[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.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

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.

And it's science that starts genocides in the name of the "master race". Both systems are flawed, and both naturally get their roots deep into the government, knowingly or unknowingly.

EDIT: I agree, we must remain vigilant, but not against specific faiths or faith as a whole, but for ideals. Bad people will rise on all fronts that have twisted ideals that they're disillusion to think is okay and will go to any lengths to justify at the time.

I'd really like to hear how people are defining "religion" in the context of interpreting this bit of doctrine. Have you a single definition of "religion" that you use always; or do you choose to use a specific one from many different definitions of "religion" that you use in different contexts?

Twigga wrote: I'd really like to hear how people are defining "religion" in the context of interpreting this bit of doctrine. Have you a single definition of "religion" that you use always; or do you choose to use a specific one from many different definitions of "religion" that you use in different contexts?

I find this definition works well:

"Any collection of personal beliefs that determines how a person acts or goes about their life." (According to the USA's guidelines on what a church is, this would be correct and a standard for an international definition)

So this would cover just about anything. Christianity, Mormonism, Science, ethnocentrism, gotta get that money, ect ect ect.

The government needs to be unbiased, to just do their job without secondary objectives. These beliefs, no matter how small, have no place in their workplace.

If we could successfully get people to realize that "gotta get that money" is a religion, and then ban it from policy-making...

Oh yeah, that's pretty much the Star Trek universe, isn't it?

Arisaig wrote:
"Any collection of personal beliefs that determines how a person acts or goes about their life." (According to the USA's guidelines on what a church is, this would be correct and a standard for an international definition)

So this would cover just about anything. Christianity, Mormonism, Science, ethnocentrism, gotta get that money, ect ect ect.]

And that is why this is not a functional definition, because it could potentially cover anything. However science, for example, is not a world view and neither is atheism.

A better definition - the belief in by faith alone and/or worship of a superhuman controlling or underlying power that permeates or transcends reality, especially a personal God or gods and the resultant dogma that arises from that.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
"Any collection of personal beliefs that determines how a person acts or goes about their life." (According to the USA's guidelines on what a church is, this would be correct and a standard for an international definition)

So this would cover just about anything. Christianity, Mormonism, Science, ethnocentrism, gotta get that money, ect ect ect.]

And that is why this is not a functional definition, because it could potentially cover anything. However science, for example, is not a world view and neither is atheism.

A better definition - the belief in by faith alone and/or worship of a superhuman controlling or underlying power that permeates or transcends reality, especially a personal God or gods and the resultant dogma that arises from that.

So is Satanism not a religion, since they don't believe in any supernatural being or underlying power, but its more a worship of the being that is you?

EDIT: Again, science has become a religion unto itself, but that is not the purpose of this thread. And, if I may add, stating that atheism is not a world view, you're stating that it is, indeed, fact, and that anything anyone believes is automatically false.

Arisaig wrote: ]So is Satanism not a religion, since they don't believe in any supernatural being or underlying power, but its more a worship of the being that is you?

EDIT: Again, science has become a religion unto itself, but that is not the purpose of this thread. And, if I may add, stating that atheism is not a world view, you're stating that it is, indeed, fact, and that anything anyone believes is automatically false.[/color]

Yes you are correct, Satanism, at least the one that espouses there is no actual Satan, is not a religion. But Twigga did not ask for a definition of a worldview but of religion. Satanism actually has two primary arms. One that believes Satan is an actual supernatural being, that is a religion. And one that says that Satan is not real but an archetype of self. That is simply a worldview, a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

But science is neither a religion nor a worldview because it is not a belief system. It is simply the best means we have found to discover "how" the universe functions. It is different from a religion because unlike religion it is self policing and self correcting. It builds on itself over time as new knowledge is obtained. It is not trying to define "why" the universe works by appealing to an esoteric, mystical authority there is no objective evidence for. In religion, faith cant be contested but science is designed to be contestable. God, the bible, even The Force are considered infallible by definition. However science is fallible and it evolves over time as we gain greater objective understanding of our reality.

Twigga wrote: I'd really like to hear how people are defining "religion" in the context of interpreting this bit of doctrine. Have you a single definition of "religion" that you use always; or do you choose to use a specific one from many different definitions of "religion" that you use in different contexts?

Religion, to me, is any codified system of faith or spirituality, especially with a communal aspect.

Arisaig wrote: . And, if I may add, stating that atheism is not a world view, you're stating that it is, indeed, fact, and that anything anyone believes is automatically false.[/color]

did not see this part in my first reply but no Atheism is not a world view and I am not saying it is fact. In fact quite the opposite. It is nothing more than a single position on a single subject. It is a rejection of the claim that a God exists based on a lack of evidence, nothing more. It is the default negative that any one would take in any such claim.

I claim I have an invisible unicorn in my bedroom. Do you believe me? No you would not, or at least you should not, until such time as I can prove to you that I have an invisible unicorn in my bedroom. Is your lack of belief a worldview? No its not. That's all atheism is, a lack of belief I have an "invisible unicorn" in my bedroom.

This probably won't be helpful. Twigga, but I have a hard time defining religion because I tend to separate the general concept of faith from organized religion. For me, it comes down to power. The religions that have the power to influence governments tend to be highly organized and well funded. These are the religions I consider most when worrying about the separation of church and state. I don't consider Jediism to be a faith that poses a threat to others in the sense that we could currently impact legislation in a way that might do harm to others. That doesn't mean we won't become that religion someday. I don't think Jesus ever intended his church to be one that would amass huge amounts of property and wealth in order to assert its power over people, but that is how some Christian denominations have evolved.

In short, for the sake of this conversation, I define religion as an organized group of shared faith and dogma capable of asserting power or influence over others. Clearly, my definition of religion changes based on the religions being discussed, how they influence the debate one way or another, and the implications of calling something a "church".