Would it be too much to ask?

[Cail]

To have either a mod or admin move all the religious dross out of the Tank and into the Close (where it belongs) so that political issues could be discussed in the various abortion and same-sex marriage threads?

Thank you.

[variol son]

Good idea, although I suspect that they'd come creeping back - you and I can discuss the political realities of abortion and same-sex marriage seperate from the religious ones but I'm not sure everyone can.

[Cail]

A man can dream.....

[variol son]

I'll dream with you - I might actually join the discussion if it happened.

[Fist and Faith]

It is not possible for some to discuss abortion or same-sex marriage without religion. And that is not a flaw, or weakness, or whatever. For some, the things are not able to be split. It is perfectly valid for rus to base his political views on his religious beliefs. I'll fight him when he tries to make the law of the land reflect his religion-based politics. And I'll fight those same political stances if someone holds them for non-religious reasons. But we all come to our political positions in different ways. Do you have more cordial interactions in the Tank with those who disagree with you for non-religious reasons?

[Cail]

Religion ain't politics and politics ain't religion. If you or someone else can't separate them, then I would respectfully suggest that you take your religious discussion into the Close.

But, to be blunt, neither the SSM nor the Abortion thread have had a thing to do with either SSM or abortion for months. Both have been polluted with you and Rus going back and forth over Orthodox dogma.

I have no interest in debating faith, which is why I don't post in the Close.

[rdhopeca]

Religion ain't politics and politics ain't religion. If you or someone else can't separate them, then I would respectfully suggest that you take your religious discussion into the Close.

But, to be blunt, neither the SSM nor the Abortion thread have had a thing to do with either SSM or abortion for months. Both have been polluted with you and Rus going back and forth over Orthodox dogma.

I have no interest in debating faith, which is why I don't post in the Close.

I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but how would you expect someone like Rus to debate SSM (sounds a bit kinky, eh) without bringing religion into it when his entire position is based on his religious beliefs? If his arguments are informed by his faith, how can he enter the discussion when being told not to use his faiths to bolster his argument?

(I must be tired...I'm defending Rus of all people...)

[Cail]

Religion ain't politics and politics ain't religion. If you or someone else can't separate them, then I would respectfully suggest that you take your religious discussion into the Close.

But, to be blunt, neither the SSM nor the Abortion thread have had a thing to do with either SSM or abortion for months. Both have been polluted with you and Rus going back and forth over Orthodox dogma.

I have no interest in debating faith, which is why I don't post in the Close.

I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but how would you expect someone like Rus to debate SSM (sounds a bit kinky, eh) without bringing religion into it when his entire position is based on his religious beliefs? If his arguments are informed by his faith, how can he enter the discussion when being told not to use his faiths to bolster his argument?

(I must be tired...I'm defending Rus of all people...)

He can state his case and be done with it. The endless proselytizing is unnecessary and adds nothing to the discussion. I don't care what Rus (or you, or Fist, or Z, or Av) believes vis-a-vis religion, and religion has nothing to do with how this country determines the law.

I don't object to, "I'm against abortion because of my faith". What I object to is being told that I'm wrong because I don't agree with someone's faith, then getting beaten over the head by 20 pages of Chesterton quotes.

Y'all want to debate the OCC's dogma, there's a forum for that. Y'all want to debate Chesterton, there's a forum for that. This is the political forum though, and it's gotten impossible to discuss certain political topics because the threads keep getting bombed.

[rdhopeca]

Religion ain't politics and politics ain't religion. If you or someone else can't separate them, then I would respectfully suggest that you take your religious discussion into the Close.

But, to be blunt, neither the SSM nor the Abortion thread have had a thing to do with either SSM or abortion for months. Both have been polluted with you and Rus going back and forth over Orthodox dogma.

I have no interest in debating faith, which is why I don't post in the Close.

I don't necessarily disagree with your position, but how would you expect someone like Rus to debate SSM (sounds a bit kinky, eh) without bringing religion into it when his entire position is based on his religious beliefs? If his arguments are informed by his faith, how can he enter the discussion when being told not to use his faiths to bolster his argument?

(I must be tired...I'm defending Rus of all people...)

He can state his case and be done with it. The endless proselytizing is unnecessary and adds nothing to the discussion. I don't care what Rus (or you, or Fist, or Z, or Av) believes vis-a-vis religion, and religion has nothing to do with how this country determines the law.

