The strict separation of church and state
I have been debating on whether to start this discussion for a while because it is sure to be very divisive and there are probably people who will choose to troll instead of posting valid and rational responses but I am going to take that chance because this idea needs to be discussed.
There are two important religious freedom clauses in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The first is the free exercise clauses that protect our right to believe and worship as we wish. The other is the e Establishment Clause that keeps religion and religious belief out of government so that our religious rights cannot be trampled by the government or a religious majority. When you put them together in practice they create a wall of separation between religious rights for the people and a very secular state and civil servants at work that is kept absolutely neutral on relgion belief. Our religious beliefs and rights stop at the end of our nose where the equal rights of others begin, so civil servants are not to be using the opportunity or the authority of their jobs to further their religious beliefs.
The question is why are some people opposed to the strict separation of chuch and state unless they seek to legislate their relgious views as law and trample the equal secular and relgious rights of others? To those people who are opposed to the strict separation of church and state; can other religions do the same to you as you seek to do them, or is your idea legislating your beliefs as law a one-way street in your favor?
For those who are considering trolling this thread; I will moderate this very harshly and you will be banned from this discussion. If you cannot be both civil and mature then please pass this discussion by. There is one person who I cannot respond to and he isn't welcome to take part because if I cannot respond to him I cannot moderate his replies.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
46 visitors
Please be civil if you choose to respond to this discussion because it has the possibility to be divisive. I would very much prefer to keep this discussion on the topic. Slap fights and trolling will not be tolerated.
Thank you for the article epistte. It is brief, but succinct and it provides a much needed reminder that we have and must have separation. Kudos!
If I had to do it over I would make a few changes but it seems to have been good enough to start a rational discussion of this vital issue of religious and secular freedom.
I just hope that it doesn't devolve in to "bleep" storm.
I wish that I could appoint other people to have the power moderate this while I might be away.
Religious freedom stops where my civil rights begin.
I'm not sure, but I think there's a way to do that. TiG might know.
You can only do that if you are posting an article from a group that you own. There you can have multiple moderators.
Just FYI
Thank you for clarifying that.
That knife cuts both ways.
No.
The limit is where one imposes on the other. It does not go both ways.
What religious right of yours is in jeopardy because of the secular rights of others?
Freedom of religion is a "civil right" so whenever someone else's idea of a "civil right" impinges on anothers religious freedom that "religious freedom" is in jeopardy.
Like i said, that knife does cut both ways.
So that includes when people try to "impose" their civil rights on others by not allowing religious freedom.
Right?
What imposition of a secular civil right would not allow or negatively impact the religious freedom of you or anyone else?
Our freedom of religion is limited to the right to believe or not to believe in God(s) and to worship as we see fit, so your religious rights do not and cannot involve others, especially against their will, because they have absolutely equal religious rights, even if it is a religion of one person.
I have no idea what you might mean. An example might help...
Let's say there were a lot more Jehovah's Witnesses in America and they weren't against voting. Let's say there were an equivalent number of JW's as there are evangelical Christians (of which they are but one subsection right now). So if there were millions and millions of JW's and one of their main tenets of religious faith was to reject blood transfusions because they believe blood is sacred to their God, is it there "religious freedom" to fight to pass laws banning blood transfusions for everyone? Or perhaps it's only their religious freedom to refuse them for themselves and their family? Are evangelicals being forced to get abortions? No, just like JW's aren't forced to get blood transfusions, but for some reason they think it's their "religious freedom right" to push their religious belief of how sacred a fertilized egg is on everyone else in secular society.
To say it "cuts both ways" implies it harms both parties, but true religious freedom paired with no establishment of religion shouldn't cut in either direction. Don't try to inject your personal faith into legislation and no one will force you to betray your faith and get an abortion or marry a gay person or even force you to be a baker selling wedding cakes, no one is forcing you to do any of those things thus no cuts either way.
Now, when you choose to work as a county clerk who is responsible for recording and issuing marriage licenses but then you refuse service to a tax paying law abiding American citizen simply because your religion is intolerant of their adult consensual relationship, well then I suggest you find other work so you can avoid doing anything against your conscience. Same thing if you start a business selling wedding cakes, if you don't want to sell cakes to every customer who asks for one, then maybe you shouldn't be in that business.
Your rationalization here is the usual shtick on this topic from the progressive left. "Harm" is clearly in the eyes of the beholder. For example. When secularists have a problem with school sports teams taking a knee to pray, they are harming those who believe in prayer. And don't bother with the usual separation of church and state BS that gets thrown at situations like this. That dog don't hunt. Not when no one is being FORCED to take a knee and pray. I don't care what some courts says about it. You don't want to pray? Don't. You don't like to watch it? Don't. Simply right? Thats how most people operate that don't have corn cobb shoved so far up their ass it'll never see the light of day. Live and let live works but only if it's not a one way street.
Fair enough since i don't and you'd be wise not to assume anything about my faith or how i chose to apply it. I could care less if you worship the FSM and howl at the moon when you think it flys by. And feel free to marry your pet monkey if you want and then refuse to sell me a cake if i choose not to. Knock yourself out. Like most people i'll just buy the cake somewhere else. I don't care. Just don't push your idea of morality on me or mine and we'll be just fine.
See how that works. Its exactly the same thing. No matter how hard you try to rationalize that it's not.
Luckily the courts disagree with you. Separation of church and state is not BS and it absolutely applies here. The pressure on the kid who doesn't kneel and pray isn't reasonable. And the fundies would have fit if the coach had their kids kneel on a prayer mat and face Mecca five times a day to pray to Allah.
Any member of that team can reasonably understand that you are expected to take part in that prayer as a team player, even if it isn't being led by a coach. They feel that if they didn't take part in the prayer they would be seen as not being a team player and their playing time would be diminished or they would be punished for it.
This is also why being led in prayer in public school is forbidden. Many students didn't want to pray in the classroom but they felt compelled to take part anyhow because they didn't want to be singled out by either the teacher, the administration or by classmates because they did not. This is why prayer is forbidden in public schools except when it is voluntarily and private groups or solitary per the Engel v. Vitale SCOTUS decision.
The baker or any other vendor is not being subjected to their customer's morality by serving them equally. His religious beliefs or morality is not relevant in a public business and I doubt that they cared or even asked what church that he might attend. Those businesses are subject to the Public Accommodation requirement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that requires them to serve all customers equally. If they offer wedding cakes for sale then they must sell them to anyone who seeks to buy them.
Wish I could vote that up more.
So you'd be just fine if a Muslim coach pressured your kids to pray to Allah five times a day, facing Mecca? Or if a Satanist coach pulled the team together to pray to Satan?
Dominionists never seem to understand that the separation of church and state protects them just as much as everyone else.
Or was it the comment about buying a cake somewhere else that you liked? Rosa Parks is turning in her grave if that's the case, since that is the same argument used in an attempt to keep white people from having to serve black people. Now it's the bigots who are trying to use it to avoid serving gay people.
Total bullshit. Are the players banned from praying? No. Is the coach banned from praying? No. the "secularists" simply ask that the coach, a school employee, doesn't "lead" the team in a group prayer that by its very nature is excluding other faiths. Are you truly serious that you'd be perfectly fine with a Muslim coach bringing the team out on the field for a scheduled game against another school and having his players roll out prayer rugs facing east and then loudly praying to Allah for success in the upcoming game? You'd be okay if the Christian kids who didn't want to participate had to just sit on the bench while such a proceeding on school time led by a school employee took place? I know I wouldn't. And I feel the same about Christian coaches leading the team in Christian prayer to a Christian God regardless of the players religious affiliation. If any Muslim players wanted to do their own prayers before the game, that's their right, just like any Christian who wants to pray. It's only a problem when it's seemingly endorsed and led by a school employee at a school function.
"Like most people i'll just buy the cake somewhere else."
There will always be another lunch counter somewhere, does that mean we should go back to "white only" restaurants? That "separate but equal" argument was shown to be unconstitutional in Brown v Board of Education, no need to resurrect such a sad and worthless argument.
"I don't care. Just don't push your idea of morality on me or mine and we'll be just fine."
No one is pushing their morality on anyone by simply asking a county clerk to do their job and issue a marriage license. The clerk isn't getting gay married. No one is pushing their morality on a wedding cake baker just by asking them to do the job they agreed to when they opened a bakery to the public and started offering wedding cakes. The baker isn't getting gay married.
Except the courts found that people were being FORCED to pray. Teachers and coaches, especially coaches are in positions of authority and teams are known to do everything together or a player doesn't play and/or gets harassed.
Maybe it would be easier if we could tattoo "bigot" on some people's forehead so we can see 'em coming and make them to use the "bigots" entrance in the back. We could force them into the sub-standard section of town and they could open "bigot" businesses of their own, if they can find someone to supply them. It might be hard because the rest of us wouldn't do business with those that sold to or worked with bigot business owners. Too bad that big bigot over there that got all uppity fell down and got himself killed. That's terribly sad for his bigot family. Change bigot to the negro, or gay and you have what you claim we should just live with. You might care very much if it were you and yours being discriminated against. No matter what the reason was.
Nope. Not if they forced them. Have you any actual cases where coaches have been forcing their students to do so? If so, I'd be right there with you saying such a thing is wrong.
As for the Satan thing, like that would happen. But if it did, as long as my child had a choice as to whether to participate or not, I'd accept it.
Dominionists isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about what the separation clause means within the context of government. Humanists like to paint it as meaning no religious expression in the public sphere but that is not what it means. It means religion has no place in how the government conducts itself, generally. The government cannot appeal to the Bible or some other religious text as justification for something.
For instance, no senator or representative will or should introduce a bill that has as it's foundation for justification the Bible, Koran or other religious texts. That is, they will not say we should pass their bill because of some version of "it's God's will". However, it does not mean that a senator or representative cannot introduce a bill he or she is convinced is morally right based on their religious convictions. While they cannot use the Bible to justify it, there's no barrier that prevents them for giving other, reasoned arguments.
There is a difference between trying to govern on the basis of "because it's in the Bible" and governing because one's sense of morality is religiously informed. An example would be abortion. As far as I know, abortion is not expressly prohibited by the Bible, however, I am convinced that it is a morally wrong thing to do. I would still think so if today I decided that there is no God and the Bible is just a book of words with some good ideas in it.
Separation does not prevent me from acting in the sphere of government simply because I have religious convictions. Nor is trying to pass legislation based on those convictions. After all, you get your convictions from somewhere. Why would the framers intend that yours would be acceptable and mine, not?
Actually, I liked his whole post, but yes, I liked that point. It was a good example of what he was talking about. As to what Rosa Parks would have to say about it I couldn't say. Neither could anyone else, I think.
Engel v. Vitale
Abington School District v. Schempp
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe
I can see it now. High school football coach brings the team over to the sidelines just before the game, wheels out a 5 ft high Baphomet statue, kneels before it and says loudly, "Now let us pray to our Lord Satan through his servant Baphomet for courage, strength and success in tonight's gladiator battle we call American football! For those of you who don't wish to participate, please just stand quietly and observe a moment of silence...".
I'm sure every Christian parent in the crowd would just sit, or perhaps stand quietly with respect of others religious beliefs. Sure, that's what would happen... /s
I would pay to see that.
I believe Sparty just wants to argue for arguments sake i.e 1.1.15
I think not.
Aside from the sweeping generalization, this is an attempt at explanation, with a key perception:
This is effectively the heart of the problem.
I know that as you said above this is and has been a contentious issue, but it should not have to be. The things I will say I speak only for myself. I also believe in a separation of church and state. It is something our founding fathers saw the wisdom to include. I firmly believe in all people's right to believe or not believe as they will. Whatever beliefs I may or not have are applicable only to me. I will not try to push them on others and expect others to do the same courtesy. There has been lot of contention on NT between certain individuals who are and are non Christian believers. Again that should not have to be the case, but it has been. I personally believe I that my 20 years of military service and the blood I shed in two wars on two continents helped continue to give that right to all. Again, I speak only for myself and I thank you for giving the opportunity to voice that. A good evening to you and all here.
There are people of faith that I have a lot of respect for. A few were Catholic chaplains of the parish I belonged to. Others have been friends, neighbors, and family. Some are right here on this forum and on Face Book.
I never question their faith because they've proven to me that they live it and are perfectly fine with letting me live my own life. Now, they may secretly pray for my soul and I'm fine with that.
But there are those who will not leave a person alone because we must all be the same. I don't see you as a member of the Collective, Ed. You're definitely an individualist.
I'll help pray for your soul...
hairy fishnuts, hairy fishnuts.....
Are you a member of Sinners and Buttheads? You could migrate your article over there. I have several moderators on staff and would gladly appoint you as one.
That's all up to you, tho. And S&B is an open group
I don't think that there can ever be a "strict" separation of church and state.
Some kind of belief system was impressed into our culture and our laws from the very beginning, and it won't be going away.
Also, a large number of politicians are people of some kind of faith, and their personal beliefs cannot be entirely divorced from their working lives
Why can't there be a strict separation of church and state? What do you foresee being the downside of a strict separation of church and state?
Why should they be able to use their elected position to further their religious beliefs? If they are unable to put their beliefs aside during working hours and represent all of their constituents equally then maybe they should not be a civil servant or an elected politician. Is it overly difficult to require them to limit their legislation to ideas that are purely a secular good and do not negatively affect those of other religious beliefs or non-beliefs at all? Shouldn't the legislation have a purely secular purpose instead of furthering a religious position?
Would they tolerate someone from another religion, perhaps Muslim or Hindu, legislating their religious beliefs in a way that constricts their own religious rights and beliefs? Maybe the Muslim and Hindus can be beef and pork because of their religious beliefs.
Of course not.
Most Americans don't even want Arabic numerals taught in public schools.
I saw that embarrassing poll. We have truly made Idiocracy a documentary.
And for good reason-- do we really want the Mohammedans controlling our children's innocent young minds?
But OTOH, consider the alternative. Do we want our math curriculum controlled by Rome?
I hadn't seen the poll, but Google is my friend: There's a decent video and a short text here .
We should not forget the Democratic bias against the Catholic Georges Lemaître , even if the article massacres his name...
Yes, but the wording of the poll didn't help there. It referred to a "creation theory"and LeMaitre believed there must have been a "creation-like event". "Creation" implies a creator, while there is no evidence that such creator exists. "Origin" would have been a better term, as it avoids injection theology into science.
Perhaps... But would Lemaître have conceived tbe origin of the universe without God?
The "event" is necessarily a particularity......
Interesting ideas!
Sure they can, or, they can look for another job. Ask Kim Davis, she will explain it to you.
Why not? It's a necessity and constitutionally required.
No belief system. Just enlightened thinking.
So. They are allowed to have their own beliefs too.
Then they are not capable or qualified to be elected public officials. But as long as their religion doesn't take stage in law or the government, then there's no problem.
That might be a little unrealistic to expect.
Religion is important to some people, and like anything else could, has some effect on who they are and how they think.
There is no getting around that.
No, not really.
Sounds like a drug, if their thinking is altered or impaired.
Sure there is: logical and rational thinking.
Whether you choose to accept that religion can help shape one's thinking or not is not my problem.
But denying it does not change that it can and does.
I don't think it's helpful to attack the thinking of religious people and it seems to be in opposition to the "civil and mature" discussion epistte was asking for.
I couldn't care less either. It just tells me some people are irrational.
I never said it doesn't. That's why I alluded to religion being a drug. It can mess with rational thinking. Of course, that's why vigilance is needed in the government to ensure such religious delusions/irrationality do not violate the Constitution.
It can impact your thinking and values, no problem. It just can't impact another person. Don't get a job where that would be a problem. Period. I don't know why that isn't enough, not like we don't hear 'if you don't get what you want or need from your job, go get one that does' from conservatives constantly. Get a job that doesn't require working with the public in ways you can't do your job without religion interfering.
Do you think the heartbeat bills are rational? Is allowing religious-based discrimination in public business a rational and pragmatic policy?
Believing in a religious creator and omnipotent/omniscient god(s) that has no evidence of existing is not a rational idea.
No attack. Just simple fact, supported with real world examples today.
So, I thought I would try to take part in your seed because you promised that you wanted civil and mature discussion. If this is just going to be another "bash religion/religious people" seed, I'm out. Have fun in the bubble.
It's a simple fact that the thinking of religious people is by definition "altered or impaired?" Is that what this seed is supposed to be about? No thanks.
I said it can impair rational thinking. Either you don't get what I said or you're just trying to put words in my mouth.
Is that logical statement wrong? Where is the empirical evidence for a religious creator of any theistic religion? The Bible was written by man and despite the claims of being inspired by God it is still only the work of men. That applies equally to every other theistic religion.
The Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment protects your right to believe and worship as you wish. The Free Speech clause gives me the right to criticize your beliefs, as it does your right to criticize mine.
wouldn't that be a choice on the part of the person who is allowing religion to shape their thinking ? wouldn't they be able to make the choice to not allow religion to shape their thinking, especially when it comes to their working lives (in secular industries) ?
Epistte provided examples of religious thinking irrationality. Funny how you complain about "attacks" on religion, but run away when provided with actual examples that prove our point.
That just goes along with what I said. If they can't make such choices or rationalize that, then it's clear religion has impaired their thinking ability. But somehow, some people find it offensive when that fact is pointed out.
Ah. If one doesn't agree with your way of thinking, then they are impaired.
Thanks for sharing.
Either one thinks rationally, or not. Of course, disagreeing with me is totally irrational
I'm just saying that religion has an influence whether you like it or not, or whether it is right or not.
I'm thinking that if that were not so, most people wouldn't be worried about it so much.
And who gets to decide at what point it is deemed that religion interfered?
Of course religion helps shape one's thinking.
Sometimes for the good such as a reformed aggressor trying to live by the love thy neighbor aspect of Jesus. Sometimes for the worse as in suicide bombers doing the will of Allah by killing as many infidels as possible while earning martyrdom.
Ideally, though, religion should not be a factor by officials who are making decisions that affect society. Those type of decisions should be based on facts and logic and for the good of society (I am not suggesting that secular governance ensures that this will occur; but adding religion into the mix certainly is not a progress towards pure facts and logic).
Simply allowing religion to influence some of one's thinking doesn't mean that facts and logic are ignored.
True. A religious government official might decide that she is not going to grant a marriage license for homosexual couples. Her decision would be based on facts (e.g. the couple are of the same gender, they want to be legally married, she can grant or deny the request). It is also based on logic (e.g. if it is wrong for these two to be legally married then the marriage license should be denied).
It is also based on religious 'facts' and 'logic' as she sees things. She believes that God says homosexuality is a sin; that it is in the Bible. She also holds that what the Bible says is truth; she believes the Bible to be infallible. She believes that if the Bible says no then she has no choice but to deny the marriage license because God is the ultimate authority and His word in the Bible is all she needs.
Take out the religious aspect from the thought process (i.e. make this a secular decision based on facts (law) and logic) and the same gender couple would get their marriage license.
True. And for every one of those type decisions, there are a thousand correct ones.
But it isn't an epidemic.
Most people in a position such as hers would not make the same decision, and I dare say many if not a majority of them probably are religious to some degree or another.
My example used a very common case because it was real and it was well known. The example was used to make the point, the example itself was not the point (which is why I chose to not include the name of the official: Kim Davis).
The point is that religious 'facts' and 'logic' hinder what should be a secular decision. Keep religious thinking out of government. Officials should not insert their religious views into the decision making process.
And my point is that religion doesn't play a significant role in many officials' lives, despite whether they are religious or not. It isn't the same for all, and painting everyone with such a broad brush isn't fair.
That is a fine point, but that is an entirely different question. I have not claimed that most or even many officials make poor decisions due to religion.
... and now you have turned this into a strawman. Stick with what I wrote Texan. I illustrated why it is bad to mix religious belief with secular reasoning in the decision making process for secular governance.
So, do you agree that the decisions made by officials executing their jobs in secular governance should not be influenced by their religious beliefs?
The point is that religious 'facts' and 'logic' hinder what should be a secular decision. Keep religious thinking out of government. Officials should not insert their religious views into the decision making process.
But is it possible for an elected official to have their own religious views-- but also not let their personal religious beliefs unfairly influence them in doing their job?
This is not just a hypothetical question. When JFK (a Catholic) ran for president, many Americans felt his decisions would be "influenced by Rome". Rather than ignoring that issue, JDFK decided to face it head on. He appeared before the Greater Houston (Protestant) Ministerial Association and directly answered their questions on the subject:
JFK Takes on the Catholic Controversy
Political candidates live in a storm of controversy. When a candidate's character comes under fire during a campaign, how they respond can make the difference between winning and losing an election. In this episode of PODIUM, John F. Kennedy addresses fears about his loyalty to the Pope - a major controversy in his 1960 presidential campaign. This historic speech was delivered to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in Houston, TX, on September 12, 1960.
Note: This short video only has a few short excerpts from his speech-- plus commentary from various contemporary people. Here's an excerpt from that historical speech that perhaps gives a better idea of how he addressed the issue:
Of course it is possible.
My point was about 'should', not 'could'.
Don't derail your own article, epistte...
The topic is separation of church and state... not the existence of God. (Also a fascinating topic, but not the same one...
)
Even one wrong decision by one person such as Kim Davis hinders the religious freedom of those who don't believe in her faith. She had no right to deny those people a marriage license.
But she wasn't the only one. There were numerous cases in other states that weren't as widely reported as the Kim Davis one.
That's the key. The courts agreed with you at every occasion. It should be obvious that a county clerk does not have the authority to annul the law...
It kills me that there are people who imagine that the God of the Universe... of a trillion trillion worlds... is preoccupied by the social mores of one particular society on our little backwater world...
I do hope they're wrong, 'cause that God would really, really be an idiot!
I think that I explained that he has the right to believe and worship as he wishes as well as that the existence of God is required for the right to believe in it or to worship it.
Never mind - it's your seed...
I am always open to change and revision when shown a better way.
By Replying... I'm derailing... which is what I was trying to avoid...
There are a few members of NT... well... a lot of them... who either do not know how to stay on-topic, or do not want to stay on-topic. Either microscopic attention spans, or willful vandals.
A preferred method for destroying a seed is the "gradual derail", where the vandal Replies off-topic, and then takes any answers as means for going ever further into the weeds.
If you're happy to see your "separation of church and state" seed eventually mutate into something else, then my post was out of place. I tend to project...
I don't have a problem with your replies.
I welcome your sharing of the experience in France how the interaction of religion and the state are handled.
If you can't do your job for all the public (because your religious views won't allow it), you need to get another job. Kim Davis is an example. Can't support abortions? Don't get one, but let others make own decisions (as opposed to legislating your religious views). Can't serve gays? Work at a company you won't be required to. Want to pray? Go for it silently or in private and leave it out of government. I just don't see the problem unless you want to impose a certain set of religious dictates on everyone. Which is what they want to do, and what is being fought because it is limiting the rights of everybody else who doesn't subscribe to those values. And lately those values are despicable, so really need to be kept personally, not professionally. Politics and religion are not a good mix. Wasn't there recent hysteria on the right when they thought they would get sharia law? Here's one for shits and giggles:
Which does absolutely nothing to answer my question, so I will repeat it for you:
And who gets to decide at what point it is deemed that religion interfered?
I think understanding the "thinking" of religious people is the entire point on why it is imperative that we have separation of church and state.
Some religious people believe that any consensual sex between adults outside of marriage is sinful, but believe that wives must "submit" to their husbands and have sex on demand in marriage. Thus, some religious sects are condoning and legalizing rapes. Certainly not something that most of us would support, and absolutely something that should not be considered legal in any society.
Religions are not about morality. Religions are about control of people's lives from cradle to grave. In ALL THREE of the Abrahamic religions, women are little more than slaves to be used by men. Why shouldn't this type of "thinking" be scrutinized and condemned by every society on Earth? What place does this type of religious "thinking" have in government?
And that is exactly why we need this separation, because when one person's belief interferes with another person's belief (or non-belief) then it steps on someone's toes.
That's a very interesting post.
... ... OMG! Did I just say that a post from Greg Jones is "very interesting"?? OMG!
Let's unpack:
This is a fact. An important one. Ignoring the reality of this fact can lead to all sorts on unintended consequences - most of them unpleasant.
This deserves discussion, particularly around "cannot be entirely divorced". "Cannot" means "impossible" which would be absolutist, but then comes "entirely" which attenuates the idea. "Divorced" carries quite a few connotations, which may or not be useful in this context.
Let's look at some alternative texts:
- "are not easily separated from"
- "entirely prevent separation from"
- "can only be separated if there is a conscious effort"
- "make it impossible to separate"
- "requires will-power to separate"
- ...
My point here is that while it is certainly true that our social-cultural-religious upbringing imprints our later attitudes, we still have free will - we can decide whether we blindly follow those imprinted tendencies, or not.
I totally agree that there should be a strict separation of church and state. Those who avidly defend the inclusion of church and state are those who wish to impose their own religious beliefs on others.
Once church is allowed to become a part of state then we stand the possibility of becoming a religious government. And that is not what our Forefathers intended for our country, and is against our Constitution.
IMO, the Constitution does not need, nor merit, to be rewritten. Politicians religious beliefs do not, and should not, belong in our country's political governance.
JMOO
There's a bit to break down here that may require further clarification from the person posing the question. First of all, what is intended by "strict separation" of church and state? We may already have that. Then, speaking for others without evidence, the question assumes two answers that may be right or wrong. It's a bit of a straw man. That is: assuming there are people who oppose the strict separation of church and state, they may oppose it for those reasons or for some other reason.
I think it's more likely that most people in America assume the existence of and support some level of separation between church and state. There will be wide disagreement about how much separation there should be and there will also be disagreement about what "strict separation" even means.
I agree, a strict separation isn't likely to happen. But, things like prayer in school, prayer circles after football games, etc..DO need to be done away with.
Why? As. long as they are voluntary activities and there are no restrictions on other activities there should be no issue as long as those actives are not for the purpose of mocking others
The idea in restricting such events is how they can be perceived by people who don't share in the beliefs of those praying. It can seem to them like the team, the coach, the teacher, the other students, the school, the community (however far you want to take it) place more value on people who share their beliefs. Justified or not on an individual basis, this can lead a person to feel like they might not be treated fairly by those in power who support the religious expression.
Even though government isn't technically establishing an official religion in these situations, it can have the impact of seeming like a de facto government religion. Thus, courts have decided that it is better to avoid this situation altogether.
Because in endorsing worship of one religion's god, coaches and teachers, who are state actors, are endorsing a religion.
If the prayers are student-led, it's fine. But if school employees are involved, it's not fine anymore.
Do school employees lose their Constitutional rights. What other rights do they give up?
No, they haven't lost their Constitutional rights. They're still allowed to go to church, pray (on their own time), tithe, etc. They just can't trample on the Constitutional rights of the captive audience with which they've been entrusted.
Would you be so defensive of their Constitutional rights if they were leading students in the Shahadah?
I guess you missed the part where I did voluntary.
No, I didn't.
How voluntary is it, if a class or team is being led by a teacher or coach?
Is the coach unable to pray on his own? Are the students unable to pray on their own?
Of course not.
Are you allowed, at your job, to just stop doing your actual job and start holding a Bible study, instead? I'm betting not. You're not getting paid to preach or pray. You're getting paid to do your job. If you're not a member of the clergy, your job likely doesn't involve preaching or praying. Public teachers' jobs certainly don't involve preaching or praying. We pay them to teach, no indoctrinate.
I notice you didn't answer about the Shahadah.
Totally agree. When I was a young girl in elementary school in Ft Worth TX, school prayer was not permitted in any way in any form on school property. All we were allowed to do was say the pledge of allegiance in our home room first thing in the morning.
And in if public schools are supported by taxpayer funds, no religious prayers should be allowed across the country in every state, if it is not already so.
JMOO
The prayer part has been settled. No prayer in public school. I think the real question is about what is taught in school and where the lines are drawn. Do we teach Greek Mythology as part of Ancient History. What other religious ideas get included? How about religion's ( dare I say invaluable) involvement in the forming of the United States of America? Does that get taught?
Thank you.
Too many Christians who are all for school prayer seem to have no idea how that could backfire on them. What if your child has a Muslim teacher? Are you (generic you, because this comment isn't really meant for you, RW) ok with the class being led in a Muslim prayer several times per day?
If the class doesn't *HAVE TO* participate, but many students are, just because the teacher to whom they look for guidance is praying, is bowing to Mecca and proclaiming that Allah is great and Muhammed is his prophet really voluntary? Are elementary school students great at resisting, or even recognizing, peer pressure and government overreach?
Of course not.
Should an atheist teacher be allowed to tell their students that their religions are all fairy tales?
Is preventing the Muslim teacher from praying in class or the atheist teacher from telling students that their beliefs are fairy tales a violation of those teachers' Constitutional rights?
Of course we teach Greek mythology - as mythology. We don't teach that the sun rises because Apollo is pulling it across the sky.
We can teach the role that religion has played in world history. I really don't see how the history of the Middle East or Europe can be addressed without bringing up the role of religion. But we don't teach that the religions themselves are true, because we have no evidence that they are, and quite a bit that they aren't.
No that would be an endorsement.
Would the Ten Commandments be mentioned?
Probably, along with the Code of Hammurabi, the Five Pillars of Islam, and so forth. All illustrate either the development of written moral/legal codes or inform us as to the tenets of those particular religions and their effects on cultures that follow those religions. Students would understand why, for example, Jews and Muslims avoid pork and shellfish, and why art in primarily Muslim countries often avoids depictions of animals and humans.
But those codes would not be put forth as examples of good sources of morality or secular law, at least not in their entirety. There is very little secular purpose to teaching children that they should have no gods before Yahweh, or that they shouldn't work on Sunday (or Saturday, or Friday, depending on which Abrahamic tradition one follows).
I promise you, if kids started taking prayer rugs to school, the outrage would be off the charts. Christians have no problems pushing for prayer in schools, but, as soon as schools start making concessions for religions OTHER than Christian, it simply would not be tolerated.
No. But like I said above, religious rights end where other people's civil rights begin. Freedom OF religion is also freedom FROM religion.
If the school is publicly funded, prayer in that school is a violation of the 1st amendment. If it's privately funded? They can pray all they want.
Influencing captive and impressionable public school students via the teachers own religious beliefs is not and has never been one of their religious rights. Would you tolerate that behavior from a teacher who is Hindi, Pagan, Buddhist or Muslim?
Our religious rights are limited to the right to believe as we wish and the right to worship as we choose. They cannot be more because they would intersect with the religious and secular rights of everyone else if they were.
If the teachers seek to bring the bible into the classroom as a part of the curriculum then I can only suggest that they get a job at a parochial school of their own religion where that behavior is permitted.
Would your boss tolerate you evangelizing to coworkers, customers, suppliers and potential clients in the office and on the phone in the private sector?
All we were allowed to do was say the pledge of allegiance in our home room first thing in the morning.
Which version was used at the time?
One nation with liberty and justice for all
or
One nation under God with liberty and justice for all?
Originally the Pledge did not include the words "under God"-- they were added in 1954:
In 1954, at President Dwight D. Eisenhower's urging, the Congress legislated that “ under God ” be added, making the pledge read: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God , indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
(I actually remember reciting the pledge in school before the words "under God" were added...).
Exactly.
I don't agree. We know how intensely "Tribal Affiliation" works among teens. If a player refuses to take part in the prayer, we can pretty well imagine what goes down next...
I'm going off-topic a moment.
What kind of god is so small as to intervene in a high school football game? Does such a god deserve prayer?
In classical times, the Greeks and Romans had their family gods. This is the same thing.
This is most certainly NOT the God of the Universe.
But the students aren't state actors, so there is no Constitutional problem with student-led prayer.
I seriously doubt that the coach is totally hands-off.
I've coached... and I always controlled every aspect of the lead-up to a game. I cannot imagine a coach leaving the players to someone else (or perhaps several successive prayer-leaders!?). Not knowing the duration of the interruption...
It's just not credible to say the coach isn't involved.
As long as that prayer is not endorsed by the school.
For example:
Good questions. However, the same can be said about the Jewish Teachers in the same respect. But, I think that would never be allowed by the extremist Protestant Christians who think they own the country and everyone in it.
True Christians don't try to play God, they realize that they are not fit to usurp that right.
JMOO
MY first year of school it was the above, and then it was changed to add God to it. It was hard to remember the change for a while, and many of us never really did say the new version.
Agreed.
I grew up in a very religious area - believe it or not, my hometown was in the Guinness Book of World Records for the highest number of churches per capita. Yes, as kids, we prayed, often with no teacher or coach urging us on at all. It's what our parents raised us to do, and what our pastors encouraged us to do. My son's classmates do, too - their churches send them to school with "Meet Me At the Flagpole" flyers to hand out to other students, advertising a prayer gathering. Teachers have actually tried to stop them handing out those flyers, but as it's a student-led activity held outside of class hours, it's perfectly legal.
How can you logically have some level of separation of chich and state and not open the government up to trampling the secular and religious rights of everyone else who isn't in the religious majority? To me, that seems like a euphemism for keeping other religions out but letting your religion have access to the government and enforcing your religious beliefs at some level. That cannot apply to all religions equally, so why should it be considered as a pragmatic solution?
What do you believe is the downside to a strict separation of church and state?
None that I can see. Even some of the Founding Fathers thought separation was better.
Jefferson, Madison, and Adams were adamant about it because they learned from the past in Europe and the American colonies. It is the only stable and pragmatic form of government because as soon as one religion gains political power they attack other religions and non-believers, and then what that threat is diminished, they turn on their own sects and attack people who have different minor religious views. We see this in the religious wars in the Middle East, India and in Northern Ireland's "troubles".
The only stable government with equal rights for all is a government that is absolutely secular. Religion is based on emotions so it must be kept walled away from the political power, the government, and our rights if we are not to be on a slope toward a violent theocracy.
That isn't happening, so I guess I don't know what you're talking about. Like I said, I think you need to clarify what you mean and what you think the current situation is.
Again, it depends on what you mean. It could be extremely limiting in terms of what the government is capable of doing. You might find such a government to be so ineffectual as to be effectively non-existent.
Why would the government be supporting religious ideas or religious beliefs? What is the overall secular social good of that possibility that outweighs the obvious risks of the religious and secular rights of others being trampled? Can other religions force their beliefs on you or is this power just for the Christian majority?
What do you see as the downside of a strict separation of church and state at all levels of the government? What would you or any other believer lose in that policy?
This has been pointed out by others, but for many people, their sense of right and wrong is shaped by religious teaching. The natural state for any human would be to simply pursue their own personal self-interest. So, things like valuing the lives of the poor, the sick, or the handicapped are things that, for many people, come from religion.
There may not be an obvious personal or societal benefit to feeding the poor (as opposed to eating them or executing them). The same is true for the sick or the handicapped. People may be personally empathetic to these people, of course, but they may also be guided to compassion for these people by the example of religious teaching. Those values make their way into the law. Many laws - I would say most of them - are ushered into existence with the proclamation that the government is "doing the right thing" without any kind of objective scientific measurement to prove it because, of course, there could be none.
The golden rule is not confined to your religion or any other religion. You do not need to be religious to care for others like yourself.
Morality is not confined to religious belief, but religions have their own forms of morality, such as opposing equal rights for women, for different religions and for LGBT people. I have said many times that there are as many ideas of what is moral as who is or who isn't god. Not even all Christians have the same moral standards. Are the Klan, Fred Phelps, and the Catholic church also moral?
I don't know that that's true. I think that's a pejorative characterization of human nature. Altruism has social benefits we may well have evolved to pursue. Altruism is seen among non-primate animals, so it is hardly surprising that more intelligent animals, including humans, would have developed altruistic tendencies to increase social harmony.
Indeed, we have learned that altruistic behavior is a factor of evolution. Working together, for many species, serves survival and thus continuing the species. Those animals predisposed to help their 'tribe' survived better. This is not true for all species because survival is a complex equation, but altruism is indeed tied to evolution (albeit not exclusively).
Human (actually animal) behavior is extremely complex. Who we help and how we help are a function of our evolutionary biology, our environment and the chemical makeup at the moment of our decision. For example, people are less likely to be generous when hungry. Also, the generosity depends upon who you consider 'us' and who you consider 'them' and that is influenced by an individual's oxytocin hormones (and this is a gross oversimplification).
People do generally pursue that which matches their desires. In some cases this would involve a parent giving their life to save their child (and other lesser altruistic acts).
Yes. Sometimes, survival of the species is best promoted by sacrifice by the individual - selfishly serving our own good may not be best for our species (or tribe, or family, or community) overall, so while it seem counterintuitive that we're better off sacrificing our own good, it serves the bigger picture, which is survival of a species.
An easy example would be a parent sacrificing their own life to save that of a child - something easy for most parents to imagine doing, if the need arose. Another is the old "women and children first" in rescue situations - the species is more likely to survive if younger members and women, who are more limited in their ability to reproduce, survive a catastrophe. It's not just chivalry; it makes good sense.
Certainly!
France is militantly secular:
- No public official would ever imagine taking their oath of office, hand on a Bible.
- Marriage must be accomplished at town hall, before the Mayor or a Deputy Mayor - marriage in church has no legal existence.
- Wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols is forbidden in public schools.
- The national census does not include any questions on religion.
- ...
I can imagine the outcry in the US...
Good question. Good post.
We are doing pretty well, especially when we consider the context of "modern" history from the perspective of the founders. They were all Europeans by birth or recent ancestry and were well acquainted with centuries of power struggles between church and state. Wars were fought over who should have the power to crown kings, appoint bishops or popes, determine church rules and membership, or administer either civil or criminal justice.
We have nothing remotely like that in the United States.
The debates we have in the courts over our modern issues seem like pretty small potatoes by comparison.
Have you bothered to actually READ the First Amendment? The Establishment Clause does not prevent religion in government. What it prohibits is Congress supporting one religion over another. That's why it is called the Establishment Clause not the Separation of Church and State Clause. There is a big difference between keeping religion out of government and preventing government from creating its own religion or sponsoring a religion.
Great Britain for the longest time had a state sponsored religion, it was called the Church of England. Most of the colonists were here in what is now the United States of America to get away from that state sponsored religion. This is also why Massachusetts was a Puritan colony, Pennsylvania was a Quaker colony, and Maryland was the only Catholic colony. The individual states are not really restricted in creating a state-sponsored religion as they are not Congress, which is specifically prevented by doing so and with the 10th Amendment, any powers not specifically forbidden to the states are theirs of the People's to use.
The courts have stated that there is a separation of church and state, and that makes me wonder if those judges actually READ the Bill of Rights as it really says no such thing. It only says that Congress shall not establish a religion, and that any powers not prohibited to the states belong to the states or the People. There does seem to a large lack of reading comprehension since the 1960s.
The incorporation doctrine of the 14th spreads that religious separation all levels of the government. State and local, plus the other two branches of the federal government.
The lemon test of Lemon v.Kutzman makes it very clear that there is to be no religion in government that does have an overall secular benefit.
Where does it state in this that there shall be no state sponsored religion in the above? The first section doesn't mention religion and only states that the laws made shall not infringe upon nor abridge any of their rights. The states can say they support Catholicism if they want to as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's religious views.
I have explained the incorporation doctrine in other replies.
No, they cannot do that for obvious reasons.
How could the state possibly say that they support Catholicism and not infringe on the both the secular and religious rights of everyone but Catholics? If Catholicism gets preferential treatment in a state by the government then other Christian sects, other religions and those who have no religion are instantly at a legal disadvantage to the Catholics in that state. That is a theocracy. They have fewer religious and secular rights than the Catholic residents. What is the benefit of doing that that outweighs the obvious damage done to the rights of others? Do you see how that would create an obvious problem?
What are your religious beliefs?
I suggest you read my reply to you at 7.2.12 to figure out what you are missing in this entire discussion.
Only to the extent that members in government are allowed to have their own religious beliefs like anyone else.
The Separation of Church and State is based on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause. The government must be secular and religiously neutral by default.
There is no difference. Religion must be kept out of government to the effect that religion has no say in the government or public policy. The opposite is expected too.
Individual colonies/states were little theocracies back in the day. Fortunately, the Constitution put an end to that.
The Founding Fathers have said there is a separation of church and state too. And what makes you more qualified to interpret the Constitution or the intentions of the Founding Fathers than the SCOTUS? Or do you seriously think something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be valid or applicable?
Speak for yourself. Perhaps you should review the 14th Amendment, which makes the Constitution applicable to the states. So if the SCOTUS determines there is separation in the Constitution, that that makes separation applicable to all the states as well. That's why individual states can't impose theocratic laws or policy on citizenry any more than the Federal government can.
I guess that is why one if the first things they was establish the Congressional Chaplains office and started each session with a prayer and continue to do so
What is the effectiveness of this prayer and why should it be on public time instead of on private time?
Thomas Jefferson said this,
He also said this,
That's something some of the Founders took issue with. But personal expressions of religious belief are certainly not present in the Constitution.
Pretty self-righteous for a guy that agreed with the enslavement of his fellow human beings, eh?
(Yes, Jefferson owned slaves).
How about YOU read the 14th Amendment. Nowhere does it state anything about establishing a religion for the states or that the restrictions of Congress apply to the states. I posted the whole thing at 7.1.1, so please read it and state where exactly it states either religion cannot be state sponsored or that the states are limited as Congress is.
Watch the tone of your reply. If you have an issue with the 14th and the incorporation doctrine then you should take it up with me instead of Gordy.
Did you read my link and its explanation of the Due Process clause?
Jefferson actually opposed slavery but he as too indebted to be able to set them free. He was having an affair with Sally Hemming, who was one of his slaves.
Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to ban slavery as part of the Constitution, but they knew that it would never be ratified if they did because of the opposition by the southern slave states, so they chose to get the document ratified instead and kicked the issue of slavery down the road for another 65 years.
Don't do anachronism, Krishna... You know better!
It was much more than "an affair". A second family. He sired six children on her. (I believe that was the appropriate vocabulary at the time...)
The story of Sally Hemings 's (one "m") children is interesting. One branch "passed over", and became "White", while the other remained Black. Cousins of course...
You can post Constitutional amendments, but it's clear you do not understand them, or the established legal precedents based on them. I suggest you research the Incorporation Doctrine and the Due Process Clause. You also neglected to answer my question as to whether you think something must be explicitly stated in the Constitution to be legally valid or applicable.
How could we have religious freedom and any sort of separation of church and state if the 50 individual states, plus the cities, townships, and counties are permitted to enact religious laws? We all live in a state so there would be no religious rights or freedom if the states can pick and choose which religion they endorse or permit. If the federal executive and judicial branch are also permitted to enact or enforce religious laws we have virtually no religious rights, except for the religious majority sect.
You are ignoring a big piece of the puzzle that I thought you would have realized without me pointing it out. Each state has a SIMILAR constitution as the US Constitution, and they have ALL put in a prohibition on a state-sponsored religion. I pointed out that the US Constitution and its Amendments DO NOT put any such limitations on the states.
And we point out you are wrong! Many states had provisions in their constitutions which advocated one religion or religious ideology over others, prohibited individuals not of the preferred religion from holding office, ect.. But such provisions became null and void after the 14th Amendment was passed. The US Constitution does prohibit state/government endorsement or sponsorship of religion, and it applies to all levels of government.
Then why do the courts continually slap down the states that illegally try to force Christianity into their laws?
The federal constitution must put limitations on the states and the founding fathers saw this when they also included the Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Sec. 2) that makes it very clear that federal law always supersedes state and local laws or a state or city could pass a law that denies a right or undermines the federal Constitution. If the states all have the separation of church and state then why do some states pass religious law such as the display of the 10 Commandments or similar ideas?
You are willfully ignoring the Incorporation Doctrine in the 14th Amdnement because it is not mentioned verbatim. I also address this situation in 7.2.11. We could have no separation of church and state if the Establishment Clause didn't apply equally to the states the other 2 branches of the federal government and cities and counties. This is why the strict interpretation method of the Constitution should not be used. The Constitution is a listing of ideas and so our rights/freedoms are not limited because something isn't mentioned verbatim in that document. The federal courts would not be necessary of the Founding Fathers wanted the Constitution interpreted in a strict constructionist or literalist manner. To fully and accurately understand the Constitution you must read the previous documents and the rights of the founders and not just the literal words of the document.
Would be the positive goal of not applying the strict separation of church and state to all branches and manner of US government?
May I inquire as to what your religious beliefs are?
Because a large number of them are reading into the Constitution and its Amendments something that is not really there, or based on the case, the lawyers arguing in favor of the laws are not bringing a good legal argument. Those are the two possibilities for each case. If I was arguing in front of the judge, I would point out that since the states are not prohibited from having a state-sponsored religion by either the 1st or 14th Amendment, that the 10th Amendment takes precedence and requires the court to approve of any such laws or violate the Constitution with their Unconstitutional order.
If you argued that in front of a judge, you would be laughed right out of court, and rightfully so! States cannot have their own sponsored religion, per the 14th Amendment. Any legal expert worth a dime knows that. It's laughable that you think you understand the constitution better than legal experts, especially the SCOTUS!
So I guess Minnesota could set Islam as their state religion?
When a post opens with a sentence like this... I stop reading. Long experience has taught me that what follows will be a very narrow, very partisan interpretation of the document, to be followed by a great deal of very vehement semantic nit-picking.
No, thank you...
I suggest you read my comment at 7.2.12.
We can see in the Trump presidency the danger of mingling church and state. In order to appeal to the religious right nutcases who think Bible prophecy is dictating events in the "holy land" Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. We can know that the prophecy angle was at least part of Trump's decision because he invited a couple prominent prophecy bible thumpers over there to speak at the "grand opening" of the embassy in Jerusalem.
This sort of thing is very dangerous. Keep the Bible and the Koran out of government.
Gee, were the 93 Senators and 374 Congressmen who voted to move the embassy to Jerusalem in 1995 also just pandering to the "religious right nutcases"?
Why were they even there? It wasnt a religious event.
[deleted]
The article is about separation of church and state. It is quite likely that Trump pandered to bible prophecy pastors when he moved the embassy.
First of all, how is "strict" to be defined in this application?
How does this strict separation work in the real world, since we are dealing with real people with real beliefs?
Will there be some kind of litmus test or oath that anyone who aspires to working in government must submit to?
Will any Jews or Muslims in government service be required to leave their faith at the door?
Or just Christians?
I did not see any blueprint for the future in the article. It asks a very legitimate question, which is the necessary prerequisite before attempting to define any policy.
If you believe these aspects are important, why don't you give us your opinions?
I'm just raising some what I consider to be some relevant questions.
Do you have any relevant answers?
What's you opinion(s) about the issue?
I've lived in France for over forty years (although we now spend more time in the States than in France). France is militantly secular , after centuries of church abuse of power. I see those same abuses wherever churches have secular power, in particular in the US, so I agree with French secularism.
I would ban all religious symbols from public institutions, ceremonies, etc.
That said... I understand that this is a visceral topic. People do not analyze it intellectually - they follow their gut-feelings (in the memorable words of George Bush). So I would recommend going slowly.
Now... your opinions?
As a non-believer, I really don't have an opinion.
If someone really wants "strict" separation of church and state, let them go at it.
Not sure how it would be accomplished,
There won't be - although I would never vote for anyone who claims they put the bible (or any other religious book) above all else, which unfortunately many candidates proudly claim. I personally think that should disqualify them. If you can't put the Constitution above your religion, you're a crappy candidate and should go find some religious job.
What are you afraid of happening if the actions of the state are kept absolutely secular at all levels?
It is covered in the oath of office that you swear/affirm to uphold the US Constitution............
It must apply to all people and all faiths absolutely equally. It would be unconstitutional if it were otherwise. This idea seems to be a problem for you because you have mentioned it previously multiple times.
Since I am not a religious person, I am not afraid of "strict" separation of church and state. It doesn't affect me one iota.
But how do you define "absolutely secular" and how would that be accomplished without violating any current laws or rights?
That government action and legislation are kept completely separate from supporting or endorsing any and all religious belief at all levels and all time. That would include taking god off of our money and from the pledge all the way to ending government endorsement for the national day of prayer. The elimination of the government office of Faith-Based initiatives would also happen as well as the religious policy of adoption agencies to deny non-Christians or LGBT the ability to adopt children.
Christmas would be a religious holiday and not a public holiday, just like Easter is and in the same manner that Haunakahh and Ramadan are.
There would be no 10 Commandments or other religious plaques on public property. The Bible could not be taught as a religious belief in public school. It can be mentioned in history class and literature classes in passing but it must be taught in a secular way and not as a religious study course as a way for the public school to endorse or support religious belief. Other religions would/could be taught on an equal and secular basis as well.
It would stop heartbeat abortion bans that are based on a religious belief and prohibit discrimination of others in public business that is based on a religious belief.
These are just the most obvious ideas but there are many more.
I have read through the article and comments. So many ideas and thoughts put forward. I know it would be difficult for some to put aside their religious beliefs and do their jobs effectively and without bias, but I think it is best for society as a whole if they do. I do not go into my job and press my Wiccan ideals on those around me. If your religious beliefs affects another in any way on the job then the beliefs should be suppressed.
I do not think that any religious beliefs: mine, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Druids and on & on should be allowed to suppress the freedom of others in this country.
I would only invoke the FSM when it came time to decide on what I want for lunch
Pasta day?
I've never seen the FSM's basic dogma. Do you know it? A deity so popular must be worthy of study.....
Praise be to FSM. R'amen.
Yeah... okay... all religions deserve equal rights... of course... regardless of dogma.
Even if there is no dogma... ... ... ummmm... ... I'm not really sure about this...
"There are two important religious freedom clauses in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The first is the free exercise clauses that protect our right to believe and worship as we wish. The other is the e Establishment Clause that keeps religion and religious belief out of government so that our religious rights cannot be trampled by the government or a religious majority."
Is it "Establishing of a Religion", if a Government puts forth "It's Bad" to speak negatively about a Religion ……
...… Like Islam …..
…..... and won't allow it ?
That would be a violation of free speech as well as the freedom of religion. No religion or their adherents have the right not to be criticized. All religions are to be equal in the eyes of the government.
That would be "Special"....if it were True !
I am not sure that I am following where this line of reasoning is going, so please explain it to me.
Keep in mind that an absolutist interpretation of "free speech" is specifically American. Most countries sanction "hate speech", such as anti-Semitism. So "speaking negatively" depends on precisely what vocabulary is used... and where the incident takes place.
There may be civil actions in the US, but in other countries there may also be penal actions.
Is "Protecting" one religious belief over another.....not "establishing a Religion" ?
What do you mean by "protecting over"? If person A protects person B against the aggression of person C, then there is no notion of "over".
It was a "one on one" thing I was speaking of ! No "Third Party" involved...….as my comment noted !
you understood my comment though ……deleted
All religions are to be protected equally because that protects the rights of their adherents to believe and worship as they see fit, up to the limits of our religious rights.
No religion or their adherents have the right not to be criticized.
Yet "Restrictions" exist !
Even here !
Put up an "Anti-Islam" article like is put up about Christians here, and see how far it goes.
This is a private site with a TOS, so there is no separation of church and state or religious rights. The separation of church and state, plus religious rights only applies in the public sphere of the government and/or where taxpayer money is involved.
What's good for the Goose, should be good for the Gander !
"The separation of church and state, plus religious rights only applies in the public sphere of the government and/or where taxpayer money is involved. "
Like the Iman anti-Israel Statementsl, that Democrats in congress made out to be EVERYONE's Fault in their try at their "coven" vote try ?
Maybe Nancy shouldn't have BARKED LIKE A DOG on how Andre Carson was Muslim ?
This "Separation" crap rides on ideological lines.....period !
No, I didn't, and I still don't.
For "protection" to occur, three parties are necessary: aggressor, protected, and protector. So I do not understand your "one on one".
I have no politicians of my own, so I obviously cannot listen to such.
OTOH, I can read what you write... and try to understand it. I did not understand your post so I asked for clarification.
Am I to conclude that you cannot clarify?
The only reason I can see for that would be that your post had no meaning... and that you know it...
It's leading to a rant about Obama and how the Democrats won't allow anyone to say anything bad about Muslims, no doubt.
You don't vote ?
Did you vote for Trump? Does he belong to you now?
Can't answer ?
Don't care to feed the beast...
Like Nadler concluding on the Mueller speech…..I'll do the conclusion thingy too and say...... YOU DON'T VOTE !
Wrong.
I hear this often from some who apparently like to imagine that liberals and progressives are all somehow Islam-lovers. The fact is that is far from the truth, most liberals are Christians and do not have a sterling view of Islam. However, most accept that whatever religious freedom applies to Christians also applies to Muslims.
Thankfully, we do not have blasphemy laws in America. That would definitely be unconstitutional and a clear violation of the establishment clause. This means there are no laws that govern how rude or disrespectful one may be towards a religion or its adherents. Libel and slander laws still exist so you can't blatantly make up false stories about them and lie about religious persons or religions in general unless you want to risk a lawsuit, but that's the same as any individual so its not making "religion" a separate class that has extra rights.
We should treat every Christian just like we would any Muslim, any Buddhist, any Hindu or any Jew, there is no difference between any religion in our secular society. That is what it means to not "establish" a religion, they are all allowed as much freedom as possible up to the point their religious doctrine begins to demand some special place in society, where it gets to do things other religions do not. Christian employees who fight for their right to wear a cross at work but refuse to support the right of Muslims to wear a hijab at work are being hypocritical and violating the spirit of the establishment clause. And any Christian who would get angry at the thought of being treated like a Muslim may want to reconsider how they've been treated them. Treat others as you would want to be treated. It's a golden rule shared by almost every religion, it's strange that so few seem to be able to actually practice what they preach.
Did I say anything about "Liberal" or "Progressive" ?
I just noted that any Speech not "Positive" to Islam or the "Muslim" Religion, is a No, No !
That's IT !
Do you genuinely see things this way?
Do you yourself consider Mike Pence and ISIS in the same light? If you think of one, do you automatically think of the other?
The difference is that Mike Pence is the VP of the United States. There's not much we can do about religious fanatics in other countries; we don't create their laws. Muslims in the US are not killing gays; Christian fanatics have, though.
"Attacked Mike Pence"? Really?
“That’s the thing that I wish the Mike Pences of the world would understand,” Buttigieg said. “That if you have a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”
Oh my, what a vicious attack, to wish someone would understand you more. /s
If he had said the same to Muslims you'd accuse him of trying to make friends with them.
“That’s the thing that I wish the Muslims of the world would understand,” Buttigieg said. “That if you have a problem with who I am, your problem is not with me. Your quarrel, sir, is with my creator.”
Oh my! Such an attack!
The difference is that Mike Pence is the VP of the United States. There's not much we can do about religious fanatics in other countries; we don't create their laws. Muslims in the US are not killing gays; Christian fanatics have, though.
Did that happen in the US by American muslims? Should we accuse American Christians of crimes that happened in foreign countries by other non-American Christians?
Seriously?
Evidence shows the shooter didn't know it was a gay nightclub. It was just chance that it happened to be. The FBI determined that it was not an anti-gay hate crime, but a random terrorist attack in retaliation against our intervention in Syria and Iraq. So no, Muslims in the US are not targeting gays, but some Christians are. Mike Pence is one of them - gay conversion therapy is abuse and he's an ass.
It is not a religious belief that is held or supported by other Muslims or the religion as a policy. Not all Muslims feel that way worldwide.
Would you like me to list the American Christians that oppose LGBT rights, or is that not convenient to the current argument?
There is no point in trying to continue this discussion and educate you on this idea if you do not understand the difference between what the government can do and what a private person can do on their own time and/or their own property.
What a stupid meme. Where did you dredge that swill from?
Nice meme, is this the part where you tell us that people like Pence and the religious right support LGBT causes including same sex marriage?
Naw, didn't think so..
Missed this part huh?
But since you brought it up?
Such as the Klan.
I believe there was a mass shooting in a gay nightclub a few years ago. Wasn't the shooter a Muslim?
That was already discussed. Look at the comments above you
Strict separation of religion and government would violate internationally recognized civil and political rights. As an example, conscientious objection to military service must recognize religious beliefs according to article 18 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
How would the strict separation of church change or prohibit someone from being a state conscientious objector when their religious rights are not being limited by keeping the state from enforcing or supporting a religious idea? The state is required to respect our religious rights but they can not enforce any rights or religious ideas with the strict separation of church and state. How would their religious rights be limited in any way from not serving in the government in a role other than humanitarian or being stateside?
The government cannot dismiss or ignore the religious basis for conscientious objection to military service. The government is not allowed to impose different beliefs and value judgments on a conscientious objector. That would violate the civil and political rights of a conscientious objector.
That leads to a broader question. Does government have the authority to impose any beliefs and value judgments onto society? Any religion is built upon beliefs and values. If a set of beliefs and values are religious in nature does that justify taking away civil and political rights?
The idea of prohibiting the government from making or enforcing religious ideas or endorsing one religion over another is absolutely and totally seperated from the religious rights and beliefs of service personnel. Your idea would suggest that people in the military have no religious rights, but that is not and as far as I know, has never been the situation. Your idea would forbid the existence of religious services on a military installation or a chaplain.
The government cannot enforce morality because there are as many ideas of what is moral as who is or is isn't god, so that they cannot pick and choose which morality is either preferred or forbidden. The job of the government is to enforce and obey our secular and religious rights.
But does that prohibition only pertain to religious ideas? What makes any idea religious? Why are other ideas exempt from strict separation?
Beliefs and values provide a basis for morality/ethics. Doesn't that mean that when government attempts to impose any beliefs and values onto society then government is imposing a particular moral basis onto society? How is imposing a secular basis for morality on society different than imposing a religious basis for morality on society?
Isn't the 1st amendment really about prohibiting government from imposing any sort of morality onto society? IMO the Constitution does not intend the government to act as moral authority for the United States.
An idea that stems from a religion or religious belief.
What idea are you referring to are afraid might be limited by such separation?
Lucky you weren't around during the abolitionist movement.
The Bible was used to defend slavery. Jesus does not condemn slavery but tells people how their slaves are to be treated.
You do not need to be religious to know that we cannot and should not own other people. The golden rule tells us that.
You do not need to be religious to know that we cannot and should not own other people.
The leaders of the abolitionist movement were overwhelmingly religious and abolitionism was a moral crusade, since slavery was endorsed by the Constitution. To deny the overwhelmingly religious aspect of the abolitionist movement is simply absurd.
The legal, constitutional argument, was if you don't like slavery, don't own one.
Slavery wasn't endorsed by the Constitution. It was only permitted because the authors of the Constitution knew that the Constitution would never be ratified by enough states to be law if they banned slavery as part of it, so slavery was permitted to continue so they could get enough states to ratify that document.
Your idea sounds like it came from Ayn Rand or Lord of the Flies. That selfish idea ignores the constitutional rights of black Americans. Don't we have a moral duty to protect and defend the rights of others, especially a minority? Should we apply your idea to the rights of other religions, the sick, and LGBT people or do we have a social obligation to protect treat them as equals and with civil rights protections that are the same as yours? Do you want to treat women as second class citizens too and say only white men have full rights?
Are you kidding?
t the Constitution would never be ratified by enough states to be law if they banned slavery as part of it, so slavery was permitted to continue so they could get enough states to ratify that document
No kidding. Thanks for explaining how the Constitution endorsed slavery.
Your idea sounds like it came from Ayn Rand or Lord of the Flie
What are you talking about? It' exactly what you argue about abortion, but that's neither here nor there. The point was that slavery defenders hid behind the law while opponents made a moral, often explicitly religious argument to outlaw slavery, since they had no basis to make Constitutional arguments against slavery. Abolitionists had to make moral arguments to try and convince others to give up the constitutional right to own slaves.
Where in the US Constitution is the constitutional right to own slaves that was overturned in 1865 after the signing of the surrender at Appomattox courthouse?
The fact that slavery was not illegal doesn't mean that there was an inherent right to own slaves. Slavery was banned in many states. It took another 100 years after the Civil War for there to be equal rights for former slaves and black Americans, but that struggle continues to this day because of religious conservatives who refuse to see blacks as equal citizens. Those same religious conservatives refuse to see women, immigrants and LGBT people, among others as people with constitutional rights equal to their own.
The Temperance Movement also used the Bible to justify their beliefs.
The broader question is whether or not government has the authority to impose beliefs and values onto society. Let's explore a non-religious example of ideas and then apply that example to religious ideas.
Economics and business ideas include a disparate variety of beliefs and values that serve as the basis for addressing moral/ethical questions. A simple example is the dichotomy between supply-side and demand-side economic and business ideas. And those ideas are used to address moral/ethical questions. Is it moral to layoff a workforce when a business is experiencing increasing profits? Is it moral to cut worker benefits so that a business can provide a stock dividend? Is it moral to raise prices to what the market will bear? Is usury a moral activity? Government imposing particular economic and business beliefs and values onto society has a larger impact on society than does religious beliefs and values.
Should there be a strict separation of economics from government?
As we know, government can and does have the ability to impose beliefs and ideas onto society. The government has done so in the past and the nature of political government suggests that will continue. So, the 'should' question really has no merit; reality surpasses the hypothetical. In reality the competition between economic/business ideas serves as a check and balance on government. The beliefs and values government imposes onto society can be challenged by competition between ideas. And challenging government enforced beliefs and values is a civil and political right for a free society.
A strict separation between government and any set of beliefs and values removes a check and balance on government. In the same manner, competition between religious ideas and secular ideas serve as a check and balance on government. A strict separation between government and religious beliefs and values infringes upon the civil and political rights of a free society. A strict separation would mean that government enforced beliefs and values could not be challenged by civil and political means; violence becomes the last recourse to challenging government enforced beliefs and values.
This idea is so absurd that is barely worth a response. How is the government to function if it cannot level taxes that are then spent for the public good if there is a separation of government and economics. Economics would not exist if it wasn't for human societies and some form of government that exists to manage them? Your idea would be the end of any effective government and society.
Can you please stick to the idea of the separation of church and state and not go off on these wild tangents in the future. Thank you.
What I presented was an analogy, not a proposal. And the absurdity of the analogy of a strict separation between economics and governments also applies to a strict separation between religion and government.
As I explained, a strict separation between religion and government infringes upon the civil and political rights of a free society to challenge government enforced beliefs and values. The competition of ideas within government serves as a check and balance on government.
The government is not allowed to compete with private business, so there really is a strict separation between government and economics/business. But that does not prevent businesses from participating in government. In like manner, the 1st amendment does not allow government to compete with religion but that does not prevent religion from participating in government.
The pertinent question is not about how a strict separation between religion and government affects religion. That's not the purpose of the 1st amendment. The valid question is how a strict separation affects government?
How is the strict separation of church and state a situation of the government enforcing beliefs and values, unlike if the government supports and enforces religious ideas as secular law? It sounds like you have the situation backward.
The downside of the separation of church and state allows the majority to impose their religious will one very one else rendering the religious and secular rights of those outside the majority void to the tyranny of the majority. Does that appear to be a better idea to you? Do you want to live in a theocracy?
That idea doesn't work if the majority of people who are elected are of one religion
The 1st amendment was not intended to allow a minority to use government to impose beliefs and values onto society by taking away civil and political rights of a free society. The 1st amendment is a restriction on government, not a restriction on civil and political rights.
Works the same way if the majority of people who are elected are atheists. Or supply-side economists. Or Socialists. Or nationalists. If a strict separation is used to curtail civil and political rights then those government imposed beliefs and values cannot be challenged within government.
A self governing society is supposed to be allowed to choose how it will be governed. The tyranny of a majority results from democracy rather than a representative government that includes checks and balances. Those checks and balances are intended to avoid democratic tyranny.
How is the minority imposing anything on you or anyone else, taking something from you or restricting your rights by keeping the government secular as a way to protect the equal religious rights of all people? Do you believe that one of your religious rights the right to force other people to believe and worship as you do?
Please give me three examples of what the strict separation of church and state does because it seems that you have a much different idea than everyone else does.
There are limitations to this democracy because if there isn't it becomes a tyranny of the majority. Our constitutional rights are not to be decided by a vote of the population because doing so would strip rights away from minorities.
The fact that we are not a democracy but are instead a constitutional republic with democratic elections of our representatives seems to be lost on you.
The 1st amendment does not allow the government to compete with religion. That means the government cannot assume the role of religion in society. The 1st amendment is about restricting government and not about restricting religion. Your argument is backwards to the intent of the 1st amendment.
1) A strict separation limits challenging government enforced beliefs and values on religious moral grounds. As an example, American Indians could not challenge government use of eminent domain or use of public land based upon religious beliefs. 2) A strict separation can be abused by claiming moral objections are religious in nature and cannot be considered by government. All religions include a fairly common set of moral principles that are indistinguishable from secular moral/ethical principles. 3) A strict separation establishes a religious test for participation in government. A requirement for government service that excludes religious beliefs and values ins't any different than a requirement to include religious beliefs and values.
How can it be lost on me when I'm the one that pointed that out? Repeating what I've already said is an affirmation of what I've already said. So, we have achieved consensus on that point.
The 1st Amendment means government cannot interfere with religion and religion cannot interfere with the government.
Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated. it is also not unique or exclusive to religion.
So they better come up with a logical, rational, and secular reason.
Anyone can make such a claim. The question is whether a claim holds water or not.
That does not mean moral/ethical principles are based on or unique to religion.
The Constitution explicitly forbids that.
But there are certain limits to various rights.
That would be unconstitutional.
But our Constitution provides a framework for how things are governed.
No, it doesn't. no one is prevented from challenging anything.
The difference is, religion cannot shape or legislate public policy or law.
No. Conscientious objection is not mentioned.
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.
Even Jesus acknowledged the separation of Church and State and did not seem particularly bothered by the notion. I'm with Jesus ( on this subject at least).
The question is why are some people opposed to the strict separation of chuch and state unless they seek to legislate their relgious views as law and trample the equal secular and relgious rights of others?
There can be no 'strict' separation. A person would have to be certified as a-religious to be able to be voted into office or work for government.
The state is not to “establish” a religion, i.e., there is to be not to be a state religion.
But what is religion, if not a philosophical framework from which to view the world? By this definition, everyone has some kind of religion, even a-theists.
So, the short answer to your question is; those who oppose separation are those who oppose the constitution and wish to impose their thought on everyone.
Thank you Raven Wing.
I disagree with some of this. They know that they are to leave their religious belief at the door when they go to work for the government as any sort of civil servant or a job that is paid for by taxpayer funds. Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland was a Methodist minister and he had no problem being both the governor and a minister because he kept his religious beliefs out of the state house or his public office. I voted for the guy twice and I'd vote for him again.
I am a Humanist and yet I would never suggest or even endorse that any other Humanist politician or use their office to support this group. Humanists don't have religious beliefs because we are also atheists.
The brain doesn't differentiate between a Catholic nun praying, a Buddhist monk meditating or someone doing yoga. The euphoric response is the same. Therefore, the brain interprets all of these 'religious' activities as being the same. One cannot, at least one's brain cannot, differentiate the activities of one 'religious' experience from another. I will not go into how the brain forms a mind in this thread.
So with the above being stated, I have no problem with individuals having a belief system of some type with which to deal with the world. I may not think it correct and will so argue and hope to convince. I do have a problem with the government saying all must accept the Southern Baptist, Methodist, Evangelical, etc view of things. That, simply cannot be tolerated.
There’s a major risk of semantic misunderstanding whenever we discuss "religion".
Many use the word to mean "organized religion", although the two concepts are very different. Your "philosophical framework" makes no sense to someone who is thinking of the Pope or some Evangelical megachurch.
The terrible crimes committed throughout history by "religion" have in fact been committed by "organized religion". "Religion" understood as a "philosophical framework" is personal, individual.