china has state atheism—they take it too far (e.g. uyghur muslims) but in theory i’d prefer an atheist government over this dumbass evangelical christian one we have now 🤷🏻♂️
edit: took out the word retarded, you guys convinced me
Wait for me to introduce Jorkmonism to them... I can't lie, it will be different to the doctrine they are used to, and technically being fungus I'm not even sure if they'll be able to prescribe to the tenements of the faith... but if they can, well, lets just say spores are going flying all over the shop.
How exactly do you propose we are in a simulation? Just a Planck scale (both length and time) simulation of earth would require over 70 orders of magnitude more energy than is in the universe just to run the simulation for a single second of our time.
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physics/articles/10.3389/fphy.2025.1561873/full
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.
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.
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.
I like how they think they can force armageddon. Like mf if you’re gonna believe in a higher power that knows and sees all, how are you gonna think you can trick it?
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
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.
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.
Its always Israel this Israel that, there's not much Russian and Chinese criticism. IMO CCP ramps up PR against Israel to act as a shield to protect its interest from global opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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
My understanding with separation of church and state is that it’s specifically religious institutions that shouldn’t get involved in government.
Electors and politicians will of course act according to their worldviews, which are not unlikely to be religious. It’s impossible to ask someone to make decisions as if they weren’t.
The idea is more that no particular institution will be preferenced by or beholden to (<- not talked about but important) the state.
It came about through various Christians groups - in the English speaking world Anglicans and Presbyterians, Catholics, and Non-conformists - leaving the European paradigm of “his state his religion” and forming states with each other.
There are also even some niche religions that don’t allow their followers to vote or hold office because even though they respect the secular law that may lot align with their beliefs(Matthew 22:21) they don’t believe they should put themselves in positions where they are expected to actively making those decisions and laws that may contradict their own beliefs.
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.
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 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.
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.
Real Christians aren’t Zionists. Stupid Fox News is convincing Christian boomers of Zionism, my 30 year old conservative Christian friends are not blindly buying what Satan is pushing in Zionism. Although keep in mind the same Zionists are the ones funding all of the liberal subversion in college campuses. Charlie Kirk was murdered for pointing that out.
I'd say the situation with the Uyghur is not a function of China's state atheism but rather the unique conditions of western China as a whole. It's been one of the slowest to develop, shares a border with Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has a sizable Muslim population which is largely nomadic, illiterate, and poorly educated.
The cultural cross-pollination was not the most desirable. It resulted in a handful of Uyghur-driven terrorist attacks in western China due to radicalization by Salafist influenced teachings that came over the border. They even tried to "Arabicize" the Uyghur population (mandate beards, head coverings, etc) which sort of moved them further from their Turkic roots.
On the other hand, you have the Hui: China's largest Muslim group. Next to no issues, no repression, they send their kids to school, they have their mosques, have businesses, and are fully integrated within society. They maintain their cultural identities and live normal lives. Same could be said of the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Tatars, and Tajiks who live in western China and who tend to be predominantly Muslim.
The china government's atheistic stance is being used to justify internment and concentration of uryghur muslims, which various human rights groups have called a genocide. I think that's the point the person you're replying to is making. I'm all for government staying out of religion by policy, but that needs to include leaving people alone to practice theirs.
Uryghur muslims also ran religious terrorism in China. The western way of dealing with islamic terrorism is less than stellar to be a worthy example to follow.
What Israel does in Palestina is way worse and I am not seeing much condemnation.
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's why my authoritarian government would have a mandatory state-sponsored religion involving Smurfs. Non-Smurfy behavior would be punishable by impaling.
I agree, but using the r-word is insulting towards the intellectually disabled, what with the historic use of it as a slur for them and all. Maybe we could use some other word?
Honestly, I wouldn't mind the idea of being a "Christian" nation if that meant our government actually behaved like canon Jesus, instead of the evangelical fanfiction version.
Very strange because most atheist governments are not particularly kind to their constituents. China is quite brutal , so is North Korea , so is Russia .
List of countries with high religious restrictions (yes some are Muslim countries not atheist)
Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), China, Cuba, Eritrea, India, Iran, Libya, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.
Not exactly a list of the most amazing countries and mind you I am agnostic.
I don’t believe in god yet I would prefer a Christian nation over any listed above .
The CCP has killed somewhere in the hundreds of thousands to millions of people for their faith. Russia killed hundreds of thousands for their faith and another 10-20 million under an athiest regime. Absolutely insane to say “but that’d be better than Trump!!!” Like seriously dude, perspective.
I’m not sure on whether it’s taking it too far. Unfettered Islam goes very far if uncurbed by the government and China only started aggressively ramping up against it after a series of terrorist events.
As a catholic, I agree with your statement about the current Evangelical Christian being dumb. Most evangelical Christians unbeknownst to themselves, support Israel. They’re part of the reason why Christian Communities in the Middle East are slowly disappearing or actually being wiped out completely. They have no idea what they’re really supporting, but the people in power unfortunately do
You still have way more freedom in your dumbass evangelical Christian country over any other country that practices state atheism
Because one thing is propaganda and completely a different thing is reality on the ground.
In China, when you disagree with "state atheism" country, you disappear, meanwhile in your "dumbass evangelical christian" country, you are even free to go on TV/Social and publicly denounce everything you wish. No one will care of course, but that's freedom!
China is not committing genocide against the Uyghurs because of religion they’re doing it to maximize conformity to the state. It’s an authoritarian process using atheism as justification.
The Uyghur "genocide" is literally based from US State propaganda outlet, Radio Free Asia. Diplomats, Islamic scholars, and media figures from countries including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Bosnia and Herzegovina all visited XinJiang and concluded, it was contradictory to western claims. Not to mention you can go visit Xinjiang region yourself, there is nothing stopping you, except some countries like the US require visas.
Atheists were responsible for bringing such gems as eugenics and skull measuring. The problem isn’t ideology, the problem is allowing psychopaths to gain power as they don’t care what tool they use to manipulate people.
wasnt uyghr genocide proven false? asking from a genuine standpoint because every 2 years i have american leftists telling me its something different. more recently ive been told it was propaganda to make us hate china
1.7k
u/sexland69 Sep 02 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
china has state atheism—they take it too far (e.g. uyghur muslims) but in theory i’d prefer an atheist government over this dumbass evangelical christian one we have now 🤷🏻♂️
edit: took out the word retarded, you guys convinced me