Charles Darwin

How would you like it if you were subject to such laws, yet it was claimed that the laws were religiously neutral?


It seems that the CSS 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.).

Charles Darwin

I wonder what the EAC is? And what is the ruse, that the CSS is not religiously-neutral? If so, how did you figure that?

Charles Darwin

Yes, I see the difference and I'm with you there. I'm wondering if you are following my contention however. My point is not that the CSS enforces religious beliefs. My point is that it, itself, entails religious belief.

lisarea

OK. Let's, for the sake of argument, allow that atheism is a religion (it is not), and turn your example around. Please cite an existing US law that prohibits you from exercising your religious beliefs, or requires you to abide by the tenets of someone else's belief.

Note that I am not asking you to cite laws that do not compel ME to abide by your religious beliefs.

Or that it is not the state's place to enforce your god's will?

Please note that the state is not a sentient being. It does not have a conscience or a will. Please also explain what it means to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and how that might fit into a government under the Christian god.

Jewel

You keep saying this, but you still have not shown how what you say is a true statement. The First Amendment does not say anything about whether there is or isn't a god or whether or not people should follow whatever god's 'will' -- whatever that is.

The matter of whether or not to believe in any god(s) is completely up to the individual as is also the choice to follow any religious doctrine. The First Amendment does not tell you to follow religion or not to follow it. It leaves those decisions completely up to the citizens

Toto

The only claim about God that CSS entails is that the question of worshipping God(s) or not is left to the individual conscience of each citizen.

No assumptions are made about whether God exists, whether God has a will that could be thwarted by mere mortals, whether God gives a flying fornication about American government. That's all up to you and your private actions.

That's what most people in our society consider to be neutral. If you disagree, you have to tell us why, and so far you have been incoherent.

Charles Darwin

Oh I'm not saying there is no God in public here. My point was that one's view of how well the CSS works is subjective.

Of course, no one would disagree that America has, for the most part, nicely avoided the traditional religious wars. But I'm afraid this does not imply the CSS is religiously neutral.

Charles Darwin

You might look closer to home if you searching for strawmen. My contention is that the CSS entails religious beliefs. I would contend that those who think God has no place in public are likely to be pleased with the CSS. If that is a straw man then I'd appreciate you disabusing me.

hezekiah jones

Charles Darwin

Agreed. Linking a religion with the state could well be the kiss of death to any truth that may have been in the religion to begin with. I appreciate your's and other's sensitivity to this, and the general problem of the governmenet endorsing religion. That is why it is so odd that you fail to see the very obvious religious influence you are under. Are you not the least bit concerned that the CSS entails religious claims?