Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Charles Darwin · 07-21-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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

Actually, I've not been beating around the bush. My main point is that CSS is self-contradictory. It is not religiously neutral, and therefore there is no separation, but rather an embracing.

Toto · 07-21-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Actually, I've not been beating around the bush. My main point is that CSS is self-contradictory. It is not religiously neutral, and therefore there is no separation, but rather an embracing.

In what sense is CSS not religiously neutral? Give an example.

lisarea · 07-21-2003, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Actually, I've not been beating around the bush. My main point is that CSS is self-contradictory. It is not religiously neutral, and therefore there is no separation, but rather an embracing.

You may not be beating around the bush per se, but you continue to make this unsubstantiated claim that CSS is not religiously neutral and you have yet to provide any detailed explanation of your claim or provide any solid examples of this religious endorsement.

So far, what I understand of your opinion here is that, by not endorsing your religion, the government is actively refuting it. Is that close?

Jewel · 07-21-2003, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lisarea
You may not be beating around the bush per se, but you continue to make this unsubstantiated claim that CSS is not religiously neutral and you have yet to provide any detailed explanation of your claim or provide any solid examples of this religious endorsement.

So far, what I understand of your opinion here is that, by not endorsing your religion, the government is actively refuting it. Is that close?

I just made my way through this thread. I think you're spot on, lisarea. It seems to me that he is implying a 'you're either with us or against us' argument completely leaving out the 'no opinion' option that is the First Amendment.

Charles Darwin · 07-21-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crazyfingers

Examples please.

You are asking for examples of problems in states which exclude religion. Good point, I shouldn't have made that claim because I don't think states can really be religiously neutral.

Quote:

Originally posted by crazyfingers

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.

But these are religious claims, supporting my contention that CSS is not religiously neutral.

Quote:

Originally posted by crazyfingers

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..

Good points. I agree largely with what you say. My contention is that the CSS as it stands, while not backed by the sort of religious ideas that you find offensive, nonetheless entails religious claims.

Quote:

Originally posted by crazyfingers

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

That is a difficult distinction to make. I suspect you'd have a hard time teasing religion and ethics apart, at least in that context. If you can show that CSS is justified by a religious-free ethic then I'm wrong.

Charles Darwin · 07-21-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

I think you missed a few posts earlier in this thread. We've already gone over the point that laws don't justify themselves. We're talking about justification for CSS, not the CSS itself.

Charles Darwin · 07-21-2003, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crazyfingers
Explain why we already have a theocracy please. And please provide detail and examples.

Well we've discussed in this thread that the CSS entails religious assumptions. I'm not keen on retyping, maybe I can go back and paste. Here's what I typed:

"Speaking of conflicts, can anyone explain why Church-State Separation is not self contradictory? It seems that the notion must entail a religious claim about God (there is no God, or it is not in the will of God for the state to follow His will, etc.). If Church-State Separation entails a religious claim, then the state is not being separated from the church, but is actually adhering to a particular church."

I'm not keen on getting hung up on the word "theocracy." My main point is that CSS is self-contradictory. Am I wrong?

Jewel · 07-21-2003, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
But these are religious claims, supporting my contention that CSS is not religiously neutral.

Charles Darwin, I really think you are confusing the restrictions on government versus the freedoms of private individuals.

While the government cannot make a statement saying that religion is true or false without entaglement, a private individual can express their opinions on the matter.

crazyfingers stating that he has not encountered a religion that bears any resembelance to reality is not the same thing as the government stating it.

Jewel · 07-21-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I'm not keen on getting hung up on the word "theocracy." My main point is that CSS is self-contradictory. Am I wrong?

Well, until you can prove your case I am inclined to say yes, you are wrong. It has been explained over and over again precicely how CSS is not contradictory. It is a neutral stance.

lisarea · 07-21-2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I think you missed a few posts earlier in this thread. We've already gone over the point that laws don't justify themselves. We're talking about justification for CSS, not the CSS itself.

I think you missed the fact that I was specifically responding to your claim that the US is a theocracy, and was asking you to substantiate that.

Ask Oxford defines theocracy as such:

Quote:

form of government by God or a god directly or through a priestly order etc.

If you're standing by the claim that the US is a theocracy, what god or priestly order governs the US?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.