[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 25 Aug 2010 at 17:44, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

[Platt]
Agree in principle. But, is helping the poor (welfare benefits) 
Christian law? Seems to be open to many interpretations.

[Arlo]
A good place to start is in whether or not the primary (or sole) 
justification is "because my god says so".

[P]
I ask again, is helping the poor (welfare benefits) Christian law? If not, 
what's the basis?

[P]
Yes, because in the Islam faith there is no separation between church 
and state. What "Christian law" do you have in mind?

[Arlo]
Where is there separation between church and state in the Christian 
faith? This is a historically recent enforcement of enlightenment secularism.

[P]
I think you'll find historically that the Christian Founding Fathers 
established separation of church and state.

[Arlo]
I have no particular laws in mind, only to say that laws based on the 
Christian faith are no better than laws based on the Islamic faith, 
if we really believe there should be a separation of church and state.

What about gay marriage, for example? Both Christians and Muslims 
seek to use the state to enforce their religious faith that its 
"immoral". Do you see a difference?

[P]
I figured maybe you had gay marriage in mind. The difference I see is that some 
Muslim states imprison and execute gays -- a rather significance difference 
don't you think? But, is there a difference in atheists using the state to 
enforce their "morality" vs. a religion doing likewise?      

[P]
Not OK by me. I would vote to keep the Establishment Clause in our 
Constitution. Wouldn't you?

[Arlo]
Do you think it would be moral if a majority voted it out? Would you 
abide by that populist decree?

{P]
I wouldn't agree with the vote, but would abide by the law. Would you? And 
again, would you vote to keep the Establishment Clause in our Constitution? 

[Arlo}
And, on what basis is the establishment clause rooted? I'd say 
"reason", would you disagree?

[P]
I'd say freedom from government oppression, an unalienable right. That's  
reasonable to me. 

[P]
Again, my answer is the will of the people (who have varied 
motivations, experiences and moral compasses) limited by 
constitutional restrictions on government power. Is "reason" your 
answer? If so, whose reason?

[Arlo]
Do you think there is a moral barrier where the will of the people 
ends? On what basis is the constitutional restrictions you mention 
rooted? Just on the will of the people? Or on something above 
majority rule? And if not "reason", then what?

[P]
Hey, wait a minute. You keep asking questions without answering any.
Let's have a balanced exchange. I look forward to your responses.

In the meantime, my answer to your questions immediately above is the will of 
the people restricted by Constitutional limits of government power as set forth 
by the Founding Fathers who were influenced by reason, history, the 
enlightenment, Christian morality and other factors that it would take many 
volumes to fully described. For starters I recommend Mark Levin's "Liberty and 
Tyranny."    

Finally, what has all this to do with the MOQ? Are you perhaps suggesting that 
Pirsig's metaphysics should be the basis of American law? If so, good luck with 
that.