Any references you might point to were added after the establishment of this nation. I will repeat this because you are dense YOU CAN NOT HAVE A GOVERNMENT FREE OF RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE UNLESS THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE FREE OF RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE.
Edit for your edit - Religion predates history. Math and science are relatively new. Universal literacy is even newer. Who knows what will happen in the future, but the trend among humans today is that we are moving away from religion and becoming more secular every year.
