AMERICA: A Christian Nation?

[Morr]

Not for deists, but they certainly do for Christians.

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

Regardless, our stance is tied heavily to our praxis.

[Morr]

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.

Explain how that factors into material praxis.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

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.

How one would say that is that there is no practical difference between an atheist and a deist, other than they would have a different answer to a very specific question.

And you could say that the difference between a walking stick and a club is that a walking stick is also useful to assist in walking, where some possible clubs might not be.

When it comes to talking about a country designed by atheists or deists, though, it is valid that there would be no practical difference other than perhaps a slight difference in attitude toward religions.

[Neutraligon]

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.

Explain how that factors into material praxis.

Why does it need to? Oh except that these theists would then not look scientifically at the beginning of the universe.

[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.

How one would say that is that there is no practical difference between an atheist and a deist, other than they would have a different answer to a very specific question.

And you could say that the difference between a walking stick and a club is that a walking stick is also useful to assist in walking, where some possible clubs might not be.

When it comes to talking about a country designed by atheists or deists, though, it is valid that there would be no practical difference other than perhaps a slight difference in attitude toward religions.

I define a walking stick and a club according to function. If you use a stick constantly for walking, it is a walking stick, if you use it constantly for clubbing, it is a club, if you use it for both, it is both. If you have a stick you intend to beat someone with but have not, it is a stick which has the potential to be a club.

[Morr]

Explain how that factors into material praxis.

Why does it need to? Oh except that these theists would then not look scientifically at the beginning of the universe.

Material praxis is all that matters unless you are asserting that metaphysical things like the soul and beauty existent on some non-material plane.

[Neutraligon]

Why does it need to? Oh except that these theists would then not look scientifically at the beginning of the universe.

It needs to factor in for deists to be different in praxis from atheists, which is all that matter unless you are asserting a theory of metaphysical essences.

Why does there need to be different praxis? And I showed a difference already.

[Neutraligon]

Why does it need to? Oh except that these theists would then not look scientifically at the beginning of the universe.

Material praxisis all that matter unless you are asserting a theory of metaphysical essences.

Why?

[Morr]

Material praxisis all that matter unless you are asserting a theory of metaphysical essences.

Why?

Because otherwise you have no frame of reference for the nature of something. You either use material praxis to define the nature of something, or you use some metaphysical definition. If you say someone is what they believe and not what they do, then you're a crypto-metaphysician.

[Neutraligon]

Why?

Because otherwise you have no frame of reference for the nature of something. You either use material praxis to define the nature of something, or you use some metaphysical definition. If you say someone is what they believe and not what they do, then you're a crypto-metaphysician.

Except that thoughts are not metaphysical, even if they have no real world consequences. A person who does not act on a thought still has that thought. A belief is still a physical thing...

[Morr]

Because otherwise you have no frame of reference for the nature of something. You either use material praxis to define the nature of something, or you use some metaphysical definition. If you say someone is what they believe and not what they do, then you're a crypto-metaphysician.

Except that thoughts are not metaphysical, even if they have no real world consequences. A person who does not act on a thought still has that thought. A belief is still a physical thing...

But completely useless empirically, unless our instruments develop to the extent that we can read minds like books. In which case you can say within that book there is written a belief in God, but how much does it have to figure into the rest of the work for us to say the book believes in God?

[Neutraligon]

Except that thoughts are not metaphysical, even if they have no real world consequences. A person who does not act on a thought still has that thought. A belief is still a physical thing...

But completely useless empirically, unless our instruments develop to the extent that we can read minds like books. In which case you can say within that book there is written a belief in God, but how much does it have to figure into the rest of the work for us to say the book believes in God?

Not really, as I said thought is real, and thoughts help make the person who they are. But since thoughts are real and physical they are not metaphysical... A book is incapable of belief as it is incapable of thought. Thought are the electrical signals created by a brain. The book has neither a brain nor the electrical signals created from a brain.

[Morr]

But completely useless empirically, unless our instruments develop to the extent that we can read minds like books. In which case you can say within that book there is written a belief in God, but how much does it have to figure into the rest of the work for us to say the book believes in God?

Not really, as I said thought is real, and thoughts help make the person who they are. But since thoughts are real and physical they are not metaphysical... A book is incapable of belief as it is incapable of thought. Thought are the electrical signals created by a brain. The book has neither a brain nor the electrical signals created from a brain.

You're presupposing a model of thoughts as physical and empirical (that is, we don't simply take the word of someone who holds the book, but we can actually read the book). How are thoughts, in this model, different from words in a book?

[Neutraligon]

Not really, as I said thought is real, and thoughts help make the person who they are. But since thoughts are real and physical they are not metaphysical... A book is incapable of belief as it is incapable of thought. Thought are the electrical signals created by a brain. The book has neither a brain nor the electrical signals created from a brain.

You're presupposing a model of thoughts as physical and empirical (that is, we don't simply take the word of someone who holds the book, but we can actually read the book). How are thoughts, in this model, different from words in a book?

Actually no it isn't a presupposition, thoughts are physically real as demonstrated by science.We do not need to be able to read the exact thought to be able to tell that a person is having a thought (we can look at the electrical signals of the brain...). A thought are electrical/chemical signals, these signals can change over time, unlike the words in a book.

[Morr]

You're presupposing a model of thoughts as physical and empirical (that is, we don't simply take the word of someone who holds the book, but we can actually read the book). How are thoughts, in this model, different from words in a book?

Actually no it isn't a presupposition, thoughts are physically real as demonstrated by science.We do not need to be able to read the exact thought to be able to tell that a person is having a thought (we can look at the electrical signals of the brain...). A thought are electrical/chemical signals, these signals can change over time, unlike the words in a book.

This is not observing a thought, at least not the sort you're talking about, it's observing a feeling. If you want to count feelings and the unconscious as the primary kernels of conscious thought, well then a person can hardly know themselves if they an atheist.

The writing on a neon sign can change, I don't see how this is relevant to the analogy.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Founded by Christians, molded by Christians on Christian values.

Result = Christian.

Founded by whites, molded by whites with white 'values'.

Result = white.

A white country for whits, no fureigners.

[Planita]

Founded by whites, molded by whites with white 'values'.

Result = white.

A white country for whits, no fureigners.

A True 'MURICA

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

A white country for whits, no fureigners.

A True 'MURICA

The land of the oppressive and home of the cowardly.

[Morr]

A True 'MURICA

The land of the oppressive and home of the cowardly.

The same can be said of every nation.

[New Jordslag]

The land of the oppressive and home of the cowardly.

The same can be said of every nation.

I can name countries that are not Oppressive. Regardless, I do see your point.

[Morr]

The same can be said of every nation.

I can name countries that are not Oppressive. Regardless, I do see your point.

All capitalist countries are oppressive, as are all countries currently identifying with communism, especially those which make us of third world exploitation. To say they are not oppressive is like saying the British Empire wasn't oppressive compared to the U.S. because they abolished slavery.

My point is that you cannot name any countries which are significantly less oppressive than the U.S., the most you can do is show they have a more enlightened form of oppression (just as there were far more enlightened sorts of slavery than that practiced in the U.S.). To single out the U.S. as the home of the oppressive and cowardly is tedious slight against the people who live here, our discrepancy in wealth being greater than most Western nations means we have more people who are oppressed, not who are oppressive. China is guilty of far more human rights violations than we are, but to say China is the land of the oppressive and cowardly is crypto-jingoism.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I can name countries that are not Oppressive. Regardless, I do see your point.

All capitalist countries are oppressive, as are all countries currently identifying with communism, especially those which make us of third world exploitation. To say they are not oppressive is like saying the British Empire wasn't oppressive compared to the U.S. because they abolished slavery.

My point is that you cannot name any countries which are significantly less oppressive than the U.S., the most you can do is show they have a more enlightened form of oppression (just as there were far more enlightened sorts of slavery than that practiced in the U.S.). To single out the U.S. as the home of the oppressive and cowardly is tedious slight against the people who live here, our discrepancy in wealth being greater than most Western nations means we have more people who are oppressed, not who are oppressive. China is guilty of far more human rights violations than we are, but to say China is the land of the oppressive and cowardly is crypto-jingoism.

Well, to be fair, only you guys believe in bullshit exceptionalism.

[Morr]

All capitalist countries are oppressive, as are all countries currently identifying with communism, especially those which make us of third world exploitation. To say they are not oppressive is like saying the British Empire wasn't oppressive compared to the U.S. because they abolished slavery.

My point is that you cannot name any countries which are significantly less oppressive than the U.S., the most you can do is show they have a more enlightened form of oppression (just as there were far more enlightened sorts of slavery than that practiced in the U.S.). To single out the U.S. as the home of the oppressive and cowardly is tedious slight against the people who live here, our discrepancy in wealth being greater than most Western nations means we have more people who are oppressed, not who are oppressive. China is guilty of far more human rights violations than we are, but to say China is the land of the oppressive and cowardly is crypto-jingoism.

Well, to be fair, only you guys believe in bullshit exceptionalism.

Most hegemonic (and quite a few that weren't) states believed that before being humbled, spare me your sanctimony. The UK even fed our exceptionism under the greater banner of white exceptionism.


The White Man's Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands

Take up the White Man's burden, Send forth the best ye breed
Go bind your sons to exile, to serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden, In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit, And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden, The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden, No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper, The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living, And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden, Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden, Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood, through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers!

-Rudyard Kipling

[The Archregimancy]

Well, to be fair, only you guys believe in bullshit exceptionalism.

Most hegemonic (and quite a few that weren't) states believed that before being humbled, spare me your sanctimony. The UK even fed our exceptionism under the greater banner of white exceptionism.

<Kipling snipped>

You're possibly misrepresenting Kipling slightly here; if I'm understanding you correctly, which I'm not entirely certain of. The White Man's Burden is a (probably) deliberately ambiguous poem that can be read both as an open call to white imperialism and as sombre satire on the pointlessness thereof - and even as both simultaneously. The contemporary American reading tended to see the poem as an open justification of US control of the Philippines, ignoring the more ambiguous contexts that Kipling had layered in - a bit like how Reagan appropriated Springsteen's Born in the USA as a patriotic anthem while ignoring the plight of the Vietnam veteran at the heart of the song. Today many still take the poem entirely at face value, which is wholly understandable, but perhaps also slightly misleading.

The issue is muddied by Kipling's own overt imperialism (disillusionment subsequently set in with the death of his son in the First World War: "If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied"), though noting such doesn't exclude the satirical reading; it was entirely possible to be a 19th-century imperialist while having absolutely no illusions about the consequences of that imperialism. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is similarly ambiguous, at once managing to be a scathing attack on the worst excesses of European imperialism (far more overtly so than Kipling's poem) while simultaneously relying on a profoundly imperialist (and racist) contrast between European civilisation and African savagery to make its central thematic point.

Summed up, if Kipling in any way contributed towards American exceptionalism with The White Man's Burden, that was primarily because that was the reading Americans already wanted to take from the poem in the wake of the events of 1898; Kipling's own intent is somewhat harder to read, and multiple interpretations are possible, not least because his own statements on the issue weren't wholly consistent.

However, it should also be noted that Soldati senza confini's statement about American exceptionalism is slightly unfair given the strong 19th-century tradition of European imperialist exceptionalism that we only really shed when European civilisation tried to commit collective suicide between 1914 and 1945.

[New Jordslag]

I can name countries that are not Oppressive. Regardless, I do see your point.

All capitalist countries are oppressive, as are all countries currently identifying with communism, especially those which make us of third world exploitation. To say they are not oppressive is like saying the British Empire wasn't oppressive compared to the U.S. because they abolished slavery.

My point is that you cannot name any countries which are significantly less oppressive than the U.S., the most you can do is show they have a more enlightened form of oppression (just as there were far more enlightened sorts of slavery than that practiced in the U.S.). To single out the U.S. as the home of the oppressive and cowardly is tedious slight against the people who live here, our discrepancy in wealth being greater than most Western nations means we have more people who are oppressed, not who are oppressive. China is guilty of far more human rights violations than we are, but to say China is the land of the oppressive and cowardly is crypto-jingoism.

Not necessarily. Denmark isn't oppressive, for example. It's citizens are the happiest in the pworld and it is the least corrupt country in the world. There you go. One modern Capitalist Country that is significantly less Oppressive than the US. I could make a whole list, in fact. It's easy to be less oppressive than the US. It's a low bar.