Toto

Whether one group or another is pleased with CSS has nothing to do with its definition.

Those who really think God should be kept in the closet might prefer an anti-theocracy, such as the former Soviet Union. That is not church state separation such as we have here.

Many religious people prefer not to have the government telling them when and how to pray, or defining the correct theology.

You still haven't told us what religious belief is required by CS Separation.

lisarea

Lemme give this a shot, because I am genuinely trying to understand your argument. I don't think you're being intentionally vague, but I'm still having a difficult time trying to figure out the basis of your claims, so let me see if I can try to state my understanding of what you're saying:

The mere act of establishing state neutrality in religious matters necessarily implies that the state's rule is greater than God's.

If that's the case, can you, for a moment, step outside of your personal perspective and try to see how this issue looks from the viewpoint of a Muslim, an atheist, or a Hindu?

Remember, too, the other side of CSS, the fact that the separation clause not only prohibits the government from endorsing religion, but that it also cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof.

As such, it explicitly prohibits the government from meddling in or establishing any kind of dominance over the church. They are separate entities. They're not even on the same org chart.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
That is why it is so odd that you fail to see the very obvious religious influence you are under.

What in the world is this supposed to mean?

Stephen Maturin

I'll give it a go. There's no inherent contradiction within the idea of church-state separation itself. All that idea entails is a hypothetical church and a hypothetical state operating within separate spheres.

Conflicts arise only when we start positing specific states with specific laws and specific churches with specific tenets. To take an obvious example, let us consider a state in which the law prohibits slavery and a church that considers slavery a Biblical requirement. In that example, a conflict exists since a church member who follows the church's teachings and buys a slave is violating the government's civil law.

I think Toto has it right here. As we do things here in the U.S., government is neutral toward religious beliefs and liberties of conscience but not necessarily toward specific religious practices.

Nah, I don't think so. You seem to be presuming that any state-imposed law that conflicts with any tenet of a church automatically qualifies as a "religious claim." That simply isn't the case.

Bill Snedden

Damn! In the twenty minutes or so it took me to write up a very nice post detailing my position, Steven Maturin came in and stole the whole thing straight out of my brain!

So...

What he said. :notworthy:

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Charles Darwin

Answering several posts at once, all of which are along the lines of the above quotes. I have given specific examples, not of religious endosement, but of laws that violate religious claims (e.g., it is OK to take land from the aboriginal people, it is OK to torture slaves, it is OK murder the unborn).

True enough, US law does not openly endorse religion, especially what we think of as traditional religion. But there are religious assumptions about the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of the state, baked into US law. Simply put, one assumption is that God is separate from nations. His Providence is only relevant at a personal level. There is simply no question that there are religious assumptions at the foundation of the law.

Let me give you another example. Say you are anti abortion and you are openly religious (let's say Roman Catholic to make for an obvious and extreme example). But let's say that your position on abortion is not so much informed by your religion. Let's say your a biologist and it is from that experience that you arrived at your position on abortion. Well it is quite likely in this environment that your abortion opponents will label you as religiously-motivated. They will then gain the higher-ground of being religiously-neutral and you will be marginalized as being outside the public boundaries and confines of the law. Whatever you say won't matter.

Do you see that explicit, openly religion positions, no matter how legitimate or worthy, will always have this glaring vulnerability in this environment. It is easy to label positions as being religiously motivated since religion touches on most issues, so what you have is a system that tends to selects for positions which can escape such a label -- though they may actually be religiously informed in less traditional senses.

Charles Darwin

Couple of notes here. First, it is not atheism that fuels the CSS. Second, by defining atheism as not religious, and theism as religious, you can guess who comes out on top when the CSS is applied. But it's all in the name of religious neutrality ...

The fact that there are no laws abridging my religious beliefs does not imply the CSS is religiously neutral.




It means we are to pay our taxes, but I think this draws us away from my contention that the CSS is religious. You seem to think I am advocating a theocracy which I'm not. I am advocating 'truth in advertising' regarding the religious assumptions imbedded in our laws.

simian

OK, I think I now know what you are trying to say: That those who want the government telling people what they should believe about religion are not happy with CSS. That means the full range of those wanting to use government to further their own ends: Catholics, Baptists, LDS, all the other Christian denominations, Muslims, B'hai, Scientologists, and athiests who want the government to actively discourage religion.

It seems to me that the "religious neutrality" you would want is one where whoever has the most political clout at the time could use the government to shove their beliefs down everybody else's throats. Changing from one dominant religious group to another under such a system is so wonderful.

Simian

simian

Actually, it protects any religious minority from the tyrany of the majority. Want an example: Sante Fe School district in TX a few years back. The Baptists were using governmental tools to hammer the (minority) Catholics and Mormons. Guess what: it also protects Baptists in majority Catholic and Mormon areas.

If you have not already done so, move to an area where you are a member of the minority Christian denomination, preferably an area where your denomination is demonized - you will appreciate CSS when you do that.

Simian

Charles Darwin

Something like that, but, well not quite. Let me try again. The very notion of CSS presupposes that there are matters of state and matters of religion, and that these two categories are distinct and separate. They do not impinge on one another. You say, "so, what's wrong with that? Why should religious folks care which side of the street the parking meters are placed?" Well, there is nothing wrong with that example. But is it true that all matters of state are areligious? Is religion for Sunday mornings only? Is religion strictly a personal matter with there being no ultimate truth that holds for everyone?

Now my point here is not to answer these questions. My point, much more modest, is simply that any answer that you do give will be religious, and that in fact the CSS is committed to a particular answer; namely, that the two categories are distinct and separate.

That said, I'd like to avoid any disputes about the founding fathers and their beliefs, and what they meant by this or that. My contention regarding the CSS is targeted at today's incarnation, regardless of how it has evolved, devolved, or otherwise, depending on your political views.

Make sense?