Separation of Church and State

[Callipygous]

i understood it just fine, but i dont think you can define absolutely everything exactly right to make the govt rely entirely on laws without discriminating against anyone. so what that leaves you with is that you just have to have a little bit of faith in the intelligence and honesty of those you put in charge. you have to trust the supreme court to break the letter of the law when it goes against the intent of the law. you also have to trust them to be able to make basic distinctions and realise that standard human morals dont need to be remove from laws the same way religious beliefs do. trying to draw the line so all "beliefs" constitute religion just stops you from getting anywhere.

[doG]

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' date=' 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...[/quote']

No, I'd be happier if my currency didn't claim the existance of God at all....

[Pangloss]

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' date=' 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...[/quote']

 

You misunderstood me. I was agreeing with your point by way of giving an example.

 

I think you've pointed out a demonstrable, foundational truth in this thread, and it's interesting that it makes this ostensibly objective and scientific audience so uncomfortable.

[Jim]

. On the other hand, preventing Christians from expressing their viewpoint is a violation of their freedoms.

 

Except possibly for the tolerence codes in Universities, what laws prevent Christians from expressing their viewpoints in America?

 

One has to maintain some common perspective on philosphical non-provable issues in order to have a functioning government.

 

Certainly there has to be a respect for life, liberty, and, maybe the pursuit of happiness. It is also true that, for many people, the value of human life is defined by God. It is equally true that people can still respect the value of life without buying into any "religion" as the third circuit defined the concept.

[Jim]

You misunderstood me. I was agreeing with your point by way of giving an example.

 

I think you've pointed out a demonstrable' date=' foundational truth in this thread, and it's interesting that it makes this ostensibly objective and scientific audience so uncomfortable.[/quote']

 

Pangloss, I give Sev credit for making excellent points but what do you perceive is the "demonstrable, foundational truth" that has been established?

[bascule]

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

 

Oh please, by that logic, all human knowledge is religious in nature because it rests on unprovable axioms.

[Sisyphus]

I'm confused, Severian. Are you saying that Christians are being oppressed because I'm defining Christianity as a religion and a preference against human suffering as not a religion? How is that happening, exactly? Is somebody attacking the freedom of religion? Is it me?

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, I give Sev credit for making excellent points but what do you perceive is the "demonstrable, foundational truth" that has been established?

 

This is the second time in two threads that you've questioned my statements of opinion based on an inaccurate assumption, and you're making me increasingly uncomfortable here.

[Jim]

This is the second time in two threads that you've questioned my statements of opinion based on an inaccurate assumption, and you're making me increasingly uncomfortable here.

 

Yowzers. You said to Severian:

 

I think you've pointed out a demonstrable, foundational truth in this thread, and it's interesting that it makes this ostensibly objective and scientific audience so uncomfortable.

 

In response, I asked "what do you perceive is the 'demonstrable, foundational truth' that has been established?" Except for the word "established," I quoted your language.

 

My intent was not to bait you but to try to understand where you were coming from. I'm sure I do make assumptions from time to time, as do we all, but I do not see where I did so in this case nor do I have the slightest clue as to what other thread you are talking about.

[sunspot]

If we put thing in historical perspective western culture has its roots in Greece and then Rome. Around the fourth century AD, the Catholic church was formed in the giese of the Holy Roman Empire. The Church ruled the roost of the empire, but eventually set up the divine kingdoms with kings who had the divine right over life and death. It was a time when the church began to share power with the secular state, although they still had controlled things at the top. About 14th-16th centuries the kingdoms began to increasingly separate from the church, with the church becoming more secular, then breaking down into upteen independant franchises. Maybe once the founding fathers saw the corruption in fast food religion they realized it had no place in govenment. But at the same time, they included the best of religion as the basis for constitution.

[Pangloss]

I don't think he's proven anything, Jim, I think he's made an interesting point which I happen to agree with. It strikes me as something that's "demonstrable" in the sense that we're seeing aspects of it right here in this thread, and it's "foundational" in the sense that it's an underlying thing rather than a surface, superficial thing (i.e. that all human beings make faith-derived logical errors, even scientists and atheists).

 

Please don't shoot the messenger.

[Sisyphus]

If we put thing in historical perspective western culture has its roots in Greece and then Rome. Around the fourth century AD, the Catholic church was formed in the giese of the Holy Roman Empire. The Church ruled the roost of the empire, but eventually set up the divine kingdoms with kings who had the divine right over life and death. It was a time when the church began to share power with the secular state, although they still had controlled things at the top. About 14th-16th centuries the kingdoms began to increasingly separate from the church, with the church becoming more secular, then breaking down into upteen independant franchises. Maybe once the founding fathers saw the corruption in fast food religion they realized it had no place in govenment. But at the same time, they included the best of religion as the basis for constitution.

 

The principles behind the Constitution are not Christian. It's Enlightenment-style humanism.

[Severian]

You misunderstood me. I was agreeing with your point by way of giving an example.

 

I apologize. I had indeed misunderstood your post.

 

Except possibly for the tolerence codes in Universities' date=' what laws prevent Christians from expressing their viewpoints in America?[/quote']

 

Since I work at a university, this is really the one I had in mind. But it is not just universities - it is any public sector employee.

 

Certainly there has to be a respect for life, liberty, and, maybe the pursuit of happiness. It is also true that, for many people, the value of human life is defined by God. It is equally true that people can still respect the value of life without buying into any "religion" as the third circuit defined the concept.

 

That is certainly not true. One does not need to espouse life, liberty and (maybe ) the pursuit of happiness for a stable government. All you need to do is espouse the same (or similar) views as the majority of the population in order to prevent unrest. For example, if the majority of the population believe that a minority should be enslaved (for reasons of race or whatever) then a government which allows this can be stable, but is certainly not espousing liberty.

 

Now, I do not condone a society like that, but I must conceed that they have made a particular value judgement about right and wrong. I cannot prove to them that they are wrong and I am right. It may even be that the majority benefit greatly from the arrangement, so in terms of metrics like 'standard of living of the majority' they may genuinely be right!

 

Indeed someone from that society may see the whole idea of 'liberty' for this minority as morally repugnant, in the same way that many people here find the idea of Christianity in government repugnant. They would certainly not want their government to espouse it, and would bitterly complain if their government were to erect a huge 'statue of liberty' beside their most populous city. This would be much worse to them than 'In God we trust' on their banknotes...

 

Now, this case is a little extreme, but it is not hard to think of examples in the real world which are similar.

[Severian]

Oh please, by that logic, all human knowledge is religious in nature because it rests on unprovable axioms.

 

Yes and no. There seems to be a misconception in modern society as to what science really is. I blame the schools.

 

As you say, science is based on unprovable axioms, but that does not mean that all knowledge is religious. Science says if Axioms A are true, then X, Y and Z follow. This is testable and provable (I am using 'provable' in the science sense where it is well defined), so it is in no way religious.

 

Religions do not use axioms A to prove X, Y and Z - they start with axioms which are already so complex that they need go no further (or can go no further, as in the case of an omnipotent deity).

 

For moral judgements, when you say 'action X is wrong' then you can choose either approach. You can define 'wrong' by means of an axiom and then prove it, or you can say 'action X is wrong' is an axiom and therefore requires no proof.

 

The first method is only any use if you start from a point were everyone agrees the axiom is correct (or at least reasonable). This is what science tries to do - its axioms are very 'acceptable' to pretty much everyone, at least for the majority of applications. But if the axiom is not acceptable, then there is not point in trying to prove anything because people will disagree on your foundation. Obviously the same is true for the second method.

 

Since we are even having this conversation it is clear that the axioms from which you start are not accepted by all.

[Jim]

I don't think he's proven anything' date=' Jim, I think he's made an interesting point which I happen to agree with. It strikes me as something that's "demonstrable" in the sense that we're seeing aspects of it right here in this thread, and it's "foundational" in the sense that it's an underlying thing rather than a surface, superficial thing (i.e. that all human beings make faith-derived logical errors, even scientists and atheists).

 

Please don't shoot the messenger.[/quote']

 

Pangloss, I really wasn't in attack mode with either of these posts (I now see you were referring to the Iran thread). I thought you believed he had established a truth but I now see where you were going. Sorry for the mix up.

 

Anyway, I agree he has made interesting points. Although I'm very willing to be educated on this issue, one of the more appealing things about Christianity is that its founder recognized a necessary separation between church and state. He made clear where his kingdom would be and did not say go out into all the world to set up political action committees. He did not impose anything but explicitly recognized the difference between God and Caesar.

 

That liberal (I mean this in a good way) philosophy was twisted when Constantine coopted the doctrines but, at least according to V. Hanson, there was actually a period where early military doctrine was hampered by Christian teachings. Western governments got over this, of course, but how different this is from a doctrine where a faith was established through military means.

 

And, then, when our country was founded, how fortunate we were to have men who understood that the state had no business establishing a religion. It is no surprise that some of the trappings made their way into government - a prayer, on the currency, etc but what those men did saved this country untold grief.

 

None of this is to controvert Sev and your point; however, even during the various religious phases of my life (I'm still trying to decide what to be when I grow up!) I had a feeling which borders on reverence for the wall between church and state. It originated from Christ's own teaching and, very uniquely, carried forward with the founders of this government.

 

I don't lay awake at night worrying about the label on my currency but I do not understand why any religious person would want, for example, prayer in public schools.

[Pangloss]

Running out the door at the moment but I appreciate the reply and clarification Jim. I hope I wasn't too stern above. I'll drop by later on.

[Callipygous]

I don't lay awake at night worrying about the label on my currency but I do not understand why any religious person would want, for example, prayer in public schools.

 

 

because part of what christians have managed to work into their religion is saving the heathens. its gods work to convert the poor ignorant sinners to the path of the light. basically, they see only their point of view and from their point of view, there isnt any reason why such a good, christian thing as prayer should be kept out of school. they dont mind the fact that some people disagree because those people are in need of saving, because even if their rights get a little intruded upon it will be worth it, and they will be forgiving, if it causes them to see the light.

 

(note that the above post is not meant to be about all christians, only those who want prayer in schools.)

[Jim]

because part of what christians have managed to work into their religion is saving the heathens. its gods work to convert the poor ignorant sinners to the path of the light. basically' date=' they see only their point of view and from their point of view, there isnt any reason why such a good, christian thing as prayer should be kept out of school. they dont mind the fact that some people disagree because those people are in need of saving, because even if their rights get a little intruded upon it will be worth it, and they will be forgiving, if it causes them to see the light.

 

(note that the above post is not meant to be about all christians, only those who want prayer in schools.)[/quote']

 

As you noted, it is dangerous to generalize. There are some ignoramuses to be sure on both sides. I remember an email hitting our church email list after Columbine with the basic point that this is what happens when God is taken out of school. I would like to think most Christians, if they thought about this position, would condemn this POV for several reasons: (i) God is not so impotent that man can legislate him out of any geographic location, (ii) He would not punish young people for decisions of their elders, (iii) it's a free will thing or (iv) if God has been in any location on this planet, ever, it was to hear Cassie Bernall or Valeen Schnurr confess her faith to her killers.

 

I'm sure the vast majority of Christians have a much more subtle position. However, I still cannot understand why a religious person would want the state involved in prayer. If we allow prayer in school, it won't always be to their liking - Judism in some counties, Mormanism in Utah, etc. I particularly do not get why any conservative would want a state employee providing religious guidance to their children.

[Sisyphus]

I think for the most part they just haven't really thought it through. They just see prayer as a good thing, Christianity as a good thing, and thus necessarily taking both out of anything has to be bad. I'm not generalizing about all Christians here - the great majority of Christians I know understand why such a separation exists and support it. I have to say, though, that those who talk about the great Christian oppression at the hands of the government have universally (in my experience, obviously) proven to lack the abstract capacity to see the consequences of such a position.

[ecoli]

One point that I'd like to ask; the bill of rights obviously calls for the separation of Curch from state. Should it not then call for the separation of State from Church, therefore, making all Churches tax-exempt, but also making preching politics from the pulpit illegal?

[Callipygous]

One point that I'd like to ask; the bill of rights obviously calls for the separation of Curch from state. Should it not then call for the separation of State from Church, therefore, making all Churches tax-exempt, but also making preching politics from the pulpit illegal?

 

 

making churches tax exempt would be the opposite. that would be the govt, in effect, supporting that religion. govt needs to not recognize religion in any of its dealings. so its not that they are charging the church property taxes, they are merely charging people property taxes for a building they own.

 

how would you go about deciding what is tax exempt and what isnt? if i put a shrine in my house do i no longer have to pay taxes? the govt. needs to just ignore that factor completely.

[bascule]

As you say, science is based on unprovable axioms, but that does not mean that all knowledge is religious. Science says if Axioms A are true, then X, Y and Z follow. This is testable and provable (I am using 'provable' in the science sense where it is well defined), so it is in no way religious.

 

Scientific knowlege is obviously not religious in nature, regardless of whether or not it rests on unprovable axioms. The definition you gave for religious knowledge is blatantly wrong.

 

Have a look at some definitions of "religion". What pattern do you see? Belief in a deity or in the supernatural/metaphysical. Since science is not concerned with these things, it certainly isn't religious.

 

Now, let's go back to your original assertion:

 

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

 

Now, can you find me a statement regarding a deity or things of a supernatural/metaphysical nature in the constitution?

 

If not, it is not a religious document.

[Severian]

The definition you gave for religious knowledge is blatantly wrong.

 

Which definition? I didn't give a definition. Are you refering to "Science says if Axioms A are true' date=' then X, Y and Z follow."? How can you possible object to that?!

 

Have a look at some definitions of "religion". What pattern do you see? Belief in a deity or in the supernatural/metaphysical. Since science is not concerned with these things, it certainly isn't religious.

 

Many of these definitions are not very good, and obviously I am not going to go through all of them, so lets just take your 'pattern'. I am going to take the second part of your 'or', ie. Belief in the supernatural/metaphysical.

 

So how is supernatural defined? In its broadest sense, it is something which cannot be explained by science. I think this is a bit weak, since you could then call quantum gravity supernatural! I would rather say that it is something which can never (ie. in principle) be explained by science.

 

This is still rather wide. There are lots of things which cannot be proven by science, including the existence of God, the soul, freewill, morality and human rights. If you say you believe in any of these then, by your own definition, you are making a religious statement.

 

Now, can you find me a statement regarding a deity or things of a supernatural/metaphysical nature in the constitution?

 

If not, it is not a religious document.

 

This now becomes easy because all I need is a statement unprovable by science. "We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men were created equal." will do nicely.

[doG]

If you say you believe in any of these then, by your own definition, you are making a religious statement.

Just because religion = faith does not mean faith = religion. Faith in gravity is one example....

[Jim]

One point that I'd like to ask; the bill of rights obviously calls for the separation of Curch from state. Should it not then call for the separation of State from Church, therefore, making all Churches tax-exempt, but also making preching politics from the pulpit illegal?

 

The IRS is taking a dim view of churches which endorse candidates.

 

I don't think this is an issue of Constitutional law but instead is a result of a 1954 law reflected in the tax code:

 

"501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In its present form, the law states that charities, including churches, are not allowed to “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” "