[Lesson 5] The religious state

"[Jedi Believe] In the separation of religion and government"

I understand that a government is the political administration of a country or state. But how are people defining "religion" here? There are just so many ways....

If I go for my trusty Oxford Concise I get:
religion n noun
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Øa particular system of faith and worship.
2 a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

That second one actually sounds like a pretty good idea.

Brick (who originally replied in Chat, but was subsequently ignored by the author and forced to reply here) wrote:

I always interpreted that line as 'separation of church and state'. So not allowing one's religious beliefs to dictate governmental domestic and foreign policy

Twigga wrote: "[Jedi Believe] In the separation of religion and government"

I understand that a government is the political administration of a country or state. But how are people defining "religion" here? There are just so many ways....

Religion, or what I would call an innate bias, of course should remain personal.

I agree with your statement:

Twigga wrote: 2 a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

That second one actually sounds like a pretty good idea.

Sometimes we need to develop a second line of thought to ensure we do not become biased when talking about certain things. Bias, of course, will always remain, and sometimes in our effort to become unbiased we develop a new bias.

For example, I view the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as a mindset one could adopt to become unbiased towards a certain creation myth, to not look at something and go "Oh, that's like that because [insert deity's name here] made it as such". But, as we know, the ToE has become so normative that its become a bias unto itself. Anything anyone says against it is considered wrong and backwards in the science community. It has, in it's own way, become a religion into itself (if anyone would want to debate that point, PM me rather than derail this thread, thank you).

Religion in government can be dangerous. Religion in government started the crusades, witch hunts, genocides. So law must remain unbiased. In a sense atheists make the best politicians so long as they don't allow their more extreme beliefs (you know them, the atheists that are militaristic in their views against those that have faiths) create anti-faith laws.

Actually, in the American sense, the separation of church and state isn't to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the state. It just happens to work both ways.

Arisaig wrote: But, as we know, the ToE has become so normative that its become a bias unto itself. Anything anyone says against it is considered wrong and backwards in the science community. It has, in it's own way, become a religion into itself

Let me just say that you have a woefully underwhelming grasp on how science works then,

Arisaig wrote: (you know them, the atheists that are militaristic in their views against those that have faiths) create anti-faith laws.

Creating anti-faith laws is actually an integration of church and state so it does not apply here.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote: But, as we know, the ToE has become so normative that its become a bias unto itself. Anything anyone says against it is considered wrong and backwards in the science community. It has, in it's own way, become a religion into itself

Let me just say that you have a woefully underwhelming grasp on how science works then,

Arisaig wrote: It has, in it's own way, become a religion into itself (if anyone would want to debate that point, PM me rather than derail this thread, thank you).

Arisaig wrote: In a sense atheists make the best politicians so long as they don't allow their more extreme beliefs (you know them, the atheists that are militaristic in their views against those that have faiths) create anti-faith laws.

Don't want this to get lost. Is this just a hypothetical or potential extreme, or do you have examples?

Atticus wrote:

Arisaig wrote: In a sense atheists make the best politicians so long as they don't allow their more extreme beliefs (you know them, the atheists that are militaristic in their views against those that have faiths) create anti-faith laws.

Don't want this to get lost. Is this just a hypothetical or potential extreme, or do you have examples?

Mostly hypothetical. I don't imagine it would come to pass, but those that are more... vocal... about the stupidity of religion may want to do something about it if they found themselves in the position to do so. I find it funny that many atheists feel the need the break down others for their faith rather than just ignore it. If faith is so stupid, why debate it? Just my thoughts on the matter.

As Steam points out, I have always understood the separation of church and state to be a protection for religion from state interference. The U.S. was founded by people with very fresh memories of religious persecution by the government. Many came to the new world to escape religious persecution in the first place, so it was paramount that the new government not be allowed to meddle with religion.

It is more recently (last 150 years or so) that religion has started to have a lot more influence on politics and therefore government policy. The tables have turned, in a sense. Now we find money supporting certain candidates coming from religious institutions in order to support certain agendas in public policy. It is impacting the debates about abortion, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, drug enforcement, immigration, and many other topics.

I'll be curious to see when the pendulum swings back toward more separation again, although I'm not sure we'll ever find that happy balance for long.

Arisaig wrote: Mostly hypothetical. I don't imagine it would come to pass, but those that are more... vocal... about the stupidity of religion may want to do something about it if they found themselves in the position to do so. I find it funny that many atheists feel the need the break down others for their faith rather than just ignore it. If faith is so stupid, why debate it? Just my thoughts on the matter.

Because it is religion and faith that burns women at the stake, invades nations in crusades to eradicate different belief systems, brings down buildings with planes, steals life savings from retired people and declares death to infidels or heaven forbid a female thats not a virgin. For religion to have the power of the state in these things only increases the destructive power of these extremes. That is why its so important to stay vigilant and fight it where necessary.