Redstate

The idea has been stewing for a while.

I have long thought secularism should be treated as a religion as much as Christianity and Islam are.  It takes certain things virtually on faith and its a priori assumptions are just as unprovable as those of the world's religions.  Let's expose it for what it is and move on to an honest debate.

You have written a great article.

Romans 2:22-32

have to strongly protest to the premise of your argument.  You suggest that liberals are pro-hedonism, but I don't think this is the rationale of the position at all.  Here I think the "liberal" position is far closer to classical conservativism.  The argument is that government should intervene as little as possible in our private lives.  It's not that advocates of non-governmental intervention are supporting licentious lifestyles, but rather that these positions are acknowledging 1) the inability of the government to legislate or enforce such issues, 2) the undesirability of the government doing so (think Stalinist Russia where all your neighbors are perpetually watching you), and 3) the fact that peace and a harmonious social sphere is produced when government keeps its nose out of private moral affairs and that the function of government should be protection and insuring those issues of social harmony such as preventing murder or infringement on the rights of others.  I certainly agree that it is admirable to raise your children with high moral standards, but as a Catholic, I don't want a Baptist, Penticostal, Presbyterian, etc., making these decisions for MY family.  Moreover, I definitely don't want the government intervening with what my wife and I choose to do behind closed doors, or what my daughter might choose to do as she matures and grows up.  It seems to me that this is precisely what the liberal is talking about (personal choice and the right to raise one's family as one sees fit) and that there is something very dishonest in suggesting that what's at issue is living the life of Marquis de Sade or Sacher Masoch.

Did I accuse liberals of being pro-hedonism?  No, I carefully gave a escape route for all classic liberals.  And I did mention that the modern religious institutions, such as your own, do not promote legislating their views.  The WHOLE point of my argument is that there is a philosophy out there that DOES want to legislate its views upon the population.  And that philosophy in characteristic, has the attributes of universal hedonism.  Notice I did not include the egoist?

As you say, its personal choice to live by these morals.  And you should be able to raise your family as you see fit, but apparently some other group wants to influence the raising of your children according to what they see as correct behavior.  And the bench is in support of those decisions.  

I don't care how they want to live their lives.  But you should care that they want the general public to believe as they do.

detect this anywhere.  Perhaps there are some who feel the way you're describing, but I think they're an insignificant minority.  As such, there's something Quixotic in making them your target.

to pay for the products of bedroom activity of the "maturing" (ie supporting licentious lifestyles) maybe we can talk about other interventions.

but maybe taxes  is what you mean, too

I can't think of any law that invades the bedroom to stop the hedonism the left embraces given the oligarchy, I mean sup ct's dictates on sodomy

what other than the texas sodomy law do you refer to as bedroom or maturing activity that baptists, et al VOTERS have no business opining on but that only 5 judges can consider

bedroom abortions?

is ANYTHING OK SO LONG AS ITS IN A BEDROOM

LAW NEEDS TO BE CLEAR unless one is happy to have 5 judges make law each day and say "surprise" go to jail  -   that manger scene doesn't have urine or excrement on it

does the left favor laws by the consent of the governed or what 5 kings decide today

the easiest of the theisms. One has only to declare there is none, and ignore any pesky questions to the contrary.

There is no divine judgement, no redemption, no eternity. Just a life and then nothing.

It seems quite shapplow and hollow, but that is true of most easy things.

I give you some slack since TX is probably not seeing this, but you will.

9th Circus ruling

That is just the best most recent example, not the only one.  What do you think Sancho?

True atheism burns hotter than the passion of most true believers.  I'm a practicing Jew which is what I was raised which made my choice a simple one.  I love my culture, my belief system, and the moral structure it afford providess me...the pigs and lobsters appreciate it too I suppose.

  Remember that God is a comfort for most people...a true atheist lives in a world without that psychological safety net.  There is no reason...everything is entropy...and because of that they have to develop an ethical system based souly (and ironically) on one of the fundemental belief of most religions...do unto to others as you would have them do unto you.  The few hardcore atheists I know also happen to be extremely ethical people, and they maintain this morality not out of fear of God, but out of love for humanity.  

You seem to be refering more to those people who sorta kinda believe in something somewhere.  The religiously confused and spiritually bereft.  To completely deny the existance of God is an act of hubris...but not an easy one.  I'd say it's a whole lot more difficult than just believing in the God you were raised with.

And in recent history, atheists have certainly been enthusiastic in their promotion of their belief. While Christians have certainlydestroyed cultures in their zeal to transform pagan societies into Christian, they have not generally done so by setting up state machinery to kill every member of that society available to kill. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. never seemed to be so constrained.

Locally of course we have the ever energetic Needow, fervently making sure that America is a God-free zone down to every jot and tittle.....in what he claims with a straight face is a desire to keep America free.

Your insights are very valid and I would agree. Without a psychological or spiritual safety net, life can become very extreme.

But I was referring to the idea that atheism is simple because as an atheist, one does not have to think about hard questions, history, morals, compasion, fairness, right or wrong or respect for the beliefs of others. One only has to promote one's own agenda, and then only if one feel's like it. That can be very comforting to someone who does not want to deal with their conscience or their future.

certainly would not want my young children questioned in this way.  However, I don't see how it is promoting hedonism in the way your diary suggests.  The mental health worker was seeking data on instances of trauma and violence, not promoting sex in young children.

The mental health worker was seeking data on instances of trauma and violence

But has the real world not demonstrated that this particular cure is worse than the disease? There really is a subset of psychologists out there who take it as an article of faith that there exist cults of parents who engage in ritual child sexual abuse. Such psychologists are drawn to exactly this sort of work. And we have seen them spark numerous huge crackpot 'trials' in which ridiculous and fanciful claims are brought against multiple people, ruining lives right and left until the claims finally get so preposterous that the trial becomes a circus and the prosecutor becomes a laughingstock.

There have been many of these trials. We all know about them. They are extremely destructive. Even when everyone agrees that the claims were nothing but the fantasies of 5-year-olds, drawn out of them by overzealous "child psychologists," a cloud remains over those charged. Why would we want more of this?

that there is a species of Leftist ideology that wants to run people's private lives, but it isn't particularly hedonistic or libertine. The "values" Left is in many ways as puritanical as the "values" Right. Examples are the classic"femi-Nazis" like McKinnon and Dworkin who see all heterosexual sex as rape and have made common cause with the Religious Right in various moralistic crusades.

distinct from the original issue the diarist was discussing.

first post... although I've been reading for a while.

I found this entry full of problems. From the first paragraph alone:

"What is one of the main tenants of the Church of Social Humanists"

1. There is no such church. I understand that you are taking liberties with language, but you imply an organization and overarching goals without any evidence.

" In general it is the pursuit of the universal pleasure. "

2. In general??? You make an assertion about an organization that does not actually exist, and then generalize it? As an assertionabout secular humanism, it seems patently false. In fact, I did a web search and found a "Humanist Manifest" which contained no references to "pleasure" or "hedonism", although "happiness" as  a creative force was listed. And the last time I checked, the pursuit of happiness was one of the founding principles of this country.

"In fact it would be safe to say that it is the promotion of the pleasure state. "

3. Safe to say? Another generalization, now with nefarious allusions, about a mythical organization. I would suggest that it is safe to say that this diabolical organization exists only in your imagination.

"Allowing (forcing) each individually the equal opportunity to experience that which is pleasing."

4. What is the purpose of conflating two entirely different words, 'allowing' and 'forcing'? It sounds like you are making another leap... And how do you force an opportunity on someone? That makes no sense.

Let's recap... You postulate the existence of a mythical religious organization that is not religious. Then you generalize one of its non-existent tenents. Then you shift into some Illuminati-esque theory about controlling governments where people are FORCED to have the OPPORTUNITY to experience that which is pleasing (oh, the humanity!). Then you summarize by suggesting that our judiciary is part of this cabal.

I'm not buying it.

I've often found it useful to read entire diaries and before pseudo-fisking their contents. It is even more important to have actually read the diary before making a first post like this. This does not bode well for your future here.

I read the entire diary, but most of it follows from the logical errors in the opening premise.

For example, the author concludes with:

"Clearly the actions of this religious group are in violation of the Constitution.  A clear violation of the Separation of Sex and State. "

what hogwash! It is not clear. Humanists are not a religious group. The Constitution makes no mention of "Sex and State", therefore there is no violation.

As a card-carrying Republican, I prefer to deal with actual enemies of the state, not imaginary ones. I also do not appreciate the United States Constitution being twisted to turn this country into a Mommy State. Our government has no compelling interest in the consensual and private acts of its citizens. It exists to protect our constitutional rights, our borders, and our free markets.

just keep in mind the reputation you are establishing is going to follow you for a long time.

If you can read what you've written and think it is 1)cogent, 2) coherent, or 3) persuasive you need to really reconsider whether or not this is the forum for you and whether you might be better served pursuing enemies of the state elsewhere.

that you are buying into the author's conspiracy theories?

Was there a factual error in my post? If so, point it out and I will correct it. Thanks

my intent to point out errors, etc. If you think he's purveying a conspiracy theory it is clear that you're just not reading.

Which article of the constitution is that in?

I'm not a republican or a conservative, but I like coming here to read your diaries and comments on the events of the day.  I usually find most diaries to be well reasoned and informative, but this one sounds like complete claptrap to me as well.  The author wants to create some fictious "church of hedonism" in order to stop it from being state sponsored religion, and then "act soon" in regards to copulation?  Huh?

I would be curious as to how the author proposes to identify members of this "church", and what actions he proposes to take in regards to copulation.

"America's State Church," a book by Jay Liechty.  He lays out the goals of secular humanists as well as their belief that they should qualify for the same tax benefits and protections as legitimate churches (but none of the encumbrances).

We've got to put these people in check.

to wit:

Not so for the Church of Social Humanism.  This religious institution has infiltrated the legal system and forced the promotion of its beliefs on the general population.

This kind of babble is beneath Ross Perot

I can appreciate that you're concerned about what you perceive to be declining moral standards, but this diary is mostly rubbish as far as that's concerned.

Now as a very accepting and universally open minded religion, so long as you agree with them,

You have to agree with nothing except that everyone should be free to make their own decisions about sex.

You DON'T have to agree that their choice is right, but you DO have to agree that they have the right to make that choice.  

That's really at the core of what you call the "social humanist" agenda. And, to be perfectly honest, it's also at the core of the conservative agenda.

It sounds to me like you're upset because you don't like the choices that are being made. And that's a fair position to take, to be sure. But to claim that you're being forced to agree with those choices when, in reality, you're only being forced to allow people the freedom to make them for themselves, is simply dishonest.

Allowing (forcing) each individually the equal opportunity to experience that which is pleasing.

Allowing and forcing are two entirely different things - but in either case, I have to ask what's so wrong about this? Do we not live in a free country? Is the opportunity to experience what is pleasing not the very essence of freedom?

Everyone should have the freedom to experience what's pleasing if they choose to. Even in a strict constructionist (for whatever that term is still worth after being bandied about by too many self-serving politicians) sense, one of government's few purposes is to ensure that everyone has this opportunity - and if there's a political group out there who wants to prevent people from having the opportunity to make their own choices about what's pleasing, then quite frankly the government SHOULD force said group to grant that opportunity.

Like I said above, you seem to have a severe distaste for the results of what's happening in America. The problem is that you're trying to mask it behind a critique of the process.  

If you don't like the choices that liberal people are making, then that's fine. Say it. Be proud of it. Work to change those choices by changing their minds. But don't try to set up a version of reality where you're somehow forced by the courts to make those same choices for yourself.

The ONLY thing you're forced to do is let other people make their own decisions - and if you can't handle that, then maybe America isn't the right place for you.

in fact exist (I've never seen any compelling evidence that it does), and supposing that it has the aims outlined by the diarist (again I'm skeptical), don't we have a thing called religious freedom in the United States?  As conservatives, don't we support people's rights to pursue their freedom and happiness as they see fit?  Wouldn't this be exactly the opposite of conservative principles of smaller government and non-governmental intervention in the private lives of citizens?

Stalin was probably an atheist, and I don't know about Pol Pot, but Hitler was anything but.  He blended his own warped version of Christianity with ancient Germanic paganism.  He was obsessed with the supernatural...maybe a little too much of the wrong kind of religion in that case.

In my opinion you're confusing atheism with American agnostics.  True atheists (secular humanists and whatnot) spend a whole lot of time thinking about ethics and morality...they simply leave God out of it.  American agnostics are those people who sorta believe in God, but can't be bothered to think further than their own self-indulgance.  

Hitler was very anti-Christian.

Atheists can spend all the time they want thinking about those issues, but as avery wise man once said, when he saw this tombsotone, 'Here lies an atheist, all dressed and no place to go':

...."I imagine he wishes it were so."

as to whether Hitler identified himself as a Christian, but there is a good amount of evidence from his speeches and writings that he did, in fact, think of himself as Christian.  You might look here to see some quotations where he defends the Nazi agenda by appealing to Christianity:

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/hitlrxt.htm

Clearly the question here will be that of what constitutes a Christian.  For instance, I could never identify Hitler as Christian given what he did.  His version of Christianity is a perversion in my mind.  However, there are many who call themselves Christians who I would say this of as well.

I think the issue of atheism and horror are distinct and should be treated as such.  Just as there have been many atrocities commited by atheists, there have also been many atrocities commited by Christians and other religious believers.  As far as I can tell, religion doesn't make people any more moral, such that a person can be moral and not believe in any higher power and a person can be tremendously immoral and believe in a higher power.  One might point to the sheer numbers of murdered under Stalin and Mao as a defense of something intrinsically wrong with atheism.  However, I think these murders were driven by totalitarian political ideologies, not atheism in and of itself.  Moreover, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and the Crusades, immediately come to my mind as examples of religious violence every bit as despicable as the violence perpetrated by totalitarians.  Yes, you can say that numerically there wasn't as much death in these instances, but isn't this simply a difference in degree not in kind, and isn't this difference partially due to technological development?  Wouldn't the Spanish, for instance, been much more extensive in their Inquisition had they had the technology and organization that Stalin or Mao had?  I think the idea that religion protects us from these sorts of atrocities is simply mistaken.

as an atheist, one does not have to think about hard questions, history, morals, compasion, fairness, right or wrong or respect for the beliefs of others. One only has to promote one's own agenda, and then only if one feel's like it

I don't think this is necessarily true.  Members of religion have a guide of sorts to help them answer the questions, history, morals, compasion, fairness, right or wrong or respect for the beliefs of others.  And with all of the different religions in this country, the answers aren't always the same.  

Athiests, however, have no one to tell them about the hard questions, history, morals, compasion, fairness, right or wrong or respect for the beliefs of others. It is something they must discern on their own, which lends me to generalize that they must think harder about these isses than those of us who can simply turn to our religious leaders and get the answer, with the understanding that the answer right and be comforted in that.

As for the comment that "one only has to promote one's own agenda, and then only if one feel's like it", I think that happens a lot among the theists as well.  We have a high respect for people who say "God told me to do it", "I was inspired by God", etc.  But how often do when know when it is truely the Lord's inspiration and when that person is just promoting his own agenda?  

I am quite comfortable in my religion and my beliefs, and I find ethical issues to be easy for me because I have a source upon which I can rely to claim that my behavior is ethical and have a faith in the afterlife.  The athiests with whom I am acquainted I have great respect for, and they for me.  They often remark about how lucky I am to beleive in a greater being, it makes life less scary (I imagine it is easier to think that a loved one who has passed away is in heaven with God, rather than is out of existence forever).  These atheists are very ethical as well, because their calculations of right and wrong are based in facts and consequences, whereas I admit that many of my ethics are based on faith and hope.  

I glean from the statement that opened my post that there is an assumption that atheists lack morals, compassion, fairness, or respect for the beliefs of others.  I would argue that this is far from the truth.  While I believe that religion provides a guiding light to that which is good, I do not believe it is the only source for morals, compassion, fairness, or respect for the beliefs of others.  And considering 1 in 10 people don't believe in God and many of them are among our most ethical and compassionate while there are many people who do believe in God but who have no morality, compassion, fairnerss or repsect for the beliefs of others, I'm hardpressed to assert superiority on this issue.

And yes, there are atheists like Newdow who think that the constitution prohibits references to god in out government, but there are also people who think prayer belongs in school.  Both are pushing their agenda, as long as both keep pushing, we will always have the open discourse that I think makes this country great.

What do you think my point was is crafting the term "separation of sex and state"?  Was it perhaps that it is NOT in the constitution?  Just as the term "separation of church and state" is NOT in the Constitution?

I like the fact that now I am the creator of the new Church of Hedonism!  Yes, that was the intention of the whole piece.  

As to the identification of the members, those technical details I will leave to my vast array of hedonistic underlings.  Hmmm, my personal standards have been breached by your final question......

Cheers!

of a little pedantry, it's important to make a distinction when discussing Hitler's relationship to Christianity. As early as 1924, in the pamphlet Table Talk, a posthumous publication of Dietrich Eckart, Hitler comes very near to equating Christianity with Bolshevism, his principal ideological enemy. To the extent that he had any coherent philosophy, Hitler's chief objection to Christianity was that the Pauline version was simply the extension of Moses' Judaism; he refers to Moses as the 'first Bolshevik'. To Hitler, Christ was simply in another place; he detested Christianity because of its revolutionary nature: "He (Paul) goes to the Greeks, to the Romans. And he takes them his Christianity'. Something which can unhinge the Roman Empire. All men are equal! Fraternity! Pacifism! No more dignity! And the Jew triumphed". Again, to the extent that National Socialism could be considered an organic philosophy, anything revolutionary, other than itself of course, would have be discredited. At the even greater risk of being polemical, the diatribes hurled at Jewish neo-cons are remarkably similar to the dialogue between Hitler and his 'spiritual' mentor Eckart.

 Few could argue your concluding points. However, any religion based on individual salvation exerts its positive effects on those who accept that notion. The only way to determine the relative differences between atheism and religion will have to wait a few generations, until the final triumph of secularism. It will then be possible to determine what hedonism unchecked by any religious scruples will result in: a condition unknown in the western world for the past 2,000 years.

I'll give you the benefit of missing the point.  But lets 'objectively' refute your statements, as opposed to the provocation I use in the piece, which relies on some literary license.

"You have to agree with nothing except that everyone should be free to make their own decisions about sex."

Now that is absolutely ridiculous.  The end result of your statement is what?  Free to practice polygamy?  Free in the NAMBLA sense?  This type of thinking is the opiate of secular humanists.  How do you decide what is moral and immoral in your free world?  You wan to talk about bunkum...

"You DON'T have to agree that their choice is right, but you DO have to agree that they have the right to make that choice."

