AMERICA: A Christian Nation?

[Othelos]

Absolutely not. Just because there is a Christian majority does not mean we should label our country Christian.

Why not?

Should we label our country a white nation because it's majority white?

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Well, the idea of a Christian theocracy is not a good one.
Saying we are a Christian nation implies that we are a theocracy and we support the ideas of Christianity above others.

It also discriminates against non-Christians.
For the same reason "under god" is offensive to non-Christians.

But the main reason is that calling ourselves a Christian nation simply isn't true.
It would be unconstitutional to do so any way.

... perhaps its the cynic in me but since when is the Constitution a barrier to the government acting in its interests?

Of course, i imply that identifying ourselves as a Christian nation is in the governments interests... for fun.

The constitution is not rules made by the government for the people.
It is more like the people making rules for the government.

And it is said in the very first amendment, the most important one, that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
And naming a state religion is not constitutional

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, the idea of a Christian theocracy is not a good one.
Saying we are a Christian nation implies that we are a theocracy and we support the ideas of Christianity above others.

It also discriminates against non-Christians.
For the same reason "under god" is offensive to non-Christians.

But the main reason is that calling ourselves a Christian nation simply isn't true.
It would be unconstitutional to do so any way.

... perhaps its the cynic in me but since when is the Constitution a barrier to the government acting in its interests?

Of course, i imply that identifying ourselves as a Christian nation is in the governments interests... for fun.

I mean, it could be in a country which didn't take itself seriously enough as a Christian nation.

With the sort of populace that exists in America I'd be really scared if someday the government decided to call itself "Christian".

Yes, this is how little confidence I have in Americans as an immigrant.

[New Jordslag]

... perhaps its the cynic in me but since when is the Constitution a barrier to the government acting in its interests?

Of course, i imply that identifying ourselves as a Christian nation is in the governments interests... for fun.

I mean, it could be in a country which didn't take itself seriously enough as a Christian nation.

With the sort of populace that exists in America I'd be really scared if someday the government decided to call itself "Christian".

Yes, this is how little confidence I have in Americans as an immigrant.

I'm an American, born and raised, and even I don't have confidence in Americans.

[Neutraligon]

I mean, it could be in a country which didn't take itself seriously enough as a Christian nation.

With the sort of populace that exists in America I'd be really scared if someday the government decided to call itself "Christian".

Yes, this is how little confidence I have in Americans as an immigrant.

I'm an American, born and raised, and even I don't have confidence in Americans.

On this issue, agreed.

[Catholic Federalized States]

I love the shocking differences in Italy, South Africa, Russia and Poland.



Knew your graph was wrong because of how low Poland and Russie were on the chart.

The other countries matter in aggregate, but I don't really care how religious specifically Poland or russia are, the topic is about the US, and the point of the graph was to show that the US is an outlier.

err, then there's no point in a graph if it's wrong then

can't claim something is an outlier if the results are wrong for the rest, for all you know the US can be the median

[Planita]

The other countries matter in aggregate, but I don't really care how religious specifically Poland or russia are, the topic is about the US, and the point of the graph was to show that the US is an outlier.

err, then there's no point in a graph if it's wrong then

can't claim something is an outlier if the results are wrong for the rest, for all you know the US can be the median

there is a similar graph a few pages back.

And no. Not a Christian state

[Neutraligon]

The other countries matter in aggregate, but I don't really care how religious specifically Poland or russia are, the topic is about the US, and the point of the graph was to show that the US is an outlier.

err, then there's no point in a graph if it's wrong then

can't claim something is an outlier if the results are wrong for the rest, for all you know the US can be the median

Umm looking at the axis the graphs are of two different things...

[Morr]

Define "club." If you're going to do this, it's only fair you start first.

A rigid item which augments the centrifugal force of the bludgeoning of an animal.

[Neutraligon]

Define "club." If you're going to do this, it's only fair you start first.

A rigid item which augments the centrifugal force of the bludgeoning of an animal.

Then any rigid item is a club...

[Morr]

A rigid item which augments the centrifugal force of the bludgeoning of an animal.

