Hobbit said:Great article. I keep telling peole that atheism is a religion, making many of the same points, but they never believe me unless they're not atheists.
Atheism isn't a religion. That's absurd.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hobbit said:Great article. I keep telling peole that atheism is a religion, making many of the same points, but they never believe me unless they're not atheists.
Thanks Ms. KKathianne said:I found this:
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/hamilton/20031204.html
Some on Locke above, this seems more concise and probably what is being referred to:
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/commentary/20031212_brownstein.html
Locke v. Davey: The U.S. Supreme Court Case
alien21010 said:Socialism cannot be a state religion, because it is an ideology. Democracy is an ideology as well. Therefore, the entire premise of this thread is invalid.
Hobbit said:Secular progressivism is a religion. Socialism is a doctrine of that religion, as is atheism.
The desperation to have secularism identified as a religion is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The continued insistence that the formal worship of a deity is the same thing as trying to keep religion out of public schools and government is laughable.Hobbit said:Secular progressivism is a religion.
The absence of a thing cannot be that thing. The absence of religion cannot be a religion. It's really very simple.Hobbit said:Socialism is a doctrine of that religion, as is atheism.
MissileMan said:The desperation to have secularism identified as a religion is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The continued insistence that the formal worship of a deity is the same thing as trying to keep religion out of public schools and government is laughable.
The absence of a thing cannot be that thing. The absence of religion cannot be a religion. It's really very simple.
FYI, all secularists are not atheists. I would imagine that most atheists are secularists though.
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
alien21010 said:Wrong.
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
Main Entry: ide·ol·o·gy
Pronunciation: "I-dE-'ä-l&-jE, "i-
Variant(s): also ide·al·o·gy /-'ä-l&-jE, -'a-/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: French idéologie, from idéo- ideo- + -logie -logy
1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
- ide·ol·o·gist /-jist/ noun
We can argue semantics all day if you'd like. It still doesn't change the fact that socialism is not a religious doctrine.
Hobbit said:That "lack of a religion" argument is the weakest argument I've ever heard, and it's the one everbody uses. Let's look at definition number 4:
Hobbit said:Secular progessivism and atheism both hold true to this definition. They have a system of non-opinion beliefs that cannot be proven, and are thus believed through faith alone. This makes them a religion. Those that deny it is a religion only do so because one of the major tenets of the secular progressive faith is that religion is the ultimate evil in society, so classifying themselves as one would go against their nature.
MissileMan said:Is that the same definition you use for Christianity? I'll bet not. You insist on comparing secularism to Christianity when there is no comparison. It's disingenuine and you know it. It's really simple, zero does not, nor can it ever, equal one.
The confusion, IMO, is that the anti-Christian crowd has hijacked the term "secular." You are using the literal definition while Hobbit is using it to encompass not only secularists, but the anti-religion/anti-Christian bunch that have slipped in the back door of the secularist movement. The two agendas have become confused over time through association even though they are quite separate.
The problem is that you have NO idea what secularism is. Many secularists are religious, even Christian. When you get a clue, come on back and we'll chat.
MissileMan said:Is that the same definition you use for Christianity? I'll bet not. You insist on comparing secularism to Christianity when there is no comparison. It's disingenuine and you know it. It's really simple, zero does not, nor can it ever, equal one.
The problem is that you have NO idea what secularism is. Many secularists are religious, even Christian. When you get a clue, come on back and we'll chat.
Hobbit said:It's not disingenuine. The secular progressive movement, as it stands today, is a set of beliefs requiring every bit as much faith as any other religion. I also find it a weak argument to say that secular progressivism isn't a religion because it fits a different definition of religion than most others. However, the modern secular progressive movement has a creation myth (evolution and the primordial soup), a method of achieving paradise and perfection (socialism), a strict moral code (do not interfere with anything that doesn't seem to harm another), an infallible, higher power (science), many holy texts (Kinsey, Darwin, etc.), and even a Satanic figure that must be defeated to achieve paradise (corporations). The main tenets of the belief are that all other religions are harmful to society and that accumulation of wealth in any fashion is a selfish, evil act.
Hobbit said:If this is true, then they're either a small minority or their word has been hijacked, much like the word 'gay.' Secular progressivism, as it stands, is the most exclusive religion in the world except certain sects of Islam. Their belief is the epitome of enlightenment and any who hear it and still disagree are ignorant heretics and must have their speech confined to private places, lest they spread their filthy lies to others. The beliefs of secular progressives also require that they be enforced by the government, because they know better than the ignorant masses. Face it. It's a belief system. It requires faith to believe it. It's a religion. Lack of a "God" doesn't make that any less so. In fact, Buddhism is a recognized religion with no god or gods. Buddha is a revered figure, but the religion is simply a system of beliefs intended to lead to enlightenment. I've heard all of these arguments before and all they are are weak excuses to dissociate secular progressivism from other religions so they can become state sanctioned and justify their holy war against everyone else.
MissileMan said:This is ridiculous beyond description. According to you, biology and paleontology are religions, communism and democracy are religions, the U.S Constitution is a religious document, and IBM and Microsoft are demons. Oh, and Albert Einstein was a prophet! There can never be a separation of church and state in your twisted reality because the U.S. Government is a church, legislators are cardinals, and the President is Pope. You're still clueless.
You're right, what he actually said was that science is God.GunnyL said:Hmmm...... actually, Hobbit's explanation is better than your twist on what he posted. I must have missed where he said science is religion.
GunnyL said:You can call it a religion, a belief, or whatever other term you wish. Point is, fanatics who believe their ideals are superior to all others and and should be forced down everyone's throats worship themselves. They go to church every time they look in the mirror or pat themselves on the back at how much smarter than everyone else they are. They preach every time they open their mouthes and fully expect everyone else to shut up and listen with reverence.
So what's the difference?
MissileMan said:You're right, what he actually said was that science is God.
You're talking about the extremists. To call secularism a religion because of the few weirdos who get carried away and take it too far is like calling football a religion because a fan in the stands wears nothing but a barrel when it's 5 below zero in Mile High stadium. And the motivation to do so is disingenuous despite the protestations. Since secularists want to remove religion from public school and government, if you can get secularism labeled as a religion, then you can say they are in violation of the separation of church and state. A separation coincidently that disappears if mentioned with true religions like Christianity.
GunnyL said:And as I said a couple of posts ago, you are talking by-definition secularists and he is speaking of extremists that have hijacked the word. I understand where you are coming from, but I can also see what he is saying.
I myself support by-definition secularism. I DO NOT support this extreme remove every religious symbol from anything paid for with State funds crap. There's a difference between the two.
No, I don't want a religious entity in control of the government. I also do not wish to deny those who use or work in publicly-funded facilities their First Amendment Rights.
There is such a thing as moderation. More people ought to try it.
MissileMan said:I second that!
Kathianne said:so do most, you are missing that.
So you only want to act like the 'fringe' is the majority?MissileMan said:I haven't been arguing with the "most"
GunnyL said:And as I said a couple of posts ago, you are talking by-definition secularists and he is speaking of extremists that have hijacked the word. I understand where you are coming from, but I can also see what he is saying.
I myself support by-definition secularism. I DO NOT support this extreme remove every religious symbol from anything paid for with State funds crap. There's a difference between the two.
No, I don't want a religious entity in control of the government. I also do not wish to deny those who use or work in publicly-funded facilities their First Amendment Rights.
There is such a thing as moderation. More people ought to try it.