Politics...revealed

[Captain Peabody]

Basically, all I'm saying is that (1) Religion and ideology always affect someone's decisions, whether someone acknowledges it, and thus a strict Separation of Church and State will never be viable, and (2) Religion is not 'irrelavent' to the political sphere, and should in fact influence decisions in these arenas.

God knows, I've gotten a bit long-winded, though...

[sunnyside]

The problem with purely religious justifications for an opinion, particularly when the individual expressing the opinion is a politician and therefore in a position to directly influence far more lives than the average person, is that it relies solely on what's written on a piece of paper. It provides no evidence whatsoever for why said opinion is moral other than "God says so". To which my response is that either the individual advocating the opinion should justify it, or they can tell God to get his arse down here to justify it. To simply brush off the key question of "why" as "God says so" is unacceptable.

And how is that different than saying.

"My philosophy(on religion etc) is right and everyone else's is wrong. Therefore any position they have that is based primarily on their philosophy is wrong."

Now, I suppose if that quote is just your stance so be it.

However, if you believe someone else (say Peabody) would be fundamentally in the wrong for saying that same thing to you or someone else because it is an intolerant thing to say you are a hypocrite.

[Captain Seafort]

Basically, all I'm saying is that (1) Religion and ideology always affect someone's decisions, whether someone acknowledges it, and thus a strict Separation of Church and State will never be viable,

True, but opinions, particularly when they have a broarder effect on the lives of others, should always be logically justifed, not merely stated.

(2) Religion is not 'irrelavent' to the political sphere, and should in fact influence decisions in these arenas.

Why?

[sunnyside]

Note to self, post first, edit grammar and spelling later because otherwise someone will start replying before you get your post down. (with the same timestamps I'm guessing there isn't any way Seafort saw my last post).

[Captain Seafort]

And how is that different than saying.

"My philosophy(on religion etc) is right and everyone else's is wrong. Therefore any position they have that is based primarily on their philosophy is wrong."

Because what I'd be saying is "My philosophy is right because of a, b and c, and theirs is wrong because of x, y and z." Not simply expressing an opinion, but providing evidence to support it.

[sunnyside]

They have "evidence" you will simply refuse to accept it.

Plus there are a wide range of moral issues that aren't a simple matter of fact and so there is no "evidence" as such. Simply opinions and beliefs of right and wrong. Generally it is those issues where religion affects the policies.

Again the animal experimentation thing is an example.

EDIT: I think a fundamental thing here is that you believe you are exempt from your own standards of tolerance becuase you believe that you are right and that everyone else is wrong.

News flash. Pretty much everyone else feels the same way in any philosophy or religion. At least a lot of them.

If you apply different standards of tolerance you are a hypocrite, simple as that.

[Mikey]

Sunnyside summates the crux of the matter perfectly. The bottom line is, one person will always claim that the bases of his motivations are more valid than another person's.

I think (and hope) we are all agreed that realigning government for the purpose of conforming to a religion is wrong; however, saying that someone's morality being based in faith is a "wrong" stance is merely another way of saying "I'm right and you're wrong because I said so."

[Sionnach Glic]

I believe that Rochey and Seafort believe that a persons positions should be viewed in light of origin. And that a religious cause is worse than any other.

*sigh*
I have already stated that that is not the case. I believe that a person's position should be viewed for what their policies are, and not be viewed on the basis of what religion they follow. I also believe that a person's religious beliefs should be seperate from their policies, but I know that that is never going to be the case.

And how is that different than saying.

"My philosophy(on religion etc) is right and everyone else's is wrong. Therefore any position they have that is based primarily on their philosophy is wrong."

It's different when there is no evidence to back up position A, but evidence to back up position B. Which is exactly what this is. A policy based on science, facts, and reasoning will inherintly have more evidence than one based on a book written thousands of years ago, and edited numerous times.

They have "evidence" you will simply refuse to accept it.

Both myself and Seafort base our beliefs on evidence. If anyone was able to show evidence of the existance of a god or gods, I would accept it. I probably wouldn't be particularly pleased to find out my life's beliefs are wrong, but I would accept it. At least it would mean there's a nice afterlife.
But this is moot, as there is no evidence to back up these positions.

If you apply different standards of tolerance you are a hypocrite, simple as that.

Quite true. So it's a good thing I don't.

Basically, all I'm saying is that (1) Religion and ideology always affect someone's decisions, whether someone acknowledges it,

Yes? We've already agreed to this already.

and thus a strict Separation of Church and State will never be viable,

No, it isn't viable, again we've agreed on that. What I am saying is that it would be far better if it was viable.

and (2) Religion is not 'irrelavent' to the political sphere, and should in fact influence decisions in these arenas.

Obviously religion is not irrelevant, again we've already agreed on that.
But why should it influence decisions?

[Sionnach Glic]

I believe that Rochey and Seafort believe that a persons positions should be viewed in light of origin. And that a religious cause is worse than any other.

*sigh*
I have already stated that that is not the case. I believe that a person's position should be viewed for what their policies are, and not be viewed on the basis of what religion they follow. I also believe that a person's religious beliefs should be seperate from their policies, but I know that that is never going to be the case.

And how is that different than saying.

"My philosophy(on religion etc) is right and everyone else's is wrong. Therefore any position they have that is based primarily on their philosophy is wrong."

It's different when there is no evidence to back up position A, but evidence to back up position B. Which is exactly what this is. A policy based on science, facts, and reasoning will inherintly have more evidence than one based on a book written thousands of years ago, and edited numerous times.

They have "evidence" you will simply refuse to accept it.

Both myself and Seafort base our beliefs on evidence. If anyone was able to show evidence of the existance of a god or gods, I would accept it. I probably wouldn't be particularly pleased to find out my life's beliefs are wrong, but I would accept it. At least it would mean there's a nice afterlife.
But this is moot, as there is no evidence to back up these positions.

If you apply different standards of tolerance you are a hypocrite, simple as that.

Quite true. So it's a good thing I don't.

Basically, all I'm saying is that (1) Religion and ideology always affect someone's decisions, whether someone acknowledges it,

Yes? We've already agreed to this already.

and thus a strict Separation of Church and State will never be viable,

No, it isn't viable, again we've agreed on that. What I am saying is that it would be far better if it was viable.

and (2) Religion is not 'irrelavent' to the political sphere, and should in fact influence decisions in these arenas.

Obviously religion is not irrelevant, again we've already agreed on that.
But why should it influence decisions?

[Captain Peabody]

So, basically, we both agree that (1) Belief and ideology always have an effect on decision-making, and (2) a strict Separation of Church and State is thus highly improbable, if not impossible. What we disagree on is whether or not such a Separation would be desirable; I believe firmly it would not, while you believe we would all be better off it was true.

All that sound all right?

[Sionnach Glic]

Yeah, that seems to be it.

[Tsukiyumi]

All wrapped up in a neat little package. Nice work, gentlemen.

[Monroe]

Obama crushes Clinton!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/south_carolina_primary


/cheer

[Monroe]

Okay this part of the article made me go huh?

Overall, Clinton has 249 delegates, followed by Obama with 167 and Edwards with 58.

Say what?

[Sionnach Glic]

So, um....who won, in that case?