Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 20, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 244

Separation of Ideology and State

:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Quite a few people on this forum support the separation of Church and State, feeling that religion has no place in defining the role of the State. Yet, these same people have no problem forcing their own ideologies and beliefs of any other nature on others through the mechanism of government.

What's the difference between the different religions and the different political ideologies of our day? Religions are old enough to base their righteousness in the idea of divine right. That's all. In every other way, the different religions are not fundamentally different than the belief systems that lead to our modern political squabbles over the economy, over how people should live their lives. As time goes on and the major political parties take turns wielding the power of the State, we allow these ideologies and ways of life that we do not believe in to be imposed on us simply because they come from the will of 51% of the people. Is this right? Is it right for two neighbors to force the third to live as they do? Would you allow the majority religion of the country to force their beliefs on you?

So I have a simple question to ask: Why not drop the blatant contradictions in your beliefs and favor a total separation of Ideology and State? Stop using taxes and the power of the law to force others to live as you choose to live. Stop trying to force everyone in the country to support your favored programs. For freedom's sake, just leave each other the fuck alone. The violent power of government should not be used for every goal you have in life. All it truly needs to be used for is defense against further imposition of violent power.

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?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconmimer:
mimer Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013
Meanwhile, in the real world...
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013
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.
Reply
:iconshidaku:
Shidaku Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013
You can't have government without ideology. But that's your goal anyway. Anarcho-capitalism.
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Professional General Artist
So, if I follow your argument, you should stop voicing your opinion about politics henceforth because it is an ideology? Did you really just resign from these fora?
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013
That's not really following his argument because he is not a state official/representative.
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013  Professional General Artist
But surely as a radical libertarian he is essentially that?
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013
Schemer is not a "radical libertarian". He is not a libertarian at all. He is a paleoconservative.
Reply
:iconzer05um:
Zer05um Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013  Professional General Artist
I now, but he seems to believe he is. It's an astounding lack of introspection.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
"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.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013
And what about when that faith relates to economic matters rather than existential matters?
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
when does faith relate to economic matters?
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013
Keynesianism is a matter of faith in models that consistently prove themselves wrong.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
keynesian is mathematical model of economics made by a mathematician manyard keynes. It correlates not to religeon.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013
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.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013
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.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
your using a metaphor, getting way off topic.

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.

This is how kings kept power for centuries.
Reply
:iconscottahemi:
ScottaHemi Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
just like religion and government i say just let the magority ideology prevail.

if you want that changed, change the people not the law...
Reply
:iconxtinyheartx:
xtinyheartx Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
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.
Reply
:iconfantasylover103:
fantasylover103 Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I don't know what Ideology means...."feels like a lame idiot"
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
Reply
:iconfantasylover103:
fantasylover103 Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
:O Oh.
Reply
:iconsheepy94:
Sheepy94 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ya know, kind of like what he's currently proposing right now without irony.
Reply
:iconfantasylover103:
fantasylover103 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
0_o


I don't think I'm gonna comment on this...I'm afraid I might lose my sanity....
Reply
:iconsheepy94:
Sheepy94 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
The only sanity lost was schemers long before this thread was ever conceived.
Reply
:iconfantasylover103:
fantasylover103 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
They should like deactivate this thread before it goes to far or something....
Reply
:iconsheepy94:
Sheepy94 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It already has.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconwitwitch:
witwitch Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Student Writer
What you are suggesting is also an ideology. There can be no such thing as separation of ideology and state, because the very idea of having a government in the first place is an ideology. :bucktooth:
Reply
:iconmooing-duckerberry:
mooing-duckerberry Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
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!
Reply
:icontheawsomeopossum:
TheAwsomeOpossum Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
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.
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
all rights have natural limits. Those limits are when they start imposing on the rights of others, or other rights.
Reply
:icontheawsomeopossum:
TheAwsomeOpossum Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013
No, not natural limits. Social limits, persay =).
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
natural, and classically defined limits. the classic interpretation of the 9th amendment to the constitution is that no right granted, permits revocation of another right. that is important.
Reply
:icontheawsomeopossum:
TheAwsomeOpossum Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013
A natural or classical limit isn't necessarily better than a non-natural or non-classical limit.

I'll digress with your interpretation of the 9th. Nearly every right granted is taking away another, albight, not a right that most people value (or a right people show disdain for).
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
"I'll digress with your interpretation of the 9th. Nearly every right granted is taking away another"
No, there is a strong difference between arbitrary limits, and natural limits.

[link]
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

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.
Reply
:icontheawsomeopossum:
TheAwsomeOpossum Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013
"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).
Reply
:iconjackmolotov3:
JackMolotov3 Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
my point is that its a naturual end to that right, there are no absolutes, HOWEVER the where the rights end are clearly defined, and its not arbitrary.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
Ideology isn't necessary for order. All you need for order is the defense of voluntary choice against violent force.
Reply
:icontheawsomeopossum:
TheAwsomeOpossum Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
No, but rules are. And rules are ideology.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
So your belief that the government should prevent violent aggressors from killing you is ideology? Or is that just the definition of government?
Reply
:icontheawsomeopossum:
TheAwsomeOpossum Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013
"So your belief that the government should prevent violent aggressors from killing you is ideology?"

Yes, it is. Ideology, at least in my view, is the idea that something should or shouldn't be.

"Or is that just the definition of government?"

A bit of both. A government is a powerful group which enforces group ideology on those whom it governs. Both for the good and the bad of things.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
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.
Reply
:iconsonrouge:
sonrouge Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
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.
Reply
:icongussiejives:
gussiejives Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Because, like Austrian economics, religions are based on faith and not evidence.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
mgonzales041090 Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
@Schemer.

Isn't Keynesianism just as faith-based?
Except that it's obviously been means-tested and proven effective. I mean...What was the GI bill, do you think?
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Isn't Keynesianism just as faith-based?
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Libertarianism is also an ideology.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
Only as much as agnosticism is a religion.
Reply
:icontortellinipen:
TortelliniPen Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
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.
Reply
:icongussiejives:
gussiejives Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
That's cute.  Everybody else's ideology is a religion, EXCEPT for yours.

You just manufactured your own double-standard within your own argument.  That takes skill.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
TBSchemer Featured By Owner Jan 20, 2013
But I don't believe in prescribing any sort of social plan or way of life on everyone else. [link]

The absence of ideology in government is possible, regardless of how feasible it may be.
Reply
Add a Comment: