Religion and Politics

[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. 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 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.

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! 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 “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?

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!

[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