The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State

[Soulforged]

If there is no higher authority dictating a moral code we are left with personal opinions. If God says 'Thou shalt not commit murder", that is a commandment. If you say... "Hey, it's just me but shooting those people is... like not real cool". That is your opinion. My opinion may be that they have a car I want and I never liked 'those sort of people' anyway. That's my opinion. There is no higher authority for the two of us, to determine whose opinion should prevail. Or maybe there is! Maybe if we make a God of a man, we get our higher authority. Let's call him Der Fuhrer, and lets create a cult around Stalin, or Mao. If we then enforce the higher authority with enough control and brutality we can essentially recreate what we just got rid of. That is why this Atheist is comfortable with the flawed doctrine of Christianity. It's better than what the secular alternative has shown itself to be!

My point is not to get rid of religion. Is a little complex: if there's religious man then they have to be politically represented and offer real pressure in the system. If there's no religious man, then it means that we've found our limit in the fellowman (no higher authority than humanity itself wich will require us to be equal and free), but beyond that, it also means that there's no religion to be represented politically so the problem of separation is null. In the society we live today my view is close to yours, we need religious ideas to penetrate the State as we need a lot of other ideas: socialism, liberalism, conservadurism, progresism, capitalism, iusnaturalism, positivism, etc. I see religion in politics as I see everything else, just another part of the aparatus wich creates a determined morality or legality, no its foundation.

The basic thing that preserves social order, protects property and safeguards our liberty is the basic morality that individuals hold in their own hearts. When too many people follow their personal code of conduct, rather than a societal code, society has to resort to the passing of many laws to govern people. The law cannot be used as a substitute for virtue. No law can protect you from a dishonest man, because the law can always be circumvented, and in any case is always applied after the fact. The rapid growth of laws, rules and regulations in our society is a reflection of this.

That's exactly when custom, traditions and even common sense comes into play. The custom and traditions of the religious man and many atheist too are religious in nature and origin. However those three elements can be abstracted from religion, so there's no logical necesity for the fall of society without religion. The power of tradition, of repetition, of herence, is just as great as the power of faith.

The secular movements consistently show that the divergent voices are silenced and the movement is 'purged' of dissidents. They need to do this as any society or group of people must do, to become capable of effective action. Too many cooks and the soup never gets done. This is why we have no committee's ruling nations for very long. Secular ethics almost always assume that men are basically good, and this is nonsense. Communism was based on this flawed concept and it simply didn't work. Free enterprise is based on the idea of harnessing greed to do good for society as a whole, and it works. If men were by nature virtuous we wouldn't need laws, and wars would be something we observe in ant farms.

This enunciation depends enterily on your vission of man, that makes it a question of opinion at best. However by that logic the entire doctrine derivated from Locke is also flawed, we've to remember that Locke teached a good social man wich only needed laws to ensure property, because, though the man is naturally good and has certain morality, there's always exceptions. The bad man is the exception, not the good one. The liberalist and proto utilitarist tesis of Locke is also very religious, and tolerant of religion (it couldn't be anyway else). However you attach yourself to much to utilitarism, using materialism as the justification for a certain regime.
The view of man we've is entirely functional to the kind of society and State we want to see. You see the truth in pragmatism and effectiveness, I think they're necessary but not sufficient.

I agree with you that men are not equal, but I am also aware that there are some pretty nasty conclusions that stem from that. Christianity may be a panacea, and a lie but it doesn't mean that it is a lie that doesn't have its uses. We all live a lie because to do otherwise is too frightening. The universe is a rather large, cold and dark, and we are just a bit of biological material on one of its smaller bodies.

I agree with you in this.

Nothing we do matters in any real sense any more than the life drama of an ant or a chicken matter! People die, there are no exceptions to the rule. They die for all sorts of reasons, none of which really matter in the long run. We foster an illusion that our lives have significance because we are afraid to deal with how little meaning anything that we do actually has.

However... Things, in my opinion, don't matter because they're trascendent, they matter because they're, as simple as that. But if you want to find trascendence, secular style, you can always see that doctor who saves a life or an inventor wich gives humanity his creation for as long as the human spececies lives. Not all people find significance in something greater than the human being. I, for one, find meaning in helping my family first and then time will tell, the meaning of life has everything to do with what we do day by day, not many people find lots of time to meditate on transition... Of course I understand that you're again seeing numbers, from a macro perspective of social life, but I think that I already answered that.

There is no purpose to the universe, There is no purpose to human life, there is no purpose to your life, or mine. It is just a vast swirl of matter and energy and we face a future extinction of endless cold. Thats all! So what kind of ethical standards about the lives of chickens, men, or ants can you come up with that has any solid foundation?

That's your perspective, including the fact of an endless universal expansion and eternal cold without energy, wich isn't certain...

[sharrukin]

This enunciation depends enterily on your vission of man, that makes it a question of opinion at best. However by that logic the entire doctrine derivated from Locke is also flawed, we've to remember that Locke teached a good social man wich only needed laws to ensure property, because, though the man is naturally good and has certain morality, there's always exceptions. The bad man is the exception, not the good one. The liberalist and proto utilitarist tesis of Locke is also very religious, and tolerant of religion (it couldn't be anyway else). However you attach yourself to much to utilitarism, using materialism as the justification for a certain regime.

John Locke has never impressed me very much. I think Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan got closer to the mark of what human nature actually is. That said I don't think we actually disagree on as much as I had at first thought.

However... Things, in my opinion, don't matter because they're trascendent, they matter because they're, as simple as that. But if you want to find trascendence, secular style, you can always see that doctor who saves a life or an inventor wich gives humanity his creation for as long as the human spececies lives. Not all people find significance in something greater than the human being. I, for one, find meaning in helping my family first and then time will tell, the meaning of life has everything to do with what we do day by day, not many people find lots of time to meditate on transition... Of course I understand that you're again seeing numbers, from a macro perspective of social life, but I think that I already answered that.
That's your perspective, including the fact of an endless universal expansion and eternal cold without energy, wich isn't certain...

Well, if the truth be told I was exxagerating a little. Life is to be enjoyed in the little things of life, IMHO. I don't think there is any purpose, but to an ant, a man, or a chicken I am sure their daily drama's matter to them. The problem is that we are thinking creatures and need to justify our actions. Nature doesn't provide and grand justifications, and we are left with opinions, of what I want as opposed to what the other guy wants. Not easy to forge a viable society from that.

[Brenus]

“France during the revolution descended into exactly the kind of violence I am talking about and decided to invade the rest of Europe in a bid for mastery”: France was attacked by a coalition o monarchs who were afraid of the Revolution, then when victorious decided to free the enslave people against their will. Robespierre, not the most notorious hippy said once: “The nations don’t like armed prophets”.

[sharrukin]

“France during the revolution descended into exactly the kind of violence I am talking about and decided to invade the rest of Europe in a bid for mastery”: France was attacked by a coalition o monarchs who were afraid of the Revolution, then when victorious decided to free the enslave people against their will. Robespierre, not the most notorious hippy said once: “The nations don’t like armed prophets”.

The rise of a Fascist state on their borders somewhat concerned them! Go figure. Those crazy monarchies just couldn't understand that if you leave Fascists, and Communists alone, they will leave you alone.

They did what we should have done against Hitler when we had the chance!

Freeing people against their will? That would be a "Peoples Democracy"?

[Kralizec]

The rise of a Fascist state on their borders somewhat concerned them! Go figure. Those crazy monarchies just couldn't understand that if you leave Fascists, and Communists alone, they will leave you alone.

They did what we should have done against Hitler when we had the chance!

Freeing people against their will? That would be a "Peoples Democracy"?

Go read a book, or even watch a documentary before you go claiming crazy stuff like this.