Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The mixing of Church and State is something I'm very much opposed to. If a country is meant to be for people of all religions (and lack of religion), one religion's beliefs should never be held as law. Whether that's no working on the Sabbath, no gay marriage, no eating shellfish, etc.
You can't force someone to follow the rules of a religion they don't believe in.
Li'l reminder of the stuff that makes Cruz an unholy nightmare candidate.
Integration of church and state is nothing but a thin-veiled excuse for oppression and greed. It's a backwards, regressive notion that has no reason to exist.
CONDEMN Cruz for his associations, don't pretty-please beg him to pretend to be more moderate than he is."
One comment says. I agree.
edited 19th Mar '16 2:20:58 AM by Luminosity
![]()
![]()
Yes. Unless you assert that the legal laws of a nation must be derived from the moral laws of a (our) religion.
Hence all the talk of "Judeo-Christian values." They don't necessarily want everyone to be Christian, they just want everybody to do the right things. Which happen to be Christian. Therefore anything else happens to be wrong. And people going around doing "objectively wrong" things is no basis for a system of government.
This is tied into the idea that only religion begets morality, which is a very prevalent viewpoint in America (and around the world, for that matter) as far as I'm aware. Scalia, for example, seemed to be of that persuasion from the few pieces I've seen.
edited 19th Mar '16 2:25:12 AM by Eschaton
Regardless of whether only religion is the only thing that begets morality (and I'll give you a hint: it isn't), religious ideologies tend to have ethical codes involved. These ethical systems should be looked at and considered by society-it makes no sense to exclude one simply because it's religious in origin.
edited 19th Mar '16 2:31:48 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34I'm not sure any ethical code is religious by origin. Religion is used as a tool to enforce ethical code.
edited 19th Mar '16 2:39:17 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username![]()
There are ethical codes that are non-religious and irreligious in nature, but most religions have an ethical code of some sort.
edited 19th Mar '16 2:38:30 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34
In that case, I'd argue that it really doesn't matter that a religion is spreading them.
Religion? No. State religion? Yes. State religions are oppresive, dogmatic, and unchanging by nature, which isn't a good thing for any ethical code, even disregarding the "ethical" codes that always string along because some pastor really can't stop fantasizing about other people's bedrooms.
Very few things are always right and very few things are always wrong. State religion is a social gridlock trying its best to make that untrue. I would not accept even a state religion that somehow perfectly 100% matched my values for exactly this reason. I'm pretty sure no such religion exists(they're all damn prudes, for one...), just hypothetically.
edited 19th Mar '16 2:48:23 AM by Luminosity
The thing is, not all of these codes age well. Science Marches On, Society Marches On, but religions still keep them around because God's word is eternal or something.
edited 19th Mar '16 2:45:25 AM by flameboy21th
Non Indicative Username![]()
I never said anything about state religion, simply that religious ethics should not be excluded on principle (and by extension, that religious organizations should make their values popular, and that the state should consider these values).
Question: What can the President do/not do with executive orders?
Direct all enquiries to Jamie B GoodThat's a Mathematician's Answer, man.
edited 19th Mar '16 5:34:38 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
![]()
Anything as long as it's kept classified for national security reasons
I mean, who knows what a creative use of a state of emergency and Directive 51 can do?
EDIT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Ooh, devious.
edited 19th Mar '16 6:51:35 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleI'm not sure how well I'll explain this, so here goes:
I don't have issues with a religious person in office per se. Or, to put it another way, I've no issue with someone who learned their values from religion and goes to church regularly.
My issue comes from people whose religion actively dictates everything they do. This is the impression I get from men like Cruz, who use their faith as the primary basis of their ideas.
It's kind of the difference between being a Christian in the White House and wanting to make the White House Christian.
The separation of Church and State on a country as diverse as the US has always struck me as painfully obvious necessity. Trying to combine them carries an obvious problem that can be expressed in one simple question: Which religion?
edited 19th Mar '16 7:05:49 AM by sgamer82
Agreed. You can have a religion, just don't make that the point.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If your religion defines you as a person, to the point where it crowds out all other influences (like family, schoolteachers, etc.) and its doctrine dictates your beliefs and actions — guess what: you're a fanatic.
And as someone once said, there's nothing more dangerous than a zealot with a cause.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.The UK's Church is a strange case in that it constitutes the Trope Namer for "the Establishment". Antidisestablishmentarianism is the longest English word, and basically means being against separation of Church and State. It is the most boring, bland Church to have ever bored, and deliberately so. Truly a fascinating phenomenon.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

edited 19th Mar '16 1:59:43 AM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34