Separation of Science and State

[John 6IX Breezy]

...the sacred is defined by the religious themselves...

How can you identify who the religious are without a definition of sacred to identify a religion in the first place?

[The Grand Nudger]

By -their- definition of a sacred, and beliefs and practices relative to it, which unite them in a moral whole, you cretin.

The church we're considering has the proper sacred stuff, if there's such a stuff. Do they get to write laws on the basis of their religious beliefs?

---

.......even better.

It's your religion, John. Your religion has the right sacred stuff, if there is such a stuff. Your religious beliefs are true. Your religious beliefs have been tested, and tested scientifically, and demonstrated to be true. If getting the right set of stuff, any stuff - be it definitions or sacred articles or the proper method of arriving at true conclusions - is relevant; assume that it's your own religion that got all of it right...and then tell us how.

In what way would it, or should it, effect the separation of church and state?

[John 6IX Breezy]

So the religious define sacred, and sacred defines religion, and religion defines the religious, which define sacred, which defines religion, which defines the religious, and so on?

[The Grand Nudger]

The religious define the sacred, their moral unification over a set of beliefs and practices relative to whatever they consider sacred... defines a religion.

Do you have any comment to add that resolves to something other than the notion that a definition is wrong. That's not why you think we separate church from state, is it - because we have no beliefs about whether or not some religion is right, and worry that a religion or a definition might be wrong?

Assuming that your own religion and own definitions are all true...true true true..whatever those definitions are whatever your religion is and whatever you deign to certify as sacred, do you think that should have some effect on separation?

[John 6IX Breezy]

The religious define the sacred, their moral unification over a set of beliefs and practices relative to whatever they consider sacred... defines a religion.

Exactly, your definition is circular.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it isn't, and who cares..unless having the proper sacred, or proper definitions, or proper methods, or proper -whatever- has an effect on separation.

What do you think?

---

More bluntly, if you can provide no explanation as to how or why a religion would be, could be, or should be subject to separation of church and state - I strongly suspect that you are not in possession of any explanation for why something that is not a religion should be subject to something like the separation of church and state.

Meanwhile, in mere reality, science is already subject to a much stricter and less free relationship with the state. A relationship such as the one enjoyed by religion would elevate it in standing, not constrain or limit it. The clause is yet another privilege that religion has accrued unto itself by beating and burning and stabbing people to death - failing upward. If I describe something not so patently ridiculous and evil as the religions we're all most familiar with, people balk at the notion of it even being a religion and stumble to describe why or if separation would or should apply.

[cyber_freddy]

The question: Should there be any separation between science and government (synonymous to church and state)? What should the relationship between science and government be? Are there any dangers in that relationship?

Reasonably one would want a close relationship. But two points make me question this:

1. Similar to the Inquisition (the poster boy of the evils that church and state can create), you also have the evils that science and state can create (The Tuskegee syphilis experiment; water-boarding and interrogation tactics; and whatever experiments the Nazis did). 

2. Their influence on each other is less than ideal: When politicians use science for political purposes, they tend to butcher it. For example, California passed a law requiring officers to be screened using the Implicit Bias test (IAT), despite the inventors of the test being clear it is not diagnostic. And on the flip side, when science is influenced by politics, it shapes the kinds of questions scientists ask and the types of answers that emerge. The field of behavioral genetics has struggled because it is not politically correct.

No because science is not a religion despite how some atheist treat it. Science and reason should be tools that are used to guide society. Also, just because some group misuses science does not invalidate the usefulness of science on shaping public policy. Science is an amoral tool that can be used for good or evil thus how to use it lies outside of science in the realm of ethics.

On your second point, I would argue that the California law is non a good example of the government using science because implicit bias testing comes from the social sciences rather than the hard sciences.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think that all of this was required to make the case - and some of it is detrimental to making that case. The defenses of science employed can be levied one for one with religion, with one small revision - a moral tool, rather than an amoral tool.

Is it because of those things that science isn't protected, and religion is?

The line probably gets fuzzy, in that case (and in actual cases) when science is the thing that people use to inform their moral conclusions - to guide society.

[chimp3]

Bill of rights does not mention science.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Bill of rights does not mention science.

Couldn't it fall under freedom of the press given that you investigate and report findings in a journal, much like any other news outlet?