How would you have government without ideology? FOCJ and panarchism would be the closest to such a thing, allowing for everybody to voluntarily participate in their own ideal form of government, but they are both ideologies in and of themselves and the latter isn't necessary a form of government but rather a lack thereof.
"How can you favor the Separation of Church and state without also accepting the Separation of Ideology and State, unless your motives are duplicitous and hypocritical?" Because people accept god out of blind faith, its disengenious to use this force them into supporting men who are obviously unrelated to god.
People accept ideaology out of reason, and mabey accept or reject them as they see fit, without risking burning in hell.
There is no moral imperative in the lives of the faithful to follow secular ideology, or philosophers.
Thats the point. To prevent the abuse of people, by levering their faith for political gain. Coversly, it protects churches, because it removes the imperative for the political corrupt to join to manipulate people politically.
The hypothesis that the Keynesian model represents was disproven in the 1970s, and again in 2010. Those who believe the Keynesian model do so entirely out of faith. It's like the economic version of Flat-Earth theory.
It started as a mathematical model representing a hypothesis about how the economy works. However, that hypothesis was proven wrong in the 1970s. Yet, people of a certain political persuasion still adhere to that model, purely on faith. It's like an economic Flat Earth theory.
The issue is about seperating religious institutions, and theology from the state on the grounds it corrupts both the state and religion.
There are many religions, and many contradict each other on certain things. This is fine, because religion is something that individuals choose to practice on their own.
Laws of the state are something imposed on people. In the past, religious laws are imposed on people who do not necessarily belong to other religions which does things different.
Also, the biggest reason for the separation of church and state, was to keep churchs a-political. It keeps politics from interfering with a preachers sermons, and keeps his words his own, not what the state tells him to preach.
It also removes the incentive for those with ill-means to join the church in search of secular political power between men, by arbitrarily making interpretations of religion for their political benefit, either directly, or by the appointment of puppet politicians. This is very dangerous, because people take the existence of religeon on faith. a subversive that works his way up a church hierarchy, can then control the will of the church's followers by using the word of god, to coerce church goers into an unrelated political ideology for personal gain.
Well the ideology is what they teach students so they can understand a little more about the topic.
I personally don't think everything taught is true. A "separation" of ideology and state would be hard and might not be the best idea. A lot of things in the school system would change and I don't think it is necessary. I think what they can do however is tell students specifically that what they teach is currently the consensus, not the 100% truth.
The idea of separation is silly... People have such deep emotional, opinionated ties to politics, ideology, and religion, that they're not going to just switch them on and off individually. Politicians know that... most political debates ARE nothing more than emotional manipulation, tied into moral opinions, to get the crowd riled up. You have a nice idea. It's all too logical. It'll never fly. Find a way to connect to people ideologically, then drag your point across. See where that gets you!
Actually you get to the heart of the matter; there is not much difference between religious ideologies or political ideologies being enforced by the state. However, as you know, freedom has it's limits, if you wish to live in an orderly society. That's why we accept some ideologies in government, even though it's not precisely even.
"your right to free speech, or bear arms, is limited by other people's right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Hence murder and slander charges.
your right to free speech doesn't end because someone else is offended, or an official doesn't like your speech."
That's my point though. We establish one right (in this case, the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) over the right to free speech or bear arms. In other words, we take away a right most people don't value (the right to take another's life) and exchange it for something most people do value (the right to live).
You're addressing a good point, TBS. However, I think you're going overboard in saying all ideologies should be separate from government: the idea that government has no right to initiate force against anyone, but must act as an objective police officer IS an ideology. However, it's the one that has more facts going for it. What you should be pushing for is why that ideology is the proper one out of all the others.
Been asking myself the same question for quite a while, TBS. Still can't quite figure out why people will say "Leave me alone" while pushing their beliefs on others and are unable to see their own hypocrisy.
Well, agnosticism is the idea that the existence of some deity or metaphysical phenomenon can't be proven and is unknowable. Some believe in God regardless, or choose not to believe regardless, and while some are apathetic it is not necessarily apathetic in nature.
Meanwhile, Libertarianism is the idea that government influence inherently subtracts from the freedoms of the people, and that therefore the role of government should be as limited as possible.
Hmm... I see the point that you make. However, religion is meant to be a personal thing, something that you use to guide your own life; to impose that upon other people is a perversion of its original purpose. After all, are you really being a good person if you're being forced to go through the motions of morality?
On the other hand, political ideology is something that you use to instill policies and guide a nation/state/whatever into the direction you see as the best one. By its definition, it has to affect people's lives in some way. I don't see a difference in willing charity or "forced charity" because the goal shouldn't be to be a good person- it should be to make sure that the other person is helped.