Is Socialism Our New Nationally Established Religion?

[Powerman]

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.

 

[Mr. P]

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

Thanks Ms. K

 

[alien21010]

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]

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.

Secular progressivism is a religion. Socialism is a doctrine of that religion, as is atheism.

 

[alien21010]

Secular progressivism is a religion. Socialism is a doctrine of that religion, as is atheism.

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.

 

[MissileMan]

Secular progressivism is a religion.

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.

Socialism is a doctrine of that religion, as is atheism.

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.

 

[Hobbit]

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.

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:

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

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.

Democracy and socialism aren't systems of beliefs, but rather systems of government and economy, respectively. They require no specific beliefs to work, thus not a religion.

 

[Gunny]

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.

You can refuse to see the big block letters on the wall if you wish in YOUR arguing semantics, but a belief is a belief, whether or not you choose to call it religion.

 

[MissileMan]

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:

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.

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

True secularism is simply the belief of separation of church and state. The problem lies in just WHAT is church and what is state. Extremists think ANY religious emblem or mention of religion in on any government property or government subsidized organization is a violation.

 

[Hobbit]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

X 3
That last paragraph warranted a 21 poop salute!

 

[Gunny]

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.

Hmmm...... actually, Hobbit's explanation is better than your twist on what he posted. I must have missed where he said science is religion.

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]

Hmmm...... actually, Hobbit's explanation is better than your twist on what he posted. I must have missed where he said science is religion.

You're right, what he actually said was that science is God.

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?

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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]

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.

I second that!

 

[Annie]

I second that!

so do most, you are missing that.

 

[MissileMan]

so do most, you are missing that.

I haven't been arguing with the "most"

 

[Annie]

I haven't been arguing with the "most"

So you only want to act like the 'fringe' is the majority?

 

[Hobbit]

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.

If I drank, I'd drink to that. Maybe I'll drink apple juice and pretend...