> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among t

> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." > Does that sentence define how the world works? Or does it define how we want to live? Or does it kinda both? Well, the part about being created by a creator is an unsubstantiated claim about how the world works--and also completely unnecessary. That is, unless you want to appeal to people who have already been indoctrinated into thinking bad of you if you don't accept such unsubstantiated claims. The function of that sentence otherwise is simply to declare how the signatories think their state(s) should be governed. > The point I'm trying to make here is that religion should be understood as a system of government. Well, but if you understand religion as a system of government, that doesn't make all systems of government religions, does it? Otherwise, you are just using "religion" as a synonym for "system of government", which is at best pointless (because we already have the term "system of government") and at worst extremely confusing (because most people will understand "religion" to mean something very different than "system of government"). > And that we would do well to understand even secular governments under the same terms. Not as a guide, but for clarity. Aren't you just saying that it is insightful to compare religions to other systems of government? Well, yeah, sure. But in order to make an insightful comparison between trains and planes you don't have to define trains to be a "kind of plane, just without flight". > I don't pretend secular governments to be religions. I simply define them as such and then see what fits and what doesn't. But that is how you do pretend they are religions. While you are free to define terms however you want, if you just implicitly use definitions that deviate from common understanding, you are misleading your audience. > The superstitions are not very interesting in that regard. I think they get too much credit. Are you saying that superstitions (and the epistemology that supports them) have no significant influence on how religious people behave as compared to non-religous people? > Insisting that religions are defined by their superstitions misses a large part of what they are and why they exist. So, what would be an example of what religions are and why they exist that is not superstition and also doesn't apply to non-religions (because, if it applies to non-religions, it's not a defining characteristic specific to religions)?