I don't object to, "I'm against abortion because of my faith". What I object to is being told that I'm wrong because I don't agree with someone's faith, then getting beaten over the head by 20 pages of Chesterton quotes.

Y'all want to debate the OCC's dogma, there's a forum for that. Y'all want to debate Chesterton, there's a forum for that. This is the political forum though, and it's gotten impossible to discuss certain political topics because the threads keep getting bombed.

I agree with all of this...was just curious where one would "draw the line", as it were...

[Cail]

There is no question that faith plays a part in how people form their beliefs, political or otherwise. But the simple fact is that no one here can prove that any particular faith is the correct one (or that there is a correct faith). Beyond that, our governing documents were created specifically to prevent religion from determining our laws and policies.

I am a very devout Catholic, and I check that at the door when I come in here. My faith has no bearing on public policy, nor should it.

[Cambo]

Religion ain't politics and politics ain't religion. If you or someone else can't separate them, then I would respectfully suggest that you take your religious discussion into the Close.

But, to be blunt, neither the SSM nor the Abortion thread have had a thing to do with either SSM or abortion for months. Both have been polluted with you and Rus going back and forth over Orthodox dogma.

I have no interest in debating faith, which is why I don't post in the Close.

The line between the two is probably more blurred than you think. I agree that they should be two entirely different things, but the "pollution" you observe on the threads can be found in all over the world. The Tea Party is the best current example. "Religion has nothing to do with how this country determines the law." Which country? If you're in America, that's pretty debatable. Maybe that could be a new thread? But- Uh-Oh!- where would that thread belong?

Seems to me if it were to be ruled that people like Rus were barred from using religious arguments, they'd just reword the same essential argument. Rus' arguments would still be faith-based, he just wouldn't come right out and say it. Most everything in the fundamentalist worldview is faith based. So you'd get the same dross, but with tricky word games. How fun.

Also, it is tricky for believers to separate their religious views from other views they hold. Hell, I'm about as far from Rus spiritually as you could get, and I sometimes have trouble separating cause and effect in my spiritual/social/philosophical/politcal beliefs.

[Fist and Faith]

What do you want? Everybody just says, "I want this." "I want that." And no discussion? No attempts allowed to convince anyone of our position? Or is it only attempts that involve religious belief that are not allowed? Yes, the governing documents prevent religion from determining our laws and policies. But they don't prevent those who take part in forming those laws and policies from basing their positions on their religious beliefs. If rus manages to convince a majority of people in a democracy (not saying we are one, I'm just saying...) that his religion is the Truth, and that the laws should be based on it; and everyone votes for it, and the laws come to be based on that religion - then democracy is served.

I think it would be a horror. I'll argue against it. I'll break many laws. But if he argues well, and the decision is made democratically, the only argument you or I could make is that we don't like the way the vote went.

[Cail]

What do you want? Everybody just says, "I want this." "I want that." And no discussion? No attempts allowed to convince anyone of our position? Or is it only attempts that involve religious belief that are not allowed? Yes, the governing documents prevent religion from determining our laws and policies. But they don't prevent those who take part in forming those laws and policies from basing their positions on their religious beliefs. If rus manages to convince a majority of people in a democracy (not saying we are one, I'm just saying...) that his religion is the Truth, and that the laws should be based on it; and everyone votes for it, and the laws come to be based on that religion - then democracy is served.

I think it would be a horror. I'll argue against it. I'll break many laws. But if he argues well, and the decision is made democratically, the only argument you or I could make is that we don't like the way the vote went.

Fist, you know damn well that's not what I'm saying. You bait Rus. Rus quotes Chesterton and insults Sindatur. You bait Rus more. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

A discussion of OCC dogma has no place in a political forum.

[Zarathustra]

I agree with all of this...was just curious where one would "draw the line", as it were...

That's a very good question. In fact, it forced me to take this thread more seriously than I had intended. Certainly there is a line. Cail is right: there's politics, and then there's religion. But it's equally true that politics has something to do with religion, and vice versa, otherwise issues like the NY mosque or burning the Koran wouldn't belong here. So clarifying where that line is isn't as much an issue of territorial control over the subject matter, but getting a clearer understanding of what we mean by these terms. I feel very passionate about these kinds of distinctions, because without them we start with the wrong foundation for a discussion. It's similar to the Creationism vs Evolution debate: one is religion, the other is science. You can't compare them as if they are on the same footing, because they occupy two different spheres of human thought and activity. Blurring the line is the same as not understanding what science is. And if you don't know, you have no business claiming that something belongs in a scientific debate.

I don't have a definitive answer to this question. I just wanted to chime in and defend the question. Failing to recognize the validity of the question is the same as saying there is no dividing line, no difference between the two. That's how we get things like Islamic theocracies. The refusal to recognize a division is itself a religious position, an attempt to push the validity of one's religion upon others who don't accept that religion as true. It is an advisarial attempt at conquering other realms of thought with the supernatural--again, much like the claim that science is a religion. It's denying the validity of secular realms of human activity, denying that it's possible to conduct human affairs without reference to god.

I have a feeling the answer is similar to the difference between studying the objective history of religion, as opposed to debating which religion is "true." The difference between religion treated as a historical and social phenomenon, rather than proselytizing.

[Actually, there's a difference between proselytizing and philosophy, too, but I don't suppose anyone wants to divide the Close into subforums. However, it's always bugged me that religion is lumped in with philosophy as if there is no difference.]

[Fist and Faith]

Fist, you know damn well that's not what I'm saying. You bait Rus. Rus quotes Chesterton and insults Sindatur. You bait Rus more. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I'm pretty sure he baits me.

[[Syl]]

I agree with Cail. SSM and abortion are two of the biggest topics in contemporary American politics and would likely form the cornerstone of any forum such as this one. Yet I, and I assume others, avoid these two topics here precisely because I have absolutely no interest in the way it is most often discussed, to the point that I no longer even care if there is non-religious stuff buried in the threads (granted, I also don't have as much time for the Watch as I used to, but the vast majority of members are probably in the same boat).

'I am opposed to abortion because of my religious beliefs, and I believe America should accommodate its citizens' beliefs because...' is fine and good. 'I am opposed to abortion because God said...' is worthless in a political debate. We have a religion forum for a reason. (perhaps this would be different if it were a Chesterton, Lewis, or even Orson Scott Card forum, but it isn't. I do not think most SRD fans are served by mixing the two)

There are other reasons why debating these topics in this manner is pointless, but I don't want to turn the thread into an ad hominem attack.

Of course, back when I modded here (the first time? or was it when I moved political stuff from the Close?), I moved threads for precisely this reason and got flak for it. Never changed my opinion, though

[DukkhaWaynhim]

But what is religion if not a philosophy backed by tradition, money, and swords?

[Farsailer]

My faith has no bearing on public policy, nor should it.

Then you are not as devout as you think you are.

It's OK. Not judging, just observing. As a fellow Catholic, I'm with ya. I just don't claim the "devout" mantle.

In general, I believe that a person's politics is the temporal expression of his faith. In that regard, even agnosticism and atheism are included. Z's atheism is a faith which he expresses by arguing against religious expression in certain political arenas as a matter of public policy. My Catholicism leads me to oppose abortion and the death penalty, both of which are extremely political topics in public policy.

[sindatur]

Tough one, definitely the fine hair to split on this subject is where to draw the line. I think it's totally fair for someone to present a religious argument for sympathy, but, when posting, it seems like it goes over the line into Proselytizing when every other post is a thesis.

I think both sides are guilty of running the threads off the tracks, because in the process of deconstructing those Religious arguments, it takes the thread to questioning of the validity of the source of the argument (IE: The specific Faith), not the thread topic.

Having said all that, I have to agree with Cail and the others presenting the cold, hard letter of the Constitution. You can certainly present any argument, but, awarding the resolution to the Religious argument is at least close to never appropriate. Yes, Freedom of Speech, but, you can't legally side with accomodating that Religious argument without stomping on someone

[Avatar]

If there were threads devoted to it, I'd be glad to move them, I really would. The prospect of digging through 100 page topics to split out the religiously motivated posts though is a little daunting.

If there are whole threads that people think could be moved, by all means point them out.

Personally, I don't have much problem with the blurring of the line when it comes to moral or ethical issues. Our response to questions of that type may well be defined by our faiths or lack thereof.

And myself, I'd wish more people saw it Cail's way: What you believe is between you and your god, and that's it. It should have no bearing on public policy or the law.

And yeah...it can be distracting to have threads turned into religious arguments. It does take two people to do it though. Rus has the right to present his view on a social/political issue. His view is entirely informed by the religious stance of his church. If we want to argue that with him, it's gonna be a religious debate. Nobody has to argue with him about it if they don't want to.

All that said, I don't mind saying that in future if things turn too religious, we can split them out. But going through those huge threads to winnow them...

--A