Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Charles Darwin · 07-21-2003, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

I agree, good points. One can hardly make the claim that the state is making religious claims because it doesn't allow a cult to sell heroin on the streets.

But I'm afraid there are much more serious conflicts that strike much closer to the heart of the major religions. I mentioned abortion earlier because it is a well known and clear cut example. What intrigues me about this public debate is how often the pro-abortion frames their opponents are religiously motivated, though the anti-abortion side has an arsenal of arguments that are entirely scientific. Often, their only religious assumption is that murder is wrong, and even the pro-abortion side would agree with that. But by casting the abortion foes as 'religious' they are marginalized.

I agree with your point that the state and church are separate spheres. But my contention is that they nonetheless have issues in common. The CSS attempts to completely separate and isolate these spheres. This may be the best solution out there -- I certainly do not have a better one at the moment. But it seems to me there is no getting around the fact that this solution is not religiously neutral. You cannot say they are completely separate spheres without making dramatic and sweeping religious assumptions -- assumptions that have significantly influenced American life.

lisarea · 07-21-2003, 05:54 PM

Charles Darwin--

I have a question that I think might clarify this issue.

Is a non religiously motivated government possible? If so, how?

enfant terrible · 07-21-2003, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
What intrigues me about this public debate is how often the pro-abortion frames their opponents are religiously motivated

That is easy: never. There is no such thing as "pro-abortion" in the USA. The only "pro-abortion" force I've ever heard of is the Chinese government.

enfant terrible · 07-21-2003, 06:15 PM

Can I argue a point using Charlie's logic? I wanna argue that "United States" is self-contradictory. Like, if it is "united", how is it "states" and not a single state? And so on, for a few pages, you are free to imagine the rest... :banghead:

Toto · 07-21-2003, 06:23 PM

To take your abortion example, the decision legalizing abortion, Roe. v. Wade, did not mention the First Amendment. Most arguments against abortion are usually framed in non-religious terms (at least in public debate). Anti-abortion proponents have not been marginalized because the arguments are religious, but because most people, religious or not, do not agree with them. The alleged "scientific" arguments that the anti-abortion side has come up with do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Charles Darwin · 07-21-2003, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lisarea
Charles Darwin--

I have a question that I think might clarify this issue.

Is a non religiously motivated government possible? If so, how?

Actually we've already discussed this. To repeat, I suspect the answer is no.

Charles Darwin · 07-21-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by enfant terrible
That is easy: never. There is no such thing as "pro-abortion" in the USA. The only "pro-abortion" force I've ever heard of is the Chinese government.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. Planned Parenthood, for example, is a pro-abortion group from the US. They frame their opponents as religiously motivated, Thus casting the debate into a religious debate which, due to the CSS, cannot effect the laws.

Charles Darwin · 07-21-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Anti-abortion proponents have not been marginalized because the arguments are religious, but because most people, religious or not, do not agree with them.

I agree their arguments are not religious, and that folks disagree with them. But I can't imagine what you are reading if you think they are not marginalized as foisting their religion on the rest of us. Look, I just did a search on Google; my top hit was an ACLU page; and on that page here is what I found:

Quote:

Posted on ACLU web page

Anti-Choice Bill Would Impede Access to Critical Health Care; ACLU Says Ideologues Again Pushing Agenda At Women's Expense (09/24/2002)

WASHINGTON - With access to reproductive health care nationwide increasingly jeopardized by the imposition of religious beliefs, the American Civil Liberties Union today urged the House of Representatives to protect both religious freedom and abortion rights by defeating a misleadingly named anti-abortion bill.
http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRigh...list.cfm?c=224

Look folks, this is my point. Note the language: "idealogues," "imposition of religious beliefs," and "to protect both religious freedom." What are they talking about!? Of course, it is obvious precisely what they are talking about. They are playing to the tune of the CSS. This is by far their most powerful argument.

Charles Darwin · 07-21-2003, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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

What I would like is 'truth in advertising' when it comes to religious assumptions. The idea that there are those "religious" folks out there, arrayed against us "neutral" folks is, I'm afraid more myth than anything else.

crazyfingers · 07-21-2003, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin

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

*snip*

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.

Note that your origial statement was "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."

Note that nothing in my justification for CSS is a statement about whether a god exists or not. Rather CSS implies a statement about the dangers of mixing government power with the followers of a religion. They are two different things. It recognizes the fact that religious followers with political power are a danger to those who do not follow the same religion.

Quote:

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.

The basis of my ethics is what is commonly called the golden rule. Don't do to others that which you do not wish to be done to you and do to others that which you wish done to you. It does not require religion to accept that that basic value as both just and workable. It is not a religious statement and my support in CSS comes directly from that ethic.

If you do not want someone else to impose their religion onto you, don't impose your religion onto them.

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

07-21-2003, 05:54 PM	#72
lisarea Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 5,550	Charles Darwin-- I have a question that I think might clarify this issue. Is a non religiously motivated government possible? If so, how?

07-21-2003, 06:15 PM	#74
enfant terrible Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 276	Can I argue a point using Charlie's logic? I wanna argue that "United States" is self-contradictory. Like, if it is "united", how is it "states" and not a single state? And so on, for a few pages, you are free to imagine the rest... :banghead:

07-21-2003, 06:23 PM	#75
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	To take your abortion example, the decision legalizing abortion, Roe. v. Wade, did not mention the First Amendment. Most arguments against abortion are usually framed in non-religious terms (at least in public debate). Anti-abortion proponents have not been marginalized because the arguments are religious, but because most people, religious or not, do not agree with them. The alleged "scientific" arguments that the anti-abortion side has come up with do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.