Religious Politics - Godless Political Values (moral, Jehovah, minority, America)

[Pah]

Godless Political Values: Importance of Godless Values to Modern Democracy

Austin Cline

Godless Political Values for Liberal, Representative Democracy:
Politics in a liberal, democratic democracy cannot long proceed or survive simply by inertia; instead they must be constantly fed by people who are engaged in the political process and who share some of the basic values necessary for such a democracy to thrive. None of these values depend in any way upon religion or theism; this means that they necessarily “godless” — that they exist independently of people’s religions and gods.

Secularism:
Often derided by those who don’t understand or believe in it, secularism is a critical component of liberal democracy. Secularism is the political principle or philosophy that there must exist some sphere of knowledge, values, institutions, and action that is independent of religious authority. If there is no such secular sphere, then everything is under ecclesiastical control and this undermines the possibility for liberty and autonomy

.Cline goes on to make several other points or observations on the subjet

All are open for debate.

[Quiddity]

The intention was never to void out all religiosity in the political arena, but was more of a anti-clerical leaning. If there is no religious sphere, then everything is under non-theistic control and this undermines the possibility for liberty and autonomy.

So what's the difference?

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Victor

The intention was never to void out all religiosity in the political arena, but was more of a anti-clerical leaning. If there is no religious sphere, then everything is under non-theistic control and this undermines the possibility for liberty and autonomy.

So what's the difference?

Historically, that's not true where cases abound of religious control of the politic. And it's not true in the specifics of being anti-clergy. As in this administration with respect for the soldiers and disdain for the administration, the clergical "troops in the field' are not the target. It is the authoritative control by virtue of proclaiming God speaks in political matters

If there is not secular control of secular matters then a particular religious authority will prevail. Long gone will be the thought of cooperation in some social issues. The authority will focus on the theological, dogmatic differences. It will be a battle of religious supremecy and, right now, I could not pick a winner. Some of the denominations perhaps at risk will be LDS, Roman and Eastern Cathology, Jewish groupings, Jehovah's Witnesses, and gay inclusive churches. Such is the nature of theocracy.

[Quiddity]

Originally Posted by Pah

Historically, that's not true where cases abound of religious control of the politic. And it's not true in the specifics of being anti-clergy. As in this administration with respect for the soldiers and disdain for the administration, the clergical "troops in the field' are not the target. It is the authoritative control by virtue of proclaiming God speaks in political matters

It is a fact, that much of the early documents were indeed read in a religious light and to separate themselves from mother church in Europe. So most everything would be redefined and clarified to include everybody and take power away from the more clergy style churches. Seeing no religion in politics is a later development and the word “separate” was taken hyper-literally. So let’s disagree there. We must have had different history classes.

Originally Posted by Pah

If there is not secular control of secular matters then a particular religious authority will prevail. Long gone will be the thought of cooperation in some social issues. The authority will focus on the theological, dogmatic differences. It will be a battle of religious supremecy and, right now, I could not pick a winner. Some of the denominations perhaps at risk will be LDS, Roman and Eastern Cathology, Jewish groupings, Jehovah's Witnesses, and gay inclusive churches. Such is the nature of theocracy.

I see, so in your eyes we either have a theocracy or a complete non-religious philosophy ran government? I was actually thinking you were willing to compromise, perhaps I was wrong. Just like many people won't entertain the idea of a theocracy for it is extreme, the same goes for what you seem to be promoting. Good Luck....

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Victor

It is a fact, that much of the early documents were indeed read in a religious light and to separate themselves from mother church in Europe. So most everything would be redefined and clarified to include everybody and take power away from the more clergy style churches. Seeing no religion in politics is a later development and the word “separate” was taken hyper-literally. So let’s disagree there. We must have had different history classes.

"Early documents", of course, is not the whole of history. And, of course there is reference in the basic "document" that there is a separate of church and state. That our founders recognized the harm religious control brought does, in fact, lend credence to the Biblical teaching of separation.

Or perhaps you mean the political documents?

FEDERALIST No. 10 http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...pers/fed10.htm

James Madison Explains the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/ma...on/madison.htm
We know, however, that no society ever did, or can, consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens. In the Savage state, indeed, an approach is made towards it, but in that state little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations and soils, and according to the different branches of commerce and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded on accidental differences in political, religious, or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction may appear to the enlightened Statesman or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind, who are neither Statesmen nor philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light.

It remains, then, to be enquired, whether a majority having any common interest, or feeling any common passion, will find sufficient motives to restrain them from oppressing the minority. An individual is never allowed to be a judge, or even a witness, in his own cause. If two individuals are under to bias of interest or enmity against a third, the rights of the latter could never be safely referred to the majority of the three. Will two thousand individuals be less apt to oppress one thousand, or two hundred thousand one hundred thousand?

Within our country, our current constitutional government has been free of religious influence since it's concept and design by inclusion of a freedom of religion. What abuse of this that is present is a degree of theocracy.

Hyper literally sounds very much like redundancy. Our constitution was not founded on literalism but specifically cast in broad terms so that the application of the principles behing the terms would remain applicable. That is a reason for its success in the past 200+ years

I guess we did go to "different classes" and I can not agree to disagree

I see, so in your eyes we either have a theocracy or a complete non-religious philosophy ran government? I was actually thinking you were willing to compromise, perhaps I was wrong. Just like many people won't entertain the idea of a theocracy for it is extreme, the same goes for what you seem to be promoting. Good Luck....

I don't know where you got the idea I would compromise the complete and necessary separation of church and state. Compromise on this issue is not any idea offered in my previous posts.

Theocracy is present in degree. As the OP says, if you value liberty and autonomy, both individual and collective as a democracy is defined, then "ecclesiastical control ... undermines the possibility for liberty and autonomy" and "None of these values [liberty and autonomy] depend in any way upon religion or theism". The Constitution reflects that.

Care to specifcally address the two points presented or maybe one or two others from the article?