NationStates Jolt Archive

Howdy

Have been reading all the battles between the religious and non-religious with great amusement.

It seems that, in the US, you're all just two steps away from a great big religious v non-religious civil war! It's been a few hundred years in England since we were really into smacking each other over religion (and no, Northern Ireland is not in England). So my question is this ...

How, in words of one syllable or less, did the US get into the state where the religious and non-religious are at each other's throats?

Cheers

CDA :)

It has come about because apologetic Christians decide to cow-tow to the atheist and radical Muslim, and the atheist is trying to cram their unbelief down our throats, and the stauch Christians in this nation either have no back-bone, or are Bible-bashing nut-cases, or just plain apathetic.:headbang:

How, in words of one syllable or less, did the US get into the state where the religious and non-religious are at each other's throats?

They're not. Conservatives and secularists disagree over a few minor issues, but they're nowhere near a civil war.

Think about it. US Christian conservatives look pretty secular next to real theocrats like the Saudis, or Christians in medieval Europe.

The reason you're hearing about it now is because, although Christians in America have always been influential on the law there, only recently are there enough atheists, other religions, and secular Christians to put together a decent opposition to unquestioned religious influence on the government.

Another reason is the increased power of the federal government. In the early 20th century, power was more concentrated in the hands of states, so you had very Christian states and some more secular states. Now, both sectors of the population are competing for control of the federal government in order to impose their method of government for both themselves and everyone else.

Also, media communications are better now.

We had our civil war. One is enough for us.

First they fought over a probably insignificant point. Then it escalated. Then the ID'ers really seemed to have ticked the secularists off.

The religious (extreme) seem to see the secularists as godless faithless compensating masses of insecurities.

The secularists (extreme) seem to see the religious as gullible fools who refuse to acknowledge facts that challenge their belief.

Oh, I can just see a cage match between Darwin and Moses. :p

One syllable or less? No, were not at each others throats. Okay that's more than one syllable. But rules were made to be broken.

Though a sick part of me kinda wants the Religious v. Secular Civil War to happen, just so we answer the damned question and get it over with. (I would of course be a General for the Seculars. Fear me.)

A civil war.. again? *mmm* Well, this is the first I've heard of it.. and I live here. *thinks* Well, I'm convinced that it's getting blown out of proportion via the media. Which would just be normal.

Oh, I can just see a cage match between Darwin and Moses. :p

That's one I'd want to watch!!

Nah, not really. Honestly, the people getting this attention represent at best 10% of the population...even within the religious right, fundies are a small (if influential and wealthy) element. For all of the bickering over evolution, I'd say the overwhelming majority of Americans either have no opinion or have no problem integrating their faith and science...and the overwhelming majority of Americans respect the separation of church and state.

(I would of course be a General for the Seculars. Fear me.)
Im gonna be the President of the new secular republic, fear me:D

Howdy
you're all just two steps away from a great big religious v non-religious civil war!

CDA :)


OK, I concede, this is an exaggeration for comic effect :)

Im gonna be the President of the new secular republic, fear me:D

Nothing a little coup d'etat won't fix....

Nothing a little coup d'etat won't fix....
We will see general, we will see;)

Well as 90% of Americans are religous I think the outcome of an atheist/theist war would be a foregone conclusion.

Mind you as 90% of America's top scientists are atheists we would have groovy lasers and stompy robots on our side so we could put up a good fight.

*remembers that he isn't American*

*goes to bed*

Nothing a little coup d'etat won't fix....

We will see general, we will see;)

*manipulates destiny from behind the scenes*

Dance puppets!!! Dance!!!

Well as 90% of Americans are religous I think the outcome of an atheist/theist war would be a foregone conclusion.

Mind you as 90% of America's top scientists are atheists we would have groovy lasers and stompy robots on our side so we could put up a good fight.

*remembers that he isn't American*

*goes to bed*

But note that it's the thiests that own the guns.

Even the grooviest of lasers can't stand up to a million mad thiests.

Essentially it is like this, America has had alot of extremely intense Christians before it even became a nation (the puritans, pilgrams) and they formed a base of our nation as many more sensible people (of moderate beliefs) came in. Then in the mid to late 1800s positivism flourshed throughout Europe and along with it the belief that all things can be understood by observing the material world alone; the Theory of Evolution allowed us to understand where we came from and why life is the way it is without necessarily recoursing to a divine being. And thus God died and Europe became largely secular (of course all of this happend over a period of many decades). The word of God's death took quite a while to reach America over the seas and only the free thinkers and realists accepted it; causing the beginning of the divide which spread from there to reach its present point between the sensible secular Americans who are largely reminiscent of the English, French, and Germans (in terms of religious beliefs) and those American's who will not give up their religious heritage (regardless of the fact that most of them only adopted it) and in opposition to the growing tide of secularism and materialism hold onto the beliefs with feverish intensity and have adopted an "us vs. them" mentality. I highly doubt this will result in any thing resembling a war; but this conflict will get worse before it gets better. But eventually most of the fundamentalists (though there are likely to be some hold outs for quite some time) will be subsumed into the masses of liberal protestant demonitions and "sunday catholics," and with time they (or rather there descendents) might even give up all of their beliefs.

We had our civil war. One is enough for us.
Have a look at this website. I'm starting to think it can't be too long now...

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

For a good religious war, each side needs something to fight for and something to fight against. At the moment Christians are fighting against abortion and For ID, and vice versa the secularists. Luckily neither of those issues are really worth dying for, and deep down the christians probably know they are wrong anyway.

Have a look at this website. I'm starting to think it can't be too long now...

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

I think we can all agree that the world would be a better place of Ann Coulter promptly died in a painful fashion.

I think we can all agree that the world would be a better place of Ann Coulter promptly died in a painful fashion.
agreed 110%

Have a look at this website. I'm starting to think it can't be too long now...

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi


WTF kind of title is "CALVIN AND HOBBES — AND MUHAMMAD"?

Although I see now where some of our forum's resident anti-Muslim fanatics have been getting some of their 'arguments' from.

Particularly the "Islam isn't a religion" and "it's not a religion of peace" arguments. Buncha Ann Coulter ass-suckers had me almost convinced it was their OWN stupid argument. Someone oughtta point out that it's actually " COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER" and that these people are plagiarists.

It seems that, in the US, you're all just two steps away from a great big religious v non-religious civil war!

By sheer numbers, the religious would win. Even if it were just Christians vs. Everyone Else, they do hold 72-75% of the population of the U.S.

Add to that the rest of the religions represented in the U.S. and you wouldn't have a war, you'd have a slaughter.

Fortunately, our government changes hands without a shot being fired, laws are enacted without martial law, and our Constitution is amended without the need for a coup.

So ... nah ... no civil war ... just a lot of hot air wind pissing on the interweb.

I think we can all agree that the world would be a better place of Ann Coulter promptly died in a painful fashion.

Everybody in the United States politically to the left of, say, Joseph Leiberman gets to line up and punch her in the face once. Just once. Knuckle enhancements optional.

The event will be next year's Super Bowl Halftime show.

By sheer numbers, the religious would win. Even if it were just Christians vs. Everyone Else, they do hold 72-75% of the population of the U.S.

Add to that the rest of the religions represented in the U.S. and you wouldn't have a war, you'd have a slaughter.

Fortunately, our government changes hands without a shot being fired, laws are enacted without martial law, and our Constitution is amended without the need for a coup.

So ... nah ... no civil war ... just a lot of hot air wind pissing on the interweb.

Something like 80% of American's identify themselves as Christians, but all the same a very high percentage (likely the majority) of them are liberal christians or lax catholics; who are secular in regards to politics and who support the natural sciences. If there was a war I'm sure many of them would throw in their lots with the secular humanists and others of that sort rather than with the fundamentalists.

