Yet another reason why politics and religion shouldn't mix

[Thomkal]

Because you have politicians say stupid stuff like this:

http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/Women-Wearing-Jeans-Are-Reason-Behind-Earthquakes-JUI-F-Chief-Maulana-Fazlur-Rehman/2015/05/30/article2840945.ece.

[EagleFan]

We seriously need to drag this world out of the dark ages one way or another.

[BYU 14]

We seriously need to drag this world out of the dark ages one way or another..

[Dutch]

We seriously need to drag this world out of the dark ages one way or another.

We can't help everybody...

[SteveMax58]

Because you have politicians say stupid stuff like this:

http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/Women-Wearing-Jeans-Are-Reason-Behind-Earthquakes-JUI-F-Chief-Maulana-Fazlur-Rehman/2015/05/30/article2840945.ece.

I'm going to assume he missed Kim Kardashian's latest photo shoot?

[revrew]

I'm going to make a semantic argument. By that I mean, I'm arguing the terms we use in this discussion, not the discussion itself. I posit that using the word "religion" here confuses the issue. And here's why:

Mixing politics and religion is not only inevitable and unavoidable, it's necessary.

It is religion (whether a theistic or humanistic religion, doesn't matter) that informs us as to what is and isn't true, what is and isn't moral, what is and isn't a fundamental human right. In the U.S., for example, our Founders referred to "the Creator" or "nature and nature's god" as the foundation for asserting the king had no right to claim the life, liberty or wages of his subjects. Instead, they said, men are endowed "by their Creator" with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Also in the U.S., our belief in the freedom of speech, assembly, religion, private property, etc. come from a time period in Western civilization where religion shaped our ideas on human worth and responsibility to a higher power.

Now, obviously, some other governments (ISIS, for example) are founded on radically different religious ideals, and their idea of "human rights" are, by direct consequence, radically different than in the U.S.

But even if you attempt to take "god" out of it, to shift from a theistic to humanistic system, you're still talking a matter of religion. These systems likewise make claims on morality, law and human rights. The atheistic communism of the Soviet Union, for example, claimed the good of the many outweighed the rights of the individual, and "the people" have a "right" to each man's wages. This may be atheistic in nature, but it is no less religious. It is no less a system of faith, of trust in an unprovable moral construct.

Regardless of what your religion may be, your belief or lack thereof in any higher power, when you ask even just one basic question of politics - "Who says what is or isn't my right?" - you've necessarily just asked a religious question.

Now, religion and "church," are two different things. Thomas Jefferson talked about a separation of "church" and state. But to separate religion from state? Jefferson would have laughed off such a notion. Not possible.

So ... back to the orginal issue, "politics and religion shouldn't mix." I don't know what you mean by that. It's like saying, "We should have water that isn't wet."

Are you simply arguing that our political system should be based on atheism? Or humanism? Or anarchy? Or pure democracy? If religion doesn't inform our most basic questions of human rights, government and law, what should?

[ISiddiqui]

^ A thousand times that post.

[digamma]

I'm not sure I entirely want to wade into these waters but while I see what revrew is saying, I don't necessarily agree.

I think there is an alternative theory of morality or right and wrong driven by the goal of self-preservation. How do I best survive? Or in the animal sense, fight or flight?

We are blessed with the ability to think at a higher level than the fox in the woods, so can use our intellectual ability to draft a code of rules and laws to enhance our ability to survive and advance (procreate). As the rules and laws are passed down in a societal context they become more ingrained--they become morals, what is right and wrong.

Certainly historically religion has been a driver in crafting laws and creating and teaching morals in society, but that could be because it is the easiest way to teach them. I can get to a very similar set of rules, simply by considering the instinctual question of survival.

[ISiddiqui]

I can get to a very similar set of rules, simply by considering the instinctual question of survival.

I think that's doubtful, because I still think you are clinging to the edifice of the Christian European ethic as your base. Nietzsche dealt very hard with this question - what would a morality look like if we started from scratch and threw away the Christian basis. And his morality was based, somewhat on survival, but on a Will to Power as part and parcel of survival.

Though in essense, Nietzsche was basing his view on a hyperindividualized view of morality. If we are to focus on survival and procreation, one wonders if individual rights are necessarily important in that goal. In addition, if the goal is procreation, well the abortion debate is decided pretty easily ;).

[digamma]

Well of course these thought exercises are impossible to carry out in practice. And it's a fair point that the ultimate rules may be different from what we have today if you truly could start with a clean slate. The point is, there are alternative ways to create codes.

[SteveMax58]

Mixing politics and religion is not only inevitable and unavoidable, it's necessary.

A semantic to your semantic...substitute "worldview" for "religion" and I completely agree with your post & sentiment.

For some of us, religion implies "belief system" of codified values & doctrine (if for no other reason, than thats what the most typical implementation has been historically). I wouldn't consider myself of a particular "belief system" (e.g. would not refer to myself as a "Humanist" even though I like to think of myself as a humanist), nor do I consider my morals to be "religion" as I consider morality to be subjective.

But to your point, even my own semantic labeling of "worldview" is certainly a part of who I am, what I would vote on, etc. And to that end, we shouldn't expect those things to not factor into the things we do, whether in politics or otherwise.

[revrew]

A semantic to your semantic...substitute "worldview" for "religion" and I completely agree with your post & sentiment.

For some of us, religion implies "belief system" of codified values & doctrine (if for no other reason, than thats what the most typical implementation has been historically). I wouldn't consider myself of a particular "belief system" (e.g. would not refer to myself as a "Humanist" even though I like to think of myself as a humanist), nor do I consider my morals to be "religion" as I consider morality to be subjective.

But to your point, even my own semantic labeling of "worldview" is certainly a part of who I am, what I would vote on, etc. And to that end, we shouldn't expect those things to not factor into the things we do, whether in politics or otherwise.

I can dig that. I was definitely talking about "worldview." If "religion" has the connotation of "church doctrine" to folks, well, then I admit that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those fundamental beliefs on the nature of man, morality, duty to others, etc, those issues that compose a worldview that in many folks' case was shaped by a "religion," but in many other people's case wasn't shaped by a religious body or its particular doctrines.

For me, I have no problem with equating a person's core beliefs, their
"worldview," to their "religion" - in other words, "Everybody has a religion, just a matter of what it is." But if that brings up conflicting connotations to folks, I'm cool with using "worldview."

I do think it's unfair, however, to discredit a person's "worldview" just because it includes some of the trappings of "religion," as if belief in a god somehow makes it more or less valid than a worldview devoid of a higher being. And therefore, I return to my previous question, if by "religion and politics don't mix," the original post was arguing for a government based on an atheistic worldview, humanistic worldview, anarchistic worldview, or what?

[molson]

I agree with revrew, but I've always thought about it in a much less articulate and academic way. For me, when it comes to politics or anything else, why are values that come from "religion" so inferior to values that come from anything else? Where to any of our values come from? How we were raised, a book we read once, our experiences in college, our genetics, being a member of a sports team, an influential relationship with a friend or mentor, whatever. How can you isolate those factors to determine where your value really came from and whether that's a "legit" source or not? What if I took a value from my parents' influence, and unbeknownst to me, they got that value from religious inspiration? Is it still legit? Someone's values aren't inherently worse just because they came through a more organized belief system. If you look close at a lot of "religious values," there sources really aren't that different than your own (family, upbringing, experiences, etc), there's a lot of overlap. For those people, if those values "don't count" because there was a religious overtone to the experiences, than what's left? How would they even successfully strip those parts of their lives away in order to participate in politics? It's easy for me to put myself in the shoes of a person with religious values and understand what that would feel like to be asked to do that.

Edit: That being said, of course I disagree with the Indian gentleman. My values are very different than his. And, the flip side of the coin that I described above is that his values aren't inherently superior to mine just because he's attaching religion to his.

[AENeuman]

I do think it's unfair, however, to discredit a person's "worldview" just because it includes some of the trappings of "religion," as if belief in a god somehow makes it more or less valid than a worldview devoid of a higher being. And therefore, I return to my previous question, if by "religion and politics don't mix," the original post was arguing for a government based on an atheistic worldview, humanistic worldview, anarchistic worldview, or what?

it seems clear to me that the original statement was arguing against religion as church. In other words, exploiting the individual spirituality of its constituents for political gain.

I cannot think of a government, ever, that has been the embodiment of its citizens individual spirituality.

I think religion and politics are interconnected the same way death and sex are.

[ISiddiqui]

it seems clear to me that the original statement was arguing against religion as church. In other words, exploiting the individual spirituality of its constituents for political gain.

Or wanting to engage in collective action to bring forth the ideals of a certain faith (you know how the Catholic Church advocated for Obamacare?)

[Solecismic]

Problems arise because religion has several meanings.

Meriam-Webster has three major definitions:

1. the belief in a god or in a group of gods

2. an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

3. an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Having a strong moral code based on both law and a feeling that if you treat people well, the world will be a better place falls into the third definition.

Belief in a god falls into the other two definitions.

Arguing that if a person uses (3) and therefore something you choose from (1) and (2) is also true is not a reasonable argument in my opinion. There are many ways to form a moral code that have nothing to do with any specific church.

And since there are so many associations of churches out there yet they have so many similarities, one might argue that the concept of a church was created long after the concept of a moral code existed. Yet organized religion was once mainly polytheistic and is now mainly monotheistic. I'd argue that religion evolved from the need for a moral code, not the other way around.

There are ten Commandments. Four relate to worship, and while they may be part of a person's moral code, they don't relate to earthly issues. Six seem like common sense (murder, adultery, theft, false witness, coveting, honoring parents), but there's also the underlying tone that the Bible only exists for men who are part of a ruling class of people (your neighbor owns a wife and a male servant and a female servant). So one could argue that the moral code proposed by the Bible violates what we consider basic human rights today.

And then there are the conflicts with human rights discussions we deal with today. If religion is the basis of moral codes, then a god is the basis of moral codes, therefore the writings created by this god are sacred and if they mention that, in addition to murder, homosexuality is a crime against this god, then a ban on homosexuality is just as important a part of the moral code based on this religion. But if religion evolved from earlier discussions of moral codes, then we don't have to accept what seems like a violation of our own feelings of what is and isn't moral (in other words, we are free to say there's nothing even remotely controversial about homosexuality).

I'm fine with recognizing church roles in the development of modern moral codes, as long as definition 3 is recognized as separate from 1 and 2. That we're not considered to be "picking and choosing from religious ideals" by largely accepting Commandments 5-10 (with an exception for the equality of men and women of all races and classes).

[AENeuman]

Or wanting to engage in collective action to bring forth the ideals of a certain faith (you know how the Catholic Church advocated for Obamacare?)

There's the rub, having a shared faith is not the same as shared ideals. So, bringing forth the collective ideals will, by necessity, be undemocratic.

[AENeuman]

Problems arise because religion has several meanings.

Meriam-Webster has three major definitions:







Having a strong moral code based on both law and a feeling that if you treat people well, the world will be a better place falls into the third definition.

Belief in a god falls into the other two definitions.

Arguing that if a person uses (3) and therefore something you choose from (1) and (2) is also true is not a reasonable argument in my opinion. There are many ways to form a moral code that have nothing to do with any specific church.

And since there are so many associations of churches out there yet they have so many similarities, one might argue that the concept of a church was created long after the concept of a moral code existed. Yet organized religion was once mainly polytheistic and is now mainly monotheistic. I'd argue that religion evolved from the need for a moral code, not the other way around.

There are ten Commandments. Four relate to worship, and while they may be part of a person's moral code, they don't relate to earthly issues. Six seem like common sense (murder, adultery, theft, false witness, coveting, honoring parents), but there's also the underlying tone that the Bible only exists for men who are part of a ruling class of people (your neighbor owns a wife and a male servant and a female servant). So one could argue that the moral code proposed by the Bible violates what we consider basic human rights today.

And then there are the conflicts with human rights discussions we deal with today. If religion is the basis of moral codes, then a god is the basis of moral codes, therefore the writings created by this god are sacred and if they mention that, in addition to murder, homosexuality is a crime against this god, then a ban on homosexuality is just as important a part of the moral code based on this religion. But if religion evolved from earlier discussions of moral codes, then we don't have to accept what seems like a violation of our own feelings of what is and isn't moral (in other words, we are free to say there's nothing even remotely controversial about homosexuality).

I'm fine with recognizing church roles in the development of modern moral codes, as long as definition 3 is recognized as separate from 1 and 2. That we're not considered to be "picking and choosing from religious ideals" by largely accepting Commandments 5-10 (with an exception for the equality of men and women of all races and classes).

Very well said.

[ISiddiqui]

There's the rub, having a shared faith is not the same as shared ideals. So, bringing forth the collective ideals will, by necessity, be undemocratic.

Democracy fails if it is not underpinned by collective ideals. An obvious example in the US is the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

[AENeuman]

Democracy fails if it is not underpinned by collective ideals. An obvious example in the US is the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

Perhaps that is why America is not a democracy.

In which era do you think America was closest to embodying the collective ideals set by the Founding Fathers?

[ISiddiqui]

Perhaps that is why America is not a democracy.

In which era do you think America was closest to embodying the collective ideals set by the Founding Fathers?

A Democratic Republic is commonly referred to as a democracy, so it's fine to refer to the US or other first world countries as democracies, I think. No one is thinking of one person one vote for everything that has never existed as a form of government in human history, aside from small groups.

And our failed attempts to live up to our collective ideals doesn't diminish that they underpin our government. People appeal to those ideals all the time - the Civil Rights era involved Martin Luther King referring to the ideals of the US and how we are failing to live up to them all the time.

[revrew]

Problems arise because religion has several meanings.

Having a strong moral code based on both law and a feeling that if you treat people well, the world will be a better place falls into the third definition.

Belief in a god falls into the other two definitions.

Arguing that if a person uses (3) and therefore something you choose from (1) and (2) is also true is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.

I'm losing you a little bit here. While Webster may have 3 definitions, I disagree with the proposition (which I think you're making, not sure) that the 3 definitions are in some way mutually exclusive. Belief in a god also falls into category (3).

And while category (2) is the very "church" Thomas Jefferson argued against mixing with "state," our Founders were more than happy to mix (1) with politics.

My original contention, furthermore, was that by definition (3), we cannot help but mix politics and religion. They are always mixed, and arguing (1) has no place in politics is wholly unfair at best, discrimination at worst, since for many people, their (3) is fundamentally defined by (1).

Now, truthfully, I think that definition (3) is pretty flimsy. I like the proposal earlier that we refer to a person's understanding of human nature, human rights, morality, government, etc, as "worldview." Some people's worldviews are inherently theistic, others' atheistic, others' humanistic, but regardless, our worldview impacts everything we believe to be true and right and good. Including government. It is impossible, I was contending, to separate government from worldview.

[CU Tiger]

There are ten Commandments. Four relate to worship, and while they may be part of a person's moral code, they don't relate to earthly issues. Six seem like common sense (murder, adultery, theft, false witness, coveting, honoring parents), but there's also the underlying tone that the Bible only exists for men who are part of a ruling class of people (your neighbor owns a wife and a male servant and a female servant). So one could argue that the moral code proposed by the Bible violates what we consider basic human rights today.


I think the bolded enters into a revealing discussion.

If not for "religious" (insert your favored thread term here) reasons what is inherently wrong or harmful about adultery or coveting? Who defined that humans should couple 1-1 and that breaking that coupling was wrong?

Likewise for "coveting" though you can argue that coveting leads to theft which does produce a victim, but theft is covered in an of itself. So if the ultimate goal isn't some spiritual enlightenment or search for inner peace what harm is really caused by internal greed and longing for someone else's possessions?

But you have just assumed these 6 as "common sense" when I have shown that another person could reasonably discard 2 of your 6 as not common sense at all but rather a tenet passed down from some "religious" beginning.

I think we can all agree that killing someone, stealing their possession or lieing about them cause harm to others and as a society we should strive to minimize avoidable harm to others.

Honoring parents serves to help exert control over youth and provide care for elders later. No real harm done here, but I am also not so sure that it is "common sense". Some parents do no deserve honoring of their own accord. Lord knows were it not for a strive for Godliness I would find no other reason to extol any honor on one of my parents.

Sorry if this is rambling a bit, but my point is that your "common sense" is shaped by your "worldly view" which is shaped by your interactions with many other humans. Those humans interacted with you in a given way because of their worldly view.

In a country where still today it is a majority of Christians (albeit a much smaller majority than at any other point in existence) I just dont see how any of us that have lived the majority of our formative years in this environment can really do much more than speculate about how little Biblical texts have shaped our viewpoint.

[EagleFan]

It is religion (whether a theistic or humanistic religion, doesn't matter) that informs us as to what is and isn't true

You lost me right there.

[Solecismic]

I'm losing you a little bit here. While Webster may have 3 definitions, I disagree with the proposition (which I think you're making, not sure) that the 3 definitions are in some way mutually exclusive. Belief in a god also falls into category (3).

And while category (2) is the very "church" Thomas Jefferson argued against mixing with "state," our Founders were more than happy to mix (1) with politics.

My original contention, furthermore, was that by definition (3), we cannot help but mix politics and religion. They are always mixed, and arguing (1) has no place in politics is wholly unfair at best, discrimination at worst, since for many people, their (3) is fundamentally defined by (1).

Now, truthfully, I think that definition (3) is pretty flimsy. I like the proposal earlier that we refer to a person's understanding of human nature, human rights, morality, government, etc, as "worldview." Some people's worldviews are inherently theistic, others' atheistic, others' humanistic, but regardless, our worldview impacts everything we believe to be true and right and good. Including government. It is impossible, I was contending, to separate government from worldview.

Language changes over the years, and back in the 1700s, there weren't always religion (1,2) implications over the term "Our Creator."

It is impossible to separate government from world view. But it is possible to insist that specific acts of prayer or worship are separate from government. If you have a Venn diagram that includes Religion-1, Religion-2, Religion-3 and Government, R-3 and G would have some overlap, but R-1 and R-2 should not overlap with G.

If religion (3) is flimsy, perhaps we should call it something else. At which point, we probably could completely separate government and religion.

[Solecismic]

I think the bolded enters into a revealing discussion.

If not for "religious" (insert your favored thread term here) reasons what is inherently wrong or harmful about adultery or coveting? Who defined that humans should couple 1-1 and that breaking that coupling was wrong?

Likewise for "coveting" though you can argue that coveting leads to theft which does produce a victim, but theft is covered in an of itself. So if the ultimate goal isn't some spiritual enlightenment or search for inner peace what harm is really caused by internal greed and longing for someone else's possessions?

But you have just assumed these 6 as "common sense" when I have shown that another person could reasonably discard 2 of your 6 as not common sense at all but rather a tenet passed down from some "religious" beginning.

I think we can all agree that killing someone, stealing their possession or lieing about them cause harm to others and as a society we should strive to minimize avoidable harm to others.

Honoring parents serves to help exert control over youth and provide care for elders later. No real harm done here, but I am also not so sure that it is "common sense". Some parents do no deserve honoring of their own accord. Lord knows were it not for a strive for Godliness I would find no other reason to extol any honor on one of my parents.

Sorry if this is rambling a bit, but my point is that your "common sense" is shaped by your "worldly view" which is shaped by your interactions with many other humans. Those humans interacted with you in a given way because of their worldly view.

In a country where still today it is a majority of Christians (albeit a much smaller majority than at any other point in existence) I just dont see how any of us that have lived the majority of our formative years in this environment can really do much more than speculate about how little Biblical texts have shaped our viewpoint.

If we want to argue the genesis of monogamy, it's easy to see why it could predate religion. A man wants a guarantee that a woman is carrying his child. Why invest your considerable value when your genetic material isn't at stake? A woman doesn't have to question her value, sexist as that may sound.

If one's parents don't deserve to be honored (I'm lucky in that respect, I understand), then don't. Each individual strives to create his or her own moral code - influenced or not influenced by religion. It shouldn't be law like an anti-murder statute, but it should be encouraged - as it strengthens the units of family that found the basis of community and civilization.

Coveting shouldn't be a crime. Any more than any "offense" that requires we delve into the science of mind-reading to police. But it's a good idea to remind yourself every now and then that wanting to possess someone else's wife or husband or ox or cow or house or yacht or collection of rare stamps isn't a good way to conduct yourself in life. Like it is with honoring parents, community is stronger if you don't covet what other people have.

Laws are just one piece of what should comprise a strong personal moral code.

I could think of other pieces that belong. I could read the Bible and get good ideas from it. I could also read the Bible and read stories (like Job) that make me wonder why that's a good example of anything positive in life. And I could read Harry Potter and get other good ideas. I don't see why a personal non-covet code necessarily has its genesis in the Bible.

[revrew]

Language changes over the years, and back in the 1700s, there weren't always religion (1,2) implications over the term "Our Creator."

It is impossible to separate government from world view. But it is possible to insist that specific acts of prayer or worship are separate from government. If you have a Venn diagram that includes Religion-1, Religion-2, Religion-3 and Government, R-3 and G would have some overlap, but R-1 and R-2 should not overlap with G.

I'm not sure what you mean by that first sentence, except that by my understanding, that sounds like blatant historical revisionism. Our Founders clearly believed in a supernatural, divine being, and they absolutely had definition (1) implications in their use of words like "Creator," "Providence," "Nature's God," etc. As I pointed out earlier, in the wake of denominational wars, they were wary of using definition (2), leading Jefferson to coin the term "separation of church and state," though none of the prominent founders ever meant there to be "separation of religion and state." Washington, Adams, and others were very clear they fully expected, even advocated religious faith (though not religious denominationalism) mix with politics. But I digress ...

Your proposed Venn diagram is exactly what I suggest is faulty. For many (most in the U.S.), it is not possible to separate (3) from (1), so by saying government must exclude (1), you essentially disenfranchise the vast majority of Americans.

Furthermore, I would argue atheism or humanism or naturalism or anarchy or self-interest or any other primary "faith/anti-faith" system is so similar to (1), that they also blur the line between (1) and (3). Such that, Lenin's insistence, for example, that Soviet Russia be an atheist nation is a mixing of (1) and government, even a mixing of (2) and government, an "establishment" of (non)religion that would violate the U.S. 1st Amendment.

In a nutshell, I just don't see how we can neatly separate (1) and (3).

[revrew]

You lost me right there.

The most obvious, but not only example, is the following:

"If science proves it, it's true" - agree or disagree?

Most naturalists would agree. But if science could "prove" Muhammad was insane, would Muslims agree it was true? If science could "prove" man evolved from apes ... well, we already know how that one turns out. But on the flip side, a hard-core naturalist would argue that despite all the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, since it's scientifically impossible, it didn't happen. Anything miraculous, for that matter, would have to be discounted, despite any amount of evidence. It's just not "true," because it's supernatural, and the world can only be natural (for a hard-core naturalist, not for your typical naturalist).

But this has other implications as well, not just the evolution debate. Our understanding of the future, including a topic like global "warming" and the fragility of the Earth, for example, can be informed by what we believe - at a religious level - about what is or isn't true. Or how about gay "conversion" therapy? There are some who would say it is "true" that it cannot be done effectively, while others argue, "anything is possible with God."

Lots of ways what we believe to be true, or at very least, what is trustworthy, is informed by what we believe about God and the supernatural.

[ISiddiqui]

Let's also not forget those things that are "true" that are beyond factual proof - such as "do you love this person". You can't prove it, but it can be true nonetheless.

[molson]

And the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is always going to be influenced by how far we've evolved as a species in terms of knowledge of the universe. What's going on in the universe outside of earth, for example, used to be the focus of religion and supernatural speculation, eventually it became science as our species evolved. I've always believed that so many of the experiences and connections we can make with nature and other living things through prayer and meditation COULD all be explained with science, and will be eventually, we just haven't yet in 2015 figured out everything there is to figure out about the human brain, the universe, time, the origin of life, etc.

[Solecismic]

I'm not sure what you mean by that first sentence, except that by my understanding, that sounds like blatant historical revisionism. Our Founders clearly believed in a supernatural, divine being, and they absolutely had definition (1) implications in their use of words like "Creator," "Providence," "Nature's God," etc. As I pointed out earlier, in the wake of denominational wars, they were wary of using definition (2), leading Jefferson to coin the term "separation of church and state," though none of the prominent founders ever meant there to be "separation of religion and state." Washington, Adams, and others were very clear they fully expected, even advocated religious faith (though not religious denominationalism) mix with politics. But I digress ...

Your proposed Venn diagram is exactly what I suggest is faulty. For many (most in the U.S.), it is not possible to separate (3) from (1), so by saying government must exclude (1), you essentially disenfranchise the vast majority of Americans.

Furthermore, I would argue atheism or humanism or naturalism or anarchy or self-interest or any other primary "faith/anti-faith" system is so similar to (1), that they also blur the line between (1) and (3). Such that, Lenin's insistence, for example, that Soviet Russia be an atheist nation is a mixing of (1) and government, even a mixing of (2) and government, an "establishment" of (non)religion that would violate the U.S. 1st Amendment.

In a nutshell, I just don't see how we can neatly separate (1) and (3).

We're at a point where we're both just going to accuse each other of historical revisionism with regard to the Founding Fathers and their views. I see no point in continuing that.

Atheism is the opposite of theism. It means an absence of faith. That's all. It doesn't mean anti-anything. A- means not. Anti- means against. When you confuse the two in this case, you create a philosophical dichotomy that doesn't exist.

There are groups that claim to be atheist groups. But that doesn't mean they share any moral values or codes. All they have in common is people who don't have faith in a supreme being. From a philosophical perspective, they have as much in common as a group of numismatists or coulrophobes (coin collectors and people who fear clowns). Atheist is not an example of religion (1, 2, or 3).

Russia had an antitheistic government stance. That's very different.

Back to Venn: (1) mainly fits inside of (3) and of course, can't be separated from it. (3) overlaps (G). (1) should not overlap (G).

[AENeuman]

The most obvious, but not only example, is the following:

"If science proves it, it's true" - agree or disagree?

Most naturalists would agree. But if science could "prove" Muhammad was insane, would Muslims agree it was true? If science could "prove" man evolved from apes ... well, we already know how that one turns out. But on the flip side, a hard-core naturalist would argue that despite all the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, since it's scientifically impossible, it didn't happen. Anything miraculous, for that matter, would have to be discounted, despite any amount of evidence. It's just not "true," because it's supernatural, and the world can only be natural (for a hard-core naturalist, not for your typical naturalist).

But this has other implications as well, not just the evolution debate. Our understanding of the future, including a topic like global "warming" and the fragility of the Earth, for example, can be informed by what we believe - at a religious level - about what is or isn't true. Or how about gay "conversion" therapy? There are some who would say it is "true" that it cannot be done effectively, while others argue, "anything is possible with God."

Lots of ways what we believe to be true, or at very least, what is trustworthy, is informed by what we believe about God and the supernatural.

I feel that you are describing dogma, rather than truth or evidence.

You use the term evidence a couple different ways. Is evidence that which is scientifically possible? If so, then evidence of Christ would mean there is empirical proof, and possible. If you mean something can be considered evidence despite a lack of scientific proof, then that "truth" becomes dogmatic.

[revrew]

I feel that you are describing dogma, rather than truth or evidence.

You use the term evidence a couple different ways. Is evidence that which is scientifically possible? If so, then evidence of Christ would mean there is empirical proof, and possible. If you mean something can be considered evidence despite a lack of scientific proof, then that "truth" becomes dogmatic.

I think the confusion here, and I created it intentionally, is that there is scientific, empirical "evidence," then there is literary "evidence" and historical "evidence" and archeological "evidence," etc.

We live in a society that increasingly seems to only accept the evidence it can see, taste or touch in a test tube. Yet even the scientific community uses more "evidence" than what can be observed with the senses or tested via experimentation. After all, no one has ever conducted a successful experiment on cross-kind evolution, and yet there is plenty of "evidence" supporting the theory of evolution. Some would even argue evolution is a scientifically proven fact, yet there is not a shred of scientific proof (meaning observable results of experimentation). Yet again, there is plenty of evidence.

My point is simply that what we consider to be true or not - even what we are willing to accept as "proof" of what is true or not - is not neatly objective. I would argue it's nothing but an atheist's pipe dream to look for that single, natural standard by which all things can be proven true or not. Ultimately, it always comes back not to what evidence you have, but to what evidence you're willing to believe.

And that's why we can't separate religious faith from politics.

[nol]

And that's why I can't separate religious faith from politics.

No need to impose your own beliefs on everyone else.

[ISiddiqui]

So what about your beliefs that you can separate religious faith from politics? ;) Why are you imposing that on me?

[molson]

No need to impose your own beliefs on everyone else.

That's what politics is. When you vote, run for office, support a candidate, or express an opinion, you're trying to impose your own beliefs and values on other people. Your beliefs and values might be directly or indirectly inspired by religion, or by something else.

[nol]

So what about your beliefs that you can separate religious faith from politics? ;) Why are you imposing that on me?

I don't particularly care what you think about that, so I'm not imposing in any way. I'm also not attempting to pass off something like "we can/can't separate religion from politics" as a descriptive statement about the world.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't particularly care what you think about that, so I'm not imposing in any way. I'm also not attempting to pass off something like "we can/can't separate religion from politics" as a descriptive statement about the world.

A) Yes you are imposing upon me.
B) You are, by denying the statement, saying you can separate religion from politics.

[nol]

A) Yes you are imposing upon me.
B) You are, by denying the statement, saying you can separate religion from politics.

Right, I'm saying I can, not we can. I cannot speak Russian, but it would be pretty dumb for me to assume that we all cannot speak Russian. There's a lot of stuff you can and cannot do that I'm not professing to know.

[ISiddiqui]

Right, I'm saying I can, not we can. I cannot speak Russian, but it would be pretty dumb for me to assume that we all cannot speak Russian. There's a lot of stuff you can and cannot do that I'm not professing to know.

You definitely can say "We can or can't" when referring to what a society can and cannot do. Saying "We can speak Russian" in Russia is a perfectly fine statement if you individually cannot.

By taking the general statement and individualizing it, you are presuming that it is something that society in general can do since you personally assume that you can do it.

[revrew]

That's what politics is. When you vote, run for office, support a candidate, or express an opinion, you're trying to impose your own beliefs and values on other people. Your beliefs and values might be directly or indirectly inspired by religion, or by something else.

Molson boiled that down pretty succinctly. Props.

The only thing I would add is that the same is true not only when you vote, but also when you write a constitution, legislate, write an executive order, dictate, rule, revolution or coup.

But hey, I've said my peace. I gotta step out and go back to real life. Glad for the civil discussion, y'all.

[Brian Swartz]

That's what politics is. When you vote, run for office, support a candidate, or express an opinion, you're trying to impose your own beliefs and values on other people. Your beliefs and values might be directly or indirectly inspired by religion, or by something else.

Let's also not forget those things that are "true" that are beyond factual proof - such as "do you love this person". You can't prove it, but it can be true nonetheless.

This. I cannot improve on either statement.

Molson's point underlines one of the major reasons why the current understanding(as defined by SCOTUS) of separation of church and state is misguided at best. The neutrality they claim to aspire to is impossible. If you say, as they have, that a law can have a secular basis but not a religious one, this is by definition an anti-religious stance. Something is getting imposed no matter what, but actively relegating the political beliefs of the religious person to second-class status like this is not separation, it's intolerant establishment of a different belief system and the exclusion of those who don't hold to it's precepts.

[Solecismic]

I think the confusion here, and I created it intentionally, is that there is scientific, empirical "evidence," then there is literary "evidence" and historical "evidence" and archeological "evidence," etc.

We live in a society that increasingly seems to only accept the evidence it can see, taste or touch in a test tube. Yet even the scientific community uses more "evidence" than what can be observed with the senses or tested via experimentation. After all, no one has ever conducted a successful experiment on cross-kind evolution, and yet there is plenty of "evidence" supporting the theory of evolution. Some would even argue evolution is a scientifically proven fact, yet there is not a shred of scientific proof (meaning observable results of experimentation). Yet again, there is plenty of evidence.

My point is simply that what we consider to be true or not - even what we are willing to accept as "proof" of what is true or not - is not neatly objective. I would argue it's nothing but an atheist's pipe dream to look for that single, natural standard by which all things can be proven true or not. Ultimately, it always comes back not to what evidence you have, but to what evidence you're willing to believe.

And that's why we can't separate religious faith from politics.

I don't have a care in the world as to whether Darwin was right or wrong in his observations about evolution, but to say there's not a shred of scientific proof of concept in the analysis of genetic material seems wrong to me. Up to me to back up that claim, so we can leave that open if we want.

My understanding is that observation of the genes of various species shows how DNA recombines and introduces variety in order to survive pretty much exactly as Darwin theorized without knowing that we'd ever be able to find the material that defines how we develop as living things.

Literary, historical, empirical and archeological evidence are all very different, and can't be treated in the same way. Empirical is stronger because it can be observed in its original form by outside observers. We can view it objectively, even if we don't always do so. But it's useless for questions like "did Jesus exist?"

And there's the concept of hypothesis. In science, you examine data, create a hypothesis, work on reaching a point where you can't prove the hypothesis is false. And when you can, you create a new hypothesis. A real scientist follows the data and doesn't care where it leads him/her. In religion, you have your conclusion. Data must be filtered through a lens that leads you to that conclusion. In this characteristic, science and religion are opposites. Religion (1,2) requires faith.

When I construct a religion (1,2) versus religion (3) test, I think what I'd expect, for the purpose of determining whether we have "separation of church and state," is "can you construct a compelling reason for a law, narrowly tailored to address a specific concern, that doesn't have a basis in scripture?" It's not as easy as you think. Even for something like murder. Why is murder illegal? We know deep down that it's probably not something we want, but saying something like "murder destroys civilization" isn't enough. But if you wrestle with a philosophical question, and you wind up basing your reasoning solely on scripture, you're probably creating a law we shouldn't have in America.

As for politicians, ugh. Not an honest or ethical bone in the lot of them these days.

[ISiddiqui]

But if you wrestle with a philosophical question, and you wind up basing your reasoning solely on scripture, you're probably creating a law we shouldn't have in America.

Why not? Simply because you don't desire it? Why is your desire elevated over my desire in a democratic republic?

[Honolulu_Blue]

This is an interesting debate.

I think we can easily separate religious faith from politics. We've evolved and matured past needing religion to give us a moral compass and control the masses. Back in the day, sure, man created religion to help codify a moral code and create consequences for those who breached it.

Religion served its purpose in this arena and is really no longer necessary in politics to guide moral, ethical or any other kind of decision.

Just look at gay marriage. Allowing gays to marry is absolutely the right, ethical and moral choice. Many religions, written by men hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, say otherwise. So, here, religion is actually an impediment to something that is morally and ethically right.

Religion may serve other purposes to other people, but that's a different question.

[Dutch]

This. I cannot improve on either statement.

Molson's point underlines one of the major reasons why the current understanding(as defined by SCOTUS) of separation of church and state is misguided at best. The neutrality they claim to aspire to is impossible. If you say, as they have, that a law can have a secular basis but not a religious one, this is by definition an anti-religious stance. Something is getting imposed no matter what, but actively relegating the political beliefs of the religious person to second-class status like this is not separation, it's intolerant establishment of a different belief system and the exclusion of those who don't hold to it's precepts.

What's that signature block floating around here? Dont let pretty good be the enemy of perfect...or something like that. That defines democracy over any individuals utopia.

[ISiddiqui]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good - I love that phrase :D

[Brian Swartz]

What's that signature block floating around here? Dont let pretty good be the enemy of perfect...or something like that. That defines democracy over any individuals utopia.

Very true, but I don't think it's relevant in this situation. I don't see what's wrong with actual pluralism, actual religious freedom -- i.e., whatever laws prevail, prevail, regardless of whether they have a secular or religious basis. Let the people choose. It's an approach that has the advantage of also being in line with the plain meaning of the Constitution, which bars only establishment of a state church.

[Honolulu_Blue]

There is a lot in this clip that is highly relevant to this discussion:

Reza Aslan - The Daily Show - Video Clip | Comedy Central (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/xnhiq4/reza-aslan)

[Dutch]

Here's some more politicians pushing religion...they look more religious than political though.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/k4LmGPg8ScQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I know they don't speak for everybody, particularly in outlier muslim nations, but they are very influential...

[Qwikshot]

First off, no one is ever going to change anyone's mind here.

If religion is part of the reason for most wars, politics would be for the other.

In the end, these are ends to keep the populace under sway.

I think there is a difference between faith and fundamentalism.

I think there is a difference between spirituality and religion.

I think the political system as it is has failed.

I think to believe our forefathers did understand that the constitution believing a living document, could "evolve". I also believe that while they were advocates "for the people, by the people" they were for the most part bound by the times to excise slaves and women from that statement, it is only through time and "evolution" that through the process, women and minorities were able to gain those rights.

I believe that any religion that excludes fails the basic tenants of what religion to be, it Christ's only law was to "love one another as I have loved you" then that is the end debate, as we are all god's children.

And if god gave us free will, we are capable of making our own decision on what our existence is, and to think inside the box that we are bound by the bible, is small thinking.

The universe is far greater than any of us will understand, and there is no "known" be it scientific or religious.

So I go back to Christ's words. If I were to sum up the whole teaching, it would be to follow just that, not to convert, not to impose...just to love and perhaps understand that all of us are different and the same.

So after years of Catholicism, the only thing I follow is this tenant to love and understand.

My daughter after years of turbulence with her mother, brought up a good point, that she knows I cannot hate, because after all the crap that my ex put me through, I can still talk with her, and if I can do that, she can perhaps one day understand her mother.

I have sat with Muslims, I have sat with communists, I have sat with atheists, I have sat with born again Christians. For the most part, I've never been judged. In fact, the only experience I've ever had where I was judged was a fundamentalist Christian.

People I think when you get down to the basics, just want to live in peace, they want to be able to have a purpose, they want a happy life.

When you see ISIS, you see the extreme because of poverty, because of ignorance and because the only outlet for purpose is extremism.

I see that here in the US too, where we still can justify excluding the poor from basic needs. We can justify it as saying they are lazy, or they are ignorant, they don't want to work hard.

If want to get grim, you'd say there are too many people. But here's the reality, there are too many poor people. And there are a lot more of them, than there are rich.

I like how "covet' was used here, the only time I recall it outside of the bible is in Silence of the Lambs..."what do we covet?" --"what we see"

This is a ramble, but I think ultimately, if we cannot understand the basic concept, how can we understand the more challenging ones?

[Brian Swartz]

I believe that any religion that excludes fails the basic tenants of what religion to be, it Christ's only law was to "love one another as I have loved you" then that is the end debate, as we are all god's children.

And if god gave us free will, we are capable of making our own decision on what our existence is, and to think inside the box that we are bound by the bible, is small thinking.

The universe is far greater than any of us will understand, and there is no "known" be it scientific or religious.

So I go back to Christ's words. If I were to sum up the whole teaching, it would be to follow just that, not to convert, not to impose...just to love and perhaps understand that all of us are different and the same.

So after years of Catholicism, the only thing I follow is this tenant to love and understand.

I appreciate the intent that seems clearly to behind your post. I do feel compelled to interject here with a few points, because I believe you are at best grossly distorting the message of Jesus Christ, a very dangerous thing.

** He didn't say the only law was to love one another as I have loved you.
** What Jesus meant by love is not what modern culture commonly means by it and what it is apparent you mean by it(universal acceptance). Specifically, he made many exclusionary statements and specifically, repeatedly rebutted the concept that we are all God's children. If we reject those, we should reject those parts of his teachings that we like as well.
** The Great Commission is rather specific that we are in fact to convert.

Etc.

[Qwikshot]

I appreciate the intent that seems clearly to behind your post. I do feel compelled to interject here with a few points, because I believe you are at best grossly distorting the message of Jesus Christ, a very dangerous thing.

** He didn't say the only law was to love one another as I have loved you.
** What Jesus meant by love is not what modern culture commonly means by it and what it is apparent you mean by it(universal acceptance). Specifically, he made many exclusionary statements and specifically, repeatedly rebutted the concept that we are all God's children. If we reject those, we should reject those parts of his teachings that we like as well.
** The Great Commission is rather specific that we are in fact to convert.

Etc.

Sorry I'm going to disagree that I'm distorting that point. It amuses me that I'm stating something that interpreted as dangerous.

Second point, that is an interpretation, Jesus didn't exclude people, he welcomed all people (Mary Magdalene, lepers, poor, the rich, St. Paul was a Roman citizen). One of his most famous parables included a Samaritan who was generally a disliked people at the time doing the right thing while all others ignored it. I'm sure you have scripture that you either interpret or were raised to interpret as exclusionary, but I'm not buying it.

The Great Commission is evangelical in nature, again through difference in interpretation, it is my interpretation that Christ wanted to preach the word and welcome those who wanted to join, but did not force conversion.

Finally, since we are far off tangent, from the original statement that started this discussion. I cannot change your mind and you cannot change mine, it'll never happen, and that's fine...to the initial point of this discussion thread, any religious person who justifies human suffering because of his own interpretation of religion I believe sorely misunderstands the relationship between mankind and its creator and is in fact denigrating the religion he/she is stumping for.

[Brian Swartz]

it is my interpretation that Christ wanted to preach the word and welcome those who wanted to join, but did not force conversion.

I agree. I haven't here advocated forcing conversion, in fact I would view that as an impossibility. However when you say Christ's teachings was not to convert -- unless you meant but didn't say 'forced', it's simply a direct contradiction.

Second point, that is an interpretation, Jesus didn't exclude people, he welcomed all people (Mary Magdalene, lepers, poor, the rich, St. Paul was a Roman citizen).

He welcomed all those who were willing, absolutely. He excluded those who weren't. In terms of race, gender, walk of life, what you say here is completely, blessedly true.

I'm sure you have scripture that you either interpret or were raised to interpret as exclusionary, but I'm not buying it.

A couple clarifying questions for community edification then:

** What did Jesus mean when he said(multiple times) that 'Many are called, but few are chosen?'
** What did Jesus mean when he said that the gate to heaven is narrow, and few would even find it, while many would follow the broad road to destruction?
** What did Jesus mean when he said to the Pharisees, 'you brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?'
** What did Jesus mean when he said that many would be told 'depart from me, you who practice lawlessness. I never knew you.'
** To sum these and many other statements like them, how are they not exclusionary of those who have not believed in Him and his message? How could Jesus have been more emphatic and more clear in making such a point?

.02