God and Government (split from "Tie in with EP163: Revolution Time")

[Darwinist]

Jeez, it seems like almost everyone here agrees on something for once.

I disagree.

[Chodon]

Jeez, it seems like almost everyone here agrees on something for once.

I disagree.

Thank God! (that should get some more people riled up)

[Alasdair5000]

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. 

[Tango Alpha Delta]

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?

[birdless]

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.

[Darwinist]

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. 

[birdless]

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.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

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. 

[stePH]

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.

[Russell Nash]

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.

[wintermute]

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.

[wintermute]

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?

[Tango Alpha Delta]

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!

[Russell Nash]

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).

[wintermute]

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?

[birdless]

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.

[Chodon]

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.

The same thing that happens in a representative democracy: tyranny by majority vote.

[birdless]

I'm beginning to understand the 2/3rds majority vote, now.

[Russell Nash]

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. 

[Russell Nash]

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.

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.

[wintermute]

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.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

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.)

[Russell Nash]

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.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

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!

[wintermute]

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.