Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's fall

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's fall

Post #1

Post by 2Dbunk »

Are Christian apologies in order for today's state of American Democracy
Edward Gibbon in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire� (1776) hints that Constantine’s elevation of Christianity in the 4th century of Rome aided in the decline of that civilization.
"The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in a long residence upon Earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings."

"... life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister. A large portion of public and private wealth were consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion, and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny, and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of the country."

The above passages are open to being contrasted with a previous, pagan, situation where "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher; as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful." Gibbon suggests that "Toleration produced not only a mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."

Two further volumes of the Decline and Fall, which bring to an end the period of the Western Empire (to about AD 480) appeared in April 1781 and these also sold well.
Gibbon summed up the Fall of the Roman Empire in the west as "the triumph of barbarism and religion!!!" from: age-of-the-sage.org
Compare this with today’s fall of American Democracy. The last truly great presidents that our nation has had are Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. That leaves us a hiatus of more than half-of a century of mediocrity, the latter end of which has been the dismal parade of wannabes tilting for the office as the least dismal alternative. Why? In the last half century the religion card has been played more and more proving the emotional gullibility and ignorance of the masses.

Today, religion is a necessity for the office – but not just any religion. Protestant Christianity is preferred but Catholics are somewhat tolerated. Jews and Muslims need not apply, including all of the eastern “cults.� Atheists, since they are not banned from our shores, are still held in even less esteem. Again, why? Most if not every religious person is convinced that all other religions are dangerous, unholy cults; most Americans are of some form of nearly 40,000 varieties of Protestantism. Make any sense? Sure: “We are a Christiun nation – Atheists are evil ‘cause they don’t believe in God.�

I truly believe that Democracy is floundering because of the singular inanity of requiring Christianity as a pre-requisite for the office of the President. Look at today’s candidates: both professing deep religious faith (Christian of course) yet calling each other crooks and liars (and to a large intent, they are both right). Speaking as an Atheist, I KNOW my wife would be morally MUCH MORE SUPERIOR to either of them (she wouldn’t know the ins and outs of government like Hillary does nor the tax laws and their loopholes as Donald does).

I say morally because to be an atheist one must confront the god notion – a very brave and honest thing to do (honest in that my wife’s and my soul is on the block so to speak – we refuse to live a lie that “God� has control or can control our lives). For 17 years I have never caught her in a lie, nor has she found me in a lie (and we play board games every night). We do not lie or take advantage of our neighbors and our friends.

In short and in conclusion I think for the Democratic process to REALLY SUCCEED, THE RELIGION CARD MUST BE ELIMINATED FROM THE ELECTORAL DECK!!! Most of the founding fathers had no problem with the likes of Thomas Paine, as well as the free thinking of Madison and Jefferson, all stellar contributors to our founding. Let’s not sully it now so that we may continue in their spirit.

PghPanther
Guru
Posts: 1242
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:18 pm
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's f

Post #21

Post by PghPanther »

Zzyzx wrote: .
[Replying to post 14 by McCulloch]

We US citizens are a strange people. We pride ourselves on being educated, economically advanced, technologically oriented – while the school system (erroneously called education) is falling farther behind world leaders every year, the economy increasingly favors the elite while middle classes shrink in numbers and in economic stability, and when many other nations are drawing even or taking the lead in technology.

Exacerbating the situation is our resistance to, and fear of, change – and fear of everything it seems. We stay with an election system that is antiquated and corruption prone – and a political system that is based upon money. We act as though we prize Victorian attitudes regarding sexuality – while being the porn capital of the world and glamorizing / fixating on sex.

We stay with policies that have been demonstrated to be total failures – such as the 'war on drugs', 'abstinence only programs', the 'war on terror' – even though they produce more and cheaper drugs (and more crime); more pregnancies among participants; and more terrorist activity respectively.

'We're number one' rings hollow when the number one applies largely to military spending and incarceration rates. We rank poorly (#20) compared to other nations in individual and economic liberty

Many long to return to 'the good old days' (that were not always as good as rosy memories might indicate). Perhaps they prefer the days of segregation, female disenfranchisement and subservience, sweat-shop labor conditions and child labor, and even greater religious influence in society.

The political system is broken – as demonstrated by the current presidential circus / fiasco – fact-free and lacking solid, untarnished candidates. Gerrymandering makes a joke of congressional district's, the two party system presents limited options, the electoral college is an abomination, the branches of government are intertwined and no longer 'checks and balances' (but largely partisan). Money rules everywhere, including academia.

Most once-great nations have declined into second or third class status due to 1) Internal corruption, and 2) Unsustainable expansionism / empire building.

There is no wake-up call. We're not going to change in positive directions.

Note: I am not a pessimist – but a realist.

Well stated...............your idea of cash running the show is quite relevant........in the early days of this republic a corporation was actually known as a public trust which was set up in a manner where infrastructure required huge expenditures beyond any privately owned company and the trust or investment was set up to accomplish that task and was dissolved after that project was done........somewhere along that development we created the corporation but then gave it the same rights as an actual human yet the corporate has no moral imperative but only to grow........and that growth has replicated like a cancer right into the governess of the land and corrupted all of politics and policies............

Interesting that we are suppose to be one of the "most Christian" nations in the world but our morals and crime is in the gutter as you have pointed out.

The great Harvard biologist, EO Wilson once asked why we are so out of control as a nation and he pointed out that we are still a "frontier" type society.........we've only been in existence for hundreds not thousands of years and in a way are like an adolescence given all the toys to play with and no sense of the responsibility that comes with it......

Carl Sagan once said we have......Medieval institutions, superstitious beliefs and a complete ignorance to the science of our technologies.............which he stated is a very dangerous combination for a society to have.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 12682
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 461 times

Re: Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's f

Post #22

Post by 1213 »

Zzyzx wrote: …Civilian arms now are vastly inferior to military weapons, so thoughts of an armed revolution against the government / military seem to me fanciful. A trusty 30-30 isn't very effective against a tank, APC, attack helicopter, or ground support aircraft (or drones) with bombs and rockets….
McCulloch wrote: [Replying to post 11 by 1213]As to having the constitutional right to protect yourself from tyrany, that is really funny. If your elected government were to become tyrannical, the weapons in the hands of private individuals would be no match to the weapons held by your military and your police forces.

I agree that government can be more powerful. However, the point is not to go to war, but make less alluring to misuse the power. For example, if the next government would decide that all atheists must go to concentration camps, they would have much easier job with that, if they would know that people don’t have guns. Of course, if people would have guns, they could use force, but they would also know it could be harder and maybe they just are not ready to go all the way. It will not make it impossible, but it could make it harder, just that much that they reject the idea, hopefully.

Also, if we look into the middle east, the world’s greatest governments have much trouble against small group of primitive fighters. USA have fought many years and still they are going, even though they have superior power allegedly. I have difficulties to believe they would have easier job in their own country. Usually great power can be won by greater intelligence, even if the guns are not as great (Like David versus Goliath).

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 12682
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 461 times

Re: Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's f

Post #23

Post by 1213 »

Divine Insight wrote:What would American citizens do with their guns when it comes to disagreeing with the U.S. government?
I have understood that the guns are for people to defend themselves. And that means they could be used, for defending, for example when the government comes to your home to take you to concentration camp because you are not for example atheist.
Divine Insight wrote:As I stated earlier, any citizen rebellion against the government would most likely be highly divided between citizens anyway. And therefore any rebellion would most likely lead to a horrible civil war.
Defending is not same as rebellion. Rebellion is attacking, and I don’t support attacking. I just think people should be able to defend themselves, when the government attacks. And actually, it is not so much for the actual conflict situation as it is for the situation before things go bad. It is more difficult to government to act wrongly, when they know people have guns and they can’t do so easily whatever they want. Obviously governments may have much more guns, but the step is higher for misuse of power when people have guns and may not be as easily forced as without the guns.
Divine Insight wrote:Why support that just anyone should be able to buy a gun - even the criminals themselves? How does that help protect us against criminals?
Criminals will have guns anyway. The rules only make things more difficult for ordinary people who obey the law, when the law is not evil.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's f

Post #24

Post by Zzyzx »

.
1213 wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:What would American citizens do with their guns when it comes to disagreeing with the U.S. government?
I have understood that the guns are for people to defend themselves. And that means they could be used, for defending, for example when the government comes to your home to take you to concentration camp because you are not for example atheist.
If a ten man SWAT team arrives at your house with an armored vehicle, automatic weapons, stun grenades, tear gas, body armor, etc do you really think that guns you may have will enable you to do anything other than die quicker?
1213 wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: As I stated earlier, any citizen rebellion against the government would most likely be highly divided between citizens anyway. And therefore any rebellion would most likely lead to a horrible civil war.
Defending is not same as rebellion. Rebellion is attacking, and I don’t support attacking. I just think people should be able to defend themselves, when the government attacks. And actually, it is not so much for the actual conflict situation as it is for the situation before things go bad. It is more difficult to government to act wrongly, when they know people have guns and they can’t do so easily whatever they want. Obviously governments may have much more guns, but the step is higher for misuse of power when people have guns and may not be as easily forced as without the guns.
Consider the SWAT team above expanded to include military troops and equipment.
1213 wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: Why support that just anyone should be able to buy a gun - even the criminals themselves? How does that help protect us against criminals?
Criminals will have guns anyway. The rules only make things more difficult for ordinary people who obey the law,
I agree. There are an estimated 300 million firearms in private ownership in the US. Criminals have no difficulty acquiring guns.
1213 wrote: when the law is not evil.
What does this mean and how does it apply here?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 12682
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 461 times

Re: Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's f

Post #25

Post by 1213 »

Zzyzx wrote: .
1213 wrote: If a ten man SWAT team arrives at your house with an armored vehicle, automatic weapons, stun grenades, tear gas, body armor, etc do you really think that guns you may have will enable you to do anything other than die quicker?
I agree that end result could be bad. But what do you think, is it easier to take person who has guns, or person who doesn’t have guns?
Zzyzx wrote:
1213 wrote: when the law is not evil.
What does this mean and how does it apply here?
Good law is law that protects people, evil law is what is opposite of that and for example sends people to prison if they have not done really anything wrong or bad. For example, if people would be sent to prison, because they are black, it would be bad, because it should not be good reason for that. But probably this is subjective matter and maybe you disagree with it.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's f

Post #26

Post by Zzyzx »

.
1213 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: If a ten man SWAT team arrives at your house with an armored vehicle, automatic weapons, stun grenades, tear gas, body armor, etc do you really think that guns you may have will enable you to do anything other than die quicker?
I agree that end result could be bad.
Actually, the result is largely a foregone conclusion. The most you could hope for is a slight delay.
1213 wrote: But what do you think, is it easier to take person who has guns, or person who doesn’t have guns?
SWAT teams and military organizations are designed, trained and equipped to take out hard targets. They may appreciate the opportunity to use their weapons, equipment and tactics.
1213 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:
1213 wrote: when the law is not evil.
What does this mean and how does it apply here?
Good law is law that protects people, evil law is what is opposite of that and for example sends people to prison if they have not done really anything wrong or bad.
Could a bad / evil law also be one that fails to punish those who people who do harm to others?
1213 wrote: For example, if people would be sent to prison, because they are black, it would be bad, because it should not be good reason for that. But probably this is subjective matter and maybe you disagree with it.
The US system sends Black people to prison in much greater percentages than Caucasians – even for similar crimes. I strongly disagree with that policy (and with the high incarceration rates in general – stemming from the failed 'war on drugs').
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 12682
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 461 times

Re: Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's f

Post #27

Post by 1213 »

Zzyzx wrote: Could a bad / evil law also be one that fails to punish those who people who do harm to others?
Law is actually something that tells what is right and wrong and what would be the wage of a crime. It is not judge or the one who executes the judgments. Judges are set for that job and they should judge according to the law. If law doesn’t say that for example murder is wrong, then I think it is not good law.
Zzyzx wrote:The US system sends Black people to prison in much greater percentages than Caucasians – even for similar crimes.
Is there some statistics that show that they make as much crimes, but Caucasians don’t get punishments from same crimes?

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's f

Post #28

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 23 by 1213]

The only thing that kept the Iraqi insurgency from being completely anhillated was our ROE and the respect for civilian life. If the government becomes tyrannical and loses the respect for civilian life do you really think it will be harder for a tyrannical gov. because you have a gun? If the government turned on atheists I would just pretend to be Christian a gun wouldn't help me...
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Are Christian apologies in order for Amer. Democracy's f

Post #29

Post by Zzyzx »

.
1213 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: The US system sends Black people to prison in much greater percentages than Caucasians – even for similar crimes.
Is there some statistics that show that they make as much crimes, but Caucasians don’t get punishments from same crimes?
Of course, as anyone can learn with an Internet search using the terms “racial bias in sentencing�
Racial Disparity in Sentencing

The history of racial disparity in the criminal justice system in the U.S. have been longstanding. The racial dynamics in sentencing have changed over time and reflect a move from explicit racism to more surreptitious manifestations and outcomes.

In this publication, The Sentencing Project reviews the research literature of the past twenty years on racial disparity in sentencing, organizing the findings in six issue areas:

Direct Racial Discrimination
Key findings:

There is evidence of direct racial discrimination (against minority defendants in sentencing outcomes);
Evidence of direct discrimination at the federal level is more prominent than at the state level;
Blacks are more likely to be disadvantaged in terms of sentence length at the federal level, whereas Latinos are more likely to be disadvantaged in terms of the decision to incarcerate;
At the state level, both Latinos and blacks are far more likely to be disadvantaged in the decision to incarcerate or not, as opposed to the decision regarding sentence length.

Interaction of race/ethnicity with other offender characteristics
Key findings:

Young black and Latino males tend to be sentenced more severely than comparably-situated white males;
Unemployed black males tend to be sentenced more severely than comparably-situated white males.

Interaction and indirect effects of race/ethnicity and process-related factors
Key findings:

Blacks pay a higher "trial penalty" than comparably-situated whites;
Whites receive a larger reduction in sentence time than blacks and Latinos for providing "substantial assistance" to the prosecution;
Blacks and Latinos with a more serious criminal record tend to be sentenced more severely than comparably-situated whites;
Blacks are more likely to be jailed pending trial, and therefore tend to receive harsher sentences;
Whites are more likely to hire a private attorney than Latinos or blacks, and therefore receive a less severe sentence.

Interaction of race of the offender with race of the victim
Key findings:

Black defendants who victimize whites tend to receive more severe sentences than both blacks who victimize other blacks (especially acquaintances), and whites who victimize whites.

Interaction of race/ethnicity and type of crime
Key findings:

Latinos and blacks tend to be sentenced more harshly than whites for lower-level crimes such as drug crimes and property crimes;
However, Latinos and blacks convicted of high-level drug offenses also tend to be more harshly sentenced than similarly-situated whites.

Capital punishment
Key findings:

In the vast majority of cases, the race of the victim tends to have an effect on the sentence outcome, with white victim cases more often resulting in death sentences;
However, in some jurisdictions, notably in the federal system, the race of the defendant also affects sentencing outcomes, with minority defendants more likely to receive a death sentence than white defendants. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/ ... sentencing
There are many more such references available
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

2Dbunk
Site Supporter
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: East of Eden

Post #30

Post by 2Dbunk »

I don't see much in the way of apology for how American Democracy has been sullied, so I guess few people agree with my premise that overt intrusion of religion in government, is slowly but surely bringing our Democracy down.

Is there any other reason that anyone can think of that has eroded American Democracy to the low point we are experiencing today. Most agree that the two major candidates in today's presidential election are dismal choices -- even worse than four, eight, twelve years ago. It is a sobering regression that we need to address soon (Putin isn't helping things by getting into Trump's bonnet).

All we have to do is insist that our representatives go back to the lead of our founding fathers who essentially disdained divine providence in favor of practical governing applications. I know that's a tall order but certainly give it some consideration. Remember JFK's pronouncement: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!"

Post Reply