Non Religious countries do better

[Father Heathen]

I see you were live in CA if that is correct, so yes you were raised in a Christian worldview. Everybody that is born and raised in the US whether they are raised in a religious family or not, live and operate on the worldview given by Christians, the founding fathers, most of them.

If the U.S. was truly a "christian world view", we would be living under a theocracy where people would be stoned to death and people would sell their daughters into slavery. The Founding Fathers of The U.S. stepped away from that sort of garbage. Allow me to educate you:

Is America A Christian Nation?
Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

(Portuguese version)
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?
In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
—The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution
​

What about the Declaration of Independence?

We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.
The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.
What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?

The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?
Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.
Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?

The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.
What does "separation of church and state" mean?

Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.
What about majority rule?

America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.
Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.
Isn't removing religion from public places hostile to religion?

No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.
Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.
The First Amendment deals with "Congress." Can't states make their own religious policies?

Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.
What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.
Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?

Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.
Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.
Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?

Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.
America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: "There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent."

But down the bible and pick up a history book, son.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Communism is an economic model. Not all communists are atheists, and not all atheists are communist. Your babble is irrelevant.

No s***. You're just repeating what I said in the post you were responding to. I made a distinction between economic policies and religious ones. These communist regimes, for whatever reason, were largely athiestic in that it was the state "religion". They didn't have to be. They could've believed in communism as an economic policy and Christianity as a religion but they didn't. Churches for the most part couldn't exist in public. In fact, I'm sure many people here would've viewed such countries as a utopia had it not been for the fact that their leaders, all proudly professing athiests, were among the most brutal, savage statesmen in the 20th century.

 

[Father Heathen]

No s***. You're just repeating what I said in the post you were responding to. I made a distinction between economic policies and religious ones. These communist regimes, for whatever reason, were largely athiestic in that it was the state "religion". They didn't have to be. They could've believed in communism as an economic policy and Christianity as a religion but they didn't. Churches for the most part couldn't exist in public. In fact, I'm sure many people here would've viewed such countries as a utopia had it not been for the fact that their leaders, all proudly professing athiests, were among the most brutal, savage statesmen in the 20th century.

Dictatorships tend to be brutal and abusive whether they're atheistic or theocractic. The scandinavian countires are largely atheistic, yet argubly have even more freedoms than we do in the U.S.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Dictatorships tend to be brutal and abusive whether they're atheistic or theocractic. The scandinavian countires are largely atheistic, yet argubly have even more freedoms than we do in the U.S.

As I said earlier in the thread, athiests are just now showing up to the party in these countries. Listening to them trying to take credit for the freedoms and properity in western Europe is laughable. It's like a roofer trying to take credit for building a 60 story skyscraper. Those constitutions were generally written between 100- 200 years ago largely by Christians who went on to build western Europe into one of the most prosperous places on Earth.

 

[Father Heathen]

As I said earlier in the thread, athiests are just now showing up to the party in these countries. Listening to them trying to take credit for the freedoms and properity in western Europe is laughable. It's like a roofer trying to take credit for building a 20 story skyscraper. Those constitutions were generally written between 100- 200 years ago largely by Christians who went on to build western Europe into one of the most prosperous places on Earth.

But the constitution is not based on christianity. In fact, most of the founding fathers were deist. The west has flourished because it has imbraced secularism, freedom and democracy.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What is even more laughable is Christians taking credit for political ideals based on Hellenistic politics.

Talk about late to the party...

 

[jamesmorrow]

No s***. You're just repeating what I said in the post you were responding to. I made a distinction between economic policies and religious ones. These communist regimes, for whatever reason, were largely athiestic in that it was the state "religion". They didn't have to be. They could've believed in communism as an economic policy and Christianity as a religion but they didn't. Churches for the most part couldn't exist in public. In fact, I'm sure many people here would've viewed such countries as a utopia had it not been for the fact that their leaders, all proudly professing athiests, were among the most brutal, savage statesmen in the 20th century.

