If you ruled...

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Awar

Only atheists deny the existence of god, and I didn't notice any catastrophic consequences of disbelief, rather blind belief has had more dire consequences.

Well, the long years of atheism in some of the former Communist countries have had disastrous consequences on at least a good sector of the population. That is a fact.

Well, you can't just ask nicely our 'competitors' to abide by rules of christianity.

I can demand that they abide to a set of rules for a healthy society. I mean at home.

What the majority believes is and should be irrelevant for a good government. The majority of people are poorly educated. Most Americans believe that sun rotates around the earth, but that doesn't stop their government from having a space program based on cold hard fact.

Aren't you talking of a laicist Government instead of an Agnostic government? That would make more sense.

Other than that, you can't dismiss the spirituality of a people on grounds of education. That's unfair. Less so compare the spirituality of one people with the retardness of other.

The government isn't there to philosophize, but to function.

And yet, by defining an official position it would be entering the debate.

Nope, they are opportunists.

You can't see that they have been educated into it, no matter if they don't believe in it?

Adaptation. It's better to live happy as a hunter-gatherer, than be miserable in a hyper-technological world which ruined itself.

Not that it tells much to what I said..
Just think of the back to savage in a modern concept of the savage, e.g. a soulless hyper-tech world miserable individual.

Where's that collapse? Everyone is talking about a collapse of civilization, but from what I see, it can be collapsing like this for a very very long time.

In which world are you living? Serbia must be a paradise.

Here we are seeing it on a daily basis, and from what I hear of my neighbours things are the same if not worse for them. Do you really want to hear the list? I would have thought that you knew it already.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Do you think that Jews were persecuted for other reasons?

I don't really care. This is a hypothetical discussion, and the Jews would be treated with the same tolerance/severity of law as any other religious group ( in my perfect state ).

If non religious, why should a Government take an official religion and thus influence on the spirituality (or lack of) of the people that it rules over?

It shouldn't take an official religion.

And yet, under your scheme, the government would rule on god's existance over the beliefs of its subjects.

There would be no need. The government needs to be as functional as possible, and that must include belief only in the proven, the logical and tried.

Awar, damn it! It's 1:00am!

I know, there were some chicks waiting for me at the club, but
now I'm back

It boils down to what we have been discussing before. You ancestors did not resist to Islam because they were Serbs, they did so because they were Serbs and Christian Orthodox. What if.. well, Serbia might be no different to say, Albania.

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. It always is.

My ancestors resisted not Islam, but the Ottoman empire,
in an effort of Serbian feudal lords to protect their Empire and kingdoms
from the invader.

The people were religious, and it was hard to influence them to convert to Islam, especially for Ottomans who were ( for the time ) rather tolerant of other religions. Ottomans just took these teritories and cashed in on them, and milked them in many ways, but not too much more than that.

Serbian feudals, once they established themselves within the Ottoman empire also fought against christian Ugrian invaders. Talkin' about being between a rock and a hard place... the Ugrians probably have been a great threat to Serbian feudal lords and the people, perhaps greater than the Ottomans in that period.

Most of the converts to Islam were belonging to the bogumil heresy.

Albanians were a mess before the Turks arrived, and they are a mess now.
Their national identity is just a few centuries old. We're speaking of a bunch of hillbilly tribes who were allowed to spread for doing favours for the Ottomans.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Well, the long years of atheism in some of the former Communist countries have had disastrous consequences on at least a good sector of the population. That is a fact.

This can be said of any society in any era.

I can demand that they abide to a set of rules for a healthy society. I mean at home.

Hey, I think Islam is very unhealthy, but I can't ask them to change,
at the moment, they are more efficient in spreading than any other religion.

Aren't you talking of a laicist Government instead of an Agnostic government? That would make more sense.

...well...

Other than that, you can't dismiss the spirituality of a people on grounds of education. That's unfair. Less so compare the spirituality of one people with the retardness of other.

No matter, I said that MOST of the people are poorly educated ( and there's no real need for them to be better educated ).

It's upon the elite to rule and decide, not upon general consensus.
When deciding, the government must take into consideration only the opinions of the best of the best, not the vast majority.

And yet, by defining an official position it would be entering the debate.

What official position? Laicism?

You can't see that they have been educated into it, no matter if they don't believe in it?

I fail to see what good to anyone is a Europe where 100% of the people
would officially be catholic ( for example ),
when still, only a small minority would truly adhere, and the rest would just go with the flow.

Whatever set of moral rules are imposed upon people, they will still reseve the right to break them in the course of their lives, in privacy, or in public.

In which world are you living? Serbia must be a paradise.

Here we are seeing it on a daily basis, and from what I hear of my neighbours things are the same if not worse for them. Do you really want to hear the list? I would have thought that you knew it already.

Far from it, but there's no sign of a coming apocalypse based on how things look now.

Things can look pretty catastrophic for a regular guy,
but then, a regular guy lives only a few decades.

I bet that to a Roman citizen, the year 476. looked like the world is going to explode, but it didn't.
Lives went on, and things reached new highs, and new lows.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by etoile noir

however does that really differ greatly from christians who are trained from infancy to "turn the other cheek"?

I sincerly doubt you understand the context Jesus was speaking in. Plus we see Paul and the Apostles encouraging Christians to be active and loyal citizens. And in Classical times citizenship and military service were closely linked, in fact the only route to Roman citizenship for many people was through military service. Paul even more specifically notes how God ordained the state to wield the sword.

[Perun]

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mainly. I dont think I need to explain why I choose those two.

Paganism and atheism I would tolerate under certain circumstances.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by etoile noir

I shall be told that Christian troops are excellent. I deny it. Show me an instance.

There are too many instances to count really.

For my part, I know of no Christian troops.

If you read the Acts of the Apostle, you'd find out that the first Roman convert to the faith was a soldier.

I shall be told of the Crusades. Without disputing the valour of the Crusaders, I answer that, so far from being Christians, they were the priests' soldiery, citizens of the Church.

That's a nice attempt at creating a White Horse dialouge.

as the Gospel sets up no national religion

Actually it does, in fact the last verses of each of the Gospels have Christ telling the Apostles to make discples of "all the nations. Of course he tries to limit it to the Gospels. He fails to mention the Acts of the Apostles, with the famous event of Pentecost and the conference of the Apostles deciding that the Christian faith was to be celebrated within ones cultural context(Hebrew customs only applied to Hebrew Christians).

Of course Rousseau in his Considerations for the Government of Poland[, when listing the great historicalmodels for the Poles to follow, he mentions the Biblical figure of Moses as an ideal nation-builder!

, a holy war is impossible among Christians.

Saids who? Holy wars can be found in the Old Testament for example.

Rousseau is playing a game of trying to limit at how much of the Bible we can look at to come to a conclusion. The Bible can only be understood in its FULL context!

Rousseau and others seem to forget that Christ did not involve himself in politics. His teachings were on cultural and social issues. So when he saids "turn the other cheek", he basically means dont take the law into your own hands; seek vengence through the state(although there are studies showing that the term "hit on the right cheek" was a common expression in that region meaning a personal insult. So in this theory, Christ is saying not to respond to personal insults). Same with "love thy enemies". He means personal enemies, as one can see when reading the original Greek.

[Cristoforo]

Cristoforo, it should have been more specific on Christian denominations.

True. I usually get inspired to these polls and due to the rush to do them, I always either skip some important options or not specify all the criteria. The poll asks: "If you ruled in your country, (not the World, not Europe) what religions would you tolerate?" I wanted to do one for Europe too but I think most people here replied assuming it was on Europe or on the World (megalomaniacs!! )

Originally Posted by Mynydd

And for those who voted Atheism, you are aware that the denial of a Creator implies the acceptance of man being just a slightly developed form of animal and a soulless creature?

If we are that insignificant, what's the point in moralizing and restraining from applying the most cruel forms of the survival of the fittest?

If tomorrow, you wake up and discover God does not exist, you get out and starting killing, stealing and raping? Surely not. Morals are not an exclusive of any religion. I, for example, am exceedingly moralistic even if atheist. If you remember well that discusion on Islam, you will note how morals and consistency featured in my argument

Well, the long years of atheism in some of the former Communist countries have had disastrous consequences on at least a good sector of the population. That is a fact.

