Spyman: The essential difference being that neither capitalism or communism claims divine mandate.

Or really any moral truth. Particularly capitalism. Its an economic system, not a system of morality (I would make the assertion that even people who are gung-ho capitalists would concede that capitalism isn't moral or immoral, but amoral.) I wouldn't want to put words in Putin33's mouth, but I'd hazard a guess myself that communism makes claim to be a source of morals, merely a system to get more equality and justice.

Religions in general make the claim for being the font of morality. That is but one of the issues I have with the concept.

That, and the body count that supposedly God racked up back in the day. At least the Greeks had the decency to make their gods openly petty and generally bastardous. Zeus killing a motherfucker isn't a shock, because Zeus was, according to the myths, a giant asshole.

Yahweh, God, etc is set up as a perfectly moral and perfectly good being. Yet, he supposedly condoned massacres, slaughter, etc.

God wills it, after all.

Its the blatant contradictions and hypocrisy that really make Christianity annoying.

Huh. And I'm trying not to be annoyed by rude people.

Putin, granted, Pol Pot (his chosen name) had Buddhist influences in his early upbringing, and who's to say how much those influenced his later interpretation of state atheism? but at least you can see that there have been many state-atheist purges of religion of all sorts.

Kampuchea was not an atheist state. Just admit you're wrong on this and go away.

http://www.selectbooks.com.sg/getTitle.aspx?SBNum=043654

http://fainegreenwood.com/2011/12/16/buddhism-and-the-khmer-rouge-nuon-cheas-curious-theology/

Putin, since it's so obviously an article of faith for you, I won't argue the point any longer. But that doesn't mean I agree. And if you want me to go away, just use the 'Mute' button.

http://hindu.com/2003/07/04/stories/2003070402441402.htm

Odd to have a Buddhist funeral attended by Buddhist monks and the CPK brass, if you're supposedly a staunch atheist who liquidated Buddhism, no?

It's not an article of faith. Ian Harris, a Cambodianist, who studied this question in detail, repudiates your claim. The #2 KR figure in the government went on a long monologue about how compatible Buddhism is with the KR's ideology. Pol Pot's wife, who was a figure akin to Jiang Qing in China, had a massive Buddhist funeral complete with monk chanting.

Disagree all you want, you seem to think you're entitled to your own facts and don't ever bother to listen to anybody but you and your Amen corner.

And my name is not Mutejus, I don't mute people who redbait me constantly, although I probably should.

Interesting change of events, trying to build a bridge while others are doing their best to burn it, lol.

So, there is no shortage of things we disagree on, that's not really news at all.

Jack? have you changed your mind on the statements we've agreed to thus far? The House quote makes me wonder ;-)


@Hyperion

That's an interesting take on #1 and one that I was working into statement #2 altough you put it more eloquently. Yes, I agree that the best way to avoid a "mob mentality" is to be forearmed against it and to know that it is a possibility. I'm glad that you put theists, along with atheists, in the category of being able to foresee an atrocity and try to avert it. That's kind of a fundamental assumption that I was making without realizing myself.

That first statement didn't come out right. Sounds as if I'm trying to build something and everyone else is destrying it. Should have typed "We're trying" not just "trying" :-)

I appreciate the willingness of people to chime in; I think this discussion seems to be breaking some ground that I haven't seen before in many others. I've definitely found several of the posts to be eloquent thought provoking.

CA: If religion wasn't being used constantly in the US to justify the government legislating morality, if it wasn't being used to persecute minorities the world over, and if people kept their private beliefs private, you'd find me a very live and let live person. Even now, I would never go into a church, mosque or temple and cause problems. That's a private place, and a private concern.

But when you bring your superstitions into the public sphere, I'm not going to just sit there and acquiesce. I will push back, because frankly... the history of nations when they're under the control of religions isn't exactly a bright and shining one.

You know when you love someone but they don't love you but they don't want to tell you the truth for fear of hurting your feelings because you're emotionally weak, they say they will come back for you. That's what Jesus said 2000 years ago, what is a reasonable time to wait for someone before you finally realise they may not have been completely honest with you ??

N-Baby coming back from the dead once already makes Him pretty credible in my opinion, lol. So, you've been curiously silent on the ideas that we've been hammering out. Did you agree with them?

1)“Neither atheists nor Christians are immune to being brought into a mob mentality that allows atrocities to take place."


2) "We're all human; it's our duty to realize that we can commit atrocities, so we can be on guard against them in the future."


3) Both theists and atheists have made attempts to better the world.

@ Jack (sort of)

I’m going to go out on a limb because Jack’s comment about keeping beliefs private strikes a bit of a chord with me. With that In mind I’d like to propose a fourth statement that I think will be a little more controversial:



4) Every citizen of any country has the right to participate in the governmental process as provided for in the laws of that land.



Basically, atheists and theists, you can gripe all you want about how you think the other side is voting, or how you think the other side is using the courts. They are, however, doing exactly what they have the right to do. An atheist or theist might have a hand in passing a law, or in getting a law overturned. Neither side is doing anything immoral by simply casting a vote or bringing a lawsuit. You may disagree with them. You may have an absolutely credible argument as to why they should agree with you. That’s fine, let’s hear it before the vote. Get out and make your voice heard. However don’t just call the other side immoral or intolerant just because you weren’t persuasive enough this time. Just a though theists, telling atheists that they are immoral, going to Hell, etc. is probably a terrible way to get them to agree with you about anything. Likewise atheists, telling theists that they are superstitious, that God is evil, that their beliefs are outdated, etc. is probably baggage that your arguments would be more persuasive without as well.

Perhaps a better version of #4 should read that:

4) Nobody should be barred from participating in their country's government merely because of their religious belief or lack thereof.

Yeah, at this moment, I'm not so worried about theist access to government.

Hell, there are several states where by statute, I'm not able to hold public office here in the US. While I don't think it would hold up in court, the fact that they're even there shows a great deal about theists views on government. :)

So, you agree that neither theists nor atheists need to be barred from participating in the governmental process?

No, but I do say that imposing laws based upon religious doctrine should be barred.

Example: Your religion may say gay marriage is wrong. However, my response to that would be "Don't get one". When people use religion to justify prejudice, its not ok.

So yeah, participate, but don't impose your particular restrictions on others.

I've never heard somebody passing a law that outlaws something they really want to do, but can't stop. Its for that other guy, because your quality of life is impacted because two dudes can enter a legal arrangement.

@ Jack


"No, but I do say that imposing laws based upon religious doctrine should be barred."


Is that No you don't agree with Statement #4, or No you don't think anyone should be barred from participating in the governmental process?



How on earth do you institute that fairly? I mean an argument can be made that half of the laws in effect have some ties to religious doctrine. Who would decide what the basis is for each law?

As I stated, I think it makes more sense to allow people to try to pass any law they want. If a bad law gets proposed; then campaign like hell against it. If it gets passed; challenge it in court. I'm a little leary of saying "Any law based on X group's values should be barred from consideration". Regardless of whether you think it's based upon superstition. You may not agree with what any particular group has to say, but silencing them or making any law they propose suspect is a questionable tactic at best.

Kind of a funny side note that this one reminded me of:

"I've never heard somebody passing a law that outlaws something they really want to do, but can't stop. Its for that other guy, because your quality of life is impacted because two dudes can enter a legal arrangement. "


A friend of mine had just quite smoking and a bill was introduced that an additional tax be placed on cigarette purchases. He was all for it.

"If you make it more expensive to smoke fewer people would do it. The revenue from those that do could be used to defray some of the cost that smokers cause the rest of us through healthcare and insurance, etc."

I was about to argue the point (not a smoker myself, but not really in favor of the bill), when he found out that it the bill would also impose the tax on alcohol sales. His reaction was immediatley "Heck No! That's a stupid law!"

I would say that your quality of life is affected by a couple of guys striking a deal much more than you would like to believe. Politics, as a former boss of mine used to say, politics affects everything from the price of gas that you put in your tanks to the schools you send your kids to.

I think the answer is to become involved yourself, not to bar anyone else from becoming involved.