Separation Church & State in Office

[drankin]

Ideally, should we only allow athiest to hold public office? This way assuring the separation of church and state? (I was going to use the poll option but it doesn't seem to be working).

 

[Cyrus]

Ideally, should we only allow athiest to hold public office? This way assuring the separation of church and state? (I was going to use the poll option but it doesn't seem to be working).

Come on drankin, what a pointless comment

At least put some though behind a post.

 

[wildman]

The idea behind the separation of Church and State is to prevent the establishment of a government sponsored religion. If we allow only atheist to run for office, we basically have established a government sponsored religion: atheism. Catch 22.

 

[OrbitalPower]

This question could have gone in the other thread, though.

You're obviously stretching and misinterpreting the idea. The idea is not to allow your religion or religious convictions to influences your decisions, but, instead, your commitment to the constitution. Some founders saw no problem with this, such as Jefferson who thought there should be a wall between government and religion.

Just as an atheist shouldn't try and destroy religion, so too should religious people not enforce their particular religions on others. Read the constitution and our laws and see what's in there, and govern according to those principles, and the principles of freedom and liberty and the right to privacy etc..

It sickened me when Bush, Ashcroft and co., believed that god is on our side, and then that General Boykin who said our god is bigger than their god. Perhaps Bush should have studied some International Relations in college instead of drinking and whatever else he was doing, particularly the writings of the great conservative realist Hans J. Morgenthau, who said this:

5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. As it distinguishes between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes between truth and idolatary. All nations are tempted -- and few have been able to resist the temptation for long -- to clothe their own particular aspirations and actions in the moral purposes of the universe. To know that nations are subject to the moral law is one thing, while to pretend to know with certainty what is good and evil in the relations among nations is quite another. There is a world of difference between the belief that all nations stand under the judgment of God inscrutable to the human mind, and the blasphemous convinction that God is always on one's side and that what one wills onesefl cannot fail to be willed by God also.

Hans J. Morgenthau, Six Principles of Political Realism.

Even when it comes to international affairs, one doesn't need to speak about "crusades" etc.

 

[LightbulbSun]

The idea behind the separation of Church and State is to prevent the establishment of a government sponsored religion. If we allow only atheist to run for office, we basically have established a government sponsored religion: atheism. Catch 22.

Atheism is not a religion, but the first part of your post was accurate.

 

[cristo]

Don't post the same thing twice. Threads merged.

 

[Evo]

No wonder I was having trouble merging threads, you were in there.

 

[drankin]

Come on drankin, what a pointless comment

At least put some though behind a post.

I did. I want a get a pulse on where peoples convictions are. I think it is impossible for a devout religous person to hold office and not let his religous idealology influence decision makinig. Particularly on social issues.

 

[Cyrus]

I did. I want a get a pulse on where peoples convictions are. I think it is impossible for a devout religous person to hold office and not let his religous idealology influence decision makinig. Particularly on social issues.

Really? Even on issues like Abortion and Stem Cell Research... I don't think so Tim.

 

[Gokul43201]

Of course we should only allow atheists to hold public office. Or else, we can just call ourselves a theocracy.

 

[drankin]

Really? Even on issues like Abortion and Stem Cell Research... I don't think so Tim.

Yes, any issue. And my names not Tim(?).

 

[russ_watters]

I think it is impossible for a devout religous person to hold office and not let his religous idealology influence decision makinig. Particularly on social issues.

You misunderstand the meaning of "separation of church and state"/the 1st Amendment. It is not intended to force policymakers to ignore their religious convictions when passing laws.

 

[Hurkyl]

Atheism is not a religion, but the first part of your post was accurate.

Atheism satisfies one of the definitions of the word, and shares the qualities relevant to the topic of the thread.

 

[Doc Al]

Atheism satisfies one of the definitions of the word, and shares the qualities relevant to the topic of the thread.

What definition would that be?

 

[Hurkyl]

What definition would that be?

From Merriam-Webster, definition 4:

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith​

 

[Doc Al]

From Merriam-Webster, definition 4:

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith​

Talk about equivocation! Using that definition, lots of things having nothing to do with the usual meaning of religion (god talk and supernatural stuff) will be "religions".

 

[drankin]

You misunderstand the meaning of "separation of church and state"/the 1st Amendment. It is not intended to force policymakers to ignore their religious convictions when passing laws.

I understand the meaning completely but I believe some of our friends here take the word "separation" to mean complete exclusion.

 

[Hurkyl]

Talk about equivocation! Using that definition, lots of things having nothing to do with the usual meaning of religion (god talk and supernatural stuff) will be "religions".

Sure, but irrelevant, since the principle to which atheism adheres with ardor and faith does relate to "god talk and supernatural stuff".

 

[Doc Al]

Sure, but irrelevant, since the principle to which atheism adheres with ardor and faith does relate to "god talk and supernatural stuff".

So "not collecting stamps" is a hobby after all!

 

[Hurkyl]

So "not collecting stamps" is a hobby after all!

While I'm always up for a game of semantics, I have to question the purpose -- are you asserting that state-sponsored atheism is not a violation of separation of church and state? (If not, I'll reply in PM so as not to derail the thread)

 

[Doc Al]

While I'm always up for a game of semantics, I have to question the purpose -- are you asserting that state-sponsored atheism is not a violation of separation of church and state? (If not, I'll reply in PM so as not to derail the thread)

Of course not. I'm questioning your assertion that atheism is a religion.

 

[drankin]

While I'm always up for a game of semantics, I have to question the purpose -- are you asserting that state-sponsored atheism is not a violation of separation of church and state? (If not, I'll reply in PM so as not to derail the thread)

You wouldn't be derailing the thread. I would agree that atheism is a belief system not completely unlike religion. But, atheism doesn't qualify as a religion according to the IRS. It seems to me that the state could, technically, sponsor atheism if the IRS didn't classify it as a religion.

 

[Gokul43201]

You wouldn't be derailing the thread. I would agree that atheism is a belief system not completely unlike religion.

So do you agree with Doc Al that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby?

An atheist chooses to not believe stories that haven't be carefully tested for their veracity.

 

[Hurkyl]

You wouldn't be derailing the thread. I would agree that atheism is a belief system not completely unlike religion. But, atheism doesn't qualify as a religion according to the IRS. It seems to me that the state could, technically, sponsor atheism if the IRS didn't classify it as a religion.

If we can trust Wikipedia on this one:

For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".

 

[Evo]

You wouldn't be derailing the thread. I would agree that atheism is a belief system not completely unlike religion. But, atheism doesn't qualify as a religion according to the IRS. It seems to me that the state could, technically, sponsor atheism if the IRS didn't classify it as a religion.

Atheism is not a belief system, just as not believing in fairies, unicorns, and elves aren't belief systems.

I don't understand why some people can't accept that some people simply do not believe in deities. Do you believes in elves? If not, are elves something you think about constantly? Is your lack of belief in elves what you would consider to be a belief system comparable to religion? Do you have a non-elf belief system?

 

[Hurkyl]

An atheist chooses to not believe stories that haven't be carefully tested for their veracity.

Who tested the "God doesn't exist" story for its veracity?

 

[Gokul43201]

Who tested the "God doesn't exist" story for its veracity?

What "god doesn't exist" story?

 

[Hurkyl]

So "not collecting stamps" is a hobby after all!

It is if you make a hobby out of it. (Of course, most people who go with the "not collecting stamps" course of action do not pursue it as a hobby; they just do it as a matter of course)

And... I'm not sure how this is relevant. It's cutesy sure, but I don't see it actually having relevance to my assertion that atheism both fits the dictionary definition of "religion", and does so in a way relevant to the subject of this thread.

 

[Doc Al]

Who tested the "God doesn't exist" story for its veracity?

Yet another irrelevant point.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't understand why some people can't accept that some people simply do not believe in deities.

Er... I didn't realize anyone here couldn't accept that some people don't believe in deities.

Do you believes in elves?

No. And In addition, I disbeleieve in their existence. However, I really shouldn't -- I should simply fail to believe either way.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yikes! You don't go about practicing atheism as an active undertaking. You essentially "practice" it by not accepting stories that haven't been carefully verified. You also don't have to write or buy any books titled "god doesn't exist".

 

[Hurkyl]

Yikes! You don't go about practicing atheism as an active undertaking. You essentially "practice" it by not accepting stories that haven't been carefully verified. You also don't have to write or buy any books titled "god doesn't exist".

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why it's a bad idea to try and co-opt the word "atheism" -- a word meaning a disbelief in the existence of deity, or meaning the doctrine that there is no deity (m-w) -- to describe the position that lacks belief in both hypothesis: that deities do not exist, and that deities exist. It leads to stupid mix-ups like this.

I know I am using the word as defined in m-w, and I think it's pretty clear that wildman is too in the post that spawned this thread of reasoning.

 

[tchitt]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As much as a lot of people (everyone these days?) would like to break the rules for their own personal gain while defending the foundation our country is built on militantly when anyone else tries to do the same... freedom still isn't free.

 

[Gokul43201]

A disbelief in the existence of a deity is not the same as a belief in the non-existence of a deity. I believe you (Hurkyl) are attributing more to an atheist than is the sufficient set of conditions needed to define one.

 

[Hurkyl]

A disbelief in the existence of a deity is not the same as a belief in the non-existence of a deity. I believe you (Hurkyl) are attributing more to an atheist than is the sufficient set of conditions needed to define one.

Did you see my previous post?