The End of Merkin Christinsanity

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

It's more the view that they must disclose their (non) faith as a matter of course. It seems to be expected. Where it should be irrelevant.

Not if you're a theist whose concerned the candidate will ruin the country by enforcing their godless, satanic values. It's highly relevant (to you) then.

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

Not if you're a theist whose concerned the candidate will ruin the country by enforcing their godless, satanic values. It's highly relevant (to you) then.

Which would leave us with a mandate that only persons with certain religious views can hold office. What happens to the separation of church and state then? This is why it should be irrelevant. On the other hand, haven't theists tried to enforce their religious views upon the population? Especially with regard to reproductive rights, death penalties, etc.

[Kinich Ahau]

You better watch out in the UK. If figures drop any further you might face a wave of evangelical missionaries from the US. The good thing about this is the poor Africans might get some relief from the fuckers.

[ubs]

Stargazer wrote

Which would leave us with a mandate that only persons with certain religious views can hold office. What happens to the separation of church and state then? This is why it should be irrelevant. On the other hand, haven't theists tried to enforce their religious views upon the population? Especially with regard to reproductive rights, death penalties, etc.

Victus is down on democracy. A part of me worries that he's trying to instill himself as our Canadian overlord.

[Stargazer]

ubs wrote

Victus is down on democracy. A part of me worries that he's trying to instill himself as our Canadian overlord.

Oh, just what we need - another thing to worry about.

Which part of you is worried?

[psychodiva]

Kinich Ahau wrote

You better watch out in the UK. If figures drop any further you might face a wave of evangelical missionaries from the US. The good thing about this is the poor Africans might get some relief from the fuckers.

that would be fun!!

[Philboid Studge]

ubs wrote

I predict the numbers will do an about face before the end of Obama's administration in response to economic hardship. Shall we take bets?

Honestly I don't know if we have numbers on this. I'm guessing there haven't been any sea changes. It either means Obama has saved us all from the econopocalypse or that it isn't as easy to predict human behaviour as some people think. (Or perhaps some other false -chotomy.)

[Victus]

Stargazer wrote

Which would leave us with a mandate that only persons with certain religious views can hold office.

Practically, yes. Legally, no.

Anyone can hold office, legally. But only people who believe in god will hold office if the democracy works and voters care about that kind of thing.

Stargazer wrote

What happens to the separation of church and state then?

There's no legal test on religious belief for office, so it hasn't been violated.

Stargazer wrote

This is why it should be irrelevant.

It will never be irrelevant as long as 1) the system is actually democratic and 2) the median voter cares enough that candidates can score points by pandering to them about their religious beliefs. As long as those two conditions are met, you will always see candidates play up their religious beliefs to voters during campaigns.

Stargazer wrote

On the other hand, haven't theists tried to enforce their religious views upon the population?

They have, but they're the majority. That's what you would want to happen in a functioning democracy, right? You're not anti-democracy, are you?

Stargazer wrote

Especially with regard to reproductive rights, death penalties, etc.

Why does it matter if infringements on liberty stem from religion vs. some other inane form of ignorance or irrationality?

ubs wrote

Victus is down on democracy.

I think democracy is probably the least-worst means of solving genuine collective problems. It just happens to 1) be applied more often to non-collective problems to which it is inappropriate and 2) inherently generates bad incentives for voters to make rational choices.

As such, when I see a democracy with irrational policies and a public that strongly support those policies, I don't conclude that democracy has failed, but that it has succeeded in giving voters what they wanted, however terrible and counter-productive that may be.

ubs wrote

A part of me worries that he's trying to instill himself as our Canadian overlord.

I feel I've been pretty forthright on that front.

[Irreligious]

I don't know if Christianity has surged under the dark reign of our black knight(mare?), but gun sales shot up this past Christmas.

Conventional wisdom says they're related. God and guns, that is. But who trusts conventional wisdom?

[Stargazer]

Victus wrote

Practically, yes. Legally, no.

Anyone can hold office, legally. But only people who believe in god will hold office if the democracy works and voters care about that kind of thing.

So, if the people want to create a Christian state and enforce the Bible as law, they can. How long before we go down the slippery slope and have a government like Afghanistan's? Yes, it's Islamic, not Christian, but at the bottom of the slope lies fundamentalist totalitarian rule in either of these, or any religion. Our country was created as a place that allows freedom of religion (and, by extension, no religion), which is in the Constitution, and while separation of church and state is not, per se, it was a comment of Thomas Jefferson's which has been generally (but not completely) upheld by the Supreme Court. If we allow a majority religion to impose their beliefs on this country, how then are we allowing religious freedom?

There's no legal test on religious belief for office, so it hasn't been violated.

It (separation of church and state) can be violated without a "legal test."

It will never be irrelevant as long as 1) the system is actually democratic and 2) the median voter cares enough that candidates can score points by pandering to them about their religious beliefs. As long as those two conditions are met, you will always see candidates play up their religious beliefs to voters during campaigns.

True.

They have, but they're the majority. That's what you would want to happen in a functioning democracy, right? You're not anti-democracy, are you?

See above.

Why does it matter if infringements on liberty stem from religion vs. some other inane form of ignorance or irrationality?

It doesn't. Infringements on liberty from all sources need to be watched carefully, lest we sign away our rights.

I think democracy is probably the least-worst means of solving genuine collective problems. It just happens to 1) be applied more often to non-collective problems to which it is inappropriate and 2) inherently generates bad incentives for voters to make rational choices.

As such, when I see a democracy with irrational policies and a public that strongly support those policies, I don't conclude that democracy has failed, but that it has succeeded in giving voters what they wanted, however terrible and counter-productive that may be.

A democracy is better run with an educated public. With our educational standards falling in relation to other nations, it is no wonder that fewer of us are capable of critical reasoning and therefore fall prey to those who would think for them. These days, it seems, we are encouraged not to think for ourselves, but to accept at face value what we are told, without independently checking other sources.

I feel I've been pretty forthright on that front.

Let us know when the takeover is scheduled to begin.

[nkb]

Victus wrote

There's no legal test on religious belief for office, so it hasn't been violated.

Depends on the state. Some states have religious requirements for public office, despite the clear constitutional violation.

Victus wrote

It will never be irrelevant as long as 1) the system is actually democratic and 2) the median voter cares enough that candidates can score points by pandering to them about their religious beliefs. As long as those two conditions are met, you will always see candidates play up their religious beliefs to voters during campaigns.

Sad, but very accurate. This crap won't stop until the majority of people don't give a shit any more what a candidate's religious views are.

Victus wrote

They have, but they're the majority. That's what you would want to happen in a functioning democracy, right? You're not anti-democracy, are you?

We don't have a pure democracy. Rights of individuals are still legally protected, no matter what the majority wants.

[Stargazer]

nkb wrote

Rights of individuals are still legally protected, no matter what the majority wants.

Well said.

[Victus]

nkb wrote

Depends on the state. Some states have religious requirements for public office, despite the clear constitutional violation.

Indeed, but how many atheists could even win an election to be in a position to challenge said laws in those jurisdictions? Basically none.

nkb wrote

Sad, but very accurate. This crap won't stop until the majority of people don't give a shit any more what a candidate's religious views are.

Yar.

nkb wrote

We don't have a pure democracy. Rights of individuals are still legally protected, no matter what the majority wants.

Well, some rights are. But to the extent that you think that's a good think, it's an argument against democracy.

[Stargazer]

Do you mean to say a democracy does not protect the rights of the individual?

[psychodiva]

Over here in the UK we appear to be doing quite well in the war against ignorant christians