WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

[The Grand Nudger]

Mind you, I can recall people lamenting the state of the world for as long as I've been alive, and I know that my parents and their parents heard the same.

....and so on and so forth, all the way back to-

---

Men lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief: miserable age rested not on them; but with legs and arms never failing they made merry with feasting beyond the reach of all devils. When they died, it was as though they were overcome with sleep, and they had all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace.

---

Hesiod, Works and Days @700bce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man

-at least. LOL. Apparently it's a good story, eh?

[Huggy Bear]

You can't be serious.

You of all people should realize communism introduced "state atheism" FIDEL....

Go study Stalinist Russian and see how much of a "utopia" it was.

Whoa, two examples! I guess Denmark, Sweden, Australia and so on just ceased to exist!

None of those countries instituted state atheism.....

[Esquilax]

Whoa, two examples! I guess Denmark, Sweden, Australia and so on just ceased to exist!

None of those countries instituted state atheism.....

Increased secularism isn't state atheism...

[abaris]

None of those countries instituted state atheism.....

We were talking about SECULARISM, which doesn't equal ATHEISM. I may repeat myself: Secular only means religion keeping it's fingers out of the political pot, not the abolition of religion.

Get the distinction now?

[Whateverist]

None of those countries instituted state atheism.....

Increased secularism isn't state atheism...

Right. It is simply the very appropriate diminution of religion in the affairs of state. Even right thinking theists don't want a mixing of the two for fear those in power will be of an opposing faith, the real foe of every theist.

[Huggy Bear]

None of those countries instituted state atheism.....

Increased secularism isn't state atheism...

My point is, if you're going to make a case against religion by stating

"the most secular, least religious societies also tend to be some of the most prosperous financially and socially, and also the happiest."

then look at the Societies/governments that removed religion completely, and you would see that they tended to be hellholes , making that statement utter nonsense.

Societies that are free to live how they please and treated fairly (no injustice/corruption) are the happiest.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Consider for a second that often the most secular, least religious societies also tend to be some of the most prosperous financially and socially, and also the happiest.

You can't be serious.

You of all people should realize communism introduced "state atheism" FIDEL....

Go study Stalinist Russian and see how much of a "utopia" it was.

And here we have a person who hasn't ever studied political science or international relations. Before you post a nonsense reply replete with strawmen perhaps engage that brain of yours first, yes?

First off the bat, secularism =/= atheism. Secularism was a political paradigm introduced to protestant statecraft in 1648 following the treaty of westphalia. Its had nothing to do with atheism and continues to be nothing to do with atheism. Ok? So we've eliminated that as a worthwhile point.

I also never mentioned 'communists' or communist states (DEFINE? What do you mean by community state? Lenninist? Stalinst? Chinese state free enterprise communism? What? Definitions are important when making wide assertions) . I was referring, as made patently clear in the post you've cited, to liberal democratic secular states that employ a separation (but freedom) of religion within their state structures and governmental constitution. Think all of Nothern and western Europe. Nordic states for example consistently score high in surveys that seek to elucidate on how content with life their general population is. They also tend to be very prosperous financially and socially. Compare that to any single theocratic state that you chose and realise just how right I am.

Communist states tend to revel in a cult of personality and political paradigm that elevates an elitist class of political agents to reign supreme over the proletariat. Not once did I mention utopia, although that's ironic because of course every political philosophy and ontological premise is utopian when you evaluate its end game (otherwise what's the point of making one?), and not once did I infer that secular states are also utopian (unless you want to cite me?). Indeed, just to show how incorrect you are from a different angle, consider that not all communist states employed a restriction of religion and religious freedom in their general MO of statecraft. Ever heard of the Socialist Federal RepublicYugoslavia? Tito, despite being a complete arse, broke away from Moscow in terms of religion as he realized that in order to keep some semblance of support for the various state demographics the the religious factions would all need a voice and to allow their congregations to congregate, be they Slavic Orthdox, Carholic or whatever. So maybe take your own advice and read up on 'communism' before casually throwing it out there yes?

