What sort of civil religion demands:

[guillaumeb]

Patriotism is a belief system, a civil religion, based on the belief that one particular country is above all else.

What sort of patriotism excuses dropping an atomic device, killing many thousands of civilians, and then repeats the action with a modified version of the device?

What sort of patriotism excuses the cultural and near literal genocide of the First Peoples in the name of American exceptionalism?

[trotsky]

1. So you're saying that a god-based religion is exactly the same as the "religion" of patriotism?

Is that what you're saying?

[guillaumeb]

3. I said what I intended to say in the post.

Patriotism is a belief system.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. And?

I'm sure you're going somewhere with this. Not sure if you realize where though.

[guillaumeb]

10. Fornulaic and repetitive on your part.

My opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. If you keep going down the same path, my responses are going to look repetitive.

[trotsky]

24. The same as religion.

OK, thank you for clarifying.

guillaumeb: "Patriotism is the same as religion."

[HopeAgain]

2. I don't believe in "patriotism"

As I said in another thread:

It's just an emotional trick used to keep people from looking at their country objectively and honestly. It replaces critical examination, which every institution needs to survive, with emotional tribalism that allows us to send our children (I have a 18 year old -- he's still a child in many ways), to their death upon the whim of our leaders. It curbs independent thought and encourages blind allegiance.

I'm sorry, I love some things about my country, and right now there are some things I don't love. I believe in democracy, the rule of law, human rights and mutual respect. I am grateful that my Country has come closer to those ideals then most. But if someone pisses on a flag, I say "whatever."

All these people getting upset at the "disrespect" of the flag are just worshiping a tin god.

[guillaumeb]

4. Agreed.

Patriotism is a belief system, and every belief system can be used by the 1% to divide and exploit workers.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. You talk about it as if it's separate.

As if there's no history of a vast intersection between (Christian, largely) religion and government as a metaphysical concept in this country.

Romans 13:1-7 has a strong cultural influence on conservatives in this country, for instance.
And the more deistic divine providence and all that shit.

[guillaumeb]

9. As I said: every belief system can be used by the 1% to divide and exploit workers. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Oh, it's just the one percent. I see. Boogeyman of the gaps.

[trotsky]

25. "every belief system can be used by the 1% to divide and exploit workers"

With you (and only you) getting to define "belief system," of course.

[guillaumeb]

51. Feel free to define the term.

[trotsky]

58. What's more important here is your constant equivocation.

Multiple people have pointed it out to you on multiple occasions, yet you persist with the same tired old flawed arguments that will never, ever lead to anyone taking you seriously.

That's why you get the same responses. That's why people laugh at you. That's why you march off and disappear for a while before coming back with the same shtick a few days later and expecting different results.

You don't get to define atheism as a belief system. "Faith" is a word that has multiple DISTINCT meanings. Stop equivocating, learn how to make your point logically and reasonably, and you might just find others willing to converse.

Or don't. Your call.

[guillaumeb]

63. If I carefully remove the insulting language from your response, this is what is remains:

Or don't. Your call.

[trotsky]

85. Identify the insult.

Go.

I'll wait.

If you don't, I'm going to just assume the words hit a little too close to home.

[guillaumeb]

89. Reread your post as if it were addressed to you personally from another here.

Perhaps that would help.

[trotsky]

91. Identify the insult.

I bet you can't.

[Angry Dragon]

95. is it fake??

[guillaumeb]

96. If someone believes in it, it is true for them.

[Siwsan]

8. "Patriotism is the last refuge for a scoundrel" Samuel Johnson

I do believe this can be true.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Christians mostly. It's part and paracel of dominionism, american exceptionalism, manifest destiny

and all that.


Glad you brought it up.

[Voltaire2]

11. You actually are referring to "nationalism" not "patriotism".

Nationalism vs Patriotism

Nationalism and patriotism both show the relationship of an individual towards his or her nation. The two are often confused and frequently believed to mean the same thing. However, there is a vast difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Nationalism means to give more importance to unity by way of a cultural background, including language and heritage. Patriotism pertains to the love for a nation, with more emphasis on values and beliefs.

When talking about nationalism and patriotism, one cannot avoid the famous quotation by George Orwell, who said that nationalism is ‘the worst enemy of peace’. According to him, nationalism is a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life. These concepts show that patriotism is passive by nature and nationalism can be a little aggressive.


Read more: Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/#ixzz4u0zFMBxw

[k8conant]

12. Trump's religion is Jingoism:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jingoism

Definition of jingoism

:extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy

[Voltaire2]

15. yes indeed a particularly vile form of nationalism, a precursor to fascism.

[Htom Sirveaux]

16. Would you say then that worshipping a god or gods

is a group worshipping itself in the form of symbolic representive(s) that are the mythological origins of the group's ideals?

Because if patriotism and religion is a good comparison, maybe the comparison flows both ways.

[guillaumeb]

17. If you wish to make that interpretation, it might make an interesting post.

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. Oh, I was under the impression that

you wanted to discuss your analogy in *this* post. Was that not the purpose of making said post?

[guillaumeb]

19. Well, I did state that, in my view, every belief system can be used by the 1%

to divide workers. So do we agree on that point?

[Htom Sirveaux]

21. Maybe, but it's not clear what you mean by that.

Depending on what qualifies as "use", your claim could amount to nothing more than the generalization "people react to ideas consistent with furthering their agendas" which is true, but not a very substantive claim.

My question was meant to probe the strength of your analogy, testing just how similar these two classes are. Are you unwilling to answer my question, and if so, why?

[guillaumeb]

46. My statement stands.

Every belief system can be used to divide workers. So if anyone can cite a belief system, it can be used as a means of division. It says nothing about anything intrinsic to the belief system, and everything about the willingness of the rich to divide the workers.

[trotsky]

61. Let's grant your fast and loose and bogus way of slapping "belief system" on whatever you want.

Further, let's say we have two "belief systems," A and B.

In A, we have the following teachings:
1) Human beings are inherently sinful and deserve punishment.
2) We must do what god wants in order to be saved from the punishment.
2) Leaders of humans are selected by god to tell us what to do.

In B are:
1) Human beings are inherently worthy and equal.
2) We must establish laws that protect our rights and equality.
3) Leaders should be democratically elected, and subject to the same laws as everyone else.

Are you willing to admit that people subscribing to belief system "A" might be just a bit easier to convince to do bad things than people subscribing to belief system "B"?

Please answer honestly. I am giving you yet another chance to engage in constructive dialog instead of doubling down on your unsupported rhetoric and agenda.

[guillaumeb]

65. You have arbitrarily set the terms of what constitutes "A" and "B".

Nice try at controlling the debate, if nothing else.

Allow me to do the same, using your technique:

Under system A, we have a message of "do unto others" and "love thy neighbor".

Under system B, we have slavery, misogyny, endless war, and a health care system ranked 37th in the world.

Are you willing to admit that people subscribing to belief system "B" might be just a bit easier to convince to do bad things than people subscribing to belief system "A"?

Please answer honestly. I am giving you yet another chance to engage in constructive dialog instead of doubling down on your unsupported rhetoric and agenda

.

Do you see how easy that was?

[trotsky]

87. Yes, I did, because they are my examples. Two hypothetical belief systems.

Answer my question, if you dare. I know you won't, though, because it doesn't serve your agenda.

[guillaumeb]

90. Incorrect. You framed the choice on your terms, as did I.

The framer of the debate has the advantage.

[trotsky]

92. When it's to illustrate a point, the framing is valid.

Between those two belief systems, do you think followers of A or B are more likely to be misled and support bad things?

I understand why you feel you must refuse to answer the question, and instead simply deflect. Nice letting you fall into a trap of your own making once again.

[Htom Sirveaux]

62. Whatever. I've lost interest in your opinion.

I regret wasting my time trying to engage in dialogue with someone who clearly never had any intention of listening.

[guillaumeb]

66. I feel that you might be listening only for agreement with your opinion.

My feeling.

[Htom Sirveaux]

67. False, and projection.

I have no problem engaging seriously and meaningfully with people who disagree with me. It's been awhile since I was last here, but multiple people may remember that I'm quite willing to give more than the time of day to disagreement. Trotsky might remember: he and I have gone multiple rounds more than once. You, on the other hand, just blew me off in favor of restating a single talking point, no matter that I asked you a substantive question, or that I seriously engaged with your talking point despite you ignoring my question.

So between the two of us, I am not the one listening only for agreement with my opinion.

[guillaumeb]

70. This was your initial question:

Would you say then that worshipping a god or gods

is a group worshipping itself in the form of symbolic representive(s) that are the mythological origins of the group's ideals?

And I feel that the question deserves its own thread. My point was that people can use any beliefs as justification for doing what they wish to do anyway. Patriotism, religion, any belief system, can all be used by people to advance their own agendas. Ask 100 people to define how they view particular positions, and how they would term them, and the meaning of patriotism as it relates to those positions might be defined in many ways.

The same with religion, or any belief system.

To me, your question falls under the which came first category. As a believer, I believe that the Creator created existence, but a non-theist might say that humans invented a Creator to fulfill a need. And given that neither position can be proven, it is an unsolvable philosophical argument.

[Htom Sirveaux]

72. Sure, no idea is absolutely immune.

But there are still degrees. Imagine the 1% abusing, say, a silent Quaker meeting or a Unitarian Universalist church v. a prosperity gospel mega-church or the Southern Baptist Convention. As a generalization, more egalitarian orientations will be less likely to tolerate the the kind of inequality you've been decrying.

Furthermore, and getting back to my question, the more egalitarian, I would say the more likely to hold to an immanent, mystical theology v. a otherworldly, authoritarian theology. But the more immanent God gets, the more God finds its source in personal perceptions and interpretation. The more God is found in the creation, the more possible it is to realize that God was there all along, and that it was only certain linguistic uses and instinctual drives that made the idea of a realm beyond time and space seem plausible, and then the very idea of "creation" dissolves.

[guillaumeb]

74. It is not just inequality, it is first the division of workers so they can be exploited.

In my view, the Creator is found in the creation just as the creation must reflect certain aspects of the Creator.

I believe that the difference is that some believe in a personal Creator who takes a personal interest and involvement in the believer.

I see the Creator as the initiator of creation, but one who also values free will and sentience and is more uninvolved in the day to day workings of creation.

Again, only my opinions.

[Htom Sirveaux]

75. Division without hierarchy is a recipe

for multiculturalism, compassion, and fairness. It's the hierarchy that leads to the oppression.

Are you a Thomist? I sense a platonic-aristotelian understanding of God in what you say.

[guillaumeb]

78. Hierarchy always controls and benefits from oppression and division.

If one writes of this using class terms one can be accused of being a Marxist, but the rich must use division to convince workers to vote against their own interests. And members of the religious hierarchy in many religions often identify with the rich in their respective countries.

As to my being a Thomist, not in the full sense of the term. I have never experienced revelation. Or perhaps I have and failed to recognize it. (I am not being sarcastic or ironic here.)

But I do believe that science can help us to understand the material existence, but I also believe that the power of reason that lies beneath science is a sentience that reflects the Creator's sentience.

[trotsky]

88. We have indeed had our share of exchanges, Htom.

But whatever else we may disagree about, we are certainly on the same page with regards to guillaumeb.

[Cartoonist]

20. Your 3rd paragraph is way off

It wasn't patriotism that committed genocide, it was religion. Most specifically Christianity. Just ask the victims of St. Junipero Serra.

[guillaumeb]

47. Ask the victims of the US settlers. It was done in the name of manifest destiny.

A national religion.

[trotsky]

59. Actually, "manifest destiny" was a particularly Christian thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#Themes_and_influences

Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of manifest destiny:

* the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
* the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the United States;
* the destiny under God to do this work.

The origin of the first theme, later known as American Exceptionalism, was often traced to America's Puritan heritage, particularly John Winthrop's famous "City upon a Hill" sermon of 1630, in which he called for the establishment of a virtuous community that would be a shining example to the Old World.

...

The third theme can be viewed as a natural outgrowth of the belief that God had a direct influence in the foundation and further actions of the United States. Clinton Rossiter, a scholar, described this view as summing "that God, at the proper stage in the march of history, called forth certain hardy souls from the old and privilege-ridden nations ... and that in bestowing his grace He also bestowed a peculiar responsibility". Americans presupposed that they were not only divinely elected to maintain the North American continent, but also to "spread abroad the fundamental principles stated in the Bill of Rights". In many cases this meant neighboring colonial holdings and countries were seen as obstacles rather than the destiny God had provided the United States.

[guillaumeb]

64. Manifest destiny is a particularly US thing.

[trotsky]

86. Fine, ignore what I posted.

You have your own opinion, and that's far better than facts, amirite?

[Lordquinton]

22. You seem confused

Are you saying that "patriotism" comes with a system of morals? Is patriotism different from country to country? Is there a reason you feel the need to claim everything is just a belief, diluting every argument and putting your own religion and the bottom of the heap and attempting to drag everything down to it?

[trotsky]

26. It's absolutely critical to the agenda he's pushing.

To him, *true* religion (like the one he believes in, natch) is pure and perfect and never, ever promotes any ideas that are bad.

It is only when evil non-believers use religion to "control" or influence others that bad things happen. Religion is never, ever to blame.

In order to fully form that narrative, he has to define other ideas as "belief systems" to reinforce the notion that it is only when bad people (remember, non-believers) "use" ideas to control people.

That way, discussion of *specific* bad ideas found within religion is avoided, and religion is protected, and its privileged position upheld.

[guillaumeb]

49. Your post reveals only your own tendency to reframe things and nothing about my "agenda".

Quite transparent on your part, but bad habits can be difficult to break.

[trotsky]

57. Your same tired old pattern of behavior.

It gets the responses from me that it deserves.

Remember what you think the message of Jesus is?

TRY HARDER. Apologize.

[guillaumeb]

48. You seem very confused.

Patriotism is a belief system.

[Lordquinton]

97. I mean, it's not

But ok.

[guillaumeb]

98. We differ.

Obviously.

[MineralMan]

23. "Civil Religion?"

If you're trying to conflate religion with systems of government, you'll find that the comparison is a false one.

I won't play in this game.

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. He's talking about a sociological concept put forth by Robert Bellah in 1967.

Bellah found American reverence for its government, history, and national ideas mirrored religious devotion in many respects, particularly in its use to marginalize and ostracize nonconformists. Of course, the "civil religion" is a quasi-religion that performs religious functions without being a bona fide religion, and to conflate it with, say, Catholicism, would be a stupefyingly simple equivocation. But consider the source, amirite?

[yallerdawg]

30. "As above, so below."

The religious body and the political body have always mirrored each other.

Kind of explains the "religious" fervor and loyalty of Trump supporters, doesn't it?

[Act_of_Reparation]

31. That's because there's only "below".

If religion and politics mirror each other it is because religion is a form of politics.

[yallerdawg]

32. The religious would argue the opposite.

Islam, for instance, often informs governments and social behavior, not the other way around.

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. Not sure I follow.

If religion is a form of politics, religion influencing government and behavior is an example of religion being political.

[yallerdawg]

39. Aren't you saying religion was conceived of as a means of political control?

I'm suggesting the prevalent religious body is mirrored by the body politic.

As above, so below.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. Are you saying religion influences government or that government influences religion?

I'm arguing it's both. Because politics is the totality of competing interests in a society and religion happens to be one of those interests.

[yallerdawg]

44. That is exactly what we are both saying!

Why I made the example of Trump supporters.

Their consideration of him as a Messianic figure of "unimpeachable" character and undying loyalty regardless of "facts" mirrors their evangelical religious fervor and righteousness.

The two go hand in hand.

[yallerdawg]

45. "Kicked dog howls loudest" syndrome! LOL!

I saw this main OP caught hell elsewhere!

[trotsky]

33. "stupefyingly simple equivocation"

But it's useful for defending religious privilege and blaming the impure/non-believers for all the problems in the world, so LET'S GO BOYS!!!

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. I can't even identify the point he's trying to make.

Civil religion is bad because it resembles religion? Yeah, we agree.

[yallerdawg]

41. Hey, I'm right here.

I can't figure out what you all are talking about!

I supported the original comment on the thread OP, and you all spin it off God knows where (that's a PUN, by the way).

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. Oh, I'm not talking about you.

I'm talking about the OP, in the wider of context of his history here. Sorry for the confusion.

[guillaumeb]

50. No, you obviously cannot identify the point if this is what you read.

I suggest a rereading of the post without filtering it through preconceptions.

[Act_of_Reparation]

53. I suggest stop spouting vagaries.

If you have something to say, say it.

[guillaumeb]

55. I already said it in the original post.

What do you find vague or confusing?

[Act_of_Reparation]

71. I assume you're referring to this:

Patriotism is a belief system, a civil religion, based on the belief that one particular country is above all else.

If this were posted in a vacuum I suppose this blatant equivocation and fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by "civil religion" could be considered a point. But it was not posted in a vacuum. It was obviously composed to mirror MineralMan's OP, but since you failed to connect your point to his in a directly meaningful way, yes, your intent is vague.

What is it you find objectionable about MineralMan's criticism of the character Yaweh? How does "civil religion" relate to that discussion? Just assume I'm a functional illiterate and state it clearly. Use small words so mental midgets such as myself might comprehend.

[guillaumeb]

73. I stated my objections to MM.

And they can be read.

[MineralMan]

35. Yeah, OK, but the functions of government do not equate

to religion, nor does loyalty to country count as worship. The core of almost all religions is some sort of all-powerful deity figure or figures, which is worshipped out of awe or fear. We have deliberately, in this country at least, stripped government of being an all-powerful construction, and have the power to vote any governing officials out of office or remove them in other ways.

I don't give a good damm what Robert Bellah said in 1967. MineralMan, in 2017, says that loyalty to a government and religious worship or zeal are not equivalent as concepts, since there is no all-powerful entity at the head.

In fact, my opposition to the current administration is patriotic, within the definition of our founding documents. Patriotism is not blind obedience to the authority of government. Religious worship, however, is blind obedience to religious principles.

Appeal to authority, when the authority's opinion is no more valid than anyone else's, is a logical error. I recognize this thread as an attempt to counter my earlier thread. It fails in doing that.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. That's what I meant when I said he's equivocating.

Civil religion resembles religion, but it is not religion.

[MineralMan]

38. Well, in this instance, I'd call it false equivocation.

In fact, it's an attempt to make a play from my earlier post, rather than to stay in that thread and discuss it. I'm always happy to discuss threads I start. I'm less willing to play when someone attempts to restart the discussion in different terms. Equivocation, deflection...whatever.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. It's OK for your religion to be bad because other religions are bad?

Wow. Fascinating.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

28. EVERYTHING is a religion, it seems.

This gets old pretty fast.

[MineralMan]

40. It's similar to the argument that atheism is really a religion,

and that athiests have a belief system, instead of a non-belief. That is argued frequently, despite the speciousness of the argument.

Both sets of arguments fail the test of logic, but they're used so commonly that those who make them think they're valid arguments.

Patriotism and Religious belief are not alike. They have certain similarities, but their differences separate them on a fundamental level.

Similarly, atheism and religious belief both deal with the idea of deities. However atheism simply discounts the existence of deities due to lack of any real evidence that they exist. Religious belief accepts that existence, despite the lack of evidence. To believe something without evidence is a matter of positive action. Not to believe something without evidence requires no action at all.

The comparison drawn in this copycat thread is baseless.

[guillaumeb]

52. No, the point is about belief systems,

and civic religion, and the uses that the 1% make of those systems.

[MineralMan]

60. There is no such thing as a "civil religion."

You just made that up out of whole cloth to take this argument out of the original thread I posted.

[underpants]

54. 'Merica

[guillaumeb]

56. That settles it.

Trump brand, Chinese manufactured sunglasses on the eagle?

[Mariana]

68. "Patriotism" is one of those fun words.

Everyone makes up his own definition, so the word has become meaningless. Just like the word "Christianity".

[guillaumeb]

69. Or the term is so vague as to lose meaning?

To me it is not the term, because any concept can be used to advance an agenda, but the idea that power hungry people can and will use any method to obtain power.

[Mariana]

76. Most people have very definite, clear ideas

of what patriotism is, and what makes one patriotic, but their definite, clear ideas are all different.

[Stargazer99]

77. I might add exposing their citizens to radiation

[guillaumeb]

79. An excellent addition.

And possibly a war crime, if one were to pursue the matter?

[marylandblue]

80. Patriotism is not a belief system

It is a feeling of attachment to the nation-state in which one lives or was born in. That's all it is. There are no required actions, thoughts or beliefs that make one a patriot or not, therefore it is consistent with any actual belief system. You don't have believe your nation is better than any other, and you don't have to excuse any past actions done in the name of your nation-state.

[guillaumeb]

81. Patriotism depends on the belief in nation states.

A created belief, just as the states are artificial constructs as far as boundaries.

So I disagree.

[marylandblue]

82. Still depends on a feeling

In this case, our tribal instinct. The tribal instinct comes first.

[guillaumeb]

83. So whatever causes us to form groups is part of that instinct.

[marylandblue]

84. It's not part of that instinct it IS that instinct

If we didn't have that instinct, we would not form groups. We would be more like orangutans and less like chimpanzees and gorillas.

[Angry Dragon]

93. Your premise is all wrong

[guillaumeb]

94. Your "opinion" is of course noted.

And you are entitled to that same opinion.