www.ditl.org

Frankly, the Separation of Church and State is pretty much the biggest myth of the 20th century...and it's also one of most highly accepted ideas in modern thought. Wierd...

Anyway, as we've been over in another thread (I forget where), all that the Constitution prohibits is laws "affecting an establishment of religion"; not laws influenced by religion, or laws based upon religious ideas. All the First Amendment does is basically prohibit Congress from creating a National Church (and, just as a side note, it doesn't even prohibit States from having state churches; many of still did for quite some time afterwards), and from limiting the free expressal of religion. That is all. Laws based upon religious beliefs, laws that are influenced by religious ideas, are not only not unconstitutional, they're not even dubiously so.

In spite of this, every single election year, or every time a religious person tries to pass a bill which goes along with his religious principles, immediately hundreds of people pop up, shouting "Separation of Church and State!". Well, frankly, a member of Congress has every right for his religion to influence every single law he passes, every single action he takes; as long as he does not attempt to make his religion more favored than others, or attempt to curtail other religions. Your problem with Huckabee seems to be that he actively acknowledges the role his faith makes in his decisions; and you use the familiar specter of "church versus state" to discredit him thus. But not only wouldn't the Founders not have any problem with him doing so, they would frankly be rather askance at everyone else's claim that religion doesn't affect them.

Again, if Romney or Huckabee's comments were along lines of "I'm [insert religious belief here], what's that got to do with my politics?", as I believe Obama has (for example), I wouldn't have a problem. When they start expressing the belief that religion should have a greater role in public life, or worse that the US constitution should be subordinated to the Bible, then I see serious trouble brewing.

(sigh)

Let me just say something... people today seem to be under the impression that religion is a 'personal matter,' something that's supposed to make you a better person, get you in touch with your 'inner self,' or whatever; something you use when you're tired or lonely, and then throw off every morning to go to work. Kind of like a security blanket; something you use at night, or when you're sad, but not any other time. Well, frankly, nothing could be farther than the truth. Religion, by definition, can not be something of "moderate importance." If religion is false, it is of no importance at all; but if it is true, then by definition it must take precedence over everything else. If Jesus Christ really is the Son of God, if all that Christianity says is true, then by nature that revelation must affect every part of your life, if you believe it. If, on the other hand, Christianity is a hoax, then it is of absolutely no use to anyone, even as a 'security blanket.'

Every election year, it seems, we get an endless number of speeches that basically say, "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he is the ruler of the world, and that he will come at the end of time to judge the world, that humans are fallen sons of God; but, you know, really, it won't affect anything I do. It's a personal matter."

In other words, "We have no king but Caesar!"

Captain Peabody wrote:Frankly, the Separation of Church and State is pretty much the biggest myth of the 20th century

In what way?

In spite of this, every single election year, or every time a religious person tries to pass a bill which goes along with his religious principles, immediately hundreds of people pop up, shouting "Separation of Church and State!". Well, frankly, a member of Congress has every right for his religion to influence every single law he passes, every single action he takes; as long as he does not attempt to make his religion more favored than others, or attempt to curtail other religions. Your problem with Huckabee seems to be that he actively acknowledges the role his faith makes in his decisions; and you use the familiar specter of "church versus state" to discredit him thus. But not only wouldn't the Founders not have any problem with him doing so, they would frankly be rather askance at everyone else's claim that religion doesn't affect them.

My problem with Huckabee is that he has specifically expressed a belief that the US constitution should be amended so as to conform to the Christian Bible. Quite apart from the issue of legality, this would effectively turn the United States into a theocracy, a form of government which both historically and presently has a tendency towards repressive actions towards minority groups.

Let me just say something... people today seem to be under the impression that religion is a 'personal matter,' something that's supposed to make you a better person, get you in touch with your 'inner self,' or whatever; something you use when you're tired or lonely, and then throw off every morning to go to work. Kind of like a security blanket; something you use at night, or when you're sad, but not any other time.

How can a belief in any form of supreme being, with no testable effect on the world, and unnecessary for the purposes of any scientific description of the universe, be anything but a personnal matter.

Well, frankly, nothing could be farther than the truth. Religion, by definition, can not be something of "moderate importance." If religion is false, it is of no importance at all; but if it is true, then by definition it must take precedence over everything else. If Jesus Christ really is the Son of God, if all that Christianity says is true, then by nature that revelation must affect every part of your life, if you believe it. If, on the other hand, Christianity is a hoax, then it is of absolutely no use to anyone, even as a 'security blanket.'

I have no problem with anyone who conducts their own lives in accordance with their religious beliefs. When they start attempting to influence the course of other people's lives, which a constution derived from the Bible would, I do have a problem with them.

Every election year, it seems, we get an endless number of speeches that basically say, "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that he is the ruler of the world, and that he will come at the end of time to judge the world, that humans are fallen sons of God; but, you know, really, it won't affect anything I do. It's a personal matter."

In other words, "We have no king but Caesar!"

As it should be. The first duty of a nation's head of government should always be the national interest, and secondly the welfare of the citizens of that nation based on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. All other considerations, including personal religious beliefs, that conflict with those key duties should be put aside.

Electing a president is different than, say, electing a comptroller.

A big part of what they do regards laws and policies dealing with morality and things like that. This is true even if they are an athiest.

For example it would be far more profitable for the nation to, say, execute the mentally disabled and such. Or at least to allow parents to kill children that turn out to have downs syndrome or crippling autism.

It is also silly, from a practical standpoint, to pay any heed whatsoever to the suffering of animals. Certianly Americans are suffering and dying for the lack of ease with which animals can be experimented on and the range of experiments that can be performed.

And so on and so forth.

I take it if the founders of PETA had a religious reason for their actions Seafort would have a problem with them yes?

sunnyside wrote:For example it would be far more profitable for the nation to, say, execute the mentally disabled and such. Or at least to allow parents to kill children that turn out to have downs syndrome or crippling autism.

I'm not sure about the States, but over here I believe the diagnosis of severe downs syndrome or autism in a fetus are grounds for permitting an abortion past the usual 24-week limit.

It is also silly, from a practical standpoint, to pay any heed whatsoever to the suffering of animals. Certianly Americans are suffering and dying for the lack of ease with which animals can be experimented on and the range of experiments that can be performed.

Absolutely

I take it if the founders of PETA had a religious reason for their actions Seafort would have a problem with them yes?

I have a problem with PETA full stop, regardless of their motivation.

Autism often doesn't show up until the children are toddlers. And I believe it is illegal in both our countries to take them out back and shoot them.

Regardless, I wasn't asking about your personal opinions of the above issues. They are just examples of morality based laws that presidents have to deal with, regardless of religion.

And I hope that you have some point where your personal morality, whatever it may be derived from, supersedes the interests of the nation.

The point being that once you move into the realm of morality based legislation it is impossible to separate out religion. Presidents are responsible in a large part for such morality based legislation. Therefore religion is relevant to presidents.

Of course one could say that they shouldn't be able to say that their religion is the cause of their positions. However that really seems like religious persecution.

sunnyside wrote:The point being that once you move into the realm of morality based legislation it is impossible to separate out religion. Presidents are responsible in a large part for such morality based legislation. Therefore religion is relevant to presidents.

I don't understand your position. Are you saying that it's impossible to be moral without being religious? If so you're talking nonsense to put it mildly.

Um, no. Notice that bit a little earlier in the post where I point out that (hopefully), you have your own morality and that at some point you would seek to have it influence laws. For example maybe you would seek to make it illegal for people to raid third world countries for organs..

The point of the quote is that it's impossible to be religious without it in some way impacting your morality.

Of course the degree to which it matters varies wildly from religion to religion

But it matters a whole lot for, say, Catholics, and America hasn't shot them into submission so they have to be accounted for in politics.

Still I'll grant that American presidential chest beating seems a bit over the top. But I think that has more to do with voters caring about it. This gets back to the homogenation of Britain.

I would imagine that if a couple southern states were their own country for a few hundred years religious chest thumping wouldn't be needed even there as people would generally be on the same page. Religious morality and "general" morality would be indistinguishable. And so on.

It's the mix of evangelical Christians, militant atheists, and everything in between that makes religion such an issue.

Peabody;
You're quite right that the First Ammendment didn't enforce the seperation of church and state, it merely prohibited the government from passing laws against religions. Though Jefferson did argue for seperation of church and state in one of his letters.

Anyway, I really don't see the point in arguing over whether or not it's constitutional to pass laws on a religious basis, I think it's more important to decide whether it should be allowed.
Religions have precisely zero usefull materials when it comes to making laws. Simple things such as 'thou shalt not kill' from the first set of the Ten Commandments, any civilisation would think up, whether they had a god or not. Any laws that can be based on religion nowadays will simply not be constructive, and will, naturaly, promote that politician's religious beliefs above other's.
In short, religion has nothing left to give us with regards to making a government, other than harm.

If Jesus Christ really is the Son of God, if all that Christianity says is true, then by nature that revelation must affect every part of your life, if you believe it. If, on the other hand, Christianity is a hoax, then it is of absolutely no use to anyone, even as a 'security blanket.'

Of course such a revelation would be a major impact on the world. However, as of now, when science clearly trumps religion, why should it have any impact at all? Unless Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Thor, or whatever god you worship actualy comes down and tells us what the deal is, there is no reason that the personal beliefs of others should impact important decisions that may change the lives of hundreds of millions.

*sigh* OK, here goes... forgive me if I don't go back and quote every question:

I am a Conservative Jew. I have neither time nor inclination to go into a dissection of the three mainstream sects of Judaism.

Jefferson's letters are NOT public policy. Whatever the rhetoric of the Treaty of Tripoli, the US was absolutely founded on Christian ideals, no matter how "we" have tried to subsequently spin it. The Constitutional idea of avoiding a national church derives from the fact that the US was founded initially by Protestant groups which were more radical, and thus unwelcomed in England, than the Anglican Church. If there is any correct way to interpret "not founded on Christian ideals," it is that no one particular sect or church was esoused over any other.

Do I disagree with someone trying to re-form the legal landscape to better coincide with a particular religion? Of course I do! It becomes a very slippery slope indeed from that point down to the Inquisition. However, is aligning one's moral view of what the law should be with the ethos of one's religion unconstitutional? Not at all - in fact, it would be odd for someone to segregate them. My own personal morality is necessarily derived very much from that of my faith.

The question with Romney is therefore one of "do I disagree with his positions, which may derive in part from his faith?" - NOT "do I disagree with him BECAUSE of his faith?"

Huckabee? ... Well, yeah, you seem to be right on with that one. As I said, it's a very short trip from "SPECIFICALLY make the law look like my religion" to "can we add some cattle cars to this train?"

Religions have precisely zero usefull materials when it comes to making laws. Simple things such as 'thou shalt not kill' from the first set of the Ten Commandments, any civilisation would think up, whether they had a god or not. Any laws that can be based on religion nowadays will simply not be constructive, and will, naturaly, promote that politician's religious beliefs above other's.
In short, religion has nothing left to give us with regards to making a government, other than harm.

Well, that's certainly a grand, sweeping statement if I've ever heard one. Behold as the mighty Oracle Rochey pronounces his judgement on the state of the Universe...

Seriously, though, if you want me to buy that, you're going to have to be a little more persuasive...

Of course such a revelation would be a major impact on the world. However, as of now, when science clearly trumps religion, why should it have any impact at all? Unless Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Thor, or whatever god you worship actualy comes down and tells us what the deal is, there is no reason that the personal beliefs of others should impact important decisions that may change the lives of hundreds of millions.

But, by definition, the personal beliefs of others do impact such decisions, whether they like it or not. You're assuming that religion is something that can be compartmentalized away; it's not. Someone may be the biggest advocate of separation of Church and State ever, but if he has any religious beliefs, they're still going to affect the decisions he makes. A religion is not just a detached belief in some Supreme Being; it's a way of understanding reality, a series of beliefs that claims to explain the nature of the Universe. And if you accept one such viewpoint, whether that be Bhuddism or Scientific Atheism, then that's going to affect every action you make, whether or not you like it. The only way you're going to get a complete Separation of Church and State is if you simply ban religious people from holding office.

And once you've done that, what then? Atheism is just as much an ideological viewpoint as Christianity; should Atheists be banned from holding office too? And, once you've got to that point, you have to ask yourself, is there anyone fit to hold office? Everyone, as far as I can tell, is influenced by their philosophy of life, and so by that viewpoint, everyone is unfit; every decision is 'tainted.' Where will the madness end?

Basically, the problem I have with the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, as it stands, is that I simply don't accept it's central doctrine; that decisions influenced by "personal belief" are bad. All of the greatest decisions of Civilization were almost entirely the result of the 'personal beliefs' of their creators. Magna Carta, the Bible, the great works of Literature, the Declaration of Independence. What matters is not whether someone is influenced by their beliefs (you can bet they are), but whether you consider their beliefs to be correct, or good. The Founders were good not because they weren't influenced by their personal beliefs (they were), but because their beliefs were correct. Hitler was bad, not because he acted on his beliefs, but because his beliefs were wrong.

And you think the same thing; that is, at base, your problem with Huckabee. You think him dangerous because you think him wrong; but if an atheist had said and done the same things, you would not think him dangerous, because you would believe his beliefs to be correct and good. Society today has apparently decided that all religious beliefs are inherently evil and dangerous, and that atheistic beliefs are inherently good and innocent. But, I ask you, how many people died all through the Inquisition; and how many people during the Holocaust? Stalin was an Atheist... Communism was an Atheistic system, created, implemented, and ruled by Atheists. The great injustices of the 20th Century have been the result of Atheistic systems, not religious ones.

Jefferson's letters are NOT public policy.

Oh, of course not. I was just pointing that little fact out.

The Constitutional idea of avoiding a national church derives from the fact that the US was founded initially by Protestant groups which were more radical, and thus unwelcomed in England, than the Anglican Church. If there is any correct way to interpret "not founded on Christian ideals," it is that no one particular sect or church was esoused over any other.

Hm, okay then.

Honestly, I really don't care whether or not seperation of church and state is constitutional in the US or not, even if I disagree with it. I'm simply of the opinion that it should be that way, for reasons I already mentioned.

On the surface, I agree with you. But in more depth, mandating the fact that I CAN'T include a certain ethics system in my political view is just as bad as saying that I must. Everyone's morality comes from SOMEWHERE...

Well, that's certainly a grand, sweeping statement if I've ever heard one. Behold as the mighty Oracle Rochey pronounces his judgement on the state of the Universe...

And yet, I see you didn't exactly rush to prove me wrong.

Seriously, though, if you want me to buy that, you're going to have to be a little more persuasive...

Ditto.

But, by definition, the personal beliefs of others do impact such decisions, whether they like it or not.

I know that, and I didn't say they didn't. What I said was that they should not influence important decisions that affect the lives of hundreds of millions.

Atheism is just as much an ideological viewpoint as Christianity;

In what way? Atheists, quite simply, believe in no higher power, merely following science and logic. I wouldn't really call something based on facts as 'ideaological'.

Basically, the problem I have with the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, as it stands, is that I simply don't accept it's central doctrine; that decisions influenced by "personal belief" are bad

Take a look at nigh on every religious theocracy that exists in the world today.
Now tell me a government based on personal belief aren't a bad idea.

All of the greatest decisions of Civilization were almost entirely the result of the 'personal beliefs' of their creators.

Yes, of course. As were pretty much all of the worst decisions of civilisation.

Hitler was bad, not because he acted on his beliefs, but because his beliefs were wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that Hitler was a loonie. But how do you define who's beliefs are 'wrong'?
Is it because you say so?
Is it because they hurt people?
Is it because they hold different beliefs?
Where do you draw the line between 'right' beliefs, and 'wrong' beliefs?

And you think the same thing; that is, at base, your problem with Huckabee.

I haven't a clue about Huckabee.

You think him dangerous because you think him wrong;

No, I think a politician is dangerous based on what his policies are. I don't give a damn about what he worships in his spare time, as long as he doesn't try to make worship it, too.

but if an atheist had said and done the same things, you would not think him dangerous, because you would believe his beliefs to be correct and good.

Uh, no. If an atheist polititian had similar policies I'd still disagree with them.

But, I ask you, how many people died all through the Inquisition; and how many people during the Holocaust?

Millions. Hundreds of millions. That's why I consider religions to be dangerous.

Stalin was an Atheist

Actualy, from what I remember, Stalin was an Orthodox preacher before the whole revolution.

Communism was an Atheistic system, created, implemented, and ruled by Atheists.

The fact that communism is bad is not because it is atheist. Atheism is merely one of the policies Marx outlined in the Manifesto. If the Manifesto had had absolutely nothing to say on religion, communism would still be the same. Just as oppresive, just as murderous.

The great injustices of the 20th Century have been the result of Atheistic systems, not religious ones.

If you believe that, I sugest that you open a history book. There's a little thing called the Holocaust. Then there's the multitude of oppresive theocracies in the Middle East. Then there's the 9/11 attacks, and other religiously motivated terrorist attacks, from both christians and muslims. Then you have a whole mass of genocidal actions in Africa over the century.

Those systems were not oppresive because they were atheist, they would have been just the same had they been religous. In fact, they likely would have been a lot worse had they had religous motivations.

Mikey wrote:On the surface, I agree with you. But in more depth, mandating the fact that I CAN'T include a certain ethics system in my political view is just as bad as saying that I must. Everyone's morality comes from SOMEWHERE...

I think I'm with Mikey. You can disagree with people.

For example I'm guessing Seafort and Rochey are both against bans on stem cell and animal research.

However you two seem to think that someone supporting the stem cell ban because of religion is worse than an atheist supporting the animal research ban because some star got naked with a fluffy bunny or whatever.

For example I'm guessing Seafort and Rochey are both against bans on stem cell and animal research.

Well, I am. Dunno about Seafort, though. What does this have to do with anything, though?

However you two seem to think that someone supporting the stem cell ban because of religion is worse than an atheist supporting the animal research ban because some star got naked with a fluffy bunny.

No, I don't. If an atheist and a christian (for example) both opposed stem cell research, one on religious grounds and the other on ethical grounds, I'd call them both idiots.