I agree that if a religious laymen uses religion to make bad policies then he shouldn’t be in office. However democracy is supposed to represent the people and if the people want to elect a religious nutjob then that’s a failure of the people, not the democratic system. You can’t make a law that says religious people can’t run for office as that would be extremely undemocratic and go against religious freedom.
The original comment said: " How can you trust someone to run the country, when all their decisions are grounded in magical thinking?"
This in regards to the need to have a separation of church and state on a post about JD Vance being religiously motivated in the decisions he’s making. I interpret this as the person seeing the existence of JD Vance as a failure of “separation of church and state” and that this separation needs to become stronger. However JD Vance is not part of the clergy. He’s simply a religious layman. No church is running this government and therefore the current separation of church and state doesn’t apply.
So then my question to you is, how would you by law prevent another JD Vance from being elected, for the explicit reason that he uses religion to make decisions, without banning religious people from political office ?
I can’t find a good solution to this without making thought crime a thing. A religious person would be unable to see certain issues without some kind of perspective from their religion.
Holy fuck do you think separation of church and state only means that we can’t have the equivalent of the Holy Roman Emperor? Like
You actually think the first amendment is about stopping the church from running the government?
You can’t make a law that says religious people can’t run for office…but you can make a law that says they can’t make policy based on their religious beliefs.
That’s what the 1st amendment is supposed to prevent.
I’m not American so correct me if I’m wrong. But wasn’t the first amendment about disallowing the government from establishing or favoring a specific religious establishment. Meaning it would be illegal to say make a law that favors or teaches baptism in school at the expense of another Christian flavor. What I understand of the history behind freedom of religion in the US was that people were sick of the UK mandating the very specific theology of the Anglican church and instead wanting a system where people were allowed to practice any flavor of Christianity that they wanted. From this it would be no problem being a religious person in office but it would not be okay for that person to give benefits or favor to their specific church while in office.
Not making policy based on religious belief would be impossible however. One’s religion would impact one’s entire morality and value system. So one could say we should enact policy X because the bible says so. But one couldn’t say we should enact policy X because the southern baptist Convention just made a ruling that policy X should be enacted and now we have to make a law that matches that ruling.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
It is as you said…primarily as a freedom to practice whatever religion you want…but this also effectively prohibits any government official from enacting any policy or legislation that promotes their own religious beliefs over any other, since it may conflict with the free practice of someone else’s religion.
In essence, it prevents the state from getting involved in religious matters altogether.
prohibits any government official from enacting any policy or legislation that promotes their own religious beliefs over any other, since it may conflict with the free practice of someone else’s religion.
Okay, so Christianity says we can’t kill people. But jihadism exists in Islam. Then the law must allow killing by Islamists to avoid being based on Christian beliefs and restricting jihadists’ practice?
Not exactly. Secular law supercedes religious law…and that is based on the concept of measurable harm. This is the concept that you cannot inflict measurable harm on another person against their will, without running afoul of the law in some way…whether it be a criminal or a civil violation.
However, there have been plenty of cases in the US where religious folks have argued…sometimes successfully…that their religious beliefs grant them an exception to secular law. But, unless local laws already make allowances for it, those cases always require a trial to determine whether that exception should be granted. And they are rare.
Secular law supercedes religious law…and that is based on the concept of measurable harm. This is the concept that you cannot inflict measurable harm on another person against their will
That’s a bold claim that it’s based on that concept, when there were and are plenty of laws that caused harm, and some of them are conspicuously based on Christian norms.
For example, both federal and twenty-six states’ law prohibit cannabis for recreational use while allowing alcohol. Some states prohibit abortion even in the case of danger to the mother. How was that harm measured?
Besides, why do you think that religious laws aren’t based on a belief in their moral utilitarianism? Just like modern laws don’t work on purely libertarian terms where one can’t limit another in any way except for self-defense, religious prescriptions also followed a perceived common good.
Some states prohibit abortion even in the case of danger to the mother. How was that harm measured?
That’s not harm measured and therefore is a bad law. Just as your example of “then law should allow Muslims to kill just not to be a Christian-based law”.
Basically, laws should be entirely based on science and reason, two things that are the opposite of any and all religions.
But I could in theory promote a secular policy based on my theoretical religious belief. Say I want to lower barriers to immigration and as motivation I quote the parable of the good Samaritan saying that even foreigners should be treated as ones neighbour. Now in doing this I’m letting my religious belief affect my policy making. However I’m not inhibiting anyone else’s free practice of religion since this is secular policy.
Yup. That’s all very true. But, when some idiot politician like JD here, straight up says the quiet part out loud, you can sue the government for all kinds of wrongful damages. Now, all of his policy positions can justifiably be scrutinized through this lens.
As for inhibiting anyone else’s free practice…that’s where the first amendment is most powerful. I have the right to not be governed by someone else’s religious beliefs. So, when JD here straight up admits that he’s governing based on his religious beliefs…that automatically means he’s infringing upon everyone else’s.
I agree that if a religious laymen uses religion to make bad policies then he shouldn’t be in office. However democracy is supposed to represent the people and if the people want to elect a religious nutjob then that’s a failure of the people, not the democratic system. You can’t make a law that says religious people can’t run for office as that would be extremely undemocratic and go against religious freedom.
That’s not democracy, that’s demagogy and ochlocracy.
Man either you’re trolling (propaganda spreading) or you’re so dense it’s worthless to try to explain anything to you.
Separation of church and state isn’t that hard a concept. Even a child can understand it.
But u: sHoUlD wE BAN rEligious pEoPle??!!!
Common grow up, it’s actually a cool place here if you do want to discuss.
The original comment said: " How can you trust someone to run the country, when all their decisions are grounded in magical thinking?"
This in regards to the need to have a separation of church and state on a post about JD Vance being religiously motivated in the decisions he’s making. I interpret this as the person seeing the existence of JD Vance as a failure of “separation of church and state” and that this separation needs to become stronger. However JD Vance is not part of the clergy. He’s simply a religious layman. No church is running this government and therefore the current separation of church and state doesn’t apply.
So then my question to you is, how would you by law prevent another JD Vance from being elected, for the explicit reason that he uses religion to make decisions, without banning religious people from political office ?
I can’t find a good solution to this without making thought crime a thing. A religious person would be unable to see certain issues without some kind of perspective from their religion.
Holy fuck do you think separation of church and state only means that we can’t have the equivalent of the Holy Roman Emperor? Like You actually think the first amendment is about stopping the church from running the government?
You can’t make a law that says religious people can’t run for office…but you can make a law that says they can’t make policy based on their religious beliefs.
That’s what the 1st amendment is supposed to prevent.
I’m not American so correct me if I’m wrong. But wasn’t the first amendment about disallowing the government from establishing or favoring a specific religious establishment. Meaning it would be illegal to say make a law that favors or teaches baptism in school at the expense of another Christian flavor. What I understand of the history behind freedom of religion in the US was that people were sick of the UK mandating the very specific theology of the Anglican church and instead wanting a system where people were allowed to practice any flavor of Christianity that they wanted. From this it would be no problem being a religious person in office but it would not be okay for that person to give benefits or favor to their specific church while in office.
Not making policy based on religious belief would be impossible however. One’s religion would impact one’s entire morality and value system. So one could say we should enact policy X because the bible says so. But one couldn’t say we should enact policy X because the southern baptist Convention just made a ruling that policy X should be enacted and now we have to make a law that matches that ruling.
It is as you said…primarily as a freedom to practice whatever religion you want…but this also effectively prohibits any government official from enacting any policy or legislation that promotes their own religious beliefs over any other, since it may conflict with the free practice of someone else’s religion.
In essence, it prevents the state from getting involved in religious matters altogether.
Okay, so Christianity says we can’t kill people. But jihadism exists in Islam. Then the law must allow killing by Islamists to avoid being based on Christian beliefs and restricting jihadists’ practice?
Wtf… You have -∞ IQ.
What they mean is that neither Christian-based nor Islamic-based (and in general religious-based) laws shouldn’t be passed.
Not exactly. Secular law supercedes religious law…and that is based on the concept of measurable harm. This is the concept that you cannot inflict measurable harm on another person against their will, without running afoul of the law in some way…whether it be a criminal or a civil violation.
However, there have been plenty of cases in the US where religious folks have argued…sometimes successfully…that their religious beliefs grant them an exception to secular law. But, unless local laws already make allowances for it, those cases always require a trial to determine whether that exception should be granted. And they are rare.
That’s a bold claim that it’s based on that concept, when there were and are plenty of laws that caused harm, and some of them are conspicuously based on Christian norms.
For example, both federal and twenty-six states’ law prohibit cannabis for recreational use while allowing alcohol. Some states prohibit abortion even in the case of danger to the mother. How was that harm measured?
Besides, why do you think that religious laws aren’t based on a belief in their moral utilitarianism? Just like modern laws don’t work on purely libertarian terms where one can’t limit another in any way except for self-defense, religious prescriptions also followed a perceived common good.
You’re mixing apples with pears there…
That’s not harm measured and therefore is a bad law. Just as your example of “then law should allow Muslims to kill just not to be a Christian-based law”. Basically, laws should be entirely based on science and reason, two things that are the opposite of any and all religions.
But I could in theory promote a secular policy based on my theoretical religious belief. Say I want to lower barriers to immigration and as motivation I quote the parable of the good Samaritan saying that even foreigners should be treated as ones neighbour. Now in doing this I’m letting my religious belief affect my policy making. However I’m not inhibiting anyone else’s free practice of religion since this is secular policy.
Keep your stories out of secular law please. We will enact no law that favors religion(or uses any part of it).
Yup. That’s all very true. But, when some idiot politician like JD here, straight up says the quiet part out loud, you can sue the government for all kinds of wrongful damages. Now, all of his policy positions can justifiably be scrutinized through this lens.
As for inhibiting anyone else’s free practice…that’s where the first amendment is most powerful. I have the right to not be governed by someone else’s religious beliefs. So, when JD here straight up admits that he’s governing based on his religious beliefs…that automatically means he’s infringing upon everyone else’s.