Could Communism in Russia have been successful with Christianity instead of Atheism?

[Miss Anthrope]

Doc, I find it interesting that you have failed to follow through the discussion began in your OP. You know, communism?

 

[Mark]

I agree with the OP. If Christianity had been the prevalent religion in Russia, they would never had let the Communists become the best at taking advantage of the poor.

The US is currently "enjoying" one of the most corrupt administrations in modern history...and they are all Christians.

Next question.

 

[joobz]

Doc, I find it interesting that you have failed to follow through the discussion began in your OP. You know, communism?

This is DOCs MO. In his Jefferson and "Peter in Rome" thread, he posted a point that was minor and, even if true, didn't mean anything. All direct questions asking him what his point was for raising these issues were usually ignored or simply would accuse the questioner of personal attacks.

I am left to assume(since he refuses to say it) his point is to "prove" that christianity is great and wonderful and is the only thing that is worthwhile because
1.) Peter was in Rome
2.) Jefferson was devoutly religious
3.) Communism would have succeeded if it was christian
4.) only christianity can rescue someone from drugs
5.) Secular humanism is a religion
6.) ACLU hates christianity

Unfortunately, all of these claims are "not even wrong". However, this fact doesn't seem to matter to him. It is the quantity of arguments rather than the quality of the arguments that he is going for. Eventually, I expect him to post something along the lines of, "How can you continue to deny? Look at all of these points, christianity must be valid..." It is with the hope that at this point that all contrary arguments will sound like the ones coming from a petulant child.

I could be wrong, but we'll see. In any case, such strategy is only effective in debate theater. On this thread which can be read at leisure, truth wins out.

 

[skeptifem]

Oh, hey DOC?

In case you're still harboring any delusions about Hugo Black's footnote, I suggest you take a look at the case Peloza v. Capistrano School District. You see, some yokel tried to make a legal claim out of the felgercarb you're pushing.

He sued the school district he worked for, claiming that by being forced to teach evolution, he was in fact being forced to teach the "religion" of secular humanism, thus violating the First Amendment. As evidence, he produced Black's footnote. This was how the Federal Court responded:

"We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes."

That pretty flatly lays the claim to rest, don't you think? (Oh, yeah--he appealed to the Supreme Court, who wouldn't even dignify the claim by considering it.)

Somebody else tried it in Kalka v. Hawk. Again, the court was pretty firm in its response:

"The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a "religion" under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious organization under California law."


So DOC...do you still think that "secular humanism" was ever ruled to be a religion by a US court?

wow massive ownage

i approve

 

[DOC]

The US is currently "enjoying" one of the most corrupt administrations in modern history...and they are all Christians.

Well Bush was reelected, so the American people didn't feel it was all that corrupt 2 1/2 years ago. Maybe that's why Hilliary is talking more about God these days.

 

[cyborg]

Yeah... and Saddam Hussain had a 99% approval rating so his regime couldn't have been corrupt.

 

[Solus]

Again, just go and read a history book and will find the answer to this easy question. The religion of the author is usually not of great concern just stay away from anything written by those without PhDs who hold a fundamental philosophy on religion.

 

[DOC]

So DOC...do you still think that "secular humanism" was ever ruled to be a religion by a US court?

Yes, the very secular and very humanistic organization "The Washington Ethical Society" was ruled a religious society and thus exempt from taxes by a U.S. Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Ethical_Society_v._District_of_Columbia

 

[skeptifem]

Yes, the very secular and very humanistic organization "The Washington Ethical Society" was ruled a religious society and thus exempt from taxes by a U.S. Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Ethical_Society_v._District_of_Columbia

i have no idea how you make the connection between this and your original assertion being correct. you were proven wrong by cleon. heres the post again since i guess you didnt read it:

Oh, hey DOC?

In case you're still harboring any delusions about Hugo Black's footnote, I suggest you take a look at the case Peloza v. Capistrano School District. You see, some yokel tried to make a legal claim out of the felgercarb you're pushing.

