Feedback and Notes

Latest Activity

Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
26 minutes ago
Mrs.B commented on Doone's group 99.9999999865% of the World and a Person Who is Forcing Us to Live in the Age of Trump News. Sad!!
27 minutes ago
Stephen commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion
1 hour ago
Davy's group was featured
3 hours ago
Doone commented on Doone's group World History
3 hours ago
Doone commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
3 hours ago
Doone commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
3 hours ago
Doone commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
3 hours ago
Doone commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
3 hours ago
Doone commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
3 hours ago
Doone commented on Doone's group 99.9999999865% of the World and A Country Suffering from the Guidance of a Man able to name animals underneath pictures of them News
3 hours ago
Chris commented on Michel's group Our Climate
6 hours ago
Chris commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral
7 hours ago
Chris commented on Chris's group Medicine, Medical insurance Pharmaceuticals, and Medical Care (CDC and etcetera)
7 hours ago
Chris commented on Doone's group World History
8 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion
10 hours ago
Davy commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion
10 hours ago
Frank O'Meara replied to Neal's discussion The Sunday Planet - January 14, 2018
10 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
10 hours ago
Davy commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
10 hours ago

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Do religious people consider Democracy a form of religon?

Views: 91

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I've never heard an xian say that.
I've heard them call atheism a religion but not democracy.

You cant get across to them that Atheism is exactly the opposite of religion its the very absents of religion.

I should  refrase the question.

How common is it for theocratic Monarchies and/or some dictators to use religion as a form of control  using herasy charges to arrest and quell Democracy movements?

In democracies why do people vote for charismatic leaders, rather than diplomatic leaders?

People vote for charismatic leaders, Chris, because those wanna-be leaders address people's emotions.

Whoever once said, metaphorically, the head controls the heart had no heart. He, and a dollar says it was a he, also had a mal-functioning head.

It's beyond my emotion, expression understanding how and why chrismatic leaders are chosen to lead countries.

A guy I worked with said he voted for GW Bush because he would like to drink a beer with him.  --- My retort was would you choose a neurosurgeon for the same reason.

Maybe the Electorial Collage is needed (even though I don't think it's been effective in the past twenty years).

Chris, if you continue trying to understand what charismatics intend you to feel, you will have ONLY YOURSELF TO BLAME when you go nuts.

I'm already nuts and beyond belief why people vote for chrasmatics and are facinated with movie stars, royalty, and all that b/s.

Drop religion in the pile as well.

The Powell Memo (also known as the Powell Manifesto) first publishe...


In 1971, Lewis Powell, then a corporate lawyer and member of the boards of 11 corporations, wrote a memo to his friend Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memorandum was dated August 23, 1971, two months prior to Powell’s nomination by President Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Powell Memo did not become available to the public until long after his confirmation to the Court. It was leaked to Jack Anderson, a liberal syndicated columnist, who stirred interest in the document when he cited it as reason to doubt Powell’s legal objectivity. Anderson cautioned that Powell “might use his position on the Supreme Court to put his ideas into practice…in behalf of business interests.”

Though Powell’s memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration’s “hands-off business” philosophy.

Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education, shifting values, and movement-building — a focus we share, though often with sharply contrasting goals.*  (See our endnote for more on this.)

So did Powell’s political views influence his judicial decisions? The evidence is mixed. Powell did embrace expansion of corporate privilege and wrote the majority opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, a 1978 decision that effectively invented a First Amendment “right” for corporations to influence ballot questions. On social issues, he was a moderate, whose votes often surprised his backers.

Confidential Memorandum: Attack of American Free Enterprise System

DATE: August 23, 1971
TO: Mr. Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
FROM: Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

This memorandum is submitted at your request as a basis for the discussion on August 24 with Mr. Booth (executive vice president) and others at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The purpose is to identify the problem, and suggest possible avenues of action for further consideration.

 More in the above link.

Thanks, Chris, for this Powell Manifesto info.
I read a lot of SCOTUS news and saw mention of it but not the detail you gave us. I now know the Citizens United ruling didn't just suddenly appear in 2010.

Who Rules America? Power in AmericaWealth, Income, and Power

by G. William Domhoff


This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators. The most striking numbers on income inequality will come last, showing the dramatic change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.

First, though, some definitions. Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (see Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth -- also referred to in this document as "non-home wealth" -- which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."

We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)

This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. (To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have -- and how they got it. Also, David Cay Johnston (2011) has written a column about the differences among the top 1%, based on 2009 IRS information.)..."

More in the link above.


© 2018   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service