Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: stePH on June 25, 2008, 12:20:20 AM
-
I was replied to before I had a chance to edit and clarify my post, so I repeat: what does the government "recognizing God's authority" mean to the citizenry?
It means that the government cannot override God. The Bible would be recognized as the Word of God and would be the final authority for all legislation, much like the Iraqi constitution recognizes the Qur'an as the final authority. For example, any law created by man that contradicts the law of God would be found by the courts to be no law (such as the alleged 'laws' created by Hitler's government for the use of committing genocide against the Jews). If anyone wishes to discuss 'God and government' further, I humbly suggest starting a new thread. I see that this topic could easily take over the thread.
And here we are ...
4. It seems like most everyone respectfully disagrees with me on this one. A question for you: Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all? For example, the US Pledge of Allegiance has the words "Under God", ...
Only since June 1954, after the Knights of Columbus had been trying for a few years prior to get it added in there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22
...our fiat legal tender has the words "In God we trust",...
Only since 1864 when it first began to appear on a few coins, and didn't appear on every unit of currency until 1956.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
... some quotes from the Founding Fathers:
"The United States is in no sense founded on Christian Doctrine." George Washington, 1st President of the U.S.
"As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, the United States is not a Christian Nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation." John Adams, 2nd president of the U.S.
"Christianity neither is nor ever was part of the Common Law." Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the U.S.
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise and every expanded prospect." James Madison, Author of the Constitution and 4th President of the U.S.
[EDIT]
I am an atheist. In the context of the other thread, "God" would have no place in my government. Citizens of faith would be free to attend the worship services of their choice, read the "holy" texts of their choice, and conduct their own lives as they see fit in accordance with their own beliefs. However, attempts to legislate their beliefs so that others would be required to live their way would not be permitted.
So how would I, as an atheist, be permitted to live under your proposed regime?
-
Hear Hear !!
What many 'citizens' of neo-Falwellian ilk conveniently fail to recall is that our founders valued separation of church and state NOT because they were afraid of government overstepping its bounds into religion, but the other way around. The only way that could succeed is to make it a nation that favored no religion but all religions.
-
I don't live in the US, but I am aware of some of the church/state issues that have arisen over the years. How do those advocating a greater official role for religion in public life deal with non-Christian religions?
For example, I imagine Buddhist, Muslim and Mormon children cite the Pledge of Allegiance. Which God do the proponents of the current wording suggest the children refer to? Do they really want children pledging their allegiance to one nation under Allah?
I've also heard suggestion that the Scripture should be taught in school. Would the Christian majority be happy for the Utah school system to introduce mandatory Book of Mormon reading?
Speaking as someone who teaches church sponsored religious education in a public school I find this whole thing bizarre, to say the least.
-
Looks like you're going after the straw man on this one. I never said America was founded as a Christian nation, and the examples I gave were not supporting that notion. America was, for the most part, founded by Christians, but that is another matter.
What I said was if I was to found my own country and design its goverment (this was the subject of the original thread), it would be a government that recognizes God's existence and authority. The examples I cited were examples used as part of my open question, "Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all?"
Athiests such as yourself would be permitted in my country and allowed to believe/not believe whatever they like; however the scope of any government I design would include honoring God and making Him known. So would athiests be permitted? Yes. Would they be comfortable? Probably not.
Let me pause and try to look at it from your perspective. I conceed that if God is false, then your point of view regarding God and government may be best. If there is no God, then it would be foolish for any government to acknowledge Him, much less to create legislation based upon a false religion. But do you conceed that if the Bible is true, God is real, and Christ is His only Son, that if these things are absolutely true then it is folly for any man, woman, or government not to acknowlege Him?
-
Looks like you're going after the straw man on this one. I never said America was founded as a Christian nation, and the examples I gave were not supporting that notion. America was, for the most part, founded by Christians, but that is another matter.
What I said was if I was to found my own country and design its goverment (this was the subject of the original thread), it would be a government that recognizes God's existence and authority. The examples I cited were examples used as part of my open question, "Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all?"
Athiests such as yourself would be permitted in my country and allowed to believe/not believe whatever they like; however the scope of any government I design would include honoring God and making Him known. So would athiests be permitted? Yes. Would they be comfortable? Probably not.
Let me pause and try to look at it from your perspective. I conceed that if God is false, then your point of view regarding God and government may be best. If there is no God, then it would be foolish for any government to acknowledge Him, much less to create legislation based upon a false religion. But do you conceed that if the Bible is true, God is real, and Christ is His only Son, that if these things are absolutely true then it is folly for any man, woman, or government not to acknowlege Him?
False Dichotomy. See thread on Pascal's wager (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1686.0).
-
Looks like you're going after the straw man on this one. I never said America was founded as a Christian nation, and the examples I gave were not supporting that notion. America was, for the most part, founded by Christians, but that is another matter.
You're the one pointing out the words "under God" in the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" on currency, and other examples of Judeo-Christian imagery in the US government. My responses to those points make no claim as to whether the USA was founded on Christian principles. I was just heading off any potential future claim to that effect before it got started.
Athiests such as yourself would be permitted in my country and allowed to believe/not believe whatever they like; however the scope of any government I design would include honoring God and making Him known. So would athiests be permitted? Yes. Would they be comfortable? Probably not.
What laws would be in place as a result of the government recognizing God's existence and authority? What conduct would be required of the citizenry (believers and atheists alike) to this effect?
-
What I said was if I was to found my own country and design its goverment (this was the subject of the original thread), it would be a government that recognizes God's existence and authority. The examples I cited were examples used as part of my open question, "Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all?"
You didn't respond to my answer in the other thread, so I'll paraphrase here. Acknowledging God is not something you can do inadvertently. I'm not saying that members of the parliament will not be allowed to say "God bless you" when someone sneezes. I'm saying that there will be no mention of God in the laws and constitution, just like there will be no mention of, say, the rings of Saturn. God is, simply, not relevant to the role of a government (though God may be very relevant to each and every member of the government).
-
I don't live in the US, but I am aware of some of the church/state issues that have arisen over the years. How do those advocating a greater official role for religion in public life deal with non-Christian religions?
For example, I imagine Buddhist, Muslim and Mormon children cite the Pledge of Allegiance. Which God do the proponents of the current wording suggest the children refer to? Do they really want children pledging their allegiance to one nation under Allah?
The nice thing about the "under God" wording is that it's vague; you can slot in whichever version of the monotheistic deity you like. So the only problem is for (some) polytheists... and of course, for atheists, or for those who are opposed to publicly-sponsored religion.
In fact, the "under God" wording probably is unconstitutional, and while the most recent challenge to it was rejected by the Supreme Court for technical reasons (in 2004), I imagine that a stronger challenge could get rid of it. My own feeling is that while
I'm not crazy about "under God" in the Pledge or on coins, they're examples of things that are quite literally not worth making a federal case about.
I've also heard suggestion that the Scripture should be taught in school. Would the Christian majority be happy for the Utah school system to introduce mandatory Book of Mormon reading?
It's not as if all Christians have the same belief about politics, education or anything else-- including Christianity. Which is why religious education in public schools is a bright-line example of unconstitutional activity.
-
Hear Hear !!
What many 'citizens' of neo-Falwellian ilk conveniently fail to recall is that our founders valued separation of church and state NOT because they were afraid of government overstepping its bounds into religion, but the other way around. The only way that could succeed is to make it a nation that favored no religion but all religions.
I don't have the citation handy, but from what I've learned, the appropriate quote isn't separation of church and state but freedom of church from state. IIRC, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a church that asked for his endorsement (when he was a lawmaker/public figure) and said he could not endorse the church because it would be an endorsement of a religion, which the government does not do.
If someone can find the citation, feel free to correct me.
Personally, if you want to make your country a devoutly Christian one, fine with me. I'll choose not to live there. You are free to make your decision as grand-high-poo-bah and I support your decision.
-
The nice thing about the "under God" wording is that it's vague; you can slot in whichever version of the monotheistic deity you like. So the only problem is for (some) polytheists... and of course, for atheists, or for those who are opposed to publicly-sponsored religion.
Also for Buddhists and other not-deity based religions.
/Not entering discussion but thought it should be noted.
-
The nice thing about the "under God" wording is that it's vague; you can slot in whichever version of the monotheistic deity you like. So the only problem is for (some) polytheists... and of course, for atheists, or for those who are opposed to publicly-sponsored religion.
Also for Buddhists and other not-deity based religions.
Sure, some Buddhists; though there are monotheistic versions of Buddhism, too. It's a crazy, complicated world out there; internet discussions of religion almost always ignore that complexity...
-
The nice thing about the "under God" wording is that it's vague; you can slot in whichever version of the monotheistic deity you like. So the only problem is for (some) polytheists... and of course, for atheists, or for those who are opposed to publicly-sponsored religion.
Also for Buddhists and other not-deity based religions.
Sure, some Buddhists; though there are monotheistic versions of Buddhism, too. It's a crazy, complicated world out there; internet discussions of religion almost always ignore that complexity...
Yes-ish, but not in the way that the Abrahamic religions think of a God. Some of the traditions elevate the Buddha, some don't, and there's not the same kind of "I pray for X so I will get X via divine intervention" that happens in the Abrahamic and other religions. In it's pure form, Buddhism doesn't really care about how the world came to be or why it came to be or who if anyone made it, it just concerns itself with humanity and humanity's suffering. Wikipedia has an entry on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism).
-
I don't have the citation handy, but from what I've learned, the appropriate quote isn't separation of church and state but freedom of church from state. IIRC, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a church that asked for his endorsement (when he was a lawmaker/public figure) and said he could not endorse the church because it would be an endorsement of a religion, which the government does not do.
If someone can find the citation, feel free to correct me.
Of course if this were as black and white an issue as most people think it is, we wouldn't be having thi s discussion now as it would have all been decided long ago. I concede that we are both partially correct. Check out this web site "http://members.tripod.com/candst/toc.htm" for your reference to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. But also read James Madison's June 3, 1811 reply to some Baptist Churches in North Carolina, in which he says, "Having always regarded tile practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both..." It is clear to me that Madison understood the pressures religious institutions will always try to bring upon the government to grant a 'favor'. Indeed, since those early days of Jefferson and Madison, try to count on your fingers how many times the government has been guilty of 'establishment' over a religious institution. Then consider how many religious groups are trying to impose their wills on our government (prayer in schools, 10 commandments in courts, no gay marriages, and so on). Separation of church and state may appear to be for the 'protection' of the church, but any politician can tell you clearly it is the other way around.
Sorry for the long post. To bring this back into the context of Escape Pod, why doesn't anyone write more speculative fiction on what might have been or what could be the result of a lack of separation of church and state in the US? Would we be like a gigantic antithesis to the Moslem world? Or would we be a fractious collection of border clashing religious states always at war with each other?
-
Sorry for the long post. To bring this back into the context of Escape Pod, why doesn't anyone write more speculative fiction on what might have been or what could be the result of a lack of separation of church and state in the US? Would we be like a gigantic antithesis to the Moslem world? Or would we be a fractious collection of border clashing religious states always at war with each other?
I personally haven't seen such a story since Heinlein's "If This Goes On ...." I wouldn't mind seeing (or hearing) another, if it's a good story.
-
Sorry for the long post. To bring this back into the context of Escape Pod, why doesn't anyone write more speculative fiction on what might have been or what could be the result of a lack of separation of church and state in the US? Would we be like a gigantic antithesis to the Moslem world? Or would we be a fractious collection of border clashing religious states always at war with each other?
Well, there was Ep 148, Homecoming at the Borderlands Cafe.
-
Looks like you're going after the straw man on this one. I never said America was founded as a Christian nation, and the examples I gave were not supporting that notion. America was, for the most part, founded by Christians, but that is another matter.
What I said was if I was to found my own country and design its goverment (this was the subject of the original thread), it would be a government that recognizes God's existence and authority. The examples I cited were examples used as part of my open question, "Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all?"
Athiests such as yourself would be permitted in my country and allowed to believe/not believe whatever they like; however the scope of any government I design would include honoring God and making Him known. So would athiests be permitted? Yes. Would they be comfortable? Probably not.
Let me pause and try to look at it from your perspective. I conceed that if God is false, then your point of view regarding God and government may be best. If there is no God, then it would be foolish for any government to acknowledge Him, much less to create legislation based upon a false religion. But do you conceed that if the Bible is true, God is real, and Christ is His only Son, that if these things are absolutely true then it is folly for any man, woman, or government not to acknowlege Him?
False Dichotomy. See thread on Pascal's wager (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1686.0).
Not an example of Pacscal's Wager. That requires that, if God doesn't exist, your choice has zero effect; and if he does exist, your choice has infinite value (either positive or negative, depending on what you choose).
Holden admits that, if God doesn't exist then then it would be best to accept that and get on with non-religious government. Which implies that there's a cost to acknowledging God; something that Pascal's Wager absolutely requires there not be.
In addition, as governments can't go to Heaven (or can they?), any gains from acknowledging an extant God can only be finite, which again breaks Pascals Wager.
It does sound like a false dichotomy, though.
And I'd like to add my voice to those asking what it means for a government to "acknowledge God"; There's a whole range of possibilities, from issuing a resolution saying that God exists and then never thinking about it again, all the way to making "picking up sticks on a Sunday" a crime punishable by death.
-
Let me pause and try to look at it from your perspective. I conceed that if God is false, then your point of view regarding God and government may be best. If there is no God, then it would be foolish for any government to acknowledge Him, much less to create legislation based upon a false religion. But do you conceed that if the Bible is true, God is real, and Christ is His only Son, that if these things are absolutely true then it is folly for any man, woman, or government not to acknowlege Him?
False Dichotomy. See thread on Pascal's wager (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1686.0).
Not an example of Pacscal's Wager. That requires that, if God doesn't exist, your choice has zero effect; and if he does exist, your choice has infinite value (either positive or negative, depending on what you choose).
Holden admits that, if God doesn't exist then then it would be best to accept that and get on with non-religious government. Which implies that there's a cost to acknowledging God; something that Pascal's Wager absolutely requires there not be.
In addition, as governments can't go to Heaven (or can they?), any gains from acknowledging an extant God can only be finite, which again breaks Pascals Wager.
It does sound like a false dichotomy, though.
And I'd like to add my voice to those asking what it means for a government to "acknowledge God"; There's a whole range of possibilities, from issuing a resolution saying that God exists and then never thinking about it again, all the way to making "picking up sticks on a Sunday" a crime punishable by death.
I was pointing out the false dichotomy and showing our most recent example of it. Where Holden's argument isn't exactly like Pascal's wager he is saying that since there is god how could we not recognize him. My best response to him is that when he can analytically prove there is a god and prove which denomination is closest in its belief, we will recognize god. Since that is impossible, a government has no business getting anywhere near religion. Conversely religion has no place trying to change government.
-
It seems like those most strongly opposed to intertwining religion and government are those who are generally against religion, or do not consider themselves a member of the faith. I suppose that makes sense. What interests me more is if there are Christians who believe the government has no place in religion (the category I fall into).
I think religion and government should be separate for two reasons. First, government (in the form of representative democracy) has a tendancy to eventually shape the views of the minority more toward those of the majority. Government policies based on religion would have a similar effect, and I believe eventually relgion would become legislated. Anyone (especially Christians) can see the issues that would bring about. Those going to church would merely be going through the motions, not truly Christians.
Second, Theocracies of all religions have had a bad run. Middle age Europe? Afghanistan? Iran? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Tibet? Not the best places to live, and all theocracies (Tibet more from outside influence than internal). I think the purpose of government should be to provide services to the population they could not get by other means. Religion doesn't fall into this area.
-
It seems like those most strongly opposed to intertwining religion and government are those who are generally against religion, or do not consider themselves a member of the faith. I suppose that makes sense. What interests me more is if there are Christians who believe the government has no place in religion (the category I fall into).
There are quite a number of them, actually. I've been listening to back episodes of "The Atheist Experience" podcast (linked to in the Pascal's Wager thread) and have just finished the one about attempts by fundamentalists to co-opt the US military for their own ends.
It seems the people trying to theocratize the government are a minority (but very vocal and persistent) sect of Christians called Dominionists, and a good portion of their opposition are Christians who understand that any state-sponsored religion is unlikely to be the one that they themselves hold to, and that the best way to protect their own religious freedoms is to protect everybody's.
[EDIT]
Furthermore, I'm sure the handful of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Druids and whatever would be less than thrilled by state-sponsored Christianity.
-
It seems like those most strongly opposed to intertwining religion and government are those who are generally against religion, or do not consider themselves a member of the faith. I suppose that makes sense. What interests me more is if there are Christians who believe the government has no place in religion (the category I fall into).
There are quite a number of them, actually. I've been listening to back episodes of "The Atheist Experience" podcast (linked to in the Pascal's Wager thread) and have just finished the one about attempts by fundamentalists to co-opt the US military for their own ends.
It seems the people trying to theocratize the government are a minority (but very vocal and persistent) sect of Christians called Dominionists, and a good portion of their opposition are Christians who understand that any state-sponsored religion is unlikely to be the one that they themselves hold to, and that the best way to protect their own religious freedoms is to protect everybody's.
[EDIT]
Furthermore, I'm sure the handful of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Druids and whatever would be less than thrilled by state-sponsored Christianity.
Maybe "state sponsored Christianity" isn't the phrase I was looking for. More like "Christian inspired laws". For example, a town very near to the town in which I live just recently lifted their ban on alcohol. Just a few months ago it was a totally dry county. This is a religious inspired law. Same thing with abortion laws (and I do NOT want to turn this into a debate on abortion...I am just using this as a reference for laws based on religious belief). Same with state-mandated dress code in Iran.
I think that legislated religion is what I really have a problem with. Is someone really doing the right thing if they are afraid of going to jail instead of because of their own moral compass.
There are a lot of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc who would be against a Christian government, but would be all for a government of their own beliefs. I think any of the above are just as wrong as a Christian government, because of the religious legislation.
-
What interests me more is if there are Christians who believe the government has no place in religion (the category I fall into).
Theodore Roosevelt would be one example. He famously argued against putting "In God we trust" on coins in 1907 by saying:
My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege... it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.
This actually sums up his opinion on the matter pretty well: He doesn't seem to have known (or maybe: cared) if mixing religion and politics would have been bad for government, but he was adamant that it would be bad for Christianity.
The obvious question that any pro-theocracy Christian ought to ask themselves is: If Muslims (or Wiccans or Scientologists or Mormons or Catholics or Episcopalians) became a majority and took control of the government tomorrow, how much lattitude would you like them to have, when it comes to codifying their religion into law?
-
There are a lot of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc who would be against a Christian government, but would be all for a government of their own beliefs. I think any of the above are just as wrong as a Christian government, because of the religious legislation.
Which is exactly why anybody with any sense, regardless of their own beliefs, should oppose any government endorsement of religion. The state religion will not be your religion.
-
It seems like those most strongly opposed to intertwining religion and government are those who are generally against religion, or do not consider themselves a member of the faith. I suppose that makes sense. What interests me more is if there are Christians who believe the government has no place in religion (the category I fall into).
Lots and lots and lots. That category includes many of the Founding Fathers (who were a diverse lot who believed lots of different things). Many of the most devout among them were the most ardent supporters of the First Amendment; by keeping religion and government separate, they wanted to protect the former from intrusions by the latter. You might find this New Yorker review article (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2008/04/14/080414crat_atlarge_lepore) interesting.
-
I think that legislated religion is what I really have a problem with. Is someone really doing the right thing if they are afraid of going to jail instead of because of their own moral compass.
As another Christian, this is one of my biggest beef's with the idea of state-sponsored religion. Trying to force somebody into religion seems to pretty much fly in the face of the idea of belief. The idea of people being forced into some kind of religious discipline makes me a little sick to my stomach. It doesn't inspire faith. In fact, I'd argue that it's the polar opposite of faith, working against it in every way.
-
Jeez, it seems like almost everyone here agrees on something for once.
I'm a little weirded out...
-
Jeez, it seems like almost everyone here agrees on something for once.
I disagree.
-
Jeez, it seems like almost everyone here agrees on something for once.
I disagree.
Thank God! (that should get some more people riled up)
-
Trying to force somebody into religion seems to pretty much fly in the face of the idea of belief.
(You have to imagine me pointing at my nose and pointing at Dave at the same time here)
THAT'S IT! That's exactly it! The only other point I would make is that religion in government, in far too many cases, becomes an excuse, becomes something to hide legislation behind.
-
I'm surprised that no one pointed out the real flaw with Holden's original statement (eytanz tried, but didn't really get an answer):
4. The government would recognize God's existance and authority.
If he's truly a Libertarian, as he said elsewhere, that statement should strike Holden as singularly ridiculous. In Libertarianism (as I understand it) the rights of the individual are supreme and held above all else. The government has no right and no authority to "recognize" anything. As soon as the "government" begins to impose on the individuals it is supposed to be governing, it is no longer legitimate. And one of the most basic violations of my individual rights would be to force me to recognize the existence of something that clearly is not there.
But, if you want to be a dictator and force your belief on others, you certainly can do that in your little breakaway Shetland Island. The question remains: which flavour of God are you recognizing? And how do you determine which parts of the scripture have authority? Which don't? Whose interpretations of the Bible will you accept on behalf of your citizenry? And will they really believe, or will they just be paying lip service like all the sheep who answer that they believe in God in the Gallup Polls?
-
It's easy for us all to agree that a state-imposed religion is A Bad Idea. I love the way stePH put it: a state religion is not your religion. And like DKT said, state-mandated belief isn't belief at all.
But, as a Christian, i think understand what Holden is trying to say: he doesn't want to leave any guesswork to his countrymen about where he, as the Supreme Law Maker, stands on the whole issue of God.
I think that there have been some very good points made, though, about how government is an institution, only a utilitarian entity, and can no more be "Christian" that a chunk of plastic.
But can a government be constructed that doesn't align itself to a some kind of belief system? Don't the laws have to be based on what the ruler/body of rulers feel is right and wrong? If so, then wouldn't that mean that every government has to reference some sort of moral authority, even if that moral authority is What Is Considered Logical? I think i have my own answers for these questions pretty much sorted out already, but i'm posting this with an open mind because i'd like to hear what others think.
Perhaps by Holden stating that his government would acknowledge the existence of the Christian God, he's trying to say is that he is using the Bible as the moral authority upon which his government bases its laws, in which case some laws which can't "logically" be argued in a secular environment can have a basis in something in a religious environment.
-
But can a government be constructed that doesn't align itself to a some kind of belief system? Don't the laws have to be based on what the ruler/body of rulers feel is right and wrong? If so, then wouldn't that mean that every government has to reference some sort of moral authority, even if that moral authority is What Is Considered Logical? I think i have my own answers for these questions pretty much sorted out already, but i'm posting this with an open mind because i'd like to hear what others think.
Yes, I laws have to be based on the founding father(s) belief systems. But I don't think religion / belief in a supernatural entity is necessary to determine the laws.
Perhaps by Holden stating that his government would acknowledge the existence of the Christian God, he's trying to say is that he is using the Bible as the moral authority upon which his government bases its laws, in which case some laws which can't "logically" be argued in a secular environment can have a basis in something in a religious environment.
What part of the bible would he use? Which god would he based his laws on? The angry, catastrophe- happy, mass murderer Old Testament god; or, the more peaceful, forgiving, turn-the-other-cheek god? Base your government's laws on whatever text you want, I guess. I would argue that a secular set of common-sense laws would make more sense than the 2,000 y/o bible. The world was a different place back then.
-
Yes, I laws have to be based on the founding father(s) belief systems. But I don't think religion / belief in a supernatural entity is necessary to determine the laws.
In case it wasn't implicit in my text, let me clarify that I don't think so either. A moral authority doesn't have to be a supernatural thing.
What part of the bible would he use? Which god would he based his laws on? The angry, catastrophe- happy, mass murderer Old Testament god; or, the more peaceful, forgiving, turn-the-other-cheek god? Base your government's laws on whatever text you want, I guess. I would argue that a secular set of common-sense laws would make more sense than the 2,000 y/o bible. The world was a different place back then.
Note, i didn't say that this type of government wouldn't constantly be at odds determining how to interpret any given section of the Bible, but the same thing can be said for our country regarding parts of our Constitution. I think that may just be the nature of government.
-
Yes, I laws have to be based on the founding father(s) belief systems. But I don't think religion / belief in a supernatural entity is necessary to determine the laws.
In case it wasn't implicit in my text, let me clarify that I don't think so either. A moral authority doesn't have to be a supernatural thing.
Well, that's pretty much what I was going to add, so consider yourself clarified... "like butter", as my wife is fond of saying.
And since the thought experiment was "what would you do with your own country", it's not really fair to beat Holden up for not sticking to our interpretations of "the way things is". I think the general tenor of the thread should not be taken as "you can't base your laws on the Bible", but rather, "If you do that, I'm getting the heck out of Dodge!"
After all, even the Unitarians were too dogmatic and controlling for my taste. ;)
-
Something occurred to me yesterday while listening to back episodes of "The Atheist Experience" podcast:
The hosts of the show (I think it was Matt) brought up the subject of a family with an 11-year-old daughter suffering from diabetes. Rather than get her medical treatment, they trusted to God and simply prayed for her recovery.
She died.
The hosts were using this story as an illustration of the harm that religious convictions can do, but it got me thinking back to this thread, and other cases involving the government vs. a citizen's religious freedom. Jehovah's Witnesses are known to refuse blood transfusions for themselves and for their children even when it is the only thing that will save life. "Christian Scientists" eschew all medicine and rely solely on "faith" healing. (The host of the podcast mentioned Christian Science but did not, to my recollection, specify that the parents of the diabetic girl were of that belief.) As I understand, the US government does not force adult JWs or CSs to accept treatment but will intervene to save minor children of same. So apparently "absolute" religious freedom is not really absolute.
For the record, I do support state intervention in these cases -- it's fine for an adult to refuse life-saving treatment (though I personally think they're being stupid), but letting their children die is unconscionable.
-
But can a government be constructed that doesn't align itself to a some kind of belief system? Don't the laws have to be based on what the ruler/body of rulers feel is right and wrong? If so, then wouldn't that mean that every government has to reference some sort of moral authority, even if that moral authority is What Is Considered Logical? I think i have my own answers for these questions pretty much sorted out already, but i'm posting this with an open mind because i'd like to hear what others think.
A proper representitive government (by proper I mean a government that tries to reflect the will of the people) should always make laws that reflect the beliefs of the people. That is a blanket statement, so give me a second to qualify it.
In its broadest sense 99.99% of the population (there's always some hold out) will most likely be against murder. OK murder is illegal. 99.5% will say that planned revenge killings are still murder. Still illegal. As you go down the list, you get closer to 50%.
I'll choose abortion as an example (only because it is contentious issue that makes (IMHO) a good example, not because I'm trying to start an abortion debate). The legality of abortion in my mythical proper reprensentitive government needs to be decided by a cold evaluation of these numbers. The government can't use a Jesus/Mohammed/Abraham/Zues/Odin argument to make this decision, but the people should use whatever beliefs they have to decide on how to vote/announce their opinion. When a majority shows itself the government uses that to determine the laws. Thereby the beliefs of the people are reflected in the laws without the government having its own morals.
How you do this in the real world is, of course, the sticky part. I'm thinking a polling terminal in every house. Any citizen can go up to the terminal and register their opinion on a subject at any time. Retinal scan or thumb print would be used to determine who had just voted.
My constitution would say specifically that the people have the right to practice their religion, their way, as long as, they do not impose on others. This would need to be expanded to codify what that means, but I'm specifically writing in my constitution that going up to people on the street or in their homes to talk about religion is illegal. Advertise as much as you want, but you go to someone's door and you're doing community service.
Community service will be the main punishment in my nation. Cleaning up parks and sewage plants. Stuff like that. Wearing orange jumpsuits. Big lettering on the back will have their names and their crime. I could go on and on. In fact, I already have.
-
Something occurred to me yesterday while listening to back episodes of "The Atheist Experience" podcast:
The hosts of the show (I think it was Matt) brought up the subject of a family with an 11-year-old daughter suffering from diabetes. Rather than get her medical treatment, they trusted to God and simply prayed for her recovery.
She died.
The hosts were using this story as an illustration of the harm that religious convictions can do, but it got me thinking back to this thread, and other cases involving the government vs. a citizen's religious freedom. Jehovah's Witnesses are known to refuse blood transfusions for themselves and for their children even when it is the only thing that will save life. "Christian Scientists" eschew all medicine and rely solely on "faith" healing. (The host of the podcast mentioned Christian Science but did not, to my recollection, specify that the parents of the diabetic girl were of that belief.) As I understand, the US government does not force adult JWs or CSs to accept treatment but will intervene to save minor children of same. So apparently "absolute" religious freedom is not really absolute.
For the record, I do support state intervention in these cases -- it's fine for an adult to refuse life-saving treatment (though I personally think they're being stupid), but letting their children die is unconscionable.
Yeah, I remember that case. It ended with the family's other children being taken into care, so that if they tripped and broke a bone they'd have a chance of surviving.
As for "absolute religious freedom", I think (so far as medical treatment goes), you do have an absolute right to refuse any form of treatment for any reason, religious or otherwise; and if you don't consent, there's nothing a doctor can do. However, you don't have the right to force another person to forgo medical intervention because your religious beliefs forbid it; not even if they're your own child. That is to say, everyone gets to make up their own mind on the matter, but children aren't held to be competent to make such a decision, so we treat them as if they were not as insane as their parents.
-
A proper representitive government (by proper I mean a government that tries to reflect the will of the people) should always make laws that reflect the beliefs of the people. That is a blanket statement, so give me a second to qualify it.
In its broadest sense 99.99% of the population (there's always some hold out) will most likely be against murder. OK murder is illegal. 99.5% will say that planned revenge killings are still murder. Still illegal. As you go down the list, you get closer to 50%.
If more than 50% of the population believes that it's perfectly OK to not pay taxes (or at least claims that they do), how would you get the money to pay for the polling equipment?
Community service will be the main punishment in my nation. Cleaning up parks and sewage plants. Stuff like that. Wearing orange jumpsuits. Big lettering on the back will have their names and their crime. I could go on and on. In fact, I already have.
Why do you get to decide the penal system, instead of opening it up to the plebiscite? What if the majority favours death by Japanese game show?
-
Community service will be the main punishment in my nation. Cleaning up parks and sewage plants. Stuff like that. Wearing orange jumpsuits. Big lettering on the back will have their names and their crime. I could go on and on. In fact, I already have.
Why do you get to decide the penal system, instead of opening it up to the plebiscite? What if the majority favours death by Japanese game show?
Ooooh... sinister and diabolical! I love it!
-
A proper representitive government (by proper I mean a government that tries to reflect the will of the people) should always make laws that reflect the beliefs of the people. That is a blanket statement, so give me a second to qualify it.
In its broadest sense 99.99% of the population (there's always some hold out) will most likely be against murder. OK murder is illegal. 99.5% will say that planned revenge killings are still murder. Still illegal. As you go down the list, you get closer to 50%.
If more than 50% of the population believes that it's perfectly OK to not pay taxes (or at least claims that they do), how would you get the money to pay for the polling equipment?
[/quote]
If you had read my earier post, you would know that my country will be set up as a corporate tax haven. There's more than enough money in that to run my government. No taxes in my country. :)
Community service will be the main punishment in my nation. Cleaning up parks and sewage plants. Stuff like that. Wearing orange jumpsuits. Big lettering on the back will have their names and their crime. I could go on and on. In fact, I already have.
Why do you get to decide the penal system, instead of opening it up to the plebiscite? What if the majority favours death by Japanese game show?
My court rules that to be cruel and unusual punishment. I will still have a court that can strike down laws, even if the people want the law. Since laws are about restricting freedom, my courts can only make the country freer. (Don't have the time to spell check that. It just looks wrong though).
-
A proper representitive government (by proper I mean a government that tries to reflect the will of the people) should always make laws that reflect the beliefs of the people. That is a blanket statement, so give me a second to qualify it.
In its broadest sense 99.99% of the population (there's always some hold out) will most likely be against murder. OK murder is illegal. 99.5% will say that planned revenge killings are still murder. Still illegal. As you go down the list, you get closer to 50%.
If more than 50% of the population believes that it's perfectly OK to not pay taxes (or at least claims that they do), how would you get the money to pay for the polling equipment?
If you had read my earier post, you would know that my country will be set up as a corporate tax haven. There's more than enough money in that to run my government. No taxes in my country. :)
OK, so companies settle in your nation because they don't have to pay taxes, and they employ lots of people, and the economy booms. But that isn't actually a revenue stream for the government.
Will you pay for public services by selling commemorative fridge magnets? Will you have state-owned companies (and what will that do to competition in that sector)? Will you hire Pussy Galore to steal all the gold out of Fort Knox?
-
If more than 50% of the population believes that it's perfectly OK to not pay taxes (or at least claims that they do), how would you get the money to pay for the polling equipment?
I know this is all fun and games :), but i have to ask: so if 51% of your population is FOR something, and the other 49% is against, you'll just pretty much screw over half of your country. Is that okay? Or, what if a third option presents itself, and the population is fairly evenly divided in thirds? What then?
Just curious. ;D
-
If more than 50% of the population believes that it's perfectly OK to not pay taxes (or at least claims that they do), how would you get the money to pay for the polling equipment?
I know this is all fun and games :), but i have to ask: so if 51% of your population is FOR something, and the other 49% is against, you'll just pretty much screw over half of your country. Is that okay? Or, what if a third option presents itself, and the population is fairly evenly divided in thirds? What then?
Just curious. ;D
The same thing that happens in a representative democracy: tyranny by majority vote.
-
I'm beginning to understand the 2/3rds majority vote, now.
-
A proper representitive government (by proper I mean a government that tries to reflect the will of the people) should always make laws that reflect the beliefs of the people. That is a blanket statement, so give me a second to qualify it.
In its broadest sense 99.99% of the population (there's always some hold out) will most likely be against murder. OK murder is illegal. 99.5% will say that planned revenge killings are still murder. Still illegal. As you go down the list, you get closer to 50%.
If more than 50% of the population believes that it's perfectly OK to not pay taxes (or at least claims that they do), how would you get the money to pay for the polling equipment?
If you had read my earier post, you would know that my country will be set up as a corporate tax haven. There's more than enough money in that to run my government. No taxes in my country. :)
OK, so companies settle in your nation because they don't have to pay taxes, and they employ lots of people, and the economy booms. But that isn't actually a revenue stream for the government.
Will you pay for public services by selling commemorative fridge magnets? Will you have state-owned companies (and what will that do to competition in that sector)? Will you hire Pussy Galore to steal all the gold out of Fort Knox?
Corporations are so highly taxed in most of the world that you create a tax haven for them by having low taxes not no taxes. Since my country will be small, the taxes can be very low.
Also may statements were with regard to the morals of the country. Taxation is an entirely different topic. In others words if we need to pluck the goose a bit, we'll do it, but in a way that creates the least amount of squawking. (Do geese squawk?) I would start with property, import and carbon taxes. Basically the more you consume, especially high-end, the more you pay.
-
If more than 50% of the population believes that it's perfectly OK to not pay taxes (or at least claims that they do), how would you get the money to pay for the polling equipment?
I know this is all fun and games :), but i have to ask: so if 51% of your population is FOR something, and the other 49% is against, you'll just pretty much screw over half of your country. Is that okay? Or, what if a third option presents itself, and the population is fairly evenly divided in thirds? What then?
Just curious. ;D
Changed the quote credit back to wintermute.
When you get to things that are so in the middle, it's really a difficult question. Obviously you can't go flip-flopping back and forth everytime the split goes between 50.0001% in favor and 49.999% in favor. Maybe you need 2/3 to change something once it's in force. Maybe there should be a review of laws every five years.
This system was never intended for things like driving regulations and building codes. That's stuff that should be decided by professionals looking at data. This is for things like gun laws, abortion, and things folk call morals.
My big point was to try and remove folks who use god as a vote getting tool and who try to use stupid wedge issues. There are people who will vote against all of their interests just because someone says they're for/against abortion. More than a few former political advisors have said on NPR that the parties don't ever want the abortion issue settled, because that's one of the issues that really rile up their bases and drive fund-raising.
-
More than a few former political advisors have said on NPR that the parties don't ever want the abortion issue settled, because that's one of the issues that really rile up their bases and drive fund-raising.
By "settled" you mean "getting everyone in the country to agree on a single position", right? Because I'm pretty sure that's never going to happen, regardless of what politicians want.
-
More than a few former political advisors have said on NPR that the parties don't ever want the abortion issue settled, because that's one of the issues that really rile up their bases and drive fund-raising.
By "settled" you mean "getting everyone in the country to agree on a single position", right? Because I'm pretty sure that's never going to happen, regardless of what politicians want.
I think (whether he knows it or not ;) ) he means "settled" as in "willing to compromise on the rhetoric". It's one of the only issues that can really be said to have only two sides - for or against. If both sides admitted that the other side had valid concerns, and focused on helping women who end up facing that extremely uncomfortable decision, it's actually pretty workable.
But it's a lot more exciting to spend time, energy, and money calling each other fascists and killers than it is to spend time, energy, and money providing adequate counselling, health care, and services to women and babies.
(Sorry if that sounds snarky, but I've been involved in one side or the other in this fight for the last - Holy Crap! - 25 years. Not as an activist, mind, just incidentally to the rest of my life.)
-
More than a few former political advisors have said on NPR that the parties don't ever want the abortion issue settled, because that's one of the issues that really rile up their bases and drive fund-raising.
By "settled" you mean "getting everyone in the country to agree on a single position", right? Because I'm pretty sure that's never going to happen, regardless of what politicians want.
I think (whether he knows it or not ;) ) he means "settled" as in "willing to compromise on the rhetoric". It's one of the only issues that can really be said to have only two sides - for or against. If both sides admitted that the other side had valid concerns, and focused on helping women who end up facing that extremely uncomfortable decision, it's actually pretty workable.
But it's a lot more exciting to spend time, energy, and money calling each other fascists and killers than it is to spend time, energy, and money providing adequate counselling, health care, and services to women and babies.
(Sorry if that sounds snarky, but I've been involved in one side or the other in this fight for the last - Holy Crap! - 25 years. Not as an activist, mind, just incidentally to the rest of my life.)
I meant having the supreme court make a ruling and then not having politicians in different parts of the country trying to wriggle around the meaning of the ruling. Just having a set of rules that are the law and moving on.
-
I meant having the supreme court make a ruling and then not having politicians in different parts of the country trying to wriggle around the meaning of the ruling. Just having a set of rules that are the law and moving on.
Good luck with that... wriggling is what attorney-Tiggers do best!
-
I meant having the supreme court make a ruling and then not having politicians in different parts of the country trying to wriggle around the meaning of the ruling. Just having a set of rules that are the law and moving on.
Well, we're halfway there, at least.
-
I meant having the supreme court make a ruling and then not having politicians in different parts of the country trying to wriggle around the meaning of the ruling. Just having a set of rules that are the law and moving on.
Good luck with that... wriggling is what attorney-Tiggers do best!
My orignal point was that it will never happening, because niether side wants it.
-
That depends on what you mean by "sides", I think. It seems to me that the majority of pro-choice activists are OK with the current compromise, and are mainly concerned with making sure it doesn't get overturned by the pro-life activists. Obviously, there are people who won't be happy until every conceivable abortion is legal, but the ones who are actually willing to fight for that seem comparatively rare.
-
That depends on what you mean by "sides", I think. It seems to me that the majority of pro-choice activists are OK with the current compromise, and are mainly concerned with making sure it doesn't get overturned by the pro-life activists. Obviously, there are people who won't be happy until every conceivable abortion is legal, but the ones who are actually willing to fight for that seem comparatively rare.
If you also read my original post, you'll know I was talking ybout the political parties. Everytime one side makes a move, both sides benefit from donations.