Hiya Dragan,

>>>First, I get suspicious when you write 'forced secularism'. It sounds asif you think secularism is an evil thing.
>>
>>Well, on a philosophical and spiritual level I actually do think it is evil.
>
>I assume you wrote this under following assumptions: 1) the definition of "spiritual" excludes non-religious spirituality, and 2) there's no philosophy without religion. Hence I take you adhere to the long list of things that Christianity defines and brands as evil, and to its own definition of both.

No, I would lump all kind sof 'spirituality' pretty much in the same group but I do think there is false spirituality and real spirituality. I think one must think these issue through carefully.

As far as there being 'no philosophy without religion' I would tend (at first blush) to agree with you. I suppose Dragan it sort of depends on one's definition of 'religion'. Mine falls outside of the traditionally held opinions I suppose. For example, I see secular humanism and/or athiesim as much 'religious' as Roman Catholocism or Islam. At some point there are 'notions' that would fall into a concept I'd lable 'Articles of Faith'. Look, athiests must, at some point, take their position on faith - if they're 100% honest. There are things athiests simply do not 'knopw' or can prove in the same scientific sense they'd like to use to disprove god's existence. That's not a put down in my mind but a simple truth. Everyone velieve - just in what?

>
>Within that set of assumptions, you have no other choice.

Oh sure.. <g> Rig the game. lol..

>
>So, where was the secularism forced in the States? We can omit the communist states where it was forced to some extent for some time (i.e. a lot and long in some countries, a lot and briefly in some others, mildly but long in yet others); let's stay here, for the sake of argument.

Hmm.. "Under God" (Psst - look at the thread header <g>) Prayer in school. Look hard at what the ACLU does all over. Agree with them or not, they do have an agenda and, broadly defined, it's the secularization of America.

>
>>From what I have seen in cultures that embrace this thinking I see an emptiness unlike I have seen elsewhere. That however does not give me the right to mistreat anyone though.
>
>Could this be like what I feel when I see a kitchen window without curtains? I've grown seeing them everywhere, and lacking curtains was the ultimate sign of poverty. Even nowadays you can show me a room with whatever riches in it, it looks barren to me without curtains.

Hmm.. Well, dunno. If you could say something like, "The preponderance of kitches that don't have curtains have burned down" I think you'd be a lot closer. Everywhere I've seen athiestically-drive cultures I have seen wholesale slaughter of people at worst and great misery at best.


>
>>>Second, some atheists spend so much effort over something they don't believe in, because they have this view of (fundamental) religion as dangerous and harmful to the world. They are worried!
>>
>>What in the world are they afraid of and what are they worried about? Anyone who would want to force someone to believe as they do (and as has been done in the name of Christ - sadly) is NOT representing Christianity faithfully. Not at all.
>
>Doesn't matter. The guy may represent the hand of the society - and wield some force in it. And the guy need not try to force a belief, it's enough to treat his customers (in all senses of the word - when you deal with the administration, you're their customer) differently, based on his views. That's what I don't want to see, and that's what worries me.

Well, this is common behavior among all governmental systems I'd think. You've no doubt heard the axiom, "Poer corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts". It's a human nature thing, not a political thing I'd think.

>
>>Well, I would beg to differ.. China, USSR, Cuba, France to a lessor degree and elsewhere around this globe HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people were slaughtered because they would not give up their faith in God.
>
>...likewise, pretty much the same order of magnitude died because they didn't want to convert into any of the monotheistic religions, or from one brand into another, or didn't want to give up their old religion.

Well, it's certainly true enough that organized religious systems have been the source of much pain. That is simple fact and historical truth. I mentioned the other day that the 'church' is responsible for something like 85% of all the persecution that the Jews have gone through and people wonder why they're suspiscious?

That doesn't diminish what I have seid. I don't know the numerical specifics but I do know that athiesm (my point originally) is NOT the path to nirvana. <g>

Also, as I mentined before as well, in the 20th century more christians have been martyred than in all the prior centuries starting 1round AD 60 or so.

>
>>No offense but the facts are that in th elast 100 years more Christians have been martyred for their faith than all other centuries combined.
>
>True, often by other Christians. Or by communists. Happened to Moslems, and Hindus, and others as well, also often by hand of another faith.

Yes, this is true.

>
>>Look at the title of this thread. <g> When we were going to high school it wa sok to have a Bible club or Bible studies on the lawn at lunch. Now, no way.
>
>You know, I think there should be no religion for those below 18 (or any other suitable limit). Parents should set example and explain the world, but not automatically assume their kids belong to the same religion. Then, when they reach the age of consent, they would become eligible to freely choose their spiritual standing inside a church of their choice (null also valid).

Well, I suppose we'd differ here. If you think that will remove pain or change human nature it won't work as I can show you folks from all backgrounds who treat their fellow man well and those who do not.

>
>Having religious clubs inside a public school... doesn't sound right to me. These kids are in an age when they are unsure of themselves, and if you've allowed one church, you've allowed them all. Welcome Jim Jones, too. Besides, nowadays churches have their own buses, so they can get their members to whichever courses they want, without parading in front of others.

Well, at that age there is a tremendous disposition in kids to peer pressure. I'd rahter have them influenced by godly kids than not, given the choice. The Jim Jones types aren't that prevelant. There are some kooks out there but I think you're exaggerating a little. <s>

>
>We used to have Party branches in each enterprise, including schools. Guys over 18 were eligible - that's high school seniors. And they always had their meetings during the last lesson, and would stay after school - but the point was in the demonstration: they would leave the class with the teacher just nodding, no questions asked. You can imagine how this aroused curiosity. Guess a few wished they were members, just for the sake of those small privileges.

What kind of intimidation would people have to endure?

Best,

DD