Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Washington Resistance Army]

That wasn’t a compliment. One has to know how to code-switch.

Really? But I don't do slang particularly well. Nor do I do informal language particularly well. In fact, one might as well have a floating neon sign above my head with an arrow pointing towards me that reads "P O S H" in large text.

You really should change that.

[Kowani]

Depends. Do they keep preaching?

Let's say yes. Let's also consider Communion, prayers, reading Scripture, and teaching their congregation as examples from a Christian viewpoint.

Sorry, missed this up ‘till now.
You start by confiscating the Church in which they preach and escalate from there.

The preferred method would be merely the continuation of current trends, although with certain adjustments. I prefer to guide, rather than force.

I support current trends, just not bans.

I said preferred. Sadly, the world does not always allow us to do what we would prefer.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Secularism is simply state atheism with jimmies sprinkled on top.

Lotta good points here.

I disagree; I don't view Cappuccina's take as particularly good in this instance. No offense, but to conflate secularism with state atheism is, from my viewpoint at least, rather fallacious don't you think?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So you want to pursue eliminating religion from everyone's beliefs by any necessary and effective means?

The preferred method would be merely the continuation of current trends, although with certain adjustments. I prefer to guide, rather than force.

You think the state should be utilitarian, correct? Banning religion is not utilitarian, as forcing people to abandon or hide their most heartfelt beliefs will cause an extraordinary amount of suffering, and cause a sharp drop in the amount of happiness and pleasure in society.

[Cappuccina]

Let's say yes. Let's also consider Communion, prayers, reading Scripture, and teaching their congregation as examples from a Christian viewpoint.

Sorry, missed this up ‘till now.
You start by confiscating the Church in which they preach and escalate from there.

I support current trends, just not bans.

I said preferred. Sadly, the world does not always allow us to do what we would prefer.

Lol you want to ban churches/houses of worship? Your wouldn't live very long .

[Locus Praemonstratus]

The preferred method would be merely the continuation of current trends, although with certain adjustments. I prefer to guide, rather than force.

I support current trends, just not bans.

Liberalism is just a form of secularised Puritanism but without the redeeming Christianity.

Christianity does not redeem something as overregulated as Puritanism. Liberalism also did not result in the literal hanging of people for being "witches."

Puritanism does indeed have redeemable qualities, which is what I said, it was Christian; Puritanism as commonly seen today, that is, Liberalism, has no such redeeming quality. The final sentence is irrelevant.

EDIT: Of course, the Puritanism manifest differently now than in the past.

[Camelone]

Let's say yes. Let's also consider Communion, prayers, reading Scripture, and teaching their congregation as examples from a Christian viewpoint.

Sorry, missed this up ‘till now.
You start by confiscating the Church in which they preach and escalate from there.

Hang on what good is a church without preaching? It's not like your laws would even allow the communal reading of Scripture or the administration of the Sacraments either.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

No it's not. Most thinkers influenced by the enlightenment advocate religious freedom, not state mandated atheism.

Secularism is simply state atheism with jimmies sprinkled on top.

Religious freedom =/= banning religion.

[Kowani]

That wasn’t a compliment. One has to know how to code-switch.

Really? But I don't do slang particularly well. Nor do I do informal language particularly well. In fact, one might as well have a floating neon sign above my head with an arrow pointing towards me that reads "P O S H" in large text.

Better start learning, then. It’s a necessary skill, unless you plan on addressing nothing but royalty for your entire life.

The preferred method would be merely the continuation of current trends, although with certain adjustments. I prefer to guide, rather than force.

You think the state should be utilitarian, correct? Banning religion is not utilitarian, as forcing people to abandon or hide their most heartfelt beliefs will cause an extraordinary amount of suffering, and cause a sharp drop in the amount of happiness and pleasure in society.

A good counterargument, if untrue. There will be a sharp initial drop, this is true. A generation later, and one will see things reverse. The currently religious would not Ben prohibited from believing. That would be unenforceable. Merely from expressing said beliefs in public, or wearing religious clothing. The banning comes in schools, where one prevents religion from passing on to later generations.

[Cappuccina]

Secularism is simply state atheism with jimmies sprinkled on top.

Religious freedom =/= banning religion.

Secularism encourages atheism in a more insidious and methodical fashion than State Atheism, they aren't equivalent, no, but they have the same end game, which is to turn humanity away from God (swt).

[Al Mumtahanah]

Secularism is simply state atheism with jimmies sprinkled on top.

Religious freedom =/= banning religion.

I don't know what secularism has to do with religious freedom, France is very secular yet cracking down on religious freedom.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I support current trends, just not bans.


Christianity does not redeem something as overregulated as Puritanism. Liberalism also did not result in the literal hanging of people for being "witches."

Puritanism does indeed have redeemable qualities, which is what I said, it was Christian; Puritanism as commonly seen today, that is, Liberalism, has no such redeeming quality. The final sentence is irrelevant.

