dangin

I'm yet to see one of the nonreligiously motivated ones shoot a doctor who performs D&Cs with a sniper rifle from the woods around his house. Wait let me check. Yep it's those who are protecting a fetus for jesus with the long range scopes.

ImGod

Charles,

I’ve read this thread and have to say, nice try. I’ve heard this tactic before in sermons. Some religious people try to confuse definitions and twist meanings to get a foot in the door, hoping to further their agenda later.

Here’s the position you are taking boiled down.

1) The CSS deals with religion therefore it makes religious claims.
2) Since CSS makes religious claims, there is a God.
3) The CSS denies some religious tenants therefore it is not neutral and imposes a particular religion.
4) Since most people believe in God, we are a theocracy and our laws are religiously based.

Here’s my rebuttal to your position.

1) CSS deals with religions not religious beliefs/claims. Religions are organizations promoting religious viewpoints and practices. CSS creates an atmosphere that allows freedom of the majority of religious practices by prohibiting the state sponsorship of a specific religion.

CSS deals with religious issues not religious claims. Religious issues are broad and deal with how religions interact with each other and the state. A religious claim would be “God prohibits sex on Saturday”. Sometimes religious claims and laws of the state overlap, because they have common ground between groups and they do not violate the Constitution.


2) See 1), and, “What do you mean by god?” If I ask 100 people (outside of Utah) to define god, I will likely get 100 different answers. When I was a member of a church, we all had a “personal relationship” with god, i.e. our own definition. Some religious people have a campaign to put “God” back into the country. It’s easy to do if it’s not defined. Once “God” gets a stronger foothold in the state, then go about defining it. The meaning of the Pledge changes if you replace “under god” with “under the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who died and was buried, rose on the third day and ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.” Some people consider the generic term “God” to be neutral. However, their mental image is not neutral. The religious people of the country may be able to band together long enough to get “God back into the country” but the big struggle will occur when it’s time to make the definition closer to their own.


3) CSS does deny some religious tenants and is not neutral. It specifically prohibits the government from creating a state religion. Not neutral if your religion calls for the state and religion to be one, i.e. a theocracy. However, if someone’s religious beliefs are so strong on this issue, there are several theocracies abroad that would more than satisfy. So your “imposition of a specific religion” is in reality on the restriction of certain religious practices that violate the Constitution.

The founders of this country included religious outcasts that were determined to separate the concepts of government and religion to avoid the persecution they endured under head of church and state kings. CSS is neutral regarding the organization and practice of religions, as long as, their practices do not violate the constitutional requirement that they stay seperate from goverment. The constitution protects the religion from laws meant to deny people from organizing and following a religion. You are trying to confuse the issue by insisting that if a religion cannot do anything it wants then the government is imposing a specific religion. This is not the case. The Government imposing a religion would entail choosing or creating a religion and forcing the population to pay taxes to support it.

4) We are not a theocracy as our laws are a combination of many different viewpoints and compromises. Some laws may appear religiously based because a somewhat religious viewpoint was worked into the compromise.

We may become a theocracy someday if we ignore the past. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and there is no greater power than the head of both thee church and state. I have a feeling, however, that long before we get to that point the nation will dissolve in dispute. Try to tell the Catholics they are now Mormon or install an Islamic government.


I see your position, but I think it’s wrong and purposefully misleading. CSS deals with issues involving religions. The constitution does limit certain pseudo political-religious practices, but that was the specific intent in order to avoid a consolidation of power that would threaten most religious freedoms. Trying to say that god exists because the constitution deals with religion (instead of religions) is an attempt to back door a personal definition of god into a constitutional discussion. Remember, not all religions have a “god” to worship.

crazyfingers

You seem to think that I have to prove some moral absolute. I don't. All I need to do is to persuade your "evolutionist" that the values of freedom, justice, free will, life, etc... are worth protecting and that the golden rule protects them best. There is no moral absolute that I need to prove.

You also appear to be equating believing in evolution with being an atheist. You do realize that one can believe in a god and still be an "evolutionist"? You do realize that many, many theists, including the Pope, accept evolution and regard it as the means though which their god works with life?

Vylo

I'm beginning to think this is pointless as I have stated why CSS is justified beyond religious assumptions and he seems to simply ignore it.

Charles Darwin

Thank you for the thoughtful and interesting reply. Let me say right off the bat, however, that you may have read through this thread a bit too fast (or maybe I typed too fast somewhere!). In any case, I did not intend the sort of syllogism that you lay out above. Let me modify it as follows:

1) The CSS says the state should be impartial on religious matters.
2) The claim that the state ought to be impartial on religious matters is, in fact, a non trivial religious claim (I'll use the term gnosticism as a catch-all for it). One may attempt a variety of justifications, but they all will boil down to one religious view or another.
3) The CSS may well be a very good law, but it is a misnomer. The CSS is, itself, a committment to a particular religious view. As such, its adoption does not separate the state from religion, but rather has the state adopting a particular religious view.
4) Result: There is a myth that the CSS has has the effect of bringing religious neutrality to the US, with respect to the actions of the state. It is the exact opposite.
5) Impact: Gnostic-derived ideas are assumed to be areligious and non Gnostic ideas are assumed to be religious and are therefore marginalized. The CSS does not set up a boundary between religion and a-religion; it sets up a boundary between religious ideas.

crazyfingers

I have yet to see you show that the belief that church and state should be separate is a religious belief. I agree and have stated previously that it is a belief about the dangers of allowing people to legislate religion, but I do not see how one can say that it is a religious belief.

And as your opening point says, you claim that CSS makes a "claim about God". I have yet to see you demonstrate this.

Stephen Maturin

I apologize if you've already addressed this, Charles, but would mind defining "religious claim" as you're using that term here? Without knowing your definition, we're probably just spinning our wheels.

I don't think the term "gnosticism" works very well. From dictionary.com:

I fail to see how the idea that the government should be impartial with regard to religion fits any of those definitions.

HRG

... or the will of any god is irrelevant. There is a single principle behind CSS, and it is simply a matter of law:

The alleged or actual will of an alleged or actual god is irrelevant in law.

This is neither a denial of the existence of any god, nor a denial of any theistic morality. It just pronounces them irrelevant for the government of a country. As such, it is not a religious statement, but one of law and policy, and cannot contradict any religious claim.

Regards,
HRG.

Feather

Allow me to chime in again and express agreement with crazyfingers, above (and reiterate the points I made at the beginning of the discussion).

The clause that separates Church and State in America simply reads "...no law respecting an establishment of religion." It does not read any of the following:

1) "God does not exist."
2) "Nobody is allowed to follow an of the 10 commandments."
3) "The 10C were not passed down by God."
4) "Hamurabi's Code was inspired by an early incarnation of Cthulhu, and therefore should be followed."
5) "Praise Allah, and may he burn the infidels in lakes of fire forever."
6) "Religion is primitive and unworthy of respect, and therefore should not be followed."
7) And so on....


What you are doing is altering the definition of what a "religious claim" is, Charles Darwin. A "religious claim" is a claim about the veracity of some aspect of the religion (e.g. whether or not the religion in question is correct or whether its god exists, etc.) The fact that some religions have a tenet that requires a society to abide by "God's Laws" is a statement of fact and not a "religious claim." I can point to various religious texts and the lines that require this without resorting to making claims as to whether the texts I choose to use belong to real, correct, or meaningful religions (i.e. without resorting to making "religious claims").

The CSS clause doesn't state that these religions are wrong or that they are unworthy of being followed (either of which would be a religious claim). It simply leaves such a decision up to the private individual citizen. There is no "religious claim" in the First Amendment. And until you can show otherwise, the rest of your argument is meaningless.

Vylo

You hit it right on the nose feather .