...particularly when you look up Unitarian on the "Jungian God-Atheism-Nihilism tendency spectrum."

jGants:
martyrs < missionaries < regular church goers < Unitarianism < Deism < Secular Humanism < Agnosticism < eventualy...(?) < Atheism.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumjGants:
martyrs < missionaries < regular church goers < Unitarianism < Deism < Secular Humanism < Agnosticism < eventualy...(?) < Atheism.

There is actually a militant atheism step at the end which includes atheists who persecute and kill those who are religious (or would, if they could).

I think it's best to keep murderous intent on a different axis. Any group on jGants could incited to violence in dire circumstances. (Or as you say, if they had the upper hand)

How about

...Atheism > Solipsism > Nihilism

I think Solipism and Nihilism are a good paralels to the self abnegation of the missionaries and martyrs on the religion side of the spectrum.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumI think it's best to keep murderous intent on a different axis. Any group on jGants could incited to violence in dire circumstances. (Or as you say, if they had the upper hand)

Well, then I don't think martyrdom belongs on the scale, either, because any group could be incited to die for their beliefs in dire circumstances, too, by that measure.

You know guys, my "scale of religiousness" was just a vague concept of mine based on personal impressions.  It wasn't meant as a serious theological rating and ranking tool.

Just thought I'd point that out in case anyone mistakingly believes it to be based on any kind of scholarly work (as the closest I've come to philosophy or theology studies were classes in logic and business ethics).  

And again, by any rational measure, a "scale of religiousness" would have to be by people's actions rather than their private thoughts.

Which makes Tony Blair about as Christian as your average mugger. This is just Former Statesman Liberalism. When they're in office they're all buddy-buddy with the most brutal dictators, happily cut welfare programmes for the poor, bomb the crap out of other countries - but then, five minutes after they've finished their memoirs savaging their mates, they turn all mushy and liberal, and want poverty and conflict to end.

Tony Bliar would have been considered a nutter for expressing religious convictions because they're so obviously in complete contradiction to his actions. If the Dalai Lama says he's a believer, or Mother Teresa did, no-one thought they were nutters - they matched beliefs to actions. Your average Western political leader, though - no. Complete contradiction. To say you're a devout Christian while putting into place the policies Blair did, you can't believe that unless you're a nutter.

If he'd behaved in a Christian manner, he could have spoken about it as much as he'd liked, people would have just thought he went on a bit - but they did anyway.

Wait, Kyle....isn't the goal of most secularists to keep religious beliefs out of policy making? I would think this would be a perfect example of someone who didn't let his religious convictions stand in the way of what he thought was the right thing to do for the country.

The argument about whether he was right or wrong, whether he was hoodwinked or it was all a lie, etc. can go on ad infinitum. But it can't be both "Keep your religious convictions out of policy" and "Look how bad you are at infusing your policy with your religious convictions."

Quote from: John MorrowWell, then I don't think martyrdom belongs on the scale, either, because any group could be incited to die for their beliefs in dire circumstances, too, by that measure.

Good call. ...I suppose by extension all groups have "missionaries" and 'church goers' which leaves us with...

jungian God/atheism/nihilism tendency spectrum (jGants):
theism < unitarianism < deism < secular humanism < agnosticism < eventualy...(?) < atheism < solipisim < nihilism.
 
But the D&D player in me wants to put this into an alignment chart. Perhaps if we map altrusim/self as 'good/evil' and map Theist/Atheist as 'law/chaos'

Theocracy__Deism_________Secular Humanitarianism
Theism_____Agnosticism____Atheism
Solipisim____Paganism______Nihilism

Row by row...

Theocracy, Deism, Secular Humanism. These altruistic beliefs are dedicated to conforming society to their ideals of goodness which flows from their belief in the status of God's existence. Theists aim to conform the world to God's will. Diests aim to promote "self evident" rights. Secular Humanists try to do what's best without getting bogged down in transendent values and other God talk.

Theism, Agnosticism, Atheism. These beliefs are primaraly concerned with the existence of God.

Solipism, Paganism, Nihilism. Right action is determined by the self. Indoctrination and attempts to produce conformity are at best foolish and at worst tyranny. Solipisits believe that they themselves are 'god.' Pagans believe that individuals are best suited to determine right and wrong on a person by person basis balanced with a prohibition against harming others. The believe in godlike beings or powers but deny the existence of a single unified God. Nihilists are the 'no-no boys' of this alignment chart.

'Course wether or not you'd want any of these folks for neighbors (let alone prime minister!) depends on their actions actualy are. (Like Kyle said)

Quote from: Kyle AaronTony Bliar would have been considered...

:lol:

Quote from: James J SkachWait, Kyle....isn't the goal of most secularists to keep religious beliefs out of policy making?

No. That might be the goal of some militant atheists, I don't know.

You can have a secular state with religious people elected to high office. The important thing is that Church and State be kept separate. Bishops should not sit in on Cabinet meetings. But that doesn't mean no religious people should be in government. Likewise, the legislative and judicial functions of government should be kept separate, but that doesn't mean no former lawyers should be elected.

Electing people who have a personal philosophy which guides their actions is not at all a problem for a democratic country; whether that philosophy is theist like being Anglican, or atheist like being an economic rationalist - doesn't matter, just let your philosophy be known so that people know what sort of policies to expect from you if they elect you.

A secular state is simply one in which Church and State are separate. That doesn't mean only atheists can be elected.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNo. That might be the goal of some militant atheists, I don't know.

You can have a secular state with religious people elected to high office. The important thing is that Church and State be kept separate. Bishops should not sit in on Cabinet meetings. But that doesn't mean no religious people should be in government. Likewise, the legislative and judicial functions of government should be kept separate, but that doesn't mean no former lawyers should be elected.

Electing people who have a personal philosophy which guides their actions is not at all a problem for a democratic country; whether that philosophy is theist like being Anglican, or atheist like being an economic rationalist - doesn't matter, just let your philosophy be known so that people know what sort of policies to expect from you if they elect you.

A secular state is simply one in which Church and State are separate. That doesn't mean only atheists can be elected.

It's a nice dodge attempt, kyle - but you failed your reflex save.

I didn't say that - but then, you knew that.

Then I've misunderstood you. You said,

Wait, Kyle....isn't the goal of most secularists to keep religious beliefs out of policy making?

and I said, no, it isn't. The goal of secularists is to keep church and state separate, not to keep religious beliefs out of policy making.

What did you mean, if not that?

Blair in any case obviously did not let his religious beliefs in any way affect his policies. It's sheer humbug for him to say otherwise. I'm Jewish, and even I think better of Christians than that a man who lied to Parliament in a conspiracy to wage aggressive war should be able to call himself "Christian" in his actions.

I'm fine with religious leaders as long as they don't think god is backing their specific policies.

To have your policies be influenced by your faith is one thing, and can be a good thing, to believe that your policies are vindicated by your faith is a very different animal.

One permits of doubt, your policies are influenced by your faith but you are fallible so your polices may be wrong.  One does not permit of doubt, your policies are vindicated by your faith, your policies cannot be wrong because they are god's policies.

The latter is hubristic and more importantly very dangerous, as it's the lack of doubt that gets people killed.

Most US presidents of both parties I suspect were influenced by their faith, Bush 2 and Blair were vindicated by theirs.  The difference is a lot of needless deaths.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBlair in any case obviously did not let his religious beliefs in any way affect his policies. It's sheer humbug for him to say otherwise. I'm Jewish, and even I think better of Christians than that a man who lied to Parliament in a conspiracy to wage aggressive war should be able to call himself "Christian" in his actions.

You're assuming his religous beliefs were in line with the teachings of his religion, I don't think that's a safe assumption.  I think it more likely he thought he was acting in line with his faith, but his own arrogance led him in to terrible errors about what his faith actually teaches.