Reminds me of the janitor in the Dilbert cartoons... ;)

Yeah. I didn't ring true to me either. I remember the Mule being a "great" person outside the predictive power of psychohistory. Sometimes when I meet a goofy person working in a low-level position, I imagine what if this person were actually a genius masterminding the whole organization and using the goofy persona to get information people would never give to the top boss.

As I recall, however, several of the "great people" in Foundation history weren't necessarily great by principle but by accident of position. Then there was the one significant antagonist (the jester-type character) who came within a hair's breadth of co-opting the entire system.

Yes, the Foundation series was interesting, but I found the notion that someone could chart the course of human development using an algorithm (however complex) to undermine self-determination. Could be just my lack of imagination, however. ;)

A more accurate statement would be that all religions acknowledge a theocracy: that a god (or pantheon) is the ultimate head of all government. Theocracy as it is commonly used in reference to a terrestrial government as that of a governmental rulership taken from the clergy and invested both with secular and ecumenical powers.

" The larger the group, the less precise the results."
Yes. Except in the world of science fiction, where Hari Seldon's psychohistory could actually predict events better in large groups. The only reason I bring up this off-topic point is a I remember Seldon saying exactly the opposite of what you said. That was fiction, of course. It seems like Asimov had the view that great people don't drive history but rather when the time is ripe a "great" person will appear. I have almost no knowledge or opinion about this, but I find it intriguing.

I recommend to you to read the original writings of our Founding Fathers. I don't use religion in any way different than they did - giving broad latitude to its use. They saw religion as the right of an individual to pursue their own happiness according to their own beliefs. How such a definition separates "philosophy" from "religion" I do not know. To me, it's two sides of the same coin: Florin and Guilder.

The primary objection I see with many in today's world is that they want to attribute to "religion" the notion of the divine and attribute to "philosophy" a purely atheistic approach. You could try arguing such a point to Socrates and Plato, but you'd be met with an immediate rebuke. Philosophy itself is a Greek word rooted in filia (friendship) and sophia (wisdom): put together it is the wisdom of friends found in discussion. Socrates himself died from hemlock poisoning not because he was atheistic, however, but because he denounced the Greek Pantheon and their capricious ways in favor of a monotheistic approach - absolute heresy to the Ancient Greeks.

If one chooses to pretend that only one side of the coin exists, that is their prerogative and their own self-deception. I choose to ignore the appellations and meaningless strawman arguments and focus on principles. I look for truth wherever it may be found. A kernel here, a nugget there, but I am very suspicious of any who claim an exclusive authority. Those who seek to disparage other lines of thought are generally those who are trying to protect some fundamental doctrine that should be called into question.

"It's worthy to study the principles, but they don't explain human behavior."

Principles are explanations about why something is desirable, but they don't impel behavior. Human behavior is based on the comparison of outcomes according to one's perception and guided by principles. They are value judgments but are only accurate insofar as A) people have sufficient information AND B) are principled enough to seek truth. It is an inclusive logic test where both must be true for the outcome to be true.

To further complicate matters, behaviors are individual. Trying to study people in groups leads to very ambiguous results because of individual differences in perception. The larger the group, the less precise the results.

Then you have never read much of Washington. He constantly referred to the "guiding hand of providence", "God" specifically, and "the Creator" in a distinctly Judeo-Christian way. I strongly recommend reading his Farewell Address. In it Washington specifically admonishes the nation from long-term treaties, political parties, and departing from a worship of God. Madison and John Adams as well cite the necessity religious values play in society as a whole. They did not advocate any specific religion, and why? Because they specifically stated that religion is beyond the purview of government, being an individual choice which can not nor should not be constrained.

What happened during the Dark Ages? Paganism - for that is what Constantine turned Christianity into - ruled for more than 1000 years. Corrupted priests lusting for power invented the notion of supererogation - that somehow "saints" could pardon sins for money. The clergy controlled most of the Western world and did to scientific inquiry what the Islamic nations now do to their own: they controlled, repressed, and persecuted those who pursued truth. Was that wrong and reprehensible? Absolutely. Was it a violation of natural rights? Yes, unquestionably. What I would point out, however, was that the Founders did not ascribe to this false notion of "Christianity" at all.

Then we had the invention of the printing press. What is interesting is that the very first thing to be mass produced was... the Bible. People began to discover for themselves that these paganists who called themselves Christians had been looting them for centuries, preying on their ignorance. So they revolted by seeking out the truths - both scientific and religious - that previously they had been forcibly denied. Many sought to escape the nations of Old Europe for the Americas because they would be free to pursue a life unfettered by a coercive belief system. Couple this with Henry VIII and his divorce (pun intended) from Catholicism and major philosophical shockwaves permeated the Western World. And the powers-that-be were also confronted with invasion from Eastern Lands. Thus the religious stranglehold over Old Europe fell, and the Enlightenment began. The monarchy of France (supported by the clergy) was overthrown. The strict feudalism of England (also supported by the clergy) was replaced with a bicameral legislature due to popular unrest, forging the path for the independence of America based on a governmental structure that respected free thought rather than constrained it.

Are there religions based on false ideas? Absolutely. Many of them. I simply object to the overly-broad disparagement of "religion", however, because it literally encompasses every train of thought imaginable. It is a proverbial windmill to tilt against. Instead, I look at principles. Those religious sects which embrace false principles will be doomed to the results of their own fallacy just as the secular philosophies of men which follow the same path. Truth is truth.

I never talked about the States. Don't read into my comments any more than is there. I am well aware of what several of the States did in their early days, but if you actually read Madison, Jefferson and Washington, they all individually decried all such.

I never claimed that the States did not attempt to fund individual religions. Remember, Federalism did not really take hold until the Civil War. Prior to that broad deference was given to the individual States according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to see to their own affairs. It took several generations and the principal of Judicial Review and Supremacy for the assertions of the First Amendment to trickle down to the respective States.

You accuse those who posit an afterlife of being unreasonable. I merely demonstrated that such a claim is not only unwarranted but wholly false. If demonstrating flaws in your rationale is "proselyting" then no, I will not cease.

You can choose to reject what you want. I reject any definitions and logic as being descriptive of reality which rely primarily on negatives to do their work. I reject defining things predominantly in terms of what they are not. It is self-limiting. I focus on what is - not what is not.

"Without such a desire, there is no effort made."
Yes, but we try to overcome this. We try to make ourselves look into questions we may not like the answers to.

"We can objectively analyze principles because we can identify what they mean."
That's true. I'm saying people aren't always aligned with principles. For example, you cannot understand the Northern Ireland Troubles by looking at theological differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. It's worthy to study the principles, but they don't explain human behavior.

"You say an afterlife is desirable, but that in itself is not evidence of its existence. "

I agree. But at the same time, we only seek what we desire to find. The question of whether or not an afterlife exists presupposes one's desire to explore the possibility. Without such a desire, there is no effort made.

"I think we should try our best."

Agreed. It is all we can do.

"Yes! I agree. Talk about the individuals, not the whole group."

No. Talk about principles - not people. People are mutable because they exhibit self-will. They change their minds. We can objectively analyze principles because we can identify what they mean. Talking about people in groups only adds to the problem.

You're correct in stating the Islam is not a religion it is a codification of all the tribal beliefs. Sharia Law is the overarching rules how an Islamic society is govern. Thereby it is a Theocracy. to bad the main stay media doesn't understand that. They refuse to recognize that the Mullahs that rule that society want to make the rest of the world into an Islamic Caliphate. It seems like the colleges and universities don't teach real history any more. That area of learning is now up for interpretation. There is no longer the truth in events.

Really! , to be alone with one's self is torture? Your soul must be writhing in agony. Read "Alone" by Admiral Richard E. Byrd on his stay alone for 6 months in Antarctica. Or, Slocum's "Sailing Around the World Alone". Check out the 400 years of the Spanish Inquisition or the Gulag for torture techniques.
and you will see the Quakers were correct, being alone is not torture, the rack is..

i know...i should not have sugar-coated it...

Because you said it again, I will correct you again. The federal government was prohibited from establishing a religion. The states were not so constrained and in point of fact - historical fact - did establish and support churches for which they collected taxes. AJAshinoff also pointed you to religious tests for office holders at the state level. That was in place until 1990.
See here http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Phi...

See above https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... You cannot put all of Islam in one basket. It existed across four continents (now all seven) for a thousand years. The current affairs are one chapter, much of that in reaction to what they perceive as a military invasion. It would have served our purposes better to stick to fashions, music, and university education.

I also must point out that no one here was very concerned when the IRA terrorists raised money among the Catholic communities in the USA.

See, for instance, Making Big Money in 1600: The Life and Times of Isma'Il Abu Taqiyya, Egyptian Merchant by Nellie Hanna. In Cairo, 1600, Muslims, Jews, and Christians had three separate but co-existing communities. The Cairo Geniza (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_G... ) documents going back to 1100, substantiate the relative freedom of religion in that place in those times. Others here cited the Abbasid Caliphate of Spain before 1492.

Tolerance is a rare commodity.

You are extending the word "religion" beyond its meaning. If anything, to gain what I think is your intended perspective, you need to take it back to its root. What is a ligature? Religion binds people to their society. That was the understanding of the Greeks, Romans, and everyone else. After all, religion is a Latin word and you used it in lieu of faith, belief, understanding, assumptions, or many other synonyms with importantly different shades of meaning.

Philosophy is not religion. Science is not "creation science." A fascist dictatorship is not just another kind of constitutional republic, even though just about every nation on Earth today has a constitution, even those ruled by despots and hetmen. Words have meanings.

... Capital-L Law... Apparently, you needed to clarify that... Nice point, though.

Well, yeah, but philosophercat was making a different point. Perhaps he should have capitalized Law or called it "objective law" or otherwise demarcated his meaning. I thought that it was a nice point. Capital-L Law must be based on reality and reason.

All religions create theocracies. (See my comments below. ttps://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/b0ecc1... )

Among many examples, the "penitentiary" was invented by Quakers. Prisons were never intended as punishment per se, but only as a holding cell before execution of sentence (fine, flogging, death...). The Quakers locked people up in solitary so that they could get right with God. Solitary confinement, of course, is torture. And those were Quakers, perhaps the nicest of all religionists...

In Texas, you cannot cannot buy "hard liquor" on Sunday. You cannot buy beer or wine before noon on Sunday. All car dealerships must close either Saturday or Sunday (pick your sabbath).

All religions create theocracies because all people base their political ideas on metaphysical assumptions, even if those are only implicitly accepted without examination.

As I pointed out above, until 1839-40 Massachusetts collected taxes for the Congregational Church. Until 1990, 14 states barred atheists from holding public office.

The facts are somewhat different than your claims. Congress was prohibited from establishing a national religion. The states did tax people to pay for churches. Massachusetts collected taxes for the Congregational church until 1839-40. Also, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in particular did require belief in God to hold office, vote, be a witness in court, and serve on a jury. When the southern states rejoined the Union, they copied their new constitutions from the existing models of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and likewise barred atheists from public office.

As for the "Anglican" Church, Virginia specifically did tax people to support the Episcopalian church... the low-church American instantiation of the high church British confession.