Something like 80% of American's identify themselves as Christians, but all the same a very high percentage (likely the majority) of them are liberal christians or lax catholics; who are secular in regards to politics and who support the natural sciences. If there was a war I'm sure many of them would throw in their lots with the secular humanists and others of that sort rather than with the fundamentalists.

True, very true. It's just too damn much to break down.

I say we all have a martini and have a comparative discussion between Socrates and Hobbes. It would be much more pleasant. I'll bring the olives.

True, very true. It's just too damn much to break down.

I say we all have a martini and have a comparative discussion between Socrates and Hobbes. It would be much more pleasant. I'll bring the olives.

A comparative discussion between Socrates and Hobbes? That would be an interesting one. I'm not sure what it was has to do with the topic at hand considering that Socrates was pre-christian (though, if his philosophy truely was very similar to Plato's he could be considered the forefather of the Christian metaphysics so popular during the middle ages; but unfortunately those concepts are rejected now by essentially everyone) and Hobbes was a Christian materialist (I suppose he might be supported by the fundamentalists since they share his dislike theoritical thinking and his belief that humans are fundamentally evil) whose philosophy was very unrelated to Socrates's/Plato's.

A comparative discussion between Socrates and Hobbes?

Beats a civil war. The rest is silence.

Something like 80% of American's identify themselves as Christians, but all the same a very high percentage (likely the majority) of them are liberal christians or lax catholics; who are secular in regards to politics and who support the natural sciences. If there was a war I'm sure many of them would throw in their lots with the secular humanists and others of that sort rather than with the fundamentalists.

Well, it would really depend on what the Civil war was about. If the militant athiests gained power and banned religion, I'm pretty sure even the most liberal thiest would not take that laying down.

Well, it would really depend on what the Civil war was about. If the militant athiests gained power and banned religion, I'm pretty sure even the most liberal thiest would not take that laying down.

True, but the militant athiests are an inconsequential minority. They just seem larger since they are generally highly intelligent, vocal, and predisposed to spend time on message boards.

True, but the militant atheists are an inconsequential minority. They just seem larger since they are generally highly intelligent, vocal, and predisposed to spend time on message boards.

Seeing as they don't have jobs and all...:p

I was just being hypothetical. i would have put something for the fundamentalists, but I couldn't think of anything reciprocal.

I try not to group people, and when I do, I try to avoid labeling the groups, but I have a strong, strong dislike for religious fundamentalists, or at least the fundamentalism part.

True, but the militant athiests are an inconsequential minority. They just seem larger since they are generally highly intelligent, vocal, and predisposed to spend time on message boards.
Same with religious fundamentalists I think, except for the intelligence aprt, but who can tell except for the militant atheists?

Same with religious fundamentalists I think, except for the intelligence aprt, but who can tell except for the militant atheists?

Religious fundamentalists are very vocal, but they are far from intelligent and it is exceedingly rare for them to hang around message boards. But they greatly outnumber militant athiests; and are far more dangerous since the Southern Baptists are the best armed cult in the world.

[QUOTE=Cute Dangerous Animals]Howdy

Have been reading all the battles between the religious and non-religious with great amusement.

It seems that, in the US, you're all just two steps away from a great big religious v non-religious civil war! It's been a few hundred years in England since we were really into smacking each other over religion (and no, Northern Ireland is not in England). So my question is this ...

How, in words of one syllable or less, did the US get into the state where the religious and non-religious are at each other's throats?

Cheers

CDA :)[/QUOTE

The dispute on religion is not as heated as it might look. The fact is that, like in many other countries around the world, religion has played a role in how many Americans identify them selves. Also I have noticed durring many personal theological and philosophical discussion, as well as in anthropological research, religion does much to shape the indivigual and how they see the world. Those who are "leading" the "religion" or "Anti-Religion" charges are at the fringes of American Society. This discorce, which has been going on for centuries all over the world, has only realy began to be seen by the general public under the current administration.

Religious fundamentalists are very vocal, but they are far from intelligent and it is exceedingly rare for them to hang around message boards. But they greatly outnumber militant athiests; and are far more dangerous since the Southern Baptists are the best armed cult in the world.

Um. Just because fundamentalisits are wrong does not mean they are unintelligent.

And we get quite a few on these boards.

There is no pending civil war. That is why we have the First Amendment. To maintain the free exercise of religion without establishing religion.

I wouldn't say it's going to degenerate into a full-blown civil war between Christians the rest of America, it's true some groups of Christians can get violent in protests, but under orders to destroy buildings every time someone makes fun of us, we ain't.

Besides, why kill people when you can evangelize to them instead? Then you get to fulfill Biblical commands, the other person gains eternal life, it's a win-win, and nobody should die. A real civil war doesn't seem to be an option, nor does it seem to be on the agenda for anybody. Plus, where would we draw the battle lines, down here in the Bible belt, im not gonna lie to ya, there's a whole lot of people i've seen personally who, well, just don't appear to get it when it comes to Christianity. That might sound judgemental, but suffice to say, there's very few people i've seen who actually act like a Christian that I know personally, and maybe that's a bit of a harsh thing to accuse people of, but that's just what i've personally seen people act like :/. I don't see how you could clearly draw a line and say "This side be Christian, this side be everyone else", and without that, a civil war wouldn't be very easily organized.

Howdy

Have been reading all the battles between the religious and non-religious with great amusement.

It seems that, in the US, you're all just two steps away from a great big religious v non-religious civil war! It's been a few hundred years in England since we were really into smacking each other over religion (and no, Northern Ireland is not in England). So my question is this ...

How, in words of one syllable or less, did the US get into the state where the religious and non-religious are at each other's throats?

Cheers

CDA :)

First, they is not and will not be a possibility of civil war. In the US, when the religious folk get ticked, they write letters to the editor. In Syria, they firebomb embassies. The difference: here in the States, even our religious wackos have a deep-seated sense of rule of law; in Syria, no one has such a notion.

Now, as for why fundies and non-religious groups are at each other's throats, basically, it's because America has a long and deep-rooted tradition of what is known as the jeremiad, better known as the "This-nation-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket-and-it's-all-you-sinning-unbelievers-fault" speech. Basically, if you believed the jeremiad, this nation has been on one never-ending line to hell since about the 1690's. It's basically part of the ingrained tradition of America to believe that whatever bad fortune befalls our country is the result of inadequately belief and deference to God's will. It's arguably not Christian and its sense of Christian virtue and justice are at best primitive, but it's the form of Christianity that most appeals to American Christians.

Now, the power of the jeremiads waxes and wanes with the fortunes of this country, growing dormant when times are really good and spiking when things get bleak. You saw spikes of this sentiment in the 1830's when the first generation of American statesmen were dying off and the right to vote was expanding, because it was an easy to way to influence the vote. You saw it again in the 1870's and 1930's because of deep-seated unease about the state of the US. Pretty much the same thing is happening now: wages are declining, people are having a harder time finding stable jobs where they don't have to work 50 hours per week, and even well-educated people are finding themselves being laid off. Given that kind of unease, jeremiads offer both a ready-made problem and an easy solution. Hence its popularity, especially among the rural poor of this country who have been passed over and ignored by the dot-com boom and crushed by rising debt and job insecurity.

A good percentage of the USA's current administration falls within the Religious Right. It's questionable how many of these people are truly influenced by extremists like Pat Robertson and John Hagee, but consider that Hagee recently said, "The war on Iraq is the gateway to the apocalypse."

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/print.php?sid=980&POSTNUKESID=
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/CommentaryToo/1025.html
(Just a few.)

That's right, there is a confirmed belief within the US fundamentalist group that wars and widespread environmental destruction will hasten the Second Coming of Christ and should therefore be embraced. It's as though they're reading the book of Revelations and saying, "Divide the nations...check. Scourge the earth...check." Now, as a secularist who actually believes the Earth DOES have a future, shouldn't I be concerned? Wouldn't you agree there is a serious conflict of interest between the two groups, with this small matter of the apocalypse representing just one (if the most significant) of our differences?

