Opinion of the term "Seperation of church and state"

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Of course it is. The idea that "ideology" should not guide decisionmaking is dripping with ideology. It assumes that non-ideological solutions are preferable to "ideological" ones, and of course, we all know what non-ideological solutions are: largely centrist, liberal (in the correct sense of the term), and status quo. Anyone claiming to be non-ideological or proposing non-ideological solutions is not being honest because it's impossible to not be ideological. It only seems non-ideological because that ideology (liberalism) is the dominant one in every single area of our society.

Clearly, you missed my point... entirely.  What I said had nothing to do with centrism or liberalism, only that every policy needs to have some backing in facts.  You can't rationally justify something on the basis of it being "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate."

[TNF]

Of course it is. The idea that "ideology" should not guide decisionmaking is dripping with ideology. It assumes that non-ideological solutions are preferable to "ideological" ones, and of course, we all know what non-ideological solutions are: largely centrist, liberal (in the correct sense of the term), and status quo. Anyone claiming to be non-ideological or proposing non-ideological solutions is not being honest because it's impossible to not be ideological. It only seems non-ideological because that ideology (liberalism) is the dominant one in every single area of our society.

Clearly, you missed my point... entirely.  What I said had nothing to do with centrism or liberalism, only that every policy needs to have some backing in facts.  You can't rationally justify something on the basis of it being "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate."

No, the point you're missing here is that ideology is not something that can be turned off. Every proposed policy solution is ideological because with that solution comes the intent of the person proposing it to shape society in a way that they find intrinsically appealing. By default, "non-ideological solutions" in the United States (and really, everywhere at this point, given the penetration of liberal capitalist society into almost every corner of the globe) are solutions which are liberal in nature, i.e. solutions which reinforce the dominant societal narrative/overarching structure of society, which is rooted in liberalism.

Ideology serves as the means of justification for any proposed policy, because ideologies seek to promote certain values in society. You don't say you're going to enact x because it will reinforce the dominant liberal ideology and promote liberalism, but if that's what x does, it doesn't matter if you say it out loud or not, or whether you're actually conscious of the fact.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Of course it is. The idea that "ideology" should not guide decisionmaking is dripping with ideology. It assumes that non-ideological solutions are preferable to "ideological" ones, and of course, we all know what non-ideological solutions are: largely centrist, liberal (in the correct sense of the term), and status quo. Anyone claiming to be non-ideological or proposing non-ideological solutions is not being honest because it's impossible to not be ideological. It only seems non-ideological because that ideology (liberalism) is the dominant one in every single area of our society.

Clearly, you missed my point... entirely.  What I said had nothing to do with centrism or liberalism, only that every policy needs to have some backing in facts.  You can't rationally justify something on the basis of it being "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate."

No, the point you're missing here is that ideology is not something that can be turned off. Every proposed policy solution is ideological because with that solution comes the intent of the person proposing it to shape society in a way that they find intrinsically appealing. By default, "non-ideological solutions" in the United States (and really, everywhere at this point, given the penetration of liberal capitalist society into almost every corner of the globe) are solutions which are liberal in nature, i.e. solutions which reinforce the dominant societal narrative/overarching structure of society, which is rooted in liberalism.

Ideology serves as the means of justification for any proposed policy, because ideologies seek to promote certain values in society. You don't say you're going to enact x because it will reinforce the dominant liberal ideology and promote liberalism, but if that's what x does, it doesn't matter if you say it out loud or not, or whether you're actually conscious of the fact.

If you propose something that's meant to do x, but in reality accomplishes nothing at best or creates the exact opposite of the desired effect at worst, you can't fall back on ideology to continue justifying it.  Similarly, you cannot insist on something that is factually inaccurate (i.e. creationism) and ignore all evidence contrary to your position because it doesn't sit well with your beliefs.  Having an ideology isn't what I object to, it's putting that ideology above all other considerations in trying to craft a certain policy or reach a certain goal.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

FT as interpreted in America, HT as interpreted in France, where laïcité actually does infringe on religious freedom in the way that the Oldiesfreaks of this world falsely believe it does in America.

[Cassius]

Dire.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

FT as interpreted in America, HT as interpreted in France, where laïcité actually does infringe on religious freedom in the way that the Oldiesfreaks of this world falsely believe it does in America.

I actually prefer the French take on freedom of religion.

[TDAS04]

FT of course.

[Mr. Illini]

Freedom term.

Especially if one considers the fact that, if interpreted correctly, the Establishment Clause's only restriction on the federal government is that it may not establish a state religion.

Please.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

FT as interpreted in America, HT as interpreted in France, where laïcité actually does infringe on religious freedom in the way that the Oldiesfreaks of this world falsely believe it does in America.

I actually prefer the French take on freedom of religion.

The French take isn't freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion.