Religious Ideology versus Political Ideology: What's the difference?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that there is some hypocrisy in the treatment of religion and politics. When people advocate the popular idea like we should keep religion and state separate, they're essentially saying that they believe subjective ideology should be kept out of a central system that effects everyone especially when there are no rights to cessation.

Im saying this is something that applies to all ideology, not just that which is linked to a deity.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is some truth to this. I think the distinction comes where you define the *purpose* of the state. That definition is different in every country. In America, a state was explicitly created which sought to eliminate religious interference. Just like its powers were otherwise enumerated (and later bastardized).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be the equivalent of the science community having a majority vote on which of the various theories of quantum gravity, which have no current scientific basis of differentiation, should prevail and then go about instituting them as fact which all scientist must abide by.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like when we hear how the "consensus" of scientists have decided that (e.g.) global warming is human-caused, so you better just shut up and listen.

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
I too would like to know what the OP is trying to say. How do you keep politics out of...er...politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you keep political ideology out of the state... how do you still have a state? Minimum wage - political ideology discussion. Invading a country - political ideology discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right - there should not be a state. Just how we have different houses of worship with no forced inclusion, so we should treat political ideology the same. If you want to join a socialist kibbutz, fine. You want to pay high taxes for certain services, fine. You want to live in freedom, fine. etc.

The question is when does one ideology have the right to take control of a central system of exclusive control such as the government. My answer is it doesn't for the same reasons a specific religious ideology has no right to invade a central system like government

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is forcing you to retain the citizenship you were born with. If you think the political ideology of another country is better, then move there. If you want to enjoy the prosperity that that liberal democracy has brought us, then you have to accept some of its coercive elements as well.

BTW, I don't understand your apparent differentiation between "state" and "government".

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I too would like to know what the OP is trying to say. How do you keep politics out of...er...politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Political ideology...

"Lets try foo-bar to fix the problem."

"We cannot. We are XYZ-ism. foo-bar is ABC-ism."

"But it seems to work in Uberwald."

"Uberwald are filthy ABC-ists."

"But foo-bar seems to have solved the same problem there."

"Go back and read 'The Economic Foundations of XYZ and the Answers to Everything' and you will see where you have strayed."

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you keep political ideology out of the state... how do you still have a state? Minimum wage - political ideology discussion. Invading a country - political ideology discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right - there should not be a state. Just how we have different houses of worship with no forced inclusion, so we should treat political ideology the same. If you want to join a socialist kibbutz, fine. You want to pay high taxes for certain services, fine. You want to live in freedom, fine. etc.

The question is when does one ideology have the right to take control of a central system of exclusive control such as the government. My answer is it doesn't for the same reasons a specific religious ideology has no right to invade a central system like government

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is forcing you to retain the citizenship you were born with. If you think the political ideology of another country is better, then move there. If you want to enjoy the prosperity that that liberal democracy has brought us, then you have to accept some of its coercive elements as well.

BTW, I don't understand your apparent differentiation between "state" and "government".

[/ QUOTE ]

well government can be entirely voluntary and a state cannot be. I probably should have used the word "state" in some places instead of "government" but that was just a mistake.

Also, inter state competition is minimal at best on top of the high costs of switching systems. Regardless, none of this refutes my contention of what ought to be nor explains why the system negates one thing for a certain principle which is not consistently applied.

[Barcalounger]

If you're saying that people shouldn't blindly follow what they're supposed to because of an ideological label, then I agree.

If you're really asking what the difference is between religion and political ideology in government, I'd point to evidence.

You can argue that the government should do X because it will result in Y and Z shows that it might work. Then later you can empirically re-evaluate X, Y, and Z.

You can argue that the government should do X because your favorite version of God will like you better. And later you cannot empirically re-evaluate how your rank with God has changed.

[AngusThermopyle]

What's more important, "security" or "rights"? And what do you base it on?

The ability to "say what you want" or the guarantee of a job?

Political -isms put valuations on lots of things. Valuations that you cannot 'prove', but are often the basis of the -ism. Just like a religion.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is forcing you to retain the citizenship you were born with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unless you make a significant amount of money. Then the IRS will do everything in its power to prevent you from renouncing.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think the political ideology of another country is better, then move there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This presupposes that the government in question trumps the inviduals property rights. Target doesn't tell me to move outside of their jurisdiction if I wish to shop at Wal-Mart. In fact, I can patronize both without any conflict.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to enjoy the prosperity that that liberal democracy has brought us, then you have to accept some of its coercive elements as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this is a self-contradictory statement, a self-evident statement, or a threat.

If I want to enjoy X, which is provided by Y, and Y also provides Z, then it's obvious that if I agree to Y that I am accepting both X and Z.

On the other hand, it's *not* obvious that I *must* accept Z in order to get X. I see no proof that you cannot get X without Z.

Z cannot be involuntarily imposed if X is voluntarily selected and X and Z are part of a package deal. Either I'm agreeing to X *and* Z, or I'm not. It can't be voluntary and involuntary at the same time. So the alternative in this case to avoid such a contradiction must be that X and Z are not inseperable.

On the other other hand, this could be a threat; "accept our terms or we will starve you to death."

Please clarify.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You can argue that the government should do X because it will result in Y and Z shows that it might work. Then later you can look at a statistically insignificant sample (one) and re-evaluate X, Y, and Z.

[/ QUOTE ]