What is religion? ..and why should it be separate from the state?

[sweetheart]

The word "religion" comes from latin roots that mean "to tie, fasten; to bind"
as one is bound in faith to one's beliefs.

The dictionary can tell you that religion is a set of beliefs about the
cause, nature and purpose of the universe, or a fundamental set of
beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons. In
this regard, ANY beliefs you might have, from the substantiality of the
scientific method, to the belief that kissing your boss's behind will
make you free, are all frames of religion.

The constitution itself, and the mythology behind it, is a sort of religion.
In this regard, all persons ascribe to some sort of
fundamentalist beliefs that "tie or bind them"; be they the belief in
language and free speech; the universality of human rights; the original
state of natural law, or that the earth has a molten core.

The state then, is a cult of religion, with a set of binding beliefs,
heirarchies and even heresy, such as exposing ones body in public,
something that is so wholly natural, that it is a crime to not cover
up your sex, as the religion of perverts and sexual dirtiness has
been elevated.

So already, there IS a state religion, in contrast to the
principal "of freedom of religion". Yet that is not genuine. A hindu
who smokes hash is a heretic. A Jain who walks naked is a heretic,
and the cult will arrest them and torture them until they are
cleansed of their heresy.

So then, how can people, in all sincerity, claim that religion has
EVER been separate from the state?

[cornermouse]

1. The state is a set of laws and rules agreed upon by people.

Religion is a set of beliefs imposed on people by their God.

There is a difference.

[sweetheart]

2. That is NOT what religion is

Religion is ANY collective institution of beliefs. Some religions,
like atheism do not have a God, nevertheless, they have beliefs.

Buddhism is a religion that could be said to have no beliefs at all,
rather a way of living.

The belief that "the state is a set of laws and rules agreed upon
by the people" is a belief. You propose it as a binding truth, your
religion in fact. I don't believe that.

The state is a corrupt agency of moneyed elites. Natural law suggests
that there is freedom of religion, something already obvious without
the constitution, and i don't need any state to prove it.

So, in fact, you are proposing a state religion that could be seen
by some as a false religion, that the state is a set of laws. Ha!
Bush and his cabal certainly have disproven that. It is the whim of
the elites.

There is no difference. The rule of law is a religion. :-)

[cornermouse]

3. Religion

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

[cornermouse]

4. Belief

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION

[cornermouse]

5. Law

Main Entry: 1law
Pronunciation: 'lo
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at LIE
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : COMMON LAW b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : LITIGATION (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : CONTROL, AUTHORITY
2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : PENTATEUCH, TORAH -- see BIBLE table
3 : a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>
4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject
5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : JURISPRUDENCE c : legal knowledge
6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
- at law : under or within the provisions of the law <enforceable at law>
synonyms LAW, RULE, REGULATION, PRECEPT, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, CANON mean a principle governing action or procedure. LAW implies imposition by a sovereign authority and the obligation of obedience on the part of all subject to that authority <obey the law>. RULE applies to more restricted or specific situations <the rules of the game>. REGULATION implies prescription by authority in order to control an organization or system <regulations affecting nuclear power plants>. PRECEPT commonly suggests something advisory and not obligatory communicated typically through teaching <the precepts of effective writing>. STATUTE implies a law enacted by a legislative body <a statute requiring the use of seat belts>. ORDINANCE applies to an order governing some detail of procedure or conduct enforced by a limited authority such as a municipality <a city ordinance>. CANON suggests in nonreligious use a principle or rule of behavior or procedure commonly accepted as a valid guide <the canons of good taste>. synonym see in addition

[cornermouse]

6. Government

Main Entry: gov·ern·ment
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r(n)-m&nt, -v&-m&nt; 'g&-b&m-&nt, -v&m-
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : DISCRETION
3 a : the office, authority, or function of governing b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office
4 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : RULE
5 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
6 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b capitalized : the executive branch of the U.S. federal government c capitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: (1) : such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry (2) : ADMINISTRATION 4b
7 : POLITICAL SCIENCE
- gov·ern·men·tal /"g&-v&r(n)-'men-t&l/ adjective
- gov·ern·men·tal·ize /-t&l-"Iz/ transitive verb
- gov·ern·men·tal·ly /-t&l-E/ adverb

[MontageOfFreedom]

7. Umm no, there is a very large and distasteful difference.

In a nation where freedom of religion is allowed by law, freedom of religion is allowed by law. IN a post-mordem world where freedom of religion is confined to fundamentalist christianity, anyone opposing it or believing in other religions is violating the law

Thus out comes the dictatorship and millions of lawsuits.

[cprise]

9. Postmodern argumnets are constantly used by fundies

...to justify the "freedom" to practice their religion ON other people.

Every tradition gives up some habits in order to co-exist closely with others, however. It is a part of social responsibility. The postmodern fundie claim emphasizes only the freedom to do what they want (and ignores the aspect of social responsibility, where they have to evaluate the consquences of their actions in terms that are humane, not god-centered).

[cprise]

11. Now thats a broad brush:

"The state is a corrupt agency of moneyed elites."

Speak for your own government. And this "whim of the elites" BS... again, rather narrow. For the USA in our era perhaps.

You talk about "natural law" without any explicit recognition of humanity. That is a little creepy, a little like social-darwinism.

Human institutions will never work "all the time" like that Japanese car in the driveway. Just because they all are disappointing in this way does not mean they are all the same.

[Az]

13. Just an aside

Atheism on its own is not a religion. It is no more a religion than theism on its own is. Simply put all atheists do not gather together and share in their particular lack of beliefs.

Some groups do come together in the name of their atheism. These groups could be considered atheism. But it takes action beyond simply lacking a belief in god to form the basis of an even loosely defined religion.

[ComerPerro]

64. You're just playing word games. You know there is a difference

[sweetheart]

72. To be frank

I know what "real" religious behaviour is, but when i see this xtian
fundamentalism paraded about as religion, where the ethics and morals of
the living christ are totally dissociated from one's actual life and
behaviour, where religion hs become nothing more than reciting from a
book... i see no difference.

Then i see all books as religion, and those that recite from them living
happier or less happy lives. Some people believe in the force of star
wars, frankly it is one of the largest religious views in britain in
the last census, "jedi". These folks i've met who are "jedi" are much
less inclined to be cruel or war-like, and i found their ethical
basis to be much more sincerely religious.

Well then, any fiction writer that can make a movie, can start a religion. Then it does indeed strike me that, as religion is action,
that those who spend their lives loving others without any book or
credo, are indeed profoundly religious... so religion is really not
a set of beliefs, but a code of living, something that can be innnate
without need for explanation.

Then some people are very scientific, and read read lots of books about
all sorts of stuff, and are very knowledgeable, and often such folks
have better paying jobs due to their educations, and are even MORE
complicit in the white man's slave state, than the uneducated folks
who beat their spouses and watch jerry springer. And in each case,
i would say the moral code of the person, the roots of their behaviour
"are" their religion. That may not pass in a court of law, but it
is what i believe, and between friends, the way i talk.

That religion is not "church" is indeed a fact, and jesus himself,
did not have a church, which should be example enough to suggest in
a judeo-christian culture, that church is not religion, but an
organization of intent amongst poeple... and indeed, such things,
much as businesses have a corrupting influence, and as businesses
did not exist at the time of america's framing, they were somewhat
preoccupied with the separation of church and state, lest one
organizization corrupt the other.

However, in our current time, the churches are "oracle, Microsoft and
Halliburton, and walmart" They are cults lead by charismatic leaders
who take on spreading their ideology with a missionary zeal. Then
indeed, when someone dedicates their life to being a commercial
missionary, THAT is their religion. If they are a closet bible reader
at night, and that gives them wooly feelings, then great, but the
roots of their actions, and collective actions are in the corporate
raider mentality, and if they read pornography at night, their actions
are likely little different, except tehy might feel better about it.

So yes, there is a difference, and no, there is not. All sets of
collective beliefs are religions, unprovable, and if you set someone
on a psychologists chair and ask them to explain their moral/ethical
intent's, they'll all sound like nutters.

[Toots]

102. Atheism is not a religious belief. It is a lack of religious belief.

There is a huge difference.

[sweetheart]

123. The self and the other

To have an objective viewpoint, when the only real fact in life is
subjective perception is an intellectual myth. 1+1=2 is a universal
axiom unless you're not living. Then it is not truth.

Even atheists, have the myth of the ego-self, and support it using
their implied religion of objectivity and science. It is, however, a
faith in a system of thinking that can not be but separate in
consciousness from the universe directly.

To know the universe directly, consciously, is to apprehend that myth
of the objective, that behind apparent objectivity lies intent, and the
self that fuels intent, holds sacred its separativity, and thrives on
it like roots to a tree.

So in this sense, many religions, even atheism, hold sacred elevating
the ego-self, and that is the compulsion of our society, as it wants
people to believe they are ego-driven, as then all people are corrupt,
no heart is pure, and there is no greater good, only "enlightened
self interest" as the social darwinists suggest.

This is why i include atheism amongst the religions of "thought", in
contrast to religion without thought, simple awakeness, speaking in
actions rather than words.

Within the realm of thought, argument and self, indeed there is a
difference... and frankly i find atheists to be great company as they
at least are willing to be open to evidence of truth, whereas those
who carry too much baggage surrounding their ego-self, are not
open to truths that threaten the package.

[cprise]

8. Religion requires faith in the unprovable.

But a constitutional government is the basis of law and is primarily concerned with the human condition (whether or not the state in question is secular or religious). Further, even strict adherence to contitutional law cannot be considered fundamentalism: Rather it is justice. It is understood to be a very human contingency and a matter of interpretation, not as perfect truth. Documents such as the US Constitution anticipate revision, but no one can get away with creating new verses for the King James Bible and still call it by the same name.

All of this makes law more practical than religion (although less fulfilling). People may seek fulfillment (and other things) by mixing them to various degrees, but they each become less effective the more they are mixed. If any transgression may be amplified through earth-shattering religious absolutes, then practical application of priorities becomes lost in the mix, not the least of which is the priority to value human life. At best, the culture of ideas and exploration becomes blunted or disappears.

Banning public nudity is not just arbitrary "cult" morality (although some arbitrary legal morality is handed down from religious law). It is genuinely distracting even distressing to people living in a society that needs to cover up most of the time to stay alive. And that's just for starters. Evolutionary psychology provides insights here.

Reducing all belief and behavior codes to religious-type faith is slippery postmodern nonsense. Ultimately religion becomes cast out of government not only because they have incompatible qualities, but because people of different backgrounds need a secular domain where they can respect each other and find at least a functional common ground. And we are all personally involved in that common public sphere in some way just by walking down the street with others; We all climb down from actual (not aspired) fundamentalism to make that peacful interaction possible. And sometimes we recognize a need to enforce that climbdown through law.

"So then, how can people, in all sincerity, claim that religion has
EVER been separate from the state?"

We will never perfectly embody our ideals. It is the degree and quality of the seperation that counts, and that we can (hopefully) fix our mistakes in law enforcement.

[sweetheart]

10. The nature of the consensus

A constitutional government derives its power from a consensus of all
members. If it fails to include all members, as in denying franchise
through whatever form of disenfranchisement, then its seat is unstable,
and open to the postmodern displacment. It becomes "your" government and
not mine... or in this case "their" government and not "ours". He
is not "my" president. The constitution of corporate slavery is not
my franchise.

So indeed, postmodern or not, it is a cult, this agency of the new
corporate monarchy. It legislates law based on its tyrrany of the
majority, directly against the very principals of the enlightenment and
liberty, that were part of its founding.

However, you start with a constitution, and i don't. I start with
the land of billions of years old, and a people of millions, some say
thousands years evolution on this rock. In this regard, faith in a
constitution of "some" people is not provable either. It is a
consensus amongst slavers. The very argument you present is used to
impose a constitution of a religious cult.

Many nations don't have constitutions, but recognize the freedom of
religion, and by enfranchising all their members/citizens.
In first principals, a constitution, is a not-so-proven success model,
however much "faith" people put in it. As much as you say the law
is derived from a consensus, only if it is inclusive of its members,
and if it is not, the law is religion.

As much as i myself agree with the separation of church and the
secular state, i can't help but see the whole thing as a cult, and
i am left with a sense that i'm sure galileo had, that there is the
cult of the rational majority, that rationalizes itself as the
consensus of law. However, it is, nevertheless a cult that is
ultimately, "majority rules". I reject the religion of "majority rules", would not any sane person?

[cprise]

15. No, I don't start that way either.

I prefer to be a citizen of the world. I focused on the Constitution because that's what you did initially.

Government implies a certain amount of faith in each other as people. Otherwise it would be every person for his/herself... why bother with human-administered laws if humans are irredeemable?


"As much as i myself agree with the separation of church and the
secular state, i can't help but see the whole thing as a cult"

Yeah I'm an American too :-) I don't watch TV and make sure at least 1/2 my news comes from foreign sources. Keeps me much saner. I know there are plenty of good people out there making real progress.

* There is so much hyper-rationalization here: people want to fool themselves as well as others. And the current media market for assuaging WASP/capitalist guilt (or 'conscience management') is vast. But that is because this country has assumed an unprecedented role that has turned it into a complete freak. But rationalization is just the cheap paint over an ugly lie; this is not true rationality.

Majority values and minority rights are always in tension. And what we do with that tension is just as important as the values and rights themselves. This is one of the good things we aspire to in the Constitution.

Is the US Constitution up to the task of fostering prosperity and fairness today? Maybe not. For one, parlaimentary democracy that draws from several economic traditions and many points of view... these countries seem to be leaving us in the dust. Our system of two-brands, one economic ideology is not cutting it anymore.

And yes, the political insularity is stifling. It certainly feels religious... http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0429-20.htm

[H2O Man]

35. Not all religion does.

You are certainly correct that a significant part of the mainstream interpretation of "religion" rests in faith. But it is important to recognize that not all religion does. When I read the heading to your post, I expected to find something more that I would disagree with. Had I not read it, that would have been faith in the unknown. However, I read it, and found that otherthan the heading, I agreed completely with what you wrote. More, I enjoyed the quality of your insight. By focusing in part on the terribly unhealthy attitude that our culture has towards nudity, you made your point in a healthy way.

[Az]

12. Religion in this case is institutionalized religion

If you crack the definition of religion open wide enough it can include stamp collectors. It can include a group that meets regularly to golf.

But the intent behind the seperation clause is to prevent the government from inpeding anyone's search for truth and conversely to prevent anyone's belief from being imposed on the government.

The upshot is that in a secular government the reason behind a particular law or governance must be reasonable. Able to be explained without the necissity of a particular belief set. It must be within the reasonable consensus of a free people.

[sweetheart]

16. However "truth" and proof of truth

require that there be a public media authority that is universally
respected, much as how academic journals are. However, the bush people
reject the 4th estate entirely, saying "everyone is entitled to their
opinion", meaning basically, that in new-media, there are 6 billion
publishers, and nothing is reconcilable, its all opinion, and truth
is whatever "we" (BFEE) do.

So perhaps there is an unwritten religion of the concept of truth, that
was once considered obvious by the constitution's framers, that has
been swept under the rug, along with the concept of the necessity of
the 4th estate.

I'd say, that if you had a stamp collector, a philatologist?, who is
deeply aware of every single stamp in the universe, and has defined their
existance around the mystery of postage stamps, then that person has
indeed the right to freedom of their stamp religion, much as another
person might collect guns and spend a lifetime diddling with them.

Religion is how you live, and if your values are, that a gun solves all
problems, is that any different than the values that loves solves all
problems?

So when truth is disenfranchised that it becomes opinion, and any
person's truth is relative, in a universe of 1 million segmented
television channels, where every citizen watches a custom designed
channel specially tuned to their consumption/marketing profile, have
we not dished out separation of church and state, by undermining
the veracity of truth? Is truth to become a subject in a market, for
which only the wealthy can afford to know whether it is just
relative religion?

Then what is reasonable besides majority rules, plato's blind sea
capitain corrupted by the popular whim, and that is no less the rule
of law than sane monarch, perhaps even less so.

The religion of corporate society; the religion of main stream media;
the religion of might makes right; the religion of petrol as the
basis of culture; the religion of progress. All these mythical
things are unproven, unprovable, yet they are forced on everyone,
that we must adopt them or be disenfranchised. Is this freedom of
religion?

[Az]

19. This is in fact a fundamental problem with Post Modern societies

In order to facilitate a diverse society it becomes necissary to not give any one position power over another. That is each position must allow the others to have a voice in the process.

If these various cultural positions do not dialog with each other or find themself melding in some way it becomes a stagnant situation. Each group only viewing things through their own filter.

The trouble is that there may well be a true way out there. There may be some means of establishing the truth. But once a PM system becomes stagnant it cannot be approached. While alive and pliable a better way can be approached. Silent and stagnant all we can do is glare at each other from our various positions.

[cprise]

36. as a fellow humanist

...I'd like to say that humanism and postmodernism are in direct conflict. Not even a humanitarian world view is possible if certain truths about our common existense cannot he held as self-evident.

After it took hold on the left, conservatives got wise to it and have constantly used it against us since. But ONLY the American left seems to have this problem!

We might as well be on another planet.

When I look at a phenomenon like the World Social Forum, I see people from all over who's efforts have met with success because they are re-connecting with a can-do humanist philosophy. These are people who aren't afraid to assert that some conservative or even indigenous values require compromise or are plain wrong on the grounds of human rights; that some parts of an economy really are better managed by a democratic government; that self-determination has a basis in local economics. And they are not listening to the purveyors of American identity politics telling them that humanism is a white-man ideology. Modern humanism did originate in Europe, but the left doesn't have to feel guilty about it... For the most part concepts like 'ubuntu' really are universal.

[Az]

42. The difference

I think what happened in Europe is that the dialog didn't stop. Post Modernism I suspect should just be a staging phase. A lull in the storm as it were in the conflict between vying cultures.

Ideally what should transpire is that dialog between various positions should lead to consensus. This in turn should lead to adaption and melding of cultures. Forming along paths of moral and ethical codes based on reason rather than dogma. In this way the Post Modern phase gives way to an enlightened phase. People stiving in harmony and reason.

But something happened in the US. The dialog never really took hold. Instead it seems as though the groups retreated to their own niches and formed up amongst their own kind. Without the dialog each side came to know each other less and less. Their basis of reason and thinking became increasingly alien. Until such a time that it was so severe that the social contract was seen as a road block for some rather than a bridge.

Without acknowledgement of the social contract progress is impossible. If enough groups deny the social contract they can easily disrupt any progress the remaining groups try to achieve. Once this starts each group simply retreats further and it becomes every group for itself. No cooperation. No consensus. Just stagnation until one group can dominate the rest.

This is the state of affairs in the US currently. The religious right gave up on the social contract. They refuse to return to the fold. Nothing less than imposition of their doctrine will suffice to them. The only way to contain this is for the remaining groups and positions to cling to the social contract and begin real dialog. The efficacy of this would turn back the single voice of the religious right. But we have so long been silent and dialog has been missing that we have forgotten how to do it.

We have to learn it again and want to learn it as well or a new dark age will descend upon this land.

[gpandas]

50. dialogue is a noun...

even when spelling is wrong. i'm sorry, these double assaults on the language always make me do this.

[Az]

51. If you are going to correct someone be correct

Main Entry: 2dialogue
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -logued; -logu·ing
transitive senses : to express in dialogue
intransitive senses : to take part in a dialogue

Main Entry: 1di·a·logue
Variant(s): also di·a·log /'dI-&-"log, -"läg/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English dialoge, from Old French dialogue, from Latin dialogus, from Greek dialogos, from dialegesthai to converse, from dia- + legein to speak -- more at LEGEND
1 : a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing
2 a : a conversation between two or more persons; also : a similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer) b : an exchange of ideas and opinions c : a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution
3 : the conversational element of literary or dramatic composition
4 : a musical composition for two or more parts suggestive of a conversation

[gpandas]

52. you know what i"m talking about n/t

[Az]

54. I know what you thought you meant

But Dialog is an acceptable variant of the word and it can be used as a verb.

Peace :D

[gpandas]

56. yep when you dialogued me...

on that post, i dialogued to my partner what you dialogued in your dialogue. he dialogued to me, you should should get out of that dialogue.

[Az]

58. Your problem isn't with me

I gave a dictionary definition showing its use as a verb. Take it up with Merriam Webster.

Main Entry: 2dialogue
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -logued; -logu·ing
transitive senses : to express in dialogue
intransitive senses : to take part in a dialogue

[gpandas]

59. what problem?...

of course you were correct. i was merely laughing it up about it. please, don't misinterpret my attempts at humor. it was all in fun, from my first post.

[Az]

60. Ah, my appologies

I was worried and mistook your intent.

[Speed8098]

14. This post is pure flame bait

You should be ashamed of yourself. :spank:

I can take anything anyone says, apply your circular logic and make their words seem ridiculous, even when they aren't.
That's what right wingers do when they are losing an argument based on facts. :grr:

[sweetheart]

18. not ashamed

I'm asking, because i genuinely believe there is no separation of
church and state in america today. Nor do i believe that what most people
call cultural norms, are anything more than a form of cultism, something
that the very principal of freedom of religion, were it true, to deny.

What is it then, when we have a lifestyle shoved down our throats without
any choice except to "opt out", is that not a state religion of sorts?

Do we not have a state religion of war, brutality, torture in prisons
and things taxpayers are coerced in to supporting, things that are
not of my religion whatsoever, but i am forced to adopt a religion
by stealth, the religion of the criminal.

I'm sorry if that sounds muddled to you. I did not express myself
clearly. We live in an effective theocracy, and i've not been trained
well enough in philosphy and political science to explain what exactly
it is that's buggin me about it... but i'm givin' it a go.

[Az]

20. The trick to understanding seperation

A law can be suggested based on a person's beliefs but it must be presented or make sense without the doctrine of the belief mandating it. It must make sense to people that do not share the source of that belief.

[Speed8098]

21. "i genuinely believe there is no separation of church and state in america

I'm really having difficulty with your thought processes.

Nor do i believe that what most people
call cultural norms, are anything more than a form of cultism, something
that the very principal of freedom of religion, were it true, to deny.

Can you please clarify this statement? It hardly makes sense.


I have to go for a little while, but I'll check back later.

I look forward to your reply.

[cprise]

26. sweetie read one too many issues of Adbusters

:D :argh:

[bloom]

108. I'm not the OP, but

just imagine that Quakerism was what the majority of politicians believed.

There would be no military - society would be more evened out economically - we would have universal health care - people would be more encouraged to live simply - as opposed to buying unnecessarily - the cost of electricity would reflect whatever pollution controlling measures were possible - there would be much more encouragement for environmentally friendly services - there would be more public lands and habitat protections, etc.

(Or maybe the society would not be sustainable at all - because it would have been taken over by others with imperialistic values.)

Obviously this is not the religion in charge. One has to assume that the people in charge perpetuate a society that reflects their religious values or lack thereof - their view of the world and their place in it.

[cprise]

24. You want political language to be perfectly descriptive.

But it may never be any better than it currently is as distinguishing 'religion' from 'law' from 'club'. You can find (disturbing) connections between these terms, moreso than with science/engineering terms, but you know that is life. The subject naturally exacerbates the ambiguity of language.

I think Phillip K. Dick went mad over this stuff.

[cprise]

23. I think sweethart...

...is tired of constantly being asked to "believe in America" as the rallying cry against all our problems... and then seeing solutions emerge that are tragically twisted to accomodate the national neuroses we've formed around our VERY old system.

Other countries revise their constitutions, while we speak near-gibberish on TV and tie ourselves in knots over phantoms (manufactured crises).

Americans can't cope today because our national mythos, although liberal, lacks and actively deprecates social responsibility. "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood" demands that the French accept a balance between virtues that often conflict. But our "liberty and justice for all" is much more vague, easily interpreted in extremist terms as: "liberty is justice". We don't have the historical narrative to shore up some of the left's most needed ethos.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demit]

22. soph·ism (s?f'?z'?m) n

1 A plausible but fallacious argument.
2 Deceptive or fallacious argumentation.

[sweetheart]

25. Fallacious my ass

Religion, to me, is actions. It is what you pour your life's blood in
to, your time and your heart. It is against my religion to be coerced
in to supporting invastions, empires of bases, huge subsidies to polluting
industries that destroy the earth, and so many other things, i won't
bore you.

So by being born in america, you are stuffed with this de-facto religion
of practice, by which you must get on the treadmill, work, become more
and more flexible in the labour force.. heck, i've worked in over 45
companies over 20 years... flexible in cities across continents to keep
on the bloody treadmill.... and all to finance a religion that i want
no fucking part of.. ugly white racist imperialism.

Where is the freedom of religion in that? I have no choice whatsoever
at the ballot box for any different religion, and i read a bullshit
first amendment telling me i've freedom of religion and all along a
flag waving SUV cult chants support our troops.... and i'm then told
there is separation of church and state.... what! fallacious?

This media culture has abstracted relgiion in to something you "think"
and bleieve rather than what your life's blood DOES. I'm not buying
your sophism.

[Az]

27. To convince others of these truths you see

You have to convey the knowledge in language and reasons they can understand. You cannot simply claim that they are your beliefs therefor everyone must comply. This is the heart of Church/State seperation. You have to convince others of the merrit of your positions without the authority of religious doctrine to make your claim.

[H2O Man]

28. In other words,

an attempt must be made to find the highest common ground. I would think that most "religious" folks, for example, find no contradiction between their religious beliefs and advances in science. Perhaps no area better reflects this than modern medical advances.

Atheists certainly do not fall into any one group, except the obvious: they do not believe in "God." But I think it is fair to say that a significant percentage of atheiests have a respect for, or are directly involved in, the field of science.

Hence, in recognizing both the "separation of church and state," and recognizing the common good, our schools should be teaching evolution, not creationism or intelligent design; and our colleges and universities should be leading the way in areas such as stem cell research.

It is possible to find strength on that high ground, which is in our common interest; we have little to gain by becoming mired in the bog of the low-lands, where the Dobson's and Robertson's range.

[cprise]

45. Why should people work for the "common good"?

...when they believe that people are inherently sinful or "no good", without the intervention of their particular god?

That's the basis of conservative tax revolt and sabotage of social services: "I'm not giving anything to those monsters." When people buy into misanthropic attitudes, then they become antisocial in this way. Then they either cling to escapism and money, or conservative Christianity where they can feel redeemed in their immediate circle while still hating humanity in general. The "common good" then becomes getting souls saved... earth and humanity's survival on it do not matter.

People begin to find practical common ground when they can at least nomimally accept that other people are deserving and worthwhile FOR NO OTHER REASON than that they are human and possess the same capacity for good.

Most of the people I know are misanthropic... at least more than half. The scary political landscape we now inhabit flows from that.

[H2O Man]

47. I would venture

that the "basis of (the) conservative tax revolt and sabotage of social services" represents the interests of a small minority, and not the common good. If indeed that represented the will of a a majority, and hence is the basis of the common good, then it would be democracy in action. I think that view that more than half the population feel differently is correct, and that is the obvious reason to focus on working for the common good. The foolishness about people being "sinful" or "no good" is a distraction from the topic at hand.

[bloom]

110. "The foolishness about people being "sinful"...

I think it sort of illustrates the point - if enough people share that view - that effects the whole society and what the society is willing to do as a group.

It seems like it could be a reaction of some, esp. racist people, who are not willing to share resources with others who are not like themselves.

[bloom]

109. that is a scary worldview

and it does explain a lot...

"I'm not giving anything to those monsters"


"The unsaved are dead already" (yikes)

[sweetheart]

29. so what exactly is mysterious about action

Is it somehow oblique to see your religion as your actions in life,
your movements, what you pay for and support with your hard work?
Is that not the most primal and fundamental ACTION, the evidence of
religion, not the theory. My buddhist religion is actions.

I write on DU, because i know that i've inside of me brain, the implants
of the republican borg, and if i try to describe them, perhaps others
will see that they are implants, that the emperor has no clothes and
is naked. It is my action, because my heart says its the right way to
oppose the tyranny of the majority.

Its like that guy who wrote "confessions of an economic hit man", that
in his confession, he admits he's been nothing but an advanced LURP
(Long-range Undercover Reconnisance Patrol) of the white mans slave
state... that for all his success, all his life has really been about
is advancing the plantation state.... and his confession strikes me
similarly, that i've as well been an agent in this ugly machine...
and worse yet, it is the flag waving theocracy.

The majority is often consistently wrong, even with logic, as they
reationalize their actions. People rationalize that they can burn more
petrol these days because they need bigger cars, like flys rationalizing
the swatter.

They rationalize that there is no better way than to set up factories
in slave countries and get them in to debt, and i've walked in, in
my own economic hit man experiences, and wired up poorer countries to
the electronic stock market networks so we, the imperial we, could
rip them off and fuck them over.

I was paid and charged to be an agent of empire, by my career, and
part of that, requires that i have no moral fibre whatsoever, that i
sell out my religion to pay my rent, that i am not homeless and broke.

So is that the choice, either i participate in the criminal religion,
or i should take a vow of homelessness and become an ethical bum?

What religious doctrine does one need to explain about buddhism that
suggests that complicity in enslaving others, no matter what their
nationality or race, or killing others, paying for war, paying for
the torture of others, subsidyzing a massive animal killing industry,
killing fish, wales, dumping concrete across millions of acres of
land to sprawl out in bigger and bigger SUV settlements, and supporting
loathsome regimes like saudi arabia, pakistan, and women-repressing
dictatorships with my life's blood. Is that not obvious, cuz
goddamit i've not had a whiff of some grass in weeks, and gosh,
perhaps if i had a smoke i'd just mellow out and say fuck it... there
are no ethics or morals and religion is just some theory that
people bullshit over.

[Az]

32. The source of your reason has no impact on me

I care not whether the path for your reason came from internal examination or a vision sent to you by a god. The only thing that can move me is if you can put the sense of your reason before me within the context that our society has been able to weave.

Our government is predicated on this simple fact. We have to be able to work out the path our society walks by means of dialog within the accumulated boundaries of reason we have developed. Our sense of morality and ethics has developed seperate from the various fixed dogmas that make up our seperate beliefs. There is a shared community of understanding between the sides. It is not an absolute but rather a general understanding. It is made possible by the social contract most of us abide by.

If you cannot find a way to explain to me the sense of your truth then it has little impact on me. If I told you I read a book called truth and it informed me that you must comply with my wishes would you concede? I have given you no reason that fits into your perception of truth.

Our perceptions of truth do not have to match completely. But there should be some areas where they do overlap and in these areas we can find common cause. It is here that we hold forth on matters of governance.

[sweetheart]

40. Ok, so your saying you need a theory

In buddhism, there are basic tenents. One is that karma of your
actions is real, and that evil deeds are paid back in multiples.

As well there is the tenent that all beings are equal in this earth
and that the buddha awakening is in all beings. In this sense, a
buddhist takes a vow to respect the lives of all sentient beings.

This includes not killing, nor participating in killing sentient beings,
nor supporting any enslavement or violence against any sentient beings,
nor supporting any violence against this benevolent earth.

It is indeed not proveable... to me, it is bloody obvious as the
nose on me face, but i realize, like religion is, unprovable that there
is any benefit to not supporting such things.

So yes indeed, it is direct common sense in my mind, not to want to
be part of an evil charade, and to others, it is perhaps something they
don't ask, much like christian fundies who can read the book and then
set about to what in buddhism would be heinous crimes.

So i accept you need not agree with my rendition of truth, but does
your reading of "freedom of religion" imply that the state has the
right to coerce people to violate their religion by paying for such
criminality? Rousseau's social contract, i've no problem with, but
what you infer as a social contract, i'm more suspicious of, as if
the taxes are to support an empire of bases and militarism, then it
is no social contract of JJRousseau.

[H2O Man]

41. "It is indeed not proveable ..."

I would disagree slightly with that. It has been proven to countless people. But it need not be proven to anyone who demands proof.

[Az]

43. We have to guide it by reason

The social contract gives us the responsibility to work issues out with others. But we in America have not been fullfilling our end of the social contract. There is no active interest. Most have fallen to simply letting society get on with it and leaving its guidance to what they imagine is fate.

Meanwhile there are forces in play other than simple human interest that can guide and shape our society. Corporations though comprised of humans operate based on a seperate rule of survival. They have gained far too much influence on our society and its form is taking on an increasingly similar form to their primitive survival of the fittest.

Our social system is far more complex than this notion of social darwinism. And by being broken down by corporate influence we are losing our way. Thus the military and empire respond to corporate ideals rather than human ideals.

In order to counter this dialog between the sides is necissary. Involvement. A desire to find a better way rather than leaving it up to fate. Responsibility.

[cprise]

67. Fundamentalist Christians have not been gaining

...in numbers. They have been declining steadily over the past 20 years, and getting in bed with corps has not been helping. They are about 15% of the population and dropping, while atheists are just under 15% and gaining.

What is changing? The man on the street worships The Brands. He or she is reassured that his (puny) Ameritrade account gives him a 'vote' in how the economy is run. Increasingly he is an atheist who loves technology (and science) ...and a vague social darwinism (or perhaps 'market darwinism'). Splintered in market fundamentalism.

It's an interesting dichotomy.

We on the left allowed the people in our lives to catch a smoldering misanthropy that they have to constantly escape from with The Barnds. We might have seen them walking away from the church and thought it was a victory. How many DU atheists have a well-defined positive life philosophy? I don't mean their enthusiasm for The Party. I mean a solid worldview not defined by provincial politics. Maybe 2%?

[mondo joe]

48. You've confused Freedom of Religion with absolute license.

Any religion may be legally compromised, but the intent is for that compromise to be as minimal as possible and only when necessary.

Similarly there is Freedom of Speech but a range of speech is legally compromised - slander, for example, or the classic "yelling Fire in a theater".

There is freedom of religion but it is not absolute, as is true of all freedoms.

[H2O Man]

33. You raise interesting points.

I would suggest a short book, easy and fun to read, called "Gandhi On Non-Violence." It is edited and has a fascinating introduction by Thomas Merton. If you buy the book, and find that it is not better than I am saying, you can e-mail me a note saying, "Water Man, you were wrong!" and I will double your money back.

[cprise]

70. The kind of action you describe

...is a kind of materialism, the good kind. It is based on need but has a spiritual component. The other side of the materialist coin is the consumerism that we live... it is based on need that has led to excess.

Do you sell out your religion? Or does your relgion help you make society that much less craven instead?

Do you want to see your life in absolute terms, or relative terms?

Humanism holds that ethics are situational. For instance, the human right to life does not obstruct our ability to kill someone who is clearly attacking us. Likewise we are expected have understanding when profound ignorance (not laziness or denial) results in a transgression against us or society.

Years ago I started to get the "LURP" feeling (that sounds like a good read, by the way). Or the 'Matrix' feeling. I started looking and looking and looking for a way to opt out. I am still looking. But this hyper-capitalism is stamping out every non-commercial mode of human activity and organizing principle. The most plausible change I can see is if I move someplace that has a "mixed" economy... where capitalism has no choice than to behave better because the socialists will try to nationalize their business if they don't.

[bloom]

111. "So is that the choice..."

either i participate in the criminal religion,
or i should take a vow of homelessness and become an ethical bum?"


Seems like a lot of people pretend to distance themselves from the society they partake in. Some have jobs that are more ethical than others - but still - living in the society is still being a part of it.

And when people go off and try to start something better - others call them wackos - but who is delusional, really? :shrug:

[cprise]

30. It is awful

Personally, I want to move abroad just so I don't pay more taxes and sweat into this system.

Even in Canada they can vote for a socialist (NDP) and have their vote count. But here, in our DNC barbed-wire freedom-zones, we are not even supposed to be able to CONCEIVE of such a thing! It's capitalism all the way, but any such ideology which has no competition promotes crooks with zero incentive to set a good example. Its the Soviet Union in reverse.

The legal consensus on corporatism we've had for the past 80 years probably isn't even constitutional. Corporations aren't people.

[H2O Man]

34. What keeps you from moving?

I do not mean that rhetorically, or in any negative way.

[cprise]

38. Fear

And, oddly, feelings of inadequacy. I'm currently unemployed and don't quite rack up enough immigration points for Canada.

Thanks for asking.

[H2O Man]

39. I've had mixed feelings.

Canada is a little too cold. But I have looked into Belize, not so much for myself as my family. I do not want my sons or nephews drafted. A few of my friends have left the USA, and tell me to hurry up and get out. But I'm old, and what time I have left is likely better invested in struggling for the constitution here.

[Demit]

31. Seems to me that's what all your posts are about: What religion is TO YOU.

You give us your definition of it, then proceed to claim that that definition "proves" that the state IS religion, therefore there is no separation of church and state. Yeah, okay. Whatever floats your boat.

[sweetheart]

37. Ok then, how about choice?

Freedom of religion, implies by its very wording, the free choice to
participate in whatever religious activities one sees fit, and not to
be coerced in to any by the state, yes?

I've just made the case that there is indeed significant coercion by
teh state, a rather strong case, indeed. So then, hmmm... an argument,
significant evidence, logic, and nothing fallacious about it.

So what is unclear about that? Religion, ALL religions, "live"
religion. Talking the talk without walking the walk is, in the book of
any religion, bullshit. Where did people get the idea that religion
was thinking and not acting? It is hardly "my" definition, but rather
that of the world at large... whatever floats your boat.

[cprise]

44. I don't see the state as the source of coercion here

Those idiots in power are corporate public servants. That is, they come from, were installed by and they serve private commercial interests (wealthy shareholders).

Problem is, corps are so consolidated over their markets now that they prefer public figures who are more compatible with the arbitrary excercising of control. Once they posses all the wealth, corps have everything in the world to lose... so grabbing CONTROL becomes an irresistable reflex.

Patriarchal religion supplies the authoritarian narrative in which their thugs can justify what is actually an intensified pattern of corruption.


BTW- Thank you for recognizing that you and all of us here are still carrying around a considerable amount of brainwashing inside of us. We point out all these policy outrages, thinking we're so together because we can recognize the conficts of interest and the mendacity in this society. But we've amputated our ability to look at root causes and our role within; can't even seem to get beyond the "green capitalism" and "punish them with our dollars" fallacies here.

The walking wounded need to take stock of themselves and heal, instead of staring at FOX and CNN personalities all the time.

[mondo joe]

46. Your definition is bogus.

The origins of a word do no not define the word's legal or even common usage.

And neither the state nor the constitution are a set of beliefs about the nature or purpose of the universe, nor are they a shared set of beliefs. They are instead an agreement regarding process, and an agreement that can be modified by the participants.

What an embarrassment to read such fallacious arguments on DU.

[sweetheart]

55. "we hold these truths self evident"

Its religion. Some of the founders of the US, who in rhetoric
escaped from religious persecution in the English Civil War, were in
fact escaping economic persecuton. The very founding of the nation is
such that those would have absolute right over their own self destiny,
including their economic self destiny, and that was self evident at the
time.

Now we've moved on to an age where a corporate congress drives us as a
consumption machine, and i call that state of affairs a form of state
religion. So on one hand, there is the apparent freedom of religion
preserved in theory, whilst in practice, there are 2 parties supporting
a corporate empire of militarism and wage slavery, not of which was
"agreed" in any modification of the constitution.

The constitution is run away with pirates, and we are left in a secular
religious state where we worship our desire for survival in a desperate
attempt to become socially secure while the treadmill turns beneath us.

Your academic wisdom of the constitution has been void since corporate
personhood, as religion does not and cannot comprimise some things,
especially for such low reasons as the mere pursuit of profits.

[mondo joe]

62. Wrong again: that's not the constitution

Another error on your part.

How embarassing.

[sweetheart]

63. It is the basis of our consensus

You can play games with words to play coy and smart, or you can
engage what is damn well obvious the topic, as the thread has turned
out.

There is a state religion in the USA, we are living in an effective
theocracy. I admit introducing the topic poorly, yet there is an
american consensus, that lincoln heralded back to at the end of the
civil war that in effect, re-cast the nation, that truths are self
evident.

PS. I don't get embarassed. I am ignorant, i admit it readily. Part
of being wrong, is that in being corrected, we discuss better, and if
people like you have anything to contribute besides scorn and asinine
judgement, then its amazing what insightful seeings are to be had.

I also was a registered republican, so much of my views are left over
borg implants that i expose deliberately as a writer on this thread to
advocate discussion.

I find some of cprise's and AZ's work on this thread to be outstanding
and really insightful.

[mondo joe]

65. No, punkin, it's political theater in the form of a letter

The Constitution is the document of our concensus. Not the declaration.

Your definitions are bogus and you are wrong in every detail - but this somehow leaves you with the impression that you are correct.

There's nothing about being ignorant that is especially shameful - but pontificating while ignorant is another story.

[sweetheart]

69. yawn for a tiresome ass

The constitution is for white slave owning men, and is not the
document of franchise. Nowhere in it does it say corporations have any
rights, nor did the framers grant them any.

Your just a person who likes dishing out insults. Lincoln re-made the
consensus of the country after the civil war, that the white slave
owner constitution become melded with an "understanding" as well as
the abolition of the slaves. And since then, the constitution has,
as the republicans now strongly suggest, been re-interpreted for
our modern age, as well, lincoln brought in the understandings of the
declaration of independence, back in to the consensus.

The shame is for someone who is disingenuous, rude and cannot discuss
in public without putting people down. I'm having a frank chat,
and how could i openly discuss anything if i was afraid of patriarchal
lowlifes who can't structure more than 3 sentences without an insult.

[mondo joe]

76. Your insults are no substitute for a cogent and logical argument

The constitution is for the citizenry - try to remember it reflects consensus. Unlike a religious document it is not unchanging nor does it reflect any purported divine authority.

Lincoln did not and could not remake the consensus - the nation did through him.

Don't mistake persons who actually care about accuracy for "patriarchal". It's insulting to men and women both.

[sweetheart]

81. The constitution does not elevate corporations

And i have put foward, rather clearly, that the economic system is
elevated to a status that dictates we all participate in war, torture
and other things, that are not endemic to the consensus of the
constitution.

