Separation of Science and State

[John 6IX Breezy]

Are you ready to have religion beaten over the head with the science stick with the full force of law behind it?

Is there a connection between protecting the right to do science and what you just said?

[The Grand Nudger]

The church of the secular sacred has an interpretation.

So, run with it.

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

Of course it is, because religion is itself circular, thus any definition will itself be circular.

Superstitions are like that.

---

Are you ready to have religion beaten over the head with the science stick with the full force of law behind it?

Is there a connection between protecting the right to do science and what you just said?

What the fuck is the "right to do science"? Everyone does science every day.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not too worried about Johns poor understanding of circularity, or his personal belief that science is a right.

I'm more concerned that I've constructed a church which seeks to establish a religious law and he doesn't have any opinion on that. No clue, apparently, as to how or why it would be subject to separation. I wonder how many more of my fellow americans think that science is somehow protected by law, or that couldn't articulate why separation still applies when a religion contends (as they so very often do) that their belief x which they wish to establish by law is a scientific one.

Christianity has tried this silly shit (and is still trying this silly shit) with creationism, marriage, lgbtq issues, stem cell research, the humanity of minorities, basic fucking equality between men and women........the list goes on and on. Shot down, so far, and to hear people tell it, shot down because they had the science wrong - as though, getting the science right, it would be maintainable. They're not always going to be committed to getting the science wrong, and will one day realize that getting it right allows them to game public perception of the law better than pretending to have gotten it right has.

Just as a scientific racist or scientific misogynist absolutely can point to some true scientific fact about people in support of their ideology, a relationship that John briefly mentions in his op gripe about behavioral genetics, a future religious complaint will wrap itself in good science and see if that's the secret sauce to establishing themselves as a state religion. I strongly suspect that it will be. That such a religion will be able to unite more people in that moral whole, and thus make the danger of a established religion more difficult to prevent on account of how few people can find any reason to disagree with it's precepts.