Then any rigid item is a club...

So long as it realizes the praxis of the idea "club", yes. Philosophically I do not define things metaphysically, but purely by material praxis. Theologically I believe in the soul, but I don't mix theology with my common philosophy anymore than I would mix it with science: they can arrive at compatible conclusions (Teilhard showed science and theology are complementary), but I think bringing theological notions into philosophy is generally a mistake unless the philosophy is concerned with theology in a more than incidental way.

[Morr]

The person is the creator of [the idea of] the walking stick, the other person is the creator of [the idea of] the club. If you subscribe to subjective idealism, then there is no distinction between creating an idea and creating a thing. Making a rosary out of a chair is same process as making a club out of walking stick, because "walking stick" is simply the idea of a walking stick, and "club" is simply an idea of a club. You'd have to contend that some ideas are less real than other ideas, but without any meta-idea reality that we can reference as yardstick to gauge the realness of an idea, you have no precedent to due this.

See, the problem is that language, how we communicate, doesn't make it such.

What your logic fails to grasp, and keeps on failing to grasp, is that language works by us defining what things are. A walking stick is a walking stick. If you call it a walking stick, and you created it, then your definition is authoritative as to what that thing is because you created the thing. Making a rosary out of a chair is not the same process as making a club out of a walking stick. The reason being that in one you are using something for a purpose which was not intended, in the other you are carving something out of something else.

Deism is defined as the belief in a non-interventionist deity, that's what they are. They are not atheists because they believe in a deity. Atheism is the lack of belief and rejection of any deities, not simply the belief in a non-interventionist deity. Language defines it as such, we have called it such. For you to come here and strut around going "but they are just atheists in drag!" completely and utterly makes no fucking sense given even atheists don't accept deists as atheists.

You statement is incompatible with the ontology you espouse. Do you see any distinction between a thing and an idea, yes, or no?

[Nord Amour]

The United States was founded by Enlightenment inspired intellectuals, most adhering to some form of secular, classical liberalism, which is clarified in the Treaty of Tripoli, bla bla bla...

Franklin was hardly a Christian and Washington held some dubious spiritual beliefs as well. Most importantly, in the context of the Enlightenment, "God" or the "Creator" might have referenced Nature in general, which was often viewed as being synonymous with God the Architect or God the Mathematician. This was a popular thing with Protestant Freemasons back then, and isn't strictly Christian in any sense. It could apply just as well to secular ideas outside of Protestantism.

The same goes for the principles outlined in the Declaration and Constitution. Whether we view them as God-given rights, or "natural rights," there is little difference.

If only the Tea Party studied its history, it could be a superb force of patriotism.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

See, the problem is that language, how we communicate, doesn't make it such.

What your logic fails to grasp, and keeps on failing to grasp, is that language works by us defining what things are. A walking stick is a walking stick. If you call it a walking stick, and you created it, then your definition is authoritative as to what that thing is because you created the thing. Making a rosary out of a chair is not the same process as making a club out of a walking stick. The reason being that in one you are using something for a purpose which was not intended, in the other you are carving something out of something else.

Deism is defined as the belief in a non-interventionist deity, that's what they are. They are not atheists because they believe in a deity. Atheism is the lack of belief and rejection of any deities, not simply the belief in a non-interventionist deity. Language defines it as such, we have called it such. For you to come here and strut around going "but they are just atheists in drag!" completely and utterly makes no fucking sense given even atheists don't accept deists as atheists.

You statement is incompatible with the ontology you espouse. Do you see any distinction between a thing and an idea, yes, or no?

Have you ever read language theory, yes or no?

[Morr]

You statement is incompatible with the ontology you espouse. Do you see any distinction between a thing and an idea, yes, or no?

Have you ever read language theory, yes or no?

Of course, but unless you're referencing language theory which subscribes to idealism, it is largely irrelevant here.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

See, the problem is that language, how we communicate, doesn't make it such.

What your logic fails to grasp, and keeps on failing to grasp, is that language works by us defining what things are. A walking stick is a walking stick. If you call it a walking stick, and you created it, then your definition is authoritative as to what that thing is because you created the thing.

Why do people who create things get to be the authority over what those things are named?

If you use a walking stick in the same way that you would use a club, and it achieves the same results, then it is also a club.

The definitions are not mutually exclusive.

[Neutraligon]

See, the problem is that language, how we communicate, doesn't make it such.

What your logic fails to grasp, and keeps on failing to grasp, is that language works by us defining what things are. A walking stick is a walking stick. If you call it a walking stick, and you created it, then your definition is authoritative as to what that thing is because you created the thing.

Why do people who create things get to be the authority over what those things are named?

If you use a walking stick in the same way that you would use a club, and it achieves the same results, then it is also a club.

The definitions are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed on the other hand atheism and deism do have mutually exclusive definitions.

[Morr]

Why do people who create things get to be the authority over what those things are named?

If you use a walking stick in the same way that you would use a club, and it achieves the same results, then it is also a club.

The definitions are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed on the other hand atheism and deism do have mutually exclusive definitions.

Only according to Aristotelian logic.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

See, the problem is that language, how we communicate, doesn't make it such.

What your logic fails to grasp, and keeps on failing to grasp, is that language works by us defining what things are. A walking stick is a walking stick. If you call it a walking stick, and you created it, then your definition is authoritative as to what that thing is because you created the thing.

Why do people who create things get to be the authority over what those things are named?

If you use a walking stick in the same way that you would use a club, and it achieves the same results, then it is also a club.

The definitions are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed they are not mutually exclusive, but we generally name things one way or the other.

You don't call a Toyota a Lexus even if they are made by the same company, now do you?

[Neutraligon]

Indeed on the other hand atheism and deism do have mutually exclusive definitions.

Only according to Aristotelian logic.

Deism is the belief in the watchmaker god.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.

Tell me...how are these not mutually exclusive.

[Morr]

Only according to Aristotelian logic.

Deism is the belief in the watchmaker god.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.

Tell me...how are these not mutually exclusive.

Well your definitions of both are strictly Aristotelian, so in this case they are. But if you consider the matter from the perspective of dialectical materialism, which is that things are defined by praxis rather than metaphysical essence (and this I think is far more relevant logic when we're talking about how a belief would function in the state), then there is no important distinction because there is zero distinction between atheist praxis and deist praxis.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Deism is the belief in the watchmaker god.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.

Tell me...how are these not mutually exclusive.

Well your definitions of both are strictly Aristotelian, so in this case they are. But if you consider the matter from the perspective of dialectical materialism, which is that things are defined by praxis rather than metaphysical essence (and this I think is far more relevant logic when we're talking about how a belief would function in the state), then there is no important distinction because there is zero distinction between atheist praxis and deist praxis.

Yes, but ideas such as the existence of God generally don't have any practical functions in the real world.

[Morr]

Well your definitions of both are strictly Aristotelian, so in this case they are. But if you consider the matter from the perspective of dialectical materialism, which is that things are defined by praxis rather than metaphysical essence (and this I think is far more relevant logic when we're talking about how a belief would function in the state), then there is no important distinction because there is zero distinction between atheist praxis and deist praxis.

Yes, but ideas such as the existence of God generally don't have any practical functions in the real world.

Not for deists, but they certainly do for Christians.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, but ideas such as the existence of God generally don't have any practical functions in the real world.

Not for deists, but they certainly do for Christians.

Christians theists believe there are any, but there aren't any.

[Neutraligon]

Well your definitions of both are strictly Aristotelian, so in this case they are. But if you consider the matter from the perspective of dialectical materialism, which is that things are defined by praxis rather than metaphysical essence (and this I think is far more relevant logic when we're talking about how a belief would function in the state), then there is no important distinction because there is zero distinction between atheist praxis and deist praxis.

Yes, but ideas such as the existence of God generally don't have any practical functions in the real world.

I would disagree, as the deist god is basically why anything is here at all, even if that god does not now intervene. Atheist do not hold that to be true.