Is the separation of church and state a lie?

[Soybomb]

Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics.

"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris told interviewers from the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. She cited abortion and same-sex marriage as examples of that sin.

No thanks, I don't want to be ruled by christian law, islamic law, satanic law, or have any other forced religion upon me.

My belief is the framers of the constitution wanted a government that was limited in duties and powers in order to maximize personal freedoms. Have the government do the bare essentials and it won't become oppressive. Part of this level of freedom includes being able to follow whatever religion you want. When you start having the government taking tax dollars to fund religious services or monuments, the government is stepping outside its minimalist role and violating the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. To suggest that the framers would be comfortable with religion creeping into government just seems totally incongruent with all the provisions for liberty and small government as well as protection for the minority in the rest of the constitution. The ultimate in freedom is to say you are free to exercise whatever religion you like but you shall not force your religion upon others via the government.

Of course if you're a christian and believe you have a religious duty to bring your religion to do others I could see someone have a conflict about doing the right thing and supporting the seperation of church and state. Sort of like how the anti's might twist the 2nd amendment to fit their beliefs so they can do what they think is better.

 

[tellner]

Of course if you're a christian and believe you have a religious duty to bring your religion to do others I could see someone have a conflict about doing the right thing and supporting the seperation of church and state. Sort of like how the anti's might twist the 2nd amendment to fit their beliefs so they can do what they think is better.

Christians who believe they have a duty to bring me to their Faith whether I want it or not are one of the main reasons I learned to fight and support the RKBA. Muslims who think all Jews and Sufis must die are another.

 

[GoRon]

No thanks, I don't want to be ruled by christian law, islamic law, satanic law, or have any other forced religion upon me.

That is the whole point.

Christians do not want to be ruled by humanists, secularists or any other philosophy that pretends to not be a religion. A world view based on secularism or materialism may not have the trappings of what we call religion but it is a world view that influences morality and every other facet of life none the less.

As long as government is in the education business, marriage business, funding grants for endeavers with ethical questions there will be conflict between religion(s) and materialistic secularists. People believe they should have a voice on what their tax dollars promote.

If you don't want Christians to have a voice on how the government spends our money then exempt us out of the tax system

 

[Soybomb]

hat is the whole point.

Christians do not want to be ruled by humanists, secularists or any other philosophy that pretends to not be a religion. A world view based on secularism or materialism may not have the trappings of what we call religion but it is a world view that influences morality and every other facet of life none the less.

As long as government is in the education business, marriage business, funding grants for endeavers with ethical questions there will be conflict between religion(s) and materialistic secularists. People believe they should have a voice on what their tax dollars promote.

If you don't want Christians to have a voice on how the government spends our money then exempt us out of the tax system

Sorry I'm not buying into the arguement that if there is no religion there's a secret hidden stealth religion. I think most people using sound logic would agree that law can be written without religious influence. Most people are capable of identifying religion as easily as they can tell you if a shirt is red or not. What is the hidden religion in something like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" anyway?

Might I suggest instead of trying to push more christian values onto others via legislation and rubbing the constitution further into the dirt you attempt to pick it up and dust it off and instead work to get the government out of marriage, school, and other things it shouldn't be in? Thats a cause I'd unite with you for.

 

[foob]

That is the whole point.

Christians do not want to be ruled by humanists, secularists or any other philosophy that pretends to not be a religion. A world view based on secularism or materialism may not have the trappings of what we call religion but it is a world view that influences morality and every other facet of life none the less.

As long as government is in the education business, marriage business, funding grants for endeavers with ethical questions there will be conflict between religion(s) and materialistic secularists. People believe they should have a voice on what their tax dollars promote.

If you don't want Christians to have a voice on how the government spends our money then exempt us out of the tax system

I want what you are smoking, but only half because I don't want to overdose.

The USA is a democracy. Anybody can be a politician, you just need the votes. If a christian only wants to be ruled by christians, that vote for one. You can dislike your "rulers" all you want, but if you don't have the numbers to get an alternate "ruler", nothing you can do about that. That's how democracy works.

People do have a voice on what their tax dollars promote, you think that's not true???

I don't mind having christian politicians, or muslim politicians, or republicrats, just don't try and legislate your morality. The laws are not for legislating morality. Why do you think the supreme court struck down the sodomy laws in Texas?

I don't believe anybody, religious or not, has ever mentioned that Christians cannot have a voice on how the government spends tax money. Please enlighten the the ignorant masses who has advocated that.

The government chooses how to spend tax money with influences from the public, that doesn't mean they can ignore or violate the constitution. If you don't like the amendment or the way the amendment has been interpreted, get more supreme court justices that side with your views or get enough support to repeal the amendment. Getting the right supreme court justices is easier.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

The laws are not for legislating morality.

In all actuality, every law is someone legislating their morality on someone else. Let's say, for example, I'm a murderer. I don't think murder is wrong, but you do, in fact, the majority of the people do. But you come out with a law that says murder is wrong. In doing so, you're forcing me to conform to your morality by saying murder is wrong when I don't believe the same. The argument for legislating morality is weak because all laws (besides tax laws, I guess) are legislating some person or organization's morality on others.

 

[GoRon]

I don't mind having christian politicians, or muslim politicians, or republicrats, just don't try and legislate your morality. The laws are not for legislating morality. Why do you think the supreme court struck down the sodomy laws in Texas?

All laws are the legislation of someones morality.

Might I suggest instead of trying to push more christian values onto others via legislation and rubbing the constitution further into the dirt you attempt to pick it up and dust it off and instead work to get the government out of marriage, school, and other things it shouldn't be in? Thats a cause I'd unite with you for.

Speaking directly to Christian values being forced onto others via legislation that is a two way street. Here in Illinois as you are probably aware Soybomb we are the destination for underage girls to have an abortion, no parental consent needed in Illinois. Nobody I voted for believes that is right. How about the Pharmacists here not having the freedom to choose whether they will hand out presicriptions for abortifacients? Be complicant in abortion or loose your ability to be a pharmacist.

You guys are the pot calling the kettle black. Who is forcing their morality on whom?

As far as getting the government out of all these aspects of our lives I am 100% in favor of that and will gladly join you in that endeavor.

We need to starve the beast. Tax cuts for all!!

 

[Helmetcase]

Banning prayer at commencement addresses, removing the 10 commandments from government buildings, purging all references to the religious nature of the culture during our founding (unless it is fanatics burning witches) from school textbooks and on and on is not a neutral stance.

Wrong. If the question is "which religion is favored or endorsed by govt", then yes, absolutely it is neutral. Putting the 10Cs or having public school officials lead X-ian prayers is offering deferential treatment to a particular religion. Govt shouldn't answer the "which religion" question at all, and it shouldn't offer deferential treatment to any particular religion or sect.

Ian, can you point out some of these places that have no religious dogma and are wonderful models of freedom and liberty? I can't think of any.

Define what you mean by "places that have no religious dogma". There are plenty of very free places that don't endorse religions. You DO NOT need to be religious in order to cherish freedom.

 

[gc70]

Okay, I just checked the website of the federal government's Office of Personnel Management and December 25 is a federal holiday officially called Christmas. Since Christmas is obviously a holiday of Christian religious origin, it must be in direct contravention of the First Amendment.

BTW, like Jefferson, I believe in personal morality - generic religion, if you will - rather than subscribing to the precepts of any particular sect.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

Putting the 10Cs or having public school officials lead X-ian prayers is offering deferential treatment to a particular religion.

As for prayer in school, and anything else to do with public schools, I tend to lean toward separation. For one, mandatory prayer is favoritism among a diverse population of other religions. The solution? Send your kid to a private school, or even homeschool (which I am seriously considering for my daughter). I personally don't want to support the federal government and the dept. of education anymore than I have to. Now, I am not against kids being allowed to pray in school. No one should ever be silenced by teachers and principles for praying, I've read stories where the police were involved because some kids met to pray at a flagpole, ending in some people being arrested. NOW that's ridiculous, and a violation of freedom of speech in my viewpoint.

 

[cbsbyte]

No it is not a lie.

As alluded to in other posts most of the founding fathers where Deists. Deism was a popular belief during the enlightment period. It was a anti-establishment religious belief. It was not based on any one religious docturne but an single idea that there was a God. They would be shocked on how the Chrisitian right has twisted the meaning of the Consitution to try to create a Chrisitian nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

 

[GoRon]

They would be shocked on how the Chrisitian right has twisted the meaning of the Consitution to try to create a Chrisitian nation.

And even more shocked at how the "godless" have tried to twist the meaning of the constitution to try and create a godless society.

The problem with the secularists is they want to put God in a box. They want to disconnect belief in God and the attendant religion from having any real world application on how we live life.

The answer really is reducing the size of government and getting them out of education completely. This argument will go on endlessly otherwise.

 

[tellner]

That is the whole point.

Christians do not want to be ruled by humanists, secularists or any other philosophy that pretends to not be a religion. A world view based on secularism or materialism may not have the trappings of what we call religion but it is a world view that influences morality and every other facet of life none the less.

