Toto

Many of the founders of this country, who ratified the first amendment, were religious dissenters of one sort or another, who believed strongly in freedom of conscience (for their own protection, if for no other reason.) They could look at recent or current events in Europe and see the problems for religion and society in general when the state tried to control religious thinking.

I can think of good arguments for trying to hinder some religous groups. But accepting some bad religions is part of the price I pay for keeping the government out of regulating my own religious beliefs. The best argument for the separation of church and state is that it has worked out well in practice.

There is a famous quote from Thomas Jefferson which sums up the reasons for separating church and state:

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Charles Darwin

OK, good. The key point here is that people should: " not necessarily follow the dictates of any text with religious authority. " This certainly supports CSS, but it is a religious claim. What if God's will is that all people necessarily govern themselves according to His dictates? Then this argument would make no sense. This justification entails the assumption that this is not God's will.


OK, good, but this "hurts both parties" argument is problematic. For instance, states that have tried to avoid religion have had problems too (the USSR comes to mind, among others). Perhaps, therefore, we should make a law that the state must embrace religion. Furthermore, what if God's will is that all people necessarily govern themselves according to His dictates? Then this argument would make no sense. Instead of avoidig his dictates, we ought to find a way to make it work. This justification entails the assumption that this is not God's will.

And the point about competing interests ignores the fact competing interests are always present. You just shift them into different dimensions when you exclude one party. And when you exclude that party, you are presuming that party is not entitled to an interest in the nation's power. What if God's will is that the church share in this power? Again, this argument entails the assumption that this is not God's will, for it would make no sense otherwise.

Also, the argument about dissenters being outcast does not hold. What about religions that attempt to be all-encompassing? Or what about religions that teach respect or even love for dissenters? Furthermore, the CSS itself creates dissenters -- those who disagree with CSS. So now they are outcast. And again, what if God's will is that there not be such a separation. Then, again, this rationale makes no sense, and as such entails the religious assumption that this is not God's will.


I'm afraid the justifications you gave are loaded with assumptions about religious veracity.

Toto

You are right, Charles. We seem to have made a national religion of "religious tolerance." Theocrats are not part of the national consensus. Church state separation makes an implicit assumption that if God exists, He or She or They have to make do on their own with no help from governments formed by mere humans.

If you wish to live in a theocracy, I suggest Iran, since it looks like you're too late for Pat Robertson-blessed Baptist-ruled Liberia.

Feather

So what if that's God's will? What if 1% of the governed population don't believe it? What if it is the will of the IPU (Invisible Pink Unicorn) that the nation be governed according to her dictates instead? So many "what if's" and so few "what is's."

I fail to see how a point in the law requiring the nation to disentangle itself from religion implies that the framers of the law are making any religious claim whatsoever. The most that can be said is that, if it is god's will to follow his rules, then the First Amendment merely ignores this requirement. It doesn't mean the First Amendment states that the requirement--and therefore the religion itself--is false (or true, even).



What others, I wonder, because the comparison with the USSR is completely invalid. At best the USSR "merely" discouraged the practice of religion. I rather think the USSR took a quite active hand in matters of religion.

And again with the "What if it's God's will...." argument. So what? The most that can then be said is as above, i.e. that any CSS law simply ignores such a requirement; it doesn't make a religious claim.


Competing interests are always present, but when CSS is not followed the interests are escalated beyond what they otherwise might be. Furthermore, CSS is not an exclusion of religion from society. That is a straw man waiting to happen.

Those who disagree with CSS are not necessarily outcast. Look to the followers of Falwell and Robertson if you believe otherwise. In fact, there are so many incursions and violations of CSS in America it is scarcely more than a farce to claim that CSS has caused the religious and anti-CSS amidst society to become outcasts. Again, CSS does not equate to exclusion.

ruby-soho

No, it would appear that you're projecting. The only person who is making assumptions here is you. No one has made any claims as to the veracity of any religion except you when you constantly refer to "God's will". How about those people who don't believe in the Christian God or in any god(s)? You've a priori marginalized their personal philosophical views. I can only assume that you're advocating some sort of theocracy, which is scary. You need to look no farther than Iran and/or the Taliban to see the error in that sort of government.

I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes, a bit by John Leland (a Baptist minister who lived from 1754-1841 and a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison):

"Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny - the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the marriages between church and state; their embraces, therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against men who make a great noise about religion when choosing your representatives. It is electioneering. If they know the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must by rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it."

Respectfully,

D

lisarea

For the sake of argument, let's say there is a god, and that god has a will that it wishes to impose upon the US. For the time being, let's just ignore the fact that there's hardly a more Unamerican concept out there, and entertain the notion of making the US a big, divinely governed theocracy.

How do we know what this god wants? Is said god going to part the clouds or something, wearing some giant golden god hat and speak in a voice like thunder, telling certain Supreme Court justices to retire, or commanding us all to give some televangelist or another money? Or are we to believe some televangelist who tells us that God told him to ask for certain favors? Maybe you personally will be the conduit through which said god speaks? Maybe it will be one of the many mentally ill individuals who live in alleys and receive orders from divine entities.

Again, it's all just speculation, but I'd be interested in how you propose to work out the logistics of taking orders from a god.

Charles Darwin

But history is full of examples of where the end result is repression when religion is kept separate from state. So by that logic why not embrace religion? My point (rhetorical of course) is that this is not a very good argument.

About religion being highly personal, yes I don't think anyone woudl disagree that it is, but some religions have a public side, and even make truth claims about morality, public conduct, etc. When we say we should not necessarily follow their dictates, we are making a religious claim (i.e., their dictates are not worthy of necessarily being followed).

About the problem of some religions being favored and others repressed, why do you think that is a bad thing? I suspect you'll have to make a religious claim to support that claim

Charles Darwin

No, I'm not arguing for making the US a theocracy -- it already is. That's my point. My objection is in the name: "Church-State Separation" implies a religiously neutral state which is not the case in the US.

Charles Darwin

I'm afraid it hasn't done a very good job then.

Toto

OK Charles - I have put all of this in a separate thread.

Please tell me:

Why exactly do you think that the US is a theocracy? How do you define that?

Do you think that religious neutrality is just impossible because some religions, like Islam, require a certain form of government?

Do you really want to live in Iran?