[PassedOut]

Despite all their noise about the deficit, Boehner and his free-lunch republicans are only adding to the problem. It's good to see some responsible people pointing that out.

Ezra Klein: Boehner's debt-limit demands would increase the deficit

Quote

Extending the Bush tax cuts over the next 10 years, which Boehner favors, will increase the deficit by twice as much as the $2 trillion in spending cuts he's calling for will reduce the deficit. Conversely, adding the revenue increases in the Simpson-Bowles plan to his spending cuts would bring the deficit reduction to more $3 trillion. But Boehner isn't using the debt-ceiling vote to reduce the debt.

E. J. Dionne, Jr.: Health-care lawsuits: Delaying the inevitable

Quote

Conservatives talk an excellent game about individual responsibility and the idea that there is no such thing as a free lunch. They have a point, which makes it all the more astonishing that their legal attack has focused on the health law’s requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance. (Mitt Romney actually understands this. That’s why he’s in the midst of trying to square his own support for an individual mandate in Massachusetts with anti-mandate orthodoxy among GOP primary voters.)

There’s a simple truth here. People who get sick and show up at emergency rooms will get care whether they have insurance or not — and they should. Under a law signed by President Ronald Reagan — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 — nearly every hospital is required to offer treatment to those in urgent need of help. The law stops private hospitals from “dumping” (the term of art in the medical profession) patients onto public hospitals.

The way things work now, the cost of treating those patients falls onto those who already pay for insurance or onto the taxpayers. The mandate is designed to get everyone inside the system and have them pay something.

The free lunch crowd wants to kill health care reform by asking the courts to find in the US Constitution the right to be a freeloader. "Let the responsible people pay our bills," they beg.

And the free lunch crowd most certainly doesn't want to raise taxes to pay the bills for the spending that they themselves authorized over the past decade. "Let our children and grandchildren pay our bills," they cry. (And Boehner cries just thinking about how wonderful an idea that is.)

These people are pitiful excuses for human beings. And so are the people who vote for them.

[phil_20686]

It seems to me that neither the left nor the right in america are being in anyway reasonable/enlightened in this debate.

On the right, they are making the right noises about being worried about the deficit, but the tax cuts are pretty bizarre. While in general I am in favour of lower taxes and a less powerful state, my understanding of economics is that in general it is not that important who you tax. The republicans seem intent on reducing the tax burden on the wealthy while (in effect) broadening the tax base by forcing middle and lower income parties to purchase health insurance.

Further, the normal "conservative" position, is that the government should only step in when there is a clear economic inefficiency, or where a government backed system is the only real option. E.g., in national defence. It seems obvious that modern healthcare is one of those issues. The market is failing in healthcare spending, due to the lack of any properly aligned incentives. A single payer healthcare institution always has well aligned incentives, as the doctors understand that money spent on one patient might mean that another goes without treatment. This leads to reasonably efficient choices on when to ration expensive treatments of doubtful benefit. While I can understand anyone objecting to the current healthcare bill system since, imo, any system which does not get rid of the insurance companies as the prime payers and beneficiaries, is going to suffer from the inefficiencies of poorly aligned incentives.

On the left the government seems unwilling to accept that the transition to a low deficit economy will be painful. The pain cannot be put off indefinitely, and the easy way to understand why is that deficit spending is included in estimates of GDP. Thus, the GDP measure of a country is artificially inflated by its deficit spending. Reducing the deficit must go hand in hand with a nominal fall in gdp. Even if done slowly, this will still lead to a long period of relative stagnation in apparent GDP growth rates. Suppose that I chose to adopt a deficit reduction plan by waiting for the economy to grow and lowering the deficit exactly in line with the increase in revenues, such that GDP was exactly stationary, then I would need the economy to grow by roughly 50% to eliminate the deficit. (Because only a fraction of the increase in GDP comes back to the government in tax receipts, so increase in revenue = (%growth in gdp)*(tax as fraction of gdp). Basically, my point is that the "current gdp" of most economies with large deficit are largely imaginary. Look at this graph:



The idea that one can "grow" ones way out of a deficit this large is pretty laughable. Even at robust 5% growth, and if spending stayed stationary, it would still take a decade to eliminate the deficit, and both of these are hugely unrealistic assumptions. Thus there must be large increases in tax revenue, and a general lowering of living standards. Also note that GDP growth in the US looks quite anaemic once deficit spending is subtracted. The Left seems to imagine that deficit spending through the recession will quickly lead to a return to robust growth, which in reality america has hardly seen since the early eighties, if you measure GDP less deficit spending. Which is the important measure if you want to reduce the deficit.

[phil_20686]

awm, on 2011-May-11, 17:57, said:

As far as the Christian thing goes...

It seems to me that Jesus said and did a lot about helping the poor and the sick. He said something about loving your neighbor. He also said some pretty negative things about wealthy people. He didn't say anything about homosexuality or abortion as best I can tell.

Yet an awful lot of so-called Christian politicians seem to be all about banning homosexuality and abortion, and about hating muslims and gays and atheists and liberals. Yet they seem not to care much about providing for the poor and the sick... instead finding it more important to make sure that wealthy people "get to keep all their money." Atheist Ayn Rand's worldview (basically "I got mine, I earned it, I'm keeping it, screw you") doesn't seem to mesh all that well with Jesus. Yet our conservative politicians claim to be Christians while advocating much the opposite. Boehner is just the latest in a long run of these sorts of hypocrites.

I dont really want to hijack this thread, but try:
1 Tim 1:8 for homosexuality, or Jerimiah 1:5 is generally quoted for abortion. Effectively I think the biblical precedent that You are "alive" before you are born is pretty clear. Its also obviously wrong to equate Christian beliefs on these matters as "hating". Christians have a world-view in which these actions amount to self harm, thus legislation against them is compassionate. That is not to say that there are not lots of bad Christians, there obviously are, and there do seem to be some who go in for "hate" in a oddly unchristian manner. But one should not equate the human failings of particular Christians with Christian teaching.

[hrothgar]

phil_20686, on 2011-May-12, 11:10, said:

I dont really want to hijack this thread, but try:
1 Tim 1:8 for homosexuality, or Jerimiah 1:5 is generally quoted for abortion.

Jeremiah is old testament
First Timothy is generally attributed to Paul

Winston specifically referenced "Jesus"

[luke warm]

Jesus believed the prophets and the O.T., but it's true that he didn't preach on either of those issues... like phil said, christianity is a worldview and like all worldviews it has its share of hypocrites and idiots... that aside, even abolishing the bush tax cuts won't do much good re: the deficit, even with spending cuts... a complete overhaul of the tax system is needed, one that cannot be criticized as being "unfair" while at the same time increasing revenues

[Bbradley62]

luke warm, on 2011-May-12, 15:38, said:

a complete overhaul of the tax system is needed, one that cannot be criticized as being "unfair" while at the same time increasing revenues

As was previously pointed out (I think in a different thread), different people have different views as to what is "fair"; therefore, no system or change is immune from being called "unfair".

[Winstonm]

I probably should have made it clear ages ago that when I point an accusing finger at Christianity it is not the moderate or liberal I admonish - I am most pointedly singling out the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson crowd of inerrant bible evangelicals who can be dominion-like but may not be totally dominionist in thinking. Basically, this is the far right conservative Christian movement whose politics appear to be based on establishing a Christian theocracy.

At the same time, I believe strongly in separation of church and state, and to make a dualism argument for ending abortion is crossing that line, regardless of worldviews.

To address the argument, those opposed to abortion have to make a secular moral argument if they want a secular decision in their favor. Otherwise, they are simply screaming out their personal religious belief and demanding the state listen.

But the state is not in the business of listening to religious arguments - nor should they be.

[phil_20686]

Winstonm, on 2011-May-12, 16:49, said:

...to make a dualism argument for ending abortion is crossing that line, regardless of worldviews.

To address the argument, those opposed to abortion have to make a secular moral argument if they want a secular decision in their favor. Otherwise, they are simply screaming out their personal religious belief and demanding the state listen.

But the state is not in the business of listening to religious arguments - nor should they be.

lol.

[kenberg]

A few thoughts on war, abortion, the budget.

War: More or less everyone agrees that it would be good to keep Quadaffi from wiping out his people, it would be great to have democracy take hold in Syria, and similar worthy goals. The questions are whether we can be effective, what it would cost, how many Americans would get killed or maimed, what the long term effect would be and so on. God may or may not be omnipotent, we here in the U.S. definitely are not.

Abortion: This is a moral issue. The arguments might be secular, for example the Supreme Court's schedule of what is permitted when, or they may have a religious basis, but fundamentally they are moral arguments. One might acknowledge a woman's right to an abortion, maybe circumscribed somewhat by Supreme Court rules, and still object to public funding, or one might say we have no more right to intrude on abortion decisions than we have to intrude on decisions in other medical procedures. Myself, I try hard to stay out of other people's personal decisions, but however one comes down here, it's really a moral discussion.

The Budget: We have to decide what we can afford and what we cannot afford. I think that this has to be part of our decision making process in military intervention in Libya or anywhere. Of course it also has to be part of our health care debate, but I don't think it should play much of a role in the abortion debate. I think advocates of abortion rights, and the critics as well, would both be opposed to making the decision on a cost/benefit analysis. If I am right about this, and I think that I am, then things such as the funding of Planned Parenthood really should not be part of the budget debate. The people who bring that up are people who would be opposed to funding Planned Parenthood even if it were shown that such funding was a net economic plus. Which it well may be.

[Winstonm]

(The arguments might be secular, for example the Supreme Court's schedule of what is permitted when, or they may have a religious basis, but fundamentally they are moral arguments.)

This sounds as if you are saying that morals cannot be a secular decision, that morality is somehow intrinsically connected to something else - religion?

I cannot accept that position. Although I agree that the decision is a decision about morality, the decision of morality has nothing to do with religious belief. Societies determine mores. An absolute standard is an illusion.

[kenberg]

Winston, I begin

"This is a moral issue. The arguments might be secular"

That sounds to you that I am saying "morals cannot be a secular decision"?

It's true I left off what comes after "secular" but you left off what comes at the beginning.

So a fuller quotation is
"This is a moral issue. The arguments might be secular, for example the Supreme Court's schedule of what is permitted when, or they may have a religious basis, but fundamentally they are moral arguments."

I offer two choices for a moral basis, secular (with an example) and religious (we all have seen many examples). If I offer two choices, one of which is secular, how can you read this as saying that moral arguments cannot be secular?

At any rate, my larger point is that the objections to funding abortion are, for many, not at all based on the cost. The people who object on moral grounds (and this I think means almost everyone who objects) will continue to do so no matter how economically feasible it turns out to be, and therefore an item such as support for Planned parenthood is not properly regarded as part of a budget debate.

[luke warm]

Bbradley62, on 2011-May-12, 16:22, said:

As was previously pointed out (I think in a different thread), different people have different views as to what is "fair"; therefore, no system or change is immune from being called "unfair".

good point

Winstonm, on 2011-May-12, 16:49, said:

~~Basically, this is the far right conservative Christian movement whose politics appear to be based on establishing a Christian theocracy.

a theocracy governed by men can never succeed... on that we agree

Quote

At the same time, I believe strongly in separation of church and state, and to make a dualism argument for ending abortion is crossing that line, regardless of worldviews.

what exactly does this mean?

Quote

To address the argument, those opposed to abortion have to make a secular moral argument if they want a secular decision in their favor. Otherwise, they are simply screaming out their personal religious belief and demanding the state listen.

you seem to be saying that moral arguments, if made by other than theists, are relevant to the argument... what exactly is a "secular moral argument" and how would it differ from a theistic moral argument?

Quote

But the state is not in the business of listening to religious arguments - nor should they be.

since when?

Quote

Societies determine mores. An absolute standard is an illusion.

i thought you'd agreed in another thread that the rape and torture of small children was immoral, regardless of the society's "standard"

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2011-May-13, 13:00, said:

Winston, I begin

"This is a moral issue. The arguments might be secular"

That sounds to you that I am saying "morals cannot be a secular decision"?

It's true I left off what comes after "secular" but you left off what comes at the beginning.

So a fuller quotation is
"This is a moral issue. The arguments might be secular, for example the Supreme Court's schedule of what is permitted when, or they may have a religious basis, but fundamentally they are moral arguments."

I offer two choices for a moral basis, secular (with an example) and religious (we all have seen many examples). If I offer two choices, one of which is secular, how can you read this as saying that moral arguments cannot be secular?

At any rate, my larger point is that the objections to funding abortion are, for many, not at all based on the cost. The people who object on moral grounds (and this I think means almost everyone who objects) will continue to do so no matter how economically feasible it turns out to be, and therefore an item such as support for Planned parenthood is not properly regarded as part of a budget debate.

Ken,

Probably my poor comprehension but thanks for the clarification. I agree with your larger point, too. These are ideological-based complaints that have nothing to do with cost or savings.

[Winstonm]

Quote

At the same time, I believe strongly in separation of church and state, and to make a dualism argument for ending abortion is crossing that line, regardless of worldviews.

what exactly does this mean?

What I mean by this is that the spiritual is outside the realm of known realities - it is in the realm of possible realities. No court, president, congressman or senator can know if there is indeed a spiritual reality, and thus for government to make a determination on that type argument is crossing the line into belief system. An affirmation may well conflict with another religion (Hindu?) that believes differently.

This (a dualistic) argument would be based on a spirit inhabiting a newly fertilized egg - morally wrong only if one accepts the dulaistic premise.

Quote

what exactly is a "secular moral argument" and how would it differ from a theistic moral argument?

It may not - they can and do coincide often. This was meant as particular to that brand of religious fervor who argues from authority only - because your pastor syas that the bible says it is so does not qualify as a valid reason.

Obviously, by definition, a secular morality would be morality that is not based solely on religious beliefs. That doesn't meant that religious beliefs or influence cannot be part of the secular morality - ideed, they are.

Quote

But the state is not in the business of listening to religious arguments - nor should they be.

since when?

See above - theology arguments are of no concern to a secular government.

Quote

Societies determine mores. An absolute standard is an illusion.

i thought you'd agreed in another thread that the rape and torture of small children was immoral, regardless of the society's "standard"

There is nothing inconsistent between the two unless you propose a spiritual morality. My contention has always been that morality is determined by the consequences of actions, and that positive results are passed along generationally until they become ingrained.

Morality is an abstract concept - it requires a mind or it is nothing. Therefore, there either had to be an eternal mind (god) or morality began when mankind gave the word a definition.

I personally think there is stronger evidence for the latter position.

[phil_20686]

Winstonm, on 2011-May-13, 12:38, said:

(The arguments might be secular, for example the Supreme Court's schedule of what is permitted when, or they may have a religious basis, but fundamentally they are moral arguments.)

This sounds as if you are saying that morals cannot be a secular decision, that morality is somehow intrinsically connected to something else - religion?

I cannot accept that position. Although I agree that the decision is a decision about morality, the decision of morality has nothing to do with religious belief. Societies determine mores. An absolute standard is an illusion.

You are positing a strange duality yourself, in that you seem to you seem to believe that the essence of a secular state is one that rejects the views of religious citizens purely because they are religious. In reality the "morality" of a secular state is nothing other than the sum of the morality of its citizens. After all, the state receives its authority to regulate only by the consent of the governed. In this sense, the morality of a state is always relative, as in democracy I change the "morality" of the state, by convincing a majority of people to agree with you. A secular society is really nothing other than a society that does not give any particular interest group a special place in government, such that they have a greater say than the sum of the people who support them. If the majority of your citizens are religious and hence believe abortion/euthanasia/gambling/moral issue of your choice to be wrong, then that will be reflected in your Laws, and that is precisely how secularism is supposed to work. Hence, Religious arguments have a place in a secular society, precisely because people believe in them, and thus they are a way to change minds.

Its worth going over this again more precisely. A good working definition of secularism is the following:
A secular society is one which believes primarily in treating persons as individuals free to make their own choices and decisions. Further a secular state find its legitimacy in the will of the people as expressed through democracy. As such, it affords no privileged position to any interest group, religious or otherwise, except in so far as those interest groups represent the will of their supporters.

This then means that in moral or religious debate, a religious leader is to afforded the same respect by a democracy as a Trade union leader might be in an economic/working practices debate, as in each case they are representing the views of sizeable groups of voters.

{PS: The fact that the morality of the state is relative, is not meant to support the position that morality is necessaries relative. I believe morality to be absolute, even if, in some cases, it is difficult to know what the "right" choice is. I also believe that in anything sufficiently complicated men of goodwill might disagree, and the best solution for the formation of a stable society is to settle ones difference at the ballot box, and know what if I can convince enough people by the next election, I can get my way then. }

[Winstonm]

phil_20686, on 2011-May-14, 09:42, said:

You are positing a strange duality yourself, in that you seem to you seem to believe that the essence of a secular state is one that rejects the views of religious citizens purely because they are religious. In reality the "morality" of a secular state is nothing other than the sum of the morality of its citizens. After all, the state receives its authority to regulate only by the consent of the governed. In this sense, the morality of a state is always relative, as in democracy I change the "morality" of the state, by convincing a majority of people to agree with you. A secular society is really nothing other than a society that does not give any particular interest group a special place in government, such that they have a greater say than the sum of the people who support them. If the majority of your citizens are religious and hence believe abortion/euthanasia/gambling/moral issue of your choice to be wrong, then that will be reflected in your Laws, and that is precisely how secularism is supposed to work. Hence, Religious arguments have a place in a secular society, precisely because people believe in them, and thus they are a way to change minds.

Its worth going over this again more precisely. A good working definition of secularism is the following:
A secular society is one which believes primarily in treating persons as individuals free to make their own choices and decisions. Further a secular state find its legitimacy in the will of the people as expressed through democracy. As such, it affords no privileged position to any interest group, religious or otherwise, except in so far as those interest groups represent the will of their supporters.

This then means that in moral or religious debate, a religious leader is to afforded the same respect by a democracy as a Trade union leader might be in an economic/working practices debate, as in each case they are representing the views of sizeable groups of voters.

{PS: The fact that the morality of the state is relative, is not meant to support the position that morality is necessaries relative. I believe morality to be absolute, even if, in some cases, it is difficult to know what the "right" choice is. I also believe that in anything sufficiently complicated men of goodwill might disagree, and the best solution for the formation of a stable society is to settle ones difference at the ballot box, and know what if I can convince enough people by the next election, I can get my way then. }

I think you are using a definition that fits your views. My understanding is that secular means specifically without overtly religious views. I have already acknowledged that secular views on morality can mirror religious views, but the reason is not based on the belief in god.

For example, the state viewpoint that women should not show their faces in public because it is forbidden by god is strictly a religious point of view. A secular government has no business deciding whether or not there is a god or whether the order truly came from god - the secular government simply makes a decision on whether or not there is objective evidence that women should not show their faces.
It is the theocratic government that converts religious laws into societal laws.

The distinction between a nation of laws and a nation of men is the basis for a constitutional republic that most do not understand. The constitution protects the rights of the minority from the whims of a majority. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population wants Christian prayer in schools - the establishment clause of the constitution prevents rampant democracy from establishing those prayers via mob rule, as long as the rule of law is in place. Without that rule of law, you can end up with a country like Iran and its theocracy.

For these reasons, my thinking is that the religious argument that stem cell research should be banned because of the human soul established at the point of inception is not something a government has any business making a decision concerning - this is like the recent gathering of cardinals to discuss the question of what happens to babies who die without baptism: an impossible question to answer with anything other that religious opinion.

Just as "a woman can't show her face because god forbids it", the mirror argument that "you can't kill stem cells because god forbids it" is one that a secular government has no reason to address.

If faithful want that law, they have to make a secular argument and not simply claim, "god says no!"

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2011-May-14, 09:42, said:

In reality the "morality" of a secular state is nothing other than the sum of the morality of its citizens. After all, the state receives its authority to regulate only by the consent of the governed. In this sense, the morality of a state is always relative, as in democracy I change the "morality" of the state, by convincing a majority of people to agree with you. A secular society is really nothing other than a society that does not give any particular interest group a special place in government, such that they have a greater say than the sum of the people who support them. If the majority of your citizens are religious and hence believe abortion/euthanasia/gambling/moral issue of your choice to be wrong, then that will be reflected in your Laws, and that is precisely how secularism is supposed to work. Hence, Religious arguments have a place in a secular society, precisely because people believe in them, and thus they are a way to change minds.

I agree with Phil on this. Subject (in the US) only to the limitations of the constitution, the laws reflect the morality of the state, which is certainly influenced by the religious views of its citizens. An honest judge or politician acts in accordance with his or her understanding of the morality of the state, regardless of his or her personal beliefs. If he or she fails in that regard, the recourse is to vote them out.

And a judge or politician certainly has the right to try to convince others of the need to move the morality of the state in the direction of his or her beliefs. It's important, though, that this be done in such a way that folks can see that one's official actions reflect the state morality, if a conflict exists with one's personal beliefs.

Over the years, the government has spent huge sums on programs and wars that I, as a conservative businessman, did not agree with at all. Nevertheless, I've paid my taxes without much complaint because I understand that I and voters of like mind simply have not convinced enough folks of our positions to eliminate those expenditures.

In the budget battles, it is not acceptable to push the taxes onto future generations because one has failed to convince the voters to cut expenditures that one disagrees with.

I take this as an absolute moral position myself, and I personally believe that anyone who says that tax cuts can precede spending cuts is either a despicably immoral person or a fool. But I do recognize that the free lunchers I despise have influenced the thinking of lots of voters against my absolute moral position.

Of course I also recognize the human temptation to take the easy way out, and I do understand that the free-lunch politicians are simply pandering to voters with weak character to advance their own careers. The only answer is to call attention to what is happening in the hopes that enough folks have the stiffness of spine to put a stop to it.

[Winstonm]

(If the majority of your citizens are religious and hence believe abortion/euthanasia/gambling/moral issue of your choice to be wrong, then that will be reflected in your Laws, and that is precisely how secularism is supposed to work.)

Sorry, but I had to address this assertion specifically.

Again, you are using a democratic model as an example when a constitutional republic is the correct model. Our present reality refutes your claims. Gambling casinos are rampant in states that have moral objections to gambling. There is a reason for this: states cannot willy-nilly create religious moral laws because of voter turnout - the law has to be constitutionally based, and that means it cannot violate the rights of the minority that is protected. Many times the commerce clause is invoked to override a simply state majority. The establishment clause prevents a government from allowing any specific religious-based voter mandates. (See Kitzmiller versus Dover Board of Education).

Of course societal mores reflect to a large degree the religious moralities of its populace - but at the same time there is variation within species, and a strict no-makeup, no-lipstick Nazarene majority can only enforce that religious bias with the aid of a theocracy: in our constitutional republic, it would be considered a violation of the commerce clause, I am confident, as well as a violation of the establishment clause.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws rather than a nation of men. The reason is to prevent mob rule.

[phil_20686]

Winstonm, on 2011-May-14, 10:31, said:

I think you are using a definition that fits your views. My understanding is that secular means specifically without overtly religious views. I have already acknowledged that secular views on morality can mirror religious views, but the reason is not based on the belief in god.

For example, the state viewpoint that women should not show their faces in public because it is forbidden by god is strictly a religious point of view. A secular government has no business deciding whether or not there is a god or whether the order truly came from god - the secular government simply makes a decision on whether or not there is objective evidence that women should not show their faces.
It is the theocratic government that converts religious laws into societal laws.

The distinction between a nation of laws and a nation of men is the basis for a constitutional republic that most do not understand. The constitution protects the rights of the minority from the whims of a majority. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population wants Christian prayer in schools - the establishment clause of the constitution prevents rampant democracy from establishing those prayers via mob rule, as long as the rule of law is in place. Without that rule of law, you can end up with a country like Iran and its theocracy.

For these reasons, my thinking is that the religious argument that stem cell research should be banned because of the human soul established at the point of inception is not something a government has any business making a decision concerning - this is like the recent gathering of cardinals to discuss the question of what happens to babies who die without baptism: an impossible question to answer with anything other that religious opinion.

Just as "a woman can't show her face because god forbids it", the mirror argument that "you can't kill stem cells because god forbids it" is one that a secular government has no reason to address.

If faithful want that law, they have to make a secular argument and not simply claim, "god says no!"

Secular has been used to mean a wide range of things. The working definition I gave above is based on that of the National Secular Society in the UK. You can read it here.

What you say above about the "whims of the majority" is partly true, but very disingenuous. Every democracy since Athens has avoid pure forms of democracy, for precisely this reason. There are a great many rules and regulation in place in attempts to prevent knee jerk reactions to events. Nevertheless, a key concept in the idea of whim's is that they are transient. By making it difficult to change the constitution you insure that "whims" are never enacted. However, equating "whims" with broad public consensus is disingenuous. It remains the case that there is no law, or constitutional right, that cannot be overturned if you can get enough votes, and this is as it should be, for living citizens should not be forever constrained by the wishes of previous generations. From Wikipedia:
"Unlike amendments to most constitutions, amendments to the United States Constitution are appended to the body of the text without altering or removing what already exists. (However, in cases where newer text clearly contradicts older text, the newer text is given precedence. For instance, the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment.) Technically, nothing prevents a future amendment from actually changing the older text, rather than simply appending text to the end."

Ultimately, in all forms of democracy, the state acts because it is "the will of the people". The point of a secular state is that it does not concern itself with the motivations of the citizens. They vote, and that is what the state is obligated to do. Your example of the face covering is enlightening. Do you imagine that the law banning the hijab in France would have been passed if there was widespread public opposition? You are right that the state does not wonder about whether or not God commanded it. They looked at opinion polls to decided whether the majority thought about people being anonymous in public places, and when they found that the ban enjoyed wide public support, they passed it. The motivations were not important, only the votes.

If the faithful want a law, they need to get the required number of votes as are needed in your political system. In practice it normally means that if you can get 50% of people to support something you can get it passed, but the line is somewhat arbitary, even if it was 66% as it is for constitutional amendments you can still get the votes.

[Winstonm]

Quote

If the faithful want a law, they need to get the required number of votes as are needed in your political system. In practice it normally means that if you can get 50% of people to support something you can get it passed, but the line is somewhat arbitary, even if it was 66% as it is for constitutional amendments you can still get the votes.

This is precisely what I have been saying. But note, that if the required majority always can enact its will, the republic then becomes a de facto theocracy. It is the difficulty in changing constitutional amendments that offers protection from that occurence, though not total protection as evidenced by prohibition.

If the religious right really want their way, they need to write a document that begins, When in the course of human events...