Debating Religion: Refutance Is Sistile?

“We are Dyslexus of Borg. Refutance is sistile. Your ass will be laminated.”

     A few posts back, I got into a discussion with Truelibertarian regarding religion, why I believe the way I do and why it works for me. He asked me if I could provide concrete, physical proof that God actually exists. After thinking about the question logically, I answered him honestly. NO. There is no concrete proof, most of what we have is based on faith. Now, I know that a LOT of Christians are going to take a fair amount of umbrage with this statement, but to these I would ask the very same question: “Okay, can YOU prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God exists?”

     Atheists I think, have just about as much of a chance of proving beyond a shadow of doubt that God does NOT exist, all things being equal. These two opposites however, still insist on getting into heated theological debates. If you ask me, it’s an exercise in futility.

     Another concept that I have grown to accept is that, based upon culture and upbringing, no one religion or set of beliefs is “right” for everyone. What may work for me may not work for someone else. The same is true for systems of government. While a lot of narrow-minded Americans may believe that Democracy is the best form of government for every country in the world, other countries sit back and laugh at us, because they, like myself, are a bit more enlightened. They realize that Democracy will not work dynamically.

     Take Great Britain for instance. Their system of government has existed far longer than ours. For them, a Constitutional Monarchy works. China on the other hand, has thrived with a Communist government in place, a great deal of that due to the intuitive evolution of the flavor of Communism that China operates under. “Waitaminute! What about the Soviet Union!? Communism failed in Russia. Remember the fall of the Berlin Wall?” Yes, I remember. I watched it on CNN! I would posit to you the reader, that Communism in Russia was destined to fail from the beginning, simply because the culture is different.

     Recently, there has been a great deal of upheaval in countries where Islam is the primary religion. Some of this is due to public perception of government not abiding by the tenets of the Muslim faith where care of the populous is concerned. Egypt, Lybia, Syria and Tunisia have recently seen mass uprisings, and even Saudi Arabia has seen protesting of its government’s policies.

     Culture plays a great part in the success or failure of an idea. This is an immutable truth that we’ve seen borne out time and again in governments past and present. (At this point, the blog post takes on more of a logical flow from one idea to the next, so please bear with me as I share epiphanies!) This brings us to an idea that is bandied about in the U.S. quite often: the separation of church and state.

     Separation of church and state is a myth. The reason I say this is that, if you look closely, church and state have always been intertwined in some way, shape or form due to shared principles.

     I know that a fair amount of this is debatable, and I’m probably going to get some comments to that end which is all well and good. I am by no means an expert where government and religion are concerned. I’m simply relaying my observations and opinions on the matter(s). If it stimulates discussion, all the better for us to continue the real task in life: learning!

     I close this with something of a fledgeling trademark where debates on religion are concerned….”Heloooo KITTY!”

10 comments on “Debating Religion: Refutance Is Sistile?

  1. truelibertarian says:

    Haha I thought the LOL was referring to the antics part.

  2. truelibertarian says:

    I’d say theocracy is the oldest surviving form of government. And in my opinion, the Constitution is the very essence of government. So if it’s the same basic structural government with a different Constitution, it’s a different government to me. I don’t think the age of a modern structural government reflects positively on its mechanics or structure.

    • See, now you’re arguing semantics (I’m always up for some antics!) LOL!!!

      • truelibertarian says:

        It’s not semantics at all. If you define a government as its general structure, then you invalidate the importance of its essence. See, the government under the Articles of Confederation was exactly the same as the government under our current Constitution, from a structural standpoint. But the government itself was completely different. The Constitution defines the government more than the type of government. There can be great democracies and awful democracies. There can be benevolent dictators and tyrannical dictators. But the Constitution defines the government. And America’s Constitution has remained relatively intact for over 200 years. That’s pretty incredible.

  3. truelibertarian says:

    By the way, I apologize if my post came across as didactic or condescending. My style of writing sometimes doesn’t translate well over the internet.

    • It’s all good, again I’m no expert. (If an “ex” is a has-been, and a “spurt” is a drip under pressure….)

      Regardless of rioting, the Constitutional Monarchy has been in existence in England since the 1688 “Glorious Revolution”, which makes it about 100 years older than our own constitution. Limits on the power of the monarchy are of course older than this, for example Magna Carta, the Provisions of Oxford and such. (Which had to do mostly with rights of the landed and noble classes….)

      I’m going to pop over and read your blog entry on Soc/Com/Fas again in a few minutes. I just skimmed through it, and it’s a good speed read, so should be even better read at-leisure. Thanks again!

      • truelibertarian says:

        The Constitutional Monarchy is not a Constitution.

        • I think my point was lost there, and I’m trying to figure out where the break occurred. (I was going to say that now there’s a condescending tone there, but I think it’s rather a question of what we were talking about in the first place…)

          I wasn’t originally speaking about government documents, but types of government. Come to think of it, the U.S. Constitution is the founding document of our government, it defines the structure and the methods of how the gov is supposed to operate. So in effect, the constitution is at the very root of our type of government.

          Still, the current form of government that England has, has existed since 1688/89, when William of Orange and Queen Mary II were enthroned. As you probably know already, this was a result of lingering anti-Catholic tensions from the English Reformation, insomuch as the people of England did not want a Catholic ruler on the throne, in the person of King James II (and VII of Scotland). That’s why I say that the type of gov on that side of the pond predates ours by a century.

  4. truelibertarian says:

    I agree with you about religion. Which is why I’m an agnostic atheist, which I believe is the most rational perspective. It’s impossible to prove that anything doesn’t exist, and therefore, the much vaunted burden of proof (I’m beginning to get sick of this term) is on those who seek to claim a deity exists.

    But enough about that. A lot of what you said about government is simply incorrect. The United States has the longest-standing Constitution of any government in the world. The Constitutional Monarchy doesn’t work AT ALL which is why there were so many riots and so much security for the Royal Wedding. The monarchy is powerless and just drains the tax pounds from the populace. It’s actually shockingly similar to what the warlords in Africa do– they take the aid money from the needy people.

    Your communism examples are also incorrect:

    What you say about culture is the crux of the matter. Any society that desires to repress its own culture (be it the nationalistic culture or the melting pot of culture) is destined to fail. It may take a while, but it will happen. Which is why the most important thing of all is AWARENESS. As the generations go on, and people pass down their culture and knowledge to their children, they must be made aware of what needs to change, so that one day they may rise up against their government (peaceably, at first).

Speak YOUR mind!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s