When Rupert Murdoch, the religious god of FAUX tv, decides to support
one political party, he is elevated to a divine authority, so much so,
that he is consulted and begged for his approval. Aaah, but faux,
is not a church per se, but it is.

My logical argument is, that religion is ultimately action, and that
the new endemic consensus has re-defined religion as "thought and ideas",
but not as how one lives. In this regard, we are all compelled to
become part of an economic machine that is against the very principals
of some religions.

You do not actually challenge any argument, nor do you discuss, but
rahter harp about accuracy and whether things are right or wrong. I
tell you, that i feel deep in my gut, being violated to pay taxes for
wars, torture and subsidies to corporate enslavement. You may say that
the feeling is wrong, but it remains nevertheless... and you ticked me
off because you are a represser of direct intent, under the auspices
of "being right".

The argument is quite valid, that the state has gone beyond its
rightful boundaries, in institutionalizing the religion of some of
its warmongering and torturing people so that the rest of us are
forced by merely working for a living, to accepting the principals
of these amoral filth, by the very fact of having to feed one's family.

THere is nothing inaccurate about that, just it buffs your sensibilities
about what religion is, because you believe that religion is "thinking"
and not "doing".

[Hosnon]

83. Lighten up a bit bro - every post doesnt have to end with a smug comment

[bloom]

114. You might be able to understand this discussion

if you substitute the word "religion" for "worldview" or "values".

I think it's about religion, myself, but you don't seem to able to get pas the word.

[spanone]

49. Religion is Hocus Pocus, Government is rules of law.

[mondo joe]

66. Moreover, religion is a claim of absolute authority from a 3rd party,

while our government is a formal concensus that acknowledges NOTHING as an absolute source of auhority.

[Cleita]

53. If you want to call the constitutional state a religion, then

the difference is, that everyone in that state belongs to it, are subject to the tithe and are subject to its laws. No other religion does this. They exclude others all the time. In order to belong, you must pass some sort of ritual like baptism, circumcision or even proclaiming you believe, like being born again or how Moslems embrace Islam. Anyone who doesn't believe or practice it is an outsider.

So since a democratic state will tolerate other religions, all it does is ask that the other religions don't interfere with its function or the lives of other residents who are not members of the cult or religion. It also asks that the cult or religion does not break the laws of the state.

Incidentally, I don't agree with your original premise of the state being a religion. I just played along for the sake of argument. Jesus made this very clear in his render to Caesar statement. Even though the Roman state religion elevated the emperor to the status of a god, Jesus wasn't buying it. He clearly made a distinction between state and religion.

[bloom]

115. "In order to belong..."

Just think about trying to assimilate into another culture that has a totally different religion and set of social values.

I think it would be far easier to start up a new society with like-minded people one knew from the old society.

[mitchum]

57. Religion is socially approved insanity

[bloom]

117. Our society is socially approved insanity... eom.

[Igel]

61. OK, I'll bite. I'm not sure I'll be able to argue on your terms, but I'll

try.

You're absolutely right. There cannot be a state based on near consensus or majority rule (with due respect for minorities, to avoid majoritarianism), that does not also kowtow to the dominant religious sensibilities. In that sense, the US has no separation of religion and state. Note that this is distinct from separation of church and state, and from state sponsored religion. This is bottom-up, in which to protect the majority's sensibilities there are restraints put on minorities. DUers frequently forget that in any government based on democratic principles, only a fairly abstract principle, enforced from outside, can prevent the legal system from mirroring a dominant belief system. For this reason they go ballistisc with the idea of Iraq's laws not mirroring what they think Enlightment and Progressive principles would dictate, or the idea of Xians trying to exert pressure on the US government; perhaps if Iraqis had "bought into" Enlightment and Progressive principles the legal system would be acceptable, but otherwise the system would be imposed, and not be democratic. That religion has cultural and legal implications cannot be denied; one may choose to have "culture" mediate between religion and politics, but this is a kludge in many instances.

On the other hand, it can be persuasively argued that there are cultural elements that may have their roots in a religion, but are not currently perceived as such; and yet additional rules that are culture-based, and not rooted in religion at all. (Better men than I have tried to define culture, and failed. I, too, will fail, but use it to mean "the sets of context-sensitive behavioral expectations a member of a society holds concerning other members.") Where culture is strong, and peer pressure prevalent, there need be minimal legal apparatus. But the influence of religion on social dicta is still usually strong. One can put banning public displays of drunkenness in this category, as well as zoning regulations.

In some real sense, however, the state does not force adherence to a particular cult, which is the crux of the US constitution. You may be Jain or Thugee ... and not be fully allowed to act on your faith. The reverse is also allowed, as long as no non-secular significance is imposed on the citizen: I belonged to a church that specifically did not observe Xmas, nonetheless, I was prevented from going about my usual business on Xmas. Others in the church rejected Thanksgiving Day, although there the religious nature is somewhat more stark, and my position commensurately weaker. Having Xmas or Turkey Day off for worship and thanksgiving is well and good, but having the day off is not automatically worship, in my book.

More importantly, I'll say that in the US there is an incredible degree of separation between church and state (which is, to be sure, distinct from religion and state, "religion" frequently as I use it lacks formal trappings and detailed doctrines). Not only is the state not an agent of a church (although it may order things to the relative satisfaction of a majority of its citizens ... I'd like to see any semi-democratic state that ordered things mostly for the satisfaction of a minority of its citizens :-) The state may frequently make decisions that a church could not make because of indecision, or which a church disapproves of, and the state does not enforce church policies even on the church's members. General religious scruples that can form a structure to the legal system and society get enforced. But not specifics.

Moreover, a religious institution also provides a moral counterweight. Those caught up in the legal system confuse, frequently, legality with morality, with what is with what should be. Thus churches may, like NGOs to secularists, provide a moral counterweight to the pragmatic sausage-making of government. If the churches' dicta do not find resonance, any sway they have will be negligible or short lived. There are, I think, other reasons for which the separation between church and state is to be desired, and usually found in US practice, moreso in the current practice than in 19th century practice.

For these reasons, I think, we do not talk about freedom of religion from government any more than freedom of government from religion. (government : state :: religion : church). Instead, we talk about separation of church and state, and freedom of worship (keeping in mind that freedom is seldom absolute).

[sweetheart]

74. As much as large corporations are churches

In many of the large corporate institutions that dominate the economy
today, there is an implied religious view, one that is amoral. So, to
be economically secure in our modern society, you must have a job that
inevitably is proffered by one of these companies or their agents. They
have then, within their system of hiring and management, a moral code
that is very similar, insomuch as the code is a way of life, to churches
as they were when america was founded.

So this corporate conflaturation of new churches has usurped control over
the congress, and indeed, there is no separation whatsoever between
church and state. A large software company's CEO decides that all
employees will be drugs tested, and all those who's moral religion does
not subject them to gross invasion of privacy, are either disenfranchised
or accept the new religious morals of systemic prvacy invasion... and
the list goes on, that smoking is deemed immoral. Then these same
companies build factories in third world countries leveraged on IMF
debt, and deliberately seek to water down labour rights, by introducing
a franchiseless neo-slave class to the mix.

So whilst i most appreicate your essay as a wise and educating view,
the religious moralism of our culture, the religion, around which
we live and congeal, is not of the tradional sort, but that of the
corporatist cult. This cult is the very basis of the federal
government; and a coup against the people has been run by stealth,
that a theocracy of amoral coercion dictates we surrender our
religious values duing the 24x7 working day, or be thrown off the
plantation. So where is the freedom of worship in that?

[mondo joe]

78. Your premise is a falsehood of Coulterish proportions.

You foolishly argue that everything is religion, but ignore any usable or useful definition of the word "religion". Of course that is the only way you can arrive at your perverse conclusion.

[sweetheart]

79. I posted the definition of religion in the first post

You obviously did not read it. However, i content, and with some serious
merit to the contention, that religion is what you "do", not what you
think. In this regard, if you claim to be of a certian religion, but
do nothing different, then despite what fancy reasoning is behind this,
the religion comes out no different.

I realize, in a culture of mentally-zoned-out people, who believe what
they "think" to be real, it challenges people, but the fact is, that
what goes on in your head is not relevant, only what you "DO".

In this sense, religion is the baisis, in your rationality for what you
do. There is nothing perverse about that in the least, except that
it ruffles your intellectual feathers.

[mondo joe]

82. Neither governmernt nor corporations meet the definition you posted.

"The dictionary can tell you that religion is a set of beliefs about the
cause, nature and purpose of the universe, or a fundamental set of
beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons."

This is true of neither government nor corporations. This has already beeen addressed.

You say you were a Republican, and it's not hard to imagine. You still favor the standard Republican appproach to facts and definitions.

[sweetheart]

84. In all fairness:

Definition 2 from websters new unabridged dictionary: "a fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons."
Fits very well with a modern corporation, and as well our theocratic
government.

It is ever so true, and YOU are wrong. I was indeed a republican voter
in the early 80's and have not voted since until 2004 where i am
registered democratic.

I'm grasping at how you read a definition and not the words. You
must not work in a modern corporation? I really don't want to have such
a rude interaction with you, but you've chosen a rather hostile tone,
and how can i ask you to explain yourself, when you've been so so
ad hominem in this chat. If anyone has been republican in this regard,
it has been you.

I remember IBM facilities back in the old days, in Essex Junction
vermont, and FishKill New York, where everyone wore a red tie and a
blue suit and a white shirt... and women were scarce... talk about
a cult. Perhaps you've spent less time in corporate america than
some of us who know better... but cult it is... and church/religion
in all but name.

[mondo joe]

85. Incorrect AGAIN.

A corporation is not a set of beliefs or practices.

Dress codes in a professional environment don't represent a belief system.

[sweetheart]

86. A corporation is absolutely a set of beliefs and practices

You must believe that working there will improve your economic
prospects. You must believe in the authority of your boss, and the
corporate ideals as set forth in the corporate handbook. You must
report conflicts of interest and must act and behave in accordance with
the corporate standards of behaviour, on page 293 of the handbook.
I've got one of these handbooks upstairs and there definitely is an
official guidebook on behaviour, things that are legal, but that are
not legal at work; things that are frowned upon and things you'll be
fired for.

AS well, you are to participate in the activities of your paid work, no
matter that it might violate your religious or ethics. You become
an agent of an amoral institution by taking employment in a corporation
and as such, become amoral yourself.

I have been paid to design and install intense surveillance systems for
stock exchanges, ones that use what the NYSE calls "blue sheets", that
know the relationships between people, like "sister-in-law" and use
these relationships in software, to monitor trading behaviour to look
for insider trading. I did not morally agree with many of the things
i was asked to do for a buck, but was willing, as it would hurt my
career to refuse and walk out when given labour that was in all
honestly, an institutional violation of privacy by a non-police
authority.

