Quote from: Kluge on August 22, 2013, 05:21:00 AM

Quote from: fently on August 22, 2013, 04:00:00 AM

Quote from: Kluge on August 20, 2013, 07:44:11 AM

Quote from: fently on August 19, 2013, 08:03:22 PM

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.

Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.

Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.

ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."

I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.

We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.

You're supreme commander of fucken idiot if you think that's an "egregious violation of trust." You have to be trolling. It practically effects 0 people, except those looking to stir the shit-pot.

Inaba put "Do a barrel roll" in the blockchain, violating the sacred trust of those mining on his pool. You know who sees it? People actively trying to look for it on its novelty/amusement value, same as people looking for what messages Luke put in there. I mean - what's your argument, even? Luke's misrepresenting miners as Catholics? Is there some type of faith pie chart in pool monitoring sites I'm missing, where Catholicism has become the dominant hashing religion? Are the media sources picking this up, saying Bitcoin is clearly a Catholic idea? I'd guess not, because it'd be stupid as shit, and deserving of as much ridicule as your post.

How about secretly hashing alt chains and 'destroying them by selling for btc'.

The guy is a fucking idiot and getting into stuff because nobody else will is retarded.