Founders wanted a Christian America.

[Meow Mix]

A government is composed of people who quite logically bring their philosophies and ideologies with them when they serve. As well, they are elected by people who have philosophies and ideologies.

I don't think anyone disagrees that our worldviews inform our actions; but it's for this exact reason that it becomes necessary to set aside some protections (e.g., a Constitution) to protect the minority from the philosophies brought to Capitol Hill by the majority.

For instance, as a potential real-life example, one of the Big 10 for Christians is "thou shalt not have any other gods before me." The Bible also makes some pretty clear statements about, say, witchcraft. It would fly in the face of the spirit of our Constitution if it were to come to a vote of whether or not, say, Wicca should be allowed in the USA.

Clearly, the Constitution protects Wiccans from the possible event of Christians' actions being informed by a belief against "witchcraft" such that even if Christians are a majority in the country, it would clearly be un-American and un-Constitutional to put it to some vote on whether or not they're going to allow Wiccans civil equality in terms of religious practice.

Thus it seems that indeed people's actions are informed by their beliefs; but they seem to keep themselves in check in order to respect other beliefs: in this case, some Christians' beliefs against witchcraft are held in check by their belief in civil equality (and if not, the Constitution is further protection of civil equality).

If I ask what the difference is about homosexuality and Wicca -- both admonished in the Bible, both even commanded death in the Bible (Wicca indirectly, as "witchcraft") -- someone might say, "Well, the Constitution is explicit about religion being protected; but not about homosexuality."

1) If that were true, then it's just further evidence of what I'm saying: that a just Constitution is required for a just society. That would be admitting that the society is unjust in an area because the Constitution had failed in that area to explicitely protect civil equality!

2) Thankfully I doubt that is true: the Equal Protection Clause is in line with the spirit of government I'm talking about in the 14th Amendment. Just because homosexuality isn't explicitely mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean that the spirit of the law somehow fails to protect discrimination against homosexuals engaging in the same sorts of secular civil contracts with the government and one another as other people do.

Now, of course the fact of the matter is that in the real world people are free to ignore or interpret that differently. At the end of the day, the people with the biggest sticks are going to rule and they can and probably will beat down and oppress those who are different from them, even if there are de jure restrictions against this. What do you know -- that's exactly what we see today!!

I just think it would be much less of a problem if less people saw it as acceptable.

 

[Meow Mix]

I wasn't clear, my response about government not endorsing religion or participating in it is in regards to the only form of government action that matters, legislation. Government members will necessarily want to support organizations they favor, including religious ones. I don't think this is a bad thing. If you get elected and fight for federal funds for churches in your district/state, and the people still elect you then I am not against that.

Governmental money of any form shouldn't go to churches whatsoever. If an organization that also happens to be a church performs a charitable service -- for anyone, and doesn't discriminate; and doesn't endorse or prohibit religious affairs, etc. -- then certainly they can receive federal/state aid without problem.

The issue only arises when the government aid is used in a form that endorses or prohibits the practice of religions. If the group happens to be a church and they hand out pamphlets to raise awareness of, say, breast cancer -- fine. If those pamphlets happen to have their church's address on them, fine.

However if those pamphlets endorse praying to Jesus as a means of protecting oneself against breast cancer, then NOT fine -- no governmental funds for you. (The church is free to believe this and preach about it, but can you see the distinction that is being made here in terms of when the *government* can be involved?)

As I said earlier, we have a secular government (federally speaking--I won't argue that State government is secular) in that our government does not legislate religion. It does not mandate, through policy and legislation, that people participate in religion, endorse religion, or behave in a manner favorable to religion.

That doesn't mean that all forms of relating to religion are absent from the goverment as an organization. But as a manner of policy, the federal government is not a religious organization, based on the policies it passes and the policies by which it governs itself.

I agree that our government is largely secular -- mostly thanks to many of the explicit de jure secular components of our Constitution. It just seems to disappointingly drop the ball on some small and silly things; and I know it's not that important that our money says "In God We Trust" or "In Playing The Lottery We Trust" or "In Having Blonde Hair We Trust," but it's still important on some small level to point out the inherent unjustness of being exclusionary for no reason other than to be exclusionary; to say "nyah nyah polytheists and nontheists, you guys aren't as American as the rest of us" for no reason other than to be brattish.

 

[Road Warrior]

Based on the lack of federal religious legislation.


A state law, and also not religious. Maybe inspired by religion, but not religious. The breakdown was 52% to 48%....in California....that means 52% of the voting population of the 30+ million Californians voted against gay marriage.

Even if every person did so because of religious reasons, it hardly constitutes government endorsement or participation in religious affairs.

Even DOMA, while disappointing and potentially religious motivated, does not constitute government "endorsement and participation" in religious affairs.

Agreed on all counts. "The government" isn't religious, but the same can't be said of the voters. It seems some here want to replace the current democratic form of government with an authoritarian-style government favoring and enforcing atheism. That would be a very bad idea. While our present style of government has problems, as Winston Churchill once said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Yes, Prop 8 and DOMA are step backwards as far as civil rights are concerned, but is there really any doubt that gay marriage will be a reality? That laws like Prop 8 and DOMA will be overturned as unConstitutional?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

If you look into American history you will find, and this is something Americans also believe, that the nation's founders held the core beliefs and wrote Christianity into the Constitution, and America was founded on Christian principals. So for the courts or the Legeslative branch or the Excutive Branch which is POTUS or President in this case Obama, try to say different or try to force you against your religious principles as they are trying with the abortion issue now is Un-American and against what the founding fathers envisioned.

Epic Revisionists Fail. I'd say nice try but in reality, it isn't really. :no:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If you look into American history you will find, and this is something Americans also believe, that the nation's founders held the core beliefs and wrote Christianity into the Constitution, and America was founded on Christian principals. So for the courts or the Legeslative branch or the Excutive Branch which is POTUS or President in this case Obama, try to say different or try to force you against your religious principles as they are trying with the abortion issue now is Un-American and against what the founding fathers envisioned.

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Try researching and checking out some of the religious views of the following founding fathers.

James Madison
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Paine
John Adams

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wouldn't say that this is any form of endorsement or participation that is unique to religion.

Handing money to churches isn't endorsement of religion?

Also, the OFBCI is not a policy-making arm of the government.

Why would that matter?

These exemptions can hardly be an endorsement of religion over anything else. We give tax exemptions and credits for a great many things (the tax code details them all).

Yes - the government uses the tax code to endorse many things. One of the things it endorses this way is religion.

The fact that the government endorses other things does not imply that its endorsement of religion as well isn't endorsement.

I wasn't clear, my response about government not endorsing religion or participating in it is in regards to the only form of government action that matters, legislation.

