Corwin

I suppose my question ManM... is why make even a tiny crack in the wall? How are you harmed by a complete separation of church and state, and how would anybody benefit from the removal of that separation?

Jamie_L

I think I explained this in my last post. My deeper justification is that consistantly allowing minor infractions of church-state separation makes it more difficult to oppose the really important ones. Are you asking for a deeper justification for church-state separation? I'll get to that momentarily.

That's a related issue, but not the point. I don't want church-state separation violated. My tax dollars funding religious propoganda violates church-state separation. I'm content with the fact that sometimes my money pays for things I don't agree with. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to separate those things that are just matters of disagreement from those things that should be rights of all citizens.

One violates a Constitutional right, and one does not. Again, is your point that the Constitutional right is incorrect? The framers of the Constitution knew that in Europe, the marriage of church and state produced tyranny. Religion is inherintly anti-democratic. It's about sacred texts, divine revelation, and often about how church leaders interpret and present both. Church-state unions are a recipe for persecution. It corrupts not only the government, but also the church.

And this is exactly one of the points of Constitutional rights. They define what rights the government has no business infringing on. And in a democracy, there is a very close connection between "majority" and "government."

If a minority values a right, but a majority does not, then you can always frame it as "the minority imposing it's will on the majority." But if that excuse always trumps a right, then rights are worthless. Once a majority desires the elimination of that right, any minority that resists can be called for "imposing their views on the majority."

The Constitution is not written in stone. It can be changed. If enough people in enough states want to do away with Church-State separation, it can happen. However, it's clear that not enough people want that. The reason it takes more than a simple majority is the reason I mentioned earlier - it's the only way to protect minority rights. If the majority can do whatever it wants, that's akin to mob rule.

Sanction according to whose morals? I think morals is the wrong word. It's not just about law, it's about preserving democracy and preventing the tyranny of a theocracy.

Jamie

ohwilleke

The big deal is that having a government take sidees on issues of religion is a very short step from theocracy, and in a society where a majority of the people belong to one religion (lowest common denominator Christianity in the U.S.), the democratic institutions will always be biased towards establishing a single religion for all with the power that was granted to them as part of the democratic compact that gives government the authority to act by majority rule.

Unless the natural tendency of government to entangle itself with majority religious beliefs is not constantly cut in the bud, it would blossom to a point which cannot be controlled.

Amazon

1. The same Christians who would pay extra money for a license plate with a religious symbol already printed on it, could just as easily order a personalized license plate with a Christian message. I think the current license plate lawsuits have been settled in favor of allowing religious or non-religious messages in the license plate number.

2. Religion is not majority rule (THANK GOODNESS!!!!). The first amendment protects the minority from the bully majority. We, the minority, are not trying to inflict pain on all the Christians in NC, we're trying to get the majority to back off from that church/state wall. Why can't they just back off?!

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Amazon ]</p>

Buffman

ManM

Personally I feel that the majority should get what they want as long as it does no harm to the minority.

I have seen no one here who disagrees with this. However, apparently you have decided that your definition of "harm" is the only "morally" correct one.

The law should protect the minority, but it should not give them license to impose their will on the majority.

Could you provide some specific examples of where the laws are allowing the minority to impose "their will" on the majority. (Please do not forget that when Christians view themselves by sects/denominations, many become minorities within their own faith belief system. That is why many of the minority Christian denominations have used the church-state separation interpretations of the law to win cases supporting their rights to practice their religious faith conscience... their interpretations of morality...within the body of the majority Christian belief system.)

If there was a moral sanction then I would have no problem here, but what has been offered is "the law says so".

Whose moral sanction? Yours? Mine? The people across the street? Those from the state adjacent to where we reside. Didn't we fight a bloody Civil War to determine whose "moral sanction" would prevail concerning slavery? Didn't our government fracture over the issue of whose morality was supreme? Isn't that why the government should stay out of the business of legislating morality?

To carry this a step further, are you of the opinion that only those people who are members of the majority faith belief denomination have the "right/correct" interpretation of morality? It would seem that that is exactly what you are advocating that the American government should do...support only the majority interpretation of morality while suppressing any minority moral interpretations/values. In essence, you seem to be saying, "It's a shame that the minority views can be protected from the government by the law? Perhaps we can end the so-called "tyranny of the minority" by removing their possibility of grievence redress by changing those laws. We are the majority and should be in control of everyone else's moral interpretations." If you are not avocating for such a change, why are you having so much difficulty understanding the need for church(Religion) and state(Government) separation?

Obviously I am taking this to extremes, but it seems that you are unhappy that our federal republic government is not a purely democratic, your Christian denomination, government.

copernicus

Originally posted by ManM:
<strong>
Also, a few of you have asked where to draw the line. As I said before, I don't think a general rule can be properly applied here. Each case should be taken individually. Personally I feel that the majority should get what they want as long as it does no harm to the minority. The law should protect the minority, but it should not give them license to impose their will on the majority.</strong>

You are making a mistake by conflating two different things here. The majority of Americans may consider themselves Christian, but that does not mean that the majority favor the display of religious symbols on license plates. Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but I am not aware of any votes or polls to back up that assumption. You also seem to be forgetting that the separation between church and state was never something that atheists or non-religious people imposed on religious people. In fact, the majority of supporters of a wall of separation were Christians. The Baptists were particularly active in this respect during the ratification period. Americans are proud of their freedoms, and you should not assume that they back the destruction of church-state separation.

<strong>
My fear is that you are driving the government to become too divorced from the people. I am most disturbed by the fact that individuals can impose their will on the people through the legal system without any moral sanction. If there was a moral sanction then I would have no problem here, but what has been offered is "the law says so". This means as much to me as "God says so" means to you.</strong>

Nonsense. This has been very clearly laid out for you, but you don't want to admit it. The government is officially religion-neutral, and you have no right to assume that the majority of religious people oppose that neutrality. All Christians belong to a minority religion of some kind.

My grandfather was a Jehovah's Witness. When the draft for WWI came along, there was no exemption for Conscientious Objectors. He took his bible down to the draft board and began explaining some things to them. They threw him out and dismissed his draft notice, even though they weren't supposed to. Later on, the Selective Service officially recognized religious conscientious objectors, and nowadays JWs don't even have to say the pledge of allegiance or salute the flag. That's the other side of the coin--the right of religious minorities to exempt themselves from government activities that offend their religion. Secularism isn't about protecting the right of atheists or minorities. It is about protecting the individual rights of those who make up the majority. The Constitution protects the rights of atheists and Jehovah's Witnesses alike, and that is why my grandparents fled a Catholic-dominated Poland to take up residence in a country with a godless, secular government. It protects the right of everyone to choose their own opinions about religion without government interference, and they preferred that to a government that imposed the religious preference of the majority on minorities.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: copernicus ]</p>