Piety as a Pretense...

polifrog




Where are all the benevolent tyrants? There are none. There are only those who use piety as a pretense for non pious rule.

That piety may come in different forms, such as religious piety (theocracy) or duty bound piety (atheocracy). Whereas the former’s power is circumscribed by the religion that empowers those who rule via a religious citizenry, the latter enjoys no such restraint, as duty bound piety is piety toward self.

The truer danger, then, is the atheocratic regime which is bounded by no wrong. History points to this. Pick your theocracy then pick your athocracy and compare the suffering under each. Based on sheer number of dead no theocracy can match the accomplishments of the atheocratic regimes of China, Russia, Nazi Germany, or N. Korea.

Does that make a theocracy desirable? No. But it is preferable to the atheocratic rejection of all religion.
 
There is a third way.

It is one that requires no false piety, as it is a choice that does not  adopt a single religion for empowerment and it is a choice that does not reject all religion leaving  only self in the form of duty from which rule is empowered.

That third way is the inclusion of all the various religions or the lack thereof as legitimate voices informing a representative democracy.

Our nation originally chose option three, but unfortunately that third way requires a degree of tolerance the intolerant atheists among us find intolerable and it is they who are slowly forcing us toward the greatest threat to liberty, an atheocracy.




 out

Is this Really the Meaning of Secular?

polifrog



Just as it easier for politicians to rely on debt to fund all manner of wants and needs to avoid the difficult messiness of weighing those needs against available funds, it is easier for governance to increasingly push religion to the periphery of society rather than do the difficult task of managing the disparate demands of various religions, to exclude religion rather than to include religion in our ideal of a democracy.

Neither our politician's lazy dependence on debt nor our politician's exclusion of religion result in positive outcomes for our nation.

The Telegraph:

Praying in the streets of Paris is against the law starting Friday, after the interior minister warned that police will use force if Muslims, and those of any other faith, disobey the new rule to keep the French capital's public spaces secular.

Is this really the proper use of the term "secular"?The above use of "secular" is based on deliberate exclusion and is therefore more akin to atheism. It would be more correct to say "...to keep the French capital's public spaces atheistic."

We in America are guilty of this use of "secular" as well.

If there are theocratic governments in which a single religion holds sway over governance and there are atheocratic governments in which religion is persecuted and deliberately erased from the population, then what falls between? What is a government that adopts no particular religion yet includes all religious opinion in the governance of the citizenry? Historically this is the form of government American governance has taken and historically this was called secularism.

However, America has followed France in drifting from this melting pot approach toward religion and governance toward something less democratic. Each nation has shifted away from the democratic notion of the electorate fully informing governance and embraced the undemocratic notion of selectively choosing those groups that are no longer allowed to inform governance and each have done so via an evolving definition of "secularism".

It is not secularist to actively eschew all religion; that is the realm of atheism. And that is where we find ourselves today; with atheists in control of our public spaces and with atheism at levers of governance the religious will one day find themselves in an America much like the France of today, unable to pray on public street corners and increasingly forced from public view, eventually themselves isolated in their homes like the Soviets of thirty years ago or the Koreans today. Persecution is the way of atheocratic states.

It is sad that we do not deny atheists their bastardization of the the term "secular".



out