Atheism and religion

[Verenti]

Did anyone in this topic mention that Atheism might be a choice yet seeing as you have a gov't choice called "Religion" and you get more gov't choices as you get more tech? Yes? No? I'm just to lazy to read through all this discussion.

[Terra Nullius]

I'm just to lazy to read through all this discussion.

sorry, pal. that's not the way it works.

if you're not sure of something, what you need to do is make some absurd claim about your chosen subject. then sit back and wait for the resident gurus to tell you how stupid you are. they will then rabbit on at length, thus providing you with all the information you were actually looking for. works for me.

your direct approach might have worked on a real forum. but i fear the oaties have taken over this little asylum.

in answer to your question,
from the religion thread

Originally posted by Nikolai
Question: I am a big fan of all of your games. I have been playing Civilization since the first one was released and I can not wait for Civilization IV. I do have a question about Civilization IV as it relates to religion. Can your government have no state religion? If so can they influence border nations with their secular beliefs?

Sid: Hello Orie! Yes, the default is Paganism, which means there is no organized religion. At the other end of the spectrum is Free Religion and that offers tolerance of all religions. It's not possible to spread no religion where there is already religion. It's a play mechanic, but I am pretty sure it holds up that way in history as well.

it's anybody's guess what that might actually mean.

i'm guessing that no, you can't directly set up an atheist state as such.

however, if you're prepared to accept the approximation that atheism is a religion (with it's attendant innaccuracies of atheist temples, atheist missionaries &c.) then, with a little modding, you can have almost the same thing.

so, it's far from perfect, but yes, it looks like we will have some (very committed!) atheist statesmen on the forums.

as far as government choices go. that's a different story. if you want to allow your population to freely choose any religion, you are looking for a secular state. but if you are hoping to enforce atheism as the only acceptable cult, then you will need to set up a

theocratic police state!!!

edit - troubles

[Terra Nullius]

@ platy
...and thank you for showing off your marvellous luminescent marbles!

ok. enough wid da backslapping, le'ss do some biche-slappin.

@ guess who
re: you could have shot me down from the start

too late darl, you're already burnin'. but it's fun to watch your spiralling trail of flames fade into the night. so thanks for the spectacle.

that's quite a lovely little museum of qoutes you've collected. it's a shame none of them serves to advance your argument. you have still failed to refute my assertion that;

historically, ...the ussr (had) ... a government which applie(d) policy with the purpose of influencing religious practices within society, or which applie(d) policy with the purpose of influencing an individual's professed beliefs

you have failed to enlighten us with evidence that contradicts the suggestion

eg. 3
ussr - acceptable religious practice was determined by the state and enforced by security agents

if you do have any evidence which contradicts those assertions, let's hear it. if not, please stop this brainless repetition. i assure you, practice will not make it perfect. especially given that i have already stated, in as many ways as i need to that

i understand and acknowledge your definition.

furthermore, you have failed provide an alternative to my simple and practical suggestion that

in game-terms, it seems there is a slider with, maybe five positions from 'most-secular' to 'most-theocratic.' if i wanted to model the behaviour of the ussr, i would be setting my sliders for theo!

if you have a better, simpler, more practical way of modelling such behaviour, by all means, enlighten us!

lastly, i am reeeeally just plain moist at the prospect of you demonstrating that i am unaware of what

is, in my view, theocratic.

< --- and let's just take a moment now to think of the flower-children.


since you haven't been paying attention, i'll blether on irrelevantly at length (and you seem to want me to...).

there is a third type of knowledge which you seem to have overlooked.

"know thyself"

up to this point, i have been prepared to offer you the benefit of the doubt. your screen-name signifies an icon of post-modern thought. i have granted you a remarkable degree of latitude. perhaps i should refresh your memory.

Postmodernism
- is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in critical theory, philosophy, architecture, art, literature, and culture, which are generally characterized as either emerging from, in reaction to, or superseding, modernism.

- questions the foundations of cultural and artistic forms through self-referential irony

- is generally characterized disengagement from history and the fragmentation of artistic surface.

- tends to be highly self-referential and typically saturated with irony and allusion.

- tends to subvert traditional models of unity and coherence and instead tries to capture the sense of discontinuity and apparent chaos characteristic of the electronic age

- embraces an open-ended and democratic global civilization

is any of this starting to sound familiar???

your dogmatic insistence on references, history and the primacy of your chosen paradigm goes entirely against the grain of post-modernism. i think it's time you changed your nick,.

re: the analogy "communism=religion."
as an ardent post-modernist, i'm sure you are aware that, in a world devoid of objective truth, analogy is one of our most powerful means of expression. i have certainly not stated at any point that communism=religion. however, it is perfectly fair to say that "communism" bears a similarity to religion. if it disturbs you so much to investigate the nature of that similarity, take a zanax.

so far, i have, in fact offered several analogies.
i stated that the cognitive space defined by "religion" in civ4 is like

- a set of disjointed libraries. each library, or store of knowledge runs its own indexing system and there is no known means of translating from one system to another. even if the same book exists in different libraries, it is not classified in the same manner and it is probably not easy to locate.

- a solar system. each religion is represented by a different planet. the rules of logic of the different religions are like the physical behaviour of sub-atomic particles. we, the observers are in an indeterminate position and do not (in my opinion) have unbiased, omnipotent powers of observation

given your refusal to define the scope of your own argument, i could extend this to include one more...
- a certain poster is like a belligerent child, stuck in his own linguistic playpen. he is unable to see outside of that playpen. he is equally unable to define the rules and limitations of his own space.

i will refrain from making that analogy (and i apologise in advance) as you might find it to be personally insulting, which is genuinely not my intention. so please don't take offence at that one, but i do believe it is time you started to define your own point of observation.

history
you keep insisting that i back up my argument with historical facts.let me make this clear. i have absolutely no need of such facts to support my argument.

my argument is based on this and yes, please do correct me here if i am wrong!!!
- marx's communist manifesto states that "there is no god."
- the government of the ussr embraced this axiom and strove to implement policy in support of it.
- the government of the ussr committed human rights abuses and even murder on the basis of this assumption.

does that make them any better or worse than any other government? i don't know.
does that make the party members themselves any worse than your average suburban drunk driver? again that is not for me to judge. all i am saying is that,
1. as far as i understand, the ussr is one example of a government which committed human rights abuses in order to suppress religious freedom.
2.this type of government will probably best be modelled within civ4 as a theocratic police state.

as i said, i was not there at the time, i have not thouroughly researched the facts, i accept that i may be entirely mistaken and if so i would be grateful to you for setting me right.

but really sweetness, don't waste your time trying to question my logic.

ps. who's ignoring the hallowed bovine??
i already posted one on page three.
( why do i always fall for the big, stoopid one? )

[IMG]C:\Documents and Settings\damila\My Documents\vu10_m.jpg[/IMG]

[MxM]

Suggestion (mostly to lebensraum). How about modeling USSR in CIV IV as secular dictatorship? After all secular is "Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body." To say that USSR can be modeled as theocracy is way too confusing.

[MxM]

lebensraum, again you had very nice and interesting post... and I disagree with many aspects of it

Originally posted by lebensraum
paradigms
for some time, western thought (imho) had the luxury of working from a single cognitive model, or paradigm. from aristotle to aquinas to newton, there was (at least roughly speaking) a single, coherent system of thought. this meant generally consistent definitions of terms, consistent logical principles and a general agreement about the nature of reality.

one of the major challenges to this situation was the discovery of relativistic phenomena within the physical sciences. for eg. consider the wave/particle behavior of light - light behaves either as a wave or a particle depending on the situation. the only problem here is this:
a wave is precisely that which a particle is not, and vice versa. according to scholastic philosophy, a thing cannot be 'that-which-it-is' and 'that-which-it-is-not' at the same time.

It is not good example. Indeed at the time it was a puzzle for some time, but since that time it became understood and explained by quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, in non-physics-major classes they still teach that photon is sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave, which is simplistic but strictly speaking incorrect picture.

