Separation of Church and State

[sunspot]

The constitution has a provision for separation of church and state. The idea was to not let religious lobbyists gain too much power and influence within Washington. That makes it easier for all the other lobbyists more concerned with worldly affairs.

 

If we want to take this literally to separate anything that has to do with religion from the state, we need to get rid of AD and BC, with respect to how we measure historical time, since they both refer to Christ. Where should we start a nonreligious equated calendar, the BB, the formation of the earth, when life appears, when culture first appears? I am kidding around, but this is a throny technicality. Or are we suppose to just cherry pick what we keep and throw out.

[ydoaPs]

If we want to take this literally to separate anything that has to do with religion from the state, we need to get rid of AD and BC, with respect to how we measure historical time, since they both refer to Christ.

quite a few people, especially in academia, use CE (common era) and BCE (before common era).

 

 

 

edit: the separation of church and state is not in the constitution. actually, neither is the right to privacy or the right to own guns. the separation of church and state has, however, been upheld by the supreme court to be implied by the establishment clause of the first amendment.

[Jim]

The constitution has a provision for separation of church and state. The idea was to not let religious lobbyists gain too much power and influence within Washington. That makes it easier for all the other lobbyists more concerned with worldly affairs.

 

If we want to take this literally to separate anything that has to do with religion from the state' date=' we need to get rid of AD and BC, with respect to how we measure historical time, since they both refer to Christ. Where should we start a nonreligious equated calendar, the BB, the formation of the earth, when life appears, when culture first appears? I am kidding around, but this is a throny technicality. Or are we suppose to just cherry pick what we keep and throw out.[/quote']

 

Here's a pretty good link to illustrate the issues. While there is no doubt that the establishment clause does more than prohibit the establishment of a state religion, the "wall" separating church and state is a "shifting, porous barrier." These cases are taken one at a time, litigated at enormous expense and intellectual effort, with every effort made to harmonize past precedents. The cases often pivot on fine factual distinctions which often cause judges to dissent. This process is not an exact science but a quick read of a case or two would convince you, I'm sure, that the court is not simply cherry picking.

 

Were I a legislator, I would work to require a less porous barrier between church and state than is required by the Constitution. The founders may have accepted religious activities in some governmental functions, such as opening the constitutional convention with a prayer, but that doesn't mean we should.

[Severian]

If you truely want to separate the state from religion there is a lot you will have to give up. If fact, you will have to abandon all value judgements which cannot be proven. Any belief is a religion of sorts.

 

For example, human rights are subjective and the idea that a human should have 'rights' at all is a belief. Would you be willing to give up human rights?

 

Edit: When I say 'give up' I mean in the sense of recognition by the state. You could still hold personal beliefs of course.

[Jim]

If you truely want to separate the state from religion there is a lot you will have to give up. If fact' date=' you will have to abandon all value judgements which cannot be proven. Any belief is a religion of sorts.

 

For example, human rights are subjective and the idea that a human should have 'rights' at all is a belief. Would you be willing to give up human rights?

 

Edit: When I say 'give up' I mean in the sense of recognition by the state. You could still hold personal beliefs of course.[/quote']

 

I would not want to truely separate state from religion in that sense. I would, however, stop saying "In God We Trust" or have a pledge in any governmental function asking citizens to swear this is "one nation under God."

[ydoaPs]

If you truely want to separate the state from religion there is a lot you will have to give up. If fact, you will have to abandon all value judgements which cannot be proven.

that is not true. people wouldn't have to give up anything.

[padren]

If you truely want to separate the state from religion there is a lot you will have to give up. If fact' date=' you will have to abandon all value judgements which cannot be proven. Any belief is a religion of sorts.

 

For example, human rights are subjective and the idea that a human should have 'rights' at all is a belief. Would you be willing to give up human rights?

 

Edit: When I say 'give up' I mean in the sense of recognition by the state. You could still hold personal beliefs of course.[/quote']

 

 

I believe I can roughly calculate how many miles to the gallon I'll get and when I need more gas in my car. I can't say that I know that my car won't majically run forever on the current tank it has, but I don't think it makes me a religious man to keep filling it up.

 

 

Also, we respect human rights as a matter of social contract - we are human and so are all the other people we know, and most people don't want their human rights violated. Violating another's human rights, or torturing an animal for instance, leads to serious deleterious effects for the individual doing so, and I think there is enough evidence to say we respect human rights because life in general is better when we do.

 

 

I will go as far as to say there is not a single law that has a basis in faith that is healthy for a nation, that does not have a stronger rational basis completely independant of any religious point of view.

[Severian]

I will go as far as to say there is not a single law that has a basis in faith that is healthy for a nation' date=' that does not have a stronger rational basis completely independant of any religious point of view.[/quote']

 

All your laws have a basis on faith because they are all expressions of a value judgement. Before you can declare whether an action is 'good' or 'bad' for the society you live in you have to make a choice about what sort of society you want to live in. That choice is a belief.

[Severian]

that is not true. people wouldn't have to give up anything.

 

Your belief that there is no God is a religious belief.

 

Even the constitution itself is a religious document because it expresses opinions about the nature of existence which cannot be proven.

[gcol]

Your belief that there is no God is a religious belief.

 

Even the constitution itself is a religious document because it expresses opinions about the nature of existence which cannot be proven.

 

Exactly. Even politics is a religion, the correctness of which can likewise never be proven. A blind belief in the scientific method is in the same mould.

[Sisyphus]

Sure, if you're going to define religion in some silly way, then you can easily claim anything is a "religious belief." But that's not what anyone actually means when they say religion. A more common sense definition might be: a religion is an opinion regarding the will of an intelligent god-figure. THAT is what can safely be said to have no place in government.

[Pangloss]

"We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men were created equal."

[Severian]

Would you be happier with 'In God we trust' on your banknotes if the founding fathers had written: "We hold this truth to be self-evident, that God created all men equal."?

 

You quotation is particularly ironic given that the founding fathers clearly did not believe all men were created equal...

[Severian]

Sure, if you're going to define religion in some silly way, then you can easily claim anything is a "religious belief." But that's not what anyone actually means when they say religion.

 

But that is the whole point. You define religion in the very way so as to remove ideas which you do not like from the domain of the state.

[Jim]

But that is the whole point. You define religion in the very way so as to remove ideas which you[/b'] do not like from the domain of the state.

 

Apparently there is a body of law exactly on this point. The link I provided earlier referred to the criteria applied by the third circuit:

 

1. A religion deals with issues of ultimate concern; with what makes life worth living; with basic attitudes toward fundamental problems of human existence.

2. A religion presents a comprehensive set of ideas--usually as "truth," not just theory.

3. A religion generally has surface signs (such as clergy, observed holidays, and ritual) that can be analogized to well-recognized religions.

 

It may be true that other courts have phrased it differently, but I doubt any court would reduce religion in a first amendment analysis merely to question of underlying values. That same link also referred to a 2001 case which held that the government was not establishing a religion with its earth day celebrations.

[Severian]

Your definition just makes my point stronger. Do you think that the government should not be concerned with what makes its citizen's lives worth living? Do you think that the government should not have a comprehensive set of ideas behind its laws?

[Sisyphus]

But that is the whole point. You define religion in the very way so as to remove ideas which you[/b'] do not like from the domain of the state.

 

It does not matter how it is defined. If you want to classify the belief that the observable world is real, and that the stability and accomplishment of civilization is preferable to anarchy as "religion," then by all means, that sort of religion is a prerequisite for any sort of government. However, "religion" as I have defined it, as it is commonly understood when people use the word, as the framers of our Constitution thought of it, can easily be separated from government, and with (I believe) entirely beneficial results.

[padren]

All[/b'] your laws have a basis on faith because they are all expressions of a value judgement. Before you can declare whether an action is 'good' or 'bad' for the society you live in you have to make a choice about what sort of society you want to live in. That choice is a belief.

 

No, they quite simply are not.

 

The closest that comes to truth is to say that laws are as much based on faith as that we believe what we see with our eyes.

 

You could argue that you don't know a car is really coming at you but as a matter of "faith" in your senses you get out of the way when you perceive one coming. While you could argue that is true, you're basically quibbling over an iota so small that terms like "trivial" do not begin to do it justice.

 

 

How is the belief that all people are created equal based on faith? Its based on the fact that as far as we can observe, people are simply born where they are born and how they are born, with no control over the matter, in a large randomized lottery.

 

While that does not prove the matter to be true and you can argue it could still be false value judgement, it is no greater leap of faith than to believe we are not being observed by a gaint invisible spegetti monster.

 

 

We maintain laws because when we protect everyone we protect ourselves within that number, and the result is a society people in general are happier with.

Societies that hold other concepts tend to fail to do as well as societies that do believe everyone is created equal, at least in terms of the happiness and well being of the entirety of that society.

It may be a matter of "faith" to say that trend will continue to be true, but again it is no more a matter of faith than it is to believe that gravity won't just "run out" and send us hurtling into space at next morning's light.

 

So when I said:

I will go as far as to say there is not a single law that has a basis in faith that is healthy for a nation, that does not have a stronger rational basis completely independant of any religious point of view.

 

So let me add the caveat of "basis in faith greater than the level of faith that is required to believe it is wise to act in concert with our own senses..." and put to you whether you still feel all laws are based in faith.

[padren]

Your definition just makes my point stronger. Do you think that the government should not be concerned with what makes its citizen's lives worth living? Do you think that the government should not have a comprehensive set of ideas behind its laws?

 

God no. Why on this earth would you want the government messing around with your personal views on what makes life worth living? Maybe you don't have enough Shiva in your life or maybe you need the clarity that only Dianetics can bring - but who do you want in charge of determining what makes your life worth living? If there is any single thing that the government should not be involved in - that would be it.

Well-being is one thing, and only within limits (if I want to buy unhealthy amounts of scotch and cigs thats my business) - but the ideas of what life worth living are so varied and so often contradictory that government should at most try to cause the least hinderances to its citizens own pursuits of worth and happiness...not determine what that is.

 

 

 

And as far as having a "comprehensive set of ideas" behind its laws that is why reason and rationality exist. Laws based on faith are little more than Appeals to Authority, when it should be self evident that if they have any use to a society, that they'll be able to stand on their own merits by means of reason and logic.

[Jim]

Your definition just makes my point stronger. Do you think that the government should not be concerned with what makes its citizen's lives worth living?

 

This one element speaks to issues of "ultimate concern." We aren't talking about the price of gasoline here.

 

 

Do you think that the government should not have a comprehensive set of ideas behind its laws?

 

You ignore the qualifier - a set of ideas usually expressed as "truth," not just theory.

 

I"d have to look up the case but I suspect that all three elements have to be met, not just the two. The third criteria would keep issues of public policy or a general economic philosophy from qualifying as religion.

[ecoli]

You quotation is particularly ironic given that the founding fathers clearly did not believe all men were created equal...

 

Sure they did... except that, the only people they defined as men were landowning- white males.

[Callipygous]

technically everything you know about the world is a belief, and that set of beliefs might fit the exact definition of a religion. does the meaning intended by religion describe normal human morals? absolutely not. but for the sake of this debate its not going to matter because hes going to keep pressing the fact that it does match the definition.

 

part of my religion involves believing that i am in fact breathing right now

[Severian]

It does not matter how it is defined.

 

Of course it matters how it is defined because you are using to to restrict the lives of others. If your government refuses to recognise certain belief structures but does recognise others then it will lead to discrimination. Don't you think someone's religious beliefs will have an effect on laws like abortion or euthenasia?

 

The entire point of the separation of church from state in the constitution was to allow people to worship how they choose, or have wahtever beliefs they choose free from discrimination or persecution. I support that idea. But it seems to me that it is now being used to do the exact opposite - it is being used to marginalise those with what you would call 'religious' beliefs, and will in the end discriminate against them.

[Callipygous]

i disagree. i dont think its being used to marginalise those with beliefs, i think its being used to protect those of us who happen to not have those beliefs. taking every thing about god out of our pledge of alliegence and our money isnt harming christians, its making it so athiests can be free to practice their religion without having someone elses pushed on them.

 

 

if, by its exact definition, basic moral values is a religion, then how can we set up the system so that murder is illegal, but still keep other things that are strictly religious out of the govt.? what could the law be based on so it would preclude one but not the other?

[Severian]

i disagree. i dont think its being used to marginalise those with beliefs' date=' i think its being used to protect those of us who happen to not have those beliefs. taking every thing about god out of our pledge of alliegence and our money isnt harming christians, its making it so athiests can be free to practice their religion without having someone elses pushed on them.

[/quote']

 

It depends what you are trying to do. I don't object to removing references to Christianity from bank notes or the pledge of alliegence. On the other hand, preventing Christians from expressing their viewpoint is a violation of their freedoms.

 

But that is not what this thread is about.

 

if, by its exact definition, basic moral values is a religion, then how can we set up the system so that murder is illegal, but still keep other things that are strictly religious out of the govt.? what could the law be based on so it would preclude one but not the other?

 

See, you do understand after all. One has to maintain some common perspective on philosphical non-provable issues in order to have a functioning government.