PDA

View Full Version : A Country and its Religion


TSA
07-23-2008, 12:34 AM
I'm currently reading a massive history of England book, and love the shit out of it.

but upon reading it i was beginning to notice the impact religion has on a country's mentality, was deeper then face value.

for instance the Normans, Anglos and Saxons that pwnd the hot fuck out of england and took it over were all of the pagan nordic religion. It was a harsh, violent, brutal and flat out evil ass religion and is probably why the word pagan has such a negative connotation in the west, that and the bible i guess.

But what happened was they came, took over and got converted to christianity. When they became christains they started building things more, studying more, their governance changed and they became more peaceful.


Then the Vikings came, which was basically the same group of ppl only the ones christianity didn't reach, and ate europe's food for a good 300 or so years.


the christianity had made the same group of ppl softer then another sector of the same group, weird.


I also noticed the prostantism runs almost hand in hand with democracy and commercialism as well as individalism.

if you look at europe you can see that the richness of countries also runs in line with how little an influence catholicism has made of them

then in situations like China you have Confusinism, which makes it noncoincidental that almost all chinese governments and rulers throughout history are heavy handed, and the nation state is more important then the individual, but the individuals function very well in society

im not talking about face value changes like muslims sit like this and jews sit like that, im saying shit that could predict the political histories of those countries

just a wierd thing i noticed

TSA
07-23-2008, 12:48 AM
and a simpler example of this is the difference between 5% rappers and the rest of em

i think if there was a country of 5%ers it would produce some of the greatest intellectual master pieces of all time, but will also be poor, crime ridden and riot/upheaval prone.

not cause the rappers and shit, but cause the notion that a person is god will give authority no legitimate ground in existing, and therefore if a functional anarchy can be developed then society is fucked. 5%ers are already notoriously distrustful of power

what im getting at (i think) is religions have unqiue souls and possess nations or ppls without them realizing it and from the nature of the religion you can indicate a lot about the ppl.

like how white ppl are really secretive about religion and politics. you ask them what church they go to and they'll be all 'why?', but if you ask a catholic they'll quickly say 'im catholic', it's cause the white ppl ur asking are protestant and there's a draw towards making religion and politics personal in the protestant culture.

TSA
07-23-2008, 01:01 AM
i also think government has the same effect

a society living under a certain system after a certain amount of time will have it's 'psyche' changed.

Is with my own folk, Igbos. Ancient Igbos had no king, government or system of inheritance

everyone has the right to earn a title from being respected, after you title is given ppl listen to you, and when theres problem ppl with titles get together and resolve it but otherwise it's a mertiocracy/democracy/anarachy

and now you have a group of ppl that geniuenly believe on an individual level nobody is better then them.

like if i get a B and some other kid my parents know gets a B+, they'll be all "why didn't you get a B+"

my grandpa used to punish my dad if he wasn't in the top 3 of his grade, as most igbo parents do, because there is no justification to them for one person to inheritely be better then another person and whatever one person can do there's no reason the other person can't do it

if they would have had a monarch like the rest of africa this would give way to the thought that some ppl are born better then other ppl and it's not fair to make comparisons

kinda the mentality we have in the US cause we're from the anglosaxon tradition,but with the democracy/protestant thing we also believe anyone can outd o another person from hard work.

HANZO
07-23-2008, 02:55 PM
i always say that a sportsmen who follows his religion always becomes successful. there are loads of examples of this.

i think its because that the person or the nation feels like they have a purpose and strive to do good things. i mean they say the Mongol Khans became more peaceful after some converted to Islam. hence the reason why the empire collapsed, you jus didnt have a Khan who would take his army to rebellious regions and clean out the population.

Olive Oil Goombah
07-23-2008, 03:07 PM
Good points...I think you also have to look at why Protestantism came to be.
What led to its 'split' with the Catholic church and why it is conducive to
capitalism/commercialism.

Religion in the most developed countries is not as major a force as it is in others.
For example, during the Middle Ages in Europe, CHristianity and the Papacy were basically
law. They were aggressive and blindly faithful. As Europe fragmented and different states began
forming, some branched off and others remains loyal to the Pope. Slowly the most
successful nations realized that the church had lost its effectiveness and was actually
counter productive in its role as a political entity....hence the seperation of church and state.
I think when you look at the middle east now, at least in my opinion, it looks like Europe
of the MIddle Ages. Its mentality is similar.
Just as the fall of Rome sent Europe into the Dark Ages, the fall of the great Caliphates has
thrown the Middle East (Islam) into a dark age.
I think religion is too involved in their states and governments, much like it was in Europe.

HANZO
07-23-2008, 03:34 PM
thats the dilemma with Turkey, do we mix religion with politics. so far i say secularism has failed.

TSA
07-24-2008, 02:16 AM
i wouldn't agree with Nicky's logic 100%

America is a lot more religious then it's european counterparts and also alot more sucessful, partically because a major reason for founding america is religious freedom

Olive Oil Goombah
07-24-2008, 05:58 AM
i wouldn't agree with Nicky's logic 100%

America is a lot more religious then it's european counterparts and also alot more sucessful, partically because a major reason for founding america is religious freedom

YOur right..More freedom has a lot to do with it to, but again, while
Christianity is definitely the most prominent religion here, it really
holds no weight in political decisions past or present.

Dwyck
07-24-2008, 06:29 AM
Interesting Thread... I Didn't Know Rick Flair Had It In Him...

I Have Also Read History On Religion... And It Brought Me To The Point Of Not Labeling Myself... Although Many Religions Have Great Information To Share... I Do Not Believe In The Backbone Of Why Religion Exists... The Assurance That A Human Being Has Actually Spoken To God Directly... With Christianity That Is Exactly What They Claim... And The Bible Reads Like A Violent Disney Novel... Understand That I Don't Knock Anyone For Their Beliefs... This Is Just What I Have Come To Believe... I Speak Mainly Of The Bible Because It's What I Am Most Familiar With... And To Me It's Filed With Many Catch 22's... Mainly That God Forgives And Loves You... But He Will Allow You Eternal Suffering In Hell If Need Be... I'm Sure He's Smart Enough To Understand That With Free Will There Will Be "Evil"... Plus Without "Evil" There Is No Way To Define "Good"... This Book Was Written At A Point In History Where They Also Thought The Earth Was Flat... And The Sun Revolved Around Earth... And They Claim That The Only Way Into Heaven Is Through Christ... So That Means Billions Of People Are Pre-Damned To Hell As Well...

The Greeks Believed In Multiple Gods... Egyptians Believed In Similar Things... Including A Cat God... Many Have Died With Those False Beliefs... There Is No Zeus Or Cat... Of Course There Is So Much To Say When Talking About This Subject... But One Main Thing About Religion In General That Bothers Me... Is The Fact That It's Main Purpose Is To Respect And Acknowledge God In A Peaceful Manner... But Has Been The Main Reason For Most Of Earth's Conflicts And Oppressions...

With That Said... Yes I Believe There's A "God"... Everything Has An Original Creator... I Just Don't Believe What Men Tell Me... I'm Giving God The Benefit Of The Doubt To Be More Then We Could Fully Comprehend... At Least In This Life Time On Earth...

Oh And I'm Not Being A Jerk... But When We Found Out About The Priests Molesting Children... That Told Me Something As Well... Because Of All People They Should Understand The Consequences Of That Sin If True... Yet They Didn't Fear It As Much As They Preach You Should...

TSA
07-24-2008, 02:39 PM
YOur right..More freedom has a lot to do with it to, but again, while
Christianity is definitely the most prominent religion here, it really
holds no weight in political decisions past or present.
where? AMERICA?!

religion has been writing out laws since day one

the logical arguement for democracy is "god gave man the right to all the land in the world equally and didn't appoint someone to rule it"
if you read Thomas Paine and all those niggerellos all their arguements are like sunday school debates. Plus the founders came here fore religious purposes

the arguement for and against slavery was all religious as well, same with the civil rights movement

plus all the little laws passed inbetween are founded on some religion ground or with religious logic or else they're either not important or don't get passed.

Edgar Erebus
07-24-2008, 03:31 PM
Dope thread. About your thoughts on connection between states and religions, I basically co-sign them.

I think that basics of the hard work cult in protestant cultures comes from belief in predestination - you are judged on going into hell or heaven by default and you can't change shit, therefore you're free to make a life for yourself on this world, afterlife is already defined.

Catholics aren't like that, they must watch not to make any sin that could deny entrance in Heaven - therefore they must watch not to be greedy (kills financial abilities), greedy and lustful (in Latin it's luxuria... get it?). Basically, you need to work just in the measure not to be lazy. (I still didn't officially give up Catholicism, but I ain't been on a mass in years and I find myself too much of a chicken to cut it off, even if it collides with my new-found anarchist beliefs).


Just a lil' factual correction: first who invaded England were Angles, Saxons and Jutes, Germanic tribes who came in there with the great migration (same wave as Franks, Goths and Vandals) and started accepting Christianity in 7th Century, with reign of king Ethelbert in Kent.

Vikings started raiding in 793, but by the time the Danes took over (mid-10th Century) they had already accepted Christianity.

Not to even mention Normans, who conquered England 1066 - and by that time they not only were deep in Christianity, they already spoke French and had quite little to do with original Vikings that came there.



I'd pay a bit of attention to this post:

i also think government has the same effect

a society living under a certain system after a certain amount of time will have it's 'psyche' changed.

and so on, pay your dues and read OBT#1's post

Agreed. But now let's think a bit over this.

Western world, old capitalist countries like to bash transition country dwellers for being lazy, and use it to prove what damage Communism do to people.

Yeah, it is true. People got used to living in a world where it was hard for anyone to fire someone, where social security was powerful as fuck and where you could easily pretend you're working (and government easily pretended it's paying you). I still remember pre-transition half-empty stores with goods of lower quality. I was told numerous times that you needed to spare for few months, or have really good connections, to go to a small resort on your own country's coast.

But I noticed that almost everyone (except those that got rich quickly in new system, tycoons and shit) agrees that life was better in the Communist system.

Now I live in a country where people's ethics is hard-working as fuck, on some Scandinavian level - they even live so dense and tense that the main relaxation method is alcohol, so booze and suicide are biggest national problems.

People that are alcoholics and suicide-happy aren't satisfied with their lives for sure.

I was thinking: is this all work-hard-play-hard life method, get money by any means ethics and constant competition really best way to go? I got this strong feeling that working less and expecting less make for a life of better quality (just look at Bhutan... were happiest country in the world while completely isolated from the rest and piss-poor).

Yeah, it slows down progress and technologic advance... But what's the point of all that if you need to get drunk as a motherfucker to get rid of stress, and if your life is so depressive you commit suicide?

TSA
07-24-2008, 03:43 PM
religion and happiness are linked inseperably.

Athiests and shit always thik they're on a higher thinking plane and more 'aware' then others but they're almost always unhappy pessemistic ppl were as the more religious a person is the more at peace they seem to be. not just eastern religions, christians and muslims too

and all those groups took over before they were christian.
Normans are a group of nordic ppl that took over the area in france, then turned christian, then took over england, so they're the exception, but the rest of them were nordic pagans first and became christian when they settled down

on the government thing though. Military rule in africa has made them distrustful of government all together and they see it as a self serving entity rather then a needed tool for order and therefore don't pay attention to it.

A chief was arrested not to long ago and a bunch of ppl when and burnt down the police station and freed everyone from jail, and when laws are passed taht go against culture, they're ignorned.


theres also a movement of self reliance that i think is gonna save the continent. Ppl are building their own small private schools, their own small private hospitals, their own small private everything the government was supposed to do but doesn't cause they suck

the result is their schools work at an almost western standard of excellence cause most of the ppl that build them have been here and put a lot of effort and attention to them which the government can't. Same with the hospitials and other facilities

there's also a shift from relying on disfunctional government telephone lines and electric.

ppl have private generators, bottled water is the norm, and the cell phone industry in Nigeria grew 500% (real figure) in 2006 and has been the fastest growing in the world for 3 years now.

also the gov privatized the banks and now they're some of the best outside of south africa and grow at unprecendented speeds, Zenith just openned banks in the UK.

add the fact that culture work as law over there and you have a government which is 100% useless and the further it shrinks the greater the growth

i think in the future government in africa will be just a symbol like the queen of england, and this is all cause the misrule and distrust the military regimes caused in the 60s- early 90s.

Pop culture has done more to unite africa and nigeria itself then anything, they don't buy western movies anymore, at all, there's no market for them, and their movies and music is uniting the cultures which was another failed government goal

Edgar Erebus
07-24-2008, 04:22 PM
Okay, that's nice to hear that, but don't you think that it's gonna sooner or later evolve into anarcho-capitalistic bullshit that corporations are always pushing?

I mean, I dig that Africa already has this self-relying mentality, but sooner or later it's gonna evolve into the most primitive form of human-exploatation capitalism. The kind that Europe had in early nineteenth century. Read "The Condition of the Working Class in England" by Friedrich Engels for more info. That's basically what happens when state is too weak/has no interest in limiting the freedom of capital - and because of that self-reliance stuff I think that freedom is quite unlimited in Nigeria. Don't think that something like that can't happen in 21st century.



As for religion, atheism got its spread in Europe when church became too much of business entity. I know what numbers say in Slovenia where I live now: in 1991 (last year of Communism here and last year of strict separation between church and state) there were 87% of Catholics; in 2002 there were 58%. (Most of those who went out are now officially undeclared and not atheists).

I do agree that religion has this function of bringing people together, which raises their happiness. When I was going on the mass every weekend I felt much better inside. I learned too much about them since and lost so much respect towards Catholicism that now I'm often too disgusted to go to church.

TSA
07-24-2008, 04:35 PM
the world that exists in engel's book is already the reality in africa, so it's not what's coming, it's what is.

culture has been the biggest deterrant of worker exploitation though child labor is still a problem, but ppl higher family members, you don't fill applications and shit, and you not gonna work your brothers son till his arm blows off and keep going. The employers are accountable to the family they got the teenage or child employee from.

The problem of child exploitation is still happening to families too poor to say otherwise, but it'll take intervention from a culture authority, not an alien government to change that cause im more then positive nigeria has child labor laws, but who cares.

but yeah, most african countries are 100 years behind the west socially so the conditions 100 years ago are the realities there, but the exploitation isn't as bad cause of culture, but still really fucked up cause of the poverty gap.
If that closes, plus the spread of education due to private schools, the exploitation and poor conditions will naturally come to a halt without government intervention. It'll just take longer without it and require education become free which is another major battle cause the current growth of education is coming from the fact that it's profitable

Edgar Erebus
07-24-2008, 05:43 PM
Okay. But I don't see that the gap can close in the state of anarchy y'all got there. This situation, as much as I see, can only eat to "wolf ate lamb" system aka Congo style bullshit. Especially after that nationalism you mentioned winds out. Some non-corrupt, trustworthy and relatively strong system of power is needed. Not necessarily the government, something on a local level - but that something shoulda control the resources and at least provide that knowledge and health is available to everyone. Keeping it private inevitably leads to "Sicko".

You gotta be aware that the cultural/family bonds you was talking about won't last forever.



Africa is a problem because it has a totally specific culture and totally different historical development than Europe. European recipes simply can't work there.

Olive Oil Goombah
07-24-2008, 06:41 PM
where? AMERICA?!

religion has been writing out laws since day one

the logical arguement for democracy is "god gave man the right to all the land in the world equally and didn't appoint someone to rule it"
if you read Thomas Paine and all those niggerellos all their arguements are like sunday school debates. Plus the founders came here fore religious purposes

the arguement for and against slavery was all religious as well, same with the civil rights movement

plus all the little laws passed inbetween are founded on some religion ground or with religious logic or else they're either not important or don't get passed.

I disagree. You have to look at it in the context of their time. Plus these
men were not religious zealots. If they had been, there would be no
seperation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson was an atheist correct me
if im wrong.
They knew, even if they could not publically say it that religion mixed w/ politics and
govt. is dangerous.
Even the renaissance men like Da Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus...they knew they couldnt
present truths as fact to the public and the govt. for fear of imprisonment or death.

Yet another example of the dangers of religious run states and why they can hinder
scientific progress which leads to new developemnts in technology and the advancement
of civilizations.
The biggest problem w/ religious run govt.'s is that religious doctrine is seen as
unchallenged. It is law and those who do not obey it are considered evil and dangerous.
Even brilliant minds like Galileo.

Olive Oil Goombah
07-24-2008, 06:50 PM
Africa is a problem because it has a totally specific culture and totally different historical development than Europe. European recipes simply can't work there.

And this is the most important thing to me. PLus, at the time Engels wrote his
book, the world was new to ths problem. People selling their labor for wages.

TSA
07-24-2008, 07:05 PM
Okay. But I don't see that the gap can close in the state of anarchy y'all got there. This situation, as much as I see, can only eat to "wolf ate lamb" system aka Congo style bullshit. Especially after that nationalism you mentioned winds out. Some non-corrupt, trustworthy and relatively strong system of power is needed. Not necessarily the government, something on a local level - but that something shoulda control the resources and at least provide that knowledge and health is available to everyone. Keeping it private inevitably leads to "Sicko".

You gotta be aware that the cultural/family bonds you was talking about won't last forever.



Africa is a problem because it has a totally specific culture and totally different historical development than Europe. European recipes simply can't work there.

a overhead government is completely unneeded in africa

you have to understand these things were imposed 10,000 years after africans had had governments that caused them to survive for 10,000 years.

Europe made their own system, and then came to africa assuming there was no system and then imposed thier own.

For instance over there law is an internal as opposed to an external thing. People are taught how to act and don't have an overhead government telling you can or can't do by righting it on paper.

all the laws past in africa are useless because ppl already have their own cultural law and ways of life that guide them

look at the old Mali empire in the dark ages. emperor Abubukari the II left the throne vacant for half a year sailing the atlantic and stopped momentarily but the country functioned without it and was stable because the laws existed inside the ppl not outside with the government and with out system

what i mean by this is in the US our gov tells us not to steal, but when theres no law, ppl steal, loot and pillage.

In the Ghana empire trade was do by a person laying his shit in the middle of the street. then he's go home and comeback the next morning and someone would have taken it and left its worth in gold in it's place, and nobody would steal it. Even today in africa you can go buy something, not pay, then come back 2 weeks later and pay the person, all cause of an internal set of laws and standards the culture makes you live by.

therefore what use would a 'government' saying 'abortions are legal now' be. the cultures have already have 10,000 years to make up their mind if abortion is good or not, and your law cause only reflect or make it official, but in the end of the day is pointless.

that's why the capitalistic anarcy would work there, just not in the west.
They just need a way to amend culture or something like that so that situations like 'Sicko' wont happen, cause it will. the institutions they have in place culturally do more to combat it cause there's a moral code, but once money gets involved ppl won't give a shit.

TSA
07-24-2008, 07:17 PM
I disagree. You have to look at it in the context of their time. Plus these
men were not religious zealots. If they had been, there would be no
seperation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson was an atheist correct me
if im wrong.
They knew, even if they could not publically say it that religion mixed w/ politics and
govt. is dangerous.
Even the renaissance men like Da Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus...they knew they couldnt
present truths as fact to the public and the govt. for fear of imprisonment or death.

Yet another example of the dangers of religious run states and why they can hinder
scientific progress which leads to new developemnts in technology and the advancement
of civilizations.
The biggest problem w/ religious run govt.'s is that religious doctrine is seen as
unchallenged. It is law and those who do not obey it are considered evil and dangerous.
Even brilliant minds like Galileo.

the seperation of church and state wasn't to protect the government from influence of the church, it's to protect the church from the influence of government, it was actually a pro-religious move. If you read Thomas Paine and all the ppl that gave birth to western democracy you'll see that religion is the backbone of almost all their thought. I read into Paine, Hobbes all those niggaroos that i could and was suprised at how much of a religion arguement that democracy is. Freedom of press came because the church was outlawing the printing of protestant bibles, and printing is essential to protestantism and so forth. The gov isn't religious run, but it's to the point that the fact that it isn't religious run has religious motives and the very same gov is religious based and breed, as is all government.


inorder for a government to work, there has to be legitimacy. the ultimate legitimacy is permission from god, and there's no country that was pure atheist when they formed their gov. a Monarch is believed to be god ordained and therefore last, Democracy comes from the notion that good gave everyone the world and created them equal therefore nobody is born to rule them cause they're not god and since god allowed man to rule his world it only makes sense that ppl choose thier leaders, who are mere men amongst them and not closer to god somehow.

that's the arguement they all made and the reason democracy lasts is cause it's rooted in religion

there's a fun contemorary govs that don't last, and don't last for a reason. Communist governments, and Military Dictators because they don't spell out a clear religious arguement for their legitimacy

Olive Oil Goombah
07-24-2008, 09:31 PM
True....religion has been used by a tool by leaders. Thats how the Germanic tribes and the Franks were united in europe.
Thats how the MidEast became a power after Muhammed.

In that sense, yes, you could say that religion was INDEED a direct precursor to the creation of some of the worlds great states and empires.

But great empires existed before that......so was religion just another tool used by those in
power to control the masses?
I would think so.
But I think ultimately, the legitimacy of 'permission from God' you speak of begins to deteriorate as the people
become more educated, which is what has happened in Western Europe and the United States today.

diggy
07-24-2008, 11:16 PM
a overhead government is completely unneeded in africa

you have to understand these things were imposed 10,000 years after africans had had governments that caused them to survive for 10,000 years.

Europe made their own system, and then came to africa assuming there was no system and then imposed thier own.

For instance over there law is an internal as opposed to an external thing. People are taught how to act and don't have an overhead government telling you can or can't do by righting it on paper.

all the laws past in africa are useless because ppl already have their own cultural law and ways of life that guide them

look at the old Mali empire in the dark ages. emperor Abubukari the II left the throne vacant for half a year sailing the atlantic and stopped momentarily but the country functioned without it and was stable because the laws existed inside the ppl not outside with the government and with out system

what i mean by this is in the US our gov tells us not to steal, but when theres no law, ppl steal, loot and pillage.

In the Ghana empire trade was do by a person laying his shit in the middle of the street. then he's go home and comeback the next morning and someone would have taken it and left its worth in gold in it's place, and nobody would steal it. Even today in africa you can go buy something, not pay, then come back 2 weeks later and pay the person, all cause of an internal set of laws and standards the culture makes you live by.

therefore what use would a 'government' saying 'abortions are legal now' be. the cultures have already have 10,000 years to make up their mind if abortion is good or not, and your law cause only reflect or make it official, but in the end of the day is pointless.

that's why the capitalistic anarcy would work there, just not in the west.
They just need a way to amend culture or something like that so that situations like 'Sicko' wont happen, cause it will. the institutions they have in place culturally do more to combat it cause there's a moral code, but once money gets involved ppl won't give a shit.

It may have been this way in the past, but take a look at Africa now. Tribalism resulting in killings, mayhem and cutting of lips and ears for diamonds, political corruption and withholding of goods which should go to citizens...

RzaRectum
07-24-2008, 11:23 PM
the seperation of church and state wasn't to protect the government from influence of the church, it's to protect the church from the influence of government, it was actually a pro-religious move. If you read Thomas Paine and all the ppl that gave birth to western democracy you'll see that religion is the backbone of almost all their thought. I read into Paine, Hobbes all those niggaroos that i could and was suprised at how much of a religion arguement that democracy is. Freedom of press came because the church was outlawing the printing of protestant bibles, and printing is essential to protestantism and so forth. The gov isn't religious run, but it's to the point that the fact that it isn't religious run has religious motives and the very same gov is religious based and breed, as is all government.


inorder for a government to work, there has to be legitimacy. the ultimate legitimacy is permission from god, and there's no country that was pure atheist when they formed their gov. a Monarch is believed to be god ordained and therefore last, Democracy comes from the notion that good gave everyone the world and created them equal therefore nobody is born to rule them cause they're not god and since god allowed man to rule his world it only makes sense that ppl choose thier leaders, who are mere men amongst them and not closer to god somehow.

that's the arguement they all made and the reason democracy lasts is cause it's rooted in religion

there's a fun contemPorary govs that don't last, and don't last for a reason. Communist governments, and Military Dictators because they don't spell out a clear religious arguement for their legitimacy

To your credit George Washington has been quoted to say
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” :yes:

































HOWEVER.... ;(

He has also been quoted to say

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion". And even if it were proven that he didn't actually say it, that exact wording was printed on an official document of the United States, the Treaty with Tripoli (1797) which the President John Adams (2nd President) signed into law and (unaniomusly) ratified by the Senate on June 7, 1797. Article 11 (Click here) (http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/treatytripoli.htm)

TSA
07-24-2008, 11:29 PM
^george washington had no input on the creation of the government, he was just the cool kid everyone wanted as president, and as president did nothing cause he didn't believe presidents need to do anything but be a symbol.

and they can say what they want in Tripoli, but if you read the writtings of the fathers of democracy, Hobbes and Paine, their arguements are always religious. Even the constitution though less religious then their arguements, is still a very religious document.


It may have been this way in the past, but take a look at Africa now. Tribalism resulting in killings, mayhem and cutting of lips and ears for diamonds, political corruption and withholding of goods which should go to citizens...
tribalism existed back then too, all the things you listened are started and propogated by these same governments for the purpose of self gain as well as western CEOs

turn off that PBS bwoy, eat your cramberry juice

TSA
07-24-2008, 11:47 PM
True....religion has been used by a tool by leaders. Thats how the Germanic tribes and the Franks were united in europe.
Thats how the MidEast became a power after Muhammed.

In that sense, yes, you could say that religion was INDEED a direct precursor to the creation of some of the worlds great states and empires.

But great empires existed before that......so was religion just another tool used by those in
power to control the masses?
I would think so.
But I think ultimately, the legitimacy of 'permission from God' you speak of begins to deteriorate as the people
become more educated, which is what has happened in Western Europe and the United States today.
the fallacy of your arguement is in saying it's a tool, which it's not, it's the bedrock

and there's no 'empire before religion', Babylon, Egypt all founded on 100% religious bases. Everything you see and learn of Egypt is religious, probably one of he most religious peoples of all time, and there was religion before and after them, its a human constant.

it's not a control method, it can be, but so can cereal if you work it right
doesn't mean the objective of cereal is controlling ppl.

and the legitimacyof permission from god doesn' deteriorate as people are most educated as well.

what happened in western europe was the belief that god created everyone equal, therefore nobody had a mandate from god, instead we all have a mandate from god to rule and own what out hard work can allow us to(capitalism). Therefore with this mentality we have the right have a say in what's going on and pick our leaders to serve us and not to reign over us cause they don't have the right to be above us being that god made them the same way they made me.

that's the arguement the founders of democracy spelt out, and it made sense in a protestant mentality because the spark of all that is protestantism.

god giving ppl the legitimacy to rule is still there, just in western democracy god gives the people the right to rule.

RzaRectum
07-25-2008, 03:17 AM
^george washington had no input on the creation of the government, he was just the cool kid everyone wanted as president, and as president did nothing cause he didn't believe presidents need to do anything but be a symbol.



George Washington commanded the continental army during the Revolutionary War (as commander in chief). A post for which he asked for no pay other than reimbursement of his expenses.

One of Washington's most important contributions as commander-in-chief was to establish the precedent that civilian-elected officials, rather than military officers, possessed ultimate authority over the military. Throughout the war, he deferred to the authority of Congress and state officials, and he relinquished his considerable military power once the fighting was over to the Congress of the Confederation.

(^This doesn't happen, because you are "the cool kid". This type of position requires demanding leadership qualities).

Most men in such a position would have used their fame, their acclaim, and the army, to put themselves in power, to become king. He didn't do this and it set a very important example for the future of the republic. Later on he was chosen as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and was unanimously elected president of the convention.

It is said that he did not particpate in the debates for the most part, but participated in voting FOR or AGAINST the various articles. Washington had a great amount of input. And if you want more proof, you need to read this. http://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/lmtm/docs/presidency/script.doc

Would you vote for someone who didn't contribute to the government?

^and they can say what they want in Tripoli, but if you read the writtings of the fathers of democracy, Hobbes and Paine, their arguements are always religious. Even the constitution though less religious then their arguements, is still a very religious document. The treaty of Tripoli was a public declaration against the association of religious foundation for the country. Did Jesus not say if you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father in heaven? That being said, the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. By law you can not be FORCED into worshipping an appointed official religion. That is a freedom granted. If the foundation of this country was religious, which religion would they have picked... ? And furthermore, why didn't they pick it ?


If you would be so kind and point out which portion of the constitution demonstrates that it is a religious document I would appreciate it. Please, I want to understand what you are understanding....



Preamble
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature
Section 2 - The House
Section 3 - The Senate
Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Section 6 - Compensation
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
Article 2 - The Executive Branch

Section 1 - The President
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
Section 4 - Disqualification
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch

Section 1 - Judicial Powers
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
Section 3 - Treason
Article 4 - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor All Others
Section 2 - State Citizens, Extradition
Section 3 - New States
Section 4 - Republican Government
Article 5 - Amendment
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
Article 7 - Ratification
Signatories
Amendments

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice President
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms
Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession
Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases
Please pick an amendment, section, or article. I really want to know.





Concerning Hobbes & Paine:

I haven't read all the writings yet so I won't necessarily dispute you're arguement on this (even though I am about to), but I have yet to read anything that supports your arguement about "religion". What I've read so far supports deism and the Masonic Order. Infact...










The content of Paine's work can be briefly summarized in this quotation:The opinions I have advanced… are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues—and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now—and so help me God.

With regard to his religious views, in The Age of Reason (begun in France in 1793), Paine stated:I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.


Paine also wrote in his work, An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry (1803-1805), about his belief that the Bible is an allegorical myth describing astrology:The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun


He also described himself as a "Deist" and commented:How different is [Christianity] to the pure and simple profession of Deism! The true Deist has but one Deity, and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in everything moral, scientifical, and mechanical.



Hobbes developed a materialist and highly pessimistic philosophy that was denounced in his own day and later, but has had a continuing influence on Western political thought. His Leviathan (1651) presents a bleak picture of human beings in the state of nature, where life is "nasty, brutish, and short." Fear of violent death is the principal motive that causes people to create a state by contracting to surrender their natural rights and to submit to the absolute authority of a sovereign. Although the power of the sovereign derived originally from the people, Hobbes said-challenging the doctrine of the divine right of kings-the sovereign's power is absolute and not subject to review by either subjects or ecclesiastical powers.

Hobbes maintained that the sovereign was the best interpreter of God's will. Religion was a system of law, not truth, since we really don't know any attributes of God--the adjectives we use to describe Him are not products of reason. He defended his "true religion" against Catholicism which had extra-mundane authority and Puritanism which took seriously the priesthood of all believers. He maintained that the only way to deal with evil is to stress God's power.


With all due respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Olive Oil Goombah
07-25-2008, 06:02 AM
^absolutely....It may seem 'religious' by nature, but it truly is NOT. Christianity was
still kept as a 'tool' this time (maybe the bedrock before) because leading an atheist country was not a popular idea to the laity back than or even now.

Dwyck
07-25-2008, 09:57 AM
All I'm Saying Is Organized Religion Has Played The Biggest Role In Most Of The Epic Problems On Earth... And To Me Even The Rituals Of Most Are Just Plain Strange... I Don't Think It Was In God's Plan To Have The World In Conflict Over His Name... Why Only Speak To Man Way Back And Not Now..?

He Also Neglected To Tell Man Certain Things Like The Earth Was Round Not Flat... The Sun Didn't Rotate Around Us... Ect... What I Mean Is Most Religions Are Based Around Our World As If It's The Center Of The Universe...

Why Would The Creator Of Our Reality Need To Send His Son To Earth To Die For Our Sins..? Just To Prove A Point..? I Don't Understand The Logic... It's Like A Bad Disney Novel... Haven't You Noticed That God's Word No Matter What Religion Is Usually Metaphorical Or Symbolic... If He Really Wanted To Get His Point Across To Man... Why Code It..? We All Know The Best Way To Get A Point Across Is To Be Direct And Literal...

I Just Don't Think The Books Of Religion Were Written By God Or Gods In Some Cases... And I Really Doubt For Example... Millions Of Hindus Will Be Damned For Not Believing In Christianity Or Islam... Religion Just Seems Like It Was Created To Be A Form Of Government Before The Thought Of Actual Government Was Figured Out... God And Death Is Of Course The Ultimate Mystery... And I Think Normal People Use It As A Form Of Security... While Powerful People Use It As A Tool Of Influence... Nothing Scares People Into Being Influenced By An Idea More Then The Thought Of God's Wrath...

With All That Said... I'm Not Atheist... I'm Sure There's A Form Of God... Everything Has A Creator... I Just Don't Believe Another Man That Tells Me He Knows Who Or What The Entity Is... I Have No Label...

Not Trying To Pick On Christianity Because There Are Many Things In Question From Many Religions To Me...

TSA
07-25-2008, 10:40 AM
Rzarectum, that was way to fuckin much to read, andthe colors hurt, but i did see that george washinton voted for things but stayed out of debates.

still didn'tmeanhe had influence on it, infact that just says he voted, but they all voted so that doesn't really make him a contributer, just a supporter.

He Also Neglected To Tell Man Certain Things Like The Earth Was Round Not Flat... The Sun Didn't Rotate Around Us... Ect... What I Mean Is Most Religions Are Based Around Our World As If It's The Center Of The Universe...

^everybody but mid evil europeans understood the world was round and didn't rotate around us



Dwyck your post is about your opinion on the nature of judeo-christian religion, not religion as a whole, and the topic isn't he nature of religion but it's amost subconcious effect of a group of people.


and Nicky, it doesn't 'seem' religous, is truly and geniunely is, and if the reason for religion impacting government SO much is that atheism is unpopular then so be it, it still impacted and created government.

Your outlook on religion is far too detached cause you don't believe it, idont either but im speaking on the fact that i have read he books to basically funded democracy liberalism and modern western thought and they all make an arguement rooted in religious principles.

and something can't be the bedrock THEN and not NOW, if your the bedrock your the bedrock. I think you think im saying law makers are taking Qs frm the bible all day every day, no, but im saying ideas founded in their religion has gave the country it's composition, and if it was a different religion we would have a different looking government and country.


your also underestimating how religious modern america is, 80% of us believe in god i read, if a politician said 'i don't believe in god' he wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning in the US, it's not an athiest country, just an elite few classify themselves as atheist.

Dwyck
07-25-2008, 11:02 AM
Good Point... I Kinda Got Side Tracked Reading Other Posts... But Explaining Religious Influence As A Whole Is Such A Broad Topic... Too Many Religions To Keep Up With...

Are You Wanting To Talk About The Role Religion Plays On Different Civilizations..? Interesting Topic... Elaborate...

Olive Oil Goombah
07-25-2008, 01:08 PM
Rzarectum, that was way to fuckin much to read, andthe colors hurt, but i did see that george washinton voted for things but stayed out of debates.

still didn'tmeanhe had influence on it, infact that just says he voted, but they all voted so that doesn't really make him a contributer, just a supporter.

He Also Neglected To Tell Man Certain Things Like The Earth Was Round Not Flat... The Sun Didn't Rotate Around Us... Ect... What I Mean Is Most Religions Are Based Around Our World As If It's The Center Of The Universe...

^everybody but mid evil europeans understood the world was round and didn't rotate around us



Dwyck your post is about your opinion on the nature of judeo-christian religion, not religion as a whole, and the topic isn't he nature of religion but it's amost subconcious effect of a group of people.


and Nicky, it doesn't 'seem' religous, is truly and geniunely is, and if the reason for religion impacting government SO much is that atheism is unpopular then so be it, it still impacted and created government.

Your outlook on religion is far too detached cause you don't believe it, idont either but im speaking on the fact that i have read he books to basically funded democracy liberalism and modern western thought and they all make an arguement rooted in religious principles.

and something can't be the bedrock THEN and not NOW, if your the bedrock your the bedrock. I think you think im saying law makers are taking Qs frm the bible all day every day, no, but im saying ideas founded in their religion has gave the country it's composition, and if it was a different religion we would have a different looking government and country.


your also underestimating how religious modern america is, 80% of us believe in god i read, if a politician said 'i don't believe in god' he wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning in the US, it's not an athiest country, just an elite few classify themselves as atheist.


I think we are misunderstanding eachother. I also believe in God, that something had to have created the universe. But what I'm saying is that Christianity and religions like it, large
'corporate religions' for lack of a better term, they are more like identifiers...similary to how one would identify with an ethnicity.
Your right tho, religion has become interwoven with countries and the mentalities of their people.
I was never really challenging that notion of your arguement.

TSA
07-25-2008, 02:09 PM
Good Point... I Kinda Got Side Tracked Reading Other Posts... But Explaining Religious Influence As A Whole Is Such A Broad Topic... Too Many Religions To Keep Up With...

Are You Wanting To Talk About The Role Religion Plays On Different Civilizations..? Interesting Topic... Elaborate...

what im saying, which i guess ppl aren' arguing is that the nature of a countries religion is, or becomes the nature of the country. it's ppls mentality whether they're religious ppl or not, for instances the questioning of religion is most prominent in protestant countries and it's because the nature of protestantism is challenging or amending set religious doctrine and allowing a more personal interpertation then catholicism which it came from, and it's from this mentality that things like absolute rulership can be challenged.

RzaRectum
07-25-2008, 09:30 PM
Rzarectum, that was way to fuckin much to read, andthe colors hurt, but i did see that george washinton voted for things but stayed out of debates.
:learning:




Don't be lazy. Read it all.