Religion and Politics

[Thersites]

I don't have time at the moment to write a long expository post, so let's just say that this is a thread for the discussion of the proper interaction of religious beliefs and religious authority with secular government. Should there be an absolute wall of separation between church and state? Absolutely no wall? Somewhere in between?

[themuzicman]

The wall between Church and State exists in that no Church governing body may be a secular governing body. The RCC may not run HHS, for example.

Religious beliefs are reflected and are even the basis for many of our principles in law and laws themselves, and no wall exists between them.

Thus, no Theocracy or Ecclesiocracy, because our government is secular in nature, but aligning with the fundamentals of the culture, which (until recently) were Christian in nature, is perfectly acceptable.

Michael

[Cow Poke]

In another thread, I have some commentary on the letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. I'll try to find that, because that's from whence cometh "the wall" statement.

Meanwhile, subscribing.

(Here's the link to my post about The Wall (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=3009167&postcount=8))

[Andius]

Mmhhh, in my take;

I am one who considers this take: Separation of Church and State is nothing more than the exclusion of one particular type of Church (Christendom and her diverse denominations, along with a select number of religions), yet allowing particular types of Churches to determine State doctrine (The Secular "Church" or Apatheist "Church" in our days).

It's my way of saying, separating is a vain effort to carry out it's intent, because another "Church" simply takes over. The State must always have some sort of "Church" to govern it's principles. I suppose it's matter of which "Church" can insure the co-existence of diverse collectives of beliefs within the Society in which that State will hold dominion over.

And when I say "Church", I am referring to any type of embodiment of beliefs or practices (I don't care if you call it, religion, ideology, or worldview).

[Jaecp]

Eh,

When you could call the republican or democratic parties "churches" I think we've strained language a bit too far.

As for the notion of "separation of church and state", it was, essentially, Jeffersons personal wording/elaboration of the establishment clause, which sits with me just fine.

[Thersites]

Eh,

When you could call the republican or democratic parties "churches" I think we've strained language a bit too far.

As for the notion of "separation of church and state", it was, essentially, Jeffersons personal wording/elaboration of the establishment clause, which sits with me just fine.

Any philosophy, political or otherwise, ultimately depends on some dogma or other. Even a pragmatist has an inexplicable faith in the importance of being practical.

Andius' use of "church" in this context, I should think, is not so much intended to call Republicans and Democrats independent religions (Andius isn't even from the US) as it is to point out the universality of ideological motivation.

[Cow Poke]

Eh,

When you could call the republican or democratic parties "churches" I think we've strained language a bit too far.

As for the notion of "separation of church and state", it was, essentially, Jeffersons personal wording/elaboration of the establishment clause, which sits with me just fine.

The problem with the establishment clause is that people don't go far enough when citing it.
It says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" would nullify many of the laws that congress has, in fact, made regarding the establishment of religion.

It should be called "The establishment/prohibition clause", and congress should make NO law related thereto, IMO.

[Andius]

Eh,

When you could call the republican or democratic parties "churches" I think we've strained language a bit too far.



What Spartacus said.

The word "Churches" in this context of political science, is usually what I nickname any assembly of persons united by common beliefs/religion/ideology/doctrines/dogmas, etc. Having studied governments as part of my career, all governments, when they are born or assembled, will always be guided by some sort of sets of chosen doctrines (Even dictatorships), there is no roundabouting that fact.


As for the notion of "separation of church and state", it was, essentially, Jeffersons personal wording/elaboration of the establishment clause, which sits with me just fine.

And it was an understandable reaction against the Anglican Church, and I admire Jefferson's attempt to insure that the new USA government would not promote any religion in particular.

Nonetheless, it still paradoxically claims that it won't promote any religion, while at the same time, it is promoting it's own "Religion" or Religions/Ideology behind the Constitution, for example, 18th Century Liberalism (Freedom as the supreme virtue, Human Rights, etc.), which pretty much already fails in itself by it's declaration of the First Clause.

For me, I would prefer that Governments would stop the "we don't promote any particular belief" nonsense, when it is already promoting it's beliefs via the laws in the Constitution, and just come out straight with a "We are aligned and loyal to so so principles/beliefs/doctrines".

[Jaecp]

CP, What, specifically, do you think are unjust laws that congress has passed wrt the topic?

I'm unaware of any law (being enforced, at least, there are some zingers on the books, giraffes and telephone poles, as one of the stories goes) that is restricting your rights to go to church and practice your religious beliefs. We have laws regarding organizations and what they can do if tax exempt, which most churches are. Are you referring to those? Or instances where hallucinogenic substances are ingested in various non-christian religion practices, and the various levels of enforcement (state to state, so far) about them? Should we not being able to intervene in cases where parents of very sick children are not receiving adequate (or any) medical attention because its as a result of a religious belief? [Something here about creationism in science classrooms] or any number of other things.

I do not wish to infringe upon your right to believe what you want, to do what you want, to live like you want. However, I do not want this to negatively impact others. While your specific denomination of christianity probably aren't the ones doing the kinds of things that I (and likely you) would consider negative, we cannot give a free pass to everything done as part of a religion or religious action.

When I see the words "free exercise thereof" I think of your nice average churchgoers, doing their thing. When I see "free exercise thereof" I do not see a kid dieing because they believe blood transfusion are bad.


Any philosophy, political or otherwise, ultimately depends on some dogma or other. Even a pragmatist has an inexplicable faith in the importance of being practical.

Andius' use of "church" in this context, I should think, is not so much intended to call Republicans and Democrats independent religions (Andius isn't even from the US) as it is to point out the universality of ideological motivation.

K, pick any given political party from any country on earth. This is now a "church"

Its an abuse of language, they are not churches in the sense that the law is talking about. Religious organizations had a huge amount of political power at and around the time of the USA's founding, we all know what the constitution is referring to.

As for everything resting on "dogma", i disagree. We all have "premises", but to refer to them as dogma gives them a connotation that I do not believe is warranted.


What Spartacus said.

The word "Churches" in this context of political science, is usually what I nickname any assembly of persons united by common beliefs/religion/ideology/doctrines/dogmas, etc. Having studied governments as part of my career, all governments, when they are born or assembled, will always be guided by some sort of sets of chosen doctrines (Even dictatorships), there is no roundabouting that fact.



And it was an understandable reaction against the Anglican Church, and I admire Jefferson's attempt to insure that the new USA government would not promote any religion in particular.

Nonetheless, it still paradoxically claims that it won't promote any religion, while at the same time, it is promoting it's own "Religion" or Religions/Ideology behind the Constitution, for example, 18th Century Liberalism (Freedom as the supreme virtue, Human Rights, etc.), which pretty much already fails in itself by it's declaration of the First Clause.

For me, I would prefer that Governments would stop the "we don't promote any particular belief" nonsense, when it is already promoting it's beliefs via the laws in the Constitution, and just come out straight with a "We are aligned and loyal to so so principles/beliefs/doctrines".

Can you please stop calling them religions? They aren't. Religions and Churches have very specific meanings in English, and to use a nickname definition of the word gets us nowhere. There is nothing paradoxical between the establishment clause in relation to non-religious ideas. You are needlessly conflating the word Church to apply to a big list of things to the extent that I could, in all honesty, refer to a local sports team as a church of the religion of Soccer! :-/ No

[Cow Poke]

CP, What, specifically, do you think are unjust laws that congress has passed wrt the topic?

Interesting point, Jaecp.

Can't think off the top of my head of CONGRESSIONAL action, but this "establishment clause" is cited over and over for stupid "laws" or policies of local governments, or stupid polices are enacted because of fear of prosecution or legal action because of the "establishment clause".

In Texas, there is a continuing controversy over, for example, prayers being said before a High School football game, or mentioning the name of God at a commencement speech... although I cannot say these are "congressional" problems, the fact is that it comes down to the "establishment clause", and somebody claiming that allowing somebody to pray at a football game represents an "establishment of religion".

[Jaecp]

Well, there is a subtle distinction between "allowing" to pray and "government sanctioning of a specific religion or sect of religion"

As I understand it, Students are well within their legal rights to pray to their hearts content in school. I recall an ACLU case where some school tried to prevent some grade schooler from praying and the ACLU slapped them in the face, so to speak. Minor stipulations about being disruptive perhaps(with biblical support! Matt 6:6), but no real restrictions I am aware of.

However, what is against the rules is when you have a school official sponsoring it, pushing for it, whatever you wanna cal it. (public school, mind you, as they are employee's of the state) A representative of the government cannot put one religion over another while in their official capacity. Sponsoring/Organization a prayer constitutes this

For a football game in particular, of the cases I am aware of there is a distinction between when prayer can cause issue. If its the QB or whoever praying in the locker room, on the field, or in whatever capacity as a member of his team, no harm no foul. The crux of the issue is when the school has someone do a prayer for the entire stadium. A few schools a while back that had official prayers before a game got cuffed about it, and then they had "spontaneous student led prayer", which coincided, quite quickly, with not having it be official. Much like with the people who try to put creationism or "ID" into schools, other people also want to entangle state and religion in other aspects (christian dominionists, I believe they are referred to)

As for commencement speeches? I've not focused much attention on those, school issues hold more interest for me, as well as being more universal.

[Jedidiah]

We should have a negative Amen feature here at TWeb.

[Cow Poke]

Well, there is a subtle distinction between "allowing" to pray and "government sanctioning of a specific religion or sect of religion"

As I understand it, Students are well within their legal rights to pray to their hearts content in school. I recall an ACLU case where some school tried to prevent some grade schooler from praying and the ACLU slapped them in the face, so to speak. Minor stipulations about being disruptive perhaps(with biblical support! Matt 6:6), but no real restrictions I am aware of.

However, what is against the rules is when you have a school official sponsoring it, pushing for it, whatever you wanna cal it. (public school, mind you, as they are employee's of the state) A representative of the government cannot put one religion over another while in their official capacity. Sponsoring/Organization a prayer constitutes this

For a football game in particular, of the cases I am aware of there is a distinction between when prayer can cause issue. If its the QB or whoever praying in the locker room, on the field, or in whatever capacity as a member of his team, no harm no foul. The crux of the issue is when the school has someone do a prayer for the entire stadium. A few schools a while back that had official prayers before a game got cuffed about it, and then they had "spontaneous student led prayer", which coincided, quite quickly, with not having it be official. Much like with the people who try to put creationism or "ID" into schools, other people also want to entangle state and religion in other aspects (christian dominionists, I believe they are referred to)

As for commencement speeches? I've not focused much attention on those, school issues hold more interest for me, as well as being more universal.

The point is - if local communities could make their own decisions without fear of litigation by ACLU or some other pinko commie :rant: outfit, life would be simpler and cheaper! :smile:

Jaecep - you're either not being sincere, or are not well informed, as to the litigation brought forth against "freedom of religion" things under the guise of "the establishment clause". My point was that the "prohibition clause" is in that very same First Amendment, but it never seems to get a mention.

Did you even read that part?

[Cow Poke]

We should have a negative Amen feature here at TWeb.

Amen! :smile:

[Jaecp]

My ACLU example was of the ACLU defending a childs right to pray :-/ You seem to be having a kneejerk reaction. Perhaps you'd be interested in this site (http://aclufightsforchristians.com/) which details a few examples of, as the page says that "The ACLU fights just as hard for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights against GOVERNMENT endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion."

Local communities can do what they like, local governmental agencies have rules they are required to follow. I am not aware of anyone keeping you from going to church or any actual infringement of your rights. If something like that did come up then I, and the ACLU, would not hesitate to defend you. I am aware of rules in place to prevent the unnecessary entanglement of religion and government. One of those things is keeping schools neutral and fair for people of every religious belief.

As to the Prohibition clause, where does it say in the bible that you need to have public prayers before sports event? What about Matthew 6:6?

If you or Jed have something to say to my (IHMO articulate, cordial and accurate) post beyond casual dismissal (jed) or asking if I am honest, informed and literate (you), then I would enjoy discussing the issue, which so rarely is able to actually be discussed coolly. While this may not be your intention, it looks like you dismissed my post and fed me a talking point, which I don't generally appreciate, and which is not generally conductive to discussion,

Cheers,

J

[Cow Poke]

My ACLU example was of the ACLU defending a childs right to pray :-/ You seem to be having a kneejerk reaction.

Not at all... I'm having a calm reasoned discussion on my end. I JOKINGLY used the "rant" thing and was being facetious about the commie thing. Relax a little, J... we're just talking.


Local communities can do what they like, local governmental agencies have rules they are required to follow. I am not aware of anyone keeping you from going to church or any actual infringement of your rights. If something like that did come up then I, and the ACLU, would not hesitate to defend you. I am aware of rules in place to prevent the unnecessary entanglement of religion and government. One of those things is keeping schools neutral and fair for people of every religious belief.You're not listening. I have lots of experience with school boards, and as a youth minister, and pastor - decisions are, in fact, often made on the basis of "how much will it cost us to defend a law suit". Just recently, my local school board decided to forego "see you at the pole" because somebody said they would sue.


If you or Jed have something to say to my (IHMO articulate, cordial and accurate) post beyond casual dismissal (jed) or asking me if I can read (you). While this may not be your intention, it looks like you dismissed my post and fed me a talking point, which I do not appreciate.Look, if you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, that's fine with me. If you are going to get your feelings hurt, I need to be elsewhere, as that is not my intention.


As to the Prohibition clause, where does it say in the bible that you need to have public prayers before sports event? What about Matthew 6:6?So, you ONLY pray in the closet?

What is IHMO, by the way?

[Jaecp]

I edited my post while you were replying.

[Cow Poke]

I edited my post while you were replying.

I do that too... but still, what's IHMO?

[Jaecp]

It means "In my honest opinion"

I was planning on waiting to reply until you'd looked over the rest of what I had said.

[Cow Poke]

It means "In my honest opinion"

I was planning on waiting to reply until you'd looked over the rest of what I had said.

IHMO is "In My Honest Opinion"? :smile:
One of us is dyslexic, I think.

[Jaecp]

Umm,

Yes actually :-/ Spellcheck doesn't generally tell me if short all caps stuff is misspelled.

[Jaecp]

Not at all... I'm having a calm reasoned discussion on my end. I JOKINGLY used the "rant" thing and was being facetious about the commie thing. Relax a little, J... we're just talking.

Are you familiar with the idea of Poe's Law (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law) perchance?


You're not listening. I have lots of experience with school boards, and as a youth minister, and pastor - decisions are, in fact, often made on the basis of "how much will it cost us to defend a law suit". Just recently, my local school board decided to forego "see you at the pole" because somebody said they would sue.

Frivolous lawsuits are a pain for schools whether or not religion is involved. However, a quick internet search informed me that precedent for this SYATP business has school sponsorship involved, which means that you've got government sponsorship of a religious deal going on. The ACLU only takes action if the school itself support or discourages a religious observance of some sort, when it actually is student led (which, by your statement, you've got the school board voting on it as a red flag already) then there is no problem.


Look, if you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, that's fine with me. If you are going to get your feelings hurt, I need to be elsewhere, as that is not my intention.

Who said my feelings were hurt? That bit wasn't directed solely at you, btw, but surely you can see how giving a joking rant about the ACLU and then asking me if I can read could come off badly. I am, and have, been quite reasonable.


So, you ONLY pray in the closet?

Rest of Verse (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6&version=KJV)

The chapter in question is a pretty straightforward condemnation of public prayer.

I don't pray anywhere, actually, as I am an atheist :P

Oh, and since the only real bit that changed in my post was the link to that lawyers website, here it is again, ACLU Fights for Christians (http://aclufightsforchristians.com/)

[Jedidiah]

Jaecp,

I guess I did casually dismiss your post. The fact is atheists holler about how Christians whine about being persecuted. Then they (you in this case) start whining about public prayer as though it was some sort of persecution against you. ACLU is not defending any civil liberties, it is trying to limit them. Are there examples to the contrary? Sure a few well selected ones.

I still casually dismiss the whole whine.

Is that better?

[Cow Poke]

Are you familiar with the idea of Poe's Law (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law) perchance?

I wasn't. I am now. So now what?


Frivolous lawsuits are a pain for schools whether or not religion is involved. However, a quick internet search informed me that precedent for this SYATP business has school sponsorship involved, which means that you've got government sponsorship of a religious deal going on. The ACLU only takes action if the school itself support or discourages a religious observance of some sort, when it actually is student led (which, by your statement, you've got the school board voting on it as a red flag already) then there is no problem.

A quick internet search, eh? That compares to "real life experience"? I've been a police officer, a pastor, and a home schooler. ACLU has been on the other side of the fence from me on numerous occasions, including being influential in setting free a child rapist/murderer because a stupid sheriff's deputy gave the guy a glass of wine to calm his nerves. It was sheer stupidity on the deputy's part, and he should be pistol-whipped. But the child rapist/murderer should not have been free on a technicality, as led by the ACLU.

The ACLU, in my own personal experience, has been "the other guy" without exception.


Who said my feelings were hurt? That bit wasn't directed solely at you, btw, but surely you can see how giving a joking rant about the ACLU and then asking me if I can read could come off badly. I am, and have, been quite reasonable.

I'm not Jed. And Jed isn't me. Although, just about anything he says, I'll amen. :smile:


The chapter in question is a pretty straightforward condemnation of public prayer.

No, it's talking about haughty prayer just for show. It is not a condemnation of public prayer.


I don't pray anywhere, actually, as I am an atheist :P

That explains a lot. :smile: Sorry I mistook you for .. um... somebody else.


Oh, and since the only real bit that changed in my post was the link to that lawyers website, here it is again, ACLU Fights for Christians (http://aclufightsforchristians.com/)

I have no warm spots in my heart for lawyers of any stripe. :shrug: MUCH LESS the ACLU types.

[Andius]

Can you please stop calling them religions? They aren't. Religions and Churches have very specific meanings in English, and to use a nickname definition of the word gets us nowhere.

Newsflash Jaecp, my use for the word religion is consistent with the Cambridge and Merriam-Webster Dictionaries.:

[C] informal an activity which someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly
(From Present Cambridge Dictionary).

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (From the Present Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

I am awares that English speakers use the word all too commonly to associate a reverance towards a deity(s), yet forget that it has a far wider application. It is people who are too obsessed with associating the word religion with deities or "spirituality", that they fail to realize the religiosity in anything out there.


There is nothing paradoxical between the establishment clause in relation to non-religious ideas.

By my reckoning, there is no such thing a non-religious idea (By virtue that so called "non-religiousity" has doctrines or practices of her own). In the establishment of a law or contract, doctrine of some sort is inseparable as the guide line in the construct of the writ.


You are needlessly conflating the word Church to apply to a big list of things to the extent that I could, in all honesty, refer to a local sports team as a church of the religion of Soccer! :-/ No

Go ahead then, I am actually perfectly content in the religiosity of football soccer (And I, along with every single Argentinian will not only not argue that point, but embrace it as well :teeth: ).

[Jaecp]

Jaecp,

I guess I did casually dismiss your post. The fact is atheists holler about how Christians whine about being persecuted. Then they (you in this case) start whining about public prayer as though it was some sort of persecution against you. ACLU is not defending any civil liberties, it is trying to limit them. Are there examples to the contrary? Sure a few well selected ones.

I still casually dismiss the whole whine.

Is that better?

Not especially,

I made my first post to give my 2 cents about it being incorrect to refer to non-religious groups as religions or churches and my comments on the establishment clause. Which has now turned into a discussion of its own.

Nowhere am I “whining”

Basically, while all of that might apply to others, I do not see myself as whining, acting persecuted, or the rest of that. As to the ACLU trying to limit civil liberties? Eh, I think the evidence is against you.



I wasn't. I am now. So now what?

Well, your statement fits it. I know people who actually do think that the ACLU are commie pinkos out to destroy America. Conveying humor is difficult on the internet


A quick internet search, eh? That compares to "real life experience"? I've been a police officer, a pastor, and a home schooler. ACLU has been on the other side of the fence from me on numerous occasions, including being influential in setting free a child rapist/murderer because a stupid sheriff's deputy gave the guy a glass of wine to calm his nerves. It was sheer stupidity on the deputy's part, and he should be pistol-whipped. But the child rapist/murderer should not have been free on a technicality, as led by the ACLU.

The ACLU, in my own personal experience, has been "the other guy" without exception.

I'd have to see the details to make a real decision, but I am aware that one of the primary causes of people getting let go of crimes is procedural error. As for the internet, I checked up on that SYATP business you mentioned, is there something wrong with that? I don't know the details of every possible incident, I focus more on understanding the procedural bits, so that when I read up on a situation I can figure stuff out. From the sounds of it, the deputy gave the guy some alcohol before being questions, no? Any testimony given while under the influence of a mind altering substance given to him by a police officer would have been inadmissible. Thats what happened, isn't it?

Either way, whatever happened to that rapist is a bit irrelevant to the religion and politics discussion, so why bring it up?


No, it's talking about haughty prayer just for show. It is not a condemnation of public prayer.

Perhaps, I'm not a christian and have no particular use for ascribing a specific interpretation on a specific verse, Mathew 6 as a condemnation of public prayer is something I've heard at a church before.

Either way, why pray at a football game? Asking god to help your team win? (Thats not haughty, is it?)


That explains a lot. Sorry I mistook you for .. um... somebody else.

Ah, who? And is that a good or bad thing :P


I have no warm spots in my heart for lawyers of any stripe. MUCH LESS the ACLU types.

They are a means to keep society moving smoothly. I don't tend to dislike people just for their profession. The link is something around 50 cases where the ACLU was acting on behalf of christians so they could practice their religion. Do you still think that the ACLU is universally out to get christianity, instead of the general focus being along the lines of the “ACLU fights just as hard for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights against GOVERNMENT endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion “



Newsflash Jaecp, my use for the word religion is consistent with the Cambridge and Merriam-Webster Dictionaries.:

[C] informal an activity which someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly
(From Present Cambridge Dictionary).

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (From the Present Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

I am awares that English speakers use the word all too commonly to associate a reverance towards a deity(s), yet forget that it has a far wider application. It is people who are too obsessed with associating the word religion with deities or "spirituality", that they fail to realize the religiosity in anything out there.

Are you familiar with the fallacy of equivocation?


By my reckoning, there is no such thing a non-religious idea (By virtue that so called "non-religiousity" has doctrines or practices of her own). In the establishment of a law or contract, doctrine of some sort is inseparable as the guide line in the construct of the writ.

If nothing is non-religious, then I have a feeling you are overgeneralizing.


Go ahead then, I am actually perfectly content in the religiosity of football soccer (And I, along with every single Argentinian will not only not argue that point, but embrace it as well ).
Passionate, yes, (oh yes), however, it is not a religion in the sense of the word that the US constitution is referring to. I am fairly confident that if you go up to 10 random people on the street and say pick the religions out of this list showing them,

Christianity
Islam
Soccer
Democrats and Republicans (or whatever local political party you have)
Boy Scouts
Buddhism
Catholicism
Baseball
Basketball
Voodoo

I am pretty sure you are going to get a high amount of people picking Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism and Voodoo (assuming they know voodoo is, I suppose)

What your not going to find is many, if any, people picking a sports team, political affiliation or kids club out as a religion. In speaking to people, your first definition is explicitly listed as informal. When someone says I get religious about my sports teams they don't actually mean I am religious, but it is a metaphorical usage of the word in the same way I might say that a sports star was on fire.

In fact, lets check Cambridge, the first definition (the one not listed as informal)

Religion
The belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship
the Christian religion

Websters primary definitions is inline with the traditional understanding, that religion refers to stuff like nuns and god beliefs.

So, no, your notion does not stand.

Principally, your point rests on an equivocation, since the text in question is using definition 1, overwhelmingly, while your using other definitions of the world religion to make your point.

[Andius]

Are you familiar with the fallacy of equivocation?

Are you familiar that I am your daddy? Where am I misleading the term either way? Aside from your aversion that I am using it's alternative definitions as primary definitions for specific purpose, an aversion of yours I find ever so curious.


If nothing is non-religious, then I have a feeling you are overgeneralizing.

I prefer the term, universalize and free of stunted and bankrupt conceptualizations. :teeth:


Passionate, yes, (oh yes), however, it is not a religion in the sense of the word that the US constitution is referring to. I am fairly confident that if you go up to 10 random people on the street and say pick the religions out of this list showing them,

I don't care what your average Joe thinks on such matters. And even so, where? In your America? With it's narrowistic concept of religion? Try the rest of the world, especially in the areas where such concept does not even exist, and the question is meaningless for such peoples.

But in the name of fairdom, I suppose I have to respect the meaning and interpretation of religion in the U.S. Constitution. But that only means I have reasons to consider that section of the Constitution to be a poorly thought out article, especially since I come from a radically different background that use radically different conceptualizations when it comes to Political Science, and in many things of this discipline. I seek to reform due to my aversion to many of it's traditional teachings. I laugh at the idea of States claiming they hold no State religion, a laugh I have the moment that foolishness that leaves their mouths and pens, and reaches my ears and eyes.


In fact, lets check Cambridge, the first definition (the one not listed as informal)

Religion
The belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship
the Christian religion

Websters primary definitions is inline with the traditional understanding, that religion refers to stuff like nuns and god beliefs.

So, no, your notion does not stand.

I suppose so, but remember that because it uses multiple definitions, and, I, the communicator, am not obliged to use it's primary definition. Show me where it says; The speaker of English is obliged to use the 1. Definition of it's dictionary, and henceforth, prohibited to use it's alternative definitions as prime definitions as to personally express what I intend to express to the English speakers.


Principally, your point rests on an equivocation, since the text in question is using definition 1, overwhelmingly, while your using other definitions of the world religion to make your point.

See above definition nazi.

[Cow Poke]

... From the sounds of it, the deputy gave the guy some alcohol before being questions, no?

No. The dirtbag took me (then, a city cop) and a sheriff's deputy to the spot in the woods where he buried the body of the 9 year old sexually assaulted and brutally murdered 9 year old child. Another deputy took the perp back to the Sheriff's office while we (me and the first deputy) secured the scene and waited for the coroner to arrive and recover the remains.

At the Sheriff's Office, the deputy who took the perp back there decided - God only knows why - to "psychoanalyze" the guy, and gave him some wine to "calm his nerves" so he would talk. Subsequently, the perp complained that his constitutional rights were violated, and he recanted his confession - his attorney managed to convince a judge to throw out EVERYTHING, including the fact that the guy showed us where to find the body - PRIOR to the wine incident. It was a sick case, one of the worst I had ever experienced.


Any testimony given while under the influence of a mind altering substance given to him by a police officer would have been inadmissible. Thats what happened, isn't it? No. He confessed PRIOR to that, and, as I said, took us to the place where the body was buried in a shallow grave in the woods.


Either way, whatever happened to that rapist is a bit irrelevant to the religion and politics discussion, so why bring it up?Because, here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=3018115#post3018115 you were pointing out how helpful the ACLU is to Christians. I was offering my own perspective from personal experience with the ACLU.


Perhaps, I'm not a christian and have no particular use for ascribing a specific interpretation on a specific verse, Mathew 6 as a condemnation of public prayer is something I've heard at a church before.

Either way, why pray at a football game? Asking god to help your team win? (Thats not haughty, is it?)I guess you've never been to a Texas High School football game. It's a religion in and of itself. :shrug: The prayer is somewhat of a tradition, and is offered asking for good sportsmanship, and the safety of the players. Yeah, God must not answer, eh? Players are often unsportsmanlike and some of them get injured.


They are a means to keep society moving smoothly. I don't tend to dislike people just for their profession. The link is something around 50 cases where the ACLU was acting on behalf of christians so they could practice their religion. Do you still think that the ACLU is universally out to get christianity, instead of the general focus being along the lines of the “ACLU fights just as hard for INDIVIDUAL free exercise of religion as the ACLU fights against GOVERNMENT endorsement, sponsorship, or establishment of religion “We tend to be shaped by our experiences. I seem to have had quite a few negative experiences with the ACLU.

If somebody is nice and helps 50 little old ladies cross the street safely, then kicks me in the groin, which do you think i'm going to remember or think is more significant?

[Jaecp]

No. The dirtbag took me (then, a city cop) and a sheriff's deputy to the spot in the woods where he buried the body of the 9 year old sexually assaulted and brutally murdered 9 year old child. Another deputy took the perp back to the Sheriff's office while we (me and the first deputy) secured the scene and waited for the coroner to arrive and recover the remains.

At the Sheriff's Office, the deputy who took the perp back there decided - God only knows why - to "psychoanalyze" the guy, and gave him some wine to "calm his nerves" so he would talk. Subsequently, the perp complained that his constitutional rights were violated, and he recanted his confession - his attorney managed to convince a judge to throw out EVERYTHING, including the fact that the guy showed us where to find the body - PRIOR to the wine incident. It was a sick case, one of the worst I had ever experienced.

That sucks, that really does. I would use stronger language, but I'd like to avoid an infraction. However

No. He confessed PRIOR to that, and, as I said, took us to the place where the body was buried in a shallow grave in the woods.

You don't need to split this up so much


Because, here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...15#post3018115 you were pointing out how helpful the ACLU is to Christians. I was offering my own perspective from personal experience with the ACLU.

Regarding christianity/religious expression/free speech abuses, as each of those cases I linked to were about. That a lawyer got his client off because the deputy gave the dude alcohol is not pertinent to the discussion.


I guess you've never been to a Texas High School football game. It's a religion in and of itself. The prayer is somewhat of a tradition, and is offered asking for good sportsmanship, and the safety of the players. Yeah, God must not answer, eh? Players are often unsportsmanlike and some of them get injured.

