»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
How does it read to you?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
How does it read to you? |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
The First Amendment states, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and the Tenth Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I agree with Ronald Reagan's view: "To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions every day, I say: The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny." --Ronald Reagan How does it read to you? |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
While I can see the general direction you'd like to go here Denise there is an important Constitutional amendment that you're overlooking that is germane to your issue. After the Civil War the 14th amendment was adopted which said, among other things, "no state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law... ." The Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education In 1947 that the establishment clause is a liberty protected by the due-process clause. This means all government action, be it federal, state, or local, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. So if it was your intent to imply there is a State's Rights issue here that door has been long closed. The second part goes to what does 'Establishment' mean? Chief Justice William Rhenquist favors the Reagan interpretation (no surprise there) and would argue that the term was intended to prohibit only the establishment of a single national church or the preference of one religious sect over another. The majority of justices, now, and over time believe the term actually prohibits government from promoting religion in general quote: happy Labor Day Denise  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
L.R., I also agree with Rhenquist that that was indeed the clear meaning of the First Amendment. No big surprise there either. I never seem to agree with the majority of the justices.As for the 14th amendment, it seems to obliterate state sovereignty (but I suppose the Civil War served that same purpose). Or was there never the understanding that the states were sovereign in the first place? From reading the histories of the various Founding Fathers, I got the sense that they felt state sovereignty was essential and that an all-powerful centralized government was something to be avoided at all costs. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
I don't know how the fonding fathers felt individually but the general consesus was that there was enough dislike for a central government as strong as the king would have enforced that it would have been impossible to adopt any constitution which did not provide for very strong states and individual rights. Remember those first 10 ammendments were not a part of the original document but were added for that reason. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well you're both asking or approaching some of the right questions. It's important to draw a distinction between founding father's though (a better word would be framers -- not for political correctness but to identify the people who actually did the work of framing the important documents and institutions of the republic) and merely famous American's of the period. The 32 most influential people were: James Madison James Wilson Rufus King Elbridge Gerry Edmund Randolph Charles Pinckney George Mason Alexander Hamilton Gouverneur Morris John Rutledge Caleb Strong George Read John Marshall John Vining Ben Franklin Fisher Ames James Monroe James McHenry Thomas Jefferson Samuel Adams Patrick Henry John Q. Adams John Adams Oliver Ellsworth Ben Rush John Jay John Randolph Joseph Story Henry Lee John Hancock John Witherspoon Noah Webster These people didn't present a monolithic stance on the issues -- but they did present us with the Constituion. As Pete points out the Bill of Rights wasn't included -- not because they forgot -- but because they wanted specifically to draw the distinction that stating what the federal government couldn't do wasn't necessary -- because if it wasn't stated in the Constitution it wasn't in the scope of the central government to do it. Some were more in favor of Federalism than others. It is a part of the debate that still rages on the political landscape. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh BTW... thanks for the topic Denise -- it's a nice change of pace  |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, I Think we have Ol' Ron to thank for that change of pace as well. He wields those Cyber-keys so well. Actually, I went to read the post after 1 day away, and BAM, it got out of hand. Ron, As to the previous post ... there were alot of fruitful lines of discussion going on other than the wrangling ... Is there a way to limit divisive individuals rather than locking threads from everyone else. After all, we all need some moderator discipline now and again, but why should our tantrums spoil it for the rest of the kiddies? Sorry to not comment yet on the topic at hand. Stephen |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Stephan -- if there was a train of thought you want to ride a little further you could always just open a thread? apologies to all for failing to post this link http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/quote2.htm with relevant material for the topic at hand. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Local Rebel I am confused about your comment to me in Opeth's thread .. where do I discord? I have been doubtful along. But I have emphisized I believe morality is influential and traditional ..a sense of awareness and like imprints in the substance of our race. Not anything like a blueprint enforced on anybody. Please, you may reply in my "General State..." thrid if you'd like...I would really appreciate it. Essorant [This message has been edited by Essorant (09-02-2003 03:47 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Stephen, LR is right; start a new thread if there is something you want to discuss. As to the original question here, I believe there can be no separation of church and state without a complete separation of church and state. The minute you install a religious monument in a court house or introduce prayer into the school system, you are favoring one religion over all others. Why I think that would be a "bad thing" probably deserves its own thread. As to the developing question of state sovereignty, I think the intention of our founding fathers was right for all the wrong reasons. Much of our framework was designed to prevent one colony from dominating another, and was largely fueled by the same kind of nationalism so rampant today. Most of the names LR listed, with some notable and forward-looking exceptions, were loyal first to their colony and only secondarily to a country not yet formed. They knew they had to "hang together," but most didn't like it. Nonetheless, I think their efforts served this country well for the next 150 or so years. While the Civil War was certainly a test of state sovereignty, and likely the beginning of a stronger centralized government, the real test came with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, circa 1913, which empowered Congress to levy a national income tax. For most of thirty years, that first tax applied only to the wealthiest Americans, with well over 90 percent of the population exempt from even filing. The advent of WWII in 1940 changed that, and by war's end, tax revenues stood at 8 percent of GDP. They never dropped, of course. Important? The Federal government has never been granted constitutional power to establish national traffic laws, but they manage to do exactly that with threats to withhold money for roads. They have no power over state school systems, save the very real power to give or deny obscenely large funding. Washington no longer needs Constitutional authority, because they have a much more powerful weapon in the form of extortion. Any pretext of state sovereignty went out the window, I'm afraid, when we turned over the national purse-strings to the Federal government. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're welcome, L.R., my pleasure. Extortion is a good description for it, Ron. It's my opinion that this country has strayed far from the original intent. Maybe a first step would be to try to get the 14th and 16th Amendments repealed. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Good Lord no! Fortunately, I don't see repealing the 14th Amendment to be possible. Too much of our current public policy and prevailing caselaw relies on it. A few examples ... Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka based its ruling that so-called "separate but equal education" of minorities violates the due process protections of the 5th and 14th Amendments making them inherently unequal. This ruling ended racial segregation (a State right up until that time). The Pennsylvania PARC Consent Decree found that denial of appropriate education to people with disabilities was a violation of their Constitutional Due Process Rights and led to the Federal enactment of the Education for All Children with Handicaps Act (later renamed IDEA - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). Without such landmarks, families with children with disabilities would probably still be faced with either educating their children at home or placing their children in institutions if a school psychologist arbitrarily labeled the child "uneducateable." I've exercised my own son's due process rights when I believed his district failed to provide him with the education he needed. Without those protections, I'm convinced my life (and his) would be much different today and his future happiness would be questionable at best. States do have the right to not be subject to the Federal regulations, but must also forfeit Federal money if they choose to do so. Regardless of their decision, I think it is right and proper for the Feds to make certain that the Constitutional rights of its citizens are not compromised. Is this extortion or is it an accountability measure? Regarding transportation issues, I believe it is important to remember that we are no longer living in the 18th or 19th centuries. Our national economy depends heavily on interstate commerce. Having dependable highways benefits business and consumer. As to the original question, I think there should be a substantive separation between church and State. My opinion probably lies somewhere short of President Reagan's. Mostly because I recognize that we are now living in the 21st century, and if Jew and Christians prevail in their fight to keep a monument with the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, what stops someone from insisting on placing a Buddhist or Shinto shrine right next to it? What secular purpose would that serve? In all honesty, how many of the Ten Commandments should be applicable to our secular legal system? Surely not the first three ... they are decidedly theological. Honor thy father and mother? Sure, that's a good thing to do, but is it the place of the court to enforce it? There are already laws on the books regarding murder and perjury and for adultry in some jurisdictions. The former two sure aren't going away anytime soon. And how do you suppose the courts will enforce coveting? I covet every day ... can't help it much when I see that 227 horsepower, turbocharged roadster or the vette in the parking garage, and I certainly don't think I should be fined for it. Just my opinion and a little food for thought. "States' rights" is a popular banner to fly, but I think we should always be on guard against knee-jerk policy decisions. They almost always have consequences, sometimes serious. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (09-03-2003 02:07 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Jim, I can see both sides of the issue with the Ten Commandements monument. On the one hand I agree with strict separation of church and state. On the other I don't see the monument as a threat to that separation, as it is a symbol of our Judeo-Christian heritage and not the establishment of a particular religion. It attests to the fact that our founders were a God-fearing people who believed that our freedoms and opportunities came from His hand and were owed soley to His Providence, regardless of religious Creed, and that our form of government would not survive for long if we lost sight of that, and it really isn't a matter, per se, of how many of the Commandments themselves were used as a basis for our judicial system. I also think Justice Moore was wrong for disobeying the court. He should have complied with the order but continued to fight for his principles through the system. I think that the ultimate agenda of these intolerant groups (ACLU, secular humanist justices and a few atheists)is to strip away every single vestige of God from our society. We've already seen evidence of that in the movement to remove "under God" from the pledge of allegiance and from another recent attempt by the ACLU to have a person remove a faith symbol from their private property that could be viewed from the public roadside because it might offend somebody. The next target will be the "In God We Trust" on our money. So much intolerance comes from these espousers of tolerance. A lot of benefit has come to society through use of the 14th Amendment, that's true, and I wouldn't have a problem with it if I didn't think that it violated the spirit and intent of the Constitution and the founders regarding sovereignty of the states. I think that just as much good could possibly have been done through individual state legislatures at the prodding of their citizens as they perceived the need for new protections, etc. Now, can we at least repeal the 16th Amendment? 'Cause it surely feels like extortion to me! |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Denise: I have no problem with exploring an alternative to the Federal Income Tax. Now the problem I have with the Ten Commandments monument is that the monument itself has no historical significance. I also have a problem reducing the Ten Commandments to a symbol of our Judeo-Christian heritage. To the orthodox Jew and Christian, the Ten Commandments are the revelation of God's moral law to man. The Commandments serve as the standard to which God holds mankind (and the Gospel is the initiative God took to satisfy the conditions of his Law because nobody could satisfy that standard on his or her own). There have been cases in other states whereby religious inscriptions were permitted to remain on state buildings because of the historical significance of the building. I don't have a problem with this, but no judge, legislator or executive officer should defy the rule of law. In the United States, lex es rex ... law is king. I suppose you could look at the Constitution in two ways ... either it is a rigid, inflexible document, or it can change to meet the changing needs of citizens. Again, we are no longer living in the 18th and 19th centuries. Our national economy relies heavily on a strong transportation infrastructure, efficient, inexpensive and reliable power generation and transmission, and strong educational standards. If the States want to accept Federal dollars to assist them in their endoevers toward these examples, then I believe Federal oversight is certainly warranted. Further, I believe the Constitution's ability to be amended is precisely why the document has lasted for as long as it has. There is bad law out there, but I think the good that has come out of most of the Amendments far outweighs the bad. Regarding the "prodding of individual states," do you realize how difficult that is? Have you ever tried to block bad state policy? Have you ever had to go against the grain of state administrative policy? Now try it without a budget? Often, the most vulnerable citizens in any state have fewer resources at their disposal. Regardless, when the issue is their Constitutional rights as American citizens, it is rightly within the jurisdiction of the Federal government to intervene. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (09-04-2003 08:02 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think this story is pretty illustrative of the effect of religion in state matters as well as the continued existence of state soveriegnty: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=6&u=/ap/20030905/ap_on_re_us/firing_squad_church quote: balance of story at the link |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
L.R., I forgot to tell you before that your first link didn't work for me. Thanks for the Utah link. I think Utah is unique in that the majority of the citizens adhere to the same religion, so of course the legislature would be extremely sensitive to their religious views. It would be political suicide to do otherwise. That type of influence just doesn't exist in the majority of the states where the constituency is more diverse. I think it would make for an interesting situation if the ACLU and the federal courts were to intrude itself into the affairs of that state. Jim, I couldn't agree more that law is king and should be obeyed. As I stated, I believe that Judge Moore should have complied, but continued to work through the system to address his grievances. In addition to the Ten Commandments being the revealed will of God to man, I still maintain that a monument depicting them can also be seen as an historical representative of the principles upon which our nation and judiciary were founded. I think that there has developed a line of thought by some that God=religion. Justice Thomas decreed that the state has no right to acknowledge God. I see them as distinct from each other. Religion is man's formulation of his ideas about God, but religious philosophies are not God. A cursory reading of those who wrote the Constitution will reveal that they held the same view and saw that the acknowledgement of God was a good thing, but that a forcing of a particular religion/creed by the state was what was to be avoided. As in the Utah situation, since the overwhelming majority of those governed are of the Mormon persuasion, I don't see that as a forcing of a particlar religious philosophy upon unwilling citizens, rather a constituency having influence on its representatives in the legislature, as it should be. Regarding the different views one can take of the Consitution, I see an additional view: Interpreting it in light of the spirit and intent of those who penned it. Wilson, James Of the Study of Law in the United States Circa, 1790 Topic: Constitutional Interpretation The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. Jefferson, Thomas Opinion on National Bank 1791 Topic: Constitutional Interpretation They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. Jefferson, Thomas letter to Mesrs. Eddy, Russel, Thurber, Wheaton and Smith March 27, 1801 Topic: Constitutional Interpretation The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption - a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible. Jefferson, Thomas letter to Wilson Nicholas 1803 Topic: Constitutional Interpretation Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. Jefferson, Thomas letter to Albert Gallatin May 20, 1808 Topic: Constitutional Interpretation [T]he true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law. Jefferson, Thomas letter to William Johnson 1823 Topic: Constitutional Interpretation Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure. Jefferson, Thomas letter to William Johnson June 12, 1823 Topic: Constitutional Interpretation On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. Madison, James letter to Henry Lee June 25, 1824 Topic: Constitutional Interpretation I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founder, will I believe appear to all unbiassed Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution 1833 Topic: Constitutional Interpretation The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution. The above quotes, and others, can be found here: http://cf.heritage.org/almanac/quotations.cfm I think it is dangerous when we have justices who, in their interpretations, violate the spirit and intent of the writers of the very Constitution which they have sworn to uphold, and since they serve dependent upon "good conduct", perhaps impeachment of some of these folks are in order. I think that it is disgraceful, to say the least, that a justice, such as Ginsberg, proposes that decisions of law and interpretation should be made in light of international interpretations, and not in light of the clear intent of the framers of our Constitution. http://www.talkleft.com/archives/003879.html [This message has been edited by Denise (09-06-2003 09:25 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Perhaps Justice Thomas should acquaint himself with these thoughts from the framers of the Constitution that he has sworn to uphold. Their intent was clearly not to forbid the state's acknowledgement of God: Madison, James . Topic: God The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it. Hamilton, Alexander . Topic: God To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind. Adams, John Thoughts on Government 1776 Topic: God It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. Instructions of Malden, Massachusettes for a Decleration of Independence May 27, 1776 Topic: God [W]e are confirmed in the opinion, that the present age would be deficient in their duty to God, their posterity and themselves, if they do not establish an American republic. This is the only form of government we wish to see established; for we can never be willingly subject to any other King than He who, being possessed of infinite wisdom, goodness and rectitude, is alone fit to possess unlimited power. Jefferson, Thomas Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18 1781 Topic: God And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever. Washington, George circular letter of farewell to the Army June 8, 1783 Topic: God I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation. Madison, James A Memorial and Remonstrance 1785 Topic: God It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. Franklin, Benjamin Motion for Prayers in the Constitutional Convention June 28, 1787 Topic: God And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? Washington, George Thanksgiving Proclamation October 3, 1789 Topic: God It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors. Washington, George letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport August , 1790 Topic: God May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us in all our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy. Wilson, James Chisholm v. Georgia February 18, 1793 Topic: God A State, I cheerfully admit, is the noblest work of Man: But Man, himself, free and honest, is, I speak as to this world, the noblest work of God.... Madison, James letter to Frederick Beasley November 20, 1825 Topic: God The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it. Jefferson, Thomas Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17 1782 Topic: Religious Liberty The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Madison, James proposed amendment to the Constitution, given in a speech in the House of Representatives 1789 Topic: Religious Liberty The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed. Jefferson, Thomas letter to Samuel Miller January 23, 1808 Topic: Religious Liberty I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States. http://cf.heritage.org/almanac/results_quotes.cfm [This message has been edited by Denise (09-06-2003 10:25 AM).] |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
Denise, I’m not sure whether quotes can be used to prove a point either way, apart from the fact that they are based on a false argument – that of authority, there is also the problem that people seem to contradict themselves depending on which quote you use. "And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822 "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"--John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus." --Thomas Jefferson, _Six_Historic_Americans_ by John E. Remsberg "The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy."--George Washington, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_, James A. Haught "Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin Further reference. http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Deism seems to only have hand picked the more palatable doctrines of the Judeo-Christian tradition. If it can't be argued that the founding minds of our Government were distinctly Christian (which I concede, from everything I've read), it can be argued that what spiritual notions they held were distinctly taken from Judeo-Christian tradition. Deists didn't really reject the Bible (though some spoke against it), they abridged it. But if a Deist view of God can be expressed from the top down (ie official statements which mention: Justice, Morals, inalienable rights endowed by the Creator, trusting God, etc...), it brings up the question, why not the Christian view? It seems a double standard to me. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-08-2003 02:34 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Craig, I really don't see these quotes as being contradictory. They are not speaking against God, or the wisdom of acknowledging Him, but are expressing their views on mixing government with religious systems. My use of the quotes was to show the thinking and viewpoint of the writers of the Constitution regarding Constitutional interpretation and the value, necessity really, that they saw to a nation in acknowledging God. Stephen, I think that the Deist view provides a common ground that all religious systems can relate to without being offensive to any one system in particular. Nothing more than that would work in a pluralistic society, so no, I don't see a double standard. To my understanding, even if the framers were all Christian they would still have had to present an abridged view of their beliefs, otherwise they would have establised a Christian nation. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
But Denise, What you are taking for granted is that everyone accepts the abridged view too. But they don't. There are many who find references to rights "endowed by our Creator", and "trusting in God" to be offensive. If there can be no expression of religious ideas from the top down, then why are these okay? And surely all religious systems cannot find a common frame of reference to work from in the Deist view of God. This view of God borrows from the monotheistic Judeo-Christian view, such ideas as transcedence, personal nature, morality, and omnipotence. These are very definite spiritual dogmas, if you will ... which fit only into a few of the religious worldviews that exist. Stephen. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're right, Stephen. I guess no mention of God should be made by those governing in a truly secular government. I see the benefit though of Judeo-Christian values being honored in a society even by people with no religious persuasion, since society is the better for it when they are practiced. After reading the article provided by Craig, I also tend to agree with the writer that Christians should not even have participated in the Revolution, as they are supposed to submit themselves to whatever governmental authority they find themselves under. Thanks for the link, Craig. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Denise: That is only if the American Revolution was an illegal rebellion. Those who participated in the First and Second Continental Congresses, and who ultimately signed the Declaration of Independence, were duly elected representatives of their respective colonies so, arguably, the American Revolution was a just war to expel an oppressive tyrant. If you recall from history, America did not declare its independence before following a legal process. In their minds, the decision to declare the colonies' independence from England was only made after other legal prerequisites were pursued without success. Browse this document and I think you'll see more clearly what the signers of the Declaration were thinking: http://www.visi.com/~homelands//vindiciae/vindiciae.html Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (09-08-2003 01:48 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks, Jim, I'll read through it when I get home from work tonight. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"You're right, Stephen. I guess no mention of God should be made by those governing in a truly secular government." Not exactly my conclusion. I'm not for a "secular" government. Secular for me means an environment where religious ideas and interpretations have lost their social significance. I never interpreted the separation of Church and State, to mean the separation of State and God. Though many are pushing for less expressions of the Biblical truth, I am for more. Simply because it is truth. "I see the benefit though of Judeo-Christian values being honored in a society even by people with no religious persuasion, since society is the better for it when they are practiced." Agreed. Stephen. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
People who have held judeo-christian moral values have also sold and purchased human beings. Moral values are not dependent on religious organizations. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Neither is the value of religious precepts dependent upon everyone having followed them perfectly. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-09-2003 01:37 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
So Jim, basically, duly elected or appointed governing authorites (like our Founding Fathers) have the liberty to participate in a revolution against or a reorganization of government when all legal recourse has proven futile, but individual citizens don't have that authority from God, and they were probably the ones to whom Peter was speaking when he told them to submit to the governing authority? It was hard reading for me, but that was how it read to me. Makes sense. Stephen, How would you propose that be done? What would be acceptable in your view regarding acknowledgement of God from government? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Denise: I think you read it right. Jim |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Neither is the value of religious precepts dependent upon everyone having followed them perfectly." ~ Agreed. However, there are many christians who were god fearing and bible believing people, who got down on their hands and knees and prayed for guidance, that purchased and sold human beings. But your response doesn't apply directly to the statement that moral values are not dependent on any type of religion. My point about the selling of people was an example of proof to support the claim made. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Opeth, Is this logically sound? A) A certain group of people were influenced by religious ideas B) That same group of people practiced something that we consider to be immoral C) Therefore the morality of this people was not helped by their religious influence. For your conclusion to be true, you would have to show that if they hadn't had their religious teaching that they wouldn't be slave traders ... or you would have to show that they would have been more ethically minded without their religious influences. You've done neither of these. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-10-2003 09:40 AM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Is this logically sound? A) A certain group of people were influenced by religious ideas B) That same group of people practiced something that we consider to be immoral C) Therefore the morality of this people was not helped by their religious influence. For your conclusion to be true, you would have to show that if they hadn't had their religious teaching that they wouldn't be slave traders ... or you would have to show that they would have been more ethically minded without their religious influences. You've done neither of these. No, this is logical. Those slave-trading people were influenced by the bible and the belief that their religion gave them the right to do so. That influence led them to believe that they were morally superior - God’s chosen people – to so-called “pagan” or “heathen” “savage” races…and that the African populace were suitable for trade because they were indeed savages who were immoral and not the chosen and superior race of God. Now, what if those same biblically influenced people were not influenced by the bible or influenced by the belief that the Christian religion they abided by WAS the only true religion? We will never know for certain if they would have still participated in the purchasing and selling of human beings, but we do know that without the influence of the bible, without their superior attitude over other races resulting from their religious practices - one source which fed their feelings of moral & racial superiority over the African race, would have been eliminated, which would then reduce the possibility of their slave trade involvement. Yet still, I submit, moral values are not dependent on one being a religious person. [This message has been edited by Opeth (09-10-2003 02:04 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"we do know that without the influence of the bible, without their superior attitude over other races resulting from their religious practices - one source which fed their feelings of moral & racial superiority over the African race, would have been eliminated, which would then reduce the possibility of their slave trade involvement." We do? This is where the burden of proof would be upon you to show that the positive approval of slavery was derived from the Bible. It can strongly be argued from history that slavery was a commonly held practice of former time periods up to that time (also in other cultures). And though it's true that in the New Testament, a revolutionary abolition of slavery (mostly speaking of domestic slavery) is not called for, it can't be said that it was positively encouraged and taught as good. Here are some interesting points ... - The recieving of the Ten Commandments and the Law, immediately proceeded the Hebrews coming out of a situation of cruel national slavery under the hands of the Egyptians. The Israelites did not have a rosey picture of slavery in general. And they were not taught to mimick this type of national oppression under the law. - There were Old Testament regulations of domestic slavery given, to ensure that household slaves were not treated with undue cruelty (see Exodus 21; Deuteronomy 15). Only domestic slavery is spoken of (a common practice of ALL nations of that time Pagan or not), and ethical considerations were at least applied. - Gaza and Tyre were warned by the prophet Amos for their practices of slave trading entire populations. (see Amos 1:6-9). - The book of Revelation describes the buying and selling of slaves in an extremely negative light. (see Revelation 18:13) - Paul's main teaching concerning the domestic slavery of the time was for Christian slaves to be an example and witness to their masters of patient obedience. (see Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, and Titus 2:9). - Paul also taught Christian slaves to seek freedom if possible (1 Corinthians 7:21). - Paul also urged Philemon, a Christian who had a domestic slave named Onesimus (who was also a Christian and had run away), to recieve Onesimus back "as a brother" ... showing both his tact and patience at dealing with imperfect social institutions and views concerning them in the churches. - Paul taught that in light of the Gospel of Jesus, such distinctions as Master and slave were fading away (see Colossians 3:11). And such a new thought was to have an effect on all relationships, changing things radically. - Abraham Lincoln who was a major player in the abolition of Slavery in the U.S. was apparantly a devoted Christian, especially in his later years. And he also felt that slavery was wrong based upon Judeo-Christian Principles: "This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." - Abraham Lincoln. "although volume upon volume is written to prove slavery is a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it, by being a slave himself." - Abraham Lincoln. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" - The Bible As someone has said, "Since slave practices were part of the culture in biblical times, the Bible contains no direct call to abolish slavery. But the implications of the gospel, especially the ethic of love, stand in opposition to slavery." I think there is a great deal of misrepresentation and misunderstanding in your statements about the Bible being the source for feelings of superiority. If the Bible is followed as the teaching goes, the opposite should be true. Surely anyone can use any text wrongfully to support evil ways. And they have. But even so, you have given no support to show that it was the Judeo-Christian influence that helped to promote slavery. But even if some did, it does not logically follow that relgious influence does not improve morality over all. If humanity can twist good teaching, to do wrong. Imagine what they can do, and actually do, when moral teaching is lacking. P.S.) I think we've sabotaged this thread. There could be another thread if we want to discuss the dynamics of slavery and religious influence. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-10-2003 04:04 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Stephen, I, like you, do not see separation of church and state as meaning separation of God and state. But how does one facilitate that acknowledgement of God by the state without espousing a particular view. If Deism, Christianity, Judaism, etc., are all unacceptable to somebody, how is such acknowledgement possible? Where can an acceptable common ground be found? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Denise, I'll be back to respond. Stephen. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Great, Stephen! In the meantime, here is an interesting article that I just came across this morning. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34533 |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Denise: " If Deism, Christianity, Judaism, etc., are all unacceptable to somebody, how is such acknowledgement possible? Where can an acceptable common ground be found?" Denise, I am no political theorist. So there is a lot that I don't know. There are pitfalls to making the state the arbiter of religion, and a Theocracy in this world has never worked except by Tyranny. So of course the Kingdom of God won't come through the political system. However, the very fact that the original expressions of our Government was so rife with references to universals derived from the Judeo-Christian world view (even if many of those individuals were not Christians) tells me that what many mean as separation of church and state was not what was intended. Not only was it rife with these universals, but many of our rights and freedoms have flowed directly from those "religious" assertions. If you don't think it's important consider the "rights" people have had under atheistic, humanistic ideologies such as Marxism. Consider the French Revolution and the results of the Russian Revolution. These are the products of humanist ideologies and the rejection of religious ideas. If all religious expression is exempted from public life, other than in the closed doors of a church building, then this also is the State making an ideological imposition. It is saying in effect that humanist thought is the only mindset fit for public decisions, while religious ideas are fit only to be hidden. What I think the danger of this is, is that without absolutes, tyranny can result even within the framework of a democracy. Arbitrary law will do ultimately whatever the elite deems best for society, if not checked. Freedoms that were based upon Biblical principles we have taken for granted, but if the base is totally rejected then manipulative tyranny can come in much easier. I think the article you mentioned made a lot of good points. And while I would never want the state to be in control of religious matters totally, for that is what the colonists had a problem with in the begginning, I fear the other extreme of rejecting the very tenets upon which our rights are built. More later... Stephen. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I agree, Stephen, that the framers never meant an interpretation of the Constitution and First Amendment as it is being interpreted today as meaning the separation of God and/or religious values from the State(Wesley Clark's interpretation), but was merely a safeguard put in place to prevent a national church as other countries had that could and did lead to oppression. I think the only valid method of interpretation is a literal reading in conjunction with other sources that clearly depict the framers intent when intent is not readily clear. No other method of interpretation is true to basic rules of interpretation. If the judiciary wants to use another method of interpretation to pursue its own agenda, then they should at least stop pretending that they are doing so to uphold the Constitution. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
So no one would have a problem with their children being asked to participate in Buddhist prayers before class every morning? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Was it orginally intended that women should have the right to vote? Just thought I'd add that I'm not being flippant here. There were debates about slavery, but I don't recall any discussion on the rights of women. Perhaps there were and I missed it. Furthermore, I think it safe to say that even if such a discussion did exist, their conclusion was mistaken. What does that have to do with this debate? Well, my point is that it matters less that we get the original intention of the framers right and more that we do the right thing. As far as separation of Church and State goes, Britain has an official religion. It doesn't seem to bother them all that much. [This message has been edited by Brad (09-26-2003 10:01 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, As long as the 'asking' isn't interpreted as 'commanded' to participate. If the schools and parents agreed to it, I wouldn't see a problem with a representative prayer from each of the religions representated at a particular public school being uttered (that would be a good way to teach about world religions and cultures, too), or a moment of silence allowing children to silently speak with God each in their own way, or just to daydream! I think this harmonizes perfectly with the intent of the First Amendment. A particular religion is not being established, and no one is being denied free exercise rights. As much as I read it, free exercise and expression doesn't seem to be limited to private venues. Brad, I think it's just as important that we get it right (not more or less), and that's done the correct way through the Amendments that have to be ratified by the states. What's wrong is this legislating from the bench that's been going on by justices handing down rulings based on their own biased secular philosophies (equally subject to error as is any religious philosophy) and also the basing of rulings upon precedent (which could be faulty)instead of strictly from the Constitution. As for the State Church in Britain, it seems a lot of the folks who came to America had a big problem with it. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Brad made a really good point. I don't have much time, but I'll say that I'm for the removal of references to God in our Pledge and on our money... as it is, every time I make a transaction, it is implied that I trust in God. But what if I don't? The idea of my money speaking for me is truly offensive... and it may be true that the founding fathers were religious, but the whole point of religious freedom is the option to not be religious, or not to believe in God. That option is compromised when God is spoken of on our money, in our pledge, and in the halls of our government buildings. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: you mean decisions like usurping the authority of the Florida election and installing a president? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hush, You weren't specific, what was that point? I think it is a real stretch, not to mention totally unrealistic, to think that using our currency implies to anyone that one has a trust in God. How is your option to not believe in God compromised? Clearly it's not, if you still profess not to believe in God while in the very act of using currency that states you believe otherwise. Your option is still intact. Unless, of course, there are mystical powers inherent in the currency that can change a non-believer into a believer by its mere use, robbing one of their option. But one way that people could avoid being offended, if they truly are, when making financial transactions, would be to make them using their bank check card, then they wouldn't have to come into contact with such an offensive, compromising thing as U.S. currency. L.R., Surely you jest. This was one of the few times that the U.S. Supreme Court actually did their job in recent history correctly, Constitutionally, by interpreting existing law, instead of legislating, by overturning the Florida Supreme Court for legislating the law, at the instigation of Al Gore. quote: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18612 |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
why yes I am joking Denise.... I am indeed... because -- it seems -- every time the courts make a decision the ideologues from one side of the aisle or the other run around decrying the travesty of it all -- and how our system is bound to hell in a handbasket... The courts you complain about so much are stacked heavily with Republican appointees from 12 years of Reagan/Bush and only a smattering from the Clinton era |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
No Denise, of course money doesn't make someone believe in God... nor does reference to him in the pledge, nor does the hanging of the ten commandments in public places. But it sets a status quo- and I don't really think our government should set status quos on the subject of God. The implication when religious references are made in that way is that our nation believes in God. When that implication is made, it automatically puts those who don't on the outside of that status quo. I understand that a vast majority (80-some percent, isn't it?) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. That's great, and I am ultimately supportive of that. They have every right to express their faith... just not on the money that everyone, be they Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan, Atheist, Agnostic, etc., uses. Not in the pledge that gradeschool children nationwide are expected to recite, and not in buildings where we interpret our laws. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't know, Hush. I've certainly made the same argument you've made here, but I'm not so sure anymore. Let's call a spade a spade and simply make Christianity an official religion, all this talk can go away, and those of us who believe differently will realize that we are, indeed, on the outside. Some of us more than others. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
L.R., It doesn't matter if they were appointed by Republicans or Democrats. What matters is that they fulfill their oath to uphold the Constitution and what it says, not what they wished it said. Hush, Identifying oneself as a Christian does not necessarily make one a Christian, but that's another topic altogether. The topic here is the expression of a belief in the existence of God. That encompasses many religious beliefs. In addition to the Pledge, the Ten Commandments and our currency, we can also add our National Anthem, our Flag, and the Declaration of Independence that the minority seem to have a problem with. There usually is a status quo in society based on the view of the many. That's the natural outcome of a majority view. The majority in our nation do believe in the existence of God. If it is their will to express that belief in God, and it does not violate the Constitution, which it does not, no matter how tortured the interpretation, on what basis does the minority justify the imposition of their will on the overwhelming majority? If one holds the minority view, then they hold the minority view. How could that not put them outside the status quo? Nobody is putting them their, their own views put them there. They can't have it both ways. My question still remains, how is one's option not to believe compromised? I could see someone saying that they are uncomfortable being in the minority, but not compromised. In my place of employment the overwhelming majority are secular humanists. Am I uncomfortable listening to their unsolicited views? Of course I am, especially since most of them are my superiors and I'm not free to express my views in return and still be guaranteed continued employment. Do I have to exercise tolerance? You bet. Are my beliefs compromised? Not in the least. Brad, Well now that would be a violation of the Constitution, wouldn't it. Not to mention the fact that you'd be leaving out an awful lot of people in establishing Christianity as the official religion. Belief in the existence of God is not peculiar to Christianity. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Actually, I was thinking of amending the constitution. But I'm curious, what do secular humanists do that make you feel uncomfortable? Do they tell religious jokes around the water dispenser? Do they actively tell you not to believe? Are they for the Bright movement? The reason I ask is simply that most secular humanists I know do not, in fact, run around telling other people what to do or think or feel (at least in such matters as this). I was in a similar conversation the other night and was asked what bothers me about religious people (I didn't know I had a problem, but, as I've done here sometimes, it certainly may seem so.). At any rate, what I came up with was simply that they break the language game and seem proud to do it. Example: Same guy and I were talking politics and a third man was there. I, lightheartedly, tried to bring him into the conversation (It wasn't serious, honest). I asked him what his political stance was. "Hey, Dan, what's your political stance?" "I'm a Catholic." "Uh huh, what does that mean?" "It means I'm a Catholic." "Yeah, but there are conservative, liberal, and socialist Catholics running around." "No, they're either Catholic or they're not." The conversation ended there. And I was left befuddled. So, do your secular humanists do things like that, break the language game? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad, You're cute.  No need for another amendment. Hey, I like a joke as well as the next person! I guess most of the discomfort comes from not being able to speak my view and join in the conversation and be treated in a respectful manner. Once I had a guy (who could fire me) run across the room stopping just a couple inches from my face, spittin' and splutterin' when I expressed (politely) my fondness of a particular politician (I think I said something like, "Oh geeze, I like him") in response to his and another co-worker's vile and disparaging (I can't even mention what was said) estimation of this same politician, shouting, "What? You can't possibly be serious. How could you possibly feel that way? No one in their right mind could feel that way." So now I just keep my opinions to myself no matter what anyone says about any matter (and they are quite vocal all the time) that I know will produce such blatant disrespect. I've also experienced the "rolling eyes", snickers,and the "trying to keep a straight face" face, once when I was overheard asking someone to keep me in their prayers about a problem I was having, and a couple of times when I said that I was a Christian when I was asked what religion I was. Just disrespect, I guess. |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
quote: Brad, You can use Britain as an argument for an American movement in the opposite direction. Especially when you realise that having an official religion in Britain only works largely due to the paradoxical fact that the majority of British people aren’t religious . |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Denise- I'll make a concession. My wording was poor- the option is not compromised. However... there is an assumption with the word God that really bugs me... that it encompasses all faiths. Not all gods are called "God." What about the Buddha? What about godesses? What about gods? Would you accept "in Gods we trust" as a substitution on our money? The point, beyond that, is that not all people believe in any deity... therefore, our government expressing that sentiment misrepresents a portion of the population, and also, in my opinion, violates the principle of separation of church and state. 'The majority in our nation do believe in the existence of God. If it is their will to express that belief in God, and it does not violate the Constitution, which it does not, no matter how tortured the interpretation, on what basis does the minority justify the imposition of their will on the overwhelming majority?' Yeah, they can express their faith. They can go to church, wear crosses, pray in public (provided that it isn't government=sposored prayer) and basically do whatever they want... just as people who believe differently are free to worship differently, and just as those who don't believe at all are free to not worship at all. But our government shouldn't be free to do any of that, for any religion or faith, no matter how generic, because there is a constitutional separation there. It's fine that people who aren't Christian are in the minority... demographically, that's pretty hard to avoid. But for our government to misrepresent those who don't believe in God, as such, shouldn't be tolerated. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Denise: "Well now that would be a violation of the Constitution, wouldn't it. Not to mention the fact that you'd be leaving out an awful lot of people in establishing Christianity as the official religion. Belief in the existence of God is not peculiar to Christianity." But Denise, belief in the existence of a transcendent God is peculiar to only three of the major world religions ... Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Humanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism, Neo-paganism, Wicca, and countless others do not believe in a personal God at all, they are naturalistic religions. All of these would object to the phrase "In God we trust". Hush made a good point, but the phrase "In gods we trust" is perfectly meaningless, especially if "gods" is just a catch-all for the mass of mutually exclusive religious claims that exist. A good question should be, should government strive to accurately reflect God's truth, or only exist to serve humanistic plurality? If you choose the former, then the problem is with all those who disagree. If you choose the latter, the problem is with ultimately no universals upon which to build society ... no moral restraints to check our excesses and tyrannical tendencies, no common goals, just the contant flux of our own (often degenerate) ideas, upon which to base the policies that govern millions. But we've seen that any attempts at theocracy has led to the same thing... tyranny and error. That's why the Christian ultimately believes that the Kingdom of God will not come through Government, but through cataclysmic eschatological events as described in the prophecies of scripture. Christ will return, and until then we can only do our best to be salt and light ... working from the inside out, not necessarily from the top down, in the polictical sphere. We should use charisma and influence that is more of a spiritual nature, than just power, money, and political maneuvering. Hush: "But our government shouldn't be free to do any of that, for any religion or faith, no matter how generic, because there is a constitutional separation there." But this gets a bit sticky doesn't it? ... This means that those who are government officials who make decisions cannot do so on the basis of their own worldview, if it is not naturalistic. Any attempt to curb something or promote something based upon absolute moral principles for example, is targeted as "religiously biased". What this does is shuts out relgious influence from the big decisions about public policy ... making faith a "personal" matter only ... innocuous, sterile, and caged in stain glassed buildings and bedrooms. All that is left are those who base decisions upon arbitrary ideas and agendas of the moment. You see, it's not that we reject Gods, we've just narrowed it down to the human gods. I honestly believe that getting off of the Biblical base, in the making of public decisions, will lead us to ruin, from the inside out, just like Rome crumbled. So what some call the "Separation of Church and State" actually ends up as State control. Religion is forced to keep it's ideas out of public life (mainly through the courts) ... where the influence of ideas is really felt. Seeing that our Forefathers hated the Tyranny of Big Government, I don't think they intended Government to oust the Church from public life. Yeah there are a lot bad relgious ideas and methods out there, but history shows that when the true prophets are rejected, bad results are coming. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (10-01-2003 05:53 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Right, Stephen. And non-Christians have absolutely no valid reason to avoid hitting those little kids walking along the road, either. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hush: quote: The point is that the majority of the majority in this country who do believe in a higher power than themselves believe in one God. Majority is the operative word that establishes the inevitable status quo. quote: For all practical intents and purposes it wouldn’t bother me if our money declared “In Bozo the Clown We Trust”. What it says or doesn’t say is a non-issue to me. The issue to me is the corruption and attempted corruption of Constitutional guarantees by the minority to impose their will on the majority. quote: Here’s the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There’s nothing here that speaks to separation of church and state other than that Congress can make no law regarding an establishment of religion, i.e, they are forbidden to legislatively address the issue. That is the extent of the "separation" issue granted to them by the states. It is a guarantee of freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. What's more, limiting religious expression to non-government/public venues is abridging free speech. That justices and career political opportunists have adulterated the Constitution in this and in other matters to advance their own agenda does not change the original intent of the document. The context of Thomas Jefferson’s words ‘separation of church and state’ were found in a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, in 1804, who had solicited his aid, through Congress, to ‘disestablish’ the Congregationalists as the official church of the State of Connecticut. He told them that the First Amendment forbade the State (Federal Government/Congress) from interfering in making any laws regarding such matters and could also not overstep its Constitutional bounds by interfering in a sovereign state issue. (The individual states were truly sovereign prior to Abraham Lincoln and a few did have official state religions established, which was exclusively a matter of the individual state legislatures. The federal government had no authority in the matter.) quote: The framers didn’t see this as a violation as they prayed in and even sponsored religious services in their government buildings all the time, perhaps a clue as to the actual intent of the actual words that were put to paper. quote: Again you frame this as a non-Christian/Christian issue. It's not. It is a freedom of religion issue. People are free to believe whatever they want to believe and to express those beliefs, including atheists. The fact that the majority believe in God and have had those sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence, National Anthem, etc., is just the inevitable outcome of the freedom of expression of the belief of the majority, nothing more, nothing less. That you would advocate intolerance toward the outworkings of the expression of Constitutionally protected rights of fellow citizens is troubling to me. Stephen: quote: Yes, that's true. It's also still true that, combined, they represent the religious majority in this country. quote: I don't think that it is the mandate of any government to attempt to reflect God's truth, nor to serve humanistic plurality. The best that any government can do to facilitate God's will is to allow religious freedom. I believe that it is the responsibility of individuals to do that in their personal lives and professional lives, be it in government service or private enterprise. quote: And this is exactly what we see going on today. Under the guise of the fallacy of the 'separation of church and state' issue, there are some who are advancing that very agenda. They don't believe in absolutes of any kind, whether it be truth or morality, and hope to render powerless those who do by misinterpretation and misapplication of the Constitution, stating that it is Constitutional and thereby mandatory to separate God (and morality and religious values of any kind) from public affairs, thereby having free reign to advance agendas that are grounded only in what will serve their own political aims. They don't want a fair debate in the market place of ideas. They want to tie their opponents hands through a manufactured advantage. That's why we now hear that the Constitution is a "living" document, and that "we have to breathe life into it" subjecting its interpretation to ever changing standards dependent on the current political whim. They would never have gained this foothold if the Constitution had been adhered to. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, yeah. Inspiration can come from whatever you want, the Bible, prayer, the inside of a fortune cookie, but the evaluation has to be naturalistic. God told me to, just isn't much of a justification. Denise, Um, you mean religion has never been used for something so sinister as advancing your political agenda? Other than that, I don't have a problem with "In Bozo we trust", the ten commandments, or the Gnomon codex on government grounds. Everybody should read "The Masters of Atlantis" by Charles Portis. Definitely one of the funniest books I've read in a long time. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You mean like they did with civil rights? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephen- You made a good point, but Brad basically said what I was going to. Religion and political ideaology aren't mutually exculsive- in the sense that because something's in the Bible doesn't mean it can't be in our society's laws as well. "Thou shalt not kill" makes sense any way you cut it... but I think someone made the point earlier... how do you legislate "Honor thy father and mother?" It's not something universally accepted to the point that we, as a nation, feel compelled to make it a law. Denise- 'The point is that the majority of the majority in this country who do believe in a higher power than themselves believe in one God. Majority is the operative word that establishes the inevitable status quo.' Yes, that's true. That's fine... it really doesn't upset me that the Christian churches in my city outnumber all other alternative churches... where there is a demand, there will be a supply. That's great! But our government is of the people, for the people, and by the people, right? Does this mean all people, or just the majority? Does my government speak for me? If my government does, then I think I have the right to protest our pledge, our money, and other expressions of a decidedly Judeo-Christian belief if it doesn't accurately represent me. And if the government doesn't speak for me, if it decides that the majority is enough to represent in all the aforementioned examples, then something's not right. 'For all practical intents and purposes it wouldn’t bother me if our money declared “In Bozo the Clown We Trust”. What it says or doesn’t say is a non-issue to me. The issue to me is the corruption and attempted corruption of Constitutional guarantees by the minority to impose their will on the majority.' If money could say "In Bozo we trust" for all you care... then why have God in there, period? Why the slogan, if it doesn't hold some signifigance? Does taking the slogan away remove your right to believe in God? What harm would it do? What right is the minority trying to take away? Is the right the minority wants to take away a right the majority, or, in this case, the government, should have? 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' I don't know... putting a profession of faith to God on our legal tender sounds awfully darn close to that to me... 'What's more, limiting religious expression to non-government/public venues is abridging free speech.' Who said that politicians can't express that they believe in God? Or that plaintiffs and defendents in the courthouse can't believe in God? That they can't express that belief? There's a difference between personal and official expression. 'The framers didn’t see this as a violation as they prayed in and even sponsored religious services in their government buildings all the time, perhaps a clue as to the actual intent of the actual words that were put to paper.' Yeah, and the framers owned slaves. I don't know about you, but I don't want to regress to a time when the framer's literal intent is law... because you know what? In that world, you and I don't even have a say... I guess we should just let our menfolks decide for us while we keep house and tend babies, huh? 'That you would advocate intolerance toward the outworkings of the expression of Constitutionally protected rights of fellow citizens is troubling to me.' I don't really understand how you get this... I never said we should get rid of anything protecting the right of any religious person to practice, worship, or even to go door to door and hand out little fliers and preach to the masses on the street. All I said is I don't want my government sponsoring any one interpretation of a higher power... especially the loaded term of "God." |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad, There’s nothing sinister about a person’s beliefs informing their political agenda. What is sinister is the attempt to gain an agenda unlawfully by violating, ignoring or usurping the rule of law, which some have done in the past and some continue to do. That's what we have to be vigilant about. Ron, I’m not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? Hush, Our form of government is not a democracy run by the will of the majority. In democracies there is always the danger of mob rule by the majority at one end of the spectrum and tyranny by the minority at the other. That’s why we have a representative republic based on the rule of law. Our Constitution is that law. It is the bedrock of the form of government that we have. It is sacrosanct and we must exercise utmost diligence in interpreting it in its purity and not play fast and loose with its interpretation. There are basic, standard rules that apply to the interpretation of anything, and this is no different. There will always be a majority view and a minority view about issues. Regardless of one’s particular view about any issue, citizens are all equally represented by the government. The government doesn’t represent us in respect to particular issues, per se. The government represents us by giving us equal protections under the law, by giving all of us the same benefits of our representative form of government. We elect the people who will speak for us in the House. If we want to see change, we can let our voices be heard through those representatives to effectuate the change that we want to see. My reference to majority/minority was in relation to your citing a status quo, not in relation to our form of government. Every society has multiple issues, each producing its own status quo. The minority has no more right to impose its will on the majority than the majority has to impose its will on the minority. No one group has the right to demand that their view be held above the rule of law, but all views have to be filtered through the law. There is no reason or room for a demanding and intolerant stance when we have a system that we can work through to address our concerns. And all of us could point to something that we don’t agree with, that we think should be different, and at any given time we are all outside the status quo regarding some issue; we’re the majority in some issues, the minority in others. That doesn’t give us the right to demand anything. No, taking God off our currency or out of our Pledge does not deprive me of my right to believe. The harm in the minority taking it away is simply that they don’t have the Constitutional right to take it away. That’s the issue, not whether God is referenced or not. This is the statement where you advocated intolerance because you feel misrepresented, to which I was referring: quote: Can you see now, based on our form of government, that you aren't being misrepresented, that regardless of differing views, we are all represented equally, and the extreme importance of careful interpretation of the Constitution? It is the only safeguard that we have that ensures the protection of any of our rights. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Wish I could understand this a bit better. quote: You see, Ron's point makes sense to me. I don't really get what you're saying here (except the fact that the majority should controll things. I agree with that. I don't understand anything else you've said but that makes sense.) quote: I really wish I understood this better. What does 'purity' or 'sancrosanct' have to do with living our lives? Are you saying that there is a final way to interpret? Gee, you've neglected to state the rules. quote: Really? I wish I knew what they were. I was an English major, you know. I have studied the Critical Studies Movement. Why is it they don't or haven't told me these rules? Could it be that you, not others, have made a decision? quote: I just don't understand this point. Does it mean anything at all? quote: So, our whole form of protest is the vote? Lost again, sorry. quote: Um, can someone tell me what this means? quote: Um, what constitutional right are we talking about? For the record, I don't care if it's there or not. quote: Well, I've never felt represented in my life. I make my life better or I don't. My wife feels the same way. Personally, it's not much better than anything else out there. Geez, given that attitude, you'd think I'm conservative. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
There I go being obtuse again! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, The light bulb just went on (sometimes it takes awhile). I stand corrected on that point. Brad and Hush, I'll try to clarify my thoughts a bit. The Constitution is the foundation of our form of government. In that regard, it should be held sacrosanct, because without that foundation being considered inviolable, what security to our rights do we have? That does impact our lives because it safeguards our liberties. Some basic rules for interpretation for anything would be the meaning of the written words, the context within which the words are found, the historical setting of the writing that may impact the meaning of any given word and lend a more pure or concise interpretation of it, and, of course, the intention of the writer, and any extraneous writings that can give us insight regarding the writer's intent. Is there another way to interpret something? If so, let's discuss it. I'm always open to learning something new and considering other viewpoints, I just haven't heard any yet regarding proper interpretation. The framers did have blind spots in some areas, true, but they were also wise enough to develop a form of government that allowed for corrective measures in the form of Amendments. It is that very system that allowed us, as a society, to make the necessary corrections concerning civil rights. I don't think it's a valid point, therefore, to disallow intention of the writer in interpretation regarding the clearly defined points. I also believe that a faulty interpretation by the judiciary of the First Amendment 'establishment' clause has led to the controversy that we have today, and does violence to the 'freedom of exercise' clause and the 'freedom of speech' clause, and some abuses of these rights can be found in recent incidences where children have been forbidden to say grace before lunch because they are in a public school cafeteria (and in one incident, the parents were reported to Child Protective Services for not forbidding their child in the continuation of such behavior), and a worker fired for wearing a cross necklace at her job in a public library who had to hire a lawyer to get her job back. It's absolutely insane. Freedom of exercise and freedom of speech don't truly exist if they are restricted in these ways. No, our voice is not limited strictly to our vote. We all have the right of dissent and the right to make our grievances known, and we all have the right of due process. No, I don't believe in majority rule. Neither did most of the framers. They had first hand experience with that form of government, knew the pitfalls of it, and believed that a representative republic was the better way to go. In our form of government, it doesn't matter if one is in the majority on an issue or in the minority, we are still all represented, in the sense that we all have a voice and can make our views known, and can avail ourselves of due process. We aren't 'misrepresented' because we hold a minority view on an issue any more than we can say that the President of the United States is not 'our' President because we don't agree with his policies. Have I cleared things up a bit, or just added to the confusion? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, rereading your statement again, I guess I'm still not sure of the point you were attempting to make. You'll have to help me out here, I guess. It's not right for either side, the minority or the majority to force their will through corruption of the Constitution. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It does indeed matter. Consider the Patriot Act. If you're going to use the constitution, no longer pretend you are scared. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
two thoughts; "To justify Christian morality because it provides a foundation of morality, instead of showing the necessity of Christian morality from the truth of Christianity, is a very dangerous inversion." -- T.S. Eliot "Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance" |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You've lost me, Brad. Would you mind elaborating? L.R., I don't personally agree with Emerson's viewpoint, and regarding T.S. Eliot's comment, who, if anyone, is doing that? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Stephen: "This means that those who are government officials who make decisions cannot do so on the basis of their own worldview, if it is not naturalistic." Brad: "Well, yeah. Inspiration can come from whatever you want, the Bible, prayer, the inside of a fortune cookie, but the evaluation has to be naturalistic. God told me to, just isn't much of a justification." It's just that saying "the evaluation has to be naturalistic" is merely a naturalistic axiom. It's another way of establishing the precommitments of naturalism, in the imperative "has to be". Christians often believe that there are good reasons to follow, and good results to follow from, obedience to Biblical principles. And it's certainly not wrong to implement policies based upon good research, and down-to-earth results. But it's not always wrong to take something as authoritative either ... not only from God, but from the wisdom of former societies. The idea that there can be no supernatural from which higher wisdom may flow is a precommitment of naturalist philosophy. It is not somehow "neutral" as some would want us to think. It is also accepting something tacitly ... that there is no realm from which anything universal can be percieved. The problem is, when this "naturalistic" standard of evaluation is in reality applied, it can often lead to elitism, where the few force their opinions on the many. I think Francis Shaeffer called this "sociological law". If it is felt by "experts" to be beneficial sociologically, it can be made into law. This runs deep, because science alone cannot delve into areas where answers lie. For example, science alone cannot plumb the question of "when" human life begins. So in abandoning Biblical absolutes, we have to conclude it begins when lawmakers say it does ... at birth I guess (for now anyway). Then more and more questions come. When does human life cease to be human life? Things like Euthanasia can easily slip in under such sociological standards of law. Espcially if this is seen as benefecial sociologically, particularly in the area of economics. The traditional understanding of the sacredness of human individuals, will get pushed out more and more for a more "pragmatic" approach to things. There's a problem here. Would you be surprised that some have recommended government imposed birth control through the water supply as sociologically beneficial, should population problems continue? Sounds unthinkable now. But from a naturalistic evaluation that you just tacitly believe "has to be", how can such arbitary oppression be avoided? What is unthinkable now, may not be in the near future. I know I went a bit off the topic ... but I did want to point out that your assertion that legal evaluation has to be according to a certain philosophical view, is just as arbitrary as "God told me". Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (11-04-2003 01:14 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: If you don't like the USA Patriot Act for civil libertarian reasons, what do you think about Meghan's Law or Amber Alert laws? By disseminating information that could be construed as encroachments into personal privacy, Meghan's Law and the Amber Alert laws seek to save lives. Wouldn't you have to admit that all three, while infringing on privacy to some extent, stand to do more to protect our freedoms of law abiding citizens than to demolish them? Jim |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