EDIT: Of course, the Puritanism manifest differently now than in the past.

What similarity do liberalism and Puritanism have?

[Kowani]

Sorry, missed this up ‘till now.
You start by confiscating the Church in which they preach and escalate from there.

Hang on what good is a church without preaching? It's not like your laws would even allow the communal reading of Scripture or the administration of the Sacraments either.

Of course not. But I see no reason to take a building from someone whose only crime is belief. It is the proliferation that is the crime.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Lotta good points here.

I disagree; I don't view Cappuccina's take as particularly good in this instance. No offense, but to conflate secularism with state atheism is, from my viewpoint at least, rather fallacious don't you think?

Ones just more passive and subtle, more content to corrupt and shed slowly, whereas the other is more abrasive and brazen about it.

[Kowani]

Religious freedom =/= banning religion.

I don't know what secularism has to do with religious freedom, France is very secular yet cracking down on religious freedom.

Wrong. France has laïcité.

[Al Mumtahanah]

I support current trends, just not bans.


Christianity does not redeem something as overregulated as Puritanism. Liberalism also did not result in the literal hanging of people for being "witches."

Puritanism does indeed have redeemable qualities, which is what I said, it was Christian; Puritanism as commonly seen today, that is, Liberalism, has no such redeeming quality. The final sentence is irrelevant.

EDIT: Of course, the Puritanism manifest differently now than in the past.

How is liberalism like iconoclastic dominionism?

[Al Mumtahanah]

I don't know what secularism has to do with religious freedom, France is very secular yet cracking down on religious freedom.

Wrong. France has laïcité.

Which is French for secularism

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

As to my own views on the matter, the short version is that religion is fundamentally useful (pun intended) as a means of social control, and a prudent statesman knows how to use the religious practices of the citizenry in order to guide them towards brotherhood and harmony and such. For the long version, I'd have to copy/paste my previous posts on the matter, and miss me with that.

[Camelone]

Hang on what good is a church without preaching? It's not like your laws would even allow the communal reading of Scripture or the administration of the Sacraments either.

Of course not. But I see no reason to take a building from someone whose only crime is belief. It is the proliferation that is the crime.

Even though it is within their own building? Why is it that I as someone who believes in a confessional Christian state is more tolerant of other belief systems than an atheist who denies the reality of objective truths?

[Cappuccina]

I disagree; I don't view Cappuccina's take as particularly good in this instance. No offense, but to conflate secularism with state atheism is, from my viewpoint at least, rather fallacious don't you think?

Ones just more passive and subtle, more content to corrupt and shed slowly, whereas the other is more abrasive and brazen about it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Kowani]

Wrong. France has laïcité.

Which is French for secularism

Nope.

[Cappuccina]

As to my own views on the matter, the short version is that religion is fundamentally useful (pun intended) as a means of social control, and a prudent statesman knows how to use the religious practices of the citizenry in order to guide them towards brotherhood and harmony and such. For the long version, I'd have to copy/paste my previous posts on the matter, and miss me with that.

So you view religion as simply a Machiavellian tool to socially condition people?

[Kowani]

Of course not. But I see no reason to take a building from someone whose only crime is belief. It is the proliferation that is the crime.

Even though it is within their own building?

Yep.

Why is it that I as someone who believes in a confessional Christian state is more tolerant of other belief systems

Because, to annoy Xeno: Tolerance is of no inherent value.

than an atheist who denies the reality of objective truths?

“Objective truth” Yeah, sure buddy.

[Kowani]

As to my own views on the matter, the short version is that religion is fundamentally useful (pun intended) as a means of social control, and a prudent statesman knows how to use the religious practices of the citizenry in order to guide them towards brotherhood and harmony and such. For the long version, I'd have to copy/paste my previous posts on the matter, and miss me with that.

So you view religion as simply a Machiavellian tool to socially condition people?

When you put it that way, it almost sounds as bad as my idea...
Although Napoleon thought that as well, so...

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Really? But I don't do slang particularly well. Nor do I do informal language particularly well. In fact, one might as well have a floating neon sign above my head with an arrow pointing towards me that reads "P O S H" in large text.

Better start learning, then. It’s a necessary skill, unless you plan on addressing nothing but royalty for your entire life.

You think the state should be utilitarian, correct? Banning religion is not utilitarian, as forcing people to abandon or hide their most heartfelt beliefs will cause an extraordinary amount of suffering, and cause a sharp drop in the amount of happiness and pleasure in society.

A good counterargument, if untrue. There will be a sharp initial drop, this is true. A generation later, and one will see things reverse. The currently religious would not Ben prohibited from believing. That would be unenforceable. Merely from expressing said beliefs in public, or wearing religious clothing. The banning comes in schools, where one prevents religion from passing on to later generations.

So, sharply decreasing short term happiness in a bid to increase long term happiness? That investment rarely pays off, and is usually the worst kind of utilitarianism. And it won't pay off here, because the religious can easily pass down their beliefs to their children.