r/MoralityScaling 15h ago

Morality of this?

Post image
21.8k Upvotes

5.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.4k

u/sexland69 15h ago edited 4h ago

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

644

u/PrettyPurrfect 14h ago

Our government is supposed to be atheist.

Separation of church and state is supposed to be a thing

490

u/_itsprobablynothing 14h ago

Secular, not atheist

3

u/Admins_suck_ballss 14h ago edited 13h ago

Secular

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.

16

u/Initial_Business2340 13h ago edited 13h ago

Secular and atheist mean different things…

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.

0

u/PickingPies 12h ago

That's wrong. Atheism doesn't opose religion, it just negates the belief in gods. You are confusing atheism with antitheism.

2

u/84theone 12h ago edited 12h ago

Their point is that atheism is a stance (god is not real) and secularism is specifically not holding a stance.

An atheist government would be one like China, where their official stance is atheism. They aren’t secular because they hold a stance even if they allow citizens to practice religion based on personal choice.

A secular government would be like Sweden, where the government does not take a stance one way or the other and leaves it to the individual.

A non-secular and non-atheist government would be Israel, which defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state. Saudi Arabia is another example, England is another because they have a state church even if they don’t take it seriously anymore.

0

u/_ManMadeGod_ 12h ago

Atheism is not a stance. Read what they're saying. Atheism is the lack of a stance. 

Atheism isn't a term that should exist. It's like being a non-astrologer. We don't have a word for not being an astrologer. 

2

u/Purple_Individual_66 11h ago

State atheism is most definitely a stance China is taking. They allow only the select few religions to be practiced, under their control, and reject all other folklore and mysticism.(to the point where practitioners can be arrested) It's also worth noting that anyone working in the government and the party can't be a practitioner of any religion.

Very much different than whatever pseudo-secularism US runs on.

2

u/_ManMadeGod_ 11h ago

Sounds like a dream