Secular folks should worry.

[Doctor Steuss]

Unfortunately the track record is mixed when ‘godless’ individuals take hold of government institutions. This should be a concern for everyone no matter what your ‘stripes’.

I'm tempted to point out the obvious, but imagine it'll just open up a pandora's box of no true Scotsman.

[MG 2.0]

Unfortunately the track record is mixed when ‘godless’ individuals take hold of government institutions. This should be a concern for everyone no matter what your ‘stripes’.

I'm tempted to point out the obvious, but imagine it'll just open up a pandora's box of no true Scotsman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Are you saying that this could never happen in the good ol’ USA?

I’m sure my previous post will not be taken lightly. But if the responses are ‘one liners’ such as yours I might take it that what I said might actually have merit.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

You ought to know better than to even ask this question.

As I’ve already said, my main worry/concern is the durability of the First Amendment.

You don’t know me as well as I may have hoped.

Regards,
MG

To answer your last point first: I would say that while I may have thought that I had some appreciation for MG about 8 or 9 years ago, as a reasonable and decent guy, it's like MG 2.0 is not the same person I met. Perhaps you feel the same way about the malkie you met back then compared to the one you see now.

Anyway, since I should "know better than to even ask this question" - I assume meaning that you feel it's outrageous that I did so - I wonder how I can fix it. By the way, please excuse me if I am not familiar with how you see the 1st Amendment - it's not a Canadian thing, and like several of the posters here, I'm not an American.

Is it the case, then, that your references to god and religion are not intended to privilege the particular god and religion you subscribe to over all others? You're happy with all gods and all religions being treated equally. The gods of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, New Age Spirituality, Buddhism, Satanism, Scientology, etc. are all fine in your eyes, and you would be happy having the preferences of any of these religions take the place of Christianity, including in the influence that they have in public life, lobbying for and making of laws?

If the influence of Mormonism in Utah were replaced by an equally strong influence of Islam, or Judaism, you'd be OK with that?

A few years ago a Utah legislator held back a law he was drafting because Elder Oaks asked him to do so - Oaks thought that his ideas were superior to those of the State Senator. Are you saying that you would be no more or less happy or unhappy if the legislator had acted that way based on the preference of a Catholic priest, or an Imam?

Is it only non-religious people you have no trust or faith in? Or should they also be allowed to wield the same level of influence?

Great points.

[Doctor Steuss]

I'm tempted to point out the obvious, but imagine it'll just open up a pandora's box of no true Scotsman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Are you saying that this could never happen in the good ol’ USA?

I’m sure my previous post will not be taken lightly. But if the responses are ‘one liners’ such as yours I might take it that what I said might actually have merit.

Regards,
MG

Of course government-sanctioned atrocities could happen in the "good ol' USA." They have already happened. Slavery, Jim Crow, Native American genocide, etc. These weren't done under "State atheism," or so-called "godless" people taking ahold of government institutions. It wasn't so-called secular humanist liberal progressive Marxist [insert snarl buzzword salad continuation]. These were done primarily by Christians. In many instances (like that of France) the pull towards a state atheism was specifically because of the corruption of religious originations and government (particularly in that instance, Christianity).

That an ideological position can be hobbled with a one-liner isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of its merit, lol. Unsurprising that you think it is though.

The Bible has been used to justify horrific things. Christian mores have been used to justify horrific things. Secular political religions have been used to justify horrific things. When religion (secular political, theistic, or other) gets mixed in with government, it tends to amplify turdery.

[No True Scotsman Place Reservation]

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I am a moderate Republican.

That’s another lie akin to when MG would claim he wasn’t an apologist, nor here to evangelize. But let’s give MG a fair shake!

MG, please bullet point the difference between your ‘moderate’ Republican and ‘not moderate’ Republican.

- Doc

[malkie]

MG, I see very little in your response that would not be at least as severe a concern if you reversed the godless and the religious.

However, when you say that "hypotheticals are rather meaningless" and then we look at all of the hypotheticals you have invoked from the OP, 70+ pages ago, your protestation seems a bit hollow. Still, it allows you to avoid answering some questions, so what's new?

If you look at European countries which are mostly secular in government, you see some countries in which there is an official religion, and others where there is not. But in eaither case there doesn't seem to be any lack of freedom for people to pursue their religious beliefs as long as they don't try to impose them on others not of their religion.

I suspect that in any case the problem is extremism, and that we all have at least as much to fear from religious extremism as from "godless" extremism.

You have a lot of freedom in the US - especially in Utah - to live your life according to your religion, but religious people there have clearly imposed their sectarian ideas on the rest of the population. If religious people would learn to live and let live, we would all be better off.

Same for godless folks too, of course, but you don't see armies of secular missionaries going out trying to talk people out of Mormonism or whatever, or non-secularists being told to "friend" their neighbours in the hopes of de-converting them. Britain (and other countries) never had the equivalent of a secular "baseball de-baptism" program. I think that there's reason to believe that secular folks are more likely to leave the religious alone, to let them make their own choices, than the other way around.

[malkie]

Unfortunately the track record is mixed when ‘godless’ individuals take hold of government institutions. This should be a concern for everyone no matter what your ‘stripes’.

I'm tempted to point out the obvious, but imagine it'll just open up a pandora's box of no true Scotsman.

As a true Scotsman I endorse your decision.

[MG 2.0]

I am a moderate Republican.

That’s another lie akin to when MG would claim he wasn’t an apologist, nor here to evangelize. But let’s give MG a fair shake!

MG, please bullet point the difference between your ‘moderate’ Republican and ‘not moderate’ Republican.

- Doc

Bullet point what YOU believe a moderate Republican to be and we’ll see how many boxes I check.

Bullet point what you believe a far right ‘racist, bigoted, white supremacy’ Republican to be and we’ll see how many boxes I check.

Go for it.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

my my my,
Res Ipsa, careful you may be becoming as much a disruptive trouble maker as that Mr Jesus that dasterdly stem is always complaining about.

Hey huckelberry. I don’t think Res Ipsa has included explicit mixed messages like Jesus did. I can’t help that Jesus preached both love and hate, and violence and peace. And I can’t help that people honor such confusion as if it came from an all knowing god. I’d question whether pointing out that Jesus’ messages were clearly confused amounts to complaining. That is the mythic character, wholly expected in his time and place, but definitely not expected if he were actually divine.

dasterdly stem, I find myself puzzled as to why you see Jesus combinations of love and hate as reflecting a mythic character of some specific time and place. It seems to me instead to reflect a normal reaction to the situation of being human in a time with dangerous conflicts where people die over them.

[MG 2.0]

I suspect that in any case the problem is extremism, and that we all have at least as much to fear from religious extremism as from "godless" extremism.

On that point I think we are in full agreement. And either one encapsulated within the framework of a federal/national government is dangerous. In the United States we have a Constitutional government beholden to the Bill of Rights and the Natural Rights of Man.

The question for me is whether a ‘leftest’ progressive secular humanist government vs. a conservative government based on tried and true principles of freedom and liberty for all has the greater potential to lead us down a path of no return towards governmental control over our liberty and freedom given to us through the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

That is an open ended question which is being tossed back and forth rather forcefully in the United States as we speak.

Both sides speak of upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and yet both sides cannot be right at the same time.

I tend to come down as moderately conservative rather than a secular progressive radical leftest.

But that should come as no great surprise.

Regards,
MG