Quote from: WerekoalaHe was a deist. Not the same.

True, but Deism was also largely a contrivance to allow agnostic free-thinkers to operate within the confines of an almost exclusively Christian society.  It allowed them the ability to acknowledge and adhere to the social customs and mores of the society in which they were raised and lived, while tabling a response to The Big Question (some might say "dodge" rather than "table", but why quibble over semantics?).

!i!

Oh yes, Blair was definitely a devout Christian. He engaged in a conspiracy to deceive Parliament and his country - "Iraq could be firing WMDs at Britain in 45 minutes!" - and engaged in a war of aggression in which tens of thousands of civilians were killed.

Bullshit.

He might have felt moved by faith, but even this Jew knows that real Christians don't do that - real Christians practice charity, faith, and love. And they don't conspire to lie to Parliament and their country.

Wearing a cross and feeling occasional bursts of warm fuzzy faith does not make you Christian any more than wearing gold lame hotpants and saying, "why, that Brad Pitt is quite good-looking" would make me gay. As they said in Batman Begins, "it's not who you are inside, but what you do that defines you." Until I am out there taking or giving one for the Rainbow Team, I'm not gay. Likewise, your Christian (or Moslem, or Jewish, etc) faith is shown by your actions.

Bullshit, Blair. This is just Old Statesman Syndrome. A year or two after they quit, a bit longer if they were chucked out, lots of them become great liberal humanists, sudenly concerned about all the poverty and conflict in the world. Humbug.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum!I don't see how the differences you mentioned are significantly distinct.
(1) Seperation of church and state.
It's not a meaningful distinction unless you believe that religious politicians are trying to overturn the establishment clause. Otherwise why prohibit them from public service on this point?

There's no prohibition against public service, nor would I suggest that there should be.  What is intended is a prohibition against religious mandate of state policy, and vice versa to be quite clear.  Those with clear and fervid personal religious beliefs (and those with a clear and fervid denial of personal religious beliefs) are welcome to serve the state, but not to mandate their agenda, particularly to the exclusion of someone else's freedom to practice their beliefs.  It's a bit of a tightrope at times, as you can tell.

Quote(2) At odds with religious and civil freedoms.
How is the conflict posed by religion to religious freedoms significantly different from the conflicts posed by other lobbies for example? And anyway, isn't it kind of dishonest to protect religious freedoms by prohibiting them?

Again, there's been no mention of prohibition, nor the intent to suggest it.  The conflict that arises from religious lobbies is that specific religous agendas, when influencing or enacted as law, limit the religious freedoms of those who don't share those beliefs.

It's an awkward situation.  An unpopular tax may be voted in by a slim majority, applying to all citizens, but it's legal and (arguably) not a moral issue.  But if a particular religious agenda were voted in, by even a clear majority, it would inhibit the religious freedoms of those who do not support it.  

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaTrue, but Deism was also largely a contrivance to allow agnostic free-thinkers to operate within the confines of an almost exclusively Christian society.  It allowed them the ability to acknowledge and adhere to the social customs and mores of the society in which they were raised and lived, while tabling a response to The Big Question (some might say "dodge" rather than "table", but why quibble over semantics?).

Really.

Quote from: WerekoalaReally.

Well, yes.  Really.

!i!

Quote from: WerekoalaHe was a deist. Not the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Religious_views

Also, agnostic =/= athiest.

I see it like a scale of "religiousness".  On one end, you have the guys who will kill themselves to do "God's will" or whatever.  On the other end, you have true atheists.

Let's say Joe Blow off the street who believes in God, but is pretty non-denominational and might go to church or pray at Easter or Christmas, but rarely otherwise, is the mid point.  

To one side, you start to get more religious.  You get people who go to church regularly and pray regularly, which flows into the people who interpret the bible literally and the people who want to be missionaries until you get to the people who are willing to be martyrs.

On the other side, you get less religious.  Unitarianism flows into Deism and Secular Humanism and Agnosticism, until you eventually reach Atheism.

Now, that's just my personal theological frame of reference which I'm sure all kinds of people would disagree with (and probably cause serious theologians to groan loudly).

All I was getting at was that a number of the original guys founding the country weren't all that religious (though certainly there were also plenty who were), and would never even come close to being electable today.  I find that a bit ironic.

I can see that, but Words Mean Things. Calling one of the founders Agnostic is much closer to Athiest than Deist, even in your example you provided. So, rather than saying he was Agnostic, then call him a Deist.

Yes, I'm being a pedantic bastard today. I blame the weather.

Quote from: WerekoalaI can see that, but Words Mean Things. Calling one of the founders Agnostic is much closer to Athiest than Deist, even in your example you provided. So, rather than saying he was Agnostic, then call him a Deist.

Yes, I'm being a pedantic bastard today. I blame the weather.

Technically, I said they were "fairly Agnostic" not "Agnostic".  There's a difference.

Being pedantic is fun.  

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIt's an awkward situation.  An unpopular tax may be voted in by a slim majority, applying to all citizens, but it's legal and (arguably) not a moral issue.  But if a particular religious agenda were voted in, by even a clear majority, it would inhibit the religious freedoms of those who do not support it.

Which is why they tend not to be voted into law in the first place; and when they do, someone comes along and (usually) successfully challenges it based on the establishment clause.

Which is why I get amused when Pundit brings it up in such hyperbolic terms. The chances that anything making, say, Christianity a state religion in the US, or putting rules in place that only allow Christians to hold office, are so silly as to be laughed off - even in a country that's overwhelmingly Christian.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumSo noted. You're against all religions. (Must be an agnostic thing )

Sure it's difficult for someone's programs to be uninfluenced by their religious beliefs, but I'd extend that to non-religious beliefs too. What I'm wondering is, do you think there is some reason why religious beliefs are unfit, or is it simply the preference of non-religious folks? Is it any better than the Americans who say that atheists have no place in politics?

I don't think you get it, MA.  I'm not saying what you think I am, I suspect.

I'm saying it is virtually impossible to somehow draw a direct line from someone's religious belief to policy. And even in the cases where policy is heavily - even directly - influenced by an elected official's religious belief it doesn't make it wrong on it's face.

The question is whether or not it violates a right as granted by the Constitution (in the US). It's why there had to be an Amendment process - to establish what those fundamental rights were and to build upon them as society better understood them. See search and seizure.

The arguments arise as different people "interpret" the Constitution differently, and, therefore, come to different conclusions as to what is a violation of protected rights.

Quote from: jgantsTechnically, I said they were "fairly Agnostic" not "Agnostic".  There's a difference.

Being pedantic is fun.  

You didn't capitalize "Agnostic" in your original post.

Your turn.

Quote from: James J SkachWhich is why [religious agendas] tend not to be voted into law in the first place; and when they do, someone comes along and (usually) successfully challenges it based on the establishment clause.

Correct and duly noted.

!i!

Quote from: Haffrung...Actually, I'd say it's pretty much impossible for an atheist to get elected to any position higher than dog catcher.

Pete "the Atheist*" Sark

Wikipedia says: Stark is the first openly nontheistic member of Congress, as announced by the Secular Coalition for America. Stark acknowledged his nontheism in response to an SCA questionnaire sent to public officials in January 2007. In a statement, Stark said he is a "Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social service."

*The media said he was an "Atheist" (capital 'A,' Font 'ohnoes') but the wikipedia sounds more truthy.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't think you get it, MA.  I'm not saying what you think I am, I suspect.

My fault then. I imagined you and Ian were saying something sinister.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumWikipedia says: Stark is the first openly nontheistic member of Congress, as announced by the Secular Coalition for America.

The exception that proves the rule. The fact this guy is noteworthy as the only nontheistic member of congress shows just how marginal non-religious folks are in American politics.