America: A Religon?

[Dislogic]

well lets get things started eh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1007741,00.html

edit: got rid of article - click link to read it...

ok well this article is about how George Bush jr. and his cabinet have created basicly an American religon... Mostly in his speeches since 9/11...

just wanted to see what people thought about this and if they believe that Bush is right in using God as a prominent figure in his speeches. I personally do not believe that religon should be included in government in the least and everything in US law that is currently affected by religon in any way. But thats coming from an aetheist..

I totally agree with this article by the way. Except that maybe its not so right to put all this American / Religon stuff on geroge Bush since i believe that all of our president save a few have used God and religon to influence them in many of there decisions... not to mention leaders of other countries...

Well atleast we have something to talk about now

[Tony]

Is america a religion? Absolutly not. The idea is absurd. There is no american god, and there is no american religous doctrine.

But america is an ideology.

And yeah, as an agnostic I agree with you about religion being included in government. But as far as Bush using god in his speeches, I see nothing wrong with it. Leaders in this country have a history of ceremonial deism.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Depends on your definition of religion. I happen to be a spritualist, which in my case simply means I am an Atheist that is capable of debating in pathos (lol), and that I see religious organizations from the outside as well.

As far as America being a new Religion, I see that as a line of BS, simply seeking to unite groups that happen to dislike America under a common banner. Seperation of church and state IMO is a good thing, but that does not mean that religion must be exclusive from government, only that none should ideally be favored over another. It does not mean that only Atheists should be allowed to govern (lol).

[Dislogic]

Well if you read the article you would see that "America A New Religon" is merely an expression for the fact that George Bush, being a religious person, has used references to God and Religon in many of his speeches and Religon obviously seems to be an influence on the way he governs...

Not that he is bad for doing this... he cant help it, its just his mentality but it to me could easily offend someone... not me however since i really dont care if others believe in religon or not since i thinks its all BS anyway... lol.

well thats all.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I am posting under the assumption that those participating are informed people that actually read before they post a reply. I would appreciate being given that in return, but of course, I have no way to enforce that other than refusing that benefit of the doubt to those that do not reply in kind.

I happen to be well versed with English, my mother tongue and only unless I can count computer languages or languages I have the vocabulary of a tabloid. So, yes, I was aware that the hook was an analogy. But you left nothing else open to comment on, so what exactly did you expect?

As far as that goes what mode are we debating this subject in? Logos, pathos, ethos, or free-for-all? You know, logic/reason, emotional, or appeal to authority/tradition...

[Dislogic]

Sorry... i was not trying to to say anything about your ability to communicate however the way you replied made it seem that you "may" not have read the article... In either case i am sorry for assuming you did not read the article, it is just the fact that sometimes when i post in other forums and link or quote a document some people post without reading it and therefore that was what gave me that assumption..

anyway I was intending i suppose for this thread to become more of a debate about whether Religon should be involved in anyway with state... I do believe there is some controversy over that topic.

Just wanted to get people thinking and participating really...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I was more amused than offended. But in the future you may want to assume that when someone writes with some grammatical skill that they are not adverse to reading a short artical, because they have to do a certain amount of reading to write well. I am not going to bash people that do not write well, because they have their uses as well, and writing skill is not an absolute only a general indication. Nor does everyone that reads well, instantly gain writing profiency.

Anyway, back to the topic. I prefer logos, so I will continue in that vein.

As I have already indicated, I believe that seperation of state and religion is an ideal that cannot ever be reached, but that an effort should be placed in it nonetheless. For example, I had no trouble with the controversy about the ten commandments in a courthose, since they are a representation of law and therefore appropriate. A bible, on the other hand, would not have been appropriate since it symbolizes much more than simply tradition of law.

But as a general rule, I believe that the federal government should be very careful not to hinder or support any religion, a state should have a little more room, and a local community should be able to support whatever religion is predominate in its area, as long as it does not put pressures on other religions that happen to be there or just passing through.

[Dislogic]

Just a question - i will probably go look this up but i was fairly certain that courts in the united states use the bible as an oath? That is they make people who are going to testfiy swear to tell the truth on the bible... This in itself is obviously useless, especially if someone doesent believe in the bible it has not meaning to them. But still that fact that this is such a prominent symbol of truth says that maybe we should put a little more effort into breaking away religion from state... Just what i think, I agree with your last statement though and believe that this obviously cant be done very fast and will take a long time to happen if ever.

Oh by the way i try to think that my writing is not so terrible its just that when i write on forums i usually tend to speed it up and i usually need to proofread my writing time and time again before i get out what i really want to say. its just that i usually type fast and dont look over what i wrote when i type in forums... it just flows to my head usually...

