Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...I have to protest here. I absolutely would agree that the Founders did not want to have anything to do with the sort of arrangement going on in Great Britain at the time i.e., an official state church and state imposed "religion." For instance, the wording in the Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." I think gives clear and precise articulation of where they were coming from. However, they never ever had ANY illusions about the ability of Government, via the Judiciary or otherwise, to parse between "secular" and "non-secular" law. You apparently disagree. I would be most keenly interested if you were to elaborate upon this notion that they actually did intend for Government officials to parse between the "secular" and "non-secular" laws, proposed legislation or the supposed thought motivations of government officials. I certainly see no evidence of this idea contained in the Constitution.
Perhaps not in the letter of the Constitution, but certainly in the spirit of the Constitution, in my opinion. Enacting non-secular laws would be the de facto institution (at least partly) of a state religion. Would it not? Legally enforced dogma would be a GIANT step in that direction, at the very least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I see your point. However, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that the majority in the government would be a basic reflection of the majority of the electorate?
Today? Yes. I'm not so sure about back then. It seems that the educated folks running the country may well have had ideas that were quite different than the relatively uneducated rank-and-file citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
No. I'm not trying to assert that all theists and atheists would disagree on everything. However, I'm sure you understand the stark differences between these views and the obvious political implications. It just seems to me that one who takes the view that moral absolutes exist, for instance, would most always tend to view moral issues quite differently from those taking the view of moral relativity and vice versa. Which would make me even more curious as to how government officials might be assumed to have any powers and abilities to make restrictions with respect to secular and non-secular motivations (thoughts in the minds of various government executives/legislators/judges) which they would be forced to do under the rubric imposed by the modern view of the definition of "separation of church and state."
Agreed and I don't think there can be any restrictions over voter intent. Again, I don't see our current "separation of church and state" as an attempt to do so, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Hypothetical question: Let's assume that we have a combined group of individuals of the theistic world view seeking, within the limits of the law, to implement laws restricting abortion. Let's also assume that there is another group of individuals of the atheistic world view seeking, within the limits of the law, to implement laws that favor/promote the expansion of abortion.
Would not both groups be guilty of attempting to impose their individual world views upon the populace?
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Would you also agree, that in any society such as ours, that laws (imposition) are an absolute must?
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
That there is no realistic choice between imposing and not imposing, only the choice as to which laws (imposition) are to be established?
Yep. THIS, in my opinion, is where separation of church and state comes into play. Not in divining the voters' motivations, but in evaluating the secularity of the law(s).
Perhaps not in the letter of the Constitution, but certainly in the spirit of the Constitution, in my opinion. Enacting non-secular laws would be the de facto institution (at least partly) of a state religion. Would it not? Legally enforced dogma would be a GIANT step in that direction, at the very least.
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Agreed and I don't think there can be any restrictions over voter intent. Again, I don't see our current "separation of church and state" as an attempt to do so, either.
Ditto
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Yep. THIS, in my opinion, is where separation of church and state comes into play. Not in divining the voters' motivations, but in evaluating the secularity of the law(s).
This is the crux of the debate. Society has no business enforcing any religious laws that do not have a secular purpose, period. Theocracy begins that way and a free society can not exist within a theocracy. If the ONLY effect of violating a proposed law is offending. or angering, or displeasing, or irritating God . . . it has no business being enacted in a free society. Laws are for the protection of society . . . NOT God.
Yes.DittoThis is the crux of the debate. Society has no business enforcing any religious laws that do not have a secular purpose, period. Theocracy begins that way and a free society can not exist within a theocracy. If the ONLY effect of violating a proposed law is offending. or angering, or displeasing, or irritating God . . . it has no business being enacted in a free society. Laws are for the protection of society . . . NOT God.
In our non-ideal system, can you give an example or 2 or 3 of religious laws that don't have a secular purpose ?
Society has no business enforcing any religious laws that do not have a secular purpose, period.
Does that mean that gov't high schools and state subsidized universities and colleges should not schedule football games on Friday night and Saturday afternoon, respectively, as this automatically excludes those who observe Shabbat from participating, even though their families taxes help pay for these sport activities.
In our non-ideal system, can you give an example or 2 or 3 of religious laws that don't have a secular purpose ?
Are you implying we have a theocratic society? Influences of such desires are visible though... if you need an example, look at liquor sales laws. Can't buy it on Sunday here in Texas. What do you think such law was inspired by?
Does that mean that gov't high schools and state subsidized universities and colleges should not schedule football games on Friday night and Saturday afternoon, respectively, as this automatically excludes those who observe Shabbat from participating, even though their families taxes help pay for these sport activities.
Paying taxes is a responsibility of citizenship and is not tied to ANY particular activities they may be used for. Money is fungible and not tied to specific taxpayers and their wishes. There should be no laws whatsoever concerning Shabbat or any other religious observance. They are NOT legal issues in a free society with freedom of religion. People assume the responsibility for the beliefs they hold and any consequences thereof . . . not society.
Perhaps not in the letter of the Constitution, but certainly in the spirit of the Constitution, in my opinion. Enacting non-secular laws would be the de facto institution (at least partly) of a state religion. Would it not?
First point: People with individual world views and individual biases in the government are going to decide between that which qualifies as secular and non-secular law.
Second point: If secular is defined as the non-God view, enacting secular laws would be tantamount to imposing the non-God view. In essence, it would be to adopt an official state sanctioned world view, and by extension, the establishment of the non-God view. I fail to see the difference between the establishment of the theistic world view (religion) or the establishment of the atheistic world view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Legally enforced dogma would be a GIANT step in that direction, at the very least.
Would legally enforced atheistic dogma also qualify as a GIANT step in that direction?
Philosophically speaking, would you say that secularism is closer to theism or to atheism? Without consulting the text book definition, please provide your view of what secularism is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Today? Yes. I'm not so sure about back then. It seems that the educated folks running the country may well have had ideas that were quite different than the relatively uneducated rank-and-file citizens.
From what I've read and understand, I would opine that the average run-of-the-mill ordinary citizen was much better educated and concerned with political affairs then than now. There were certainly more expectations and responsibilities placed on the youth of that era than is placed on today's youth - without question. They didn't all get to go to schools such as Harvard, but they did seem to make extraordinarily good use of what little formal education the did manage to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Agreed and I don't think there can be any restrictions over voter intent. Again, I don't see our current "separation of church and state" as an attempt to do so, either.
I was speaking more with respect to restrictions on those serving in public office, not so much the voter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Yep.
Yep.
Yep. THIS, in my opinion, is where separation of church and state comes into play. Not in divining the voters' motivations, but in evaluating the secularity of the law(s) .
What is a secular law? Is the restriction on murder secular?
You see, this is the big problem. Not only in distinguishing between the secular and non-secular but the obvious preference of the state to impose one view and restrict the other simply because, in the opinion of someone or some group, it is viewed as "religious."
It also strikes me as extremely convenient for someone of the non-God secular view to be able to strike down certain laws under the simple pretext that they are non-secular. How convenient to be able to say...'I'm striking down this law simply because it runs contrary to my personal world view and convictions.'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
