Secular folks should worry.

[Res Ipsa]

You conceded upthread that you were using "secularism" as a stand in for some undefined thing that nonbelievers believe: some undefined existential threat.

I clearly defined what the risks are in regards to the gradual slide towards secular humanism and the non belief in God.

Regards,
MG

Nonresponsive. You asserted some imagined consequences. Nowhere did you define secularism as being anything other than the simple absence of belief in God.

[MG 2.0]

…the state should act in terms of neutrality. The state should not consider arguments of the form: God, therefore X or Not God, therefore X. This is a view of government that protects religious rights, regardless of whether the people in the government are believers or not.

History doesn’t seem to run in tandem with this idealistic way of promoting/viewing secular humanistic non belief in God. Those that have risen to power with these views/beliefs don’t have a good track record. Go back and read my thoughts in regards to the value of human life.

Oh, and religious rights have been one of the first things to go in totalitarian atheistic regimes and/or revolutions and/or governments that have risen to power.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

People of faith represent the majority of people in the United States, and have an outsized monopoly on elected offices.

At this point, yes they do. The point of the Deseret News article in the OP is to bring up the question of what might happen if this was not the case? And whether or not we are moving in that direction.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Can you write a description of our respective world views in a compare and contrast fashion that accurately describes my world view?

Sure. I believe in a creator God in whom all truth and power resides. You don’t. At the end of the day you are under the false assumption that mankind is naturally going to ‘choose the right’. That’s not always true. History proves that.

In the modern world we can see what no theistic belief can result in. The United States is the beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world.

Or has been.

The question that can be asked is whether or not the gradual effects of the slippery slope leading to atheism and/or non theistic belief is at play.

Question: Do the liberal non theists on this board look at the United States and it’s Constitution as a ‘city on a hill’ showing forth a beacon of freedom/hope and liberty for all mankind?

If so, why? If not, why?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I clearly defined what the risks are in regards to the gradual slide towards secular humanism and the non belief in God.

Regards,
MG

Nonresponsive. You asserted some imagined consequences. Nowhere did you define secularism as being anything other than the simple absence of belief in God.

And there we have it. “Imagined consequences”.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

As I said, you are mishmashing what I presented as my OWN thoughts and opinions with other unrelated sections/parts of the article.

Nice try there Mr. Lawyer.

Regards,
MG

Typical ad hominem.

I’m serious. Not meaning ad hominem or attack (and I’m not being passive aggressive ). I’m stating a truth. You’re using your lawyerlese to twist and turn and then shout a constructed and ‘self evident truth’. Lawyers do this ALL DAY LONG. And they’re (you’re) adept at it.

No argument there. It’s a fact. It’s your bread and butter.

No ad hominem.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

DARVO
- Doc

Filling up bandwidth/space with superfluous fluff.

Regards,
MG

Back to the A, as is your form. The reason why people are spending less energy on you is because after 20+ years of watching your shtick they feel it’s pointless to indulge you and your attention-seeking nonsense. You’re a muppet - a brainless piece of felt with the Q15’s and GOP’s arms firmly shoved up your ass running your thoughtless mouth for you.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

Let's review your words again:

It is that ultimate result of the human condition in which the elite, who have no belief in accountability to a god, are in charge of society and have the military force to dictate their whims, that we ALL ought to be concerned with. THAT was the point of the article.

Those are your words.

Correct. And my interpretive analysis of where this condition of societal governance could potentially lead.

My OPINION.

But history is on my side.

What I do find quite interesting is that you disagree.

We ALL ought to be concerned. Again, in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

…the state should act in terms of neutrality. The state should not consider arguments of the form: God, therefore X or Not God, therefore X. This is a view of government that protects religious rights, regardless of whether the people in the government are believers or not.

History doesn’t seem to run in tandem with this idealistic way of promoting/viewing secular humanistic non belief in God. Those that have risen to power with these views/beliefs don’t have a good track record. Go back and read my thoughts in regards to the value of human life.

Oh, and religious rights have been one of the first things to go in totalitarian atheistic regimes and/or revolutions and/or governments that have risen to power.

Regards,
MG

There is no comparable period in human history. Find me cases of people who are committed to "secularism" as the author defines it who are democratically elected to office in a modern democracy. You keep implying that every person who doesn't believe in God is Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. There were all leaders of fanatical movements which, in their fanaticism, resemble more the fanaticism of the Taliban or Iranian Clerics than they do Americans who are committed to the civic virtues of the United States but simply don't believe in God.

Who says "human life" has a greater value to the religious than the nonreligious? Wasn't it religious folks who were beheading people a bit ago? Of what value was Laban's life?

Oh, and religious rights have been one of the first things to go in totalitarian theistic regimes and/or revolutions and/or governments that have risen to power. Iranian revolution? Mohdi's persecution of Moslems? Taliban persecution of other sects of Islam?

[Res Ipsa]

People of faith represent the majority of people in the United States, and have an outsized monopoly on elected offices.

At this point, yes they do. The point of the Deseret News article in the OP is to bring up the question of what might happen if this was not the case? And whether or not we are moving in that direction.

Regards,
MG

So? Is it surprising that one would find an alarmist article about the nonreligious in the DN?