atheism has no ties to communism or any other economic system...there is no atheist handbook or definition that mentions anything other than religion/lack thereof.... christianity on the other hand can be tied to what is now best described as communism. just read the book of the acts of the apostles and the early christian church.......communism and distribution of wealth galore. early christians were hard core communists. look up christian communism

 

[bigbadgirl]

The fact is simple. Countries whose population is less religious, have more money to spend on its citizens because far less money goes to support religious infrastructure, buildings, churches, private religious colleges, and in some countries tens of thousands of paid clergy and support staff, who generate no income, produce no products, do no actual work, and are a drain on the recources of those that earn a living. There is also the anti-science and anti-progressiveness of many religions that keep them from benefiting from advances in technology and science. Atheism has nothing to do with it. It is all about where the money goes. You can search the internet forever and never find out the total cost and assets of religion in the U.S. But it would probably be more than enough to provide health care to millions of people who do not have it. Old stories written down in religious books have earned more income than their authors could have ever imagined.

 

[Apex]

as much as id like to accept these facts. they do not represent the truth.... ....atheism is not the true cause here... money is.....money allows for higher education, leading to higher level of happiness, leading to lower level of crime and violence, leading to higher levels of atheism etc..... it is wealth... atheism, education and everything else is a byproduct.

^Basically this.

 

[jamesmorrow]

^Basically this.

so you agree that a higher level of education leads to higher levels of atheism?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Actually I believe (correct me if I am wrong) he was saying a higher level of affluence leads to higher levels of atheism.

 

[jamesmorrow]

Actually I believe (correct me if I am wrong) he was saying a higher level of affluence leads to higher levels of atheism.

he didnt say anything actually. he just quoted my comment and statet

"^Basically this."

which i assume means he is in agreement with my comment, which states that money leads to higher education, which leads to higher level of atheism among other things.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

If he was in agreement with your comment then he was talking about affluence leading to atheism, which is what the comment he quoted said, rather than about education, which in the comment he quoted was said to be a byproduct.

Perhaps overly technical, but since you were saying what you thought his position was, i think a more literal interpretation may be more appropriate (given the context), I may well be wrong though, he may well clarify and say you are right.

 

[Apex]

so you agree that a higher level of education leads to higher levels of atheism?

No. Higher levels of wealth does.

I do not believe higher levels of education directly correlate to higher levels of atheism: http://mormonscholarstestify.org/

 

[work in progress]

If the U.S. was truly a "christian world view", we would be living under a theocracy where people would be stoned to death and people would sell their daughters into slavery. The Founding Fathers of The U.S. stepped away from that sort of garbage. Allow me to educate you:


But down the bible and pick up a history book, son.

You might be interested to know that the fact that the U.S. Constitution is secular and doesn't mention God, was a continual source of anxiety and discomfort for a lot of the church leaders throughout history. In 1863...right during the middle of the Civil War, there was a serious attempt to pass a Christian Amendment to the Constitution, and end that little problem of the godlessness of the founding documents. The Wiki article says that a Vermont senator tried to get one going in 1954, during the Cold War. Since then, it doesn't look like they are even going to bother with this strategy, since a Christian amendment would be an acknowledgment that the Constitution isn't Christian in its present form. The new strategy appears to be - just reinvent history! When America's children are all home-schooled with history written by history frauds like David Barton, no one will know the difference!

 

[work in progress]

The countries that were actually built from the ground up by the hands of athiests such as the communist countries were and still are backwards in almost every way. Obviously, the failed economic policies of communism play a large role in that but that doesn't explain the wide spread human rights violations that took place under these atheistic regimes.

An atheist political movement...if such a thing actually existed and could take power, would not stay atheistic very long! If a regime set a goal of abolishing the state religion or religions within the nation, it would have to offer up something else in place to give the people their spirituality fix.

It would be closer to the truth to say that communist regimes replaced the established religions with a new religion based on hero worship. This strategy didn't really work in Russia and Eastern Europe, and had to be enforced through terror and imprisonment. It has been somewhat successful in China and North Korea, because Maoism and especially the Great Leader cult that Kim Il Sung started, used the pre-existing cultural practice of ancestor worship to make it all fit together.