More garbage of the mind.  Again what is the end result of this logic?  I do have to agree that they can choose to do whatever they want?  What establishes your limit of choices they have the right to make?  And the major point of my exposition is that the acceptable behavior of one group is now being promoted through state means among the general population.  And simply based upon what one group believes is right.  As it is a system of beliefs, it constitutes a religion.  Then I (maybe to deftly) insinuate a relationship between this system of beliefs and the state, a clear violation of the separation of church and state.  But we both know that term is not in the Constitution is it?  So its supreme irony.  Of course I work to change this reality by changing minds.  I'll start with yours.  Where you end, for the third time:

"The ONLY thing you're forced to do is let other people make their own decisions"

Is this your belief?  Do you somehow feel I intend to take away the God given free will of the individual?  Or are you promoting a society where everyone gets to form their own personal moral code and live by that?  What is the end result of that philosophy?  In your own statement I am forced to abide by your belief system, as implicated.

One reason the state exists is to protect its citizens.  Sometimes protecting them from societal self destruction.  For instance one of the most pleasurable things physically is heroin.  Do you promote free heroin for everyone?  If you did would society adjust to this new acceptable behavior?  

If I don't want my child over exposed to overt sexuality and the philosophy of 'free love', I do things as a parent to build strength of character and discernment, as well as insulating the child until they can make adult choices.  Am I now forced to place my child in private school to avoid the indoctrination of a different philosophy?  And forced to pay for the indoctrination of other children, as well as pay for my own?

Just for edification purposes, it is impossible to separate the church from the state, unless all of the citizens believe nothing, which is a very interesting state theoretically.  The church is the collection of believers of a given philosophy.  The state is the collection of citizens.  You can separate state sponsorship of religion from governance.  That is the point.  That is the allegory inherent in my argument.

nuanced, which I appreciate.  I agree that we'll have to wait a few generations to see what happens, although I disagree with the premise that there is a secular agenda.  In this regard, I think too much emphasis is being placed on belief.  I have a difficult time understanding the stance of cultural conservatives as it seems to me that many of the transformations culture is currently undergoing are the result of the way in which our society has changed economically and technologically, not because because of transformations in belief.  In other words, I see the changes in belief as an effect of changes in our technology, not as the cause of the transformations we're witnessing in values in behavior.  

I don't think we can underestimate the effect that inventions such as the telephone, internet, and television have had on our culture, nor do I think we can underestimate the effect a shift from agrarian to industrialized economies have had on our culture.  What's at issue here, to my thinking, is a collapse of highly interdependent communities (such as we find in agrarian cultures) to the primacy of the individual.  Technologically, inventions such as the internet allow us to act as individuals without fear of our status among a community of people.  Economically, our lives are no longer dependent on others, but we can pursue our own individual self-interest.  Taken together, these things have the effect of generating new sets of values and ways of living that are at odds with the values of agragrian communities.  Personally I don't see how these tendencies can be halted or turned back.  When I hear social conservatives claiming that the corrosion of our values are the result of secular humanists, I think they're misidentifying the real cause and I get the sense that they're a bit like the Coyote who's run off the cliff without having yet looked down.

I think the real question is whether this new way of life is sustainable for society as a whole.  Only time will allow us to determine whether this new primacy of the individual, borne of new social relations brought about by technology and our different economic structure, is pathological and ultimately destructive or something that can produce a thriving and sustainable society.  In a previous post I described the idea that secular humanism as somehow being the cause as being Quixotic.  Don Quixote is the symbol of a man who is trying to live according to the norms of one time in a time where that way of life has disappeared.  He thus ends up tilting at windmills.  These attacks on Hollywood, internet, etc., strike me as similarly being a way of tilting at windmills.  It makes us feel good because it gives us the sense that we're doing something and also gives us the sense that we understand the world we're living in, but ultimately I think the changes we're witnessing are irreversable and inevitable so long as we don't encounter a full scale collapse of society as we now know it.  These things are driven by the market and by individuals pursuing their desires on the market, not by any sort of conspiracy.  Ultimately, I guess, the idea that there is a culture war strikes me as a mischaracterization of the real causes of the changes we're witnessing.

lived in a vacuum where other people don't exist, but the atheist, just like the believer, lives in a social setting where he must take into account the responses of others to his actions.  Although I myself am Catholic, I certainly don't think that believing in God is a condition for being a moral person or living a moral life.  In many respects, simply living among others makes morality of vital importance.  It's difficult to live a very happy or harmonious life if you don't take other people into account.  The libertine gets his comeuppance at the end of the day.

Re: Just as the term "separation of church and state" is NOT in the Constitution?

The phrase "Separation of powers" is also no where to be found in the Constitution, but that does not mean that the President can draft and pass laws or that the Supreme Court can negotiate foreign treaties.

For that matter, the word "Trinity" appears no wheer in the Bible but most Christians would suggest that the concept is still there.

As for this whole whine about rasing one's children, I am getting rather sick of [cue the sorrowful violins!] cries of "the Children! the Children!" from both Left and Right every time they wish to defend some hare-brained policy that cannot possibly stand on its own merit. I will contribute to your children's education with my tax dollars: others did it for me growing up. I will even sacrifice a bit of my tax dollars to help you and yours out if you fall on hard tiems. But I will not sacrifice one iota of liberty for people who think that raising children must consist of turning them into perfect clones of themselves. Here's the simple truth parents have learned since Adam and Eve: kids are their own people, they will grow up to become their own adults and you don't get to live vicariously through them. You don't own them. Love them, help them along and respect the men and women they will become. Anything else is conceited selfish folly. Get over it.

The term "separation of chuch and state" may not be in the constituiton, but the 1st amendment is.  To wit:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are you saying you don't agree with the amendment?  Would you like the goverment to establish a religion?  Are you claiming your right to practice your prefered religion has been abridged?  If neither of these is the case, then I'm sorry, but your diary sounds like an over caffinated Bill O'Reilly on a bad day.

If you DON'T agree with the 1st amendment, or DO want to establish a goverment religion (Christianity, I presume), or you claim your right to practice your religion as you see fit HAS been abridged, then..  You've got worse problems..

Cheers!

the idea of limited government has been lost on the republican party.  Government should have no role or authority to come into anyone's bedroom to regulate sexual behaviour between consenting adults.  We are not talking about NAMBLA here (which involves children unable to make their own decisions) or Polygamy (which is a state of marriage (and the state gets to determine what it recognizes as marriage), but are talking about the sexual behaviour of consenting adults.  The heroin analogy also does not apply, as heroin is physically detrimental to you and even then we have been hypocritical by legalizing liquor and smokes, both of which are addictive and both of which are very harmful to society.  I will still say, as a CONSERVATIVE, I do not want government in my guns, my speech, my economy, or my bedroom (property).

I don't want to leave any confusion, but it seem silly to respond to your literalistic stance.  Its probably instructive though:

"There is no such church. I understand that you are taking liberties with language, but you imply an organization and overarching goals without any evidence."

Yes the strict definition of the term church is the collection of like-minded believers.  I don't actually find this a liberty though.  As to organization and overarching goals, aren't those inherent in the philosophy?  Either you see it or you don't.

For your second point, what part of the allegorical Church of Social Humanist don't you get?  What part of the allegorical universal pleasure (not the egoist) is confusing you?  And I do see you can use the web, but can you read?  From the Manifesto II

"Moral education for children and adults is important in the development of awareness and sexual maturity."

Duh, and who's morals are they trying to promote?  

For your third point, I digress, maybe metaphor is hard to access.

For the fourth point, again, my sarcastic expression of socialism is apparently out of your reach.

And here we can end.  I don't mind if you don't buy it.  Keep posting, but keep in mind that expressing a political viewpoint can sometimes involve literary objects such as parable, metaphor, allegory, even ridiculous example.  And thanks for making my point about the secular humanists, I didn't even bother as the point seemed sound, but now we do have a real organization of like-minded believers who want promote their version of morality.  I'll leave you with this fine quote: (form here)

Kristine Gebbie (Clinton's first AIDS Czar)

Quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "[The United States] needs to view human sexuality as an essentially important and pleasurable thing. [Until it does so], we will continue to be a repressed, Victorian society that misrepresents information, denies sexuality early, denies homosexual sexuality particularly in teens, and leaves people abandoned with no place to go. I can help just a little bit in my job, standing on the White House lawn talking about sex with no lightning bolts falling on my head."

n/t

You propose a negative argument to counter my use of irony?  What do you think I meant?  What "hair brained" policy did I promote, in your eyes?  Just interested to see that.  

Now as for cries of "the children", it is an effective way of eliciting emotion, hence its over use.  But if you think my kids are perfect clones...     Ha!  They are perfect terrors, and far more stubborn, opinionated, irrational and independent than I am.  You are suggesting imposing your belief of letting them grow however they want, and what?  Hoping for the best?  What if I don't believe that?  Are you going to legislate your views?  That is my point.  I don't believe in exposing them to what I consider banal sexuality.  Did I propose forcing my view upon anyone?  No, but apparently the court is in favor of promoting a system of beliefs, which I labeled a religion in regards to the political discussion.  We can make the argument elsewhere about other aspect of this belief system being legislated.  I was just thinking primarily of "the children" when I wrote this (more violins), as well as other areas of legislated sexual views.  But I left the Freudian door open so to speak...

And I have no problem with any of it.  Its beautiful.  

How about this for you.  All the sudden I believe everyone should practice vegetarianism.  And I get the public schools to shown propaganda films about slaughterhouses.  Are you fer or again it?  Can I (allegorically) call them a religion?  If you file a lawsuit against the schools, and it gets squashed by an appellate judge, would you suspect he was a Vegetanarianistic Apologist.  (hehehehehe I like that)

Anyhow, by your last question, I think you still miss my point.  The state already enforces morals based upon a Enlightenment era Judeao-Christian ethical philosophy.  If I hold any view, its that of protecting the individual freedoms that philosophy engenders.  Parental rights are just one of those freedoms for instance.  If the institutions of the state begin to infringe upon those rights, what do you want me to call it?  Especially if the motivation of that infringement is not based upon a Judeao-Christian ethic?

Free to practice polygamy?  Free in the NAMBLA sense?  This type of thinking is the opiate of secular humanists.  How do you decide what is moral and immoral in your free world?  You wan to talk about bunkum...

Polygamy? NAMBLA? I'm surprised you didn't bring up beastiality while you were at it.. You social conservatives always throw around these absurd red herrings when this issue comes up. Two consenting adults. That's it. That's all that's EVER been on the table when we talk about this kind of freedom.

As for morality in my free world - it's really quite simple. I make my own decisions about that, and I extend that same freedom to everyone else. The moral code I live by does NOT have to be the same as the moral code that you or anyone else lives by. We will all inevitably intersect at a few basic fundamentals, such as no killing and no stealing, but otherwise it's none of my business what you or anyone else considers to be moral. Once again I'll remind you that we're talking about consenting adults.

I do have to agree that they can choose to do whatever they want?....And the major point of my exposition is that the acceptable behavior of one group is now being promoted through state means among the general population

Yes. That's absolutel correct. You DO have to agree that they can choose to do whatever they want.

The acceptable behaviour of one group is NOT being "promoted" through the state means. The state makes no value judgment about the behaviours you're referring to. The only thing the state does is remind people like you that others have the right to make their own choices, and if they choose to engage in behaviours like what you're referring to, then it's their right to do so. The state isn't saying that the behaviours are good or bad or right or wrong - only that the people who engage in them have just as much right to do so as you have NOT to.

It's obvious that you see anything short of outright condemnation by the government as "promotion." And that's a terrible shame. I wish you would stop trying to get the government to push YOUR morals on everyone else.

You don't recognize the freedom that each and every one of us has to choose for ourselves what we consider moral or immoral. I'm beginning to suspect that it's because you have an inherrent aversion to freedom.

Just for edification purposes, it is impossible to separate the church from the state

No, it's not impossible. The church is a private institution. The government is a public institution. The church is there to provide moral guidance to those who seek it on the terms of that church's faith, while the government is there to provide protection and services to ALL citizens regardless of their faith.

You want desperately for government to be allowed to legislate the articles of your faith. You want not only to personally judge those who you think are immoral, but also to judge them in a court of law. This is the sum of what you've advocated here, and it's downright un-American if you ask me.

a clear violation of the separation of church and state.  But we both know that term is not in the Constitution is it?

What IS in the Constitution is that the government can't establish an official religion. Because it cannot do this we can infer (correctly) that it is also unable to enact laws which are based on religion.

The reason it is unable to do this is because if it did, the government would have to choose a religion upon which that law was based - and in doing so would establish that particular religion as the official one upon which the law was made. By referring to a Catholic doctrine, for example, the law would establish that Catholic doctrine is an officially valid authority for making future laws. How're you gonna feel about this if you're a Baptist? Or Jewish?

Therefore, the separation of church and state, while not explicitly written into the Constitution, is an almost universally accepted principle of our government - just like the separation of powers, which as someone else noted above, is ALSO not explicitly written in our Constitution.

The LAST thing you should want is for the Congress to start taking up debates on religious matters - religion by committee would be Hell on Earth!

Hmmmm, have I proposed increasing governments role anywhere?  Have I suggested ANYTHING in regards to your personal rights in your bedroom?  And, yes we are talking about NAMBLA, who are still working to promote their twisted literatures induction into public schools.  Notice that the courts have sided in favor of the introduction in public schools similar but less nefarious literature, yet of a nature obviously promoting a ethical viewpoint opposed by others.

And what to you mean the state gets to determine what it recognizes as marriage?  Do you think the state is based on some organic evolved over time ethic, or one based on a religious philosophy?  

Are your CONSERVATIVE political views based upon your own opinion of the world?  Are they based on tradition?  Or did you decide for yourself after being exposed to them that they are correct?  And if so what is the philosophical foundation of those views?

As to the heroin analogy, you will find that it is medically one of the least harmfully drugs, if used properly (though highly addictive).  Would you deny this physical pleasure based upon your beliefs?  Or are we at the point that you next suggest, that morality should be dictated by perceived social harm.  And again, as defined by whom?

Society tolerates alcohol and tobacco as you state, and they are detrimental.  However the courts did agree that marketing such to children overstepped the boundaries of some ethic.  What then is your answer to exposing sexual material to public school children?  Especially as it crosses the boundary of the conservative view of parental rights?

If someone were able to get my local public schools to push vegetarianism as an ideal for all, and start showing propaganda films on slaughterhouses, then most parents would demand the principals would be fired, and if not fired by the school board, the school board members be recalled or voted out en mass in the next election.  Just like what happened in Dover, PA when the school board tried to get religion in public schools disguised as "intelligent design".  (If you don't think it's religion, ask the esteemed Pat Robertson what his view is on the subject)

Your examples about heroin, NAMBLA, child abuse, poligamy, etc. are also ridiculous.  Those things have already been determined to be illegal.  Your arguement and examples don't hold water.

Behind all your smokescreens, it sounds like you have a problem with consenting adults making their own choices on private matters.  No matter what you say, I have the right to believe what I want, read what I want, think what I want, and choose what sexual practices I want with another consenting adult.  If you don't agree, or even if you do agree but dislike the choices I make, then I'd say it's a personal problem on your part.

Have you completely missed the point?  It is not just about two consenting adults.  In fact, I promoted no increase in control over anything!  Man, talk about knee jerk reactions.  I got a slew of them.  So, to get to you.  Is it just about two consenting adults?  If all you are worried about is your personal freedom to engage in what others would consider immoral behavior, it appears to be protected in this instance.  And did I suggest or intend on removing those freedoms?  Can't seem to find that anywhere.  However, if you want to promote your beliefs, and you do it in such a way as to force that promotion upon others, and you are successful in the courts, could I not complain that the state has assisted in supporting  (establishing) your beliefs?  

Then we get to your complete misunderstanding of the term "church".  I thought I was very clear.  What constitutes your government?  Where does it get its power?  Are those people part of churches?  Can you separate your morality from the basis of your legal system?  Can you separate the beliefs of those who form our government from the actions of that government?  And if you did, what would be the point of that government?  To promote and institute ideas and beliefs not held by the people?  Asinine.

Now this is offensive:

"You want desperately for government to be allowed to legislate the articles of your faith. You want not only to personally judge those who you think are immoral, but also to judge them in a court of law. This is the sum of what you've advocated here, and it's downright un-American if you ask me."

Show me where I have promoted any legislation?  Show me where I have placed judgment upon anyone?  Tell me why you feel the need to apply these preconceived notions to anything I have said?  

Here is a perfect example of a self defeating fallacy:

"Because it cannot do this we can infer (correctly) that it is also unable to enact laws which are based on religion."

Pray tell, where did we get our laws?  

In closing, I don't know what compelled me to respond to this ridiculousness, but thanks for posting.  

I am in full support of privacy.  I can think whatever you do is the most disgusting thing possible, but its your bedroom, not mine.  And I think you are carrying some baggage.  I was pretty objective in my qualification before using any label.  And the overriding premise was allegorical in nature to begin with.  I used the "ridiculous" examples on propose.  They are illegal, but why?  Is that legality connected to religious beliefs?  As for the vegetarianism thing, its another close fit.  See the link in #11.  You think its a smokescreen?  If what you saw was some threat to your personal liberty, it was more like a mirror reflecting some of your own resentment.  Even under the surface, where do I advocate controlling your sexual practices?  Please.

If we don't want the government involved in matters of the bedroom, then there are still some points at issue in this conversation.  I agree entirely with the premise of limited government, but it is for that reason that I am concerned about what is done with public schools.  On principle, a government would not provide public education if it truly wanted to avoid becoming too involved in people's lives and to avoid promoting or denigrating certain religious or political ideologies.  If the government really wanted to avoid this, it would have to instead supplement education by way of a voucher system.  However, I don't see vouchers replacing public schools any time soon.  As such, there is room to be concerned about the government promoting specific ideologies within our school systems.  Those of us who live in liberal areas tend to see schools pushing secularism and sexual immorality a great deal.  Perhaps there is a disconnect here with those who are fortunate enough to be living in red states.  In any case, while the ideology being pushed is not in fact a religion, it is very much like a religion in a number of its attributes.  Hence, the author of the original diary tries to make a link to separation of church and state.  In any case, for those of us who want to keep the government out of our lives, we have every reason to be concerned.  The government is forcing us to pay an amount of money that will go towards their attempt to seriously pervert our children's understanding of sexuality.  While much of our tax dollars will go to useful education, the fact remains that some of it will go towards seriously misguided programs.  While not as troubling as taxpayer money going to Planned Parenthood, it's still troubling.

I have recently come across an interesting book written in 1951 by Gordon Rattray Taylor called "Sex in History" that explores the history of civilizations.  In the section where he discusses patrist societies versus matrist societies, he says that patrist societies have a deep fear of homosexuality while matrist societies have a deep fear of incest.  Taking this a step further, he postulates that those on the right today lean towards patrist and those on the left lean towards matrist.  These psychiatrists probably are the leftist matrist types looking for incest and trying to stamp it out anywhere they find it.

It could be proximity.  Good observation.  I do live in the Peoples Republic of Hawaii.  Yes, we are waaaaay left of even the left coast.

So in your attempt to say "Gotcha!" to secularists you seem to want greatly expand the definition of religion.  You seem to want to call any collective sort of beliefs a "religion".  Well I have my own set of personal beliefs.  Can I set up the Church of Flyerhawk and enjoy tax exempt status?  You say that it requires a group of people that think the same way.  OK, great.  My family all adhere to the principle of Flyerhawkism.  May I please have my taxes back now?

Is Socialism a religion?  How bout Capitalism?  Or any other "ism"?

I also fail to see how you can reasonably conflate humanism  with hedonism .  Humanists have a very distinct credo and it is pretty far from hedonism.  Hedonists have very little in the way of creed.  Actually they tend to have no spirituality at all.  Humanists, otoh, are very much focused on spirituality, albeit spirituality without belief in a deity.

Speaking of resentment.. Wow!   You claim to not care what anyone does in the privacy of their own bedroom, but you sure are curious.  I said nothing to make you believe that I'm nothing but a normal, heterosexual married man, which I am.  You just can't stand that I assert privacy rights for myself and anyone else.  Why are you so curious?  Despite your claims to the contrary, you do you seem to greatly about private sexual matters.  You must have some discusting habits that you're ashamed of.  To each his own, I say.  Next time, try to keep your self-hatred to yourself..

I'm in no mood for this kind of garbage, not at all. Toodles.

As you can tell, allegorical argumentation does not create effective palaver for all.  But I want to know what you would compare historically to the following scenario.  If we did have libertine freedom, and the smallest reasonable government as per constitutional intent, what would result from two starting population bases: one a monotheistic Enlightened group of capitalists, the other a atheistic educated group of socialist?  Not to denigrate any philosophy.  I am just interested in the whole concept of modern government as a 'entity' separate from the beliefs of the population.  

We give our consent to be governed, we are the people who fill the roles in government, our representatives reflect the philosophy of laws we want instituted (in principal).  Why now in this modern age is it the automatic assumption that our government is secular?  I am not arguing the founders intent of one sect or denomination becoming the dominant philosophy.  But they crafted a government for a predominantly Christian population.  And with a big flap in the tent inviting all.

You bring up the the support of people's rights to pursue freedom and happiness as they see fit.  But is the "as they see fit" in the Declaration of Independence?  If someones happiness stems from an "immoral" act that the population chooses to make illegal, is that an imposition of religion?  Where do you come down on the religious use of hypnotics currently being argued in the courts?

Anyhow, thanks for your skepticism and critical posts.  It is one of my favorite topics, all the more better to pick it to pieces repeatedly.

While i do not want the government anywhere near my bedroom (or my porn) or anything else I own, I also do not want government indoctrinating my children at school with less than proven theories.  I had a fit when my sister (now a teacher) brought me to a class in college where they were literally teaching (future teachers) how bad competition was (athletically speaking in this instance).  It made me sick and I spent the entire class arguing with the prof.  Also, while I do support some basic sex ed in schools, I do not find it appropriate to teach young kids about homosexuality or even general sexual acts.  I had sex ed in 7th or 8th grade I think and I cannot imagine it being appropriate for anyone younger than that.

One of the best I have seen in my brief time here. I kust have one quibble:

I think modern technology and markets ahve given people the impression they don't need communities becuase they can remove themsleves from the persona to person contact normally associated with such. However, the technology and markets they depend on are of course dependent on other individuals, and as such individuals are still dependent on communities. It is there perception of removal that leads them to think that some of the foundations of community are no longer neccesary, bu they ar mistaken (and I would suggest that events like the hurricanes this fall pointedly demonstrate how ultimately dependent we still are).

Morality does not equal religion.  Some aspects of our morality are, if not universal, virtually universal.  Murder, for instance, is considered immoral in just about every society on the planet regardless of religous belief.  

We give our consent to be governed, we are the people who fill the roles in government, our representatives reflect the philosophy of laws we want instituted (in principal).  Why now in this modern age is it the automatic assumption that our government is secular?  I am not arguing the founders intent of one sect or denomination becoming the dominant philosophy.  But they crafted a government for a predominantly Christian population.  And with a big flap in the tent inviting all

The Founding Fathers crafted a government in which black people were enslaved and women had no voting rights.  So they weren't infinitely wise.  Additionally the Founding Fathers may not have looked to keep Christianity out of government but they were concerned about specific sects of Christianity taking control of the government.  To them everyone was Christian but not all Christians were the same.  

The same is not true today.  We have a significant portion of our population which is not Christian.  

Its been done.  I intend no gotcha at all.  Just finding where the lines are drawn.  The example you give of creating your own religion, strictly on the basis of the tax exemption is not far from this.  But you do loose some opportunities in regards to politics and for profit adventures.  

As far as asking me is socialism a religion?  Do they believe in something based on faith?  and practice that?  I know what your saying, just bandied about relativistic labeling is unfocused.  But my intent is to find the point at which one act in itself, violates state sponsorship of a ethic having its foundation in belief.  The organic moral code of the humanist is as much based on belief as the Sharia law of the fundamental Islamicist.  If you don't want to call the philosophy of secular humanist a religion, no problem.  But then we need to talk about the separation of belief systems based on faith and the state.

Are you really asking about capitalism?  Ismism?  Economicalism?  Trollism?  Mobyism?  Some have made a religion out of that.

Now as to your final point.  Are we reading me accurately?  Universal hedonism.  I think I specified, maybe you didn't catch it.  And of course people like shock value, so its a good term.  But are you defining spirituality for someone?  Maybe after you googled the term, you could have clicked on more than one link (a jacked up commercial link at that), for instance the left leaning wikipedia.  Come on, you can do better than that.  They seem to be a pretty spiritual bunch.  

I'll state it again, and see if you like my conflagration:

The one of the Utopian goals of the humanist is the goal of the universal hedonist.

And fh, what the heck is the slipper slope? I have this picture....

I don't mean morality equals religion.  But you promote a morality thats universal, based on what?  That it works?  Or was spread throughout the land?  Where did you get your universal morality?  Show me a society on the planet that is not religious, and grew your universal ethic.

On your last.  I agree wholeheartedly.  There is a significant portion that is not.  And there is a majority that is.  I have no intention of excluding anyone.  And I bet we will get significant challenges to our laws in the future for the same reason.  Not advocating a return to the 18th century, just a discussion of where these lines are.  And more interestingly, how the lines relate to our conservative political disposition in todays world.  

My hedonism link was done tongue in cheek.  Sorry.  I thought it was pretty clear that I was just poking fun there.

I meant slippery slope.  Dumb type.  I'm good at that.  Odd that you find wikipedia Left leaning.  It's not like it has a controlling authority really.  You can challenge it's veracity but it isn't really slanted, at least demonstrably so.  Then again I could see how a Conservative would view it as Lefty just as a Liberal may see it as Righty.

If you are using the term hedonism in it's most broadly used definition then ALL religions are hedonistic.  It is only by this definition can you equate humanism to hedonism.  

You seem to be trying to expand what the term religion should mean and, by doing so, argue that it is no different to have an organized traditional religion like Christianity controlling government than for secularism be the controlling religion.  The problem is that humanism is not secularism.  Futhermore humanism isn't a religion, if you accept the commonly held nothing that religion requires a belief in a metaphysical authority.  This is very strained reasoning and it  is strained becaused you are trying to reach a specific pre-conceived conclusion.

the fact that all societies, regardless of their religous beliefs, hold certain acts to be immoral.     All societies are generally religous but the religions are wildly divergent.  

Are you suggesting that since all religion's believe that murder is immoral that means that outlawing murder is based on a religous belief?  Isn't it just as reasonable to believe that religion made murder immoral because a functioning society requires that murder be outlawed?  

It is not so much the cause and effect, just the inextricable combination that says something.  Here, let met put on my anthropologic hat and say "Most current and historic successful societies contain populations that are predominantly religious."  Ok, hat off, what the heck does that mean?  If you expand your humanist perspective to include religions as a naturally occurring structure engendering more successful societies, does that carry the weight of science?  Or is it still just something the humanist believes?  And I know some who believe their humanism is justified by the above.

Most societies in general have dominant religions because most people are uncomfortable with the concept of their not being some metaphysical deity.  

History would also suggest that societies have used religion to control the members of the society.  In societies with very little rule of law the rule of God was much more effective.  In societies with strong rules of law, such as the United States, there is less need for religous dogma defining what is and isn't acceptable.  

RE:  wikipedia, leans left, not in concept, but from its contributing base. But very useful.

And, I got the poke at fun, appreciate the sarcasm greatly, its just fun calling you out as well.

I don't think the reasoning is strained.  Look up in a big dictionary all the definitions of religion.  It's surprising.  But I don't advocate a specific religion controlling government do I?  Government should reflect those whose consent is given to be governed.  I am just exposing what I see as a liberal (modern) strategy and a way of interpreting it.  And, I just noticed did I not claim that 'secular humanism' is like a religion?  Not strictly humanism itself eh?  Got you covered?  I just didn't like the sound of The Church of Socialist Secular Humanists.  But maybe it's a heretical sect.

there's been a qualitative change in the nature of community.  To put it in banal terms it could be described as the "New Yorkification" of community.  When I live in a small community I have to watch how I live because this will impact my relations with others.  If I'm not honest and if I'm licentious this will undermine my ability to form relations with others as I'll be seen as being of low character.  If, by contrast, I live within a setting like New York, no one knows me, I can fall into anonimity, and pursue all sorts of desires without a real threat of impact to my primary working relations.  The impact of technology has allowed every place to be New York.  I can now authorize pornography on my cable.  I can seek out like minded people on the internet.  I can do so anonymously and without, for the most part, real consequences.  Contemporary churches are, I think, an attempt to reform older styles of community that have disappeared.  But I don't think they can really halt the onslaught of technology in the long run.

Polygamy? NAMBLA? I'm surprised you didn't bring up beastiality while you were at it.. You social conservatives always throw around these absurd red herrings when this issue comes up. Two consenting adults. That's it. That's all that's EVER been on the table when we talk about this kind of freedom.

Polygamy has a long cultural tradition (certainly a more extensive one than gay marriage), and the polyamorists are most definitely waiting in the legal wings. And you can bang your fist on the table and proclaim that "two consenting adults" are all that should be on it, but it will be about as arbitrary and effective for you to proclaim that "two" is sacred as it is for social conservatives to do the same for the requirement of opposite sexes. This is a thing perfectly foreseeable, and if it squicks you to think that the fight to make marriage values-neutral might have stepped on your own values, welcome to the bed you've made for yourself.

I have found this post very thought provoking as well as all the comments and debate that have followed. There is one point that I would like clarification on because I stuck out at me and since I'm scratching my head over it, I figure there is something to be learnt.

It started with the erasure of gender differences

Are you contending that these differences are not natural? If they are natural then how can they be erased?  If they're not natural I see no need to maintain them. Most, if not all the moral concerns you have don't seem as if they would destroyed by failing to maintain a false difference (if this is in fact what you are contending). If this is the case why waste an effort trying to maintain a construct when there are far more important battles to be fought.

and continued with the emasculation of the male.

The second part of this sentence I'm on board with you. Just because women aren't property, can vote, should be treated with respect and should be paid equally for equal work(etc etc etc.) doesn't mean that men should be forced to loose all respect for themselves.

Humanists are, by definition, secular.  So saying secular humanist is redundant.  

We can look up all sorts of words in Oxford and come up with really novel definitions that are not currently in use.  What would be the point?

There are Christian humanists. Seriously.

My understanding of humanism was that it was a belief in further human achievement, both physical and spiritual, without need of a metaphysical authority.  Wouldn't that preclude Christians from being humanists.

But they've been a fad for a few decades now. I usually just lump them under, "Heresies, Dead Before 2100," and move on with life.

Well that seems to be a rather odd group and I can't imagine it has a significant number of adherents.  

Using Carlos' logic is the most UNSUCCESSFUL societies contain populations that are predominantly religious. Of course even this uses a broad definition of 'religion', does religion include the paganism of greece and rome, the nature worship of the zulus etc.?

So two fallacies in his reaosnign are confusing correlation with causation and using a braod definition that seems to rob the word of precise enough meaning from which to draw conculsions. In other words, what is the active ingredient in 'religion' that leads from its existence to his connection to successful or even moral society. Is their such an ingredient that can apply to the broad definition of religion one must use to reach his conclusion.

and agree with what you are saying. It's a redefinition of how individuals itneract in community that is of course irreversible at this point.

Believe it or not, people have actually done this.  You set up a church in your home, hold regular meetings, etc., and assign all your income to the church, an exempt organization.  You then show other people how to set up their churches (for a fee, of course, which is clearly a donation to the ministry), which may require you to travel to exotic places to establish these churches.  Thus, all of your income is tax free.  Your housing is the church parsonage and headquarters, so it is a tax free benefit, and the utility bills, etc., must be covered by the church, another tax free benefit.  Of course, if you do this, be sure to contact me because you will need my services when the IRS objects and the resulting grand jury indicts you.

(for a specific example, try googling the Life Science Church of New York and Larry Ranucci - it's a mid to late 80's case, so I don't know exactly what will be there, but, suffice it say, Larry was convicted and spent considerable time in jail...)