RE: Are you for or against the separation of church and state?
April 18, 2013 at 9:42 am
(This post was last modified: April 18, 2013 at 10:12 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Just to re-enter where I left off.
No, an officical can be influenced by whatever they like, again, this is a hard line -when it becomes "fairy said so" is a gross violation. This is why "pro-life" movements, for example, prefer to make their case at the point in which life "begins" rather than simply saying "it has a soul".
It would be pretty easy to see when someone is casting a fairies vote - we can already tell that through layers of obfuscation, but I don't actually require that they not be casting a fairies vote, remember? I'm content with being lied to, so long as it's a competent lie. If said official can come up with something other than "fairy said so" it's a notion that can be entertained (and do you know why?...because if you can stump for it - for any other reason- "fairy said so" was not required, not even by the person trying to screen "fairy said so" - as usual, religion and faith are irrelevant and utterly useless). So long as religion isn't overtly deciding policy, so long as we have some other argument, then we're at least trying. Maybe I think that some policy decisions are transparent examples of "fairy said so", but it's up to me to make that case. I would expect, if that case could be made, to see that policy rendered null unless better grounds could be offered.
At the heart of it, it;s very simple, it doesn't matter what faith were invoking. People are free to believe and exercise their faiths in private and even in public (some provisions apply). They -are not- free to exercise their faith with the power and authority of the state.
To add to and address this as well. The justification offered can be batshit crazy (and far from rational), so long as "fairy wills it", or "my religious faith demands that I vote this way" isn't the batshit crazy proposition on offer. If someone says "I think intervention in this genocide is a good/bad idea because a black cat walked in front of me on the way to casting my vote" I'll still call them a nutball - suggest they're unfit (even if I agree with their vote)......but it doesn't really violate the separation of church and state.
The separation of church and state is not a separation of the rational from the irrational. It may sometimes be the case that this is it's practical effect, but other irrational shit is -unfortunately- not prohibited by this. Clearly, we can't be expected to pre-empt every vacuous thought that might ever enter into the space between some officials ears......but we can very easily (and for easily demonstrable reasons) pre-empt any malfunctions of the brain that might lead a person to think that granting religion the power of the state is an acceptable way to write law.
You may never know, for sure, whether or not someone is lying through their teeth - but so long as the argument focuses on whatever they offered to avoid saying "god wills it" - that's a-ok.
To use the pro-life example
Politician thinks "because soul and god wills it"
Politician says "life begins at conception"
-legislation is passed because "life begins at conception"
-God or souls didn't win that argument, and they were required. Life and how we define it, when we confer rights won. God and souls were superfluous (like always), and that's a-ok (even if I disagree- and I do, as a matter of policy).
however- if politician actually says "god wills it" or the reasons offered are plainly shown to be a screen for casting a gods vote, and legislation is passed.....that's an example of a religious faith being exercised with the full power of the state behind it...which is not kosher.
Clear anything up?
(April 14, 2013 at 4:53 pm)ebg Wrote: Are all public officials (including student class presidents) that are influenced by religion violating the separation of church and state admendment? Is it correct to say that religion influence are: christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism, buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, taoism, shinto, sikhism. Animal worship, devil worshop,fire worship, nature worship, sun worship, taboo, voodoo, witchcraft, mormons, druces, gnostic, animism, ancestor worship... isn't that just about an inclusive list of everyone? How do you tell when a person is influenced by religion and who is not? I forgot JW, masons,seven day adventist.
No, an officical can be influenced by whatever they like, again, this is a hard line -when it becomes "fairy said so" is a gross violation. This is why "pro-life" movements, for example, prefer to make their case at the point in which life "begins" rather than simply saying "it has a soul".
It would be pretty easy to see when someone is casting a fairies vote - we can already tell that through layers of obfuscation, but I don't actually require that they not be casting a fairies vote, remember? I'm content with being lied to, so long as it's a competent lie. If said official can come up with something other than "fairy said so" it's a notion that can be entertained (and do you know why?...because if you can stump for it - for any other reason- "fairy said so" was not required, not even by the person trying to screen "fairy said so" - as usual, religion and faith are irrelevant and utterly useless). So long as religion isn't overtly deciding policy, so long as we have some other argument, then we're at least trying. Maybe I think that some policy decisions are transparent examples of "fairy said so", but it's up to me to make that case. I would expect, if that case could be made, to see that policy rendered null unless better grounds could be offered.
At the heart of it, it;s very simple, it doesn't matter what faith were invoking. People are free to believe and exercise their faiths in private and even in public (some provisions apply). They -are not- free to exercise their faith with the power and authority of the state.
(April 14, 2013 at 5:26 pm)ebg Wrote: Can you please give me the definition of "rational". And how do I know that a. "Persons" rational decision for gay marriage (in the context of happy, or sexual orintation) wasn't influence by say the religion of christianity, or ancestory worship, or nature worship, or confucianism?
To add to and address this as well. The justification offered can be batshit crazy (and far from rational), so long as "fairy wills it", or "my religious faith demands that I vote this way" isn't the batshit crazy proposition on offer. If someone says "I think intervention in this genocide is a good/bad idea because a black cat walked in front of me on the way to casting my vote" I'll still call them a nutball - suggest they're unfit (even if I agree with their vote)......but it doesn't really violate the separation of church and state.
The separation of church and state is not a separation of the rational from the irrational. It may sometimes be the case that this is it's practical effect, but other irrational shit is -unfortunately- not prohibited by this. Clearly, we can't be expected to pre-empt every vacuous thought that might ever enter into the space between some officials ears......but we can very easily (and for easily demonstrable reasons) pre-empt any malfunctions of the brain that might lead a person to think that granting religion the power of the state is an acceptable way to write law.
You may never know, for sure, whether or not someone is lying through their teeth - but so long as the argument focuses on whatever they offered to avoid saying "god wills it" - that's a-ok.
To use the pro-life example
Politician thinks "because soul and god wills it"
Politician says "life begins at conception"
-legislation is passed because "life begins at conception"
-God or souls didn't win that argument, and they were required. Life and how we define it, when we confer rights won. God and souls were superfluous (like always), and that's a-ok (even if I disagree- and I do, as a matter of policy).
however- if politician actually says "god wills it" or the reasons offered are plainly shown to be a screen for casting a gods vote, and legislation is passed.....that's an example of a religious faith being exercised with the full power of the state behind it...which is not kosher.
Clear anything up?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