Let's consider another point. The enforcmemt of irreligious behaviour by state agents =/= an irreligious society. You cite Russia/USSR. So you'll know that the orthodox church in eastern Europe and the USSR continued to be a very prominent actor under various Russian leaders, often leading a resistance to overbearing authoritarianism from the Kremlin. People didn't lose their religion because the state sanctioned that they do so, proven by the fact that when the iron curtain fell, one of the first things to happen was the proliferation of various churches, orthodox and catholic most prominently, to represent the religiousness of the people that never lost it in the first place.

And two points to clear up before we finish. I have studied communist philosophy already. Specifically the ideas of Georges Sorel and the comparative discourse between his writings on violence and the philosophies employed by various Wahhabi sects throughout the middle east over the past century.

And finally, just because my handle is 'Fidel' doesn't mean I'm a communist numbnuts.

[Esquilax]

Increased secularism isn't state atheism...

My point is, if you're going to make a case against religion by stating

"the most secular, least religious societies also tend to be some of the most prosperous financially and socially, and also the happiest."

then look at the Societies/governments that removed religion completely, and you would see that they tended to be hellholes , making that statement utter nonsense.

Societies that are free to live how they please and treated fairly (no injustice/corruption) are the happiest.

Your last sentence proves the falsity of the correlation you're trying to draw in the rest of your posts; you seem to understand that the reason those examples you give were bad places to live was that they were authoritarian and lacking in freedom, and yet your argument hinges on the idea that it's atheism that caused those states to be hellholes. So you disagree with Fidel's point, that the most secular countries are the most prosperous using examples that aren't applicable anyway, and then detail what makes a society the most happy and prosperous yourself... seemingly unaware that you're invalidating your own argument in doing so, partly because the reason you list has nothing to do with the initial claim you made, and partly because it is the countries where religion most influences state decisions that are the least free and fair.

So... congratulations for possessing the most ridiculous, self refuting, knee jerk reflexive position you could, on this issue.

[Huggy Bear]

My point is, if you're going to make a case against religion by stating

"the most secular, least religious societies also tend to be some of the most prosperous financially and socially, and also the happiest."

then look at the Societies/governments that removed religion completely, and you would see that they tended to be hellholes , making that statement utter nonsense.

Societies that are free to live how they please and treated fairly (no injustice/corruption) are the happiest.

Your last sentence proves the falsity of the correlation you're trying to draw in the rest of your posts; you seem to understand that the reason those examples you give were bad places to live was that they were authoritarian and lacking in freedom, and yet your argument hinges on the idea that it's atheism that caused those states to be hellholes. So you disagree with Fidel's point, that the most secular countries are the most prosperous using examples that aren't applicable anyway, and then detail what makes a society the most happy and prosperous yourself... seemingly unaware that you're invalidating your own argument in doing so, partly because the reason you list has nothing to do with the initial claim you made, and partly because it is the countries where religion most influences state decisions that are the least free and fair.

So... congratulations for possessing the most ridiculous, self refuting, knee jerk reflexive position you could, on this issue.

No, I must congratulate you sir for having the ability to convolute a very simple concept.

you seem to think I'm making a case for a religious society, which I'm not.

Let's take a road for example.

A road is designed with gutters on the left and right for the trash to wash into. It is never good to be far left or far right of any issue it's best to remain in the center.
This applies to pretty much anything whether it be politics or religion.

It's ok to be conservative about somethings, and liberal about others. Taking one side OR the other is just nonsense.

that being said, a totally religious society is not the answer, neither is an atheist society, but one that gives the people freedom to choose.

So the point I was making was a societies happiness had nothing to do with secularism vs religion, but freedom of choice.

My point

[abaris]

So the point I was making was a societies happiness had nothing to do with secularism vs religion, but freedom of choice.

Are you really that dense that you can't grasp the difference between secularism and atheism although it has been rubbed in your face about a dozen times?

It has nothing to do with not having the freedom of choice. It has everything to do with the idea of religion not being part of government decisions aimed at the whole population, regardless of faith or absence thereoff. It's not an atheist government, it's a neutral one.