Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society

Are you contending that "the general background tone of a society" and "policy" mean the same thing?

Policy will, over time, reflect the background assumptions of the society. That's quite inevitable. When there isn't a clearly dominant set of assumptions, policy becomes an endless source of bitter contention, for reasons the contenders themselves can't always define clearly.

If America were to come to have, by whatever sequence of events, a Jewish or Muslim majority, over time government policy would come to reflect the basic assumptions of those faiths, even if the official separation of church and state remained. It would permeate the system even as people imagined they were behaving in a purely secular manner.

It's a little like the metaphor of the fish that doesn't perceive the water around it. To the fish, the surrounding water is just 'the way things are'. But the water provides the physical limits and options that determine what the fish can and can not do, even so.

Likewise, India has a secularist government, but no sane politician in India imagines that he or she can govern independently of the moral and social assumptions embeded in Hinduism. Etc.

The fact that governmental policy reflects religious assumptions in society does not, in itself, create a theocracy. But since the society a government governs exists independently of that government, there can never be total independence of government and basic assumptions of faith, religious and otherwise. It simply is not possible.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society

Are you contending that "the general background tone of a society" and "policy" mean the same thing?

Policy will, over time, reflect the background assumptions of the society. That's quite inevitable. When there isn't a clearly dominant set of assumptions, policy becomes an endless source of bitter contention, for reasons the contenders themselves can't always define clearly.

If America were to come to have, by whatever sequence of events, a Jewish or Muslim majority, over time government policy would come to reflect the basic assumptions of those faiths, even if the official separation of church and state remained. It would permeate the system even as people imagined they were behaving in a purely secular manner.

It's a little like the metaphor of the fish that doesn't perceive the water around it. To the fish, the surrounding water is just 'the way things are'. But the water provides the physical limits and options that determine what the fish can and can not do, even so.

Likewise, India has a secularist government, but no sane politician in India imagines that he or she can govern independently of the moral and social assumptions embeded in Hinduism. Etc.

The fact that governmental policy reflects religious assumptions in society does not, in itself, create a theocracy. But since the society a government governs exists independently of that government, there can never be total independence of government and basic assumptions of faith, religious and otherwise. It simply is not possible.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society, that's just the way things are. You can never have a society where religion is purely a private matter, irrelevant to public policy.

Acton is basically correct, though in the interests of specificity I would have used the word "fundamentalism" rather than "religion" above.

Depends on what you mean by 'fundamentalism'. Some people reserve it to mean those who believe in absolute Biblical literalism and infallibility, while others apply it to mean those who simply insist that their beliefs are objective, rather than metaphorical.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society, that's just the way things are. You can never have a society where religion is purely a private matter, irrelevant to public policy.

Acton is basically correct, though in the interests of specificity I would have used the word "fundamentalism" rather than "religion" above.

Depends on what you mean by 'fundamentalism'. Some people reserve it to mean those who believe in absolute Biblical literalism and infallibility, while others apply it to mean those who simply insist that their beliefs are objective, rather than metaphorical.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Without a religious basis, you can't meaningfully say that anyone has any rights.

and around we go again.....


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Without a religious basis, you can't meaningfully say that anyone has any rights.

and around we go again.....


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Without a religious basis, you can't meaningfully say that anyone has any rights.

and around we go again.....


TK

OK, TK, here is a very simple, straightforward question: Where do rights come from, and what obligates anyone else to give a damn about someone's rights? What makes an action wrong? You simply can not answer that without resort of faith of some sort, and you'll fail no matter how hard you try. I invite you to try.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Without a religious basis, you can't meaningfully say that anyone has any rights.

and around we go again.....


TK

OK, TK, here is a very simple, straightforward question: Where do rights come from, and what obligates anyone else to give a damn about someone's rights? What makes an action wrong? You simply can not answer that without resort of faith of some sort, and you'll fail no matter how hard you try. I invite you to try.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

OK, TK, here is a very simple, straightforward question: Where do rights come from, and what obligates anyone else to give a damn about someone's rights? What makes an action wrong? You simply can not answer that without resort of faith of some sort, and you'll fail no matter how hard you try. I invite you to try.

well, it's not true at all that i cannot answer without resorting to faith-- i most certainly can, but you will refuse to accept it. as a matter of fact, i believe i already have answered that question (or at least one damn similar, from which you or whoever ought to be able to extrapolate an answer specific this one) and you didn't accept it any more than i accept your assertion.

hence, my comment.


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

OK, TK, here is a very simple, straightforward question: Where do rights come from, and what obligates anyone else to give a damn about someone's rights? What makes an action wrong? You simply can not answer that without resort of faith of some sort, and you'll fail no matter how hard you try. I invite you to try.

well, it's not true at all that i cannot answer without resorting to faith-- i most certainly can, but you will refuse to accept it. as a matter of fact, i believe i already have answered that question (or at least one damn similar, from which you or whoever ought to be able to extrapolate an answer specific this one) and you didn't accept it any more than i accept your assertion.

hence, my comment.


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

OK, TK, here is a very simple, straightforward question: Where do rights come from, and what obligates anyone else to give a damn about someone's rights? What makes an action wrong? You simply can not answer that without resort of faith of some sort, and you'll fail no matter how hard you try. I invite you to try.

well, it's not true at all that i cannot answer without resorting to faith-- i most certainly can, but you will refuse to accept it. as a matter of fact, i believe i already have answered that question (or at least one damn similar, from which you or whoever ought to be able to extrapolate an answer specific this one) and you didn't accept it any more than i accept your assertion.

hence, my comment.


TK

It's not a question of acceptance. Rights either objectively exist, independent of human decisions, or they're just social constructs that lack meaning. Which is it?

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

OK, TK, here is a very simple, straightforward question: Where do rights come from, and what obligates anyone else to give a damn about someone's rights? What makes an action wrong? You simply can not answer that without resort of faith of some sort, and you'll fail no matter how hard you try. I invite you to try.

well, it's not true at all that i cannot answer without resorting to faith-- i most certainly can, but you will refuse to accept it. as a matter of fact, i believe i already have answered that question (or at least one damn similar, from which you or whoever ought to be able to extrapolate an answer specific this one) and you didn't accept it any more than i accept your assertion.

hence, my comment.


TK

It's not a question of acceptance. Rights either objectively exist, independent of human decisions, or they're just social constructs that lack meaning. Which is it?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It's not a question of acceptance. Rights either objectively exist, indepent of human decisions, or they're just social constructs that lack meaning. Which is it?

you see? as you're well aware (since you state it all the time), the issue is in the assumptions.

you say from the get-go that if they are social constructs, they lack meaning. how is something meaningless just because it is a social construct?

after all, can you prove that religion is anything other than a social construct?


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It's not a question of acceptance. Rights either objectively exist, indepent of human decisions, or they're just social constructs that lack meaning. Which is it?

you see? as you're well aware (since you state it all the time), the issue is in the assumptions.

you say from the get-go that if they are social constructs, they lack meaning. how is something meaningless just because it is a social construct?

after all, can you prove that religion is anything other than a social construct?


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It's not a question of acceptance. Rights either objectively exist, indepent of human decisions, or they're just social constructs that lack meaning. Which is it?

you see? as you're well aware (since you state it all the time), the issue is in the assumptions.

you say from the get-go that if they are social constructs, they lack meaning. how is something meaningless just because it is a social construct?

after all, can you prove that religion is anything other than a social construct?

No. Which is part of the point, all the really key foundations of society are built on faith, though if you prefer to limit the word religion, that's fine with me.

As for why it lacks meaning, if it's a social construct, one must then ask what the source of the authority for that social construct is, and by what right those holding enforce it on those who disagree with it. That's the next question in the chain.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It's not a question of acceptance. Rights either objectively exist, indepent of human decisions, or they're just social constructs that lack meaning. Which is it?

you see? as you're well aware (since you state it all the time), the issue is in the assumptions.

you say from the get-go that if they are social constructs, they lack meaning. how is something meaningless just because it is a social construct?

after all, can you prove that religion is anything other than a social construct?

No. Which is part of the point, all the really key foundations of society are built on faith, though if you prefer to limit the word religion, that's fine with me.

As for why it lacks meaning, if it's a social construct, one must then ask what the source of the authority for that social construct is, and by what right those holding enforce it on those who disagree with it. That's the next question in the chain.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

No. Which is part of the point, all the really key foundations of society are built on faith, though if you prefer to limit the word religion, that's fine with me.

As for why it lacks meaning, if it's a social construct, one must then ask what the source of the authority for that social construct is, and by what right those holding enforce it on those who disagree with it. That's the next question in the chain.

so you cannot prove that religion is not a social construct, and social constructs are meaningless. so, you're hoping (in your words, it's a matter of faith) that religion is not meaningless.

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

this is why i often refer to religion as a "conscience for stupid people".

is such a thing meaningless? if you're the type to get bent out of shape about the unknowable, maybe.... but certainly not in my estimation.


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

No. Which is part of the point, all the really key foundations of society are built on faith, though if you prefer to limit the word religion, that's fine with me.

As for why it lacks meaning, if it's a social construct, one must then ask what the source of the authority for that social construct is, and by what right those holding enforce it on those who disagree with it. That's the next question in the chain.

so you cannot prove that religion is not a social construct, and social constructs are meaningless. so, you're hoping (in your words, it's a matter of faith) that religion is not meaningless.

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

we see something happen to someone, and we, either voluntarily or unconsciously, put ourselves in their position. it happens all the time to those of us who aren't nutcases. so we as a society create ("construct") the concept of human rights, to relieve ourselves of, or protect ourselves from, the thought that it could happen to us.

this is why i often refer to religion as a "conscience for stupid people".

is such a thing meaningless? if you're the type to get bent out of shape about the unknowable, maybe.... but certainly not in my estimation.


TK

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society

Are you contending that "the general background tone of a society" and "policy" mean the same thing?

Policy will, over time, reflect the background assumptions of the society. That's quite inevitable.

I left in the whole sequence of discussion because it makes clear how nonresponsive your response was.

If the First Amendment's prohibition on establishment of religion means anything, it means that government policies are not to be set directly in accordance with the dictates of a religious faith. That is NOT the same thing as religious faith (or, as in America, a combination of religious faiths) influencing the "background assumptions of a society," and those assumptions in turn influencing (they do not determine) foreign and domestic government policy.

Acton Ellis was saying that the Republicans allow the dicates of a religion to determine government policy. He was also saying that this, in the context of America, is a radical proposition. I think his factual claim about the GOP isn't beyond dispute, myself. It's not clear to me that the Republicans' dedication to the agenda of the religious right is anything but a vote-conning sham. But if he's right about what the GOP is doing, then he's also right about this being radical, even un-American.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Acton Ellis

In my opinion, the GOP already has their radical agenda set. In America, what is more radical than religion setting policy

I hate to break it to you, but that has nothing to do with reality.

Religion always sets the general background tone of a society

Are you contending that "the general background tone of a society" and "policy" mean the same thing?

Policy will, over time, reflect the background assumptions of the society. That's quite inevitable.

I left in the whole sequence of discussion because it makes clear how nonresponsive your response was.

If the First Amendment's prohibition on establishment of religion means anything, it means that government policies are not to be set directly in accordance with the dictates of a religious faith. That is NOT the same thing as religious faith (or, as in America, a combination of religious faiths) influencing the "background assumptions of a society," and those assumptions in turn influencing (they do not determine) foreign and domestic government policy.

Acton Ellis was saying that the Republicans allow the dicates of a religion to determine government policy. He was also saying that this, in the context of America, is a radical proposition. I think his factual claim about the GOP isn't beyond dispute, myself. It's not clear to me that the Republicans' dedication to the agenda of the religious right is anything but a vote-conning sham. But if he's right about what the GOP is doing, then he's also right about this being radical, even un-American.

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

No. Which is part of the point, all the really key foundations of society are built on faith, though if you prefer to limit the word religion, that's fine with me.

As for why it lacks meaning, if it's a social construct, one must then ask what the source of the authority for that social construct is, and by what right those holding enforce it on those who disagree with it. That's the next question in the chain.

so you cannot prove that religion is not a social construct, and social constructs are meaningless. so, you're hoping (in your words, it's a matter of faith) that religion is not meaningless.

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

What about it? They exist, but what about them creates obligation? We can sympathize with others (or most of us can), and we can choose to act with others' interests in mind.

But what about that ability creates any duty to use it?

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

No. Which is part of the point, all the really key foundations of society are built on faith, though if you prefer to limit the word religion, that's fine with me.

As for why it lacks meaning, if it's a social construct, one must then ask what the source of the authority for that social construct is, and by what right those holding enforce it on those who disagree with it. That's the next question in the chain.

so you cannot prove that religion is not a social construct, and social constructs are meaningless. so, you're hoping (in your words, it's a matter of faith) that religion is not meaningless.

anyway, for shits and giggles, howzabout the source of authority is something internal-- our ability as a species, due to our faculties of reason and imagination, to "put ourselves in another's place"?

What about it? They exist, but what about them creates obligation? We can sympathize with others (or most of us can), and we can choose to act with others' interests in mind.

But what about that ability creates any duty to use it?

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

But what about that ability creates any duty to use it?

Will. Choice. That is what it comes down to in the end, inevitably.

If you believe that the Creator of the universe requires this sort of behavior, in the absence of proof of this assertion, that is simply a fancy way of saying that you choose to accept the obligation. Your belief obligates you, but you choose to believe, so in the end you choose to be obligated.

There's really no escaping this. The burden of choice and will is on us, not on God.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

But what about that ability creates any duty to use it?

Will. Choice. That is what it comes down to in the end, inevitably.

If you believe that the Creator of the universe requires this sort of behavior, in the absence of proof of this assertion, that is simply a fancy way of saying that you choose to accept the obligation. Your belief obligates you, but you choose to believe, so in the end you choose to be obligated.

There's really no escaping this. The burden of choice and will is on us, not on God.

One other thing, H.C. You seem to be asserting that religion determines the "background assumptions of a society." I think a strong case could be made that it's the other way around, and American society is a case in point. There is no other culture in the world so dedicated to religious liberty, and no other culture in the world with such a rainbow of religious beliefs. Not only are all the world's great religions and most of its minor ones represented here, but America has been the wellspring of a great many new religions and new sects of old ones.

At times, you have seemed to be asserting that this diversity -- and the challenge it presents to traditional Christianity's influence on our society -- endangers the values and mores central to American culture. But what could be more obvious than that this diversity is a product of those very values and mores?