But a government's actions, unless they're flat-out illegal, are a result of that legislation. Either the actions are expressly mandated by the law or they're within the range allowed for by the law. Whichever is the case, every government action performed in accordance with the law is an expression of legislation.

Government members will necessarily want to support organizations they favor, including religious ones. I don't think this is a bad thing. If you get elected and fight for federal funds for churches in your district/state, and the people still elect you then I am not against that.

Why wouldn't you be?

And how would a church get federal funds except through legislation? The federal budget is an act of legislation.

As I said earlier, we have a secular government (federally speaking--I won't argue that State government is secular) in that our government does not legislate religion. It does not mandate, through policy and legislation, that people participate in religion, endorse religion, or behave in a manner favorable to religion.

Yes it does... or at least, that's the practical effect when the law says "you must pay your taxes" and the government then turns around and uses those tax dollars to promote and endorse religion.

BTW - I'd argue that state governments have been secular - or at least have been constitutionally required to be secular - since the passing of the 14th Amendment.

That doesn't mean that all forms of relating to religion are absent from the goverment as an organization. But as a manner of policy, the federal government is not a religious organization, based on the policies it passes and the policies by which it governs itself.

I disagree. While the government is not a primarily religious organization, its policies do include religious elements... in contravention of the First Amendment, IMO.

 

[Road Warrior]

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Try researching and checking out some of the religious views of the following founding fathers.

James Madison
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Paine
John Adams

An excellent quote and agreed.

President Adams' statement on the treaty:

 

[GreyGoose]

They're not mutually exclusive. Secularism is about whether the government endorses or prohibits religious affairs whereas pluralism is about whether the government endorses or prohibits cultural affairs. Usually secular nations tend to be pluralistic, though that's not explicitly true because they're necessarily connected (strictly, it's imaginable to have one and not the other).

...and would this be the wiki definition or the Meow Mix definition?

Who in government gets to make the distinction between that which constitutes a "religious affair" as opposed to a "cultural affair?" It all gets a bit messy, does it not?

Alternative? I was only saying that it would be best for a democracy -- which I agree is the most just process -- to have inherent protections for the minority from tyranny of the majority, that's all. That necessarily includes secularism (else the religious tyranny of the minority will oppress the minority; whereas in a secular nation ALL people are free to practice their religion; and free from the strange taboos of other religions).

How do you define "tyranny?"

If the majority is seeking to establish a law that is proper (right) or moral, is it proper to characterize this as "tyranny" of the majority?

If the minority is able to repeatedly frustrate, impede or deny the will of the majority in it's effort to establish what is morally proper, would it not be fair turn-about to characterize this as "tyranny" of the minority?

Who said anything about atheistic humanism? Secularism isn't the imposition of atheism or humanism onto society -- it's merely a word for the religious neutrality of the state. The government wouldn't be able to endorse or prohibit strong atheism any more than it would be able to endorse or prohibit theisms.

You've misquoted me. I never stated anything about "atheistic humanism."

Logically, either God exists or no God exists. Do you agree?

All law is imposition. Do you agree?

Logically, ALL law will either agree or be in opposition to God's law. With respect to law making, can there really be any such thing as "religious neutrality?"

Er, "religiously pluralistic" seems to be another word for secularism, no?

You tell me.

The nation's motto unconstitutionally endorses monotheism over polytheism, and theism over non-theism. It's unjust, unconstitutional, in-your-face and entirely unnecessary other than to be in-your-face to all those [ostensibly presumed un-American] polytheists and non-theists.

For instance -- who is excluded if the money doesn't say anything about religious belief at all? No one. What reason is there for making excluding remarks on our money in the first place again? I can't think of any!

I mean, imagine if our money said something totally unnecessary and that excluded some people for no reason like, "In Not Playing The Lottery We Trust." Okay why do that? Even if most of the nation doesn't play the lottery, why alienate those that do -- how does that in any way help our currency to stick an extraneous, jerky remark on there?!

How is it tolerant to completely unnecessarily imply someone isn't part of a nation because they differ on some silly belief that's non-essential for being a citizen or for supporting that government?

The answer: it's not. Not at all. It's silly. It's not *that* big of a deal, sure, but it's ultimately just nonsense that flies in the face of the de jure secular spirit of this [potentially] great nation.

My apologies for the lack of specificity. I was referring to 'e pluribus unum' - "out of many, one." I don't recognize "In God We Trust" as the nations motto.

 

[Shermana]

" I don't recognize "In God We Trust" as the nations motto.

Personally I find this "national motto" blasphemous and has no place on the coinage.

 

[GreyGoose]

I don't think anyone disagrees that our worldviews inform our actions; but it's for this exact reason that it becomes necessary to set aside some protections (e.g., a Constitution) to protect the minority from the philosophies brought to Capitol Hill by the majority.

Should the minority be protected from the philosophies of the majority simply because they happen to be the philosophies of the majority?

If your point is to say that we are a nation of laws (e.g., a Constitution) and therefore the majority imposed laws must comport with that which is lawful, I most wholeheartedly agree.

For instance, as a potential real-life example, one of the Big 10 for Christians is "thou shalt not have any other gods before me." The Bible also makes some pretty clear statements about, say, witchcraft. It would fly in the face of the spirit of our Constitution if it were to come to a vote of whether or not, say, Wicca should be allowed in the USA.

It seems to me that Wicca and witchcraft would fall into the categories previously specified under the subtitle of "religions, ideologies and philosophies." The notion of a pluralistic society (exemplified in scripture BTW) would allow for the free practice of religion as long as it comports to duly constituted law governing societal behavior. For example, Wicca would not be permitted to engage in human sacrifice.

Clearly, the Constitution protects Wiccans from the possible event of Christians' actions being informed by a belief against "witchcraft" such that even if Christians are a majority in the country, it would clearly be un-American and un-Constitutional to put it to some vote on whether or not they're going to allow Wiccans civil equality in terms of religious practice.

We apparently agree. A pluralistic society means that people are free to practice their religion and engage in the political process i.e., vote, form political parties, run for office and lobby for laws comporting with their philosophical worldview.

Thus it seems that indeed people's actions are informed by their beliefs; but they seem to keep themselves in check in order to respect other beliefs: in this case, some Christians' beliefs against witchcraft are held in check by their belief in civil equality (and if not, the Constitution is further protection of civil equality).

Don't Christians have the same protections and rights with respect to taking part in the political process? What would prohibit a Christian majority from engaging in lawful imposition with respect to the Wicca community? What would prohibit a Wicca majority from engaging in lawful imposition with respect to the Christian community?

My point here is that the political process is all about the imposition of ideology. It strikes me as somewhat lame for some to blame the process whenever they find certain results to be distasteful or disagreeable.

If I ask what the difference is about homosexuality and Wicca -- both admonished in the Bible, both even commanded death in the Bible (Wicca indirectly, as "witchcraft") -- someone might say, "Well, the Constitution is explicit about religion being protected; but not about homosexuality."

1) If that were true, then it's just further evidence of what I'm saying: that a just Constitution is required for a just society. That would be admitting that the society is unjust in an area because the Constitution had failed in that area to explicitly protect civil equality!

2) Thankfully I doubt that is true: the Equal Protection Clause is in line with the spirit of government I'm talking about in the 14th Amendment. Just because homosexuality isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean that the spirit of the law somehow fails to protect discrimination against homosexuals engaging in the same sorts of secular civil contracts with the government and one another as other people do.

Where does the Bible infer or command Christians to crusade for the purpose of forcing society to comport with Biblical statutes?

Separate functions for Church and State are rooted in the Bible. The title of 'Preist and King' is reserved for Jesus. Feel free to correct me but I see absolutely no Biblical prescription for establishing a theocracy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that Wicca and witchcraft would fall into the categories previously specified under the subtitle of "religions, ideologies and philosophies." The notion of a pluralistic society (exemplified in scripture BTW) would allow for the free practice of religion as long as it comports to duly constituted law governing societal behavior. For example, Wicca would not be permitted to engage in human sacrifice.

The bit I've bolded above: what are you talking about?

 

[Meow Mix]

...and would this be the wiki definition or the Meow Mix definition?

Who in government gets to make the distinction between that which constitutes a "religious affair" as opposed to a "cultural affair?" It all gets a bit messy, does it not?

Hmm, I'm really unsure of where the semantic dissonance is coming from. What about the notion of governments not having the power to restrict its citizens' rights just because some majority has a superstitious taboo is confusing in any way without sounding accusatory of sophistry?

I can understand how "religious affairs" and "cultural affairs" can get entangled; but I'm not sure on what particular aspect of how I've been using the word "secular" has been at all unclear.

Maybe an analogy: suppose that in some hypothetical democratic-republic with Constitutional protection for its citizens, the majority believes that it's absolutely abominable to wear white socks on Tuesdays; and they wish to pass a law that prevents anyone from doing so -- even the folks that or more or less confused about what the big deal about wearing white socks on Tuesdays is.

Well, if the Constitution is written well and really does afford civil freedoms to the citizens, the majority will not be able to strip the minority of their right to wear whatever color of socks they want on whatever day of the week they want.

Everybody wins and nobody loses (unless you consider it infringing the majority's rights to prevent them from being able to oppress other people) because, of course, the majority has every right to abstain from wearing white socks on Tuesdays in accordance to their own superstitious taboos if they wish.

The difference between this and a majority outlawing, say, pedophilia (which some minority might try to defend) is that there is no harm involved in the wearing of white socks on Tuesdays (or with males marrying, or females marrying, or consuming pork, or what have you): but pedophilia involves nonconsent and harm to children.

To really talk about all of this we would have to sit down and discuss the role and nature of government, honestly: such as questions like "do ideal governments for some goal x grant rights or restrict them (or both)?"

How do you define "tyranny?"

If the majority is seeking to establish a law that is proper (right) or moral, is it proper to characterize this as "tyranny" of the majority?

If the minority is able to repeatedly frustrate, impede or deny the will of the majority in it's effort to establish what is morally proper, would it not be fair turn-about to characterize this as "tyranny" of the minority?

Well, that's precisely the sort of thing a Constitution is there for. Suppose that a majority thought that it was proper, right, and moral to force everyone not to wear white socks on Tuesdays -- but when asked why, they must appeal to some mysterious force or being.

There are deep philosophical issues involved here, but at the same time, isn't it clear enough for the purposes of running a government that's fair to its whole population (rather than just to the majority) to, say, require some rational demonstration of actual harm caused in principle by an activity/state of affairs when banning it so we don't end up with a calendar to determine what color socks we can wear that day -- determined by the state and some ridiculous superstitious population?

Everybody wins when there is freedom and protection from frivolous/superstitious taboo-based banning. Don't like wearing white socks on Tuesdays? Then don't -- but you can't force that on everyone else. Likewise with banning consuming pork, banning homosexual marriage equality, banning interracial marriage equality, etc.

You've misquoted me. I never stated anything about "atheistic humanism."

Hmm, the part of your post that I was responding to was this -- red added for emphasis:

"As the hub of power, all governments are primarily constituted for the express purpose of establishing law and order. All law is imposition and the political process involves the process for determining which philosophical and ideological views will be established by the state. What makes atheistic humanist philosophy superior to theistic philosophy? I fail to see how any amount of twisted nuanced redefining of functions ascribed to church and state in the founding documents (to include the Federalist Papers) can create a logically feasible separation of God and state."

Logically, either God exists or no God exists. Do you agree?

Yes; but it would be folly to assume that just because there is an ontological dichotomy that there is an epistemic one, too. Logically, either unies exist or unies do not exist; but that doesn't limit our epistemic options to the strong positive or the strong negation.

All law is imposition. Do you agree?

Seems that way to me; which is why it seems to me that the role of government is not to grant rights but to restrict them. It becomes a question of why and for what reasons a government would restrict them -- and I argue that it's abundantly clear that if a goal of the government is to have civil liberty and equality that it can't go around restricting rights based on superstitious taboos.

Logically, ALL law will either agree or be in opposition to God's law. With respect to law making, can there really be any such thing as "religious neutrality?"

That's assuming there's such a thing as "God's Law," so actually that may or may not even be a proposition whatsoever depending on whether this "God" thing is coherent. If the goal of a nation is to have civil liberty and equality, again, we can't go around stripping people of their rights just because a large group of people engages in superstition. That's a recipe for misery and chaos.

Involving God in a government (whose goals are civil liberty and equality) rationally would come down to:

1) Demonstrating the existence of said God with ample, primary epistemic justifications (e.g., secondary justifications like anecdote alone are not sufficient, just like with any other ontological claim)
2) Demonstrating the goodness of said God in principle
3) Demonstrating it's known what the commands for the society said God has
4) Demonstrating the goodness of said commands for the society

Now I don't know what you believe, but if you want to talk about majorities, it seems to me that the majority of theists I've ever encountered don't even dream of or claim that even the first one on that list is possible to rationally demonstrate outside of some nebulous notion of "faith."

(Of course, there are theists who assert theistic belief is rational and primarily-justified rather than "faith"-based and/or secondarily justified (by anecdote, testimony, etc.); but AFAIK they are not nearly as common)

My apologies for the lack of specificity. I was referring to 'e pluribus unum' - "out of many, one." I don't recognize "In God We Trust" as the nations motto.

Oh -- ok. I don't have any problem with E Pluribus Unum. I agree with you that it speaks about our nation's amazing ability to take many backgrounds and diversities and work with them all together!

However, the national motto is actually "In God We Trust" -- unconstitutionally, irratioanlly, unjustifiably, unnecessarily. This is the sort of injustice I'm talking about.

Did you know that in the midst of this last recession, Congress actually took the time to "reaffirm" that the national motto is "In God We Trust," a notion which wasn't even under attack at the time -- a notion so important to the superstitious majority in this nation that it took precedent, at least in Capitol Hill, to solving the crisis with the economy?

 

[Meow Mix]

Should the minority be protected from the philosophies of the majority simply because they happen to be the philosophies of the majority?

No, else what we'd really be talking about is an oligarchy of the minority (if the philosophy of the majority is denied simply for coming from a majority). Make no mistake -- the sort of government I'm talking about does include the majority ruling. The majority can't just arbitrarily strip away rights of the minority by fiat of being assured any belief held by the majority will likely pass a vote because it's believed by the majority.

This is simple to do by simply including a notion in a nation's Constitution which guarantees equal civil liberties among all people and denying superstition as a basis for stripping rights. If two people of a particular type can enter into a secular contract with the government then it is not constitutional to prevent two other people of a particular type from entering into the same sort of contract unless doing so in itself inhibits someone else's rights or causes harm in principle, for instance.

This is why miscegenation laws are unconstitutional, and this is why it's also unconstitutional to ban homosexual marriage. Moving away from that topic, it would also be unconstitutional to ban consumption of pork, or to practice belief in Wicca (though as you noted, it would be permissable to ban human sacrifice since it involves inhibiting others' basic rights; not that Wicca involves that to my knowledge).

If your point is to say that we are a nation of laws (e.g., a Constitution) and therefore the majority imposed laws must comport with that which is lawful, I most wholeheartedly agree.

Indeed that's what I'm saying. What is lawful in this nation, thanks to our Constitution, though, must involve not restricting anyone's rights for religious reasons. Frankly, if I were there for the Constitution's writing and involved somehow, I'd have broadened that restriction to all superstitious reasons rather than just religious ones.

(For instance, would it be Constitutional if the majority banned, say, numbering the floors between 12 and 14 in buildings as the "13th floor," even for those who don't share fears of the number 13? I would certainly hope that would be unconstitutional -- it should be, I think! -- but I'm not sure if it strictly is!)

It seems to me that Wicca and witchcraft would fall into the categories previously specified under the subtitle of "religions, ideologies and philosophies." The notion of a pluralistic society (exemplified in scripture BTW) would allow for the free practice of religion as long as it comports to duly constituted law governing societal behavior. For example, Wicca would not be permitted to engage in human sacrifice.

But that's the point isn't it? What if the majority just up and decided no part of practicing Wicca does comport to what they want to be "duly constituted law governing social behavior?" Should they be able to make that determination, and just vote away Wiccans' rights simply because they "can" as a majority get the necessary number of votes?

Basically, should such matters ever come down to a simple majority vote, or should there be other considerations involved as well -- such as Constitutional protections?

As for engaging in human sacrifice, perhaps the reason that would be bannable is because it in itself is unconstitutional for in principle inhibiting others' constitutional rights? That makes sense to me at least; but I know there are many different theories about government and such. These are delicate, intricate, and very deep issues; but I think they can be a lot simpler than they're sometimes turned into.

We apparently agree. A pluralistic society means that people are free to practice their religion and engage in the political process i.e., vote, form political parties, run for office and lobby for laws comporting with their philosophical worldview.

Yes -- so long as they are not voting to infringe others' rights. We can, say, choose between competing methods of taxation, or what the punishment is for breaking the speed limit, or whether or not (and how much) of a safety net to offer less fortunate folks and all sorts of things based on our religions and/or our personal philosophies -- but we can't take our personal taboos and push them onto everyone else because that would be needlessly infringing their rights.

Not only do I believe that people shouldn't vote to refrain others' rights based on taboos; but more strongly I believe that the possibility to make such vote shouldn't occur at all -- and that beyond just my wish against it, that is currently the case if the American Constitution and the spirit it seems to be written in is followed rather than ignored (as it often is these days).

Don't Christians have the same protections and rights with respect to taking part in the political process? What would prohibit a Christian majority from engaging in lawful imposition with respect to the Wicca community? What would prohibit a Wicca majority from engaging in lawful imposition with respect to the Christian community?

Yeah, Christians do have the same protections and rights. They can make impositions all they want if there is something that demonstrably involves harm to others, others' rights, or the society in principle (to take a convoluted issue and put it simply).

That doesn't involve an ability to impose superstitious taboos on others, though.

My point here is that the political process is all about the imposition of ideology. It strikes me as somewhat lame for some to blame the process whenever they find certain results to be distasteful or disagreeable.

I think we have an excellent process -- if only it were followed better! When our process is ignored, we end up with -- as Franklin predicted -- two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Franklin supposed that liberty is to arm the sheeps to contest the vote; and I think the context is clear enough that the minority is armed with reason (not necessarily the minority's members, who may well be totally unreasonable for all I know; but rather that reason is a buffer between some irrational majority devouring the sheep for no explicit reason).

Where does the Bible infer or command Christians to crusade for the purpose of forcing society to comport with Biblical statutes?

Separate functions for Church and State are rooted in the Bible. The title of 'Preist and King' is reserved for Jesus. Feel free to correct me but I see absolutely no Biblical prescription for establishing a theocracy.

Well, I don't really want to get into a debate about what the Bible says or not; I was just pointing out that it seems to me there were some good parallels to make in there that seem hypocritical to this possibly ignorant atheist.

For instance, it seems to me that there are some people who would vote to oppress homosexuals being able to engage in the same sorts of secular contracts with the government and each other as heterosexuals can (because their religion disagrees with homosexuality), yet would NOT vote to oppress someone from worshipping, say, Wicca -- even though their religion ALSO disagrees with that. I don't get it.

Perhaps I'm just ignorant of something about Christianity, but it seems more likely to me that some people are willing to be tolerant on one front but not the other because the other might be "icky" to them. I don't know.

 

[GreyGoose]

Hmm, I'm really unsure of where the semantic dissonance is coming from. What about the notion of governments not having the power to restrict its citizens' rights just because some majority has a superstitious taboo is confusing in any way without sounding accusatory of sophistry?

I can understand how "religious affairs" and "cultural affairs" can get entangled; but I'm not sure on what particular aspect of how I've been using the word "secular" has been at all unclear.

Maybe an analogy: suppose that in some hypothetical democratic-republic with Constitutional protection for its citizens, the majority believes that it's absolutely abominable to wear white socks on Tuesdays; and they wish to pass a law that prevents anyone from doing so -- even the folks that or more or less confused about what the big deal about wearing white socks on Tuesdays is.

Well, if the Constitution is written well and really does afford civil freedoms to the citizens, the majority will not be able to strip the minority of their right to wear whatever color of socks they want on whatever day of the week they want.

Everybody wins and nobody loses (unless you consider it infringing the majority's rights to prevent them from being able to oppress other people) because, of course, the majority has every right to abstain from wearing white socks on Tuesdays in accordance to their own superstitious taboos if they wish.

The difference between this and a majority outlawing, say, pedophilia (which some minority might try to defend) is that there is no harm involved in the wearing of white socks on Tuesdays (or with males marrying, or females marrying, or consuming pork, or what have you): but pedophilia involves nonconsent and harm to children.

To really talk about all of this we would have to sit down and discuss the role and nature of government, honestly: such as questions like "do ideal governments for some goal x grant rights or restrict them (or both)?"

You seem to be saying that it all depends upon the situation and the topic at hand. I agree.

Perhaps if you could provide a real life example of what you would consider to be the imposition of a "superstitious taboo?"

Well, that's precisely the sort of thing a Constitution is there for. Suppose that a majority thought that it was proper, right, and moral to force everyone not to wear white socks on Tuesdays -- but when asked why, they must appeal to some mysterious force or being.

There are deep philosophical issues involved here, but at the same time, isn't it clear enough for the purposes of running a government that's fair to its whole population (rather than just to the majority) to, say, require some rational demonstration of actual harm caused in principle by an activity/state of affairs when banning it so we don't end up with a calendar to determine what color socks we can wear that day -- determined by the state and some ridiculous superstitious population?

Everybody wins when there is freedom and protection from frivolous/superstitious taboo-based banning. Don't like wearing white socks on Tuesdays? Then don't -- but you can't force that on everyone else. Likewise with banning consuming pork, banning homosexual marriage equality, banning interracial marriage equality, etc.

The issues of pork consumption, banning gay marriage, banning interracial marriage as related to the white socks analogy strikes me as a bit of a stretch.

In your view, if an atheist were to object to gay marriage and organize an effort among his fellow atheists to ban it, would this equate to an effort to impose a "superstitious taboo?"

Are laws aimed at banning pedophilia, rape, incest and murder to be equated with imposing a "superstitious taboo?"

Hmm, the part of your post that I was responding to was this -- red added for emphasis:

"As the hub of power, all governments are primarily constituted for the express purpose of establishing law and order. All law is imposition and the political process involves the process for determining which philosophical and ideological views will be established by the state. What makes atheistic humanist philosophy superior to theistic philosophy? I fail to see how any amount of twisted nuanced redefining of functions ascribed to church and state in the founding documents (to include the Federalist Papers) can create a logically feasible separation of God and state."

Thanks for correcting the record. The question still stands. Do philosophies based upon atheistic principles deserve free pass special treatment in the public square under the rubric of some subjectively supposed nuanced redefining of church state separation?

Yes; but it would be folly to assume that just because there is an ontological dichotomy that there is an epistemic one, too.

Could I get you to expound on this a bit? I'm not following you with respect to how this relates to the question of God's existence.

Logically, either unies exist or unies do not exist; but that doesn't limit our epistemic options to the strong positive or the strong negation.

The "strong positive" and "strong negative" most often do seem to present themselves - particularly regarding issues of significant moral import. You disagree?

Seems that way to me; which is why it seems to me that the role of government is not to grant rights but to restrict them. It becomes a question of why and for what reasons a government would restrict them -- and I argue that it's abundantly clear that if a goal of the government is to have civil liberty and equality that it can't go around restricting rights based on superstitious taboos.

Interesting assertion. If government doesn't grant rights, from whence do our rights come?

Terms like "civil liberty" and "equality" have a very nice ring to them. I prefer the concept of justice.

That's assuming there's such a thing as "God's Law," so actually that may or may not even be a proposition whatsoever depending on whether this "God" thing is coherent. If the goal of a nation is to have civil liberty and equality, again, we can't go around stripping people of their rights just because a large group of people engages in superstition. That's a recipe for misery and chaos.

Involving God in a government (whose goals are civil liberty and equality) rationally would come down to:

1) Demonstrating the existence of said God with ample, primary epistemic justifications (e.g., secondary justifications like anecdote alone are not sufficient, just like with any other ontological claim)
2) Demonstrating the goodness of said God in principle
3) Demonstrating it's known what the commands for the society said God has
4) Demonstrating the goodness of said commands for the society

I'm more than happy to address the God question with you any time. However, with regard to the topic at hand, whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not, the God question plays a significant role in the political discourse. In other words, it's an existential reality which does in fact impact the debate. The concept of an objective moral framework cannot be logically sustained if God does not exist. What some may view as objectively wrong may be viewed by others as a "superstitious taboo."

Now I don't know what you believe, but if you want to talk about majorities, it seems to me that the majority of theists I've ever encountered don't even dream of or claim that even the first one on that list is possible to rationally demonstrate outside of some nebulous notion of "faith."

(Of course, there are theists who assert theistic belief is rational and primarily-justified rather than "faith"-based and/or secondarily justified (by anecdote, testimony, etc.); but AFAIK they are not nearly as common)

Again, the question of God's existence seems moot with regard to the topic at hand.

Oh -- ok. I don't have any problem with E Pluribus Unum. I agree with you that it speaks about our nation's amazing ability to take many backgrounds and diversities and work with them all together!

Right. That's why I take issue with the notion that the founders were seeking to establish a 'secular' nation. The term 'secular' didn't even come into vogue until the mid 1800's.

Again, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing about the concept of a pluralistic nation that militates against Biblical teaching. Conversely, there's nothing in the Bible or Christian teaching with which I'm aware that encourages militant crusading for converts or imposition of a Bible based theocracy.

However, the national motto is actually "In God We Trust" -- unconstitutionally, irratioanlly, unjustifiably, unnecessarily. This is the sort of injustice I'm talking about.

Somewhat debatable. I would agree that e pluribus unum is most often regarded as the "unofficial" motto.

 

[Road Warrior]

That's why I take issue with the notion that the founders were seeking to establish a 'secular' nation. The term 'secular' didn't even come into vogue until the mid 1800's.

Nonetheless, the Founders were seeking to avoid the mistakes of the Mother country which instituted a state religion. Heck, even in this century, a monarch of England cannot marry a Catholic and the "Supreme Governor" of the state religion, the Church of England, is currently the Queen.

Church of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British monarch, at present Queen Elizabeth II, has the constitutional title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The canon law of the Church of England states, "We acknowledge that the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil."[28] In practice this power is often exercised through Parliament and the Prime Minister.

 

[Meow Mix]

You seem to be saying that it all depends upon the situation and the topic at hand. I agree.

Perhaps if you could provide a real life example of what you would consider to be the imposition of a "superstitious taboo?"

The banishment of some state of affairs or action for which no demonstrable harm is rendered from -- so-called crimes of conscience, victimless crimes, justified only by beliefs that aren't readily demonstrated on an open, critical, rational basis.

It's difficult to define, and the above doesn't really do any justice (I'm also just waking up, though, haha). I want to say that it has to do with asking the question to ourselves, "Who/what is harmed by the action or state of affairs? Is the harm present in principle in the state of affairs, or is it incidental?"

By that I mean, if we can't readily determine and rationally demonstrate someone has been harmed by something (or someone's property, their rights, etc.) then what is the basis for determining its moral bankruptcy? If a coherent case can't be made for that, then how can it be rational to take away peoples' rights to do it without that being morally undesirable in itself for being heavy-handed and tyrannical?

If a particular instance has caused harm, is the harm inherent with the action or state of affairs -- does the action/SOF involve harm in principle in order to be performed? For instance, hang gliding can cause broken bones, which burden loved ones and the community in the form of, say, taxes that provide some help for medical care -- but neither of these harms are inherent in hang gliding; they're incidental to other circumstances.

However, to bring back the pedophilia example, that does involve inherent harm because in order to engage in activities involving that notion it necessarily involves rationally demonstrable harm (at the very least in the form of nonconsent) to others; harm which can be demonstrated in a court of law to a group of peers without using dubious evidences like "faith."

Contrast this with examples like -- well, to again use a current and real-world example (I know it sounds like I'm hung up on it, but, well, who am I kidding, maybe I am?), homosexual marriage -- who is harmed? Is the harm inherent with the state of affairs?

Some people argue that God is harmed, that homosexuals are "spiritually" harmed, or that "traditional marriage" is harmed -- but aren't each of these arguments obviously a little nebulous? How can any of these be rationally demonstrated to peers such that it justifies banning it?

(For instance, 1) how can an omnipotent being be harmed at all coherently, 2) is there even a clear definition of "spiritual harm" that doesn't involve raising more ontological unknowns, and 3) what is the justification for the notion that traditional marriages would be harmed -- respectively, as demonstrations of the dubiousness of the proposed "harms" mentioned earlier)

Supposing that there is some demonstrable harm done -- say, with an increased risk of transmitting bloodborn pathogens if someone engages in promiscuous, unprotected anal sex. Is the harm inherent with the homosexuality? Of course not -- homosexuality doesn't necessarily entail promiscuity, lack of protection, lack of partner history awareness, etc. -- so how can some state of affairs be banned for everybody as a punishment for the actions of a few; how is that just?

(Especially when there are promiscuous, unprotected heterosexuals, too? Can we ban heterosexual marriage because there are unprotected, promiscuous heterosexuals that exist who might have increased risks of disease transmission? Just a hypothetical example of why it's important to demonstrate harm is explicit in a state of affairs, and demonstrably so, for its banning not to simply be superstitious taboo or otherwise fallacious/unjust.)

The word "taboo" is roughly synonymous with "censorship" in a small sense -- it just means something which society has largely decided against (e.g., a majority). Dictionary.com provides the example of using "strong language" like curse words.

The word "superstitious" means essentially of or relating to some belief in the importance of a thing or concept which isn't based on reason or knowledge.

Well, anybody can claim that anything is "actually" based on reason, so I'm just suggesting that before we go around banning things (especially if the banishment of them harms people in and of itself!), it's not very just to do so unless those reasons are demonstrable.

To clarify whether or not something is demonstrable though would require a foray into the entirety of epistemology, though -- so I hope my examples above were clear enough.

Also, regarding the sophistry comment yesterday, I didn't mean to imply that... I was at work and in a *really* foul mood for unrelated reasons, I want to apologize for that coming through as frustration that you didn't deserve!

The issues of pork consumption, banning gay marriage, banning interracial marriage as related to the white socks analogy strikes me as a bit of a stretch.

In your view, if an atheist were to object to gay marriage and organize an effort among his fellow atheists to ban it, would this equate to an effort to impose a "superstitious taboo?"

Yes, atheists can be as superstitious as anyone else when it comes to holding taboos and wanting to ban things unjustly. For instance, I've seen atheists who wish to do things like banish religious activity from schools whatsoever (even when amongst students, say, praying to themselves quietly or between themselves before class), which certainly qualifies as a superstitious taboo -- more cleanly said, an unjust banishment. Not to mention an unconstitutional banishment.

I would be just as against an unjust banishment of things I disagree with on a personal level (such as prayer) as I would for those I agree with! This is because I know I have every right not to engage in prayer and that others praying doesn't harm anyone; so how could it be just for me to impose my personal taboo onto others if I, and I believe my government and society, cherish civil liberty?

Are laws aimed at banning pedophilia, rape, incest and murder to be equated with imposing a "superstitious taboo?"

No, because these can be demonstrated to inherently involve harm and/or the trampling of others' rights -- there are identifiable victims with demonstrable suffering.

Of those mentioned, incest is the trickiest one: the suffering involved there is in any potential offspring of the relationship in the form of severely increased chances for genetic defect; but not all incestual relationships would involve that capacity. That's something of a red herring that deserves an entire conversation to itself, though -- I think my meaning is clear enough for this conversation's purposes.

Could I get you to expound on this a bit? I'm not following you with respect to how this relates to the question of God's existence.

It is true there is an ontological dichotomy: either God exists or God does not exist. However, there are multiple epistemic positions regardless; including neutral skepticism that God exists (e.g., "I'm not convinced that God exists, but am willing to accept evidence to re-evaluate this position.")

For instance, ontologically, either extraterrestrial life exists or it does not: but that doesn't mean we must take the positive position or its negation; we are perfectly free to take the epistemic position that we commit to neither and rather refrain from the propositions "There is ET life" and "There is not ET life" by saying, "There may or may not be, I'll await evidence," even if we "lean" one way or the other partially.

This is pertinent because we can't demonstrate a lack of evidence for some negation ("proving a negative") and call that evidence for some positive position.

The "strong positive" and "strong negative" most often do seem to present themselves - particularly regarding issues of significant moral import. You disagree?

I'm not sure if I have enough knowledge to say that's the case "most" of the time. I'll agree that some of the time that is the case. But these issues I've brought up during this conversation are examples of cases where I don't think that's true.

 

[Meow Mix]

Interesting assertion. If government doesn't grant rights, from whence do our rights come?

Terms like "civil liberty" and "equality" have a very nice ring to them. I prefer the concept of justice.

A "right" is simply one's ability to do something. Governments don't cause you to be able to smoke a cigarette in public where people can suffer your second-hand smoke: they identify the harm inherent in that activity and prevent you from doing it.

Nothing about a government's existence allows you to publish a paper blowing the whistle on, say, some company dumping raw chicken in the river. You're just able to do that because it's possible for you to do. Yes, a mob of thugs hired by some hypothetical company in an anarchy can come try to stop you from doing that, but that's all that government does to stop you from doing things to: the government's ability to take your rights is just proverbial "armed thugs;" the difference is that ostensibly the government's authority comes not from some individuals but from ideals agreed upon by the society and the society's founding charters.

That might sound like the majority can vote away minority rights then, but I just need to clarify that the government is also responsible for protecting the coherency of the ideals agreed upon by the society and its documents. It's incoherent to have a society based on civil liberty if it's going to vote on things inconsistent with that.

If our society wants NOT to be based on civil liberty, they have the power to change that of course -- but then we're essentially talking about armed thugs taking peoples' rights again, rather than a just (in theory) body whose authority stems from protecting those rights.

I'm more than happy to address the God question with you any time. However, with regard to the topic at hand, whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not, the God question plays a significant role in the political discourse. In other words, it's an existential reality which does in fact impact the debate. The concept of an objective moral framework cannot be logically sustained if God does not exist. What some may view as objectively wrong may be viewed by others as a "superstitious taboo."

The problem is that so many different things are claimed to be "objectively wrong" on that basis -- a basis that isn't clearly demonstrable. If Chakubipipiraktamaka says you can't wear white socks on Tuesdays (supposedly), what difference is there if this isn't any more or less demonstrable than YHWH saying to stone homosexuals or not to wear mixed fibers in clothing?

It comes down to which religion is most common in the society and the whole thing becomes a ridiculous witch-hunt. It's exactly what Franklin feared when he uttered that thing about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Shouldn't a society comprised of many religions practice religious neutrality for that reason alone? If actions or states of affairs don't cause demonstrable harm to the society and people in it, but are somehow ultimately wrong in the eyes of whatever supreme being, can't we just let God sort it out? We take care of our problems, He'll take care of His?

Besides, this goes back to the hypocrisy question: doesn't God say not to have other Gods before him? So wouldn't it be "objectively wrong" to follow any other religion than Christianity, according to Christians -- or Islam, according to Muslims, etc.? Why then should we bother having freedom of religion at all if the majority is Christian or Muslim or whatever, since it's "objectively wrong" not to believe them according to some popular worldviews?

If you instead assert that it's not that clear cut... well, isn't that exactly what I'm saying? That it's better safe than sorry when it comes to having a just government and with stripping away peoples' rights based on some majority taboo?

Again, the question of God's existence seems moot with regard to the topic at hand.

It certainly isn't moot if we're talking about stripping peoples' rights based on taboos formed by beings whose existences aren't demonstrable or justified! In fact, it couldn't possibly be MORE pertinent.

Right. That's why I take issue with the notion that the founders were seeking to establish a 'secular' nation. The term 'secular' didn't even come into vogue until the mid 1800's.

Again, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing about the concept of a pluralistic nation that militates against Biblical teaching. Conversely, there's nothing in the Bible or Christian teaching with which I'm aware that encourages militant crusading for converts or imposition of a Bible based theocracy.

But I'm not saying this nation should militate against Biblical teaching. The government itself can't, but political leaders can and should believe and espouse whatever they want so long as they're speaking as an individual (not an official of the government) such that they don't make it appear the government as an entity itself endorses their position, and as long as they don't use their governmental position itself to endorse or prohibit religious standpoints.

The government is everyone's, not just the majority. This might sound like a stupid analogy, but the government isn't only the majority's any more than the oxygen we breathe is only the majority's. The government should be as neutral as possible to benefit everybody. That doesn't mean governmental individuals can't hold or express their personal religious beliefs; they just can't make it so that the *government itself* holds or expresses them.

Somewhat debatable. I would agree that e pluribus unum is most often regarded as the "unofficial" motto.

Believe me, I wish it were *the* official motto. The one we currently have is unconstitutional, asinine, and mean-spirited.

 

[GreyGoose]

The banishment of...

(I apologize for not including the entire content of your previous post. I had to delete it in order to be able to post within the word limit.)

Judging the value or merit of a particular restriction based upon whether or not it causes harm should be universally accepted as the only REASONABLE method for determining whether or not it's tied to "superstition?" Is that your assertion?

In other words, if one takes the view that murder and theft are wrong because they are OBJECTIVELY wrong (as opposed to your 'do no harm' approach) they would needlessly be injecting "superstition" into the issue?

Are you implying that the voters, courts,legislatures and various executives would be responsible to ferret out any proposed or existing restrictions where the motive/intent can be interpreted as "superstitious?"

Yes, atheists can be as superstitious as anyone else when it comes to holding taboos and wanting to ban things unjustly. For instance, I've seen atheists who wish to do things like banish religious activity from schools whatsoever (even when amongst students, say, praying to themselves quietly or between themselves before class), which certainly qualifies as a superstitious taboo -- more cleanly said, an unjust banishment. Not to mention an unconstitutional banishment.

I would be just as against an unjust banishment of things I disagree with on a personal level (such as prayer) as I would for those I agree with! This is because I know I have every right not to engage in prayer and that others praying doesn't harm anyone; so how could it be just for me to impose my personal taboo onto others if I, and I believe my government and society, cherish civil liberty?

I'm trying to get at this "superstition" term that you've injected into the discussion. Initially, you seemed to imply a sort of religious component. Now you seem to be equating it with "unjust banishment."

As I've previously inferred, these things go to intent. Is it reasonable to presume that the intent behind an effort to impose a restriction can be justly policed?

No, because these can be demonstrated to inherently involve harm and/or the trampling of others' rights -- there are identifiable victims with demonstrable suffering.

Of those mentioned, incest is the trickiest one: the suffering involved there is in any potential offspring of the relationship in the form of severely increased chances for genetic defect; but not all incestual relationships would involve that capacity. That's something of a red herring that deserves an entire conversation to itself, though -- I think my meaning is clear enough for this conversation's purposes.

Just to be sure I understand you rightly, if pedophilia, rape, incest and murder are placed into law with the intent to uphold an OBJECTIVE moral framework, such an intent would not be equated to injecting "superstition?"

It is true there is an ontological dichotomy: either God exists or God does not exist. However, there are multiple epistemic positions regardless; including neutral skepticism that God exists (e.g., "I'm not convinced that God exists, but am willing to accept evidence to re-evaluate this position.")

For instance, ontologically, either extraterrestrial life exists or it does not: but that doesn't mean we must take the positive position or its negation; we are perfectly free to take the epistemic position that we commit to neither and rather refrain from the propositions "There is ET life" and "There is not ET life" by saying, "There may or may not be, I'll await evidence," even if we "lean" one way or the other partially.

This is pertinent because we can't demonstrate a lack of evidence for some negation ("proving a negative") and call that evidence for some positive position.

This is helpful. If we go back to your assertion concerning government neutrality which seemed to imply that there is some logical middle place we can go where God's existence is neither affirmed or denied.

I would just ask if you think it reasonable to suppose that one can go about life in a state of continuous or constant skepticism - particularly with regard to the political debate? Things happen. Decisions will become necessary. Logically, unless one abstains from making a decision (with respect to a vote or an executive action) their decision to vote up or down will have moral implications to one degree or another. With regard to God's law, these decisions or votes will either comport or be in opposition.

I'm willing to hear you out, but it seems to me to be completely absurd to suggest that there could be any such thing as government neutrality.

I'm not sure if I have enough knowledge to say that's the case "most" of the time. I'll agree that some of the time that is the case. But these issues I've brought up during this conversation are examples of cases where I don't think that's true.

I must respectfully disagree. Even your white socks analogy could easily be interpreted as having a certain moral component. If my view of what is morally (OBJECTIVELY) acceptable does not restrict me from wearing white socks on a particular day then I would be free to wear the socks. If wearing white socks on a particular day is interpreted as being in opposition to what I view as morally (OBJECTIVELY) acceptable then I would be duty bound to oppose it.

 

[GreyGoose]

A "right" is simply one's ability to do something. Governments don't cause you to be able to smoke a cigarette in public where people can suffer your second-hand smoke: they identify the harm inherent in that activity and prevent you from doing it.

Nothing about a government's existence allows you to publish a paper blowing the whistle on, say, some company dumping raw chicken in the river. You're just able to do that because it's possible for you to do. Yes, a mob of thugs hired by some hypothetical company in an anarchy can come try to stop you from doing that, but that's all that government does to stop you from doing things to: the government's ability to take your rights is just proverbial "armed thugs;" the difference is that ostensibly the government's authority comes not from some individuals but from ideals agreed upon by the society and the society's founding charters.

That might sound like the majority can vote away minority rights then, but I just need to clarify that the government is also responsible for protecting the coherency of the ideals agreed upon by the society and its documents. It's incoherent to have a society based on civil liberty if it's going to vote on things inconsistent with that.

If our society wants NOT to be based on civil liberty, they have the power to change that of course -- but then we're essentially talking about armed thugs taking peoples' rights again, rather than a just (in theory) body whose authority stems from protecting those rights.

I think the definition of rights gets a bit more complex.

Anyway, my question concerns the origin of rights. If not from government, from whence do our rights come?

The problem is that so many different things are claimed to be "objectively wrong" on that basis -- a basis that isn't clearly demonstrable. If Chakubipipiraktamaka says you can't wear white socks on Tuesdays (supposedly), what difference is there if this isn't any more or less demonstrable than YHWH saying to stone homosexuals or not to wear mixed fibers in clothing?

Shouldn't the truth component be addressed?

In truth, is there one God or many gods?

In truth, is the one true God the same God as the God described in the Bible?

Is the Bible True?

If the Bible is true and the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible does in fact exist, then we can logically conclude the existence of an objective moral framework.

You're spot on with your point about people making all sorts of claims. People can claim anything they wish. A simple choice to believe something doesn't make it true.

It comes down to which religion is most common in the society and the whole thing becomes a ridiculous witch-hunt. It's exactly what Franklin feared when he uttered that thing about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Need we limit it to a most "common" religion? Ideologies and philosophies are either informed by "religion" or the supposed lack there of. Is a non-religiously philosophical majority to be preferred over a religiously philosophical majority?

The democratic process means that the majority is going to get it's way so long as that majority remains united in it's purpose. In other words, the democratic process is the very process that brings about the two wolves and the lamb. Again, what would be your preferred alternative to the democratic process?

Shouldn't a society comprised of many religions practice religious neutrality for that reason alone? If actions or states of affairs don't cause demonstrable harm to the society and people in it, but are somehow ultimately wrong in the eyes of whatever supreme being, can't we just let God sort it out? We take care of our problems, He'll take care of His?

Please define "religious neutrality." If it's reasonable to suggest religious neutrality could we also suggest philosophical and ideological neutrality?

Besides, this goes back to the hypocrisy question: doesn't God say not to have other Gods before him? So wouldn't it be "objectively wrong" to follow any other religion than Christianity, according to Christians -- or Islam, according to Muslims, etc.? Why then should we bother having freedom of religion at all if the majority is Christian or Muslim or whatever, since it's "objectively wrong" not to believe them according to some popular worldviews?

Again, what about truth? Are we to simply conclude that no religion or ideology is true simply because there exists so many different religions and ideologies?

If you instead assert that it's not that clear cut... well, isn't that exactly what I'm saying? That it's better safe than sorry when it comes to having a just government and with stripping away peoples' rights based on some majority taboo?

Aren't all majorities capable of imposing a taboo? If not the majority, then the minority or a king or a dictator. The question is not whether or not taboos are going to be imposed, the question is which taboos are going to be imposed and who is going to impose them.

It certainly isn't moot if we're talking about stripping peoples' rights based on taboos formed by beings whose existences aren't demonstrable or justified! In fact, it couldn't possibly be MORE pertinent.

I'm saying that truth is moot concerning the existential reality of the current political debate. In other words, there would appear to be a sizable faction of American citizens dedicated to the belief in the existence of God and an objective moral framework. In that sense, the debate over ultimate truth is moot. Do you see what I'm saying here?

But I'm not saying this nation should militate against Biblical teaching. The government itself can't, but political leaders can and should believe and espouse whatever they want so long as they're speaking as an individual (not an official of the government) such that they don't make it appear the government as an entity itself endorses their position, and as long as they don't use their governmental position itself to endorse or prohibit religious standpoints.

The government is everyone's, not just the majority. This might sound like a stupid analogy, but the government isn't only the majority's any more than the oxygen we breathe is only the majority's. The government should be as neutral as possible to benefit everybody. That doesn't mean governmental individuals can't hold or express their personal religious beliefs; they just can't make it so that the *government itself* holds or expresses them.

Can't you see that this is logically impractical? Again, the political process is all about the forwarding of ideology. Government is the means by which ideologies are imposed. Ideologies are informed by theism (or "religion") and atheism (non-religion). Why should atheistic ideology be preferred over theistic ideology?

 

[LeftishBritInPA]

The irony is that if xtians actually read the new testament they would find that there is no actual sanction anywhere in what je$u$ said to justify the founding of an xtian state. je$u$ was actually against having organized religion as we could see when he debated the Pharisees of his day.