He sued the school district he worked for, claiming that by being forced to teach evolution, he was in fact being forced to teach the "religion" of secular humanism, thus violating the First Amendment. As evidence, he produced Black's footnote. This was how the Federal Court responded:

"We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes."

That pretty flatly lays the claim to rest, don't you think? (Oh, yeah--he appealed to the Supreme Court, who wouldn't even dignify the claim by considering it.)

Somebody else tried it in Kalka v. Hawk. Again, the court was pretty firm in its response:

"The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a "religion" under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious organization under California law."


So DOC...do you still think that "secular humanism" was ever ruled to be a religion by a US court?

 

[DOC]

Yeah... and Saddam Hussain had a 99% approval rating so his regime couldn't have been corrupt.

Do you have a source for that approval rating of 99%.

 

[Mark]

Well Bush was reelected, so the American people didn't feel it was all that corrupt 2 1/2 years ago. Maybe that's why Hilliary is talking more about God these days.

Probably.

But I don't think it's that they (his---still---supporters) don't (or even didn't) realize they are corrupt; I think they just consider it more important that they are Christian.

That makes no sense, of course...but, then, what does about this topic?

 

[Solus]

I wanted to this be about communism dammit! There are enough threads that cover the same old basic religion topic. This had a vague potential to be different.

To add: I think I might start my own thread which WILL NOT be derailed...

 

[DOC]

i have no idea how you make the connection between this and your original assertion being correct. you were proven wrong by cleon. heres the post again since i guess you didnt read it:

I did read it and I stand by my answer. The secular humanist organization "The Washington Ethical Society" was ruled a religious organization by a US Court and thus exempt from taxes. If you don't think they were a secular humanist organization please tell me why.

 

[cyborg]

Do you have a source for that approval rating of 99%.

Oops - appears it was in fact 100%

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200210/s702389.htm

So now we can be certain his regime was the best one ever.

 

[DOC]

I wanted to this be about communism dammit! There are enough threads that cover the same old basic religion topic. This had a vague potential to be different.

To add: I think I might start my own thread which WILL NOT be derailed...

I didn't want it derailed either, but Cleon is attacking the messenger again with derogatory terms and insinuations so I have to respond.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, the very secular and very humanistic organization "The Washington Ethical Society" was ruled a religious society and thus exempt from taxes by a U.S. Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Ethical_Society_v._District_of_Columbia

How odd. From the wikipedia entry linked to the one you provided comes this statement.

Ethical Culture can be described as a form of religious humanism, rather than secular humanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Ethical_Society

So no, secular humanism is not a religion. Thanks for proving this.

 

[slingblade]

I didn't want it derailed either, but Cleon is attacking the messenger again with derogatory terms and insinuations so I have to respond.

Actually, you don't. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do.

And again, DOC, I want to tell you that nothing you've said has done anything to change my mind. You are simply providing unneeded confirmation, over and over again, that I made the correct decision.

 

[skeptifem]

I did read it and I stand by my answer. The secular humanist organization " The Washington Ethical Society" was ruled a religious organization by a US Court and thus exempt from taxes. If you don't think they were a secular humanist organization please tell me why.

cleon linked to evidence that the courts RULED that its not a religion, and you linked to a ruling about a specific group instead of about secular humanism and as someone pointed out your own link says that the group isnt a clear cut secular humanist group. how much simpler could it be? then you go on to say hes attacking you when he posted evidence. deal with it. youre wrong.

ive never understood people who get all angry when they are wrong. when i have obviously made a mistake its a lot easier to say 'oops, guess i was wrong!" and move on with my life than clinging to erroneous ideas, clinging to ideas like that and grasping at straws is a whole lot of work for nothing.

 

[joobz]

Yes, we are arguing if secular humanism is a religion in a thread about if communism would have worked if it was "christian".

It's quanity of inanity over quality of arguments that is being tried for here

 

[DOC]

So no, secular humanism is not a religion.

Well if that is true than Justice Hugo Black, the man who was so important in giving us the legal term "Separation of Church and State" was wrong to believe it.