A good percentage of the USA's current administration falls within the Religious Right. It's questionable how many of these people are truly influenced by extremists like Pat Robertson and John Hagee, but consider that Hagee recently said, "The war on Iraq is the gateway to the apocalypse."

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/print.php?sid=980&POSTNUKESID=
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/CommentaryToo/1025.html
(Just a few.)

That's right, there is a confirmed belief within the US fundamentalist group that wars and widespread environmental destruction will hasten the Second Coming of Christ and should therefore be embraced. It's as though they're reading the book of Revelations and saying, "Divide the nations...check. Scourge the earth...check." Now, as a secularist who actually believes the Earth DOES have a future, shouldn't I be concerned? Wouldn't you agree there is a serious conflict of interest between the two groups, with this small matter of the apocalypse representing just one (if the most significant) of our differences?

Youve given me a thought. If the christian right want to see the earth destroyed to hasten the second coming, and The Islamic fundamentalists would happily destroy it - they kill all the infadels and get into heaven doing it - why dont they work together? It would be great if there was a real live conspiracy to destroy the world. Jack Bauer would sort it though.

How, in words of one syllable or less, did the US get into the state where the religious and non-religious are at each other's throats?



Ahem.

When you got no one to hate, you look for some one you could hate if you tried.

There. Monosyllabic.

A few things:

1. This whole thing is overdramatized due to the recent elections
2. It is in the natural progression of who you are we have endured: How you went from being catergorized from your ancestral village, to ancestral country, to your sect of Christianity or other religion, to your ancestral race. As in the early 1900s, the census asked for home country, now it asks for race. Now we are in the process of going to if you are religious or not.
3. No one remembers us that are religious but not crazy fundamental.

Bleh

There. Monosyllabic.

What always bugged me about social conservative in general is that, in actuality, there isn't anything they fight for that isn't already allowed:

They have the right to not have abortion, to not get married with someone of the same sex, to not snort cocaine and play video games, etc. if they so please.

Why would want they want to forbid these things to those that would enjoy them. Deep-seated hatred of difference, jealousy?

Bleh
They have the right to not have abortion, to not get married with someone of the same sex, to not snort cocaine and play video games, etc. if they so please.


Because social conservatives see those in the same category as stealing, car jacking, or assault. You may think this sounds crazy, but thy find your view just as warped as you do theirs.

Yeah for moderation

Someone probably already said this but you can be religious and secular.

(I would of course be a General for the Seculars. Fear me.)

Actually, in such a war, the secularist would probably unleash a new strain of smallpox or something like that while keeping the vaccine for themselves. The Fundies who hate evolution wouldn't be able to come up with their own vaccine and rely on their faith to protect.

End result, secularists are left standing. Or at least if the smallpox strain doesn't mutate too much.

My idea is to come up with something the religious couldn't do and use it against them. Something like taking the mark of the beast or saying Jesus is a flaming fag.

Actually my idea is kinda a extension of the small pox idea.

Ahem.

When you got no one to hate, you look for some one you could hate if you tried.

There. Monosyllabic.



Nice.


Monosyllabic.

Because social conservatives see those in the same category as stealing, car jacking, or assault. You may think this sounds crazy, but thy find your view just as warped as you do theirs.

Yeah for moderation

I could probably find some logical argument that stresses the obvious distinction between criminal activities you do without the victim's consent (stealing, car jacking, assault) and those other reasonable, mutually consented (or self-chosen) activities like abortion, same-sex marriage, drugs, violent video games, etc. etc.

I know the S-Cs view abortion as murder, but I guess in the end it all comes down to belief (or lack thereof) in self-ownership.

But hey, that's the world for you. Moral issues always make discontent. And the funny thing is, in twenty to fifty years from now, every occidental nation will have legalized marijuana, will have G&L weddings, the new craze will be for these ultra-violent 3d reality simulators that the grown-ups frown upon, people will be discussing about the morality or immorality of this or that new something, etc. etc.

Just as we modernists legalized divorce, heliocentrism and atheism, something the early middle ages could not even conceive of.

White Christians vs. Everyone else! Go everyone else!

Youve given me a thought. If the christian right want to see the earth destroyed to hasten the second coming, and The Islamic fundamentalists would happily destroy it - they kill all the infadels and get into heaven doing it - why dont they work together? It would be great if there was a real live conspiracy to destroy the world. Jack Bauer would sort it though.

But the Bible doesn't ask anybody to try and make the end come faster, it just says what the end looks like, and more evidence is mounting that it's coming closer, but simply the passage of time is more evidence than anything that it is coming closer anyway :/. Besides, if you want to make it closer by forcing Biblical prophecy to come true about the end times, you have to do a ton of damage to the world and probably kill a very large mess of people, and that's not something the Bible tells Christians to do at all :/.

Because social conservatives see those in the same category as stealing, car jacking, or assault. You may think this sounds crazy, but thy find your view just as warped as you do theirs.

Yeah for moderation

The difference seems to stem from the fact that the non-religious, mildly religious, and members of sensible religions view something as wrong if it hurts other (thus stealing, car jacking, and assault are wrong whereas victimless crimes are acceptble). But conservative Christians and Muslims view something as wrong if it goes against the will of God; thus stealing is not wrong because it hurts somebody but rather because it defies God, and acts such as homosexuality are wrong simply by virtue of defying God. Though of course they sometimes try to hide that their morality has no basis in reality or any genuine concern for others and is in reality only based in appeasing their jealous, intolerant, spiteful (but paradoxically supposedly loving and merciful) God; by claiming that these crimes against God need to be stopped to prevent society from degenerating.

But the Bible doesn't ask anybody to try and make the end come faster, it just says what the end looks like, and more evidence is mounting that it's coming closer, but simply the passage of time is more evidence than anything that it is coming closer anyway :/. Besides, if you want to make it closer by forcing Biblical prophecy to come true about the end times, you have to do a ton of damage to the world and probably kill a very large mess of people, and that's not something the Bible tells Christians to do at all :/.

But the Christians (or rather some of them) are attempting to bring about the end times anyways (hence the support of the Christian right for America's wars of aggression) so they can escape from their lives that they hate so much and watch members of minority groups and all of the smart people who make them feel bad about their ignorance suffer.

The difference seems to stem from the fact that the non-religious, mildly religious, and members of sensible religions view something as wrong if it hurts other (thus stealing, car jacking, and assault are wrong whereas victimless crimes are acceptble). But conservative Christians and Muslims view something as wrong if it goes against the will of God; thus stealing is not wrong because it hurts somebody but rather because it defies God, and acts such as homosexuality are wrong simply by virtue of defying God. Though of course they sometimes try to hide that their morality has no basis in reality or any genuine concern for others and is in reality only based in appeasing their jealous, intolerant, spiteful (but paradoxically supposedly loving and merciful) God; by claiming that these crimes against God need to be stopped to prevent society from degenerating.

I tend to overestimate people like that, thinking that at the very least they argue out of (invasive) compassion for their fellow man.

But the Christians (or rather some of them) are attempting to bring about the end times anyways (hence the support of the Christian right for America's wars of aggression) so they can escape from their lives that they hate so much and watch members of minority groups and all of the smart people who make them feel bad about their ignorance suffer.

That's a pretty harsh accusation, surely all Christians who support the Iraq war are not just sacrificing lives to try and force the end times to come sooner? :/

That's a pretty harsh accusation, surely all Christians who support the Iraq war are not just sacrificing lives to try and force the end times to come sooner? :/

My comment was intentionally overly harsh and highly doubt that it holds true of most Christians.