Founders wanted a Christian America.

[Road Warrior]

I'm midway through the free online Yale history course on the American Revolution. In the lesson titled "The Logic of Resistance" Professor Freeman talks about an incident between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton several years after the Revolution. While it is not directly about religion, she does give some insights on the religious views of some Founding Fathers and the common attitude of the educated in the "Age of Enlightenment".

This is a mere portion of that part of the lecture, but it points out that the Founding Fathers were not all Southern Baptists or Evangelicals as some seem to think:
Open Yale Courses

Now if you take all of that together — Bacon, Newton, Locke, and the logic of their thoughts — you can see the empowering aspect of Jefferson's trinity. Right? All of those men in one way or another are preaching ideas that are empowering humankind. They're suggesting that there are laws of the universe that could be determined by people and applied to nature, to government, to science, to society in the hope of bettering things. They suggested that civil government is a contract created by and maintained by people, not some kind of a divine creation. And if you step back and consider the implications of these really broad ideas, you can see that they share an underlying conviction that humankind could solve God's riddles by dissolving — dissolving? dissolving his laws, chaos — discovering and applying his natural laws.

And in a sense this is the idea that's the spirit of the Enlightenment — that the world is governed by natural laws that can be detected, they can be studied, they can be applied, and in a sense the practice of deism stems from this idea. There were some Founder types who were basically deists at heart, believing that God was a sort of divine clockmaker who made a world of logic and natural laws and then stepped back and allowed it to operate without intervening, and this kind of God was omniscient and all powerful but it was natural forces that governed daily existence. And things that were governed by understandable and predictable natural laws could be detected, analyzed, critiqued and applied by man. So in this sense you really can see how some of the spirit of the Enlightenment would have been a kind of empowering philosophy.

Many of the Founders believed in God, but they're beliefs and the beliefs of those asserting that the USA was set up as a Christian nation are far apart in truth and historical fact.

 

[Meow Mix]

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?

I can't make such a strong claim. "Ethical beliefs which aren't related to harm are unreasonable," or something like that, is what it would boil down to if I were to try. That isn't my claim -- though I can see how, without clarification, it can appear that way.

I'm taking the weaker position that we can at least be sure that actions and states of affairs involving harm are ethical questions; and ostensibly are already justifiable to govern. It's common ground, I think, that neither of us are going to dispute.

However, though I'm not denying that it's possible there are states of affairs with moral connotations that don't involve explicit harm, I'm not convinced that there are -- and I think it's far less clear whether states of affairs that don't involve harm have moral connotations than it is for states of affairs (henceforth SOF) which do involve harm.

There is a positive claim involved with asserting SOF not involving harm are moral SOF -- it's necessary for someone to pick up that onus of proof. A shortcoming of pure democracy is that if we strive to be just and rational, we can't point to the existence of a majority as fulfilling that onus of proof: I don't think it's controversial to assert that it would be a negative thing to found the metaphysics of a government that we want to be just on a fallacy like argumentum ad populum.

Here's another angle: I think I can comfortably say that if someone's rights are removed by a majority for a fallacious, unjustified, incoherent, or false, etc. reason that the governmental philosophy has failed to protect the innocent -- has failed to be just, rational, and such things which I'd like to hope that people want in a government.

Majorities can and do rule over minorities throughout history and across the globe; but that's nothing better than a group of armed thugs getting people to do what they want. In a just democratic-republic with Constitutional protections, the majority still rules -- but they have to rationally demonstrate the necessity and justness of removing any rights; especially if they're removing rights that they don't have personal attachment to. (After all, we may try to be unbiased but we are fallible creatures -- it's easy to vote away rights of others that we don't care about ourselves!)

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?"

Perhaps they are objectively wrong (I certainly hope so, but nevertheless my actions are still informed by overwhelming beliefs regarding those things such that I would neither commit them nor permit them); but if they are, there is an onus of evidence there that needs to be upheld or we risk having an unjustified foundation of law.

Without fulfilling the burden of proof, we can't be sure that the metaphysics behind our justice system are even internally and externally coherent and/or consistent.

As for ferreting out motives and intents, I don't know what I think about that. There certainly may be a point where practicality supercedes pedantry; but I do think it's important to keep the metaphysics readily available in our minds (our being courts, voters, legislaters, etc.).

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?

Well, superstition is just another word for irrational belief -- those being beliefs which aren't epistemically justified; or only justified secondarily rather than primarily.

I don't think that we can police thought processes, no. I think regardless of anything people may still have one intent while saying another -- it reminds me of a pawn shop I went to once which had brass knuckles (which are illegal where I live) in the display counter; but according to the clerk, those were paperweights in the shape of brass knuckles, of course.

Luckily we don't really have to police intent; we just need to require that metaphysical foundations of governance meet their onus of proof for any positive assumptions they rest on (e.g., "there are SOF which do not involve harming anyone yet which still have objective moral connotations").

If that burden of evidence is met, then there's no problem: it is rational (and, when it applies, just), after all, to have actions informed by the truth (or as near the truth as we mortals can discern).

 

[Meow Mix]

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?"

If the hidden positive claim there isn't rationally demonstrated, then it has superstitious connotations. However, I think that most people, even if they operate on that claim, also operate on the notion of harm in those instances as well. I'm certainly not advocating throwing out our justice system; in fact I think aside from a few hiccups that our justice system is very good. (Good in the acceptable sense, not necessarily the moral one -- though it's possible that it's good in that sense too!)

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.

Yes, I think that's exactly where a just government should be -- though not out of skepticism per se. I'll expound on that below.

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.

It's entirely possible for an individual to be in a state of skepticism -- I'm exhibit A. I'm not an atheist by choice but rather by epistemic necessity; it isn't burdensome at all.

As for a government, I don't think the reason a government should be neutral is out of skepticism but rather because of fairness and the extraneity of injecting ostensibly unrelated things into it.

Let me put it this way: a private club can enforce pretty much whatever bizarre rules it wants on its population (e.g., white socks, Tuesdays) because ostensibly, that population has elected to be there and to adopt those rules. A minority that wants to go to the club yet disagrees with one of its rules isn't in a very prime position to complain because their presence there is entirely optional.

A country -- a government -- is quite a different thing. It's not always (in fact, it's rarely) feasible for a person to just decide to leave if they don't feel that the rules are just; and particularly if the rules have all appearances of being extraneous -- as something that merely appears to be fan service to the majority. People are born into governments without a choice in the matter, without consciously and deliberately agreeing to little rules which prima facie have no appearance of being epistemically justified.

Thus, unlike a private club, a government isn't owned by the majority even if it caters to them on all other matters; a just government is everyone's government. If the government is everyone's, then it shouldn't be possible for anyone to vote away anyone else's rights based on a hunch or a deeply-seated belief without explicit, rational, epistemic demonstration.

Thus it should never come down to someone feeling as though they should vote for something against their own moral beliefs to respect this notion of fairness -- it shouldn't be possible for votes to occur which strip rights in the first place unless that glaring onus of evidence is met beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

Hmm, well, I also have unassailable ethical beliefs; but I'm not sure at all that SOF which do not involve harming people have moral connotations. I'd very much like to see justification for that claim; and I think a government should require that justification before adopting such a claim.

 

[Meow Mix]

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

I'm not sure that assigning some ontological status to the word "rights" is very meaningful -- i.e., I'm not sure there's anything "there" to "come from" anywhere.

Since it seems apparent to me that government doesn't grant our ability to do things -- yet it can take them away; at least our ability to do them without repurcussions -- I think "rights" is just a word for "actions the government does not impose restrictions on."

I think it's a word that only exists because governments do just to distinguish from what government does (i.e., impose repurcussions) just like atheism is only a word that exists to distinguish from what theism is.

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.

Well, those are some very large and complex burdens of evidence. We can't point to the number of people that believe those things, either (perhaps an easy idea to get since we're talking about a democracy); or we'd be engaging in fallacy nevertheless.

It also seems to me to come back to the notion of practicality vs. pedantry: for instance, is it necessary for government to get in the business of attempting to demonstrate religions, attempt to falsify them, or to defend a neutral skepticism?

I don't think it is. Government seems to have other purposes than that -- can't we leave that to the theologians and anti-theologians?

Government does a fine job at involving itself in the business of, theoretically, stopping people from harming one another and getting harmed in general. If there are SOF not involving harm that still have moral connotations, can't God just be the judge on that -- such that government doesn't impose misery on people where otherwise no harm is being done; such as my inability to marry my fiancee because some Kansans whose marriages we wouldn't affect whatsoever by doing so simply don't like the idea of us doing it?

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.

Indeed! So it may be time shortly enough to start getting into the justifications for some of these propositions that seem dubious to me.

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?

Rationality is preferred over not, that's all. If a religious philosophy is demonstrably rational then there is not a problem.

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?

Democratic-Republic with Constitutional protection for the minority: what the USA is now, at least de jure. It doesn't always de facto live up to that ideal. I guess that just shows how painfully obvious it is that we're fallible creatures, after all.

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

Of course; the government doesn't have any more business adopting, say, nihilism than it does Hinduism. The neutrality involved here means only assenting to propositions which are demonstrable beyond a reasonable doubt, assenting to negations which have been falsified beyond a reasonable doubt, and abstaining from taking the positive or the negation on propositions for which there is insufficient justification to determine either way.

 

[Meow Mix]

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?

No, there's no reason to affirm the negation when it's so much more epistemically responsible to abstain from the positive or the negation until justification for either is forthcoming. That there are many religions and ideologies isn't evidence for any of their falsities (though in terms of game theory it can affect the rationality of prematurely deciding that any particular one is positively true).

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.

Majorities can impose taboos without sufficiently justifying them -- if they're not interested at all in being just or respecting the notion of civil liberty. When it comes down to it, government really is just armed thugs pushing people around -- unless a society decides to adopt and adhere coherently/consistently to ideals of civil liberty, equality, and justice.

For instance, a large contributor to the rise of feudalism was, IIRC, due to the viking incursions on several coastal areas. Townships which didn't have centralized leadership or professional armies ended up having to hire mercenaries essentially to try to protect themselves against the viking raids -- but then those mercenaries tended to stick around and to stay in power.

Voila -- from essentially no government to a government, just like that: and governments, if they belong only to those with power, are nothing but a group of armed thugs -- even if, in a pure democracy, the "armed thug" aspect is less literal, it's still the same concept: again, two wolves and a sheep, all that. That's no different from 15 burly guys with big swords beating down your door because they have power and they want to get in your business. In pure democracies, being in a majority is just like having a big sword: the rest of the village is defenseless.

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?

Yes I do. I acknowledge that because they are a majority they have power; and whether it is just or not, they will sometimes abuse it. Might doesn't make right, but it does call the shots. I'm not denying that. I'm just decrying it.

Take away a government, and you'll still eventually get a group of armed thugs calling the shots -- be it literal arms or ideological majority. The solution to this, I'm saying, is twofold; and I believe the founders of America believed this to an extent as well (ignoring the attrocious things like, oh, slavery, lack of women's suffrage, an attitude that eventually developed into "manifest destiny," etc.):

1) Convince the armed thugs not to be thugs. Power isn't negative in itself, and though it can corrupt, I believe humans are capable of resisting that corruption. Get the majority to understand that if they desire to be equitable, fair, just, etc., that their rights end where others' rights begin -- even if they have the power to supercede that. No one can force them to be just but themselves.

2) The minority can't be armed with big swords (or that would be disproportionate and defeat the very idea of democratic government), but arm them with shields. This is the Constitution's job -- protecting all citizens; and protecting the minority from an overly ambitious majority (should they fail to take (1) into consideration).

Now, the really funny thing is that in order to get a just Constitution in the first place, some majority or power must ratify it -- essentially, (1) must come before (2) in order for (2) to even be possible. Yet that's exactly what appears to have happened in the USA: the founders, who had power, decided for the most part to wield their big swords but not to be thugs.

That's why I think American government is so special and awe inspiring despite some very disgusting blemishes on its history; and that's why it bothers me so much that despite being one of the only de jure secular, just, and equitable nations in the planet's history, our potentially great nation actually falls behind many nations in those individual de facto aspects. (In fact, AFAIK, America is the only de jure secular nation that has ever existed even though some nations are more de facto secular!)

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?

Are our notions of how to pay taxes "informed by atheism?"

Just because theism isn't explicitely incorporated into something doesn't mean that atheism is being preferred. Dollars would spend just as well if God weren't mentioned on them; bills on how to conduct business licenses or to plan cities probably don't mention gods yet I don't think anyone would complain they have an "atheistic bias."

The problem here is that theism is a positive and atheism is a word with two contexts: a negation (strong atheism) and neutrality (weak atheism). Neutrality won't involve theism or strong atheism; and that's where a just government belongs.

 

[GreyGoose]

The problem here is that theism is a positive and atheism is a word with two contexts: a negation (strong atheism) and neutrality (weak atheism). Neutrality won't involve theism or strong atheism; and that's where a just government belongs.

It's been a very pleasant discussion and I'm hoping to keep it going. However, before we can continue I feel it necessary to hone in on this neutrality issue if possible. Either the full weight of my argument isn't hitting home or, it is hitting home and you're choosing to dance around it rather than just giving a straight answer.

You seem to prefer to characterize government as some sort of nebulous non-thinking but all controlling entity. Let's be honest, it's not that complicated. Government is made up of ordinary people with ordinary ideological and philosophical approaches. While many judges are appointed, the vast majority of those serving in office are elected by voters who are also ordinary people. Heck, even those judges who receive appointments are confirmed by duly ELECTED representatives.

You've suggested that it's possible for these people to serve in government AS the government and yet still have the ability to remain ideologically and philosophically neutral. Can you explain how such a concept is rational?

Believe me, I fully understand the concept of "soft" or "weak" atheism, agnosticism and skepticism. They are very uncomplicated concepts. I can claim agnosticism or skepticism with respect to God's existence but it's completely absurd and unrealistic to propose that one can live a lifestyle of constant and uninterrupted skepticism. As soon as a person commits to make a decision or to take an action, such an action will either comport to God's morality or be in opposition to God's morality. Logically, there just can't be any such thing as neutrality.

I see neutrality as nothing more than a nice theoretical concept - such as the concept of a world where everyone follows the ten commandments. Nice in theory but completely impractical.

 

[Meow Mix]

Wow. I'm so very upset right now. I had an entire post nearly finished when my hand brushed across some key that highlighted all the text such that with my next keystroke (before I noticed it) it was all GONE. Ugh! :thud:

Here we go again... and I just know it'll never be as good as the original

You seem to prefer to characterize government as some sort of nebulous non-thinking but all controlling entity. Let's be honest, it's not that complicated. Government is made up of ordinary people with ordinary ideological and philosophical approaches. While many judges are appointed, the vast majority of those serving in office are elected by voters who are also ordinary people. Heck, even those judges who receive appointments are confirmed by duly ELECTED representatives.

You've suggested that it's possible for these people to serve in government AS the government and yet still have the ability to remain ideologically and philosophically neutral. Can you explain how such a concept is rational?

If it isn't rational, then I think we're in a bit of trouble: how is a judge to give a fair sentence to an obnoxious, taunting criminal unless said judge can separate his or her professional demeanor from their personal feelings?

For instance, my father is (or was, he retired just this year) a high school social studies teacher. His topics include history, politics, a Leaders of the 20th Century class, and so on -- such that contemporary "hot button" issues are often prone to come up in his classes.

My dad is a very opinionated man when it comes to politics and contemporary issues -- he has very deep seated, passionate views (which, for the record, I don't always agree with... and he can be a little "black and white" about it). It's funny to listen to him burst out in colorful (though often insightful) obscenities when something displeases him on the news, or when one of his friends makes a political comment he doesn't particularly care for.

However, when he's at school and he's Mr. Teacher, he attempts to provide a balanced view even on topics he has powerful personal feelings about. When students make political comments that he feels strongly about one way or another, he only encourages rational discourse about it and leaves his own opinion about it vague -- he'll even play devil's advocate (in the encouragement of more discourse on convoluted subjects) even if he very much agrees with the student bold enough to make a strong assertion within his earshot.

When students ask him what his opinion is, he makes a judgement call about how controversial the issue is; and isn't afraid to decline to answer -- citing that it wouldn't be very appropriate.

Now, this analogy has a small flaw in that I don't see anything wrong or even necessarily inappropriate for a government official to provide their opinion on something when asked personally* or when speaking as an individual rather than a representative of the government at the time; but the heart of the analogy is only in showing that it's not at all irrational to expect people in some positions to have an appropriate professional demeanor when it comes to some things -- even if they are passionate people with strong opinions about certain matters.

(* -- in fact, a representative in particular wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't offer their opinion on matters, so please don't assume that I'm arguing politicians should have the same professional restrictions as school teachers. I would say the difference is that teachers must worry about the appropriateness of an overt authority figure intimidating or alienating a younger audience; but I think the analogy is still excellent for demonstrating how mundane it actually is for professionals to act with neutrality when appropriateness and fairness call for it.)

For one thing, returning to my father, public schools are for everybody at the school. Regardless of whether there is a majority of some general political leaning among the faculty and student body, it would be wholly inappropriate for the school itself as an abstract entity to take an official general political stance based on said majority.

Since the school is for everybody, it's only sensible -- and fair -- that the school maintain a professional neutrality on matters like general political leanings (e.g., supporting a particular party officially). Each person that comprises the student body and faculty of the school has their personal opinions -- perhaps there's even a large majority of a particular brand of opinion, hypothetically -- but the school still has no business involving itself in endorsing or attacking general political viewpoints.

Just like my Dad has to be Mr. Teacher when he's representing the school, governmental officials have their own brand of professional demeanor and notion of appropriateness they should stick to when representing the government. Just like political leanings are totally unnecessary to involve with teaching, religious leanings are totally unnecessary to involve with running a country.

In fact, politicians have it easier than school teachers. They can appropriately provide their opinion all day long so long as they're speaking as Joe Schmoe and not Mr./Mrs. Government, even when they're at work -- because I imagine it's rare, depending on the governmental official, that they have to get "in character" for the Mr./Mrs. Government role.

I don't know, I'm trying to think of how to explain this easier. Does it make sense at least that there's a fundamental difference between Bigly Boogers saying he believes consuming pork is abominable -- from Bigly Boogers incorporating his personal taboo into FDA policy? Isn't it much like the difference between my dad being a raging (insert party affiliation here) and gladly saying so -- from him including those opinions into his school curriculum?

Believe me, I fully understand the concept of "soft" or "weak" atheism, agnosticism and skepticism. They are very uncomplicated concepts. I can claim agnosticism or skepticism with respect to God's existence but it's completely absurd and unrealistic to propose that one can live a lifestyle of constant and uninterrupted skepticism. As soon as a person commits to make a decision or to take an action, such an action will either comport to God's morality or be in opposition to God's morality. Logically, there just can't be any such thing as neutrality.

I see neutrality as nothing more than a nice theoretical concept - such as the concept of a world where everyone follows the ten commandments. Nice in theory but completely impractical.

I disagree with the metaphysics you're using here regarding ontological dichotomies.

For instance, it's possible that maybe there's extraterrestrial life out there, and that maybe there is intelligent extraterrestrial life with a justice system of its own.

Is it really impossible to be neutral on the existence of ET -- to refrain from assenting to either the positive or the negation -- because, "As soon as a person commits to make a decision or to take an action, such an action will either comport to ET ethics or be in opposition to ET ethics?"

I think prima facie it's obvious that despite there being an ontological dichotomy, there is not an epistemic dichotomy. It seems that I am being perfectly rational and coherent by claiming to be neutrally skeptical on the existence of ET, even though if I make a decision it must ontologically "comport to" ET ethics or "be in opposition" to them. It doesn't seem at all as though the existence of that brute ontological fact means I'm not really neutral on the issue.

So why would it be different with a hypothetical God?

 

[GreyGoose]

Okay. A word or two concerning analogies. I'm sure you're well aware that there's no such thing as a perfect analogy. While they can certainly be helpful and effective in communicating a thought or making an assertion, they all eventually break down. You're analogy here misses the mark - not because it's just another analogy but because it fails to comprehensively address the point currently in contention.

With that said:

If it isn't rational, then I think we're in a bit of trouble: how is a judge to give a fair sentence to an obnoxious, taunting criminal unless said judge can separate his or her professional demeanor from their personal feelings?

The judge still has a basic philosophical and ideological make-up. Yes, of course judges are expected to behave with integrity and, for instance, recuse themselves in certain situations. However, in the final analysis the judge is going to conduct his official business in a way which naturally comports to his or her worldview. The decisions and actions will naturally be affected by his or her worldview. As well, the moral component in these various actions MUST NECESSARILY either comport or be opposed to God's law. Again, there is no middle ground and no room for neutrality in making the decision. The only possible way for the judge to achieve neutrality would be to refrain from taking ANY actions or making ANY decisions - completely impractical.

For instance, my father is (or was, he retired just this year) a high school social studies teacher. His topics include history, politics, a Leaders of the 20th Century class, and so on -- such that contemporary "hot button" issues are often prone to come up in his classes.

My dad is a very opinionated man when it comes to politics and contemporary issues -- he has very deep seated, passionate views (which, for the record, I don't always agree with... and he can be a little "black and white" about it). It's funny to listen to him burst out in colorful (though often insightful) obscenities when something displeases him on the news, or when one of his friends makes a political comment he doesn't particularly care for.

However, when he's at school and he's Mr. Teacher, he attempts to provide a balanced view even on topics he has powerful personal feelings about. When students make political comments that he feels strongly about one way or another, he only encourages rational discourse about it and leaves his own opinion about it vague -- he'll even play devil's advocate (in the encouragement of more discourse on convoluted subjects) even if he very much agrees with the student bold enough to make a strong assertion within his earshot.

When students ask him what his opinion is, he makes a judgement call about how controversial the issue is; and isn't afraid to decline to answer -- citing that it wouldn't be very appropriate.

Got it. Great analogy and I certainly agree with the point you're making here. Your dad sounds like a fine teacher and is no doubt a fine father as well. I've always been annoyed (to put it kindly) at teachers who take advantage of their position by engaging in indoctrination rather than just teaching the material and keeping it professional.

Still, I'm quite sure that your dad would be the first to admit that he doesn't set his worldview and ideology aside in every situation. Why should he? He is who he is and, if he's to remain true to himself, must be himself. The true self is always going to manifest itself to one degree or another. As well, teachers have a rather unique position in comparison to people serving in government. Most often people in public service are elected or appointed based upon their perceived ideology. Thus, they are expected to make decisions and take actions that are in accordance with their perceived ideology. Doesn't this make sense particularly when taking into account all the political intrigue surrounding nominations to the Supreme Court?

Now, this analogy has a small flaw in that I don't see anything wrong or even necessarily inappropriate for a government official to provide their opinion on something when asked personally* or when speaking as an individual rather than a representative of the government at the time; but the heart of the analogy is only in showing that it's not at all irrational to expect people in some positions to have an appropriate professional demeanor when it comes to some things -- even if they are passionate people with strong opinions about certain matters.

(* -- in fact, a representative in particular wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't offer their opinion on matters, so please don't assume that I'm arguing politicians should have the same professional restrictions as school teachers. I would say the difference is that teachers must worry about the appropriateness of an overt authority figure intimidating or alienating a younger audience; but I think the analogy is still excellent for demonstrating how mundane it actually is for professionals to act with neutrality when appropriateness and fairness call for it.)

Understood. However and again, people serving in public office are elected or appointed pretty much for the express purpose and expectation of acting in accordance with their perceived ideology. I say this with the understanding that they are also expected to play by the rules - with integrity. Still, I would point out that a person who holds to a sort of 'the ends justifies the means' approach would be far less likely to behave with integrity. Is there really any doubt that there are plenty of these types serving in government?

For one thing, returning to my father, public schools are for everybody at the school. Regardless of whether there is a majority of some general political leaning among the faculty and student body, it would be wholly inappropriate for the school itself as an abstract entity to take an official general political stance based on said majority.

Is it possible for any abstract entity to assume any official or political stance?

Since the school is for everybody, it's only sensible -- and fair -- that the school maintain a professional neutrality on matters like general political leanings (e.g., supporting a particular party officially). Each person that comprises the student body and faculty of the school has their personal opinions -- perhaps there's even a large majority of a particular brand of opinion, hypothetically -- but the school still has no business involving itself in endorsing or attacking general political viewpoints.

All well and good in a school environment - much different in government.

Just like my Dad has to be Mr. Teacher when he's representing the school, governmental officials have their own brand of professional demeanor and notion of appropriateness they should stick to when representing the government. Just like political leanings are totally unnecessary to involve with teaching, religious leanings are totally unnecessary to involve with running a country.

Religion informs the philosophy, ideology and worldview. These things are always going to manifest themselves to one degree or another. People are who they are and will act and make decisions accordingly. It just seems like common sense to me.

I don't know, I'm trying to think of how to explain this easier. Does it make sense at least that there's a fundamental difference between Bigly Boogers saying he believes consuming pork is abominable -- from Bigly Boogers incorporating his personal taboo into FDA policy? Isn't it much like the difference between my dad being a raging (insert party affiliation here) and gladly saying so -- from him including those opinions into his school curriculum?

If it's not Bigly Boogers job to incorporate his taboo into FDA policy, he should of course refrain from doing so. However, if Bigly Booger has been elected for the purpose of instituting his taboo then we should not be at all surprised when he does so.

I disagree with the metaphysics you're using here regarding ontological dichotomies.

For instance, it's possible that maybe there's extraterrestrial life out there, and that maybe there is intelligent extraterrestrial life with a justice system of its own.

Is it really impossible to be neutral on the existence of ET -- to refrain from assenting to either the positive or the negation -- because, "As soon as a person commits to make a decision or to take an action, such an action will either comport to ET ethics or be in opposition to ET ethics?"

I think prima facie it's obvious that despite there being an ontological dichotomy, there is not an epistemic dichotomy. It seems that I am being perfectly rational and coherent by claiming to be neutrally skeptical on the existence of ET, even though if I make a decision it must ontologically "comport to" ET ethics or "be in opposition" to them. It doesn't seem at all as though the existence of that brute ontological fact means I'm not really neutral on the issue.

So why would it be different with a hypothetical God?

Can you make a reasonable argument that would support ET? What is ET's nature and character? Does ET actually exist? Has ET actually communicated a moral law? What is ET's influence in the current public debate?

 

[Polymorphic Grass]

ya i think um christianism not a political movement but is a religion so it not have inflence politic

 

[Jacksnyte]

ya i think um christianism not a political movement but is a religion so it not have inflence politic

Oh really? I suggest you read the following and come say that again:

Christianity and politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The influence of Christianity upon social and political ideas


POLITICAL CHRISTIANITY

 

[micrurus]

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.

" Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ..."

from the US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797

signed by John Adams