[Subliminal]

GWoB, are you suggesting that a city council, for example, should have the authority to use public funds to support the predominant religion, and be free of the obligation to give proportionate minority support to minority religions? And what exactly do you mean by religions that are just passing through, or just happen to be there? How do you determine the difference?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

No need to apologize for your writing, if you like to debate you will be 'encouraged' to improve and only time can do that.

As far as the Bible being used to swear oaths, that is an example of tradition not religion. The other side of the coin is, what replacement could they use? The Bible is the only symbol of truthfulness that our culture has, and a lie detector is a little bulky to present for the ritual...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Subliminal
Sorry, I was replying to the other post so did not immediately notice you had posted.

No, I am not saying that city governments should be allowed to dicriminate, only that they should be given much more benefit of the doubt in cases of supporting local institutions. No government establishment should be able to provide more than a token amount of support to a religious organization. But if the people that live there want to vote in new taxes to support an organization that happens to be religious, it is their tax money, they just need to keep their hands out of federal coffers.

[barbnf]

Ok, at the risk of offending right from the get go ... Umm ... was that article reprinted with permission? ... Just checking ...

Actually, I just wanted to point that out because I may decide one day to do likewise, and I need clarification upfront ... Is attribution sufficient? ... Or, do we need prior consent of the author to reprint? ... Again, just checking ...


On to the topic at hand ... I think it is much ado about "nothing" ... Why? ... Because I think the author overstates his case.

America is not a religion, but Americans are generally speaking a "religious" bunch ...

The issue turns, I believe, on whether any American wishes to force others to accept their religion as THE religion of choice.

If we do what we as a nation have ALWAYS done ... i.e., respect ALL religions, I do not foresee a problem ...


The current item in the news ... The "Ten Commandments" monument is much ado about "nothing" ... So, it stirs up some folks and the media ... Hmmm ... Ok ... What else is new? ...


I leave y'all now with those few words of contribution and wish you all well with this new site ...

I will be back to check on any reaction this post might bring forth, but with full disclosure, it may not be all that often because I am already overextended timewise ...

However, since Sean posted an invitation to this Forum at my Forum ... I decided to stop in and wish you all well! ...

Have a wonderful evening! ... :) ...

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

In my experience website articals are fair game, as long as you include a link and give the real author credit (or leave their name on it). But, generally posting the entire artical is frowned on. Proper form is to post the tease that supports your point, and let the other posters follow the link if they want to read the whole thing. Proper form meaning, in this instance, allowing the host site maximum benefit by encouraging those that read the tease to visit their site.

[rmnunez]

You'd have to modify and stretch your definition to make "America" a religion. Religions are unlike ideologies in that there is an essential dogmatic element lacking in the more political perspectives. Both answer life's great questions but one is a matter of faith.

[Myth]

It's the crusades part 2.

[Jay]

Originally posted by Myth@Aug 28 2003, 02:17 AM It's the crusades part 2.

(Sorry I didn't read the first post entirely, I'm about to leave for private french lessons...)
Exactly what I was going to say. Bush even mentioned that himself in one of his speeches but I guess he was/is not really aware of what the crusades were. But in my opinion it has ALWAYS been a severe mistake to mix politics with religion. It never worked properly and it will never work properly since from one point of view you could say being in a religion is like having a certain opinion. And how can you legitimate war if your decisions are based on personal preferences? It's downright stupid. "you don't like italian food?omg I have to kill you!!1"
...

[vic]

In my experience website articals [sic] are fair game, as long as you include a link and give the real author credit

Not true at all. However most copyright regimes have concepts of fair dealing, of which use for criticism/review is allowed.

Cheers.

[Dislogic]

ok well i will edit my post and just put the link... that should not be harmful... eh?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Vic
I said "in my experience", I do not recall you being there, so how do you justify saying that I am incorrect. I happen to be the authority on my opinion, which is what I stated.

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Aug 28 2003, 12:14 AM I was more amused than offended. But in the future you may want to assume that when someone writes with some grammatical skill that they are not adverse to reading a short artical, because they have to do a certain amount of reading to write well. I am not going to bash people that do not write well, because they have their uses as well, and writing skill is not an absolute only a general indication. Nor does everyone that reads well, instantly gain writing profiency. Anyway, back to the topic. I prefer logos, so I will continue in that vein. As I have already indicated, I believe that seperation of state and religion is an ideal that cannot ever be reached, but that an effort should be placed in it nonetheless. For example, I had no trouble with the controversy about the ten commandments in a courthose, since they are a representation of law and therefore appropriate. A bible, on the other hand, would not have been appropriate since it symbolizes much more than simply tradition of law. But as a general rule, I believe that the federal government should be very careful not to hinder or support any religion, a state should have a little more room, and a local community should be able to support whatever religion is predominate in its area, as long as it does not put pressures on other religions that happen to be there or just passing through.

I agree, but the question is how can the government remain on the fence. It's made up of people with their own agendas.


P.S. I'm new, cool forum.