Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I see it as a charter of rights rather than a tool, but I understand why you wouldn't.

How and why is it to be dismantled?

Barring a revolution headed by me, you’d need an amendment.

Why? To remove religion from the private sphere.

Why not just ban religious extremists from serving in government? If someone practices their religion peacefully and does not want to use the state to shove it down everyone's throats, why should they be punished?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Even though I like the idea of a confessional Christian state I would still very much like keeping "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as a part of the 1st Amendment. Everyone should be free to make up their minds and worship the way they wish to, excluding of course those which threaten the stability of the nation or society but Salafism seems more of an ideology than a religion in my opinion. I also do not like the mixing of the Golden Sword with the Steel Sword, if I may use Medieval terminology of the Investiture Controversy.

My only interest in a state religion is something akin to the Church of England, as opposed to legislating laws based on religious commands. While Christianity and Islam are fundamentally opposed to Asian traditions, they're not a serious threat in size or activity and should be viewed with benign indifference as heterodoxic eccentric doctrines.

What aspects of Christianity and Islam are opposed to Asian values?

[Kowani]

Barring a revolution headed by me, you’d need an amendment.

Why? To remove religion from the private sphere.

Why not just ban religious extremists from serving in government? If someone practices their religion peacefully and does not want to use the state to shove it down everyone's throats, why should they be punished?

Point one: Tribalism.
Point two: Ignorance.
Point three: Indoctrination of children with ideas dedicated towards the othering of people.
Point four: Direct opposition between state and religious laws. The idea of enlightened secularism only works with the apatheistic. Those that actually care cannot abide that.
Point five: Those who will, in secret, utilize religion to harm others.

[Bienenhalde]

Smh do you even want to found a Hellenist Empire.

I just want a polytheistic America tbh

And do you really think such a thing is possibly, given how deeply entwined traditional American culture has been with Christianity?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I just want a polytheistic America tbh

And do you really think such a thing is possibly, given how deeply entwined traditional American culture has been with Christianity?

Since we are founded on a secular - not christian - government, it is possible. Just unlikely that people would change their religious beliefs in that direction.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

I've read about that. It's interesting to see as someone who enjoys history and is a history major but is also slightly concerning I must admit as a Christian and a theology major.


Would you be willing to read the Athanasian Creed which explains the Trinity if I post a link?

Repeating something illogical and preposterous doesn’t make it true. Arianism is and always has been the more logical view on the trinity. Regardless, we digress.

‘Minzerland, why don’t you like atheists?’
‘Well, I don’t know Pooh!’

[Washington Resistance Army]

I just want a polytheistic America tbh

And do you really think such a thing is possibly, given how deeply entwined traditional American culture has been with Christianity?

Given how rapidly Christianity is shrinking in the west anything is possible.

[Kowani]

Repeating something illogical and preposterous doesn’t make it true. Arianism is and always has been the more logical view on the trinity. Regardless, we digress.

‘Minzerland, why don’t you like atheists?’
‘Well, I don’t know Pooh!’

Yeah, that’s a well-reasoned, eloquent rebuttal.

[Bienenhalde]

Tribalism, ignorance, and malice towards others are deeply embedded flaws in human nature whether religious or not. There is no evidence that banning religion would solve such problems, and it could easily make them worse. And do you really think a totalitarian state would be a good substitute for religion in terms of guiding humanity? The experience of communism and fascism over the last one hundred years shows us that trying to replace God with an all powerful state was a disaster.

[Bienenhalde]

And do you really think such a thing is possibly, given how deeply entwined traditional American culture has been with Christianity?

Given how rapidly Christianity is shrinking in the west anything is possible.

I think a polytheist society would be preferable to an atheist one, but I can not imagine how a polytheist America would be truly "American", you know what I mean?

[Kowani]

Tribalism, ignorance, and malice towards others are deeply embedded flaws in human nature whether religious or not. There is no evidence that banning religion would solve such problems, and it could easily make them worse. And do you really think a totalitarian state would be a good substitute for religion in terms of guiding humanity? The experience of communism and fascism over the last one hundred years shows us that trying to replace God with an all powerful state was a disaster.

I never claimed that it would be totalitarian in all things. One must only be authoritarian in certain areas. Tribalism is not solely dependent on religion, no. But, it’s as good a place to start as any. And while it’s true that ignorance is technically the default state of existence, it would seem that the greater ignorance tends to correspond to greater irreligiousity. As for malice, I focus on removing the reasoning behind it. One cannot stop people from thinking their kids are possessed by demons, or that homosexuals are the Antichrist by any other method than attacking religion.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I see it as a charter of rights rather than a tool, but I understand why you wouldn't.

How and why is it to be dismantled?

Barring a revolution headed by me, you’d need an amendment.

Why? To remove religion from the private sphere.

What do you mean by private sphere?

[Kowani]

Barring a revolution headed by me, you’d need an amendment.

Why? To remove religion from the private sphere.

What do you mean by private sphere?

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Barring a revolution headed by me, you’d need an amendment.

Why? To remove religion from the private sphere.

What do you mean by private sphere?

He wants to remove religion from people's personal lives via the power of the state.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Why not just ban religious extremists from serving in government? If someone practices their religion peacefully and does not want to use the state to shove it down everyone's throats, why should they be punished?

Point one: Tribalism.
Point two: Ignorance.
Point three: Indoctrination of children with ideas dedicated towards the othering of people.
Point four: Direct opposition between state and religious laws. The idea of enlightened secularism only works with the apatheistic. Those that actually care cannot abide that.
Point five: Those who will, in secret, utilize religion to harm others.

Points one through three are inherent in human nature. Enforcing state laws no matter what religious people believe can be done without a complete ban, and those who use it as an excuse to harm others can be thrown in prison without a complete ban. Also, banning region will not solve the last point, as someone who will harm others in secret will have no qualms about practicing religion and promoting it in secret too.

[Greater Adamsia]

Why not just ban religious extremists from serving in government? If someone practices their religion peacefully and does not want to use the state to shove it down everyone's throats, why should they be punished?

Point one: Tribalism.
Point two: Ignorance.
Point three: Indoctrination of children with ideas dedicated towards the othering of people.
Point four: Direct opposition between state and religious laws. The idea of enlightened secularism only works with the apatheistic. Those that actually care cannot abide that.
Point five: Those who will, in secret, utilize religion to harm others.

I'm confused about the last bit, mate. Namely Point Five (and to a lesser extent, Point Three) and how it relates to your self-professed egoist philosophy. May you please explain, because it seems to be more a more utilitarian form of moral reasoning than an egoist form of moral reasoning, y'know?

[Camelone]

What do you mean by private sphere?

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

So what would your proposed regime do to clergy members?

[Loben The 2nd]

What do you mean by private sphere?

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

that sounds incredibly authoritarian.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Why not just ban religious extremists from serving in government? If someone practices their religion peacefully and does not want to use the state to shove it down everyone's throats, why should they be punished?

Point one: Tribalism.
Point two: Ignorance.
Point three: Indoctrination of children with ideas dedicated towards the othering of people.
Point four: Direct opposition between state and religious laws. The idea of enlightened secularism only works with the apatheistic. Those that actually care cannot abide that.
Point five: Those who will, in secret, utilize religion to harm others.

Point One: You’re guilty of this, just as much as any religious, because you preference your own group and regularly shun other groups.
Point Two: I’m pretty sure if we asked the CDT about ignorance, the first word to pop up would be ‘Kowani’.
Point Three: This is exactly what Atheists do, too, because there is no real distinction in education and indoctrination.
Point Four: O Lord, their blood soaks the ground. How long, Lord? How much longer until you bring Justice upon the Earth?

All in all, these are arbitrary criteria. Why not just admit that you want to eliminate religion rather than frame it in language of enlightenment?

[Cappuccina]

And do you really think such a thing is possibly, given how deeply entwined traditional American culture has been with Christianity?

Given how rapidly Christianity is shrinking in the west anything is possible.

It surely won't become polytheistic, lol. The West will destroy itself in the next century or two (inshallah) anyways.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Why not just ban religious extremists from serving in government? If someone practices their religion peacefully and does not want to use the state to shove it down everyone's throats, why should they be punished?

Point one: Tribalism.
Point two: Ignorance.
Point three: Indoctrination of children with ideas dedicated towards the othering of people.
Point four: Direct opposition between state and religious laws. The idea of enlightened secularism only works with the apatheistic. Those that actually care cannot abide that.
Point five: Those who will, in secret, utilize religion to harm others.

Tribalism, ignorance and indoctrination are all inevitable. Banning religion won't put a dent in them. Secular law and religious law can coexist as long as theists don't force their morality on others. Using religion in secret to harm others is already illegal, and could still be done even if religion is banned.

[Camelone]

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

that sounds incredibly authoritarian.

Spit shined and polished jackboot tier.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

‘Minzerland, why don’t you like atheists?’
‘Well, I don’t know Pooh!’

Yeah, that’s a well-reasoned, eloquent rebuttal.

No offense, but no one should expend so much effort on a ‘Jean-Paul Sartre’ stan.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Point one: Tribalism.
Point two: Ignorance.
Point three: Indoctrination of children with ideas dedicated towards the othering of people.
Point four: Direct opposition between state and religious laws. The idea of enlightened secularism only works with the apatheistic. Those that actually care cannot abide that.
Point five: Those who will, in secret, utilize religion to harm others.

Point One: You’re guilty of this, just as much as any religious, because you preference your own group and regularly shun other groups.
Point Two: I’m pretty sure if we asked the CDT about ignorance, the first word to pop up would be ‘Kowani’.
Point Three: This is exactly what Atheists do, too, because there is no real distinction in education and indoctrination.
Point Four: O Lord, their blood soaks the ground. How long, Lord? How much longer until you bring Justice upon the Earth?

All in all, these are arbitrary criteria. Why not just admit that you want to eliminate religion rather than frame it in language of enlightenment?

I don't think that Kowani is denying that he wants to eliminate religion. He even said it himself:

What do you mean by private sphere?

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Point one: Tribalism.
Point two: Ignorance.
Point three: Indoctrination of children with ideas dedicated towards the othering of people.
Point four: Direct opposition between state and religious laws. The idea of enlightened secularism only works with the apatheistic. Those that actually care cannot abide that.
Point five: Those who will, in secret, utilize religion to harm others.

Point One: You’re guilty of this, just as much as any religious, because you preference your own group and regularly shun other groups.
Point Two: I’m pretty sure if we asked the CDT about ignorance, the first word to pop up would be ‘Kowani’.
Point Three: This is exactly what Atheists do, too, because there is no real distinction in education and indoctrination.
Point Four: O Lord, their blood soaks the ground. How long, Lord? How much longer until you bring Justice upon the Earth?

All in all, these are arbitrary criteria. Why not just admit that you want to eliminate religion rather than frame it in language of enlightenment?

Banning religion is not an enlightenment value at all. At least, not a necessary or good enlightenment value.