That is the whole point. I don't care if I'm ruled by Christians, Satanists, or Pastafarians. If they don't try to make their religion the law I don't care what they do on their own time. That's what separation and religious freedom are all about. If we believe you then Christians, by contrast, will only accept rulers and representatives who share their peculiarities and will enforce them as law. "Do what you want, just don't screw with me" vs. "We will only accept rulers who make everyone do what we want". I know which one is closer to freedom.

Again, the idea in some sort of mythical "Secular Humanist" religion is a lie. Plain. Simple. Lie. It's just an attempt by religion to justify its special place at the table by saying that anyone who isn't religious must really be religious. I grew up around Talmudists and have seldom seen such tortured reasoning.

 

[Helmetcase]

The problem with the secularists is they want to put God in a box. They want to disconnect belief in God and the attendant religion from having any real world application on how we live life.

Nobody wants to do that. We just recognize that the FF's didn't want our govt to favor one religion or religious sect over any other. Your religion can have all the real world applications you want it to have on how YOU live YOUR life.

But it shouldn't impact how I live mine.

Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[GoRon]

Your religion can have all the real world applications you want it to have on how YOU live YOUR life.

But it shouldn't impact how I live mine.

Why is that so hard to accept?

Then why insist on using all our tax dollars to promote issues that a large percentage of us disagree with? The government run school system gladly takes our money and promotes issues contrary to Christian values.

Then folks get up and arms when we want to have a say on how it is spent!!

My answer is to get the government out of education - privatize it with standards in reading, writing and math.

Less govrnment is better and will relieve these pressures.

 

[Leif Runenritzer]

Christmas is obviously a holiday of Christian religious origin

We were celibrating Christmas before anybody had heard of Jesus. It just went by other names and was celibrated on slightly different dates. On Dec. 25th, folks in the near-east would have been observing the day that Mithra was born of the virgin Anahita, if they had kept the freedom to do so. Anyhow, you don't have to even think of Jesus to celibrate Christmas, and its origins are much farther and wider than Christianity, so i don't see how its celibration is an endorsement of a religion.

 

[SuperNaut]

How many of the decalogue are actually against modern law...Three? How much does it resemble modern America's literally millions of laws? Hasn't anyone here heard of Hammurabi? The laws of the Babylonians predate the christian decalogue by millennia and outstrip them in sophistication. I'd like to see where the decalogue has influenced traffic law for example, arguably those laws most affect our daily lives and are most likely to be trespassed.

To be pragmatic about this issue would be to not limit your historical perspective to a mere sliver of human existence and belief.

 

[DBabsJr]

The problem with the secularists is they want to put God in a box. They want to disconnect belief in God and the attendant religion from having any real world application on how we live life.

I agree 100% with Helmetcase on this. If laws are written without morality being legislated, we can all live our lives the way we believe we should. If we legislate morality into laws, only those that subscribe to that particular brand of morality would be able to. I see the first way as win-win for everyone.

Nobody is saying that you can't be a practicing <insert religion here> if you want to, but why should I have to be one?

 

[foob]

The legal system is not for enforcing morality. It is for ensuring public order and enable the community to function peacefully. Of course this is ambiguous, which has allowed the lawmaker to insert his own brand of morality into it.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

If laws are written without morality being legislated, we can all live our lives the way we believe we should.

So, if I believe I can be a rapist, is that right? And how can a law, such as "do not murder" not be based on morals? I don't believe you can write a law without having some sense of morality. Why is murder illegal? Because it's evil and hurts others. Why is stealing illegal? Because it's evil. Why is pretty much every law written (besides tax laws)? For the GOOD of society and to keep order. There is morality in pretty much every law written. The degree of morality varies, obviously.

 

[ceetee]

One of the main problems I see with trying to "legislate morality" is how to define the line that gets crossed when a particular statute is written not for the public good, but instead just to influence behavior.

Murder, for instance, is against the law everywhere I'm familiar with. If you're the guy that believes there's nothing wrong with committing a murder, then yes, we're legislating our morals to control your behavior. As it happens, though, we see a public good in making murder unlawful, in that we can now prescribe a punishment for those that commit murder.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, though. Some people see absolutely no public good in making certain recreational drugs illegal, and would just as soon have them legal, regulated, and taxed. Others think every mood-altering substance (up to and including cigarettes) should be made contraband. Arguments could easily be made to support the benefit to the public (in medical savings alone) that would come from making cigarettes illegal. However, it's obvious from the lack of passage of those laws that the public would not bear that particular morality being legislated.

Our Constitution is supposed to draw the line for us. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers weren't semanticists. The elegant prose they crafted into the document controlling how our nation is governed leads naturally into differences of opinion as to the meanings of certain phrases. Some want those pohrases to be interpreted to restrict, to bind, or control the moral choices we make in our everyday lives. Others want those phrases interpreted in the most lenient way possible, so as to give the individual citizen the most freedom possible (even if that means he has the freedom to hurt himself or others by his actions).

Given a choice between the two alternatives, I'd err on the side of freedom.

 

[Helmetcase]

Then why insist on using all our tax dollars to promote issues that a large percentage of us disagree with?

Like what? Far as I know public schools can't get away with teaching about any religious issues.

The government run school system gladly takes our money and promotes issues contrary to Christian values.

I dunno what you mean by "promotes issues", but schools aren't supposed to teach religious mores one way or the other, and far as I can tell it's pretty rare that any of them even try to. You want kids to learn Christian values? Do it around the dinner table IN YOUR HOME. Not in public schools.

If it bugs you, home schooling and parochial school are options available for you to subject your kids to. But if you treat them right and teach them the right way to travel, I think they're gonna survive the trials and travails of 9th grade.

What is it you want? Religious indoctrination in public schools? It's simply never gonna happen. The sooner you get comfortable with that, the sooner you'll be able to get on with your life.

I agree 100% with Helmetcase on this. If laws are written without morality being legislated, we can all live our lives the way we believe we should. If we legislate morality into laws, only those that subscribe to that particular brand of morality would be able to. I see the first way as win-win for everyone.

You got that right. What you're seeing, this "secularism is a religion too" bullhockey, is an attempt to radicalize the discussion and turn up the wick on the rhetoric, because attempts to de-secularize our govt have largely failed in the last couple decades thankfully.

I dunno what it is that people like GoRon want; if you make Christianity the official religion or have our govt endorse it as the means or backbone of our legislative system, you've got a big problem seeing as we've got lots of people of differing faiths (or no religious faith at all) in this country, and that simply isn't going to fly. It's counter to what the FF's wanted, it's counter to what our courts have consistently held is a reasonable reading of the COTUS, and it's just not the way we do things. Religion is for the private sphere, not the public. That's one of the things that makes this country great.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

What is it you want? Religious indoctrination in public schools? It's simply never gonna happen. The sooner you get comfortable with that, the sooner you'll be able to get on with your life.

I personally agree with you on this issue. As a parent, I know that my responsibility as a good parent is to not depend on others to teach my child how to live, it just doesn't work. Christians, of which I am one, should not look to schools and church to teach their children morality and right living, as it will only lead to miserable failure. The best way to raise a child, in my opinion, is to live the life you preach, teach your children personally, and make responsible choices on how your child is educated. The main reason I'll probably send my child to private school is because our public schools suck around here, and I want the best education for my daughter.

I dunno what it is that people like GoRon want; if you make Christianity the official religion or have our govt endorse it

I don't know about that, in every post from GoRon, I've never seen him endorse that viewpoint. It just seems that everytime that someone takes up the idea that it's ok for some Christian ideals to be in government, you guys wig out and make it sound like the person wants a theocracy. No one here has even hinted at wanting that. I'm not into forcing others to be Christian, but many laws that are for the benefit of the country came from Christians. And yes, these laws can be found in other religions, but the founders were on the majority Christian. While deist in worldview, even Jefferson and others held that Jesus Christ was Lord.

 

[GoRon]

What is it you want? Religious indoctrination in public schools? It's simply never gonna happen. The sooner you get comfortable with that, the sooner you'll be able to get on with your life.

I dunno what it is that people like GoRon want; if you make Christianity the official religion or have our govt endorse it as the means or backbone of our legislative system, you've got a big problem seeing as we've got lots of people of differing faiths (or no religious faith at all) in this country, and that simply isn't going to fly. It's counter to what the FF's wanted, it's counter to what our courts have consistently held is a reasonable reading of the COTUS, and it's just not the way we do things. Religion is for the private sphere, not the public. That's one of the things that makes this country great.

No place have I advocated teaching or indoctrinating anyone in any religion at the taxpayers expense.

On the other side we have a whole thread full of people who think it is just fine to indoctrinate our kids in a value free humanist world view, as long as it isn't religion.

How do you teach world affairs and current events without making value judgements?
How do you teach history without making value judgements about the figures in history.
The very act of choosing what reading assignments in an english class will be given is influenced by values.
By ignoring the role of religion in forming what our nation is an amoral philosophy has filled the void.
We should dump the whole public school system and privatize the whole affair.

 

[DBabsJr]

In all actuality, every law is someone legislating their morality on someone else.

This is correct. I have no good way of determining where the line should be drawn, but I would imagine it would something like the "I'll know it when I see it" definition of pornography.

While deist in worldview, even Jefferson and others held that Jesus Christ was Lord

That one I'm not so sure I agree with. He did write of Jesus as a historical character with correct morality, but he may have also wrote:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter"

I'd err on the side of freedom

Amen.