4 ms·

I don't care - I still don't want them in power any more than I would want to live in Afghanistan with the Taliban in power as a non-Muslim, and consequently wo

by jen20 4y ago

I don't care - I still don't want them in power any more than I would want to live in Afghanistan with the Taliban in power as a non-Muslim, and consequently would vote to keep them out, almost regardless of other policy. Furthermore, those who think the Bible should have influence on US laws fundamentally fail to understand the very basics of the first amendment of the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Allowing influence of a particular religious sect over laws is exactly akin to a state religion, which is expressly unconstitutional.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
You are aware that Christian morals and ethics explicitly were sources of inspiration, energy, and direction for the country's founding--both as an event and its documents--right? You are aware that those principles are largely responsible for you being able to freely type your message on Hacker News, right?
- cheese_it 4y ago
  Do you have any sources for that claim? Because I've heard the argument that it was actually the Enlightenment, and the removal of religion from government (e.g. separation of church and state, reason and science in place of dogmatism), that was the primary source of inspiration for the country's founding. A search for "Declaration of Independence" with "Enlightenment" provides many references for this.
rayiner 4y ago
> I don't care - I still don't want them in power That’s fine but it’s not what we’re talking about, which is what keeps the democratic coalition together. Opposition to Christianity having a public role isn’t it.
dane-pgp 4y ago
> Allowing influence of a particular religious sect over laws is exactly akin to a state religion, which is expressly unconstitutional. But doesn't this argument also mean "Allowing influence of religious people over laws (e.g. allowing them to vote) is unconstitutional"? You might think that you're being completely neutral when you apply your atheist worldview to political questions, and that it is only those weird out-groups that are biased with their desire for laws that your in-group opposes, but from their perspective you are being just as biased by your religious beliefs (i.e. your beliefs about religions). If you really think that the First Amendment was written with the intent to invalidate any policy which can be supported by some interpretation of the Bible, then you haven't thought through the consequences of that.

by jen20 4y ago

nathanaldensr 4y ago

You are aware that Christian morals and ethics explicitly were sources of inspiration, energy, and direction for the country's founding--both as an event and its documents--right? You are aware that those principles are largely responsible for you being able to freely type your message on Hacker News, right?

cheese_it 4y ago
Do you have any sources for that claim? Because I've heard the argument that it was actually the Enlightenment, and the removal of religion from government (e.g. separation of church and state, reason and science in place of dogmatism), that was the primary source of inspiration for the country's founding. A search for "Declaration of Independence" with "Enlightenment" provides many references for this.

rayiner 4y ago

> I don't care - I still don't want them in power That’s fine but it’s not what we’re talking about, which is what keeps the democratic coalition together. Opposition to Christianity having a public role isn’t it.

dane-pgp 4y ago

> Allowing influence of a particular religious sect over laws is exactly akin to a state religion, which is expressly unconstitutional. But doesn't this argument also mean "Allowing influence of religious people over laws (e.g. allowing them to vote) is unconstitutional"? You might think that you're being completely neutral when you apply your atheist worldview to political questions, and that it is only those weird out-groups that are biased with their desire for laws that your in-group opposes, but from their perspective you are being just as biased by your religious beliefs (i.e. your beliefs about religions). If you really think that the First Amendment was written with the intent to invalidate any policy which can be supported by some interpretation of the Bible, then you haven't thought through the consequences of that.