Actually government is a form of religion. One of the cleverest tricks statists ever pulled off was kicking the systematized superstitions out the door and convincing everyone that the state was now "secular". Never mind that its legitimacy still rested on shifting sands of mythology. Wisely they finally gave up on the whole social contract idea when they realized that 99% of the people didn't really need to be told a convincing myth to substantiate the authority that they conjured out of nowhere... (That and a priori justifications for the legitimacy of a "state" - like social contract theory and other lame attempts - don't seem to hold up very well under philosophical scrutiny unless you are an avowed pragmatist - in which case you don't much care for philosophy anyways!)
An atheist who believes in the moral legitimacy of the state is no atheist at all. Just because you have decided to ignore the more elaborate superstitions doesn't mean you've eradicated them all. In fact, the most pervasive superstition throughout human history is the collectivist superstition that the will of the enshrined powers has moral force which trumps individual conscience.
Now I wouldn't go so far as to say that all "true" atheists must be anarchists (blech!), as there are good self serving reasons to play along with the farce that is government. There are even reasons to believe that government can affect some things for good. However I always get a kick out of people who believe that they don't believe in a deity, and yet put so many of their hopes and aspirations for themselves, for humanity, and for the future on an abstraction which is no more (or less) real than His Noodliness.
Cliffs: The clergy, the legitimizing mythology, and the complicity of the laity are the deity. Now repeat that a hundred times and then look at D.C. with fresh eyes.
Fix fail.Fixed.
Fix fail.
Saying that religion is a form of government is true enough of course, but denying the converse is a copout taken by true believers in the religion of government. Not that there's anything wrong with being a true believer, but it's best to admit it to oneself. Unfortunately this grates against the vanities of those atheists who mistakenly insist on believing that ditching the deities of old makes one irreligious, despite retaining the most widespread religion of all: belief in the legitimacy of the nation state, rule of law, and all that jazz.
Moonbeam, now nobody is going to listen.
QUOTE]
I'm rather used to that as you probably guessed. But I read somewhere 'you speak to the wall when you want the door to hear'.
Well, to be fair, you are right that there are SOME who view government to be a sort of religion.
These are mostly the nationalists and patriots really.
For most people, they have a passing acknowledgment of the authority of government, but operate their lives in diametric opposition to viewing government as a "religion". In essence, they don't respect government to be infallible, they would definitely not die for government, they would always question government, criticize government, etc etc etc etc etc.
I know of almost nobody who would unequivocally follow and die for their country. Everybody I know views government in anything but religious deference.
I'm not sure you understand what is being discussed. This sentence seems to be evidence of a thunderous WHOOOOOOOSH!Since just about anyone can become any part of the government, I don't see any problems of legitimacy. Heck, even Obama got to be president.
LOL QUE?Uh wut? What a white thing to say.
Another collection of ASCII characters. Oh wait, was I supposed to say something germane? Were you?Another opinion that government is a type of religion.
I didn't say anything at all about the things you claim. If you actually were following my train of thought I might claim you are using a straw man argument, but that is clearly not the case. Here's an example: What is more real: Brahma or the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness?I don't know, I don't believe in Government to be flawless or even all good. Nor worship it. Nor think it makes much difference. Nor respect any laws I deem to be worthless (like jay walking and speeding) and retarded.
Religion is a type of government (among other things). Not even close to the other way around.
I'm guessing you don't have a degree in comparative religion, or else you wouldn't treat such ideas or definitions so lightly!See - definition of religion.
Isn't it time that we outlaw it, in the face of Government, which is a superior moderator of society?
-John
Your viewpoint is that the money belongs to government in the first place, which is completely backwards. The money belongs to me. The monstrosity that is our tax code simply allows me to do certain things with my money before the government takes it. How is that a subsidy? Instead of getting rid of charitable deductions, why not make charitable contributions count 100% towards taxes paid? A majority of government expenditures now go towards things which private charities already address. The difference is that the government does not perform due diligence in determining who to give the money to and establishes huge bureaucracy, thereby decreasing the amount of my money which ends up going to the intended recipient. A lot of the problems we have now are because people have decided that the government can take care of individuals better than other individuals can take care of those individuals - a claim that is demonstrably false.I wouldn't support a ban on religion, even though I'm not particularly religious, but I would support eliminating charitable donations as a tax write-off. That basically amounts to government support of the charity by allowing the members to deduct any donations from their taxable income. No, it's not a "one for one" deduction, but it still amounts to government subsidies.
Eliminate the "not for profit" status of churches...while they may not "technically" be "for profit," they sure as hell make money...in a big way. The Catholic church and the Mormons are the two richest churches in existence...and every dime given can be written off as a "charitable donation."
Well, I don't see anyone putting their faith in government.
I don't think anyone who has spent more than an hour browsing this forum could possibly believe what you stated to be true.Well, I don't see anyone putting their faith in government.
Well, I don't see anyone putting their faith in government.
/QUOTE]
Really? You haven't been reading here much.
Health care anyone? Oh, no they KNOW that government can fix that.
Well, I can't speak for others, but when I support government healthcare, it's to provide healthcare to poor people.
Am I going to use it? No, I have my own through work.
It's much like... Welfare?
Also, I take "faith" to be a fairly serious word. If you put your faith in government like you put your faith in Christianity, that is something I would like to see!
I guess you have faith in that vision of governemnt, eh?
I don't mind at all. I don't think all situations are not equal though. The foundation I hope I've built on for my children is love, respect for themselves, and for others. To love is to guide, provide a sense of worth and the knowledge that they will always have a place and a purpose. Hopefully I will have raised Humans who will understand what I've said. Time will tell.
Modern government is not a religion that demands deference from all. You are still mistaking my claim that government is a religion to mean that it is a religion in exactly the same form of the religions that preceded it. All it demands is the right to tax, the right to set the rules whereby anyone can oppose it, and the right to color a piece of a map, and have this jurisdiction respected by the other state religions of the world. Come to think of it, that's not really all that different from more overtly religious governments except that western governments have figured out that they probably won't get killed by the citizens if they leave legislating certain kinds of superstition alone. Something about wealthy people seems to make them value that tiny extra bit of "freedom". Let people choose which talisman they kiss at night and they probably won't ask why exactly they need to pay money to have rich people tell them which herbs they can put in their brownies without a SWAT team accidentally killing their grandmother.Well, to be fair, you are right that there are SOME who view government to be a sort of religion.
These are mostly the nationalists and patriots really.
For most people, they have a passing acknowledgment of the authority of government, but operate their lives in diametric opposition to viewing government as a "religion". In essence, they don't respect government to be infallible, they would definitely not die for government, they would always question government, criticize government, etc etc etc etc etc.
I know of almost nobody who would unequivocally follow and die for their country. Everybody I know views government in anything but religious deference.
Your viewpoint is that the money belongs to government in the first place, which is completely backwards. The money belongs to me. The monstrosity that is our tax code simply allows me to do certain things with my money before the government takes it. How is that a subsidy? Instead of getting rid of charitable deductions, why not make charitable contributions count 100% towards taxes paid? A majority of government expenditures now go towards things which private charities already address. The difference is that the government does not perform due diligence in determining who to give the money to and establishes huge bureaucracy, thereby decreasing the amount of my money which ends up going to the intended recipient. A lot of the problems we have now are because people have decided that the government can take care of individuals better than other individuals can take care of those individuals - a claim that is demonstrably false.
Religions should not be tax-exempt. Religion should not be a protected class like race, gender, and national origin which people have no control over. People choose their religion. What we have now is just an excuse for people to do what they want, even when harmful to others, under the pretense of religious freedom. One could make up a ridiculous religion to justify any beliefs but you'd have to bow down to them in the name of religious freedom.
So, just so we're on the same page: you support politicians taking my money and doling it out to anyone as they see fit (after taking their cut). On the other hand, you support imprisoning me if I were to give all of my income to legitimate charities (e.g. soup kitchens) because I can't fulfill the demand of the taxman. Am I on the right track?I don't disagree that the money belongs to you...you're free to donate to whatever charity you choose. Why should you be able to deduct those donated dollars from your taxable income? By allowing people (companies and corporations) to deduct monies that they've donated, that amounts to government support/subsidy of those charities.
You want to give 10% of your earnings to your church, that's great...just don't deduct it from your taxable income.
Of course, I even support the concept of eliminating home mortgage deductions...or at least, limiting it to ONE home with a value of less than $500,000.
So, just so we're on the same page: you support politicians taking my money and doling it out to anyone as they see fit (after taking their cut). On the other hand, you support imprisoning me if I were to give all of my income to legitimate charities (e.g. soup kitchens) because I can't fulfill the demand of the taxman. Am I on the right track?
So the government taking my money and giving it to someone else is a service for me now? Really? I have no problem paying for services I use (or maintaining essential services I might use). However, you have completely crossed the line into the surreal by telling me that I actually owe the government money as a payment for the service of taking my money and giving it to someone else. The bottom line is that the services you mentioned are an absolutely miniscule fraction of where my taxes go now, with the majority of what I pay going directly to agencies which take a cut and give it to other people who aren't paying taxes.I don't support politicians giving OUR money to any other nations...I believe that we have enough people here in the USA who need help first...but, that help needs to come with strings...such as working for that check every month...
Next, yes, if you chose to give your money to charities instead of paying your tax bill...I have no problem with locking your ass up for tax evasion. We, as a semi-civilized nation, all have an obligation to pay for services rendered. Fire, police, military, etc. aren't free...Now we may both agree that OUR tax dollars are often/usually pissed away on frivolous things...where we may differ is on what we consider frivolous...or wasted.
I'd much rather have seen the government buy out every mortgage in the USA rather than bail out the banks who were "too big to fail."
SHOULD people be rewarded for buying more house than they can afford? HELL NO, but letting them go into foreclosure and taking the banks down at the same time certainly doesn't help anyone...and merely compounds the problem.
IMO, eliminating charitable deductions and mortgage deductions SHOULD allow a lower tax rate for everyone...not just for those who make enough to give their money away or those who own houses.
So the government taking my money and giving it to someone else is a service for me now? Really? I have no problem paying for services I use (or maintaining essential services I might use). However, you have completely crossed the line into the surreal by telling me that I actually owe the government money as a payment for the service of taking my money and giving it to someone else. The bottom line is that the services you mentioned are an absolutely miniscule fraction of where my taxes go now, with the majority of what I pay going directly to agencies which take a cut and give it to other people who aren't paying taxes.
I don't mind at all. I don't think all situations are not equal though. The foundation I hope I've built on for my children is love, respect for themselves, and for others. To love is to guide, provide a sense of worth and the knowledge that they will always have a place and a purpose. Hopefully I will have raised Humans who will understand what I've said. Time will tell.
So the government taking my money and giving it to someone else is a service for me now? Really? I have no problem paying for services I use (or maintaining essential services I might use). However, you have completely crossed the line into the surreal by telling me that I actually owe the government money as a payment for the service of taking my money and giving it to someone else. The bottom line is that the services you mentioned are an absolutely miniscule fraction of where my taxes go now, with the majority of what I pay going directly to agencies which take a cut and give it to other people who aren't paying taxes.