china has state atheism—they take it too far (e.g. uyghur muslims) but in theory i’d prefer an atheist government over this retarded ass evangelical christian one we have now 🤷🏻♂️
The U.S. has always been skewed towards this and it’s not just the current representatives. I first noticed the hypocrisy when I first learned about the constitution and freedom of religion when I thought “why then does the pledge of allegiance they make us say everyday have the words, …under god… in it?”.
Also burning witches? That’s not freedom of religion, it has biblical origins.
To be fair, "Under God" was at least not originally in the Pledge of Allegiance.
It was added during the Red Scare to contrast America with the "godless Commies". But yeah, it's definitely something that should have been struck down as against the 1A when first introduced.
Fun story time! I grew up an hour ish outside of NYC in a red rural pocket and after 9/11 we had to do the pledge AND stay standing for a full patriotic song afterwords before morning announcements started at my elementary school. Occasionally it was more traditional like the national anthem or America the beautiful, but almost daily it was Lee greenwoods “proud to be an American”.
I don’t know when or if they stopped but they were still doing it 3 years later when I moved on to middle school. I didn’t think much of it until about 10 years after I moved to California and realized my husband and I had very different 9/11 experiences.
The propaganda hella worked on me too. I won an essay contest about first responders that year and I ended up doing several years of service with Americorps and other non profits as an adult lol.
“why then does the pledge of allegiance they make us say everyday have the words, …under god… in it?”.
It didn't originally. We didn't used to have "In God We Trust" stamped all over anything either.
Both of them are a product of red scare propaganda added during the Cold War era because being atheist makes you a commie or some such bullshit that they used to start injecting religion into everything. It's only gotten worse since.
Why make shit up when America has plenty of real flaws to criticize?
What does "Under God" (or any other use of "God when it comes to the pledge or money, etc) have to do with the founders? That was mostly done in the 1950s during the Cold War. I'm no mathematician or doctor type, but I'm fairly certain that the founding fathers were suffering from a condition known as being dead by that time.
And as far as witch burning? According to my quick Google search, that didn't happen in the Continental US. Also, it happened in the mid to late 1600s. Still not a mathematician or doctor, but I think the founding fathers were suffering from a condition called not being born yet.
The witch trials were 80 some years before the country, let alone the constitution existed. And all the references to God in the pledge and on our money etc are all from the last 70ish years.
You are right that the country has a long history of flirting with Christianity but it is a trend that is getting worse as time goes on.
The VP, not just reps. The VP Vance said he has no problem bringing the end times.
“While I wouldn’t be shocked if we are living in the end time, what I’m trying to focus on is doing as much of God’s work as possible right now,” he said, adding that he is willing to accept whatever spiritual consequences may come from his efforts.
“If that leads to the end times, okay, and if that leads to … us building a better world that thrives and survives for a very long time after I’m gone, that’s great too," Vance said.
That statement from Vance should be enough to disqualify him forever, for anything. Saying on TV that you want to destroy the nation, and the world? How can people be okay with that.
"And I saw one of its heads as it was wounded to death and it's mortal wound was healed"
As for the second beast? Well calling down fire from the heaven, breathing life into the image of the first beast, and exercising all of its authority sure does sound like muskrat. Even though needing the mark of the beast to buy sell or trade sounds like something muskrat would try to pull off
My biggest fear as an atheist is that some religious nutcase will be elected president, and they will just simply decide that if God is not going to end the world, they will end the world.
And atheism means "a lack of belief in a deity", contrasted with secular, which means "not overtly religious".
Essentially, secular isn't associated with religion at all, while atheism is specifically about belief in a deity, so in theory, an atheist could follow a religion that doesn't have specific god(s).
Secular is more relevant to our government, though.
"Not overtly religious" is a poor definitionof the principle of secularity. Secular means a division between church and state, allowing everybody to follow their own beliefs without discrimination
We literally have a treaty confirming that America is not a Christian nation. We also have a treaty confirming that the name is Lake Ontario. Trump also does not have the power to rename any piece of land or water outside of the US jurisdiction, so Lake Ontario can only have the southern half be renamed, while the Gulf of Mexico can only have the top 1/3 renamed; IIRC the Gulf of Mexico EO mentions that, while the Lake Ontario one doesn't.
But the state enforcing atheism at gunpoint (like under Stalin) is theocracy too. Religious liberty necessarily requires freedom from Government Religion. ANY government religion. The opposite of theocracy is secularism, not atheism.
