Skip to main content

View Diary: The Ongoing War on Christianity (172 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Consensus is achieved by people consenting, (0+ / 0-)

    not truth.

    ...that the sorts of arguments we give for various forms of legislation should be based on reason and the observable or what can be shared between people that otherwise have radically different beliefs.
    That is false.

    The separation of Church and state was primarily to preserve the choice to make one's political arguments on the religion of their choice, local religious consensus or non religious merits as each person sees fit. Although in most cases in the American states, even well after the Constitution was ratified, public officials where required to proclaim faith in God rather specifically and explicitly. Just read a state constitutions of the time.

    It is a total divergence from reality and a corruption of the principle to say the separation of church and state was designed to subdue individual religious expression, in politics or otherwise. It's outrageous really to even suggest that. It was in fact the opposite. To preserve and protect individual religious expression as opposed to the state forcing anyone to base their arguments and expression on any particular religious or non religious doctrine.

    Where did you get that idea?

    You can try to make a science of morality, it's been tried. And it ain't pretty.

    •  I never made the claim (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that the purpose of church and state is to subdue religion.  I made the claim that this separation arose out of the experience of internecine warfare in Europe that arose out of conflicts between different sects of Christianity (notice, there's no reference to atheism inn that remark).  The decision was made to treat religion as a private affair outside of governance to avoid this sort of warfare.

      •  I infered that separating reason from (0+ / 0-)

        religion implied atheistic perspective. Godless at least. That is what you mean isn't it?

        These reasons must be reasons that anyone, regardless of religious belief or cultural background, could know for themselves.  Only two types of reasons fit that criteria:  reasons derived from reason (as in the case of mathematics)...

        I think what is happening as we speak in the court and public opinion can be too easily conflated with historic realities.

        The moral baselines you established in your first response to me are assumed.

        John Locke wrote two treaties. Is it just a coincidence his attempts through both religious and criteria based observable reason met the same conclusions. Probably not. Because people work backward from their baseline morality. How could he have come to any other conclusions than the universe, God and observable reality, doesn't contradict itself?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site