Originally posted by lebensraum
at this stage, what we have are multiple cognitive models. each one has it's limitations. no single paradigm has any conclusive claim to be 'right', or to prove another 'wrong.' we are very much in the habit of preferring one cognitive model over another. and we simply are not used to the idea that several competing, and contradictory ideas can all be equally 'right.'

for example, let's say a neurologist, a psychologist and a shaman are investigating the nature of 'mind' and cognition. each of these people has a vocabulary and a method appropriate to their chosen field. each may be able to shed light on the other's insights. however, none of them is in a position to question the other on their own terms. and the insights gained in one field may or may not be useful to the others.

Here is another example. An engineer and an astrologist try to predict if some particular plane will fly. Will you say that they both give adequate prediction, just using different languages? Will you say that the astrologist is as right as the engineer?

Originally posted by lebensraum
we are at a stage in history where there is no unified, conclusive truth.

So here is my main disagreement. There is truth, the absolute truth, for many questions in our life. It is just not everyone accept it or able to see it. Our earth does go around the sun (in inertial system); there is evolution happening in nature and so on. And very often different cognitive models prevent person to see the truth. As long as astrologist will use his cognitive model, he will not be able to give statistically reliable prediction, better than a coin flip.

[Boris Godunov]

historically, ...the ussr (had) ... a government which applie(d) policy with the purpose of influencing religious practices within society, or which applie(d) policy with the purpose of influencing an individual's professed beliefs
...
ussr - acceptable religious practice was determined by the state and enforced by security agents

But this us an utterly preposterous and useless definition of a "theocracy," since it could apply to ANY society pre-enlightened democracy. After all, virtually all political states had a state-sanctioned religion and monitored/enforced at least some form of religious line-towing.

The standard accepted definition of a theocracy is one in which there is a universally-accepted and enforced religion and wherein the leader(s) authority is said to be derived from a deity or deities. The USSR meets neither criteria, as it did not have a state-enforced religion (atheism is NOT a religion), and in no way did its leaders claim their power came from god(s).

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


But this us an utterly preposterous and useless definition of a "theocracy," since it could apply to ANY society pre-enlightened democracy. After all, virtually all political states had a state-sanctioned religion and monitored/enforced at least some form of religious line-towing.

The standard accepted definition of a theocracy is one in which there is a universally-accepted and enforced religion and wherein the leader(s) authority is said to be derived from a deity or deities. The USSR meets neither criteria, as it did not have a state-enforced religion (atheism is NOT a religion), and in no way did its leaders claim their power came from god(s).

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by MxM
in non-physics-major classes they still teach that photon is sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave, which is simplistic but strictly speaking incorrect picture.

CONGRATULATIONS!!

i hope the easter bunny was good to you. and yes, there are still some eggs buried back there for anyone else who cares to look.

Here is another example. An engineer and an astrologist try to predict if some particular plane will fly.

thanks. that's a much better example than mine. far more down-to-earth (forgive the pun).

Will you say that they both give adequate prediction, just using different languages? Will you say that the astrologist is as right as the engineer?

i don't know.

to illustrate the point a bit further. consider this one.
epilepsy
an animist might interpret it as a mark of godliness, or a sign that someone is destined for greatness (eg. alexander, caesar).

a buddhist would say that it is a sickness which causes suffering. that suffering is caused by attachment and the appropriate course of action is to eliminate attachment (to ideas, possessions etc.)

a western medical practitioner would say that it is a physiological illness caused by ... (to quote homer again "wh'i d'no").

personally, i have witnessed all of these interprations in action.

i have seen people go into fits in the midst of hindu/animist ceremonies. at the time, that was explained to me as a form of prophecy - the god came and spoke through the person who was fitting. the prophecy was taken to be true. i don't know if that particular prophecy turned out to be true, but the society in question is about 5,000 years old and i would think it arrogant to pass judgement on such a practice.

i have also seen my sister undergo extensive brain surgery to correct her epilepsy. she went from being a severe epileptic to having virtually no symptoms at all.

of course, anyone who suffers epilepsy would probably prefer to be free of such an illness. but i don't think this makes 'western' medical procedures 'right' and all other interpretations 'wrong.' even if you are strongly in favour of the 'western' interpretation, there remains the basic principle of "keep an open mind." many of the advances of science have come through ideas that were considered crazy or unorthodox.

old lace
i have also been treated by tibetan medical practitioners. and,.. damn

again, the system is based on the idea that illness is caused by suffering. the treatment consisted of ingesting herbal concoctions and chanting mantras to the buddha of healing.

however, scientific analysis shows that some of those medications contain dangerously high levels of arsenic.

despite having entirely contradictory philosophical bases, practitioners of the two systems were able to reach a position of understanding and agreement. in many cases the medicines have been modified to reduce the levels of arsenic.

so you see, it's not a simple subject. sometimes two interpretations are mutually exclusive. sometimes the two are complementary.

i certainly do not have a conclusive interpretation.

and, for the record, between the engineer and the astrologer,..
i personally would not automatically judge that one or the other is always right. my personal decision would probably be based on who was most rigourous in the pursuit of their chosen field.

There is truth, the absolute truth, for many questions in our life. It is just not everyone accept it or able to see it.

oh lordy, here we go.

this'll have to wait. internet cafes are just too expensive for me to give you a worthy reply just now.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lebensraum

that's quite a lovely little museum of qoutes you've collected. it's a shame none of them serves to advance your argument. you have still failed to refute my assertion that;

historically, ...the ussr (had) ... a government which applie(d) policy with the purpose of influencing religious practices within society, or which applie(d) policy with the purpose of influencing an individual's professed beliefs

if not, please stop this brainless repetition. i assure you, practice will not make it perfect.

It isn't a museum of quotes. You seem to mistake insolence for sarcasm- let me assure you that it isn't as effective.

I do not have to refute your assertion, since you have not shown, either by a 'museum' of quotes or even a single attributed quote that a theocratic government can be defined by your statements.

You're talking about separate things: the government of Elizabeth I influenced the religious beliefs of individuals, but it was not a theocratic state. If you knew anything about say, recusancy laws, or her religious policy you'd know that.

Similarly, the government of Bismarck's Kingdom of Prussia 'influenced' the religious beliefs of individuals. Again Bismarck's policy towards Jews and Catholics seesm to have passed you by.

As did Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Spanish Empire, the first French Republic and so on.

A theocracy is not solely defined as 'a state which influences the religious beliefs of individuals' since the history of a great part of the world is of states that have 'influenced' the religious beliefs of people, and not all or even the majority of those states have been theocracies.

It seems that repetition is required, because there appears to be a cloud of unknowing enveloping you, about what a theocratic state is or was, and what the U.S.S.R. was.

Lenin's 'April Theses':

5) Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies would be a retrograde step—but a republic of Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom.

Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy.[1]

The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.

6) The weight of emphasis in the agrarian programme to be shifted to the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.

Confiscation of all landed estates.

Nationalisation of all lands in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. The organisation of separate Soviets of Deputies of Poor Peasants. The setting up of a model farm on each of the large estates (ranging in size from 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the local bodies) under the control of the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies and for the public account.

7) The immediate union of all banks in the country into a single national bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.


8) It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.

9) Party tasks:

(a) Immediate convocation of a Party congress;

(b) Alteration of the Party Programme, mainly:

(1) On the question of imperialism and the imperialist war,

(2) On our attitude towards the state and our demand for a “commune state”[2] ;

(3) Amendment of our out-of-date minimum programme;

(c) Change of the Party’s name.[3]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/04.htm

God and religious belief obviously so important to Lenin at this crucial time that they get star billing.... not.

You say:

i have absolutely no need of such facts to support my argument.

Actually, you do- you appear to be sorely lacking in the knowledge of what a theocracy is, having seemingly never heard of Calvin's Geneva, Scotland under the Covenanters, or Cromwell's Commonwealth/Republic- let alone modern day Iran.

Your ignorance of what theocracies were, and how they functioned historically, speaks volumes about your ability to present a coherent comparison between what the governmental structure of a theocracy is/was and the structure of government of the U.S.S.R. , given that you have already enlightened us with the (not entirely unsuspected) news that:

[QUOTE]..my argument is based on this and yes, please do correct me here if i am wrong!!!
- marx's communist manifesto states that "there is no god."

[QUOTE]

and:

i know only the vaguest generalisations about soviet history.

This being the case, can I suggest that you do actually read 'The Communist Manifesto' by Marx and Engels. It might be a start...

http://www.swan.ac.uk/poli/texts/marx/manib.htm

You might then usefully also read any of several good books on twentieth century history, Communism and the early days of the Soviet Union- also have a look at David Shub's 'Lenin', or Cathy Porter's biography of Alexandra Kollontai and John Reed's 'Ten Days That Shook The World'.

And while you're at it, read some history about theocratic governments- like the early Caliphate, Puritan England, Calvin's Geneva and Khomeini's Iran, not to mention the early Puritan settlements in North America.

It will, I hope, prevent you indulging your taste for verbiage, post modern philosophical whimsy and perhaps impress upon you the importance of knowing more than a tiny amount about the subject you are arguing about, because at the moment your 'argument' exhibits all the delusions of adequacy.

[TriMiro]

When people say Communism they think of the 'Communist Manifesto'. Actually the 'Communist Manifesto' deals mainly with economy. The philosophical teachings the communists had about the surrounding world were called Dialectic Materialism which I do not think came form Marx. The DM says that there are no supernatural powers only natural and that all of them could in time be discovered and undestood by mankind. Also there is no such thing as spirit or spirituality (only Vodka). DM is a form of Atheism.

USSR and other countries used oppression against the church (is Eastern Europe it was mainly the Christian Church). For example in my country it was illegal to go to church on Easter. Churches existed more as historical monuments than anything else, like the ancient Greek temples, they still exist however I do not think anyone goes there to pray to Zeus.

If implemented in Civ IV "Atheism" (name could be different) could be a form of modern religion that decreases the influence of all religions in your empire. You do not have any religious bonuses but also other empires could not influence you. From what I hear it may be very unfortunate for you if you do not have any Holy Cities in your empire, that will advantage your foes and "Atheism" could decrease that advantage.

There is already closed borders thing in the game, but "Atheism" could be different in the sense that it does not prevent trade.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by MxM
How about modeling USSR in CIV IV as secular dictatorship? After all secular is "Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body."

what is it exactly that you are hoping to model with the 'ideal' system?? how do you see the soviet vs. western ideological divide?

regardless of any party policy, the soviet empire had rich and diverse cultural and religious antecedents. so you might be aiming at modelling a situation where atheism is an option within your society but is not strictly enforced.

as far as i understand, secular governments allow missionaries to cross their borders and permit the co-existence of many religions within society. that does not reflect my understanding of the soviet empire, but it depends on what behaviours you are hoping to model.

i'm not sure what the options are for 'dictatorship' or what effects they have. my best guess is that as you increase the slider towards 'police state' the effects on corruption are altered. so that a 'police state' maybe has similar corruption mechanisms to civ3 "communism." which would explain things perfectly except that they are taking corruption out of the game.

maybe we'll just have to wait until someone older and wiser comes along to explain the intricacies of police states to we poor ignoramuses.

To say that USSR can be modeled as theocracy is way too confusing.

it's pretty simple really.

if you want to allow people to freely choose their own religion, you go for a secular state.
if you want to choose their religion for them, you change to theocracy.

but hey, if people don't like it that way, they can always mod it to use a different word when the game comes out.

Originally posted by TriMiro
If implemented in Civ IV "Atheism" (name could be different) could be a form of modern religion that decreases the influence of all religions in your empire. You do not have any religious bonuses but also other empires could not influence you. From what I hear it may be very unfortunate for you if you do not have any Holy Cities in your empire, that will advantage your foes and "Atheism" could decrease that advantage.

that's brilliant

from the interview quoted above...
It's not possible to spread no religion where there is already religion.
so you can't simply ignore religion without placing yourself at a disadvantage.

we could mod in a 'null' religion with no religious benefits (ie. no extra happiness or commerce). that way, you can still spread 'atheism.' you can build atheist 'missionairies' and defend yourself (and your treasury) against the spread of those evil theist secularisms - without having to substitute another 'religion' which is the same as the others in all but its name.

does that sound more like what you were aiming for??

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But this us an utterly preposterous and useless definition of a "theocracy," since it could apply to ANY society pre-enlightened democracy. After all, virtually all political states had a state-sanctioned religion and monitored/enforced at least some form of religious line-towing.

agreed.

hey, i never said my definition was perfect. i'm happy to admit it has holes in it you could drive a truck through. i simply disagree with the criticisms that have been proposed up until now. oh, and it can hardly be said to be entirely useless, given that it has already inspired some fairly detailed debate over a difficult and, to many people unfamiliar topic, which was my purpose anyhow.

The standard accepted definition of a theocracy is one in which there is a universally-accepted and enforced religion and wherein the leader(s) authority is said to be derived from a deity or deities.

however, the standard accepted definition of a theocracy has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

as molly rightly pointed out, usage and etymology are powerful tools. what he failed to mention is that they are useful tools within the scope of linguistics.

philosophy repudiates common usage for a very simple reason. most philosophical concepts are 'difficult' in that they require a form of abstraction which is not commonly used in other disciplines. the meaning of philosophical terms is quite strict. with 'common usage' however, meaning builds up around words. the same word can mean different things to different people.

philosophers commonly define their terms for the purposes of a given argument. that term is then employed strictly as defined and not in any way according to common usage. in fact, such 'everyday understandings' of words can be counterproductive. when a philosopher defines a term which has a similar meaning in everyday usage, it can confuse and mislead people into thinking they have understood a concept when in fact they have no idea what he is talking about.

this is why it is perfectly acceptable within the scope of philosophyto say, for eg.
blackness is the roughly equal distribution and amplitude of all frequencies within a given spectrum.
and
whiteness means having effectively zero values for amplitude for all frequencies within the visible electromagnetic spectrum.
(in other words, to say:
black (mine) = white(in common usage)
and white (mine) = black(in common usage))

the only requirement is that the definition be logically coherent, (and, to a lesser extent, useful - depends on what constitutes usefulness!)

so i'm simply not going to argue about which dictionary has the most authoritative defintion of "theocracy." it's irrelevant.
(and anybody who has ever played scrabble will know the sort of problems we are up against - if i insist on using the macquarie and you insist on the petit robert, we'll never get a game goin')

etymology is a valuable tool in philosophy. it is useful in that it can provide us a more detailed picture of the mind/world of ancient authors, not because it provides some sort of authority in the interpretation of terms. the only authoritative use of any given term is still the definition, as provided by the person attempting to explain a given concept.

consider this - two philosophers use the same term, but define it differently. philosopher 1 becomes more popular and his terms enter into common usage. does that mean that you can have a full understanding of the works of philosopher 2 by using the common definitions as 'everybody' understands them from philo.1??

now, i'm not claiming to be a philosopher or any sort of wise-man. what i am saying as that this model (for defining terms) is more suitable for discussing the topic on an internet forum. different peope will have different views. some of these different views may not be able to be reconciled into a single paradigm. rather than argue forever about what is the 'right' usage of a given term, i am much more interested in laying aside the insignificant details and trying to understand - what is the meaning of the term as the poster intended it.

The USSR meets neither criteria, as it did not have a state-enforced religion (atheism is NOT a religion)

are you saying that atheism was not enforced or are you saying that it was enforced but cannot be compared to a religion??

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by molly bloom
A theocracy is not solely defined as 'a state which influences the religious beliefs of individuals' since the history of a great part of the world is of states that have 'influenced' the religious beliefs of people, and not all or even the majority of those states have been theocracies.

woohoo!!!

i just knew we'd get there sooner or later. yes, that is a perfectly valid critisism. well done moll.

God and religious belief obviously so important to Lenin at this crucial time that they get star billing.... not.

and another!! you're really on a roll this time.

thank you. at last you are actually addressing the argument on it's own terms.

there appears to be a cloud of unknowing enveloping you, ...

it just get better and better.

nice one moll. you see, now you're using your imagination!! didn't hurt too much i hope.
and be honest, doesn't that just feel a whole lot better?

@aeonoftime

Errrm, this is probably a little offtopic here, but I've been dying to ask you what a theocratic police state is? I couldn't find any direct definition - what advantages would you get with such a state?

ask and ye shall receive,..
(although you have to be prepared to put in the work - three pages of studious flaming and button pushing )

you appear to be sorely lacking in the knowledge of what a theocracy is, having seemingly never heard of Calvin's Geneva, Scotland under the Covenanters, or Cromwell's Commonwealth/Republic- let alone modern day Iran.

And while you're at it, read some history about theocratic governments- like the early Caliphate, Puritan England, Calvin's Geneva and Khomeini's Iran, not to mention the early Puritan settlements in North America.

there you go mate - one of the best rough guides to theocracy you're likely to find anywhere on the internet.
isn't 'poly just amazing? (ps. don't try these research methods at home - but the english are always fair game )

can I suggest that you do actually read 'The Communist Manifesto' by Marx and Engels.

dull as dishwater. i'll stick to a nice cup of chamomile when i need it.

have a look at David Shub's 'Lenin', or Cathy Porter's biography of Alexandra Kollontai and John Reed's 'Ten Days That Shook The World'.

thanks for the suggestions

You seem to mistake insolence for sarcasm

of course!!!

you're a capricorn! hence the complete absence of a funny bone.
well, ok. i deliberately pushed some buttons and prodded some ribs. this was based on the assumption that you were big enough to defend yourself and mature enough to take a little ribbing in good humour. if i hurt your feelings at any stage, i apologise.

at the moment your 'argument' exhibits all the delusions of adequacy.

aww moll, that is just so sweet!!!

i was certainly trying to include as many delusions as possible. but i really don't feel i deserve the compliment. there are, sadly a few delusions i had to leave by the way-side.

and lastly, a little bed-time story for us all,..
at the very beginning of what may be one of his best works, g.k. chesterton tells of a romance he conceived of writing. the work he envisioned is, in a sense, the statement we wish to make in what follows. hence there is no better way for us to begin that by relating this story chesterton never wrote.

it concerned some boy whose farm or cottage stood on a slope, and who went on his travels to find something, such as the effigy and grave of some giant; and when he was far enough from home he looked back and saw that his own farm and kitchen garden, shining flat on the hillside like the colours and quarterings of a shield, were but parts of some gigantic figure, on which he had always lived, but which was too large and too close to be seen.

the condition of chesterton's young boy seems to us to be the present condition of western man, and of western philosophy in particular ...
a simplified introduction to the wisdom of st thomas

there is more than one way to stand on the shoulders of giants, my friend.

ok, i know. as an earth rooster you're happiest clucking about the farmyard. your keen eye for detail and exceptional memory serve you well in that context. you don't like wandering uncharted wilderness or sailing at the whim of the breeze.

you have a strong belief in solid, tangible, provable reality. what's more, the fates are more than likely to conspire in your life so as to re-inforce those beliefs. but those are your personal beliefs, not everyones'.

oops,..
astrology doesn't fit your paradigm, does it?
oh dear, that means everything i just said must be absolute madness!!!

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by MxM
There is truth, the absolute truth, for many questions in our life.

hmmm

when i first read this, i thought you were heading towards one of those "the way, the truth and the life" statements. "truth" is a definite buzz-word for christianity and i have tried hard to avoid it thus far.

then i realised, you probably haven't visited damascus since your original post, so i have to admit, i have no idea what you're on about here. could you explain this one in slightly more detail please?

[MxM]

Originally posted by lebensraum
if you want to allow people to freely choose their own religion, you go for a secular state.

I think I found the reason for disagreement. I believe the above statement is strictly speaking incorrect. Here is why (from dictionary.com, edited for relevance):

Secular:
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body

Democracy:
1. Majority rule
2. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

I think that being able to freely chose their own religion, is exactly what second definition of democracy is about. The word secular is used just to stress that the government and the laws are not based on the particular religion, and they do not carry functions of a church. From another side,

Dictatorship
Absolute or despotic control or power.

And it is in dictatorship power to allow and disallow religious practices. However the dictatorship itself can be secular or not.

I will take liberty and describe theocracy as non-secular (religious) dictatorship.

So, from this standpoint, USSR was secular dictatorship. Another secular dictatorship was Iraq under Husein rule (and he did not forbid the religion)