You obviously have not dealt with large companies, f you don't think
there is a belief system. I challenge you to arrange a meeting with
one of the big 4 accounting companies and then use a swearword in the
meeting and watch them. They will get fired for saying swearwords,
as their behaviour is monitored and controlled. Obviously, mate,
you have not worked in large corporate world very much, or you'd
not be so glib about defending the cult-ism as just a dress code.

I've been to sales revivals where people used religious prayers in
corporate meetings, imposing them on other workers, and then used
religous language as the basis for how the sales process should work,
as in that if jesus is with you, your sales will be better.

You either don't have the experience, or the writing ability to
refute the argument.... just 2 sentence denials about how i'm wrong,
wrong again and incorrect... I know damn well what i've seen in
corporate america, mexico, germany, korea, britain, canada and many
other places in huge corporate offices, and its very very cultish.
Where, if you meet the CEO, everyone bows and kisses the metaphorical
ring, and if someone openly dissents with the pope, they are
frowned upon, even fired. Ask anyone who's worked around larry ellison
whether he runs a personality cult?

It is endemic to the system, and much much more cultish than actual
religious cults, where there is more liberty and behavioural
differences allowed.

[mondo joe]

87. To the contrary, a corporation is an organization, not a set of beliefs.

And no beliefs are required to take part in one.

One may choose to comply with the terms of employment, which has nothing to do with belief.

You're clutching at straws.

[sweetheart]

88. You are the twister of words

I challenge you to work as a doctor and not believe in modern medicine,
to work as a database engineer and not believe in SQL and the
methodologies of database design, to work as a plumber and not believe
in the approach of modern plumbing. There are definite beliefs
in professional work that are required.

Heres an example. An electronics engineer i knew was working as an
expert in semiconductor test software. He got a job in a company that
made pacemaker chips, and set about doing his job. One day, he was
handed a tray of chips that said "AAMRAM", "Sidewinder", "Trident" and "Ford-Aero"
on them. He was told to program the test head to verify signal
patterns as reflected on a sheet of paper. The person was a buddhist
and did not believe in violence or killing, yet he would have lost his
job had he not programmed the test head.

In your fantasy world of belief, he could believe whatever he wants as
long as he programs the test head for the missile brains (as that is
what the chips were). Or, he could "believe" an intellectual fantasy
like you seem to think, and proceed to build weapons of killing, the
sort of weapon that was used to mass murder hundreds of poeple once
in an iranian airliner off the straight of hormuz. So his belief in
nonviolence was directly confronted with a paid signal from the
institutional amoral organization that was making missile chips AND
pacemaker chips... as they're just chips after all in an amoral world
and what does it matter what they wind up doing.

THAT is exactly the point. IT does matter. There is a connection,
that, like a criminal, we are asked to harden ourselves and we
can "believe" anything we want as long as we follow the institutional
belief of behaviour of our corporate masters. Then your definition
of belief is not action, and you are not religious. Jesus did not
say to the money changers "no problemo, its just business.".. He
distincly recognized that all action in life is moral, and whether
you are in denial it is based on beliefs or not, is rather a moot point.

You've intellectuallized religion in to "thinking" and that way you
can act in an amoral fashion and dissociate that from your thoughts.
That is not religion. Every woman who pays taxes is supporting womens
repression in saudi arabia, pakistan, egypt and elsewhere, criminal
repression. Every hour of work is taxed to finance such criminality,
yet so many millions of women have been trained not to associate
the fruits of their work with their beliefs. This dissociation is
part of the endemic structure of corproatism, and not the least bit
in keeping with religious separation.

Once upon a time, back when the constitution was framed, churches
were very central to the community. They were institutions in which
people played a daily role, not a "just on sunday social club". They
were engaged in the behaviour of the people, beliefs, but rather
beliefs in daily work, daily action. It was back then, that
the concept of separation of church and state evolved. Now, people
live in corporate social clubs, marry in them and spend lifetimes
only amongst their bretheren in GE Halliburton Brown Root Enron,
acting in an amoral fashion, in a church that supports amorality.
There is that equal threat of the separation of the neo-church, the
corporation and state.

Yet intellectual twisters like yourself do not see action as the
manifestation of beliefs. They can kill someone and say it was
necessary for the corporate good, and go home and call themselves
a christian.

[kwassa]

89. There is a difference between corporate culture and corporations

Certain corporations have cultural belief systems, but they are more behavioral requirements rather than religions.

Most of the beliefs in your original requirement are simply belief in the scientific method.

[mondo joe]

90. Now you confuse belief with action

There are no systematic beliefs required to be part of a corporation. It's not aa religion.

Your example proves the point - your BELIEF is not relevant to the work.

You can be ASKED to do anything but you needn't do it. You can walk away. It's just opinions and actions.

Again, you are in Coulter territory here with tangential connections and pretend definitions to suit your "thesis".

[sweetheart]

91. Belief does not exist without action

Nonviolence does not mean you pay someone else to be violent for you and
then say that there was no systemic belief. That is dissociation,
pretending that the gas chamber attendent is not part of a systemic
case. Belief does not exist if the actions are incoherent with it.
The state, agency of the corprate congress, takes yours and me taxes and
uses them to kill and murder. By paying any taxes, i am a participant
in crime, in a systemic belief system of murder as a way of life, and
there is no choice in a company town.

In a company town, you can't just walk away, or you will be homeless..
and increasingly, the US is becoming a smaller corporate company town
every day.

Corporations rule the congress, and the congress uses the pervasive
system of corporate monopolists to enforce a lifestyle in which all
citizens either go homeless or get jobs in their amoral structures
remitting taxes for murder. I can go to a catholic church and not
believe the preacher. The existance of religion, and membership in
religious organizations does not require belief. What makes you a
member is acting in concert with the group actions. Religion is
ultimately action, and you dissociate the two. The tax coercion
is enforced pervasive criminality, with the local church being the
boss of your local outfit... gas chamber attendents, or homeless.

I don't know ann coulter, I read an article about here in a british
newspaper and she was a foul, rude and hateful person trash talking,
without any conscience or goodwill. I am nothing like her, and your
snide remarks are rude.

So, my thesis is that the state has created a forced religion of
behaviour that is evil, and by feeding ones family, the taxpayer is
made a partner in crime. You say i wrongly use the world religion,
as it is rather a society of laws underwritten by a social contract
called the constitution. However that constitution is deeply
suspect when it disenfranchises its citizens with the tyrrany of the
majority. Then the social contract is void, and there is an oppressive
body of people with systemic beliefs enslaving citizens to obey and
pay up for evil shit, or go homeless. The evil shit is justified by
criminal faux-christians who claim the crime is included in
their religion, and as a majority, force it on the rest of the
population. So, by being part of the system, your actions, your
work, can be, depending on your beliefs, a gross violation of your
religion, and a violation of the human right to freely "practice"
religion as one sees fit. It is coercive theocracy, and i need not
twist words at all, rather only observe the facts.

You can say that belief is not necessary to pay those taxes, to work
until tax day (may?) every year, to finance crime... and yet we
arrest people who help finance terrorism... it is hipocrasy...

I'd appreciate it, if you can discuss without personal insults. Its
rude and unbecoming, as it is an ad hominem approach, something
very republican indeed, for people who can't actually dispute a point,
rather attack the indvidual, slight them, call them ann coulter or
whatever beastly image you wish to project. It's poor form.

[mondo joe]

93. Now you confuse neccesity with belief

Try again!

[sweetheart]

95. Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?

mondo joe: I told you once.
sweetheart: No you haven't.
mondo Joe: Yes I have.
sweetheart: When?
mondo joe: Just now.
sweetheart: No you didn't.
mondo joe: Yes I did.
sweetheart: You didn't
mondo joe: I did!
sweetheart: You didn't!
mondo joe: I'm telling you I did!
sweetheart: You did not!!
.
<snip>

mondo joe: Yes I did.
sweetheart: You didn't.
mondo joe: Did.
sweetheart: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
mondo joe: Yes it is.
sweetheart: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
mondo joe: No it isn't.
sweetheart: It is!
mondo joe: It is not.

..
..
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

:-)

[mondo joe]

96. Please try a cogent response rather than more pretend definitions

If I go to work at 9:00 does it reflect a belief of mine, or does it reflect an agreement I've made with my employer?

If my county passes a tax levy is it because of a belief about tax levys in the nature of the universe or is it a concensus of voters agreeing on a particular action?

The purpose for defining a word is to limit it (de-fine) to make language more useful, not to broaden it to uselessness.

[sweetheart]

98. If you go to work at 9

And manage a project to design a new SUV that gets 4 miles per gallon,
to target the gas guzzler set; and your paycheque is taxed by a criminal
theocracy to wage war, than yes indeed, your religion is what you do.
You can say, that your religion is the church you attend on sunday, and
that there is no moral connection between your work and the wars being
paid for, or the fact that the 4mpg SUV will only further exacerbate the
need for wars to secure fuel supplies. You can behead that conscience
and accept an amoral world... so indeed, your choice to show up at
work is a choice to become amoral, and to live and work an amoral
religion in your day-life. And, as i've said, this results in amoral
results in your night life, as karma is real, not something you can
distance yourself from by pretending you're not an agent.

If all the employers in town are making 4-5 mpg SUV's, you are stuck
in a moral conundrum, where you certainly can refuse to work and
support the pervasive system of enslavement, or you can admit that
there is no altermative except to become homeless... and swallow your
religious morals.

It is not "my" country. The social contract, which presumes general
enfranchisement, is void, as it does not enfranchise most voters. So
the county taxes are actually a twisted levy on those who are enslaved,
by a system purposefully disenfranchising its minorities and with them,
minority religions, like buddhists, quakers and other pacifists.

So, no, there is no consensus.

Attachment to fundamental beliefs, root principals of the nature of
life, is religion, something that cannot be verified or tested. In
this regard, the compulsion to be a petrol slave, is a form of
forced religion. That is not distorting any definitions.

[mondo joe]

99. Sorry, but just because you don't get your way doesn't mean there's

no concensus.

As to the rest of your post, if you continue in your fallacious position that anything anyone does is their religion, it hasn't grown more convincing with age.

[sweetheart]

101. Not wrong

You have taken this patriarchal tone of being some authority on what
religion is, when in fact, your definitions do not satisfy religion as
i've known it my whole life.

Religion is how you behave, it is what you do, it is what you spend
the currency of your life living for. You don't see it this way, but
it hardly makes you right. It makes you someone with a different
religion than I, rationalizing why I should play in a gameboard where
you are enfranchised and i, not.

[mondo joe]

104. I'm sorry you find definitions to be patriarchal, but

I think that's insulting to both the masculine and feminine.

Religion is not how you behave. Take a look at an array of definitions at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:religion

If you want to use your own made up definitions you certainly can, but if you want to apply those definitions to actual legal matters you won't get far.

[sweetheart]

105. The patriarchal definition

is about control, "understanding" and gaining power over something by
defining it. Feminist definition is not clear, it is not understood,
and often ambiguous. In the religious experience, the feminine would
be the mystical, the direct awakening, not the abstract definitions.

One does not preclude the other, which is why your abusing the
patriarchal, as i've mentioned to obscure the equally relevant
feminine aspect. All religions come down to a code of living, a
code of action, and in the case of jesus christ himself, it was
clearly a code of living. You can try to understand jesus and turn
him in to an abstract idea to be understood and bullshitted about on
sundays, but the fact remains of what his life was, in contrast to the
bogus false pretense that allows people to claim any relationship to
jesus whatsoever.

I challenge you to go spend some time with religious people, real ones,
not at the local church, but people who are directly experiencing the
religious profundity. As you'll discover, these folks, will all,
quite universally across traditions from mother theresa to tibetan
tulku's treat religion as a series of practices and ways of living,
ways of behaving and conditioning one's mind and life to be more
receptive to the universe.

In this regard, i am very well versed in what religion is, as it IS
my life... and the law is wrong, along with the mammon and the google.
They rationalize religion as a set of ideas to avoid dealing with it,
to avoid a direct relationship with god consciousness/nirvana, the
totality, or whatever definitiion you prefer.

People use language to obscure truth, to hide from it, so that in
their false pretense of eternal life as a material being, they are
not confronted with the direct fact that every moment counts, and
every action is a chance to know god.

The law is a bunch of lies, made up by criminals anyways, so they've
little to contribute except a prison state... its a good sign when
you're not in aggreement with the plantation slave-law. In this
sense, like i mentioned, you believe the plantation state is wise,
and i say it is a false god. When both of us die, all that will
be real is what we lived for, what we loved and MADE our life about.
Truth is never popular, and no amount of understanding makes one
wise. Wisdom comes from direct knowing, not thinking.

We reach an impasse, mostly due to our different views of religion,
and you can define until you're blue in the face, and never describe
the magesty of a flower. Language and rationality are weapons,
tools of control and dominance, so someone can claim authority and
put down someone else. In truth, the flower has more power than
the definitions... the actions speaks louder than words.

[mondo joe]

107. That's insulting to feminism.

But the fact remains you are trying to apply non legal definitions to a legal standard, which is laughable.

No wonder people who take up such bizarre arguments never succeed in the real world.

[sweetheart]

113. There is nothing legal anymore

Legal is just a whim of a corrupt, purchased, corporate lackey, and
there is no authority, as much as you're trying to suggest one exists.
Your religion says there is one, that there is a law, and mine says
that the whole thing's a scam, with a bunch of zone heads bought in
who would rather kill someone than admit they've been conned.

Frankly, you insulting person, i'm quite successful in the "real"
world. And you are just a rude person, who's been determined, this
entire chat, to put me down, to insult what i've said, to show not one
iota of empathy, and rather drive home your point of view repeatedly
like a barking dog. Yea yea... you're a superior smartass, you "know"
and can't even write more than 3 sentences without being rude,
condescending, or elaborate on any point, or refute any argument outside
of being snide.

Feminism is not under your control, it is wise and complex beyond your
attempt to repress it in to a box. It is far beyond the law of a
bunch of white patriarchs and their slave society. You are obviously
very out of touch with feminism. It is not an authority. It is not
necessarily "right", but rather the truth of the moment, the dharma of
what is right in your heart. My heart says that this world is
repressed by evil men who abuse the principals of law to uphold a
slave society against all tenents of religion.

Your law comes from books and mine from my heart. Yours is "right"
and mine is also "right". You feel obligated to trash what i believe
because it is threatening to you in your ivory tower of correctness.
That is your religion and it is threatened by the chaos of the
universe... the will of the enslaved human spirit to be free.

:-) You are a blessing to feminism. You think you understand it
and you could not be more misled... but there is no right, wrong or law
in this world without the heart and the conscience, something you've
sidestepped in your pursuit of intellectual superiority.

[mondo joe]

119. LOL - "nothing is legal anymore" is a fun argument about a law

You say nothing is legal but you want to argue a law. That's a hoot.

I guess one strategy, when one is unable to play by the rules, is to pretend the rules don't exist.

And that again is a very Repub mindset - lie to the people because it doesn't matter - slander people because it doesn't matter - cheat because it doesn't matter - "nothing is legal anymore".

Maybe after being a democrat for a few more years you'll start to think like one.

[bloom]

121. I don't get why you're so hostile

and you don't sound like any kind of liberal that I know.

Maybe you haven't noticed that the people "running" (ruining) our country make up laws as they go and flaunt international laws and say that if they don't like them they don't apply.

Are those the people you are defending? Because you are not making any sense.

[mondo joe]

122. I assume you mean "flout" the law rather than "flaunt" it. If so,

yes, that is what Bushco does. And is it not precisely what the poster advocates? There is no law - make it all up.

I don't know why you would construe my objection to be a defense of such person, but since my obvious contempt for them evades you let me maker it clear: No, I do not defend them nor do I defend any who flout the law, and I do not esteem those who flout logic or honesty.

[bloom]

127. My dictionary

(you inspired me to look this up) accepts flaunt as flout by 9% of the Usage Panel. While that is clearly a minority - it is nevertheless accepted by some experts - so you may expect to see flaunt used thusly from time to time esp. as the dictionary says as a "folk-etymological substitution" for flout.

(If you are going to be a word policeman - you might as well know).

[mondo joe]

128. Congratulations!

That's an impressive percentage!

[bloom]

129. Of course some people are more interested in following

mainstream thinking than others.

I also use an "apple" computer and it's not "worse" than others just because 9% or how ever many percentage use it. And it might be better...

Trying to understand the meaning someone is trying to get across is more important than arguing every dictionary definition which by nature can be limiting esp, if the word is religion, for instance.

[mondo joe]

131. I also own an Apple - but you'll find more than 9% of IT professionals

think Apple makes a good product.

And yes, trying to take the meaning is important. It's why I addressed what I thought you were trying to say --- perhaps you didn't notice that.

But part of being understood means trying to be clear - using definitions and language in a productive way. Mary Wallstonecraft knew that. Elizabeth Cady Stanton knew that. The attorneys who argued for equal pay for women knew that. The justices that decided Loving v Virginia knew it too. So did the attorneys who argued Lawrence v Texas.

But in this thread I'm told definitions and laws are patriarchal - so what do they know?

[bloom]

134. What I see is that you

are trying very hard NOT to "get it" or to try to get it. (As far as the overall thread topic is concerned).


I did notice that you acknowledged the lesser used form of one of my words - of course, you knew what usage I intended - yet you had to make an issue out of it nonetheless. A person might think you owned stock in all the dictionaries (were that possible) the way you carry on about such strict usage of definitions (all over this thread).


As far as the feminists, et al., some people write books and such for a living and some people are merely trying to communicate. You are not trying to communicate. When you are so focused on each word and trying to ridicule others for each word that you choose not to get - You are trying NOT to understand. I don't know why are even participating?


Are you afraid that someone else might be persuaded by an argument that you find objectionable? Or are you just caught up in the semantics?

[mondo joe]

136. I responded to your point. And I think the defense of separation of

church and state, as well as defense of law as necessary and good in our society are worth arguing.

I've corrected one word error - strangely that's all you've focused on.

The entire OP is about semantics - it pretends that anything and everything is religion, which is not useful legally or even practically.

[sweetheart]

125. I don't want a law, i want justice

If we were stranded on a desert island, you and i, i would not agree to
anything written. I would only consent to an unwritten constitution,
that the truth is self evident. Then if you attempt to coerce me in to
creating rules, i'll smile and get back to me business.

I will never "think" like a democrat, as thought, in my view, is a
religion, a load of baggage from the past, trundled in to the present
to be paraded as knowledge, when in fact, it is actually manifestations
of fear, defending the ego using the cultural weapon of being smarter
than your competitor. That is not to say that thought does not have
a place in the toolchest of life, but it is grossly overrated as a
tool of social justice.

There comes a point, when the slave walks up to the plantation master and
his book of laws and says "there are no laws". The slave master
then reads rule number 1, that says the laws exist and are all-important, appying to all slaves. The slave repeats, "there are no
laws", and then dumps the tea in the harbour. The rule of law is only
valid if its authority comes from the governed.

You can use your patriarchal labels: republican, unlearned democrat,
slander and cheat. And all i see is the plantation master reading
from his book of laws, hoping, praying.. that the slave in front
of him, who disagrees, does not represent a groundswell.

[mondo joe]

126. Funny example, since the law freed the slaves. Not walking up to the

master and saying "there are no laws".

It what gave women the right to vote as well.

But if you want to address a law you would be well served to use legal definitions. If you can't do that, don't bother embarrassing yourself.

Lastly, laws and definitions are not patriarchal. Feminists have always availed themselves of both, and have done so with great skill. Feminists have always understood the value and power of both.

Unfortunately there are always people who don't have the wit, talent or fortitude to master either, and for that group it's more easy to simply pretend they don't exist. But that group is in the dust of history, whereas those who master law and definition change the world.

[sweetheart]

130. The law did not free the slaves

People did. The law did not get women sufferage, women did.
The law is still biased against blacks, and the law is a load of
crap.

Laws and definitions are indeed masculine and patriarchal. If we look
at masculine and feminine as "energies", we see that masculine is:
order, light, action, sensitivity, day, the sun. Feminine is chaos,
darkness, mystery, power, night and the moon. Feminists, in a
patriarchal culture have preserved their rights in a mans world using
the man's law, but the actual energy of feminism is not the law,
it is the force that made the law. It is presumptuous to suggest
that just because womans long fought sufferage has finally been put in
law in "some" nations that our slave-taxes support, that the law
was the cause. Bollocks. The cause was feminists who fought intensely
for what they "knew" was right against a system of patriarchal law
that fought them tooth and nail to deny those very natural rights.

The master of law and definition is but a tool of the real agents of
change, living people who act out of what they know is truth, no matter
the silly laws of men that crumble with every empire. Likely, depending
on how old you are, you've lived to see several empires collapse,
from the hapsburg, british, dutch, french, USSR, and the laws that
were spread by these empires have wasted away. The laws are the
impermanent side of things, as much as you suggest the opposite,
whereas the human will that makes the law is universal across time.

[mondo joe]

132. Sorry but those people made the law and enforced it.

You lawless types always end up with a might makes right system, and one that fails to protect minorities.

I reject your silly notions of the masculine and feminine - they're as sexist now as they ever were.

Law is simply the standardized agreement we humans make with one another. If you hate the law you hate the people.

[sweetheart]

137. I love you

The system of masculine and feminine i described is ancient, and you can
find sources on that from celtic, gnostic, the I-Ching and many places
that are far older than christianity let alone american culture.

Every person has both masculine and feminine inside them, so no need
to get in a huff. One is more dominant, usuaally, but generally people
who balance out their two sides are more happy folks. :-)

Law depends on its authority, plain and simple. In some cases, it is
a good thing. When it becomes a false authority, a decent person owes
it to goodwill, to question it, and challenge it. That is how women
got the vote. That is how slaves got free. They challenged criminal
laws. The statement you make "If you hate the law, you hate the
people." could have been made about jefferson davis about slaves who
rejected his slave colony.

Last time i checked, the law is being used to persecute minorities, like
non-christian religions, homosexuals, women, disabled people, black
people, foreign people and liberal people. Then your state of laws
is crumbling under your feet, and its really rich indeed for you to
defend its authority for protecting minorities. What planet do you
live on, mate? I love you. ;-)

[H2O Man]

92. "What you think

you become." - Gandhi

Some people understand this. They appreciate it. Others do not understand it. They cannot appreciate it, and may even argue that it is not true. But the extent that it is true does not depend on how many people understand and appreciate it.

[sweetheart]

94. yes

Faith and belief are the keys to awakening from which all action takes
root. I realize that the neo-christian culture of the USA has become
a society of "talk" and not "action", that as long as the "talk"
sounds rational, people will not bat an eyelash at immorality.

Religion has become "talk", political leadership has become "soundbytes"
and religion has become "myth" and "belief" in a sick culture that
has lost moral footing. I'm frankly disappointed that so few realize
to the degree that what was once a religious culture, has become not
secular, but merely base and corrupt and even subhuman under the
auspices of amoral irresponsibility. We are no longer soeverign
enlightened individuals, but owned assets of a theocratic state,
dehumanized and managed like cattle in a slaughter house.

I'll check out this ghandi book you mention.

namaste,
-s

[H2O Man]

97. I was also

referring to if you post something on here hat someone chosses to twist.

[sweetheart]

100. bloody mindedness

I do not write for the person who speaks back, but for the person
who reads this thread who has not written in it. In this sense,
this thread should demand from a reader, that they investigate within
themselves what their morals are, and whether or not they feel that
they really have freedom of religion, or whether they are compelled to
participate unwillingly in a theocracy.

It comes from a lifetime of being disenfranchised politically from the
very government that claims to be "my own". It has reached the point
where i no longer agree, not in my name, ever, and never was, no.

I don't care anymore. I hate the government. It is evil. I loathe
everything it stands for, and as much as i understand that it can do
good when empowered, myself living these days in a place where government
is rather healthy, proportional representation and all that, in the
place where I have a passport, this is bollocks, and i'm sick of
calling the emperor as having clothes.

I don't support their evil religion, and i reject it totally. I have
all the wrath in my heart that jesus had when he threw the money
changers out of the temple. I reject their authority, their wars, their
patriarchy, their false religion, their police state, their laws and
their corporate lies, their destruction of the earth and all the
crap they rationalize that is all religion... they have gone too far
and made up a false mammon, an evil god that most peole, even here
on DU worship... and it has feet of clay.

I'm sorry i don't make perfectly articulate arguments. It is the
poor education i got in this area, but i know what i feel, and i know
it is right to disagree. My religion says no, dissent, totallly
object and no, no, no screaming, no... until finally, i sit down to
meditate and the sound of the ocean is my mother.

The third party reader can tell who is sincere, who is twisting and
what the deeper significance in a thread is, much as each voice on
DU in theatre, is just another aspect of the production. There is
no truth, there are no liars, there is no government, there is just
life, wild chaotic and sublime. :-)

[H2O Man]

103. That's likely true.

Years ago, a friend asked me what do you have when a wise person argues with a fool? Two fools. (smile) Sometimes letting a fool babble on alone serves the purpose.

[bloom]

118. I think you made perfect sense

and it was just what I wanted to read today. :)


I was trying to say something like this at a Quaker meeting yesterday and was afraid I might have flubbed it up totally - but maybe some got the gist of it - as opposed to it seeming like some kind of insult (as someone around here seemed to think :shrug: )

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

68. Okay, then.

My religion is the STATE religion of America, as it was originally constituted. Our tenets are get the fuck out of my way and stay off my fucking back. Like most Americans I don't want any other religion introduced into our system of government.

[RightWingLeftist]

71. yes we must have seperation.....

The American government was based on classical liberal or libertarian theory. You can have a semi anarcho-capitalist government governing a very right wing social structure. It doesn't matter if the Founders were masons or deitists or both. It seems America is based on libertarian governance/right wing christian social norms.
I don't see where american liberalism fit in. The only time i see liberalism can in is when FDR inacted social democratic reforms when he came to power.
I'm not to happy with that. I rather have pre-FDR.....
Christianity is PART of America's life, even from it's infancy. That's what seperate us from Europe. Europe's governments are based on liberalism or progressiveism and we are not.

[sweetheart]

73. right wing christian social norms

I'll copy your post here, as we don't know how long you'll last on DU. ;-)

The American government was based on classical liberal or libertarian theory. You can have a semi anarcho-capitalist government governing a very right wing social structure. It doesn't matter if the Founders were masons or deitists or both. It seems America is based on libertarian governance/right wing christian social norms.
I don't see where american liberalism fit in. The only time i see liberalism can in is when FDR inacted social democratic reforms when he came to power.
I'm not to happy with that. I rather have pre-FDR.....
Christianity is PART of America's life, even from it's infancy. That's what seperate us from Europe. Europe's governments are based on liberalism or progressiveism and we are not.

There was, at the time of america's founding, a self evident truth,
or an unenumerated one, that corporatism was not the pervasive force
of today, and that there were many ways of living in america, that
religion could have been seen as a way of life, as much as someone
could have lived off the land as farmer, without participating in the
cash economy. Now that is all but erased as an organizing pricipal
and we are all ensconced in this unfettered captitalism.

What i hear from you, is the bush view, that FDR was the bad guy, as
much as i know prescott bush hated FDR, and surely his grandson's
very fibre has been to end and smash FDR's work by bankrupting the
state. However, that is not the least bit based on christian social
norms. Massive wealth disparities and needless poverty are no christain
things.

I guess i was duped by the first amendment and the pledge of allegience,
that's all i can figure. Freedom of religion, seems, IMO, to be
equal treatment in society of all religions contained therein. Rather
this bushwhack is polarizing a single sort of religious ideology
that is not the least bit christian, rather "corporatist". That
is distinclty "liberal" and as long as unfettered corporations
dominate the corporate states of america, the very liberalism you
say is "fdr's" fault is rather endemic in the economic system, and
a forced religion of coercive participation, a sort of neo-slavery,
if you will.

[ashmanonar]

135. *looks confused*

forget it. i was gonna respond, but it's really not worth my time.

[Dunedain]

75. Religion is the smile on a dog.

Sorry, I like that line.

I think religion is about understnding the nature of our existence. I think government is the practice of that understanding.

They should be seperate because exclusionary beliefs with the power of law exterminate people.

[BonjourUSA]

77. The real question is : Why state needs to be separated from religionS ?

The answer is simpler and easier : to be free and independent

[sweetheart]

80. Yes, free of corruption

Yet, as a previous poster points out, this is not realistic given that
there is a natural cultural consensus, and that some cultures tolerate
and expect different things based on the endemic manifestation of their
religion.

In truth, the state is indeed the agent of the majority religion, be it
how one wears clothes, head scarves, does or does not treat wandering
cows as sacred, and whether womens rights exceed those of fighting
cocks... as there is some confusion in south carolina.

So religion is indeed mixed in, and the difference is whether the
agents of those organized religions, in churches, have unwritten or
direct influence on government policy. Does the government come begging
to some unelected religious pundit so that the people's legal will can
be uninfluenced? Tonly Blair's given Rupert Murdoch a ton of blow jobs
for the priviledge of being approved by his corporate church, but nobody
cares about the actual church... so it seems, in our new age, that
the corporate church has indeed become the alter-ego of what "church"
meant long ago... and people are only realizing the danger of mixing
the neo-church and state.

[bloom]

106. I was thinking about this earlier...

religion could amount to a way of interpreting civilization and what place humans have on the earth - and affect how civilization proceeds. (Genesis, for instance, referred to man's god-given dominion over the earth)

So if I believe (as part of my religion) that humans are a part of nature and should live harmoniously with the earth and each other - that would affect the organization and implementation of civilization.

And lets say for instance - that Dick Cheney and/or B**h believes (as part of his religion) that people should not only subdue the earth - but exploit it's resources and people to the fullest extent possible - with no regard to pollution or sustainability or the extinction of humans and other species.

In the old world - we might have lived on different continents and not seen each other. In this world - well it's obvious whose "religion" is winning. That nuclear weapons even exist... that the resources of this country are poured into the military instead of life-enhancing ventures... look who controls the government, who influences the corporations and what they are allowed to do, etc.

To me it seems more obvious by the day that the (religious) path our country and civilization are on is taking us into a black hole.

[paparush]

112. Dude, read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris

Sam sums it up nicely.

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
FROM THE PUBLISHER
In the End of Faith, Sam Harris delivers a startling analysis of the clash between reason and religion in the modern world. He offers a vivid, historical tour of our willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs -- even when these beliefs inspire the worst of human atrocities. Harris argues that in the presence of weapons of mass destruction we cannot expect to survive our religious differences indefinitely. Most controversially, he argues that "moderation" in religion poses considerable dangers of its own, as the accommodation we have made to religious faith in our society now blinds us to the role that faith plays in perpetuating human conflict. While warning against the encroachment of organized religion into world politics, Harris draws on insights from neuroscience, philosophy, and Eastern mysticism to deliver a call for a truly modern foundation for ethics and spirituality that is both secular and humanistic.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?pwb=1&ean=9780393035155

[sweetheart]

116. Thank you

I'll check it out.

Welcome to DU. :-)

[bloom]

120. It's not all that different from Moses saying

in the Old Testament that people should not worship golden calves.

Nowadays a lot of people seem to worship the stock market, their cars and their TVs.



People say that Jesus said render unto Ceasar... but I think it's more like we are the Romans, ourselves - and people are forced to render unto our gov't.

[KitchenWitch]

124. Back in a sec.

getting the :popcorn:

[BigBearJohn]

133. The answer: