simian

You're right, it hasn't done a very good job, but is has done one of the better jobs seen in history.

Yes, we still have issues where Baptists use prayer in public school events to punish Catholics and Mormons (Sante Fe case in TX a few years ago). Yes, we still have issues where Biblical Literalists control school boards and prevent education in the sciences because the sciences contradict their religion. And we still have clerics trying to use the force of law to tell women what they can and cannot do.

However, we do not have one denomination that promotes itself at the expense of all other denominations, nor, indeed, the bloodshed that often occurs when a national religion is defined.

Which is not to say that generic evangelical christianity is powerless in the political arena, but that thanks to the first ammendment to the constitution, there are limits of the religious manure that can be pushed down the throats of the people through the force of government.

Simian

Charles Darwin

Very good, and we should also drop the pretense that US laws are religiously neutral.

Toto

These comments were posted in the other thread while it was being split:

Vylo

Charles Darwin

Toto

The US laws are religiously neutral as to personal conscience and religious doctrine. They are not completely neutral as to religious practice - we do not allow human sacrifice, polygamy, etc., even though some religions require those practices.

You claimed:

But you have not explained how any of these are related to church state separation.

ruby-soho

How so? Would you care to elaborate? I think that our country is one of the most religious-oriented countries in the world (for good or bad, depending upon your personal viewpoint). Our Constitution allows our citizens the freedom to believe in whatever religion or non-religion which suits them best. Do you call this oppression?

I can only guess that you feel your personal religious view is somehow the "correct" one and since the government won't put it above all others, you're being somehow oppressed

Why don't you quit beating around the bush and tell us what the point is that you're trying to make?

Thanks,

D

crazyfingers

Examples please.

Aside from the fact that I challenge your statement above, because I have yet to see a religion that resembles anything close to reality, I see no reason to embrace relogion. All appear to be lies to me.

Christianity in particular, appears to be nothing but fairy tales including many that are quite evil.


You moight not like the argument but I believe that it is an exceptionally good argument. It is one of the main reasons why the founders of the US chose to keep chuch and state separate. There are too many examples from European and early american history that demonstrate that when religion gets control of government, people are oppressed, killed, etc..


Your right to swing your fist ends where the point of my nose begins. That is what I think of religions that have as doctrine that they must be inflicted onto others. Christianity also being one of the worst in that regard.

My values state that it is wrong to inflict religion onto others. That is not a religious statement. That is an ethical statement.

Charles Darwin

Well all you need is simple logic here. If Religious Claim A = "God says that it is neccesary for us to do X" and Law B = "we will not necessarily do X" then the law is not ignoring the religious claim, it is contradicting the religious claim, and the law is making its own religious claim. Here is an example:

Religious claim: "God says masters must be good to their slaves."
US law: "Masters may torture their slaves"

I would like to hear you explain to the slave that the law is religiously neutral and in no way is merely ignoring the religious claim that his life so depends on.

This is not terribly profound or even interesting. What is more intriguing, however, is this notion that the US has somehow achieved religious neutrality. The least confession that it seems one is able to extract is that, "well, perhaps we have stepped on just a few toes, but no big deal."




Again this is simple logic, as outlined above.






I agree completely. My point is that the CSS is a religious claim -- it is not excluding religion, it is enforcing religion.



The fact that the CSS is not always enforced very well does not save it from being a religious law.

lisarea

Certainly you can predict that you're going to have to back that statement up.

Let's start here, with the relevant text from the First Amendment:

Do you deny that this is part of the constitution that makes up the constitutional republic that is the US? Do you deny that it says what it appears to say--that, well, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion? Are you arguing that, somehow, a theocracy doesn't entail congress making law respecting an establishment of religion?

As it stands, you've made a very bizarre and unsubstantiated claim with absolutely no reasoning or context to back it up.

Please explain just what exactly your position is, and what you base it on.

Charles Darwin

How did I marginalize them? What makes you think I'm seeking a theocracy? What is ironic is that the justifications for CSS indicate we already have one. It just happens to be favored by many people.

Vylo

To state that one religion my oppress others of different beliefs is not a statement pertaining to religion, but to the nature of humanity as a whole. Since man discovered exploitation, it has found it to be quite pleasant, so long you are doing the exploiting. It is within human nature to try to exploit others, but often in order to do this, people legitimate themselves by claiming that a certain attribute that they have entitles them to these rewards (Examples: I am white, I deserve to be the only to own land, I am a man I deserve to be the only one to vote). Because others around them also share this trait, they too see an opportunity to seize power and many will jump at it. Religion is not foreign to this concept at all, heck, hindu culture used to subjugate it's own followers, namely the Shudras (peasant workers) so that the Brahmins (clergy) could reap the benefits.