I haven't, I do know football players in other states and yes, they get into it. I'm not sure what the rest is about. Traditions get examined all the time to see if they should be continued. School Officiated prayer is merely another one of those traditions examined. I don't recall commenting on whether god answered prayers or not, so I am unsure why thats brought up.

What I am seeing is something like “we already pray, so why stop?” when I am kinda asking “why do you need to be praying at a football game, infront of the stadium, in the first place?” Mind, if it wasn't a public school I wouldn't care if you prayed infront of a stadium at a sporting event. Professional athletes thank god on ESPN for a sports win, and other similar behavior, all the time. Its not a big deal. The only problem is when we have these two things intersect that it becomes an issue.


We tend to be shaped by our experiences. I seem to have had quite a few negative experiences with the ACLU.

If somebody is nice and helps 50 little old ladies cross the street safely, then kicks me in the groin, which do you think i'm going to remember or think is more significant?

I disagree that this is an accurate painting of the ACLU. When it comes to religion and politics, can you find me an example of the ACLU actually diminishing a christians legal rights? I fear we have gotten off topic. Thanks, on to Andius (who is not nearly as cordial as you, which I do appreciate, thanks CP)

Anyway! On with the show!


Are you familiar that I am your daddy? Where am I misleading the term either way? Aside from your aversion that I am using it's alternative definitions as primary definitions for specific purpose, an aversion of yours I find ever so curious.

Because the context is the first amendment, so in other words, you are using a different definition of the word than the one being used in the example.

Mixing up definitions, ergo, equivocation


I prefer the term, universalize and free of stunted and bankrupt conceptualizations.

Stunted and bankrupt? How?

Because a word is used in a way that can convey a fairly specific meaning to the intended audience? No. When you take a word and generalize it to the extreme (as you are attempting to do) you make the language unfeasible for accurate communication.

However, I flower rock candy your tearsong bowling alley and bid you good day, sir! (Pardon my rude language, moderators, I am speaking only in jest! Please don't give me an infraction :(


I don't care what your average Joe thinks on such matters. And even so, where? In your America? With it's narrowistic concept of religion? Try the rest of the world, especially in the areas where such concept does not even exist, and the question is meaningless for such peoples.

But in the name of fairdom, I suppose I have to respect the meaning and interpretation of religion in the U.S. Constitution. But that only means I have reasons to consider that section of the Constitution to be a poorly thought out article, especially since I come from a radically different background that use radically different conceptualizations when it comes to Political Science, and in many things of this discipline. I seek to reform due to my aversion to many of it's traditional teachings. I laugh at the idea of States claiming they hold no State religion, a laugh I have the moment that foolishness that leaves their mouths and pens, and reaches my ears and eyes.

Actually, I was thinking of it in your local area (wherever you are), since I am confident I would get a similar result (after you translate it to the local language, I suppose)

And yes! The average joe is quite important when it comes to the general understanding of common words, because thats what languages are! A general understanding of words. Why do you understand what I mean when I say “my hat is on your head” if not for a common understanding of what each of those words mean? If I go to europe with that list, what do you think I will find? If I go to asia? Will political parties become religions? If I go to Australia will Christianity stop being one? Will baseball start to be one if I have this list in Japan?

If you know what the constitution means when it refers to religion, and you know what people today mean when they say there is no state religion and you truly understand that, then I would hope you keep that in mind. To be perfectly frank, you are holding a rather uncommon definition of the word and wanting to apply it to everyone else :-/ That you still laugh when the states say we have no state religion, even after announcing that you know what usage of the word is being used, then I see that as fairly disengenous.


I suppose so, but remember that because it uses multiple definitions, and, I, the communicator, am not obliged to use it's primary definition. Show me where it says; The speaker of English is obliged to use the 1. Definition of it's dictionary, and henceforth, prohibited to use it's alternative definitions as prime definitions as to personally express what I intend to express to the English speakers.

Definitions tend to be ranked, or attempted to be ranked, in the order of most common to rarest (this is why you generally see colloquial or antique definitions at the bottom of the list)


See above definition nazi.

I love you!

Seriously! I. LOVE. YOU. (strictly platonic) See, right here, you are not, in fact, referring to me as a member of the National socialist GermanWorkers' party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, seized political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Führer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.

You're referring to me in a metaphorical sense! Brilliant! You are comparing me to a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc! Brilliant!

See, the issue is, you're not going to say that the word needs to applied universally or that the shackles on nazi need to be changed are you? Should we take the term, universalize it and free it of stunted and bankrupt conceptualizations,

Of course not, its a non-standard metaphorical use of the word, much like your use of the word religion.

[Jaecp]

Huh, weird.

I type my posts in a word processor, to avoid random crashes from killing it, my first text block should mention 2 more things,

"However, this really doesn't have anything to do with religion and politics"

and

"procedural error on the part of cops is a huge reason why people can go free, I dislike rapists going free just as much as the next guy, but if a dude has a police officer giving him booze then its going to get brought up in court. I mean, I can just see the lawyer now "look, they gave my client alcohol, when else did they give him, or other people this court has convicted, alcohol to elicit a confession", to be perfectly honest I am kind of surprised that other criminals put away by your local sheriff, bad bad men, have not come out and said that there confessions were made under the influence of alcohol that this deputy gave him"

[Andius]

Because the context is the first amendment, so in other words, you are using a different definition of the word than the one being used in the example.

Mixing up definitions, ergo, equivocation


Okay, I can concede to that, but I will still sustain that the concept of religion selected by the Founding Fathers of America still blows. If the US Government, along with the rest of Constitutions across the world that use such concept, then so be it.



Stunted and bankrupt? How?

Because a word is used in a way that can convey a fairly specific meaning to the intended audience? No. When you take a word and generalize it to the extreme (as you are attempting to do) you make the language unfeasible for accurate communication.



Incorrect. It still maintains feasibility by virtue that it be talking about a Modus Operandi of beliefs that a person sustains. And don't press the panic button just yet, since my understanding of religion is somewhat akin to the one Augustine used to distinguish other systems of belief in his day (In his use of the word LEX, Law). Only difference between him and I, lies in that I will also include atheistic and apatheistic systems of beliefs and sub-beliefs in the fold.


However, I flower rock candy your tearsong bowling alley and bid you good day, sir! (Pardon my rude language, moderators, I am speaking only in jest! Please don't give me an infraction :(

Heh, you intending seriousness and intending jest, what is there to distinguish either way, it can be all the same given your amusing track record in formulating arguments with the rest of my TWeb comrades. :lol: A shame your intent on rude language is as successfull as a butterfly attempting to move a boulder, and your attempt at parody, it actually makes watching a tree grow a delightful comedy.

Unlike you, I still communicate a delineated concept of religion, albeit, a very large one, but still delineated nonetheless.


Actually, I was thinking of it in your local area (wherever you are), since I am confident I would get a similar result (after you translate it to the local language, I suppose)

Sadly you wouldn't, since your many Latinos will still associate religión with only the Roman Catholic Christianism, a residual understanding dating back from Medieval Spain (and the rest of Roman Catholic Europe) when the word religion was referred solely the LEX CHRISTIANA (The Christian Law/Way ), but very particularly in the Iberia (Religión, there is only one! As some of them said). In fairness though, you will still also get a significant number of Latinos that also share the same notion as the North Americans as well though.


And yes! The average joe is quite important when it comes to the general understanding of common words, because thats what languages are! A general understanding of words. Why do you understand what I mean when I say “my hat is on your head” if not for a common understanding of what each of those words mean? If I go to europe with that list, what do you think I will find? If I go to asia? Will political parties become religions? If I go to Australia will Christianity stop being one? Will baseball start to be one if I have this list in Japan?

Is your head dented? I told you already, I care not for the understanding the average joe sustains. When it comes academia, (In this case, The discipline of Political Science, MY discipline) specific changes in the understandment of words is used, and at times, it will delute or be rejected by the masses. What I am doing is quite frankly no different to what Economist Ludwig Von Mises did in his use of the word "action" when he expanded it's definition to include a far greater and universal range of things.


If you know what the constitution means when it refers to religion, and you know what people today mean when they say there is no state religion and you truly understand that, then I would hope you keep that in mind.

I understand quite well what it means and mind it well. But by my reckoning, I have decreed it an utter failure in the realm of politics.


To be perfectly frank, you are holding a rather uncommon definition of the word and wanting to apply it to everyone else :-/ That you still laugh when the states say we have no state religion, even after announcing that you know what usage of the word is being used, then I see that as fairly disengenous.

You are right that it lies in my heart's desire that the masses would embrace such definition (It would do them wonders when it comes settling disputes involving praxis of belief systems), but given how this be forum regarding Political Science, I may as well not bother for the time being, and abide my time.

That you found it disingenuous is not my fault for your lack of understandment. I entered this thread expressing my disdain for the commendable yet faulty concept of Separation of Church and State, because I consider that the use of the word religion found in many of today's State's Constitutions that declare not favor any religion (In the sense of associating it with deities or pantheist forces) is something that cannot be consistently practiced in the long run by any State, because ultimately, it will impose beliefs and practices just the same (and they are deluded under the idea that kicking deities or pantheistic forces out of the picture somehow makes it "diverse" and "fittable").

I still respect and will not touch the constitutional definitions of the word religion found in many constitutions. But I will continue to sustain my critique of it since they have made their expressions perfectly clear. (Yet not so clear when carried out in practice).


Definitions tend to be ranked, or attempted to be ranked, in the order of most common to rarest (this is why you generally see colloquial or antique definitions at the bottom of the list)

Point taken, nonetheless, that won't stop me from using one of it's less used definitions for a primary definition for what I intend to express.


I love you!

Seriously! I. LOVE. YOU. (strictly platonic) See, right here, you are not, in fact, referring to me as a member of the National socialist GermanWorkers' party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, seized political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, and promulgated belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Führer, aggressive anti-Semitism, the natural supremacy of the German people, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power. The party was officially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of World War II.

You're referring to me in a metaphorical sense! Brilliant! You are comparing me to a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc! Brilliant!

See, the issue is, you're not going to say that the word needs to applied universally or that the shackles on nazi need to be changed are you? Should we take the term, universalize it and free it of stunted and bankrupt conceptualizations,

I am sorry, you must be confusing me for a person who actually gives a crap in objecting how words are used in ad hoc fashion for specific contexts, and contrary to what you think, I favor it, I really don't care. Academics do it all the time in their works when redefining words and concepts for their one uses and purposes, I see it 24/7 when reading political and economical treatises. In such contexts (along with this one, being this, a forum of Political Science), I actually reserve myself such freedom to express what I intend to express, especially concepts that do not exist in the English language.


Of course not, its a non-standard metaphorical use of the word, much like your use of the word religion.

Woo...hoo... More power to you then in using non-standard definitions. It will hardly stir me at all, so as long as it expresses correctly whatever it is you need to express.

[Jaecp]

Okay, I can concede to that, but I will still sustain that the concept of religion selected by the Founding Fathers of America still blows. If the US Government, along with the rest of Constitutions across the world that use such concept, then so be it.

K,

I disagree,

They used a perfectly acceptable, most common definition of it. Your coming in at a later date trying to use an uncommon definition of the word.


Incorrect. It still maintains feasibility by virtue that it be talking about a Modus Operandi of beliefs that a person sustains. And don't press the panic button just yet, since my understanding of religion is somewhat akin to the one Augustine used to distinguish other systems of belief in his day (In his use of the word LEX, Law). Only difference between him and I, lies in that I will also include atheistic and apatheistic systems of beliefs and sub-beliefs in the fold.

Your said that the concept selected by the founding fathers blows, but in this one you said that it maintains feasibility? Get your opinion straight :-/


Heh, you intending seriousness and intending jest, what is there to distinguish either way, it can be all the same given your amusing track record in formulating arguments with the rest of my TWeb comrades. A shame your intent on rude language is as successfull as a butterfly attempting to move a boulder, and your attempt at parody, it actually makes watching a tree grow a delightful comedy.

Unlike you, I still communicate a delineated concept of religion, albeit, a very large one, but still delineated nonetheless.

Why can't it be both?

I believe my point was made, particularly since you already conceded the point about what the founding fathers and america speakers, at least, mean when we refer to religion.


Sadly you wouldn't, since your many Latinos will still associate religión with only the Roman Catholic Christianism, a residual understanding dating back from Medieval Spain (and the rest of Roman Catholic Europe) when the word religion was referred solely the LEX CHRISTIANA (The Christian Law/Way ), but very particularly in the Iberia (Religión, there is only one! As some of them said). In fairness though, you will still also get a significant number of Latinos that also share the same notion as the North Americans as well though.

And, in fairness, none of your examples you just gave me were of people choosing anything blatantly not religious in the common understanding of the word.


Is your head dented? I told you already, I care not for the understanding the average joe sustains. When it comes academia, (In this case, The discipline of Political Science, MY discipline) specific changes in the understandment of words is used, and at times, it will delute or be rejected by the masses. What I am doing is quite frankly no different to what Economist Ludwig Von Mises did in his use of the word "action" when he expanded it's definition to include a far greater and universal range of things.

You caring or not is irrelevant to how language works, which is a communal exercise. And, again, your specific definition in academia is irrelevant to the conversation, because, as you already mentioned, you know exactly what the context of the thread is and exactly what the text referred to when it spoke of religion.

Ludwig giving the word action a specialized definition (within a certain context) is great and all, but you are not in the right context, yet kept trying to apply it


I understand quite well what it means and mind it well. But by my reckoning, I have decreed it an utter failure in the realm of politics.

Why? They specifically referred to religions, you know exactly what they meant when they said so, so what, exactly, is the problem here?


You are right that it lies in my heart's desire that the masses would embrace such definition (It would do them wonders when it comes settling disputes involving praxis of belief systems), but given how this be forum regarding Political Science, I may as well not bother for the time being, and abide my time.

That you found it disingenuous is not my fault for your lack of understandment. I entered this thread expressing my disdain for the commendable yet faulty concept of Separation of Church and State, because I consider that the use of the word religion found in many of today's State's Constitutions that declare not favor any religion (In the sense of associating it with deities or pantheist forces) is something that cannot be consistently practiced in the long run by any State, because ultimately, it will impose beliefs and practices just the same (and they are deluded under the idea that kicking deities or pantheistic forces out of the picture somehow makes it "diverse" and "fittable").

I still respect and will not touch the constitutional definitions of the word religion found in many constitutions. But I will continue to sustain my critique of it since they have made their expressions perfectly clear. (Yet not so clear when carried out in practice).

What it looks like to me, is your taking a metaphorical usage of the word religion, the one referring to being passionate about something, then trying to apply it in a non-metaphorical way to a broader number of catagories. Thing is, while people might read some article about that, you aren't going to convince people to look over old documents and retroactively apply a new definition that was not used and didn't even exist at the time of the writing.

Why does keeping a government neutral on the topic of a religion not allow for diversity? Those catholic european countries you mentioned from ages past had state religions and a marked lack of diversity, america has no state religion and we have, well, a good deal of diversity. Some countries have official state religions, but it has grown less important in their politics, and they have seen diversity. Religious diversity, specifically. I do not agree with your point. I do not agree that it cannot be done in the long run, because when you use a definition of the word specifically intended to make everything fall under it, then we can't differentiate. Imposing beliefs and practices (the latter happening much more [laws] than the former, which is much harder to do) is markedly different that imposing religious beliefs and religious practices, and you know what I mean when I refer to a religious practice as opposed to a non-religious or secular practice, because contrasting then in this fashion means that I cannot possibly, nor can anyone else, be using your pet definition when they say this, because your definition of religious means that there is nothing non-religious.

Trying to have a single definition encompass everything within a set is folly


Point taken, nonetheless, that won't stop me from using one of it's less used definitions for a primary definition for what I intend to express.

K. All I ask is for you to do 2 things.

1.Keep context in mind, and do not bring in religion(def 2) when people are talking about religion (def 1)
2.If you independently bring up religious, in the uncommon context, make clear that it is the uncommon usage and that most people speaking about religion are speaking about, well, gods and stuff. (However you might think the plebes are getting it wrong, language is a group exercise)


I am sorry, you must be confusing me for a person who actually gives a crap in objecting how words are used in ad hoc fashion for specific contexts, and contrary to what you think, I favor it, I really don't care. Academics do it all the time in their works when redefining words and concepts for their one uses and purposes, I see it 24/7 when reading political and economical treatises. In such contexts (along with this one, being this, a forum of Political Science), I actually reserve myself such freedom to express what I intend to express, especially concepts that do not exist in the English language.

Woo...hoo... More power to you then in using non-standard definitions. It will hardly stir me at all, so as long as it expresses correctly whatever it is you need to express.

Your posts do not constitute a political or economical treatise.

You've already mentioned that you are aware and understand the context of the discussion so... why bring up that in other contexts your word choice might be spiffy?

Bit of advice, instead of trying to redefine religion to mean something that most people are going to look at you funny for, why not try to argue that there is no difference between religious ideas and beliefs and non-religious ideas and beliefs? With that, at least, you wouldn't have to redefine words, but would still be arguing the same point

[Thersites]

People make decisions based on their morality; morality is informed by religion and/or philosophy. Necessarily, any important decision a person makes will be affected by their religion or other personal philosophy. In this sense, at least, to try to exclude religion from the public sphere is impossible. The 1st Amendment, it seems to me, is pointed toward organized religion: the goal is not to utterly exclude religious ideas from all public policy, but to insulate the government from direct control by religious authorities, and vice-versa.

Thus far, we have focused on the 1st amendment and how this separation works out in America, but who says we have to? Why don't we look more into why such a notion came to be in the first place? Why is a distinction between religious and governmental authorities important?

[Cow Poke]

"procedural error on the part of cops is a huge reason why people can go free, I dislike rapists going free just as much as the next guy, but if a dude has a police officer giving him booze....

You think this is a common occurrence?


then its going to get brought up in court. I mean, I can just see the lawyer now "look, they gave my client alcohol, when else did they give him, or other people this court has convicted, alcohol to elicit a confession"And if the authorities do something really stupid, I think they should be punished for that. And, if that stupid act results in tainted evidence, then clearly that evidence should be disallowed.

Do you think it's proper to throw out the legally obtained confession after being properly mirandized? Do you think that it's right for a judge to throw out the fact that the guy, who was the only person on the planet who knew where the murdered child was buried, and took us directly to the grave - do you think that fact should be disallowed?


to be perfectly honest I am kind of surprised that other criminals put away by your local sheriff,The Sheriff did nothing wrong. He was outraged. He fired the deputy. You understand the difference between a Sheriff and his deputy, yes?


' bad bad men, have not come out and said that there confessions were made under the influence of alcohol that this deputy gave him"As is proper, a review was done of all processings done by this deputy. He was a jailer, not a patrol deputy, so "arrests" were not suspect. Nor did he have any authority to interrogate a suspect - his job was to maintain custody of the perp, and secure him at the jail.

[Jaecp]

You think this is a common occurrence?

I'd hope that the police giving suspects alcohol is a particularly rare occurrence.


And if the authorities do something really stupid, I think they should be punished for that. And, if that stupid act results in tainted evidence, then clearly that evidence should be disallowed.

Do you think it's proper to throw out the legally obtained confession after being properly mirandized? Do you think that it's right for a judge to throw out the fact that the guy, who was the only person on the planet who knew where the murdered child was buried, and took us directly to the grave - do you think that fact should be disallowed?

I think the police officers, as a group, screwed up the investigation with something stupid and gave a criminal a legally defensible out. We have very strict rules in place about how we can gather evidence. Miranda himself, you know, was retried without using the evidence that had been obtained illegally and found guilty anyway, by the way. Its very sad that someone we know to be a sicko is free, this doesn't make the ACLU bad for christians.


The Sheriff did nothing wrong. He was outraged. He fired the deputy. You understand the difference between a Sheriff and his deputy, yes?

Of course I do, and yes, actually, your sheriff was responsible for the actions of his deputies acting in their duties, so in that way he did, in fact, do something wrong.


As is proper, a review was done of all processings done by this deputy. He was a jailer, not a patrol deputy, so "arrests" were not suspect. Nor did he have any authority to interrogate a suspect - his job was to maintain custody of the perp, and secure him at the jail.

Cool, thats very fortunate, because if he had been a patrol deputy then your county would be up to its nose in lengthy appeal processes for a very long time.

Were you not planning on replying to any other parts of my post?


People make decisions based on their morality; morality is informed by religion and/or philosophy. Necessarily, any important decision a person makes will be affected by their religion or other personal philosophy. In this sense, at least, to try to exclude religion from the public sphere is impossible. The 1st Amendment, it seems to me, is pointed toward organized religion: the goal is not to utterly exclude religious ideas from all public policy, but to insulate the government from direct control by religious authorities, and vice-versa.

Thus far, we have focused on the 1st amendment and how this separation works out in America, but who says we have to? Why don't we look more into why such a notion came to be in the first place? Why is a distinction between religious and governmental authorities important?

As I understand it, motions cannot be defended as constitutional if the only impetus is religious in nature, so while people are going to be influenced by their religious upbringing, before you can put it into law you need secular reasoning that supports the same thing you want to have done, otherwise its unconstitutional.

The notion came to be during the enlightenment, with people like John Locke who argued that governments derived their power from the will of the governed. In contrast, many governments used a “mandate of heaven” reasoning for why the king was, in fact, the king. The catholic church, which wielded substantial political power, was a big deal in those thinkers wanting to keep government and religion separate. Basically, when we make an argued in a secular fashion, the two of us can examine the evidence and alls good. When an argument is premised on religious belief, then you get premises that can't be defended in the same way, and you also get the issue of multiple, conflicting religious reasonings from different sects/religions. The founders clever way to let a bunch of disparate sects of christianity and indians and skeptics and whoever else came along from getting into riots with each other (which has happened on at least once (http://www.philaplace.org/story/316/) in the states)

Basically, we keep our government separate from religion in the name of national harmony. You have the freedom to do what you want, I have the freedom to do what I want.

Oh, and morality is heavily influenced by culture as well.

[Cow Poke]

I'd hope that the police giving suspects alcohol is a particularly rare occurrence.

I have only heard of this one time. Ever.


I think the police officers, as a group, screwed up the investigation with something stupid and gave a criminal a legally defensible out.

Where do you get that? A deputy - ONE MAN - took the suspect back to the station and committed this offense by himself. The rest of us were very properly engaged in preserving the scene. Is this guilt by association?


We have very strict rules in place about how we can gather evidence.

Yes, and in the case I cited, ONE MAN violated them and was fired for doing so.


Miranda himself, you know, was retried without using the evidence that had been obtained illegally and found guilty anyway, by the way.

:yes:


Its very sad that someone we know to be a sicko is free, this doesn't make the ACLU bad for christians.

The sicko was freed because of a kneejerk reaction to a rogue deputy who had absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of testimony, evidence or confession that would have kept the perp in prison.


Of course I do, and yes, actually, your sheriff was responsible for the actions of his deputies acting in their duties, so in that way he did, in fact, do something wrong.

How can you make a blanket statement like that, not knowing the details? Sure, "the buck stops here", but this was a low ranking jailer who was still on his probationary period and, apparently, had watched too much TV. The Sheriff was not aware of his actions, did not condone his actions in any way, and as soon as the Sheriff found out about it, he fired the guy on the spot.


Cool, thats very fortunate, because if he had been a patrol deputy then your county would be up to its nose in lengthy appeal processes for a very long time.

Which is why the guy was fired immediately, and had only an "entry level" position while being trained and evaluated.


Were you not planning on replying to any other parts of my post?

I think I ran out of time.. please feel free to redirect my attention to whatever part on which you would like comment.

[Jaecp]

I have only heard of this one time. Ever.

Thats good


Where do you get that? A deputy - ONE MAN - took the suspect back to the station and committed this offense by himself. The rest of us were very properly engaged in preserving the scene. Is this guilt by association?

In the military, when a subordinate screws up its his fault and yours, for not properly training him.


Yes, and in the case I cited, ONE MAN violated them and was fired for doing so.

Exactly, why exactly did you bring that up again? Something about the ACLU being bad? Or what, exactly?


smiley

So, what prevented a similar thing from happening with rapist murderer dude?


The sicko was freed because of a kneejerk reaction to a rogue deputy who had absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of testimony, evidence or confession that would have kept the perp in prison.

K, and what does this have to do with religion and politics?


How can you make a blanket statement like that, not knowing the details? Sure, "the buck stops here", but this was a low ranking jailer who was still on his probationary period and, apparently, had watched too much TV. The Sheriff was not aware of his actions, did not condone his actions in any way, and as soon as the Sheriff found out about it, he fired the guy on the spot.

Which is why the guy was fired immediately, and had only an "entry level" position while being trained and evaluated.

Because of stuff like “the buck stops here”, sheriffs are responsible for their deputies. Firing him was the right decision, but the sheriff still had a level of responsibility.


I think I ran out of time.. please feel free to redirect my attention to whatever part on which you would like comment.

Anything thats, well, on topic, which is pretty much the post before the addendum. We are on this tangeant about some deputy who gave a criminal booze at a police station while he was in custody, it doesn't have anything to do with any of the actual topics.

[Cow Poke]

In the military, when a subordinate screws up its his fault and yours, for not properly training him.

Have you been in the military? The "training part" is designed to weed out those who aren't going to cut it. The system worked. The guy screwed up, and his boss fired him. Problem?


So, what prevented a similar thing from happening with rapist murderer dude?

While the attorneys were wrangling over the details, he murdered another child, and was imprisoned, where he didn't fare so well. He choked to death on his own underwear in prison.


K, and what does this have to do with religion and politics?

You were championing ACLU. I was telling you my experience with them. (you don't remember this?)


Because of stuff like “the buck stops here”, sheriffs are responsible for their deputies. Firing him was the right decision, but the sheriff still had a level of responsibility.

Should he be spanked? Fired? What, exactly, does "had a level of responsibility" imply? Why is this important?


Anything thats, well, on topic, which is pretty much the post before the addendum. We are on this tangeant about some deputy who gave a criminal booze at a police station while he was in custody, it doesn't have anything to do with any of the actual topics.

So, quit asking questions about it! :shrug: I'm just being polite, and answering your questions / comments.

[Jaecp]

So, quit asking questions about it! I'm just being polite, and answering your questions / comments.

K.

My question then, in similar vein to the first one,

Can you give me an example of the ACLU actually violating a Christians rights to practice Christianity?

Before you seek to provide examples of this, so I can vet them as being actual a violation of civil rights(I am, in the psycotherapy room, dealing with a large number of assertions of me being bad from a pair of individuals, yet when the actually text comes out, it doesn't look like what the person said it was, so I've been getting in the habit of looking into details when possible), do you think that they are particularly strong examples? Do they fall under free exercise or government endorsement? The ACLU's track record is of supporting free exercise (including an amusing example of the ACLU defending students rights to... protest the ACLU when their school told them not to [the students were, IIRC, protesting about the ACLU and its involvement in one of the government endorsement suits])

Do you want our government to become entangled with religion? If so, which religion? If so, which sect of which religion? How do we, in a fashion that doesn't violate people civil rights, go about this? We can't enforce christianity on muslims, I don't think you want wiccan tenets enforced on, or any other example I can think of. How would we choose this? Naturally, you could just say “no, I don't think we should involve religion in politics and government” and this line of questioning is neatly closed.

I believe its one of america's strengths that we are a diverse country open to any race, skin, religion, etc etc and that we have a secular government for a highly religious population has allowed us to avoid many problems that would have arisen otherwise. My go to example is of these riots (http://www.philaplace.org/story/316/) “The immediate cause of the riots of 1844 stemmed from Catholic opposition to the exclusive use of the Protestant Bible in the public schools.

You have no particular need to respond to anything below, I don't believe I framed anything as a question, they are all declarative sentences. I included my answers to your questions, and then made my lil bit above. I do enjoy this conversation, much more so than Andius's “Everything is religion, therefore the first amendment is stupid” concept (and yes, that was hyperbolic, but it sums up his point neatly)

Cheers,

J


Have you been in the military? The "training part" is designed to weed out those who aren't going to cut it. The system worked. The guy screwed up, and his boss fired him. Problem?

Yes, and I already said I agree'd with the firing solution.


While the attorneys were wrangling over the details, he murdered another child, and was imprisoned, where he didn't fare so well. He choked to death on his own underwear in prison.

Sucks, a similar thing happened to miranda.


You were championing ACLU. I was telling you my experience with them. (you don't remember this?)

I do, I remember saying they weren't anti christian and then you brought up an example that had nothing to do with “religion and politics”, which is why I have been asking what the relevance of the example is and if we could get back on topic


Should he be spanked? Fired? What, exactly, does "had a level of responsibility" imply? Why is this important?

For the sheriff? I'd implement some stricter hiring protocols to avoid stuff like this in the future. The sheriff is not completely separate from the actions of people working for him while on duty. No, its one of his jobs that they aren't doing anything stupid. People have been fired, from a variety of positions, for subordinates doing stupid stupid stuff, the sheriff, in this instance, obviously shouldn't be fired, the guy was pretty new. However, some level of action should be undertaking, as I layed out above.

[Cow Poke]

For the sheriff? I'd implement some stricter hiring protocols to avoid stuff like this in the future. The sheriff is not completely separate from the actions of people working for him while on duty. No, its one of his jobs that they aren't doing anything stupid. People have been fired, from a variety of positions, for subordinates doing stupid stupid stuff, the sheriff, in this instance, obviously shouldn't be fired, the guy was pretty new. However, some level of action should be undertaking, as I layed out above.

I'm thinking you don't really know a lot about how corporate America works.
Do you know what the beginning salary is for an entry level deputy sheriff?
What stricter hiring protocols would prevent a Sheriff from hiring a guy who eventually does something really stupid?
It was "stricter hiring protocols" that got him in trouble in the first place.

If the Sheriff had any reason whatsoever to believe the guy was going to do something stupid, or if you could point out some failure on the Sheriff's part - he hired the guy in good faith, and --- how do I say this delicately.... complying with pressure from Political Correctness to ... um... provide a more "diverse" workforce.... this particular candidate was practically forced upon him.

Had he been free to hire the most qualified individual instead of meeting the requirements of political correctness run amuck, the perp would almost certainly have done a minimum of 15 years to life, and the second child would not have been murdered by this guy, because he would have been in prison.

So, what did the Sheriff do wrong?

[Jaecp]

Seriously? All that, I post a big ole bit on topic and say "hey, you don't need to respond to this off topic stuff" and you... only respond to my final, and I do mean final, comments about your local area, as it turns out, political issues (Though, tbh, I don't understand why your local sheriff, a member of law enforcement, has to do with corporate america)

Can we please get back on topic? Please? Something about religion and politics? Perhaps from this block of text I posted?


K.

My question then, in similar vein to the first one,

Can you give me an example of the ACLU actually violating a Christians rights to practice Christianity?

Before you seek to provide examples of this, so I can vet them as being actual a violation of civil rights(I am, in the psycotherapy room, dealing with a large number of assertions of me being bad from a pair of individuals, yet when the actually text comes out, it doesn't look like what the person said it was, so I've been getting in the habit of looking into details when possible), do you think that they are particularly strong examples? Do they fall under free exercise or government endorsement? The ACLU's track record is of supporting free exercise (including an amusing example of the ACLU defending students rights to... protest the ACLU when their school told them not to [the students were, IIRC, protesting about the ACLU and its involvement in one of the government endorsement suits])

Do you want our government to become entangled with religion? If so, which religion? If so, which sect of which religion? How do we, in a fashion that doesn't violate people civil rights, go about this? We can't enforce christianity on muslims, I don't think you want wiccan tenets enforced on, or any other example I can think of. How would we choose this? Naturally, you could just say “no, I don't think we should involve religion in politics and government” and this line of questioning is neatly closed.

I believe its one of america's strengths that we are a diverse country open to any race, skin, religion, etc etc and that we have a secular government for a highly religious population has allowed us to avoid many problems that would have arisen otherwise. My go to example is of these riots “The immediate cause of the riots of 1844 stemmed from Catholic opposition to the exclusive use of the Protestant Bible in the public schools.

You have no particular need to respond to anything below, I don't believe I framed anything as a question, they are all declarative sentences. I included my answers to your questions, and then made my lil bit above. I do enjoy this conversation, much more so than Andius's “Everything is religion, therefore the first amendment is stupid” concept (and yes, that was hyperbolic, but it sums up his point neatly)

Cheers,

J

I posted in this thread because I have an active interest in religion and politics and how they interact, and while your local areas political correctness is an interesting case of hiring that black or hispanic officer instead of the white dude and that ending horrifically, it is not relevant to the discussion and I would prefer it if we could get back on topic.

Anyone else reading this, I would love to hear from more than just CP on some of the questions I posed in the above quote of myself, while he is the one I am currently talking to I believe the questions are more general in nature and include things that we should all consider,

Cheers,

J

[Cow Poke]

Seriously? All that, I post a big ole bit on topic and say "hey, you don't need to respond to this off topic stuff" and you... only respond to my final, and I do mean final, comments about your local area, as it turns out, political issues (Though, tbh, I don't understand why your local sheriff, a member of law enforcement, has to do with corporate america)

You just can't help yourself, can you? :smile:


Can we please get back on topic? Please? Something about religion and politics? Perhaps from this block of text I posted?

Sure, have at it!


I posted in this thread because I have an active interest in religion and politics and how they interact, and while your local areas political correctness is an interesting case of hiring that black or hispanic officer instead of the white dude and that ending horrifically, it is not relevant to the discussion and I would prefer it if we could get back on topic.

Don't get me started again!


Anyone else reading this, I would love to hear from more than just CP on some of the questions I posed in the above quote of myself, while he is the one I am currently talking to I believe the questions are more general in nature and include things that we should all consider,

Cheers,

J

If it were not for me, you'd be all lonely here! :smile:

[Jaecp]

Not exactly,

Andius keeps posting, but at more random times of the day than you.

Are you going to get back on topic? I think its an interesting and important topic and I posted a big ole bit already.

[Andius]

K,

I disagree,

They used a perfectly acceptable, most common definition of it. Your coming in at a later date trying to use an uncommon definition of the word.

That is not my intention Jaecp. I respect the definition and will leave it alone. But I can still deem it a garbage article.


Your said that the concept selected by the founding fathers blows, but in this one you said that it maintains feasibility? Get your opinion straight :-/

I was talking about my concept, not the Father's concept. Admittedly, I may not have made that clear though.


Why can't it be both?

I believe my point was made, particularly since you already conceded the point about what the founding fathers and america speakers, at least, mean when we refer to religion.

Yeah, your point was nothing but a cheap strawmen of my intent. I am using a selective specialized definition for my specific purposes, I have no interest in destroying the English language.


And, in fairness, none of your examples you just gave me were of people choosing anything blatantly not religious in the common understanding of the word.

Point taken.


You caring or not is irrelevant to how language works, which is a communal exercise. And, again, your specific definition in academia is irrelevant to the conversation, because, as you already mentioned, you know exactly what the context of the thread is and exactly what the text referred to when it spoke of religion.

L
udwig giving the word action a specialized definition (within a certain context) is great and all, but you are not in the right context, yet kept trying to apply it

How is this NOT the right context? Is this not a forum of Political Science?


Why? They specifically referred to religions, you know exactly what they meant when they said so, so what, exactly, is the problem here?

My problem with their definition lies that their use of the word religion, is that by using the word to exclusively express systems of beliefs and practices involving deities or pantheists or "ethereal others" (spirits, demons, angels, etc.), it makes itself still open for the State to adopt systems of beliefs and practices that do not involve the three qualities I mentioned above, many of them, in direct contradiction with many systems when expressed in State Law and carried out in practice, producing discord.


What it looks like to me, is your taking a metaphorical usage of the word religion, the one referring to being passionate about something, then trying to apply it in a non-metaphorical way to a broader number of catagories. Thing is, while people might read some article about that, you aren't going to convince people to look over old documents and retroactively apply a new definition that was not used and didn't even exist at the time of the writing.

Then allow me to correct your impression. I was not using religion for metaphorical expression, it was Church, religion on the other hand, I am dead serious in applying it in a broad number of categories (And those said categories are ALL belief systems, large and small), although you are right that for all intent on purposes, it's a use that carry out when speaking about in Political Science settings (Hell, I do it all the time with co-students and professors), where the terms used are not always the layman's terms. Being this labeled Political Science 301, I assumed that such settings and contexts would be present, but as you have adequately demonstrated, I was wrong.


Why does keeping a government neutral on the topic of a religion not allow for diversity? Those catholic european countries you mentioned from ages past had state religions and a marked lack of diversity, america has no state religion and we have, well, a good deal of diversity. Some countries have official state religions, but it has grown less important in their politics, and they have seen diversity. Religious diversity, specifically.

What does it matter if there is diversity or not? It doesn't matter to me how diverse or not a country is, since as far as I am concerned, sometimes diversity creates problems in societies, it is not always a positive attribute of a society.

And that it has grown less important!? Have you been living under a rock!? In the Middle East, many of the States there empower the Imams, which at times, are the key figures to rally their populations to whatever cause the State seeks to carry out. The Constitutions in those areas have as their source Sharia Law and Jurisdiction, and still does. Islam, is a bookcase example of what we call in International Relationships, a Deep Force (A motion that affects the decision making of States).


I do not agree with your point. I do not agree that it cannot be done in the long run, because when you use a definition of the word specifically intended to make everything fall under it, then we can't differentiate. Imposing beliefs and practices (the latter happening much more [laws] than the former, which is much harder to do) is markedly different that imposing religious beliefs and religious practices, and you know what I mean when I refer to a religious practice as opposed to a non-religious or secular practice, because contrasting then in this fashion means that I cannot possibly, nor can anyone else, be using your pet definition when they say this, because your definition of religious means that there is nothing non-religious.

Yes you can still differentiate it, because I am talking only about the great many different beliefs/practice systems out there, it is limited to only that, and it still allows different systems to still be differentiated and contrasted. Even with my "pet definition", I still maintain that nothing is non-religious, because ALL things that we believe or do are bound to a systemization or compound(in the event that the belief is not organized at all) of beliefs (including what is believed and not believed), wether it is personal or publicly systemized, or wether it has a name or not, it won't matter.


Trying to have a single definition encompass everything within a set is folly

No it's not folly. But I suppose I should start using the term "belief systems and practice", since that WILL encompass all the beliefs, secular or non-secular.


K. All I ask is for you to do 2 things.

1.Keep context in mind, and do not bring in religion(def 2) when people are talking about religion (def 1)
2.If you independently bring up religious, in the uncommon context, make clear that it is the uncommon usage and that most people speaking about religion are speaking about, well, gods and stuff. (However you might think the plebes are getting it wrong, language is a group exercise)

Alright, that I can do. For the sake of discussion, I will adhere to it's primary usage in the English language.


Your posts do not constitute a political or economical treatise.

True, but this is a Political Science forum, or so I thought it was....


You've already mentioned that you are aware and understand the context of the discussion so... why bring up that in other contexts your word choice might be spiffy?

Because I have already done such things when discussing around anything involving Political Science, wether it is with a professor, or anyone with an interest in Political Science. Yet... I have assumed incorrectly, and I guess I will have cast that assumption to the fire now.


Bit of advice, instead of trying to redefine religion to mean something that most people are going to look at you funny for, why not try to argue that there is no difference between religious ideas and beliefs and non-religious ideas and beliefs? With that, at least, you wouldn't have to redefine words, but would still be arguing the same point.

I suppose I can take that advice.

Oh and for the record, I I never said that there is a difference between religious and non-religious ideas. I intended to say that they are all the same but only by the virtue that they are beliefs/ways in themselves, that is all. Differentiating each and every one of them is still a must, wether it is a religious belief (as you use it), or a belief in how to administer a government, but it is all a belief, it doesn't matter how one slices it.

[Jaecp]

That is not my intention Jaecp. I respect the definition and will leave it alone. But I can still deem it a garbage article.

K, since your not universalizing a didn't definition, why is it garbage now?


I was talking about my concept, not the Father's concept. Admittedly, I may not have made that clear though.

K


Yeah, your point was nothing but a cheap strawmen of my intent. I am using a selective specialized definition for my specific purposes, I have no interest in destroying the English language.

Strawman? Up until just a couple posts ago you weren't just bashing the first amendment, but that their word choice was incorrect. I am happy you don't want to destroy the english language, but your use of a highly “specialized” (by which I mean to say, uncommon or rare) definition of religion in the existing context was fallacious.


Point taken.

Sweet, so you can imagine that if you polled random people on the street (language being a communal process) that most people would choose what we commonly refer to as a religion and not “any set of ideas, beliefs and practices”


How is this NOT the right context? Is this not a forum of Political Science?

Because the context is the first amendment, which means your contextual clue to figure out what the authors meant when they said religion point, clearly, to the traditional understanding of what religion means.


My problem with their definition lies that their use of the word religion, is that by using the word to exclusively express systems of beliefs and practices involving deities or pantheists or "ethereal others" (spirits, demons, angels, etc.), it makes itself still open for the State to adopt systems of beliefs and practices that do not involve the three qualities I mentioned above, many of them, in direct contradiction with many systems when expressed in State Law and carried out in practice, producing discord.

Exactly. And those systems, like capitalism and democracy, beliefs like in truth, justice and the american way, and practices, like the 7th inning stretch and an a penchant for friend food are not religious. They do not involve the highly religious aspects that you laid out and are, therefore, not religious. Your definition, while it might be nifty in a different context, to use it when referring to existing documents that do not use that definition is the fallacy of equivocation.


Then allow me to correct your impression. I was not using religion for metaphorical expression, it was Church, religion on the other hand, I am dead serious in applying it in a broad number of categories (And those said categories are ALL belief systems, large and small), although you are right that for all intent on purposes, it's a use that carry out when speaking about in Political Science settings (Hell, I do it all the time with co-students and professors), where the terms used are not always the layman's terms. Being this labeled Political Science 301, I assumed that such settings and contexts would be present, but as you have adequately demonstrated, I was wrong.

Such settings and contexts are present at the start of a given thread, there are, however, a few things to keep in mind.

1.This is a christian forum, by and by, the general idea of religion, when you ask any given poster, is going to be “well, christianity(or wicca or islam or whatever”
2.Your definition is something that would be interesting to discuss as a thread on its own, but in a thread with an existing conversation its inappropriate to apply a new definition to old text. You gotta use the definition they person writing the text would have used
3.Your definition doesn't allow for their to be non-religion beliefs which, to me, means that the term has no descriptive power and, even if true, then it is superfluous to conversation.


What does it matter if there is diversity or not? It doesn't matter to me how diverse or not a country is, since as far as I am concerned, sometimes diversity creates problems in societies, it is not always a positive attribute of a society.

And that it has grown less important!? Have you been living under a rock!? In the Middle East, many of the States there empower the Imams, which at times, are the key figures to rally their populations to whatever cause the State seeks to carry out. The Constitutions in those areas have as their source Sharia Law and Jurisdiction, and still does. Islam, is a bookcase example of what we call in International Relationships, a Deep Force (A motion that affects the decision making of States).

I specifically said some(right while I was talking about europe), and wasn't going to bring the middle east up because its too easy a target.

Islamic Republics are an excellent example of what we don't want to happen, and one of the ways we prevent getting anywhere near that is to have a separation of church and state.

As for diversity being unimportant? You just brought up some of the least diverse societies on the planet :-/ They are kinda bad places to live if your not a member of the dominant group. Diversity means not abusing people on the basis of something you are born with, its about cooperation, its about being able to go downtown in portland and find, at all hours of the night, food from 14 different countries.

I like diversity, its delicious.


Yes you can still differentiate it, because I am talking only about the great many different beliefs/practice systems out there, it is limited to only that, and it still allows different systems to still be differentiated and contrasted. Even with my "pet definition", I still maintain that nothing is non-religious, because ALL things that we believe or do are bound to a systemization or compound(in the event that the belief is not organized at all) of beliefs (including what is believed and not believed), wether it is personal or publicly systemized, or wether it has a name or not, it won't matter.

Unless this is the language barrier again, it looks like in the first part you say that you can differentiate religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs in your pet definition, but then in the very next sentence you say nothing is non-religious.

I say that this definition of religion has no explanatory power and is superfluous


No it's not folly. But I suppose I should start using the term "belief systems and practice", since that WILL encompass all the beliefs, secular or non-secular.

Yeah, it would.


Alright, that I can do. For the sake of discussion, I will adhere to it's primary usage in the English language.
K

True, but this is a Political Science forum, or so I thought it was....

It is


Because I have already done such things when discussing around anything involving Political Science, wether it is with a professor, or anyone with an interest in Political Science. Yet... I have assumed incorrectly, and I guess I will have cast that assumption to the fire now.

Were any of those discussions about text referring to religion in its primary sense?


I suppose I can take that advice.

Oh and for the record, I I never said that there is a difference between religious and non-religious ideas. I intended to say that they are all the same but only by the virtue that they are beliefs/ways in themselves, that is all. Differentiating each and every one of them is still a must, wether it is a religious belief (as you use it), or a belief in how to administer a government, but it is all a belief, it doesn't matter how one slices it.

Right, this is what I am encouraging you to argue, without trying to change the definition of the word religion. Simply argue that there is no difference between religious and non-religious beliefs.

Minor aside,

When typing or speaking, the primary goal is to convey information and to do so we have language since we have not yet developed telepathy. Its very important to be able to convey precisely what one means in a public setting (which, as a polysci major, I figure you want to do) and that is why I am a stickler for language, because when you layer on specialized definitions mixed in with the common definition, problems arise in your audience that you do not want to have happen. There is an aspect to the audience on Tweb. We are here, in part, to help inform the lurker of these issues and I try to keep them in mind as well as the person I am talking to, for the benefit of all.

Cheers,

J

[Andius]

K, since your not universalizing a didn't definition, why is it garbage now?

Well, because I can still understand and and respect what the article communicates, and still deem it garbage. I consider it garbage because the article is powerless to safeguard the State administration itself from non-religious beliefs that will conflict with religious beliefs (The abortion controversy, the wearing of veils on women, etc. ), and in effect, being unable to stay true to it's promise of safeguarding a true and clear freedom of religion designed by that Article. That's my beef with that Article.


Strawman? Up until just a couple posts ago you weren't just bashing the first amendment, but that their word choice was incorrect. I am happy you don't want to destroy the english language, but your use of a highly “specialized” (by which I mean to say, uncommon or rare) definition of religion in the existing context was fallacious.

Aye, and I definitely accept that point, and I will not impose my definition on the article (Since, as I remembered, I am a hater of forced anachronisms :teeth: ).


Sweet, so you can imagine that if you polled random people on the street (language being a communal process) that most people would choose what we commonly refer to as a religion and not “any set of ideas, beliefs and practices”

True, but only amongst western peoples, where they have words and conceptualizations of our word for religion.


Because the context is the first amendment, which means your contextual clue to figure out what the authors meant when they said religion point, clearly, to the traditional understanding of what religion means.

I see, and agreed.


Exactly. And those systems, like capitalism and democracy, beliefs like in truth, justice and the american way, and practices, like the 7th inning stretch and an a penchant for friend food are not religious. They do not involve the highly religious aspects that you laid out and are, therefore, not religious. Your definition, while it might be nifty in a different context, to use it when referring to existing documents that do not use that definition is the fallacy of equivocation.

Well, I am not so much trying to impose a definition on an existing document with a clear cut conceptualization, but more saying: abandon outright the notion found in the existing document, in favor of a superior and better conceptualization, one that actually will insure a freedom of beliefs that does not contain inherent contradictions in it's system when holding dominion over a society.


Such settings and contexts are present at the start of a given thread, there are, however, a few things to keep in mind.

1.This is a christian forum, by and by, the general idea of religion, when you ask any given poster, is going to be “well, christianity(or wicca or islam or whatever”
2.Your definition is something that would be interesting to discuss as a thread on its own, but in a thread with an existing conversation its inappropriate to apply a new definition to old text. You gotta use the definition they person writing the text would have used
3.Your definition doesn't allow for their to be non-religion beliefs which, to me, means that the term has no descriptive power and, even if true, then it is superfluous to conversation.

Mmhhh, I can definately cannot argue those points, and will watch greater care into what conceptualizations and experiences I bring to the table. Although the prevalent Christianity in here though is primarily a North Americanized Christianity though, which at times, is not always the Christianity of Latinamerica, Asia, etc. Christianities, somewhat different in some aspects (Not so much in doctrine, but in experiences and particular local concepts), but yay, I guess I best be a little more awares on those matters.


I specifically said some(right while I was talking about europe), and wasn't going to bring the middle east up because its too easy a target.

Islamic Republics are an excellent example of what we don't want to happen, and one of the ways we prevent getting anywhere near that is to have a separation of church and state.

I can agree on the ends, but not the means, in this case, the presence themselves of States, in which given case, it doesn't matter to me wether a State declares a State religion or not, it will always impose beliefs of some sort against the will of the individual, especially since given individual is not allowed to get out by it's choosing. (And I, being of Austrian persuasion, am opposed to the State. For me, the only way to guarantee true liberty of religion is only by the presence of private dominions, the absence State dominions, and rule of law be reigned by Social Contract) But I guess that is for another thread. =/

In the case of Separation, it is not existent to me, because I share the notion that Arabs possess in regards how State governments work. If it's not Islam molding the State, it will always be something else, religious or non-religious.


As for diversity being unimportant? You just brought up some of the least diverse societies on the planet :-/ They are kinda bad places to live if your not a member of the dominant group.

And did you think the U.S.A. is any different? It's history of immigration, especially 20th century immigration, really reveals a whole different story. Immigrant groups were always greeted with hostility, not being permitted to continue preserving they're ways of life in coercive fashion (An inconsistency that still plagues so called "Americans" who have lived there for many generations, the so called keepers of Cultural Diversity) on behalf of the Americans well established there. The federal government itself, the so called safeguarders of this diversity, instead of allowing anyone who wants in or out, has converted into a Big Brother in regulating migration.

Lucky for the U.S.A., they are technically a very open society (Driven by their individualistic natures), but even open societies cannot operate on pure heterodoxical principles.


Diversity means not abusing people on the basis of something you are born with, its about cooperation, its about being able to go downtown in portland and find, at all hours of the night, food from 14 different countries.

I like diversity, its delicious.

True it is what you say, but you probably are unawares of the trouble diversity can also bring. To use United States of America, the so called Melting Pot, is nothing but a cheap myth. Without the presence of a strong homogeneity in customs and understanding (In the case of the USA, it's inheritance of the their British/Anglo-Saxon forerunners in customs, values, tastes, is the dominant glue that glues together all diverse groups within the USA) , the entrance or creation of diverse groups not functioning in accord of these British/Anglo-Saxon heritages, will cause nothing but discord, especially groups that refuse to submit themselves to such customs (As is evident with the Hispanic Groups demanding bilingual education, and Whites demanding maintaining monolingual education, the imposition of driving styles, the racial tensions).

A diversity is only functional when it's many heterodoxical groups submit themselves under the dominion of one homogeneity to bind them all to cooperate. And I know for fact that forced diversity (As is the case of the modern country Nigeria, a country that is a forced union of the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo ) is a time bomb just waiting to explode (again, already happened once with it's civil war).


Unless this is the language barrier again, it looks like in the first part you say that you can differentiate religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs in your pet definition, but then in the very next sentence you say nothing is non-religious.

I say that this definition of religion has no explanatory power and is superfluous

That's because in the first part, I was still adhering to my pet definition, while using the traditional lay definition on the differing of religious and non-religious for the sake of description. MMhhh, but now that I think about it, I guess I may not have realized that technically under pet definition, there is still such thing as a non-religious, but in the same sense that there is such thing as a non-fruit when speaking in the context of classifications of all fruits, when technically, there are still non-fruits out there (example: the cables behind my computer, that's a non-fruit, the bottle I have, that's a non-religion or non-belief sytem).


Yeah, it would.

Fair enough


It is


Were any of those discussions about text referring to religion in its primary sense?

Yes, but also using mine as well. We have no problem managing different types of definitions, bouncing around from one context and use to another, and still maintaining understandment and transmission.


Right, this is what I am encouraging you to argue, without trying to change the definition of the word religion. Simply argue that there is no difference between religious and non-religious beliefs.

Minor aside,

Fair enough.


When typing or speaking, the primary goal is to convey information and to do so we have language since we have not yet developed telepathy. Its very important to be able to convey precisely what one means in a public setting (which, as a polysci major, I figure you want to do) and that is why I am a stickler for language, because when you layer on specialized definitions mixed in with the common definition, problems arise in your audience that you do not want to have happen. There is an aspect to the audience on Tweb. We are here, in part, to help inform the lurker of these issues and I try to keep them in mind as well as the person I am talking to, for the benefit of all.

Heheh, indeed, we aint telepaths at all. :tongue: But I can't argue that point of yours of conveyence in public settings, I must agree. And I really have to respect sticklers for languages as well, since transmission is of utmost importance for correct understanding. I have to confess to you, part of my philosophical background involves a bit of deconstructionism (a very lite bit of it though, since I consider deconstructionism as a whole to be a very lousy foundation for epistemological knowledge, but there is some usefulness in it's methodologies of dismantling some concepts, it's kernel of truth), so this is not the first concept I have deconstructed for my own purposes, and a lot of my colleagues here in home are awares of this method of operalization. This, combined with acquiring concepts of numerous languages and peoples alien to my own one, has made me prone in importing concepts from one context to another for specific purposes (Especially in my job involving translations of documents). So yeah, you pretty much saw me in "deconstructionist mode" throughout this whole thread.

Il cut it out. :teeth:

Cheers,

J

[Thersites]

As I understand it, motions cannot be defended as constitutional if the only impetus is religious in nature, so while people are going to be influenced by their religious upbringing, before you can put it into law you need secular reasoning that supports the same thing you want to have done, otherwise its unconstitutional.

I do not mean to suggest that there should be Congressional acts starting with "Whereas the Catholic Church is undeniably the One True Church..."-- there is a great deal of space between absolutely secular state and total theocracy.


The notion came to be during the enlightenment, with people like John Locke who argued that governments derived their power from the will of the governed. In contrast, many governments used a “mandate of heaven” reasoning for why the king was, in fact, the king. The catholic church, which wielded substantial political power, was a big deal in those thinkers wanting to keep government and religion separate.

A rather more ironic development here is the number of Catholics who were persecuted by the English monarchy: not only does history provide us with the examples of Thomas More, Edmund Campion, and any number of other persons who were killed for being Catholics in England, but Maryland's proprietor, Lord Baltimore, was a Catholic, and Catholic Maryland should be noted for tolerating Protestantism within its borders (granted, most of the people in the colony were Protestant-- only the richest folk were Catholic), and when the Protestants took over, that act of toleration was removed from the books.

Point is, the American founders were more directly influenced by the English persecution of minority faiths than by the Roman Catholic Church: the map of New England was drawn by folks who couldn't get along with the ruling sect where they were, so they moved away and started their own colony (the rest of America was settled by folks after a profit, not a chance to persecute all religions other than their own)

this papist also considers it worthy of notice and discussion that the Catholic Church does not allow its priests to have secondary careers as politicians-- which raised an interesting issue when a bishop was elected president of Paraguay: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-07-30-paraguay-bishop-president_N.htm


Basically, when we make an argued in a secular fashion, the two of us can examine the evidence and alls good. When an argument is premised on religious belief, then you get premises that can't be defended in the same way, and you also get the issue of multiple, conflicting religious reasonings from different sects/religions. The founders clever way to let a bunch of disparate sects of christianity and indians and skeptics and whoever else came along from getting into riots with each other (which has happened on at least once (http://www.philaplace.org/story/316/) in the states)

Even secular reasoning can have vastly different goals. One state might accept that there is an inviolable right to life which the government is obliged to protect; another might believe that it must continue the Worker's Revolution. Both humanism and communism are secular philosophies with radically different goals. A state run by secular humanists will be rather different from a state run by atheistic communists. Any secular state, any secular conversation, will ultimately assume the morals and goals of a secular philosophy which is all but indistinguishable from the moral philosophy of a religion.

Any given state must work from the common moral ground. If that common moral ground is Christian morality, I do not think that necessarily means a breach between church and state: that separation is, I believe, intended more along the lines of formal governmental and ecclesiastical leadership. The wall of separation is meant to prevent one side from controlling the other, not to prevent them from interacting at all.


Basically, we keep our government separate from religion in the name of national harmony. You have the freedom to do what you want, I have the freedom to do what I want.

Oh, and morality is heavily influenced by culture as well.

All sorts of things influence culture in one direction or another, secular and religious philosophies included.

[Jaecp]

Well, because I can still understand and and respect what the article communicates, and still deem it garbage. I consider it garbage because the article is powerless to safeguard the State administration itself from non-religious beliefs that will conflict with religious beliefs (The abortion controversy, the wearing of veils on women, etc. ), and in effect, being unable to stay true to it's promise of safeguarding a true and clear freedom of religion designed by that Article. That's my beef with that Article.

Hmm, interesting point.

I would say, that while it takes work to hash out a way of life as the world around us changes, the principal itself not garbage, particularly since the article does not relate to non-religious belief then chastising it on that basis isn't justifiable. Religious belief is a personal deal, and another core part of America is personal freedom. We can do what we want as long as it doesn't actually harm someone else. A person's religious beliefs do not protect them from feeling offended when someone does something against what they, as a religious believer, are not supposed to do. Abortion (and the death penalty, while we are at it) is against some religious precepts, but being against religious precepts alone is not enough to get something banned in america (or its not supposed to be, anyway). For a religious precept to become a law, it needs to have a supporting argument that goes beyond “my religion says so”, or argument to that effect. Also this:

The Lemon Test (named after Lemon v. Kurtzman)

A statute is valid as long as it has a secular purpose; its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and it is not excessively entangled with religion.


Aye, and I definitely accept that point, and I will not impose my definition on the article (Since, as I remembered, I am a hater of forced anachronisms ).


Cool.


True, but only amongst western peoples, where they have words and conceptualizations of our word for religion.

K, where are you anyway? Might help me get a better grasp on the sociocultural differences in play here. I'm a west coast american myself.


I see, and agreed.

Cool


Well, I am not so much trying to impose a definition on an existing document with a clear cut conceptualization, but more saying: abandon outright the notion found in the existing document, in favor of a superior and better conceptualization, one that actually will insure a freedom of beliefs that does not contain inherent contradictions in it's system when holding dominion over a society.

Well, one of the issues we get into when people argue on the basis of religious belief for some sort of change to happen is that you get mutually exclusively desires from between multiple religions or within different believers in the same religion.

With stuff like economics or sports you can make an argument, have each person agree on the information involved and what it probably means, and then come to a decision of some sort. That is simply not possible when it comes to religious arguments, as there are problems we run into. If two people read the same religious book and both say the opposite (like how some people within the same religion, for example, take opposing sides on stuff like Abortion. Are you familiar with Dr. Tiller? He was gunned down while doing his duties as an usher one Sunday morning by a christian anti-abortion “activist”) then how are you supposed to, as the government, supposed to know which one is right? Without a non-religious based argument, that everyone can comment on, we'd be stuck unable to get past dogma.

I once heard a description of America as “The Great Argument” and I thought it was pretty apt, we have thousands, millions even, of people constantly working, protesting, fighting to get the country the direction they think it should be and we are constantly steered by the force of such arguments.

Trying to keep all beliefs unimposed, completely unimposed, seems to me very close to anarchy. Some beliefs are competing, republican and democrat, liberal or conservative (or libertarian or objectivism or socialist or... or...) and any number of dichotomous pairs we could dream up, the competition between them is how society is forged.


Mmhhh, I can definately cannot argue those points, and will watch greater care into what conceptualizations and experiences I bring to the table. Although the prevalent Christianity in here though is primarily a North Americanized Christianity though, which at times, is not always the Christianity of Latinamerica, Asia, etc. Christianities, somewhat different in some aspects (Not so much in doctrine, but in experiences and particular local concepts), but yay, I guess I best be a little more awares on those matters.

Its all good. I have been overseas a bit, visited buddhist temples and talked to a variety people about these matters in person. One of my best friends from the military was a Puerto Rican Ex-Catholic atheist, he brought a very different approach to our discussions of religious belief. I recall reading that some of the problems early missionaries to africa found was that people would incorporate christianity into their existing belief structures, with the same kind of magic belief from before christianization. [How many people who attempt the “virgin cure” for HIV in africa go to church on Sundays and shouldn't believe in it at all? Even though it, apparently, traces back to 16th and 19th century europe]


I can agree on the ends, but not the means, in this case, the presence themselves of States, in which given case, it doesn't matter to me wether a State declares a State religion or not, it will always impose beliefs of some sort against the will of the individual, especially since given individual is not allowed to get out by it's choosing. (And I, being of Austrian persuasion, am opposed to the State. For me, the only way to guarantee true liberty of religion is only by the presence of private dominions, the absence State dominions, and rule of law be reigned by Social Contract) But I guess that is for another thread. =/

In the case of Separation, it is not existent to me, because I share the notion that Arabs possess in regards how State governments work. If it's not Islam molding the State, it will always be something else, religious or non-religious.

This gets back into the ability to affect change through rational argumentation. Competing economic policies can be weighed in a way that competing religious beliefs cannot.

The State is not a nebulous force, however, it derives its power, in western style democracies at least, from the will of the people, the consent of the governed. Its a right of a citizen to work to affect change in a country if they believe something is being done wrong. Private dominions have no guarantee of being better. I shudder at the thought of a company like BP being able to mess up the gulf of mexico to that extent and being unable to be forced to fix it.

Social Contracts still play out within governments, congressmen and senators, representing the will of their area, are supposed to choose policies that represent them. This is social contract in action, though at a really big scale. I am mostly drawing my ideas from Locke's “Two Treatist of Government” and Thomas Hobbes “Leviathan”, which I need to read from back to front one of these days :)


And did you think the U.S.A. is any different? It's history of immigration, especially 20th century immigration, really reveals a whole different story. Immigrant groups were always greeted with hostility, not being permitted to continue preserving they're ways of life in coercive fashion (An inconsistency that still plagues so called "Americans" who have lived there for many generations, the so called keepers of Cultural Diversity) on behalf of the Americans well established there. The federal government itself, the so called safeguarders of this diversity, instead of allowing anyone who wants in or out, has converted into a Big Brother in regulating migration.

Lucky for the U.S.A., they are technically a very open society (Driven by their individualistic natures), but even open societies cannot operate on pure heterodoxical principles.

Well, its pretty easy to get out, depending on the new country your trying to get to is what makes it hard or easy. Getting in, yes, we've tightened up lately. Unemployment is huge right now, and then there was the terrorist scare that is, well, pretty much ongoing now.

As for historically? The other thread I am posting here I've layed out a number of incredibly nasty things america has done, we are not saints. However, as I read somewhere once, “there isn't a country on gods earth that isn't built on the backs of the blood of the innocent” and, well, I can't change the past, I can only look to it for advice, figure out how the present is working and work towards making a better future. If it took this long for america to get diverse in a way that was originally thought out, imagine how long it will take countries that are not diverse, and proud of it!


True it is what you say, but you probably are unawares of the trouble diversity can also bring. To use United States of America, the so called Melting Pot, is nothing but a cheap myth. Without the presence of a strong homogeneity in customs and understanding (In the case of the USA, it's inheritance of the their British/Anglo-Saxon forerunners in customs, values, tastes, is the dominant glue that glues together all diverse groups within the USA) , the entrance or creation of diverse groups not functioning in accord of these British/Anglo-Saxon heritages, will cause nothing but discord, especially groups that refuse to submit themselves to such customs (As is evident with the Hispanic Groups demanding bilingual education, and Whites demanding maintaining monolingual education, the imposition of driving styles, the racial tensions).

A diversity is only functional when it's many heterodoxical groups submit themselves under the dominion of one homogeneity to bind them all to cooperate. And I know for fact that forced diversity (As is the case of the modern country Nigeria, a country that is a forced union of the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo ) is a time bomb just waiting to explode (again, already happened once with it's civil war).

I see what your saying, this is a result, though, of there being a massive majority of that group. In 2008 we had 68% of Americans are white non-hispanic, 15% Hispanic (Any Race), 12% non-Hispanic Black and 5% Asian. In earlier days

First we had a bunch of various European countries ex-patriots mixed together and finally getting along, because problems come up, and then integrating others.

As for having schools in multiple languages? I don't think we have the manpower to do that in most parts of the country, and while America does not have an official language, English is still going to be needed. This doesn't make the idea of the melting pot a myth, its simply the dominant language, and the language of the world (thanks, mostly, to the British empire).

While I am not going to deny that England was a heavy influence at the start of the country, we have split off and become our own, by incorporating bits and pieces from other cultures and going voltron all of over their limey butts :P


That's because in the first part, I was still adhering to my pet definition, while using the traditional lay definition on the differing of religious and non-religious for the sake of description. MMhhh, but now that I think about it, I guess I may not have realized that technically under pet definition, there is still such thing as a non-religious, but in the same sense that there is such thing as a non-fruit when speaking in the context of classifications of all fruits, when technically, there are still non-fruits out there (example: the cables behind my computer, that's a non-fruit, the bottle I have, that's a non-religion or non-belief sytem).

K


Yes, but also using mine as well. We have no problem managing different types of definitions, bouncing around from one context and use to another, and still maintaining understandment and transmission.

K, I suppose its probably easier when its a formal piece that has been through drafts and tweaks.


Heheh, indeed, we aint telepaths at all. But I can't argue that point of yours of conveyence in public settings, I must agree. And I really have to respect sticklers for languages as well, since transmission is of utmost importance for correct understanding. I have to confess to you, part of my philosophical background involves a bit of deconstructionism (a very lite bit of it though, since I consider deconstructionism as a whole to be a very lousy foundation for epistemological knowledge, but there is some usefulness in it's methodologies of dismantling some concepts, it's kernel of truth), so this is not the first concept I have deconstructed for my own purposes, and a lot of my colleagues here in home are awares of this method of operalization. This, combined with acquiring concepts of numerous languages and peoples alien to my own one, has made me prone in importing concepts from one context to another for specific purposes (Especially in my job involving translations of documents). So yeah, you pretty much saw me in "deconstructionist mode" throughout this whole thread.

Il cut it out.

Heh, yeah, my Communications professor would put his fingers on his temples, close his eyes and say “DEET DEET DEET DEET DEET” and then ask us if we agree'd with him.

No worries, I flip around between empiricism and rationalism depending on the subject matter myself, but one of my goals (and why I took issue with using one of Karen Armstrongs books for a Philosophy of Religion class) in life is to look at things how they are and to work from their, for everything.

Cheers,

J



I do not mean to suggest that there should be Congressional acts starting with "Whereas the Catholic Church is undeniably the One True Church..."-- there is a great deal of space between absolutely secular state and total theocracy.

Indeed, but we have a secular state, one in which religious groups are able to (with few restrictions, none of which apply to how they actually worship their god) do what they please. A secular state is nut an atheist state, but a state that is, or attempts to be, neutral on the topic.

So instead of the continuum being “Secular State -----------------Theocracy” I believe its more like

“Atheist state ------------------ Secular State ------------------Theocracy”


A rather more ironic development here is the number of Catholics who were persecuted by the English monarchy: not only does history provide us with the examples of Thomas More, Edmund Campion, and any number of other persons who were killed for being Catholics in England, but Maryland's proprietor, Lord Baltimore, was a Catholic, and Catholic Maryland should be noted for tolerating Protestantism within its borders (granted, most of the people in the colony were Protestant-- only the richest folk were Catholic), and when the Protestants took over, that act of toleration was removed from the books.

Point is, the American founders were more directly influenced by the English persecution of minority faiths than by the Roman Catholic Church: the map of New England was drawn by folks who couldn't get along with the ruling sect where they were, so they moved away and started their own colony (the rest of America was settled by folks after a profit, not a chance to persecute all religions other than their own)

this papist also considers it worthy of notice and discussion that the Catholic Church does not allow its priests to have secondary careers as politicians-- which raised an interesting issue when a bishop was elected president of Paraguay: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religio...resident_N.htm

Well, the church not having its priest moonlight as government officials is a bit different that what I referred to by political power. The pope and local religious authorities exercise political influence without needing to actually be politicians. How many people did the pope crown king or emperor? How much influence did the pope have over the various crusades?

Interesting historical bit at the start. All the more reason why a strictly neutral governmental body is for the benefit of both groups :)


Even secular reasoning can have vastly different goals. One state might accept that there is an inviolable right to life which the government is obliged to protect; another might believe that it must continue the Worker's Revolution. Both humanism and communism are secular philosophies with radically different goals. A state run by secular humanists will be rather different from a state run by atheistic communists. Any secular state, any secular conversation, will ultimately assume the morals and goals of a secular philosophy which is all but indistinguishable from the moral philosophy of a religion.

Any given state must work from the common moral ground. If that common moral ground is Christian morality, I do not think that necessarily means a breach between church and state: that separation is, I believe, intended more along the lines of formal governmental and ecclesiastical leadership. The wall of separation is meant to prevent one side from controlling the other, not to prevent them from interacting at all.

Precisely, and when those two goals intersect, then there is competition of argument and of votes. People can change their beliefs based on evidence, argument and whatever else is brought to the table. This is much harder to do, if not impossible, when we are dealing with religious competition.

The Lemon test, that I referred to to Andius above, is a good one to remember when trying to figure out if something infringes on the establishment clause

Lemon Test
A statute is valid as long as it has a secular purpose; its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and it is not excessively entangled with religion.

I disagree that our common moral ground, particularly if we look at the laws of the country, is actually christian morality. Social contracts explain why we do what we do with laws. No one wants to be killed or stolen from, so we put rules into place to prevent this. We all agree not to. I cannot think of a culture that has lasted for any appreciable period of time that did not have rules against murder each other and stealing from one another. Instead of simply saying “our laws are based on christian morality” I generally hear “our laws are based on the 10 commandments”. While we have a large number of christians in the country, and always have had a large number, our legal system was setup to be neutral.


All sorts of things influence culture in one direction or another, secular and religious philosophies included.

True, but culture and government are two different things.

Cheers

J

(Man, this post was like 6 pages in word :p I should spend as much time writing actual books)

[Thersites]

Indeed, but we have a secular state, one in which religious groups are able to (with few restrictions, none of which apply to how they actually worship their god) do what they please. A secular state is nut an atheist state, but a state that is, or attempts to be, neutral on the topic.

So instead of the continuum being “Secular State -----------------Theocracy” I believe its more like

“Atheist state ------------------ Secular State ------------------Theocracy”

That's not a continuum-- it's a circle. An atheist state which bans religion is not essentially distinguishable from a religious state which bans other religions. An atheist theocracy is still a theocracy.


Well, the church not having its priest moonlight as government officials is a bit different that what I referred to by political power. The pope and local religious authorities exercise political influence without needing to actually be politicians. How many people did the pope crown king or emperor? How much influence did the pope have over the various crusades?

:whistle:


Interesting historical bit at the start. All the more reason why a strictly neutral governmental body is for the benefit of both groups :)

I don't think we really can have a strictly neutral government.


Precisely, and when those two goals intersect, then there is competition of argument and of votes. People can change their beliefs based on evidence, argument and whatever else is brought to the table. This is much harder to do, if not impossible, when we are dealing with religious competition.

And all this argumentation takes into account the priorities of a state. These priorities are defined by the common morality. The common morality in a country of homogenous religion should be expected to math up with that religion. Religious toleration can only really work well in very diverse states, but it is most necessary in states with a large majority and a rather small minority.


The Lemon test, that I referred to to Andius above, is a good one to remember when trying to figure out if something infringes on the establishment clause

Lemon Test
A statute is valid as long as it has a secular purpose; its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and it is not excessively entangled with religion.

I think that's a pretty good way of interpreting the 1st Amendment.


I disagree that our common moral ground, particularly if we look at the laws of the country, is actually christian morality. Social contracts explain why we do what we do with laws. No one wants to be killed or stolen from, so we put rules into place to prevent this. We all agree not to. I cannot think of a culture that has lasted for any appreciable period of time that did not have rules against murder each other and stealing from one another. Instead of simply saying “our laws are based on christian morality” I generally hear “our laws are based on the 10 commandments”. While we have a large number of christians in the country, and always have had a large number, our legal system was setup to be neutral.

My point was that the common ground of the founders was more than slightly Christian (http://www.mark-shea.com/HE36.html). Does that mean that it is today? Not necessarily. But it does make sense of statutes against polygamy, among other things. Despite the differences in theology, there was a good deal of moral common ground among the various Christian denominations. There are laws which make sense on a common ground with Christian influence that make rather less sense in a particular type of secular government. The common ground moves over time, too.


True, but culture and government are two different things.

Cheers

J

(Man, this post was like 6 pages in word :p I should spend as much time writing actual books)

I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to prove right now, or even if I'm trying to prove anything at all. That seems to be what happens when I write late at night: I get more wordy and less coherent. :lol:

[Cow Poke]

:popcorn:

[Jaecp]

That's not a continuum-- it's a circle. An atheist state which bans religion is not essentially distinguishable from a religious state which bans other religions. An atheist theocracy is still a theocracy.

No,

Atheist theocracy is an oxymoron. My continuums intention is to show that a secular state is not showing favoritism for or against religion, which is what America is supposed to do. Your initial continuum showed secular state and theocracy as opposites, which I don't believe is an accurate description.


:whistle:
We understand each other then?


I don't think we really can have a strictly neutral government.

Do you think that, even if its not 100% its still worth the effort to get us as close as possible? Just because something isn't going to be perfect, just because there are hiccups along the way, is no reason to abandon the ideal.


And all this argumentation takes into account the priorities of a state. These priorities are defined by the common morality. The common morality in a country of homogenous religion should be expected to math up with that religion. Religious toleration can only really work well in very diverse states, but it is most necessary in states with a large majority and a rather small minority.

The argumentation takes into account the priorities of whoever is making the argument, whether its an individual, a group of any sort, or an elected official. What does common morality have to do with competing economic ideas? What does common morality have to do with immigration issues or farm subsidies or any number of things that have little to nothing to do with morality, let alone some “common morality”

As for religious tolerance working better in diverse states, these is true, but feels a bit like a truism. One excellent way to keep religion on religion violence down is to not have them gain direct political power, which is what we've done in the states. One of the big no no's in any church (or any non-profit organization, actually, which is where this rule comes from) is not getting involved with politics, its more complex than that, but you probably know the gist of that anyway.


I think that's a pretty good way of interpreting the 1st Amendment.

Cool


My point was that the common ground of the founders was more than slightly Christian (http://www.mark-shea.com/HE36.html). Does that mean that it is today? Not necessarily. But it does make sense of statutes against polygamy, among other things. Despite the differences in theology, there was a good deal of moral common ground among the various Christian denominations. There are laws which make sense on a common ground with Christian influence that make rather less sense in a particular type of secular government. The common ground moves over time, too.

And yet, somehow these people with a common moral ground of Christianity create the first truly secular state in the modern world? Enlightenment era thinkers were highly influential in how our government was setup. Mostly, though, I think your inserting the word moral into this superfluously. Especially since that link you have offers a metaphor about how the founders of america were “swedes” and greater population were “indians”, which is something I've said before using other terms. Why did you link something after your statement “ the common ground of the founders was more than slightly Christian” to something that compared to founders to the least religious nation on earth?


I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to prove right now, or even if I'm trying to prove anything at all. That seems to be what happens when I write late at night: I get more wordy and less coherent.

Fair enough, I'm not too concerned.

Talking to you and Andius during my allotted forum time gives me an excuse to ignore angry people in the psychotherapy room :)


:popcorn:

I take it you've chosen not to continue our conversation? Why?

[Cow Poke]

I take it you've chosen not to continue our conversation? Why?

I'm observing.
Learning.
That's not a bad thing!

[Jaecp]

Of course,

Was just curious.

[Andius]

Heya Jaecp.

Sorry for the deterred response, I got swamped with work, and unable to respond at the moment vos.

I am delighted that our discussion took a turn for the better. You have my word I will respond your worthy responses, but it won't be until perhaps a week or two, but it will get there, that I can promise. :wink:

[Jaecp]

Yeah, I'm happy as well that it became more positive. No worries about time spent between posts, I do most of my work in the early parts of each week anyway (I receive new assignments every Monday)

[Andius]

I apologize for the late answer. That will be the last time I ever sign up for 4 intensive courses in an inter-semester! So let Debate be joined!


Hmm, interesting point.

I would say, that while it takes work to hash out a way of life as the world around us changes, the principal itself not garbage, particularly since the article does not relate to non-religious belief then chastising it on that basis isn't justifiable.




Religious belief is a personal deal, and another core part of America is personal freedom. We can do what we want as long as it doesn't actually harm someone else. A person's religious beliefs do not protect them from feeling offended when someone does something against what they, as a religious believer, are not supposed to do. Abortion (and the death penalty, while we are at it) is against some religious precepts, but being against religious precepts alone is not enough to get something banned in america (or its not supposed to be, anyway). For a religious precept to become a law, it needs to have a supporting argument that goes beyond “my religion says so”, or argument to that effect. Also this:

The Lemon Test (named after Lemon v. Kurtzman)

MMhhh, I see. Well for starters, the idea that religious belief is a personal deal is outright false, because it's an imaginary social construct that arose when this dichotomy was created (Noted by Sociologist Peter Berger):

Private Sphere (Personal Preference) / Public Sphere (Scientific, Objective Knowledge)

which in turn spawned this dichotomy as well.

Values (Individual Choice) / Facts (Binding on Everyone)

To continue treating such beliefs as merely "a personal deal" is a recipe for social discord. You are right that religious beliefs will never protect them from being offended, but mind you that there are those who will not take kindly such offenses, and will hardly qualify as "being offended" but more as "a direct attack to them" (Book case example of the European Muslims). Also, I just checked out the Lemon Test, most interesting. However, the Lemon Test will only work where everyone in a society assumes that secular legislation acts as some sort of "public and neutral values". As the Lemon Test adequately puts:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose

The average American Mind treats Secular as if it were a public value system, applicable to all walks of life, but as Berger shows, it is treating government, a public institution under the pretense to be "scientific" and "value-free".


A statute is valid as long as it has a secular purpose; its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and it is not excessively entangled with religion.

Just checked out the Lemon Test, most interesting, however....The Lemon Test fails to take account that Secular Legislation is already a system of values itself, a system that in effect, opposes many other systems of values out there. If fails in it's promise to not advance or inhibit a religion, because the fact that it is applying in invasive fashion the value "abortion is okay", the State is inhibiting the religion of many with it's State sponsored values invading the private ones (One more reason why I hate the State).


K, where are you anyway? Might help me get a better grasp on the sociocultural differences in play here. I'm a west coast american myself.

I am a Guatemalan of the urban variety, which pretty much means that when it comes values and form of thinking, urban Guatemalans are not terribly different in terms of how we treat social values (We are primarily individualistic peoples, but still are a bit more collectivistic compared to a North American). However, being an International Relationship student, and possessing a voracious inquisitive nature :teeth: , it has exposed me to a diverse amount of values from around the world and in effect, have embraced a great deal of them as well (Something that in a way, I had a predisposition towards to, given how Rural Guatemala is still pretty collectivistic). I possess both the individualistic framework of a westerner, but also the framework of an collectivist easterner, I have both feet in both worlds (Which means, I am also very akin to an African, Arab, Turk, or Asian, not just a North American and Latinamerican and European :teeth: ). So yah, if you want to know my sociocultural framework, think the whole world in it's diverse flavors. :teeth:


Well, one of the issues we get into when people argue on the basis of religious belief for some sort of change to happen is that you get mutually exclusively desires from between multiple religions or within different believers in the same religion.


With stuff like economics or sports you can make an argument, have each person agree on the information involved and what it probably means, and then come to a decision of some sort. That is simply not possible when it comes to religious arguments, as there are problems we run into. If two people read the same religious book and both say the opposite (like how some people within the same religion, for example, take opposing sides on stuff like Abortion. Are you familiar with Dr. Tiller? He was gunned down while doing his duties as an usher one Sunday morning by a christian anti-abortion “activist”) then how are you supposed to, as the government, supposed to know which one is right? Without a non-religious based argument, that everyone can comment on, we'd be stuck unable to get past dogma.

Uuhhh.. I am afraid you will run into the same problems as religion when it comes to economics (Have you not heard of Keynesians, Chicago School, Marxists, Neo-Liberals, etc? ) and sports (If you dare tell me that Real Madrid sucks, consider your life forfeit :tongue:, but in all seriousness, even professional sports analysts are anything but unanimous, and those with the wrong beliefs in analysis has costed many clubs entire fortunes). Even non-religious information and arguments for truth is not immune from the same problems that plagues the religious arguments where oppositions arise. On the matter regarding Dr. Tiller, regarding what I would expect the government to act, I would at least expect it to charge the man who killed Dr. Tiller and give him his due sentence, and if it were a more collectivist setting, the Congregation that Scott Roeder belonged (assuming it shared his values), owe his family or clinic reparation money since even by Christian norms, killing those who oppose are values will do no good to us the Church), wether Tiller was responsible or careless doctor, and I don't know who to believe really. And the fact that secular State authorities are the ones running the show regarding what they deem as "public order", we are already stuck in dogma, the State Dogma.


I once heard a description of America as “The Great Argument” and I thought it was pretty apt, we have thousands, millions even, of people constantly working, protesting, fighting to get the country the direction they think it should be and we are constantly steered by the force of such arguments.

Actually, I view it more as; A potential ruckus of rulers. I am somewhat like Plato, that I have certain aversions towards democratic governments (being like a ship that has locked away it's captain, and now a bunch of madmen lead by a demagogue that promises everything the crew wishes, but it can't, dooming the vessel). And the Ship, just like the State, does not allow you to jump out when you want out when things go wrong, being that it's in the Middle of the Sea.)


Trying to keep all beliefs unimposed, completely unimposed, seems to me very close to anarchy.

Fear not Jaecp, it will not produce anarchy at all. :teeth: If such were the case, the Christian and Muslim peoples of the past, kings and peasant alike, would have long destroyed themselves beyond recovery. Not even the wars suffered by both these bands was enough to trump their development. :smile:


Some beliefs are competing, republican and democrat, liberal or conservative (or libertarian or objectivism or socialist or... or...) and any number of dichotomous pairs we could dream up, the competition between them is how society is forged.

I would hardly consider competing belief systems to be what allows a society to be forged. (I always deemed that exchange of goods and mutual interest in something is what forges societies past and present).


Its all good. I have been overseas a bit, visited buddhist temples and talked to a variety people about these matters in person. One of my best friends from the military was a Puerto Rican Ex-Catholic atheist, he brought a very different approach to our discussions of religious belief. I recall reading that some of the problems early missionaries to africa found was that people would incorporate christianity into their existing belief structures, with the same kind of magic belief from before christianization. [How many people who attempt the “virgin cure” for HIV in africa go to church on Sundays and shouldn't believe in it at all? Even though it, apparently, traces back to 16th and 19th century europe]

Oy, no doubt those must have been most interesting discussions. :smile:


This gets back into the ability to affect change through rational argumentation. Competing economic policies can be weighed in a way that competing religious beliefs cannot.

Are you sure about this? As far as I am concerned, Obama is committig the same blunders his forerunner, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in economic policies, dooming USA to prolonged depressions, where is the rationality in that? Like a said earlier, competing economic policies are not immune from the same argumentations that plauge religious debate, because even economics start with different principles belief systems on how economics works.


The State is not a nebulous force, however, it derives its power, in western style democracies at least, from the will of the people, the consent of the governed. Its a right of a citizen to work to affect change in a country if they believe something is being done wrong. Private dominions have no guarantee of being better. I shudder at the thought of a company like BP being able to mess up the gulf of mexico to that extent and being unable to be forced to fix it.

Oh if only that were true. Where are the contracts or consents that are supposed to supposedly sustain western democracies? Why is the power of the State actually derived from the gun and not from it's people? Why should we allow a citizen that believes that something is wrong, be allowed to proceed with his belief when there is another citizen who believes that same action/belief is right? You are right that Private Dominions are not guaranteed to work better, but here is the thing that Private Dominions possess that State Governments will never have: True consent of it's subordinates (They actually have true social contract, where the employee, consents to be under the subordination of the owner of the company). Mind you I am awares that there are companies that don't always practice this to the letter (As is the case of the companies that use the State to protect themselves from competition or force them to work for them, but that pretty much puts them in league with the State). And you being worried about a mess up like British Petroleum, heh, compared to the screw ups State Governments have done (Try unwarranted military draftings for starters), an oil spill is like a payed vacation.


Social Contracts still play out within governments, congressmen and senators, representing the will of their area, are supposed to choose policies that represent them. This is social contract in action, though at a really big scale. I am mostly drawing my ideas from Locke's “Two Treatist of Government” and Thomas Hobbes “Leviathan”, which I need to read from back to front one of these days :)

I am sorry, but members of State Legislative Bodies acting as the consented representatives is not Social Contract in action. Being elected via State sponsored votes is not a Social Contract, it is merely choosing one forced ruler for another, where is the choice of "I want out" in an election? Oh that's right, your not allowed that option... Both Locke and Hobbes would shudder if they saw the shape of today's so called "Consented Governments", the USA not being exempted. Social Contract Theory (Especially the ones made by John Locke) have been twisted and distorted to create justifications for the State, such as spreading that hideous lie that the State originated with Social contract. True Social Contract consist of an actual voluntary declaration of the individual to be subordinate to the mandates of another (Be it paper or vocal), and both will agree to fulfill each other's obligations, a criteria that is actually fulfilled quite adequately by private companies and corporations.



This gets back into the ability to affect change through rational argumentation. Competing economic policies can be weighed in a way that competing religious beliefs cannot.


Well, its pretty easy to get out, depending on the new country your trying to get to is what makes it hard or easy. Getting in, yes, we've tightened up lately. Unemployment is huge right now, and then there was the terrorist scare that is, well, pretty much ongoing now.

Actually, getting out is not an option either. From what I hear, the USA government will still continue to tax you, even if you leave the USA.


As for historically? The other thread I am posting here I've layed out a number of incredibly nasty things america has done, we are not saints. However, as I read somewhere once, “there isn't a country on gods earth that isn't built on the backs of the blood of the innocent” and, well, I can't change the past, I can only look to it for advice, figure out how the present is working and work towards making a better future. If it took this long for america to get diverse in a way that was originally thought out, imagine how long it will take countries that are not diverse, and proud of it!

Well, the only diversity I can aspire for, is a diversity that does not forces to live together, something that in many ways, USA can be a model. I am against diverse society, but I am in favor of multiple societies co-existing side by side (because at least we are not forced to associate ourselves with those who are not compatible with). I am pro-coexistence. :tongue:


I see what your saying, this is a result, though, of there being a massive majority of that group. In 2008 we had 68% of Americans are white non-hispanic, 15% Hispanic (Any Race), 12% non-Hispanic Black and 5% Asian. In earlier days

True true.


First we had a bunch of various European countries ex-patriots mixed together and finally getting along, because problems come up, and then integrating others.

And I guess I can be thankfull that they set aside those differences to certain point to at least attempt to resolve such problems.


As for having schools in multiple languages? I don't think we have the manpower to do that in most parts of the country, and while America does not have an official language, English is still going to be needed. This doesn't make the idea of the melting pot a myth, its simply the dominant language, and the language of the world (thanks, mostly, to the British empire).

And for stability's and order's sake, I hope it continues to be that way in the USA. And it be a usefull perk that there be English speakers everywhere. ^^


While I am not going to deny that England was a heavy influence at the start of the country, we have split off and become our own, by incorporating bits and pieces from other cultures and going voltron all of over their limey butts :P

Hehehe, true, and lets not forget some original ideas on behalf of the Founding Fathers, inspired by Liberal Literature, that eventually forged the American identity. :wink:



K, I suppose its probably easier when its a formal piece that has been through drafts and tweaks.

True true


Heh, yeah, my Communications professor would put his fingers on his temples, close his eyes and say “DEET DEET DEET DEET DEET” and then ask us if we agree'd with him.

And if I were in your place, I would have said no, just for kicks and giggles. :lol:


No worries, I flip around between empiricism and rationalism depending on the subject matter myself, but one of my goals (and why I took issue with using one of Karen Armstrongs books for a Philosophy of Religion class) in life is to look at things how they are and to work from their, for everything.

Excellent approach methinks.


Cheers,

J

I do await your worthy answer. :pray: