PDA

View Full Version : Religion(s) and the state?



Anthropos
10-21-2009, 01:09 PM
Take the poll, state your opinion and please discuss!

Please do also state what alternative, after your observations, prevails in your country, what the de facto state of things are in your opinion i.e.

The poll has a Western/Christian bias, but there are alternatives for everyone.

Murphy
10-21-2009, 01:19 PM
(5.) The state should be governed by Christianity. (The state should be governed by metaphysical principles and their applications. Freedom of religion should prevail. The state should favour Christianity in matters of law and custom.)

Regards,
Eóin.

Anthropos
10-21-2009, 01:25 PM
(5.) The state should be governed by Christianity. (The state should be governed by metaphysical principles and their applications. Freedom of religion should prevail. The state should favour Christianity in matters of law and custom.)

Regards,
Eóin.

Thanks, and what is the prevailing order in Scotland as we speak, the prevailing relationship between religions and the state? This is not a trick question, I just think that it is interesting to discuss that along with the normative question.

Lulletje Rozewater
10-21-2009, 01:37 PM
State and Religion should be separate

In 1773, the Rev. Isaac Backus , the most prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

The Godless Constitution

The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to understand the difference.


Religion is not the problem. Interference is, such as Paul and Constantine and the Popes and obviously the translations of the Bible.

ikki
10-21-2009, 01:39 PM
Trial by combat.
Sacrifices to the gods, like giant blots.
Local democracy of council eldars.
That only cattle and silver be considered money.
Ultimate freedom, and thus rulers retain loyalty of the tribe members by gifting... in a tradition leading to ring-giving.
Fertility rituals etc.. (sought after position of the fair maiden of earth, men compete.. and the winner marries her.. and with their fruitful coupling... so will the earth be bountiful)

http://www.poppyware.com/dunham/ralios/vinga.html :p

Murphy
10-21-2009, 01:46 PM
Thanks, and what is the prevailing order in Scotland as we speak, the prevailing relationship between religions and the state? This is not a trick question, I just think that it is interesting to discuss that along with the normative question.

This is an interesting question. One I do not have much opportunity to discuss due to no one really caring :p.

In Scotland, both the Catholic and Protestants don't really observe their respective faiths. Being Catholic and being Protestant is simply a social identity and determines more what football (soccer) team you are going to support than whether you're going to Heaven or Hell.

Most Protestants I would think are more loyal to the Orange Order than the Church of Scotland or Free Church of Scotland etc.

As things stand on the political scene, religion and state clash over the issue of Scottish independence as has been shown in another thread on the Orange Order. The hierarchies aren't very vocal on the issue, this is more stemming from the laity with Protestants being more likely to vote Unionist but still with an increasing number for Independence. Catholic's are pretty much pro-Independence because of the connections with Ireland.

The Church of Scotland has baisically went the way as other Protestant sects i.e. homosexual clergy.

The Catholic Church in Scotland isn't as bad as other places I must admit. There are a few crazy parishes that are more American Evangelical than Catholic—one such parish being just around the corner from me—but for the most part it is rather conservative with a few outspoken Bishops on issues such as Stem Cell research etc.

So Christianity is still a social factor in Scotland but not as we would expect.

The Mohammedan population is steadily growing, and many areas in Glasgow are simply not safe due to this. The government of course welcomes their contribution.

Regards,
Eóin.

anonymaus
10-21-2009, 02:01 PM
State and Religion should be separate

In 1773, the Rev. Isaac Backus , the most prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

This. Any religionists wishing for state sponsorship of religion may enjoy the inevitable bloodshed in a country other than mine.

Psychonaut
10-21-2009, 02:43 PM
Thomas Jefferson said it best:


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Anthropos
10-21-2009, 02:47 PM
(4.) The state should be governed by metaphysical principles & applications insofar as shared between the great traditions. Freedom of religion should prevail and the state should keep with a neutral point of view of different religions. Customs of different religions should be accomodated, but it is not the responsibility of the state to provide for them.



As for this question ...


Please do also state what alternative, after your observations, prevails in your country, what the de facto state of things are in your opinion i.e.

... it is my opinion that Sweden is governed according to alternative number 6, with some exceptions. There are tendencies toward a directly anti-religious state of things (in accordance with alternative number 2). If I am not mistaken, religious symbols have already been banned from schools. Christian intellectuals are scorned by the intellectual 'elites' in government and media. Leaders of the Church of Sweden are basically errandboys (and -girls) for secular politicians. There is no consciental clause that would allow for doctors to refuse to perform abortions. In other words, Sweden is a clear cut case of the state giving directions to religious institutions (insofar as they can, i.e.) rather than the other way around.

Lars
10-21-2009, 02:58 PM
Freedom of/from religion should be applied everywhere.
State and religion must be separated.
The state must be neutral.

Which excludes the following:
Special treatment and endorsement of religion of the government.
The notion that clergymen have special authority in moral, ethical, and brotherly love.

(I voted 3. but I do not agree with being neutral when it comes to science, how can you? That's not like taking a stand in politics or in a discussion. Science is knowledge, not a belief system. Evidence, not faith).

Lutiferre
10-21-2009, 03:02 PM
I am most sympathetic to options 4 and 5.

Option 4 makes sense in general, for all societies, except the part about complete neutrality. Neutrality is a myth.

(4.) The state should be governed by metaphysical principles & applications insofar as shared between the great traditions. Freedom of religion should prevail and the state should keep with a neutral point of view of different religions. Customs of different religions should be accomodated, but it is not the responsibility of the state to provide for them.

Option 5 makes sense for a Christian society, with the correction that the state should be governed by Christian persons with the following ideals and ways of thinking to the extent that it is possible (since Christianity is not a state ideology).

(5.) The state should be governed by Christianity. (The state should be governed by metaphysical principles and their applications. Freedom of religion should prevail. The state should favour Christianity in matters of law and custom.)

But in any case, I would be sympathetic to local rather than centralized and models, given the condition of modern society. Decentralization would be the most ideal way to deconstruct modernity (in my mind).

It makes little sense, in any case, for there to be a "Christian government" for a non-Christian world and society. It would not be solid, and would be dismantled before long, and would if anything damage Christianity.

Besides, I think any absolute claim of a Christian (worldly) government ideology/structure is dubious. There can only be Christian governers who attempt to live up to the Christian ideal, there is not one absolute Christian worldly government, since Christianity, as I said, is not a state ideology like Marxism. Which is also why I think Christian government in general has to be a rather dynamic concept, which perhaps depends more on a personality (a king?) than any impersonal and exhaustive state doctrine like communism or libertarianism.

Tabiti
10-21-2009, 03:14 PM
(3.) Freedom of religion should prevail in public spaces. The state should keep with a neutral point of view, neutral to religions as well as to secular philosophies (the philosophy of science included).
However, there should be institutions to prevent any dangerous religious movements and fanatics, which threaten the society and state.

Loxias
10-21-2009, 03:14 PM
I am still not sure whether I believe in the goods of a big government or not.
I think the ancient Greek system of independent cities united by culture and religion would be more ideal. The local government would focus mainly on affairs pertaining to the city, while religious and cultural systems would be more independent, not influenced by local politics, and actually more important.
I voted 3, but without big convictions. As, I realise there is always a degree to which ethical choices by the institutions will be influenced by a school of thought, be it secular or religious. 4 Might have been better in retrospect.

Eldritch
10-21-2009, 03:32 PM
Mixing religion and politics is a recipe for disaster.

No church or any other religious organisation should receive any funding from the state, or be allowed any say in running the country.

People can adhere to any religion they want to as far as I'm concerned, but they need to to fund their own churches themselves, and not try to shove their beliefs down the throat of others.

Anthropos
10-21-2009, 04:28 PM
Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

The whole idea of restoring "to man all his natural rights" needs to be clarified. Please specify what those "natural rights" are, and provide reason that they are indeed natural and indeed rights, and demonstrate that they have in fact existed in history as effective rights. That is what must necessarily be explained and demonstrated in order that the phrase "to restore to man all his natural rights" should have any meaning.

Also, in your opinion, what is the state of things, the relation between religions and the state (or federal government) in the USA (assuming that is your country)?

asulf
10-21-2009, 05:05 PM
For my part ,the old tribal system of our ancestors seemed fairer, more equitable for the clan.
no religious interactions of different faiths as we see aujourd camera with the powers that be.
a fairer justice, which recognize the damage suffered by victims.
or the religions of our ancestors in their place as social glue, and guardian of some ethics and, not the tools or the event of wanting to serve the power of some at the expense of the masses.
emphasize the mutual, and not the assistantship with his family.
a truly human society and for nature

Anthropos
10-21-2009, 06:05 PM
Mixing religion and politics is a recipe for disaster.

No church or any other religious organisation should receive any funding from the state, or be allowed any say in running the country.

People can adhere to any religion they want to as far as I'm concerned, but they need to to fund their own churches themselves, and not try to shove their beliefs down the throat of others.

I believe that you have misunderstood the question. The issue of funding does not come into any of the alternatives. (They were in fact formulated assuming no funding.)

As far as "allowing any say" is concerned, you misunderstood the question again. The question concerns government policy, just as it is explicitly stated. Straightforward theocracy, where 'religious organisations' would play a part, is not implied in any of the alternatives. Thus, when it is said in one of the alternatives that "the state should be governed by Christianity", it is still government policy that is intended and nothing else. In case of any doubt, allow me to clarify that "Christianity", for the purposes of the poll, should be understood as a doctrine, and not as an institution. I do believe that I have used the most suitable terminology available, since the institution could be referred to with less ambiguity as "the Church". I am sure that a lot of voters will not take time to read the poll even as it stands, and some possibilities were deliberately excluded. There is also a limit, in the board software, on the number of characters for each alternative.

Anthropos
10-21-2009, 06:20 PM
Freedom of/from religion should be applied everywhere.
State and religion must be separated.
The state must be neutral.

Which excludes the following:
Special treatment and endorsement of religion of the government.
The notion that clergymen have special authority in moral, ethical, and brotherly love.As I just explained, none of that comes into any alternative of the poll as stated. (See the post directly preceeding this one for a full explanation.)


(I voted 3. but I do not agree with being neutral when it comes to science, how can you? That's not like taking a stand in politics or in a discussion. Science is knowledge, not a belief system. Evidence, not faith).

I assume that you are talking about material evidence. None of the alternatives in the poll suggest that we should ignore scientific knowledge. Furthermore, it must be understood that evidence of that kind is not normative. Its bearing, if any, on government policy, is indeterminate.

Thulsa Doom
10-21-2009, 07:53 PM
... it is my opinion that Sweden is governed according to alternative number 6, with some exceptions.

In my view this analysis is correct historically, and that "option 6" is what I voted for.



There are tendencies toward a directly anti-religious state of things (in accordance with alternative number 2). If I am not mistaken, religious symbols have already been banned from schools. Christian intellectuals are scorned by the intellectual 'elites' in government and media. Leaders of the Church of Sweden are basically errandboys (and -girls) for secular politicians. There is no consciental clause that would allow for doctors to refuse to perform abortions. In other words, Sweden is a clear cut case of the state giving directions to religious institutions (insofar as they can, i.e.) rather than the other way around.

After the resent separation of church and state the church of Sweden has gone for a more spiritual direction and the state has become more liberalized.
Sweden is in my POV moving toward a more decadent anglo-american system.

Anthropos
10-21-2009, 09:25 PM
After the resent separation of church and state the church of Sweden has gone for a more spiritual direction and the state has become more liberalized.

Hejsan, Thulsa Doom. :)

We'll see what happens, but my impression is that the so-called separation was mostly effected as a way of further diminishing the church organisation's influence on society,

(a.) by revising the membership procedures, something that already led to a marked decline in the membership (and I can add that as far as that is concerned I have nothing much to object), and

(b.) by making sure that the church organisation, the Church of Sweden (Svenska kyrkan), is still controlled by a democratic system that is dominated by secularist political parties. (One can indeed wonder if the current situation is really one in which church and state are separated. I think that's not quite the case.)




Sweden is in my POV moving toward a more decadent anglo-american system.

Alright... Do you mean that church and state should really be directly aligned with each other, for the sake of strengthening Swedish culture? Is it a state church that you advocate? I assume that the state should have a final say then, about church matters (as it was until year 2000)? Do you also support the democratic organisation of the Church of Sweden?

Thulsa Doom
10-21-2009, 10:40 PM
Alright... Do you mean that church and state should really be directly aligned with each other, for the sake of strengthening Swedish culture? Is it a state church that you advocate? I assume that the state should have a final say then, about church matters (as it was until year 2000)? Do you also support the democratic organisation of the Church of Sweden?

As I see it religion is the value system that the historical societies is built on.
When nationalism rose to power it incorporated the Lutheran church as a cornerstone in its ideology, and the church was adapted to that symbiosis.
And finally in the 19th century Democracy was built upon Nationalistic ideas.
So if you remove the ethical foundations and nationalistic ideas from the state, the base for democracy is gone. Basically there is a need for a common ground.
The layout of the organization is not that important. Important is that church is aligned with the state, and that the state is the superior part.

Sorry for my Swenglish.

Anthropos
10-21-2009, 10:49 PM
As I see it religion is the value system that the historical societies is built on.
When nationalism rose to power it incorporated the Lutheran church as a cornerstone in its ideology, and the church was adapted to that symbiosis.
And finally in the 19th century Democracy was built upon Nationalistic ideas.
So if you remove the ethical foundations and nationalistic ideas from the state, the base for democracy is gone. Basically there is a need for a common ground.
The layout of the organization is not that important. Important is that church is aligned with the state, and that the state is the superior part.
Okay. You don't think that such an organisation may affect the church badly (I think that is in fact what happened to as good as all state churches), and that as a consequence the civilising power of religion may be lost?

Thulsa Doom
10-21-2009, 11:04 PM
Okay. You don't think that such an organisation may affect the church badly (I think that is in fact what happened to as good as all state churches), and that as a consequence the civilising power of religion may be lost?

All churches has problem with declining interest, religion is in decline. The Swedish church needs to reconnect with the local parishes, e.g be the number one option for the locals.

chap
10-21-2009, 11:07 PM
8) progress beyond the state toward voluntary society.

Hrolf Kraki
10-21-2009, 11:10 PM
8) progress beyond the state toward voluntary society.

Sounds intriguing. Can you elaborate?

Anthropos
10-21-2009, 11:14 PM
8) progress beyond the state toward voluntary society.

A communitarian idea?

Psychonaut
10-22-2009, 04:43 AM
The whole idea of restoring "to man all his natural rights" needs to be clarified. Please specify what those "natural rights" are, and provide reason that they are indeed natural and indeed rights, and demonstrate that they have in fact existed in history as effective rights. That is what must necessarily be explained and demonstrated in order that the phrase "to restore to man all his natural rights" should have any meaning.

That's a bit outside of this thread's purview, right? ;) I think it'll suffice to say that an examination of the alleged natural rights of man should take place, by and large, in secular terms and should not rely on any religion to prop it up. It must stand on its own as an idea.


Also, in your opinion, what is the state of things, the relation between religions and the state (or federal government) in the USA (assuming that is your country)?

I find that the state generally keeps it's nose out of religion. I'm a member of an odd religion and I've never been subject to any discrimination by the government due to it, nor have I witnessed such things happening. When I see groups like the ACLU protesting separation of church and state issues, it's usually something dumb like a cross in part of an old government building's architecture.

SwordoftheVistula
10-22-2009, 06:05 AM
I voted for '3', but in some ways am inclined towards '6'. A general hands off approach to religion, not supporting or accomodating it but permitting it. No special rules, if the school has a 'no hats' policy, and your religion mandates you wear a hat at all times, you either remove your hat or find somewhere elso to go. Also, 'freedom of religion' should extend to the right to discrimminate in private life, if you run a restaurant and don't want to hire or serve muslims, that should be your right.


Also, in your opinion, what is the state of things, the relation between religions and the state (or federal government) in the USA (assuming that is your country)?

A mix between 3,4, and 6. Officially there is 'seperation of church and state', but there is much mandatory accomodation of religious minorities in many areas, such as allowing jews and muslims to wear their hats when others are forbidden to do so. Some religious minorities are 'more equal' than others, for example jews can have 6-pointed starts on their military grave arkers but wiccans can't have 5-pointed stars on theirs. Religious symbols are generally forbidden from display in public places including schools, but they have made some bizarre determinations on what is a 'religious symbol'; for example deciding that a menorah is a 'cultural symbol' and therefore allowed for display in public, while a christmas tree is a 'christian religious symbol' and may not be displayed in public places.



I think the ancient Greek system of independent cities united by culture and religion would be more ideal.

That's something I generally prefer as well. It bothers me much less if a rural town hall has a cross on it than if Christianity is imposed over the entire country.

Eldritch
10-22-2009, 06:12 AM
The issue of funding does not come into any of the alternatives. (They were in fact formulated assuming no funding.)



I realise that it doesn't, but should that prohibit me from commenting on it? My second biggest beef with Finland's Evangelical Lutheran Church is that it receives (undeserved) funding from the state.

[the first one being their gutless, quasi-agnostic dhimmitude]


As far as "allowing any say" is concerned, you misunderstood the question again. The question concerns government policy, just as it is explicitly stated. Straightforward theocracy, where 'religious organisations' would play a part, is not implied in any of the alternatives. Thus, when it is said in one of the alternatives that "the state should be governed by Christianity", it is still government policy that is intended and nothing else. In case of any doubt, allow me to clarify that "Christianity", for the purposes of the poll, should be understood as a doctrine, and not as an institution. I do believe that I have used the most suitable terminology available, since the institution could be referred to with less ambiguity as "the Church". I am sure that a lot of voters will not take time to read the poll even as it stands, and some possibilities were deliberately excluded. There is also a limit, in the board software, on the number of characters for each alternative

None of the options seemed very appealing to me, so I chose "other", and explained how I see things, that's all. This isn't a high-priority issue for me, and I don't really spend much time thinking about it.

Lulletje Rozewater
10-22-2009, 06:58 AM
(4.) The state should be governed by metaphysical principles & applications insofar as shared between the great traditions. Freedom of religion should prevail and the state should keep with a neutral point of view of different religions. Customs of different religions should be accomodated, but it is not the responsibility of the state to provide for them.



As for this question ...



... it is my opinion that Sweden is governed according to alternative number 6, with some exceptions. There are tendencies toward a directly anti-religious state of things (in accordance with alternative number 2). If I am not mistaken, religious symbols have already been banned from schools. Christian intellectuals are scorned by the intellectual 'elites' in government and media. Leaders of the Church of Sweden are basically errandboys (and -girls) for secular politicians. There is no consciental clause that would allow for doctors to refuse to perform abortions. In other words, Sweden is a clear cut case of the state giving directions to religious institutions (insofar as they can, i.e.) rather than the other way around.

Sweden is one country that adheres to an Atheistic view and quite rightly so
BUT BUT BUT
what is their view on non white immigrants ?????

Anthropos
10-22-2009, 08:54 AM
That's a bit outside of this thread's purview, right? ;) I think it'll suffice to say that an examination of the alleged natural rights of man should take place, by and large, in secular terms and should not rely on any religion to prop it up. It must stand on its own as an idea.

I think it is pretty obvious that TJ's statement was solely political, and that there is no historical or philosophical basis for it whatsoever. That's my point, and I think it's entirely within the bounds of the subject matter.

Let's say that religions did help support the civilisations that are known to us, and that they played a vital part in making those civilisations come into being in the first place. It's not such an unfounded statement, in my opinion. Then what reason do we have to think that something that is merely the invention of individuals, an idea of "rights", without any foundation, could replace religion as the carrier of a civilisation? These secular states have not existed for long, and they are already getting tired.




I find that the state generally keeps it's nose out of religion. I'm a member of an odd religion and I've never been subject to any discrimination by the government due to it, nor have I witnessed such things happening. When I see groups like the ACLU protesting separation of church and state issues, it's usually something dumb like a cross in part of an old government building's architecture.

Thanks for explaining that to me.

And I'd like to add that I am myself in favour of freedom of religion. To me, this question is not (so much) about individual rights, but rather about what it takes for a civilisation to survive.

Absinthe
10-22-2009, 11:24 AM
I hope I ticked the right option (3)... :)

For me, the State and the Church(es) should not interfere with each other.

Politics and religion are two different things. I am also opposed to catechism in schools. Everyone can send their kids to Sunday school if they wish. :)

I am not opposed to people being religious in whatever manner they wish, but I am opposed to anyone trying to impose one's religion on to others.

Skandi
10-22-2009, 03:17 PM
4.) The state should be governed by metaphysical principles & applications insofar as shared between the great traditions. Freedom of religion should prevail and the state should keep with a neutral point of view of different religions. Customs of different religions should be accomodated, but it is not the responsibility of the state to provide for them.

total separation of religion and state. hence I voted other.

Psychonaut
10-22-2009, 04:20 PM
I think it is pretty obvious that TJ's statement was solely political, and that there is no historical or philosophical basis for it whatsoever. That's my point, and I think it's entirely within the bounds of the subject matter.

Let's say that religions did help support the civilisations that are known to us, and that they played a vital part in making those civilisations come into being in the first place. It's not such an unfounded statement, in my opinion. Then what reason do we have to think that something that is merely the invention of individuals, an idea of "rights", without any foundation, could replace religion as the carrier of a civilisation? These secular states have not existed for long, and they are already getting tired.

I'm not of the same opinion of the Founding Fathers that "natural rights" are either truly natural nor are they universal. I think that they are only capable of existing within the bounds of an intentionally created ideational system that is specifically designed to foster these rights and protect them from barbarians both within and without. They are pure fictions (in Vaihinger's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vaihinger) sense), but they are among the most marvelous fictions ever conceived.

Anthropos
10-22-2009, 06:11 PM
I'm not of the same opinion of the Founding Fathers that "natural rights" are either truly natural nor are they universal. I think that they are only capable of existing within the bounds of an intentionally created ideational system that is specifically designed to foster these rights and protect them from barbarians both within and without. They are pure fictions (in Vaihinger's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Vaihinger) sense), but they are among the most marvelous fictions ever conceived.

Those views are experimental, and they used for guinea-pigs all the little knowing but respectable peoples of Europe already. What I cannot accept is that wishy-washy fictions should be able to play a role equivalent or even similar, in any way, to that of truths: it is quite simply impossible. What I cannot respect at all is when some people, like Thomas Jefferson in this case, impose such fictions on an entire nation or continent in a huge experiment. The barbarians in an account of history that I would agree on, if barbarians need to be mentioned, are the experimenters.

Anthropos
10-22-2009, 06:18 PM
total separation of religion and state. hence I voted other.

What history should schools teach? What laws should legislators make? Etc.

Why didn't you take option number 2?

anonymaus
10-22-2009, 06:21 PM
What history should schools teach?

Separate education from state--and economics.

***

The ideal consequence of respecting individual rights, whether or not one believes them fictional, is the dismantling of any apparatus of state which directly interferes with individual moral decisions; separating religion, economics, education from state influence as well as stripping gov't of its power to control roads, resources, marriage, and ultimately their ability to force taxation on the populace.

Psychonaut said, "...the bounds of an intentionally created ideational system that is specifically designed to foster these rights and protect them from barbarians both within and without."

And the government's job thence becomes just that.

Anthropos
10-22-2009, 06:24 PM
Thanks, Anonymaus. :) But I do feel that you need to spend a little bit more time and effort communicating your ideas. :wink

Psychonaut
10-22-2009, 07:45 PM
Those views are experimental, and they used for guinea-pigs all the little knowing but respectable peoples of Europe already. What I cannot accept is that wishy-washy fictions should be able to play a role equivalent or even similar, in any way, to that of truths: it is quite simply impossible. What I cannot respect at all is when some people, like Thomas Jefferson in this case, impose such fictions on an entire nation or continent in a huge experiment. The barbarians in an account of history that I would agree on, if barbarians need to be mentioned, are the experimenters.

First, America is an experiment. It always has been. Second, fictions, in Vaihinger's sense of the term, are anything but "wishy-washy." The fictionalist would respond that most (or possibly all) of what you consider truth is, in actuality, a highly (but not completely) consistent fiction.

Anthropos
10-22-2009, 08:41 PM
First, America is an experiment. It always has been. Second, fictions, in Vaihinger's sense of the term, are anything but "wishy-washy." The fictionalist would respond that most (or possibly all) of what you consider truth is, in actuality, a highly (but not completely) consistent fiction.

It's not the first time that I heard of that same idea. Those fictionalists simply don't know the difference between (principial) truth and fiction. :) There's no point in us debating that any further, though.

European empires and nations however, were not experiments originally. They became experiments roughly at the time when democracy (or, in some areas, socialism or communism) was introduced. By the way, I might as well go one step further in advance. I cannot think of a single case in which 'democracy' was introduced because it was the will of the demos. That should be food for thought.

And in order to link this discussion back to the subject matter of the thread, allow me to make yet one remark, or rather to ask all of you a question: What could be a better excuse for inventing the chaos that is the modern secular state (what is in fact the same thing as the egalitarian, rootless, multiculturalist state) , with a ridiculously bureaucratic organisation and a legal apparatus so easy for this or that 'elite' to manipulate, than the promise, to those who will subjected to such an arbitrary organisation of their home land, that thus they will gain 'freedom'?

safinator
02-25-2012, 07:39 PM
Freedom of religion should prevail in public spaces. The state should keep with a neutral point of view, neutral to religions as well as to secular philosophies (the philosophy of science included).

Leliana
02-29-2012, 12:06 PM
'(5.) The state should be governed by Christianity. (The state should be governed by metaphysical principles and their applications. Freedom of religion should prevail. The state should favour Christianity in matters of law and custom.)'

This, but I'd add that freedom of religion should be consequently restricted for all people of Muslim faith because such an antagonistic ideology and pseudo-religion is incompatible with everything we are. It's not a religion and doesn't fall under freedom of religion.

Flintlocke
02-29-2012, 12:13 PM
(7.) The state should be heathenised. Christian ideals of love your enemy and turn the other cheek must be rooted out, inequality should be recognized and everyone should have his place in a hierarchical way, aggression warlike spirit and militancy will be glorified instead of condemned.

http://www.crystalinks.com/marsstatue.jpg

Teyrn
02-29-2012, 01:15 PM
Voted for #4:

(4.) The state should be governed by metaphysical principles & applications insofar as shared between the great traditions. Freedom of religion should prevail and the state should keep with a neutral point of view of different religions. Customs of different religions should be accomodated, but it is not the responsibility of the state to provide for them.

Soft secularism/agnosticism.

Freedom of religion and conscience should prevail, the customs of different religions ought to be accomodated as long as they're not offensive to public morality (i.e. sharia law), the state being neutral in matters of belief isn't responsible to act as guarantor for any particular religion or belief (atheism, Christianity, etc.). Metaphysical questions irrelevant to government.

Hess
02-29-2012, 01:17 PM
(7.) The state should be heathenised. Christian ideals of love your enemy and turn the other cheek must be rooted out, inequality should be recognized and everyone should have his place in a hierarchical way, aggression warlike spirit and militancy will be glorified instead of condemned.

http://www.crystalinks.com/marsstatue.jpg

you're confusing Christians and Globalists, mate. A true Christian would never stand for what is currently happening in Europe.

Flintlocke
02-29-2012, 06:13 PM
you're confusing Christians and Globalists, mate. A true Christian would never stand for what is currently happening in Europe.

Christians are globalists, perhaps what you mean is the official church policy before the 50's/60's that kept a very social conservative stance, but nowadays Christianity is actually living up to its philosophy and ethics.

Sturmgewehr
02-29-2012, 06:20 PM
State and religion MUST be separate.

(3.) Freedom of religion should prevail in public spaces. The state should keep with a neutral point of view, neutral to religions as well as to secular philosophies (the philosophy of science included).

Sturmgewehr
02-29-2012, 06:21 PM
'(5.) The state should be governed by Christianity. (The state should be governed by metaphysical principles and their applications. Freedom of religion should prevail. The state should favour Christianity in matters of law and custom.)'

This, but I'd add that freedom of religion should be consequently restricted for all people of Muslim faith because such an antagonistic ideology and pseudo-religion is incompatible with everything we are. It's not a religion and doesn't fall under freedom of religion.

How so???

Is ur imaginary friend more real than that of Muslims ???

Hess
02-29-2012, 06:42 PM
nowadays Christianity is actually living up to its philosophy and ethics.

I disagree strongly with that. Just because everyone can be saved by the grace of God doesn't mean that a bunch of Mudslim immigrants have the right to leech off Europeans and decrease our standard of living.

quite frankly, the people who accuse Christianity of being "weak" don't have a very good grasp of what its truly about :shrug: