A Question About Church and State

Seriously, what's special about religion?

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• church
• state
• religion
• atheism
• founding fathers
• glenn beck
• bullpucky
• etc.

[rictusgate]

Why's your head soooo biggggg?!!!!

[anrchyvk]

@rictusgate lulz

[Fishqueen1972]

I disagree that religion is just a philosophical doctrine. Religion has a lot of its basis on the idea of knowing a God's mind which is unverifiable. Our laws have to based in reality.

[anrchyvk]

@TheNakedAtheist I think that's a fair distinction, but I would add that I think it falls under the first category I mention, i.e. the government telling you what to believe about religion. However, I'm not sure I agree that people should be barred from arguing for abortion based on religious beliefs. I think on the utilitarian point, what, exactly, does "beneficial to everyone" mean? Say the law in question is that all doctors must harvest organs when the situation dictates it. Would that work?

[rictusgate]

@Pawl2 I was simply poking fun at his comment about his swollen face . . . . invader zim style - tee hee

[Pawl2]

@rictusgate brain duh.

[TheNakedAtheist]

Continued..

The whole point of the establishment clause was to prevent one religions beliefs from legislatively dominating anothers. Since I for example don't believe in hell I shouldn't be required to follow laws that are only justified by the belief that breaking them will send me there. You can oppose, or legislate against abortion based on your religion, but not by arguing that a soul is embedded in the egg by God at the moment of conception.

[TheNakedAtheist]

Quick comment at the 4:23. Legislators shouldn't be allowed to base legislation (particularly legislation that limits, or restricts freedom) on religion IF the legislation only benefits certain religions, and I'll use your example to explain the difference. Legislating to maximizing pleasure will have results that are demonstrable, and beneficial to everyone. Prohibiting gay marriage may result in fewer people going to hell, but that result only benefits those who believe in Hell.

[bravemicrowave]

you make a lot of great points. i wish we lived in a non religious world, but we don't. if a person is a politician, and they are religious, it is hard to ask them to not consider that certain set of ideas when they make a decision, political or not. i want a senator to purpose a sort of Kantian ethics bill; where peoples intentions are considered rather than the outcome event when discerning the criminality of an action. well, not really, but on the subject of cool philosophical ideas...