How can I be sure

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Totalitarian goverment shares some of the characteristics of organized religion, ergo?

Could you not also say that totalitarian governments share many of the characteristics of ALL governments, therefore all governments......

As I noted in my most recent post in response to creekster, neither religions nor communst/facscist governments share many attributes with democratic or republican forms of governments that are subject to something like the Bill of Rights guaranteeing certain basic liberties.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't contend that. I am not professing to address the full panoply of good or reasonable deeds in which humans can engage. Nor do I claim religious institutions are incapable of any such good deeds. There have been many performed by religious people and institutions. As you probably know, the most prominent radical Islamic organizations have gained substantial popular support by establishing hospitals, schools, and charitable organizations while the local civil authoritiarian governments (often US allies) did much less such good works.

What I am saying, and I think history fully supports me in this, is that religious institutions are fundamentally, implacabley and at a cellular level, hostile to democratic insitutions and civil liberties. They are intolerant of the conditions of plurality and diverse view points that are both a necessary foundation for and fostered by democratic institutions and liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. Moreover, I think that traditionally this hostility is self-evidently transmitted to the mainstream of religious adherants. For example, I saw in a recent post that Mormon Red Death said that when the brethren speak, thinking stops. In my experience, this is not an atypical mindset for an average Mormon. Now, do I want a president who has that mind set? Not on your freaking life.

I was aiming at this little target with a peashooter and you retunred fire with a howitzer. I think you conceded (indirectly) that Arch's comment didn't prove your point. As to your shot, why are religious institutions any worse or different than institutions that aren't infused with democratic or pluralistic ideals? IOW, why you pickin' on religion?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I was aiming at this little target with a peashooter and you retunred fire with a howitzer. I think you conceded (indirectly) that Arch's comment didn't prove your point. As to your shot, why are religious institutions any worse or different than institutions that aren't infused with democratic or pluralistic ideals? IOW, why you pickin' on religion?

They are no worse than any institution not infused with democratic or pluralistic ideals that prefesses a desire to subjugate the entire world to its unique system of beliefs and deploys vast manpower and money to achieve that objective.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

They are no worse than any institution not infused with democratic or pluralistic ideals that prefesses a desire to subjugate the entire world to its unique system of beliefs and deploys vast manpower and money to achieve that objective.

So its only wealthy and popular religions that bother you (and even then, just those that actually use those resources). I will assume you don't really mean to add as an element a professed desire to subjugate the world, as I am sure you would be happy to impute such a desire if the wealth and popularity of the movement rose sufficiently high.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

So its only wealthy and popular religions that bother you (and even then, just those that actually use those resources). I will assume you don't really mean to add as an element a professed desire to subjugate the world, as I am sure you would be happy to impute such a desire if the wealth and popularity of the movement rose sufficiently high.

As to the first sentence, poor and small religions don't attract my attention at least unless they try to convert an immediate family member, and I've not yet experienced this.

As to the second, I have conceded that I think religion is for now relatively harmless to our republican system and will be for the I think foreseeable future. Credit for this, however, goes to the inherent good "fruits" of the republican system and its resulting popularity, not to religion per se. My question about Romney, I have effectively conceded, was more rhetorical than anything else. Despite that he most likely coundn't turn our country into a Mormon theorcracy even if he tried, and likely wouldn't want to because he appears to believe more strongly in our republican system than Mormonism, my rhetorical question is still very much worth bearing in mind, always. Moreover, during millenia when the world was bereft of civil liberties or republican governments religion nevertheless served as an important transmitter of knowledge (in certain cells) and added its own positive artistic and philosopical stamp. As I have said in other threads, religion's saving grace is as a focal point and means for the rise of cultures. Finally, there are, for example, mainline Protestant religions that have ceased to include covering the earth and bending every mind to their dogma as part of their mission statement but nevertheless remain relatatively popular and rich.

So I think your statements about religions bothering me for this or that reason are unduly simplistic and absolute for these and other reasons.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As I noted in my most recent post in response to creekster, neither religions nor communst/facscist governments share many attributes with democratic or republican forms of governments that are subject to something like the Bill of Rights guaranteeing certain basic liberties.

Here is a sampling from the former USSR's Consitution:

Article 50 [Expression]

(1) In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.
(2) Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets, and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organizations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

Article 51 [Association]

(1) In accordance with the aims of building communism, citizens of the USSR have the right to associate in public organizations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests.
(2) Public organizations are guaranteed conditions for successfully performing the functions defined in their rules.

Article 52 [Religion]

(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

Article 53 [Family, Marriage]

(1) The family enjoys the protection of the state.
(2) Marriage is based on the free consent of the woman and the man; the spouses are completely equal in their family relations.
(3) The state helps the family by providing and developing a broad system of child-care institutions, by organizing and improving communal services and public catering, by paying grants on the birth of a child, by providing children's allowances and benefits for large families, and other forms of family allowances and assistance.

Article 54 [Personal Freedom]
Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator.

Article 55 [Home]
Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the home. No one may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it.

Article 56 [Privacy]
The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone
conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.

Article 57 [Legal Remedies]

(1) Respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the duty of all state bodies, public organizations, and officials.
(2) Citizens of the USSR have the right to protection by the courts against encroachments on their honor and reputation, life and health, and personal freedom and property.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As I noted in my most recent post in response to creekster, neither religions nor communst/facscist governments share many attributes with democratic or republican forms of governments that are subject to something like the Bill of Rights guaranteeing certain basic liberties.

You are painting with a very broad brush here.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As to the first sentence, poor and small religions don't attract my attention at least unless they try to convert an immediate family member, and I've not yet experienced this.

As to the second, I have conceded that I think religion is for now relatively harmless to our republican system and will be for the I think foreseeable future. Credit for this, however, goes to the inherent good "fruits" of the republican system and its resulting popularity, not to religion per se. My question about Romney, I have effectively conceded, was more rhetorical than anything else. Despite that he most likely coundn't turn our country into a Mormon theorcracy even if he tried, and likely wouldn't want to because he appears to believe more strongly in our republican system than Mormonism, my rhetorical question is still very much worth bearing in mind, always. Moreover, during millenia when the world was bereft of civil liberties or republican governments religion nevertheless served as an important transmitter of knowledge (in certain cells) and added its own positive artistic and philosopical stamp. As I have said in other threads, religion's saving grace is as a focal point and means for the rise of cultures. Finally, there are, for example, mainline Protestant religions that have ceased to include covering the earth and bending every mind to their dogma as part of their mission statement but nevertheless remain relatatively popular and rich.

So I think your statements about religions bothering me for this or that reason are unduly simplistic and absolute for these and other reasons.

Where do you get that Mormons want to require that everyone else be a Mormon? You continue to state things in absolute terms that have no actual substance. This statement is particularly amusing:

"Despite that he most likely coundn't turn our country into a Mormon theorcracy even if he tried, and likely wouldn't want to because he appears to believe more strongly in our republican system than Mormonism, my rhetorical question is still very much worth bearing in mind, always."

You are implying that Mormons want to make the country a Mormon theocracy. I would venture a guess that you won't find many religions that favor the separation of church and state more than the LDS church, nor will you find many religions that believe the Constitution to be inspired of God as the Mormons do (and we already had a long discussion on that topic elsewhere).

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

So I think your statements about religions bothering me for this or that reason are unduly simplistic and absolute for these and other reasons.

What can I say? I'm a simple guy. Of course, they weren't my statements, they were yours.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Where do you get that Mormons want to require that everyone else be a Mormon? You continue to state things in absolute terms that have no actual substance. This statement is particularly amusing:

"Despite that he most likely coundn't turn our country into a Mormon theorcracy even if he tried, and likely wouldn't want to because he appears to believe more strongly in our republican system than Mormonism, my rhetorical question is still very much worth bearing in mind, always."

You are implying that Mormons want to make the country a Mormon theocracy. I would venture a guess that you won't find many religions that favor the separation of church and state more than the LDS church, nor will you find many religions that believe the Constitution to be inspired of God as the Mormons do (and we already had a long discussion on that topic elsewhere).

Separation of church and state presently serves the LDS Church's interests because it is a relatively small minority sect. As I have stated, as a Mormon child I learned the benefits of separation of church and state first hand when the Evangelical prayer offered over milk and cookies and lunch by my overseas private school teacher would make my blood run cold. But the LDS Church would very much like to change its minority status as evidenced by its unrestrained pillaging of my beloved Utes for missionary talent. Be that as it may, I don't expect the LDS Church ever to pose as real a threat as even, say, Islam, or the Evangelicals do to democracy through their activities. This is because I don't expect the LDS Church ever to rival these religions in numbers.

But your left leaning rainbow coalition view of Mormonism doesn't comport with reality in terms of Mormonism's aspirations. GA's may speak fondly of the founding fathers and our republic in conference, but Mormonism's missionary and one true church rhetoric, as well as its activities locally in Utah, demonstrate a yearning to run the world. It will never happen, but that is what they wish. They would love to issue edicts abolishing abortion, legal gay and extra-marital sex, alpha females, critiques of Mormon history and beliefs, etc., on pain of death, and reestablishing polygamy (for Mormon leadership). This would be easy to justify because Mormonism is the one true faith, when the brethren speak thinking must stop, and these things happened in Old Testament times.