[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

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

[Arlo]
I've never heard anyone argue that welfare laws were enacted because that was
the will of the christian god, have you? 

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

[Arlo]
Based on secular enlightenment philosophy, not the word of the christian god. 

[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?

[Arlo]
Sure. But of degree, not of kind.

[P]
But, is there a difference in atheists using the state to enforce their
"morality" vs. a religion doing likewise?

[Arlo]
If you reduce everything to "faith, then its all unavoidable faith-conflict,
and the idea of separation of church and state is a fantasy.

Do you think there is no difference between a law that enables others (and
yourself) to do as you please, and a law that prevents others from doing as
they please because you would choose differently?

Laws for gay marriage do not force anyone to enter into relationship they do
not consent to. Laws against do force others to behave according to your views.
But the particularities of this are off this topic, I only pointed it out
because the primary foundation for opposing gay marriage is "the bible". And so
this is an encroachment on the separation of church and state by christian
politicians and activists.

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

[Arlo]
I don't think it should be "voted on", anymore than I think "slavery" should be
open to a vote.

[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]
I would not abide by a "law" that eliminated the separation of church and
state, no. Nor would I abide by a law that legalized slavery, or denied women
the right to vote. Again, I do not think the separation of church and state is
something to be "voted" on. 

[Arl previously]
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. 

[Arlo]
Is that not derived from reason? I think so. Where do you think the idea came
from? Certainly not "god".

[P]
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. 

[Arlo]
I think Pirsig's metaphysics allow us a window into the social-intellectual
conflict, with the separation of church and state being an intellectual pattern
for improving governance (social patterns). "Laws" are primarily social
patterns, it seems to me to be about from where does the basis for these laws
derive? Intellectual patterns? God? Tradition? The whim of whoever has the
biggest gun? 

Did I answer adequately? If not, repost the questions I did not and I'll devote
my next reply to doing nothing but that.