There has been a bit of discussion in other threads about the meaning of the separation of church and state and what sort of behaviour is acceptable from people trying to share their faith. I was at the Jefferson memorial in Washington DC recently and came across this inscripted on the wall:

http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html

"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion . . . No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."

Jefferson is a famous proponent of the separation fo church and state and arguably the most effective. Yet here he is arguing that this includes the right of religious people to publicly profess their faith and argue for it. Opposition to this is opposition to freedom of expression. His quote sums up my personal views and how I think religious expression should be viewed on this forum.

Another quote from Jefferson:

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/3/6/112212/4989

"It is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1786. ME 6:10

From the first site:

(Born April 13, 1743, at Shadwell, Virginia; died July 4, 1826, Monticello)

Thomas Jefferson -- author of the Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, third president of the United States, and founder of the University of Virginia -- voiced the aspirations of a new America as no other individual of his era. As public official, historian, philosopher, and plantation owner, he served his country for over five decades.

I think that prior to Jefferson's new laws in Virginia, the state government compelled the payment of donations to one of the churches by it's members.

do not attempt to forge debates in areas of politics or science that are based on arguments of faith instead of proof and reason

Why not? If that's how people approach the topic then they are obviously going to frame their arguments in those terms. As for don't insult people, people take offense very easily to some things. That shouldn't bar others from bringing the topic up.

Lets look at it the other way around freediver. Suppose you pass legislation based purely in what is written in the bible, suppose then that particular legislation turns out to be an utter disaster and people want an explanation (as is most often the case in a democracy), is it reasonable to expect your elected officials to turn to you and say "the bible said it would work, so that's why we did it" is that at all reasonable in a democracy? It is absolutely not reasonable because you need to be able to demonstrate that legislation works because of X and did not or will not work because of X. Where X is any and/or argument.

By no means do I think faith should be removed from the political process, I think faith has done many wonderful things for this world and despite being a staunch secularist and only interested in tangible provable things I believe (unlike many) that faith should remain an important part of our society. Faith should also be there to guide people through their reasoning and choices (if they are followers of faith) and to provide moral and ethical grounding in decision making. It is not, however at all reasonable or justified to argue for or against a particular political policy or piece of legislation based only on arguments of faith, tosimply say 'god says so' if you will. Not reasonable at all. If you notice, even the mad monk Tony Abbot did not even think of justifying his arguments against stem cell research and RU486 solely through his faith, he produced tangible reasoned arguments that could more or less be proven, he and his fellows were of course struck down NOT because of his faith, but because his tangible, reasoned, provable arguments were weak. This is the political process, this is separation of church and state.

Because those are not universal terms that everyone can relate to, they change from person to person and are not dependant on proof and reason, thus they do not belong in politics or science. Simple really?

You think that is a valid criteria by which to prevent people from expressing their views? I think you would have trouble expressing any political view in truly universal terms.

If you allow faith as a valid argument for political decisions and scientific pursuits then anything goes.

But anything does go in politics. Science has methods of eliminating useless arguments, whatever they are based on.

What is to stop me from saying that we must sacrifice goats every thursday to solve both global warming and end world hunger... if I say that is what I believe?

Nothing. That's what free speech is all about.

This is the line freediver, political argument must be based on provable argument, not feelings and faith.

No it mustn't. Such an assertion invalidates almost all political discourse. Most political debates hinge on competing values, not proof. Trying to restrict the set of values that may be used or the way in which people can express them is a direct attack on freedom and democracy.

Note carefully, that Jefferson said that while men should be free to profess their opinions in matters of religion, they should maintain those opinions by reasoned argument.

That is not what Jefferson said.

I was paraphrasing, of course.

By inserting the word 'reasoned' you completely changed the meaning of what he said.

He does endorse freedom of speech, but he does not endorse the unqualified maintenance of unreasonable opinion.

Sure he does. He does that by supporting freedom of speech. He does it by not placing any limitations on the arguments which men may use. He does it by placing the full onus on the person who hears something with which he does not agree to decide whether it has any merit. 

"and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions"

Any attempt to dictate whether men may argue from reason, faith or values essentially distrusts the ability of men to make up their own mind. Reason is not a filter to be used to limit discussion, but a filter used by individuals exposed to the full range of views.

Basically, people have every right to argue that you are wrong because the flying spaghetti monster says so, and it is up to you to make up your own mind about that. He opposes any moves whatsoever that would prevent someone from saying that the flying spaghetti monster is always right.

He believed that in free and open discussion truth would eventually prevail, not that anybody was entitled to hold to any old notion passed down through the ages.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are the same. Only by allowing people to believe and to argue whatever they want are reasonable men able to progress towards truth, or some other noble objective. You cannot have open discussion by limiting what may be said.

I am about ready to join AN if all this religious bullsh!t keeps up. Again freediver you are talking sh!t, nobody gets away with pushing through legislation on arguments of faith alone"
==============


This site is under threat.

It seems like only christians are welcome here!!!!!!!


A BIG HINT THERE.

They should be entirely isolated.
In exactly the same way the legal system, police and armed defences are.
There is no reason for them to be related.

It would gain nothing to have them intermingled and could be disasterous.

Look at countries where the legal system, plouce and army are not seperated. I don't want to live there.

nobody gets away with pushing through legislation on arguments of faith alone

Correct, but not because they are not allowed to try, but because people are capable of amking up their own mind. This is what Jefferson was saying. The state should not try to control what people can say because they fear that people are stupid and will go along with whatever someone tells them. There is far more to fear from those who try to control what we are allowed to say than from those who ignore reason.

It seems like only christians are welcome here!!!!!!!

All people are welcome. If you cannot tolerate freedom of speech then I am not going to start trying to arbitrarily limit what people can say so that you feel welcome.

What I disagree with is that policies and legislation should be able to be based solely on religious views with no other reasoned or provable arguments.

It never will be in a functioning democracy. It will be based on the will of the people.

Suppose we did forge legislation solely on what is written in the bible, is it not dangerous to christianity if through demonstration what is written in the bible is shown to be a failure?

That hasn't stopped them in the middle east. But to even suggest that there is a risk of that happening in a functioning democracy is ludicrous.

There are any number of very good reasons as to why purely religious arguments are not sufficient in the realm of politics, reason and proof are needed to support any religious position in the realm of politics.

Of course they aren't sufficient.