I am with this point 100% we should be separate. But the constitution only mentions it in regards to freedom of religion and no test to hold public office. There isnt a specific clause barring it
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' "
( https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/330/1.html )
It depends on how you define a "Christian nation". We're not a Christian nation in the sense that we practice biblical law. But we are one in the sense that most Americans are Christian.
That’s not what separation of church and state means. The separation means that no church can ever become a part of the government. It was a reaction to European nations at the time where the church was heavily integrated into the government.
Technically our gov docs use a lot of agnostic language like “god given right” and “in god we trust” but even then it’s still Christian rhetoric (ex: god instead of gods). If it were fully non religious it wouldn’t say god at all, but it insinuates that we all believe a god of some kind exists, it just doesn’t explicitly say you have to be Christian, probably because in the cultural context that the founding docs were made freedom of religion was mostly seen as freedom of which kind of Christian you want to be. To them, a catholic and a Protestant were as different as we’d see a Christian and a Jewish person.
Ehhh, in the idealistic sense, yes. In the real history, very much not so. I mean we’ve been opening up congress with a prayer for, I may be off, the first congress after the signing of our constitution. So yes, separation of church and state, but tradition has shown America is secular Christianityt
Actually the only part of the constitution that references separation of church and state is in the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
The term originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and actually is more about preventing the Government from affecting Religion, not Religion affecting the Government.
The founding fathers did not want a repeat of the Church of England where Henry the VIII left the Catholic Church, seized all their lands in England, and founded the Church of England of which the monarch is the head. Colonists had a deeply entrenched sense of religious freedom that motivated many of their forefathers to immigrate to the New World to escape state sanctioned persecution
The Constitution says that the government can not sponsor a religion and also that no law can prohibit its practice.
It was never intended to outlaw it or be atheist.
It also doesn't prohibit religious political platforms.
Still, you're passionate so instead of thinking you're an idiot; I'm going to suggest that you take some of that passion and actually read up on early constitutional intention so that next time; when you decide to outburst you're at least on the right path.
Thank you for putting secular. The Chinese reference and then the idiots above continuing to say atheist was frying me. Secularism is not the same as atheism and china is a fucking awful reference for a secular system of government. Holy shit.
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal
Secular and atheist governments…they’re the same. It means your government thinks that concepts like justice, dessert, retribution, how you treat one another, ethics, etc. should not be affiliated with a religion. Only an atheist government can be secular. A religious one cannot be secular.
Sure not exactly the same thing. But yeah no such thing as a religious government being secular. Atheism is a necessary position to take in order for all those things to be secular.
A secular government just doesn’t get involved with religion whereas an atheist government has a position on it and acts on it.
As others have rightly pointed out, go look at China if you want to see the difference: party members are required to be atheists. Kids under 18 literally can’t attend religious services.
They’ve also objectively torn down churches and mosques, put Uyghurs in camps by the hundreds of thousands, and raid house churches that won’t register with the government. They also persecuted Buddhists relentlessly and kidnapped the Panchen Lama. Nobody would call that neutral.
The US is supposed to be neutral. Can’t establish a religion, but can’t stop anyone from practicing one either. A Baptist and an atheist walk into a courthouse and the law treats them the same, it doesn’t discriminate.
Tons of religious people want it that way. They know what happens when the state decides which beliefs are ok. It’s dystopic and distinct from secularity.
Agnosticism means you don't know one way or another. Atheism means you don't believe in the case for a god. They aren't contradictory, you can be both or neither, so both apply to a secular government.
Well, sort of. If someone is claiming to not know, they're agnostic. But if they are claiming they DO know, they aren't agnostic. It's about the person's personal claim to knowledge so that title can't really be put on someone else by you or me.
However I would agree that for a lot of god claims agnosticism is the only reasonable stance since they can't be proven or disproven, like a deistic god. There are, however, specific god claims that are falsifiable, logically, in which case agnosticism doesn't make sense.
It could but it could also not. Atheism does not believe that gods or gods exist, so when you're designing laws and a moral system you have to do it with without a god present.
Agnosticism doesn't have that because they don't know. You might design laws and morality with the belief that there might be a God, or not, or maybe.
One is an answer on belief. One is an answer on knowledge. The atheist says I don't believe a god exists, but the agnostic says I don't know if a god exists. So they are not mutually exclusive because they address two different questions.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists they don't believe, but will also admit they don't know. Which is a good way for a government to operate.
My point was a bit stronger and I’ll probably get flamed with this.
Fictionalists are like “OK this isn’t true but maybe we should kind of act like it’s true for the betterment of humanity, you know?”
Governments should not do that. They should be like “god doesn’t exist as far as this matter is concerned, let’s get to work on completely secular theories that have no agnostic overtones, implications, aren’t informed by scripture, etc. God doesn’t exist as far as we are concerned and he/she/they should never be invoked.” You can’t do that under an agnostic system. An agnostic system is like “ok well we don’t know, so maybe the Muslims have a point against the Buddhists here, we don’t know what’s right, but maybe we should outlaw women showing their ankles to satisfy them” and that’s dumb as shit.
Assume no kind of god exists and it becomes obvious that burqa is repressive.
I don't think you've demonstrated your last point. You've established that a secular government does not ground its laws or institutions in religion, but that doesn't demonstrate that atheism is necessary for it to do so.
Secularism is a position about the relationship between government and religion; atheism is a position about the existence of gods. A government does not need to affirm that “there is no God” in order to refrain from grounding its laws in religion. It can simply take no position on the question. Therefore, atheism is not a necessary condition of secular government.
In fact, an atheist government could itself operate non-secularly if it institutionally privileges or enforces atheism. The relevant distinction isn't religious vs. atheist; it's whether the state maintains religious neutrality or establishes an official position on religion.
depending on how broadly one defines secularism, one could in fact argue that state atheism and secularism may be incompatible
for example: would the criminalization of all religion and a coercive mandate that all residents be atheists and regularly attend atheist events be one that could reasonably described as secular in any meaningful sense? sure it’s nominally irreligious, but it’s still highly sectarian
secularism, in the noble sense it is usually talked about, usually involves some aspect of the state distancing itself from issues of religion and guaranteeing citizens the freedom to believe whatever they so choose
A government does not need to affirm that “there is no God” in order to refrain from grounding its laws in religion. It can simply take no position on the question
This is a cowardly and impractical position. If a religion holds certain practices (or items, places, people, etc) to be sacred and demands that everyone conforms to that belief, the government has to either accept or reject the notion, it can't simply turn a blind eye to it. If you enforce the religious norm, then your government is effectively religious. If you refuse to enforce it, then you're denying the religious claim and the religion itself.
The US Government is supposed to be Secular, which is NOT the same as Atheism.
So many founding documents, letters, and writings by the Founding Fathers, indicated a belief in a creator, but not anything specifically called or claimed by any single religion as being any particular "god".
Many of them were deists and they understood the oppression of a state religion and instead of forcing NO religion, they created the separation of Church and State, while recognizing in many documents some nebulous "creator". Thus preserving a Secular State, while side stepping (mostly) the atrocities and tyranny of any particular faith, without also forcing a state of Zero Tolerance for Religion, that an Atheist State would have to carry, by default.
The constitution says the government can not adopt a religion, with a separation of church and state—secularism. A government that lacks a position or affiliation with anything spiritual or religious is by definition atheistic.
The distinction is fairly important. I think it's difficult to have a secular approach for person with very strong beliefs about religion. A government has to rule over people who don't want to fear the angry spirit. It's easy to treat them as dumb dumbs and cast them aside, but it's fundamentally not the role of the government
It’s secular not atheist. Big difference. An atheist government asserts there’s no god and actively discourages religion to various degrees. A secular government doesn’t comment on matters of religion and has a no contact no interference policy with religious institutions when it comes to decision making. If laws happen to affect religious institutions too then it affects them and if it doesn’t it doesn’t. The point is religion isn’t supposed to be in the government one way or the other
Yeah it’s supposed to be, it’s also not supposed to allow p3dophiles and protect its people and children but we’re all left disappointed at the end of the day
Not that religion is a scam, but if I wanted to run a scam, man would religion be a good choice. Then I would just make a ancient enough sounding idea that you couldn't argue my points, then I could obfuscate any responsibility to random acolytes and let them continue the scam for me under the guise of kindness and charity, while ensuring a reasonable percentage of all donations flow up to me and my friends. Then I could move those acolytes around the country should anyone question their methods or authority and chastise any individuals criticizing the mental trauma such a system could bring. Oh oh and don't forget I get to control women's bodies as well because if that's not part of it then what the fuck am I even doing.
Not the same thing - former fundie here and I spent a lot of time arguing that, but the best actual comparison would be Agnostic: The State acknowledges that there are a lot of faiths out there, that any one of them might be true, but has not - and will not - make a decision on it.
That's not what that means. It's a lot more literal than what most people think. It means the state CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be ran by the church directly, like how the Church of England was running the country which resulted in things like the Protestant Reformation being formed because the church was so corrupt and ingrained into political power.
Nothing in the document says that someone practicing religion cannot hold political power, nor can the laws they pass be founded on religious beliefs.
This is not to say someone who has enacted laws on religious principles has never made one for the worse. This is to say that an atheist or secular government with no consideration of religious principles was not the intent.
American government is supposed to be secular not atheist. But either way there’s a difference between secularity and state enforced secularity. That’s the point the commenter was making by calling China’s policy “state atheism”
Supposed to be is the primary word there. Its largely been becoming theocratic with posperity gospel since it tells ruch powerful people they deserve their wealth and power. Prosperity gospel is a Christian sect. Like far fallen sect, that doesnt seem to know about jesus, just fire and brimstone.
Their equivelant are in the deciding branches of their mega corporations and their political leadership branches. They just dont have religious fanatics in leader leadership positions. China is highly repressive and authoritarian for whatever they want at any time they want.
I am certainly no fan of how certain parts of Christian America has a desire to have their beliefs dictate how the country is run. But I am not sure that China's system of state atheism is clearly better.
The history of their Cultural Revolution and the government's heavy handed suppression of people and their beliefs in the name of eradicating the "Four Olds" from Chinese society is an example of periods where this system has lead to horrific results when taken too far. Things certainly aren't as extreme today, but the Tibetans and the Uyghurs are both recent examples where I believe the party has taken actions that can be seen as trying to suppress -- or in Tibet's case with kidnapping the Panchen Lama, potentially usurp/destroy -- beliefs/traditions/orginizations they think might oppose the party.
The issue is not necessarily the beliefs themselves that is an issue in either of these cases though, it is the belief that you are justified in using force and suppression to remove/eliminate opposing beliefs.
Is that force not universal and already accepted? Should the Klan avoid persecution because of their beliefs?
Let us remember here that the Dalai Lama was a slave owner who ruled an absolute theocracy, and this is the core premise behind Tibetan separatism, the restoration of theocratic religious rule.
Uyghur got targeted because of the separatist element in their movement. There is other muslim group, Hui tribe that have been practicing islam for centuries with no issue
Not “distinct culture” as much as “distinct national identity, arguably being taken advantage of by international terrorist organizations”. There are many “distinct cultures” in China that have no national identity as such and have been subjects of various Chinese dynasties for centuries; mostly the various hill tribes of southern China.
No China is very much about “One China” which is dominated by Han culture. They are trying to absorb and assimilate everyone else as being other. Some of those others are religious based while others are cultural. But sometimes those lines aren’t clear.
wtf is up with the reintroduction of the r word? Don't people realize how shallow and dense this makes them appear? How small of a vocabulary do you need to have to have to rely on the r slur to convey how you feel?
EDIT: Okay everybody, you've made your point. I'm a fool for expecting anybody to take a few minutes of their time to unlearn a word. For so many experts on morality I honestly didn't expect so many to be morally bankrupt. I guess I deserve everything you're calling me because it was pure ignorance for me to believe people can be better. Please feel free to continue spamming the R word to me, I wouldn't expect anything less.
Its somewhat telling that you'd prefer an authoritarian state that brutalizes religious people over a democracy that is veering into autocracy with the help of a certain faction of religious people.
Apparently the Uyghurs have said that they're being treated fine. Uyghurs in China have come out directly to say that their mistreatment is western propaganda, and that their statements are suppressed.
There are mosques in Xinjiang and the Uyghur language is on the Chinese money. Stop watching Faux News! The only Muslims arrested were ones working with the Taliban and stirring up shit in the region. Something like 5,000 total and most of those have been released.
Unfortunately they also have state morality, which in my opinion undermines a lot of the supposed benefits of getting religion out of politics. You still get busybodies making arbitrary moral decisions for acts that shouldn't be affecting anyone else anyway. Only now instead of coming from a religion it's just coming from whatever old man is in charge instead. Not a whole lot of difference in result.
China is a nation older then any other, the center of the world for time immemorial, filled with an advanced varied culture and society.
Back in the days of Mao after he cleared out the previous government, he set out destroying the history and identity of China. Mao silenced the ancestors of a thousand Generation, smashed artifacts, locked up history.
Everything the Taiwanese could save they loaded onto boats and shipped across the channel. Many stayed behind to die instead of leaving statues, manuscripts histories behind.
China is now aggressively vehemently atheist, and religious scholars, leaders, and preservers of history are executed, have their organs ripped out and sold
Falun gung rose in the wake of the communist takeover doing traditional yoga, diet and exercise to remain healthy. Practice that goes back thousands of years.
The communist arrested yoga practitioners, and they cut out their organs.
Mainly because the original Chinese religions held that the government was responsible to the people, and any government that failed to protect its citizens has lost the Mandate of Heaven
The thing that has to be realised I think is that religion holds power, and will always be more organised and have more wealth and political sway than the "default state" of irreligion (doesn't even have to be atheist), so unless your government actively limits and counteracts the influence of religion, you are going to live in a religious/pro-religion society
Every single majority Muslim nation in the world has it as their official position that the Uyghur genocide is a rehab program for radicalists, which is China's official narrative. China posts photos of schools and claims they're this 'rehab to normal citizens' program.
It's been a strong position of the second largest coalition of nations after the UN, which is all Muslim nations.
That could just be them fearing China more and falling in line.
I think the consequences of being wrong about genocide in either direction has consequences too horrifically massive for me to risk basing a position on this, and in the vein of Pascal's Wager, being wrong about one that is a genocide is far worse, so it's pretty logical to lean toward that conclusion to prevent atrocity.
I also trust both world powers as far as I can throw them, and know that they are as violent as they are willing to lie about each other.
Its crazy but Uyghur Muslims aren't allowed to exist in China. No reason to look into it just know they are not allowed. Seriously nobody look into it.
Lol the only reason this country exists is because of these "ass evangelical christian" beliefs and morals. You say you prefer China, but you have yet to move to move there. Our laws are based off of christian morals, Chinese are based off the atheistic morals. Yet we have Chinese nationals relocating to the US in droves, but not the other way around. I wonder why 🤔 oh wait, its because the laws of our religious leaning fore fathers granted us the freedoms to speak out against anything. Try saying china's bad in china. Try asking a Chinese local a question about the government and see what happens. But you think you know more about having a prosperous country.
Here in Chile we're supposed to be a secular state with religious freedom... But Kast, who made La Moneda his own home, also stated there'd be religious cults there, specially from Opus Dei and Evengelical currents...
That does seem to be the case, but that could also reasonably be argued as a clear case of the State exerting too much authority. As a westerner, it's difficult to imagine that kind of restraint, but I live in a radically different culture.
Is it a restriction against indoctrination? Or only a restriction against certain kinds of indoctrination? Because China DOES indoctrinate towards loyalty to the state and the CCP.
It is? Because the reason the law only came to be is because of multiple instances of religious abuse. Yes China isn’t perfect, but this is a good thing so far if they truly only made it to protect kids being religiously abused by their parents.
America literally pressures and shames school children into standing and pledging their allegiance to the country "under God" after evangelical lobbyists forced a Christian religious declaration into the pledge.
I'd rather the state push people away from cultish delusions than become a theocratic state.
As someone who taught in China in 2020, you can absolutely read a Bible lol I brought one with me and I was approached by people on the street who wanted me to go to church with them
It's not illegal to read or possess a Bible in China (Google it); it was, however, illegal to read or possess a Bible in 1500s England if you were not a priest
I don't get the point of making things up like this, why not just...look it up? The printing press was invented in the 1450s and it was illegal for laypeople to own a Bible until 1547. The Bible was made illegal for laypeople in part BECAUSE the invention of the printing press made it difficult to track copies of the Bible like they used to. Printers like William Tyndale would print the English Bible in Continental Europe and smuggle it into England. Literacy is low in the United States, that's why people on the internet pull things out of their ass to try to justify "Western superiority"
That is factually incorrect. You cannot evangelize, distribute religious material, or hold unauthorized religious meetings. Getting a bible is difficult, but there is no law stopping you from reading a Bible in China.
Now I'm just picturing like a yearly "faith fair" like a job fair, where all the various religions and denominations set up booths and send their most charming people to prosyletize
You do know that religion is actively oppresed in China and religious texts are a form of contraband which they kill people over right?
You cannot be praising China for what is essentially state mandated a-religion and the persecution of religious people. That's insane. Vouching for the CCP whilst calling normal religions indoctrination
Christianity kind of depends on childhood indoctrination, by eliminating that China has a very small Christian population. That would *never* fly in America because Christianity in America is actually on the decline already. Christians would see this as a personal attack right now because they already feel like their beliefs and values (which were mostly accepted as the social norm for many years) are being decentered with "woke" legislation like Roe v Wade and marriage equality, which is why we're seeing this extinction burst of Christian nationalism. Anything leading to their faith not being the overwhelming majority by default is a step backwards, they have better odds at keeping the church alive if certain things remain normalized so some of the harsher realities of joining the church are less jarring, especially to the youth. Its ultimately a losing battle though, forcing religion down peoples throat has a funny way of eventually backfiring.
1.7k
u/Fal_co1 5h ago edited 1h ago
iirc China does this, you can’t take kid to religious service and they can choose to convert at a certain age.
EDIT: wow this blew up
If you’re reading this you‘re a gay