Separation of Ideology and State
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?
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?
Comments245
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Meanwhile, in the real world...
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.
You can't have government without ideology. But that's your goal anyway. Anarcho-capitalism.
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?
That's not really following his argument because he is not a state official/representative.
But surely as a radical libertarian he is essentially that?
Schemer is not a "radical libertarian". He is not a libertarian at all. He is a paleoconservative.
I now, but he seems to believe he is. It's an astounding lack of introspection.
"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.
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.
And what about when that faith relates to economic matters rather than existential matters?
when does faith relate to economic matters?
Keynesianism is a matter of faith in models that consistently prove themselves wrong.
keynesian is mathematical model of economics made by a mathematician manyard keynes. It correlates not to religeon.
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.
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.
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.
just like religion and government i say just let the magority ideology prevail.
if you want that changed, change the people not the law...
if you want that changed, change the people not the law...
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.
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.
I don't know what Ideology means...."feels like a lame idiot"
Oh.
Ya know, kind of like what he's currently proposing right now without irony.
0_o
I don't think I'm gonna comment on this...I'm afraid I might lose my sanity....
I don't think I'm gonna comment on this...I'm afraid I might lose my sanity....
The only sanity lost was schemers long before this thread was ever conceived.
View all replies