Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
So now you have to reach for brutal theocracies in the Third World? Once again, I fear a slippery slope will send this conversation nowhere.Mayabird wrote:Iran and Taliban Afghanistan, heck, practically the entire Middle East today. Modern enough theocracies for you?
Sure they do, within the workplace and in compliance with federal law. And I'm didn't say corporations were trying regulating personal behavior, but that individuals and associations can leverage private sector power to promote religious agendas (i.e., Trinity Broadcasting Network). So what's so inherently corrupting about state power?Darth Wong wrote:Totally irrelevant. Private corporations do not have power to regulate individual behaviour. The state does.
And how is this "undue corruption?"Sunday closing laws, anti-pornography laws, anti-prostitution laws, tax exemptions for churches even when they are so wealthy that they would otherwise be on the Fortune 500 list, anti-sodomy laws, religious exemptions from child-abuse laws, etc.
There are secular impositions on liberty as well, so what's your point?All of these are impositions upon personal liberties or exemptions from rules that apply to everyone else which are caused by church influence, despite the constitutional guarantees against it.
Yet you have to prove damages. You just can't say "I don't like this law because it has a religious undertone to it" and expected to be taken seriously.Without those guarantees, it would be even worse.
Is it necessary to make up arguments for me? Please, when did I say that complete and utter separation of church and state would do undue harm to the church in the private sector? It's inconvenient, but it doesn't rise to the level of "harm."Please look up "slippery slope" argument. The only one using it here is you, by implying that removal of the church from government somehow implies imminent removal of the church from all private activities as well.
So you're arguing that Christianity subverted all these medieval, peace-loving European democracies and turned them into far more brutal theocratic societies?The use of an old historical precedent is perfectly reasonable if it applies. Has the Bible changed since the Inquisition? No.
I'm asking for proof that the traditionalist movement would send the country in that direction.Lazy Raptor wrote:Do you expect to challenge the notion that if Christian fundies had their way America wouldn't be a brutal theocracy?
You were better off with "challenge." Now you're asking me to prove a negative.Lazy Raptor wrote:Ack. The word "challenge" should be "defend".
The same thing that is corrupting about all forms of power, only there's more of it, and they can put people in prison. Even the most capricious corporation cannot stick somebody in jail for pissing them off.revprez wrote:So what's so inherently corrupting about state power?
Secular impositions either have some objective basis or they should be repealed. The same cannot be said of religious impositions, dumb-ass.And how is this "undue corruption?"Sunday closing laws, anti-pornography laws, anti-prostitution laws, tax exemptions for churches even when they are so wealthy that they would otherwise be on the Fortune 500 list, anti-sodomy laws, religious exemptions from child-abuse laws, etc.There are secular impositions on liberty as well, so what's your point?All of these are impositions upon personal liberties or exemptions from rules that apply to everyone else which are caused by church influence, despite the constitutional guarantees against it.
Imprisonment qualifies nicely.Yet you have to prove damages.
Oh, of course, being thrown in prison for a harmless act you commit with a willing partner in the privacy of your own bedroom is not "harm", right?It's inconvenient, but it doesn't rise to the level of "harm."
Are you suggesting that the Inquisition would have still happened with its entire central justification removed?So you're arguing that Christianity subverted all these medieval, peace-loving European democracies and turned them into far more brutal theocratic societies?The use of an old historical precedent is perfectly reasonable if it applies. Has the Bible changed since the Inquisition? No.
They follow the Bible don't they? Or are you suggesting they don't want legislation to reflect their ethics?revprez wrote:I'm asking for proof that the traditionalist movement would send the country in that direction.
Whatever. Pick the one that gets the point across.You were better off with "challenge." Now you're asking me to prove a negative.
Funny how you don't think that "prove a negative" is an unreasonable demand when the subject of God's existence comes up ...revprez wrote:You were better off with "challenge." Now you're asking me to prove a negative.Lazy Raptor wrote:Ack. The word "challenge" should be "defend".
Rev Prez
I'm still waiting for evidence that power unduly corrupts the church.Darth Wong wrote:The same thing that is corrupting about all forms of power, only there's more of it, and they can put people in prison. Even the most capricious corporation cannot stick somebody in jail for pissing them off.
Why?Secular impositions either have some objective basis or they should be repealed.
Yes, but you haven't established the first part of this new argument.The same cannot be said of religious impositions, dumb-ass.
I'm assuming you're using your "law must have an objective purpose" assumption to argue that there is standing for such a claim. Continue.Imprisonment qualifies nicely.
I suggest you read the point to which I replied.Oh, of course, being thrown in prison for a harmless act you commit with a willing partner in the privacy of your own bedroom is not "harm", right?
Are you suggesting that the Holocaust was carried out with religious zeal?Are you suggesting that the Inquisition would have still happened with its entire central justification removed?
Name a major religion which has wielded great power (particularly military power) without doing bad things with it.revprez wrote:I'm still waiting for evidence that power unduly corrupts the church.Darth Wong wrote:The same thing that is corrupting about all forms of power, only there's more of it, and they can put people in prison. Even the most capricious corporation cannot stick somebody in jail for pissing them off.
Because you do not have the right to harm others unless you can show some objective justification for doing so, dumb-ass.Why?Secular impositions either have some objective basis or they should be repealed.
And how would that change the fact that I pointed out examples of harm and you denied that they were harmful?I suggest you read the point to which I replied.Oh, of course, being thrown in prison for a harmless act you commit with a willing partner in the privacy of your own bedroom is not "harm", right?
Yes, in fact. Read "Mein Kampf". But more to the point, answer my question.Are you suggesting that the Holocaust was carried out with religious zeal?Are you suggesting that the Inquisition would have still happened with its entire central justification removed?
Point taken. So are you suggesting that all those medieval, European peace-loving democracies turned the Church into a brutal theocratic institution?Rogue 9 wrote:I was in no way arguing that the church worsened the abysmal state of feudal European government. I contend that association with and participation in that government corrupted the church, not the other way around.
Do you have any proof that the Southern Baptists are hostile toward republican forms of government? This is a serious point, because we're discussing the actual motives and agendas of real associations. I don't know anybody who seriously argues that there is a significant traditionalist church movement involved in politics that intends to dissolve our system of government and replace it with clergy. That is not to say that church-state separation isn't playing a role in moderating such ambition--it very well could be--but I would like to see evidence that the traditionalist interpretation of the establishment clause would lead to a dissolution of republican democracy.As for whether America would be a brutal theocracy, that depends on the "fundies" involved. That's a pretty broad term, describing anyone from Creationists to Southern Baptists to people who think to still apply the laws of Leviticus. Now, with the last group, I concede that any government resulting from that group being in power would likely be brutal.
I definitely wouldn't, but I don't see the Creationist movement as a conspiracy to take over the government. They have a strong belief in what is real, want to teach it, and are willing to go to great lengths to get their curriculem in schools. It is incumbent scientific community to start changing minds about evolution, and the blatant hostility towards the religious that Americans perceive coming from the academy is not helping the cause.You people probably wouldn't like the educational system that would result from Creationist control.
No, and its hard to conceive of a successful political effort to get that on the national books.But there are other people who could fall under the moniker of "fundie" who wouldn't be brutal in the sense you're thinking of. It would still be a bad idea, but not every Christian wants to apply 100 lashes for disrespecting parents.
This is like saying that the removal of your seatbelt does not necessarily cause death.revprez wrote:That is not to say that church-state separation isn't playing a role in moderating such ambition--it very well could be--but I would like to see evidence that the traditionalist interpretation of the establishment clause would lead to a dissolution of republican democracy.
Wow, there are three to choose from, and only one of which is still holding on to political power these days. Great sample, man.Darth Wong wrote:Name a major religion which has wielded great power (particularly military power) without doing bad things with it.
Why? I'm being serious. What makes you think social contracts are formed and accepted objectively?Because you do not have the right to harm others unless you can show some objective justification for doing so, dumb-ass.
I was replying to this remark: "The only one using [the slippery slope argument] here is you, by implying that removal of the church from government somehow implies imminent removal of the church from all private activities as well."And how would that change the fact that I pointed out examples of harm and you denied that they were harmful?
I'm not arguing that "Mein Kempf" is irrational drivel, but the "Final Solution" was a secular one.Yes, in fact. Read "Mein Kampf". But more to the point, answer my question.
Do you have survey data that suggests that seatbelts are significantly more likely to save lives?Darth Wong wrote:This is like saying that the removal of your seatbelt does not necessarily cause death.
OK, why don't we go at this a different way? Does the Christian Bible not contain exhortations to violence? Yes. Is every single Christian unified on the interpretation that these exhortations are no longer applicable to modern life? Sadly, no. These facts are both indisputable. Given that condition, is it wise to give Christian churches real power? No.revprez wrote:Wow, there are three to choose from, and only one of which is still holding on to political power these days. Great sample, man.Darth Wong wrote:Name a major religion which has wielded great power (particularly military power) without doing bad things with it.
Because punishments are doled out objectively. If you want to dole out subjective punishment for subjective crimes, go right ahead.Why? I'm being serious. What makes you think social contracts are formed and accepted objectively?Because you do not have the right to harm others unless you can show some objective justification for doing so, dumb-ass.
Doesn't change the fact that in the previous sentence, after I had listed my laundry list of complains including anti-sodomy laws, you denied that they were harmful.To which you replied: "Oh, of course, being thrown in prison for a harmless act you commit with a willing partner in the privacy of your own bedroom is not "harm", right?"
It's probably just an honest disconnect on your part, but that's no reason to bite my head off for it.
Mein Kampf was not just irrational drivel; it was openly Christian irrational drivel. And you still have not answered my question.I'm not arguing that "Mein Kempf" is irrational drivel, but the "Final Solution" was a secular one.Yes, in fact. Read "Mein Kampf". But more to the point, answer my question.
Not to risk me-too-ing, but I must ask....revprez wrote:Wow, there are three to choose from, and only one of which is still holding on to political power these days. Great sample, man.
Yeah, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam.Illuminatus Primus wrote:There are only three major religions?
Whoa, what? I disagree that it is the religion itself that does bad things, but those who would warp the religion to their own means. However, you'd be hard pressed to find ANY major religion that hasn't been warped by someone for their own meansrevprez wrote:Wow, there are three to choose from, and only one of which is still holding on to political power these days. Great sample, man.Darth Wong wrote:Name a major religion which has wielded great power (particularly military power) without doing bad things with it.
Whoa, what has separation of church and state have to do with social contract?Why? I'm being serious. What makes you think social contracts are formed and accepted objectively?Because you do not have the right to harm others unless you can show some objective justification for doing so, dumb-ass.
I should have said religious freedom. But I've conceded the point.Nathan F wrote:Whoa, what has separation of church and state have to do with social contract?
It depends on how you define major religion.Lazy Raptor wrote:That's absurd. But if you're talking about religions that have political power you forgot Judaism for one.revprez wrote:Yeah, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam.
