C2C - Civics Discussion Thread

There is actually no specific law whatsoever in the United States that requires that the President must be Christian. So you could be Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.. However the President does swear the Oath of Office with their hand on the Bible (but even still you could be a Muslim while doing that). So no, its more like the fact that we have a high Christian population and that those Christians tend to prefer to elect people with the same beliefs as them (again nothing legally requiring that they must only elect a Christian).
I see, I took DH at his word on that one, my bad.
Still, the US is a highly religious country, the state is secular, but I can't get myself to personally consider the US as a "proper" secular country due to many elements which are mostly cultural in nature.

Some examples.
The phrase "God bless America" is a completely normal phrase to hear from politicians.
Creationism is taught in a couple of states as if it were equal to, or even more correct, than natural evolution.
Swearing on the bible in courts of law and in the inauguration of head of state, and probably other situations.​
 
Toffer... we were the first nation on Earth to even put the division of church and state into law if I'm not mistaken. Since then, the concept has progressed elsewhere and taken to many whole new levels than has ever been achieved here. But for the first attempt at it being done by mostly Protestants escaping persecution in Europe, I think we can understand that there was only so much that our founding fathers could envision about the entire concept since only branches of Judeo-Christianity (yes, including the extraordinarily foreign and regionally isolated Muslim faith) were basically all they considered religious differences to mean.

Certainly, culturally, we aren't secular across the country in all places - the Salem witch trials are a very good example of NON-secular activity.

However, the law itself is entirely secular, even to the point of allowing the expression of religion within governmental boundaries (to not allow it would also be to inhibit freedom of worship according to many.) A soldier can even have Satanism placed on his dog tags if he wishes. Religious freedom is a highly valued aspect of what it means to be American, but that doesn't mean most feel that there isn't one religion that's right and the rest are hogwash or even dangerous to the person who gets caught up in it.

In the last few decades, we've been taking many steps towards further secularism, such as removing God from the pledge of allegiance and so on. The push for this is a big part of what now fuels the resentment for Progressives among many hardcore Conservatives here. They feel that their faith is under attack by those who would remove God from our cultural heritage - that often does overlap into legal and state supported matters, such as the term 'In God we Trust' on our money - Secular Progressives wish to see this removed.

Many blame Muslim influences for this push for secularism, and from what I understand, in Australia and England, they really have been big voices in that fight for further secularism. Here, at least, this just further fosters the overall sense of resentment for that faith. The hatred for Muslims here is eerily similar in intensity as the hatred for Jewish people in Pre WWII Nazi Germany and one has to wonder if that hatred hasn't been as equally manufactured here as it was there - via propaganda.
 
Last edited:
I interpret these civics to mean,

Secular: the state does not take any official position on religion. E.g. most democratic societies in the world today.
Atheist: the state prohibits the practice of religion. E.g. USSR, Revolutionary France.

Of course, there is a continuum of possibilities. Modern France passes regulation on public expressions of religion which could be seen as creeping into the Atheist category. But we can't create enough civics to capture the full range of possibilities.

Since it came up, some fun facts. Every US President has been a Christian by background. There are rumors (without much evidence as far as I know) that Chester Arthur and Warren Harding were privately atheists. Franklin Pierce chose to take an affirmation instead of an oath because he was undergoing a crisis of faith following the death of his son shortly before the inauguration. Herbert Hoover also chose to take an affirmation because he was a Quaker and Quakers don't believe in swearing oaths (that is, in fact, why the affirmation was added to the Constitution in the first place). Despite his Quaker background, Nixon took the oath. Questions surround Thomas Jefferson. He identified as a deist, which most Americans at the time would have considered to be a sect of Christianity, albeit an unorthodox sect. In the 1800 campaign, Adams supporters accuses Jefferson of being an atheist, but this was more negative campaigning than reality (similar to the Obama/Muslim conspiracy theories of more recent times). Al Smith was the first major party Catholic nominee in 1928 and John Kennedy was the first to win; prior to 1960, it was unclear whether a Catholic could win a US presidential election. I predict the first openly non-Christian US president will be elected in my lifetime, assuming that we remain a functioning democracy.
 
Many blame Muslim influences for this push for secularism, and from what I understand, in Australia and England, they really have been big voices in that fight for further secularism. Here, at least, this just further fosters the overall sense of resentment for that faith. The hatred for Muslims here is eerily similar in intensity as the hatred for Jewish people in Pre WWII Nazi Germany and one has to wonder if that hatred hasn't been as equally manufactured here as it was there - via propaganda.

Well immigration issue in EU is mismanaged.
This hatred may partly come from mismanagement.
Wikipedia article is bit outdated.
You can look at its page sources if you don't trust wikipedia itself.

Migration should be properly managed like nuclear power plants - fully open borders and everyone including criminals can come there.
And you get serious trouble.
Welfare act as migrant magnet, so it doesn't mix well with fully open borders.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tmv
I interpret these civics to mean,

Secular: the state does not take any official position on religion. E.g. most democratic societies in the world today.
Atheist: the state prohibits the practice of religion. E.g. USSR, Revolutionary France.
I don't think we actually have that written down anywhere, hence the confusion.

However atheist is not anti-theist or anti religion so the name should change to something else.

In the last few decades, we've been taking many steps towards further secularism, such as removing God from the pledge of allegiance and so on.
I was under the impression that many of those things were added in in the 1950s as a counter to communism. I am fairly sure that was when "In God we Trust" first appeared on the US money for instance.
Many blame Muslim influences for this push for secularism, and from what I understand, in Australia and England, they really have been big voices in that fight for further secularism.
Not that I have noticed.
 
Last edited:
I read your Constitution awhile back and I can't remember there being anything about the Bible or Christianity in it at all. I will need to hunt it out and look at it again.

Obama is a Christian. Lincoln and Jefferson were not.
Totally incorrect again. You really need to check your sources credibility DH. They are very erroneous.

And with that I'm done. I won't be pulled in to this thread of misconceptions. Carry on my wayward friends. See you around sometime, maybe. :wavey:
 
assuming that we remain a functioning democracy.
Sadly, not a given these days is it?
However atheist is not anti-theist or anti religion so the name should change to something else.
From a governmental perspective it does. China is an actively Atheist nation and it abolishes religions of all kinds in its borders. That's the definition. Perhaps to a Catholic there's another meaning to this word.
I was under the impression that many of those things were added in in the 1950s as a counter to communism. I am fairly sure that was when "In God we Trust" first appeared on the US money for instance.
I can't say for sure. Maybe, but it was my impression it had been there all along and it's only recently that people have been bringing up that it shouldn't be.
Not that I have noticed.
My wife and her family have talked about it being a factor. I don't think it's a factor to any degree similar as it is in the UK where it's become a very big issue.
 
Totally incorrect again. You really need to check your sources credibility DH. They are very erroneous.

And with that I'm done. I won't be pulled in to this thread of misconceptions. Carry on my wayward friends. See you around sometime, maybe. :wavey:
I guess someone is doing "Make America Mysterious Again" campaign, because no one knows how USA actually works :sarcasm:

Maybe researching Cyberpunk was bad idea? :mischief::joke:
 
Last edited:
...And referring back to the issue of whether the Presidential Oath of Office is required to be sworn on the Bible (which Bible? It's an important distinction...), Wikipedia has this to say:

"
Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901.[21] Both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce[22] swore on a book of law, with the intention that they were swearing on the constitution.[23] Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One.[24] Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump each swore the oath on two Bibles.[21]
"
 
Repeat: We have 4 Atheist religions in C2C! Atheist is not anti Religion. The name of the civic is misleading. It should be Anti Religion not Atheist.
 
Totally incorrect again. You really need to check your sources credibility DH. They are very erroneous.
I am re-reading your Constitution now. Looks like it will take 2 coffees as it is quite short, I am about 1/5th of the way through; about to start Article 1 section 8. So far it has only been about the structure and elections. Nothing biblical, or deity related so far.

edit finished reading it! Still have the amendments to go. No mention of any deity or any other book. Even the oath of office for the president does not mention any book. It just says that they have to swear the oath. The word faith is used once when referring to the relation of the states to the nation, something along the lines that the federal government will have faith that the states know what they are doing.

edit 1 except the first amendment there is nothing in the Constitution of the US of A that looks remotely like it comes from any religious tract.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Bill of Rights? I haven't found my copy of that. Although I did find my copy of the Magna Carta;)
 
Last edited:
Um, DH, the "Bill of Rights" is actually the collective name for the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. From what you've posted, you've already read it. And you are correct; the only way religion is mentioned in there to say that the government is not allowed to pass laws restricting the freedom of conscience of citizens.
 
I am still a bit confused then. Do the religion civics refer to what the public practices, or to what the state policy toward religion is, or to some combination thereof?
 
Okay, from Miriam-Webster.com:

Definition of civics
: a social science dealing with the rights and duties of citizens

That would make the religious civic the state policy toward religion, especially if combined with the state religion (if there is one).

Note that, even if there is a state religion, it is not necessarily the only religion within that state. There isn't even any technical requirement that the state religion be the majority religion within the state - basically, the state religion is the one which is supported and endorsed by the government. Other religions can exist within the nation; they would just be ignored, discouraged, or actively suppressed by the government (depending on that government's approach). And what form that discouragement or suppression takes will also depend on the government's approach - some might use Inquisition-style methods, while others might discourage or suppress non-state religions by withholding the supports they offer to the state religion, and thus establishing an economic bias.
 
the only way religion is mentioned in there to say that the government is not allowed to pass laws restricting the freedom of conscience of citizens
That's today's understanding, but the very first word of the first amendment is Congress. The wording itself doesn't deny such laws at the state level, and (at least according to Wikipedia) some of the states still had a state religion for a while.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, the "new" understanding was established in 1947 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education)
 
Repeat: We have 4 Atheist religions in C2C! Atheist is not anti Religion. The name of the civic is misleading. It should be Anti Religion not Atheist.
I don't buy it. Atheism means anti religion.
 
I don't buy it. Atheism means anti religion.
More correct: It means "No deity/deities" / "Without god(s)".
Atheist religions doesn't work as there are no religions without the divine.

Pantheist religions consider reality itself as a deity without a human-like personality. So calling Pantheist religions for Atheist religions would be utterly wrong.

There are Atheist world views / philosophies, like humanism, but we should not treat those as religions in C2C if we ever implement those, it would work better as ideas in the ideas system TB is pondering on.

"Nonbelievers contend that atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and that everyone is born without beliefs in deities; therefore, they argue that the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of gods but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism." - Wiki
The word "parsimonious" is used here with the meaning of the Occams razor thingy, that the simplest solution is usually correct.​
 
Last edited:
I tried going with non-theist but came to the conclusion that it is the same thing as atheist. Which it is in my nations dictionary, Australia has its own dictionary like the Us of A does but on this word we agree with the Oxford Dictionary not the American one.

In our dictionary atheist = non-theist but in the US dictionary atheist = non-religion.

I am happy to go with non-theist for Buddhism and the rest and long as we go non-religion for the Civic just to avoid confusion.
 
Top Bottom