It's not atheism that brought that disaster but excessive materialism and communist repression of freedom (including freedom of religion I have to say).

[Cristoforo]

I am quite satisfied that the thread/poll created such a healthy discussion. I myself will vote Roman Catholicism (but would censor various jewish influences from it on which various Leftists capitalized), positive Atheism (that would mean Science (or Cosmotheism), and all other religions which are considered European.

[Nerthus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Other than that, you can't dismiss the spirituality of a people on grounds of education. That's unfair.

What about imposing a religion? What about forced conversion?

[Menydh]

Cristoforo, the problem with your utopian atheism is that there has been empirical atheism..

Originally Posted by Cristoforo

If tomorrow, you wake up and discover God does not exist, you get out and starting killing, stealing and raping? Surely not. Morals are not an exclusive of any religion.

Cut it. We are talking of a non religion, not of a religion. And don't ask me what I would do if, ask me what did happen in the past.

Why don't you go and read about the orgies of rapes, killings and dessecrations by anarchist atheists in the 30s? I surely don't want to bring them in here, because they make me sick.

It's not atheism that brought that disaster but excessive materialism

And just what do you think that atheism is, a spiritual religion? Hello! It is materialism in itself. Since the times of the ancient Greeks, atheists were philosophers like the materialist Epicurus.

and communist repression of freedom (including freedom of religion I have to say).

I have no idea of what you see in Malta, but I know what I'm seeing here. The immigrants of some former communist countries are, nearly without one exception, all involved in brutal gang killings, prostitution by means of forcing women into it, etc. You hear the stories and they are frightening.

And that comes no through political repression, but through the generations subject to a strict materialistic atheist education.

Take the Poles as an example. Despite Communist political repression, they remained attached to their spirituality. And I can assure you today that the stories of Poles here in Spain are strictly of people decently working.

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

What about imposing a religion? What about forced conversion?

Unfair too, imo. And, as we know, forced conversion does not bring true conversion.

[Cristoforo]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Cristoforo, the problem with your utopian atheism is that there has been empirical atheism..

Well, I live my utopian atheism. Maybe my catholic upbringing have something to do with it? Maybe, yes. Maybe no.

Cut it. We are talking of a non religion, not of a religion. And don't ask me what I would do if, ask me what did happen in the past.

Why don't you go and read about the orgies of rapes, killings and dessecrations by anarchist atheists in the 30s?

So because some anarchist atheists (the bold is important) did that in the 30s, you assume that all atheists will do the same? Lately I read that in Germany, only 30% are theists. I went there, I did not see any rapes, killings and dessecrations! Atrocities were done by everyone, atheists, catholics, muslims...

And just what do you think that atheism is, a spiritual religion? Hello! It is materialism in itself. Since the times of the ancient Greeks, atheists were philosophers like the materialist Epicurus.

Positive atheism (like Cosmotheism) is very positive. It's forward looking. It's rational and it's very philosophical. It recognises that no one is above the humans, no one will protect them if they don't protect themselves and the only way to protect themselves is to obtain as much knowledge as possible. Religion has no monopoly on morals and atheism is not materialism although they are linked.

I have no idea of what you see in Malta, but I know what I'm seeing here. The immigrants of some former communist countries are, nearly without one exception, all involved in brutal gang killings, prostitution by means of forcing women into it, etc. You hear the stories and they are frightening.

Yes, but why the German atheists don't do the same? That's the crucial question one will ask. I don't why, I admit but it's something to do with lack of morals rather than lack of religion. These people used to be controlled by sheer force/violence and now they got freedom and feel free to do whatever they want. There were never educated not to do things because those were bad for society but because they will be caught. Education is the key there imho.

Take the Poles as an example. Despite Communist political repression, they remained attached to their spirituality. And I can assure you today that the stories of Poles here in Spain are strictly of people decently working.

I never denied that religion helps people to do moral things but I ask: Is it possible that no single Pole in Spain ever stole or killed?

[Zyklop]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Take the Poles as an example. Despite Communist political repression, they remained attached to their spirituality. And I can assure you today that the stories of Poles here in Spain are strictly of people decently working.

Would be nice if they also had this non-materialistic, religious attitude in Germany.