towards a secular america — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Philosophy and other Silliness

towards a secular america

This page's ID: 28600

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	Ok. let's se if I can make sense here The term 'civil religion' is a very forced, contrived and akward way to describe the situation. Clearly any group comprised of any level of organization will have things in common with other such groups. It is the nature of organization. A nation will therefore have similarities with a religion, in terms of methods used to promote cohesion - heirarchy, rules, propaganda, and all other kinds of homegeniety will be employed by all members of the group in one way or another. To say that these similiarites make one group the other is silly. It is an attempt to force as many things as possible into as small a hole as possible under the same label, in order to avoid having to think seriously about the vast differences between them. Calling ideas of national unity a 'civil religion' is akin to calling kitchen faucets 'streams and rivers' and regulating them the same way. Are there similarities? Of course. Can an abstract argument be made that would equate them? Of course. Are they the same thing, and should they be treated the same way? Of course not. Some specifics: [quote] For example government-supported Memorial Day celebrations should not invoke God to validate American wars, [/quote] Whether or not a memorial day celebration is government supported, it is a celebration by the people of what it considers its heroes. To say that becuase the celebration is 'government supported' the people cannot express their feelings in terms of their religion is a ridiculous notion. Freedom of religion means that I am free not to have religion imposed upon me, and am free to practice my religion - and of course to speak about it as well. [quote]references to American exceptionalism should not mention derivatives of the "city on a hill" idea. [/quote] 1) how could this be even remotely possible to enforce, on any level? 2) who is to decide the validity (or lack thereof) of any 'city on a hill' comparisons? Are we to stop making comparisons at all, in fear that they might fall under this contrived umbrella of 'civil religion'? 3) why not? [quote]We should identify the tenants of a civil religion because these tenants have been used historically to further totalitarian regimes, genocides, isolationism, imperialism, and political-worship.[/quote] "Forks have been used to stab people's eyes. We must identify and remove reference to forks from interpersonal conversation." A stretch, yes. But do you see how the logic is the same? The tenets? Any such tenet would be so loosely defined, and so varied between people that they would be very hard to define at all. Once definitions were reached, they would be so vague as to essentially cover any sort of patriotic view or expression, or any sense of national cohesion. I don't see this to be in any way helpful, desirable, plausible, or logical. Essentially, the only outcome I can see of pursuing this kind of censorship is a complete reversal of what is feared might happen in the first place: totalitarian enforcement of anti-nationalistic views. I can see this kind of approach leading only to totalitarianism. To disallow the sentiments you talk about is to remove the function of choice from the people, and to forcibly eliminate/subdue intelligence. Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu