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.
If you check out my thread in "religion and Philosophy" you will see that I have demonstrated the following:
All world views require faith and also contain many of the tenets of the BASIC definition of religion. Therefore, it can be reasonably asserted that we are all, to a degree, religious in our various world views.
Next question:
If we are all religious, how is it possible to have a separation of church and state?
Religion is personal. The tenets you speak of, don't necessarily belong in an established religion. Sometimes individuals create tenets that become part of religion, or religion itself. Buddhism and Christianity are good examples of that.
Our constitution was designed with that respect for personal choice that is religion. However, it advised against government (state) sponsoring a religion, or a religion running the government. The idea was for a secular state, respecting personal beliefs of all, not just the majority.
So, while we're expected to live and contribute following personal beliefs, whether they come from a religion or lack of belief in organized religion, collectivism using a religion has been kept out and for good reasons
Oh, you're right; we shouldn't exclude believers qua believers or non-believers qua non-believers. It isn't about believers or non-believers as individuals and I don't know anyone who says it is. I'm atheist, but there are some Christians I'd vote for over some atheists. I voted for Obama, and he professes to be a Christian (albeit in a very refined, philosophical, almost existentialist way.)
I think your vote for Obama was safe. While he claims Christianity his actions betray a pure secular world view in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques
The point is that exclusively religious doctrines, which pertain to one religion over others or religion over non-religion, needs to be kept out of government and that public laws need to have a "legitimate secular purpose" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)). Constitutional arguments aside, I can't think of any reason why anyone would find that principle objectionable.
This is the very opposing viewpoint that I'm questioning. What makes the secular view superior to the religious view? What differentiates the person with a secular world view from the person claiming affiliation to a recognized religion?
Secularists still have a moral code. It is impossible to have an amoral position. Democracy, by necessity, involves the imposition of the morals and beliefs of the majority upon the minority.
When it comes time to take a vote, the secular majority will impose it's morality upon the non-secular or religious minority and/or vice versa.
This is the very opposing viewpoint that I'm questioning. What makes the secular view superior to the religious view?
Here's what makes it superior: believers also have an interest in maintenence of a secular order, but the reverse is not true. By secular I don't mean antipathy to religion, but simply absence of it. Both believers and atheists benefit from a highway patrol. Both believers and atheists benefit from a public education system. Both believers and atheists benefit from national defense. Both believers and atheists benefit from the rule of law, and the sanctity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Etc...
Only one side 'benefits' from criminalization of homosexuality. Only one side 'benefits' from an Armageddon-tinged foreign policy. Only one side 'benefits' from prayer in school. Etc...
It's pretty simple. One outlook covers everyone's common interests; the other covers only a single interest group's. In that sense the two worldviews are not really competitors; they are asymmetrical. Describing them as competing worldviews is like calling a pizza crust a topping.
Quote:
Secularists still have a moral code. It is impossible to have an amoral position. Democracy, by necessity, involves the imposition of the morals and beliefs of the majority upon the minority.
That's why I'm not pro-democracy as such. Without a strong liberal constitution protecting the rights of individuals, democracy is as bad as any other system; perhaps worse, because it's harder to dislodge from power. Personally, I think we ought to have a much stronger Bill of Rights than we do, not as a furthering of democracy but precisely as a brake on it. But I think that's just an argument you fell into inadvertently, so we can consider that another time.
Here's what makes it superior: believers also have an interest in maintenence of a secular order, but the reverse is not true. By secular I don't mean antipathy to religion, but simply absence of it. Both believers and atheists benefit from a highway patrol. Both believers and atheists benefit from a public education system. Both believers and atheists benefit from national defense. Both believers and atheists benefit from the rule of law, and the sanctity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Etc...
Nonsense. You are stating that secularism is superior because it is secular.
What is to stop anyone from stating that their own views are superior simply because it's their own viewpoint?
[/quote]Only one side 'benefits' from criminalization of homosexuality. Only one side 'benefits' from an Armageddon-tinged foreign policy. Only one side 'benefits' from prayer in school. Etc...[/quote]
Hmmmm, do I sense an agenda here? If "one side" benefits from criminalization of homosexuality, Armageddon-tinged foreign policy and prayer in school, would not the opposing side benefit, in their view, from it's non-application as well. That's what the political world is all about - individuals and groups of individuals seeking to promote their own beliefs and agendas in the public square. Secularists hold to a world view and seek to advance their views and should be held on equal terms with everyone else - should they not? ...or do they deserve special treatment?
[/quote]It's pretty simple. One outlook covers everyone's common interests; the other covers only a single interest group's. In that sense the two worldviews are not really competitors; they are asymmetrical. Describing them as competing worldviews is like calling a pizza crust a topping.[/quote]
Absurd!
[/quote]That's why I'm not pro-democracy as such. Without a strong liberal constitution protecting the rights of individuals, democracy is as bad as any other system; perhaps worse, because it's harder to dislodge from power. Personally, I think we ought to have a much stronger Bill of Rights than we do, not as a furthering of democracy but precisely as a brake on it. But I think that's just an argument you fell into inadvertently, so we can consider that another time.[/quote]
Deny it if you wish, democracy is part of the American way. Albeit, only a part. We do indeed have a Constitution and supposedly, the rule of law.
But who's law and how are we as a nation to decide? Usually through the democratic process - right?
Also, I don't think we're falling "inadvertently" into this topic. I think it's apparent that this topic is right on topic.
Nonsense. You are stating that secularism is superior because it is secular.
What is to stop anyone from stating that their own views are superior simply because it's their own viewpoint?
Nothing, people state that all the time. But that has no relationship to what the laws of the land should be.
Quote:
Hmmmm, do I sense an agenda here? If "one side" benefits from criminalization of homosexuality, Armageddon-tinged foreign policy and prayer in school, would not the opposing side benefit, in their view, from it's non-application as well.
You are asserting a moral symmetry that doesn't exist. You might as well say that if you benefit from stealing my wallet, I benefit from its non-theft, so we're basically equal and we ought to submit the question to a public vote.
Quote:
That's what the political world is all about - individuals and groups of individuals seeking to promote their own beliefs and agendas in the public square. Secularists hold to a world view and seek to advance their views and should be held on equal terms with everyone else - should they not? ...or do they deserve special treatment?
I believe that people who don't want to use the government to either inhibit or advance religion (i.e. secularists) are, to that extent, superior to people who want to use the government to advance religion. They should be elected to office, and militantly pro-religion (or militantly anti-religion) people should be denied office. If you want to call that special treatment, sure, I can live with that.
Quote:
Deny it if you wish, democracy is part of the American way. Albeit, only a part. We do indeed have a Constitution and supposedly, the rule of law.
But who's law and how are we as a nation to decide? Usually through the democratic process - right?
I think that's far from obvious, and that the limits of such democracy as we have need to be firmly circumscribed by a vigorous judiciary, acting in the interest of individual rights against the majority when necessary (and it's frequently necessary).
"You are asserting a moral symmetry that doesn't exist. You might as well say that if you benefit from stealing my wallet, I benefit from its non-theft, so we're basically equal and we ought to submit the question to a public vote."
No, I'm not asserting "moral symmetry." I am asserting that both sides in any issue have agendas and both seek to advance their own particular interests in the political realm. You, apparently don't see it that way. I guess you see all non-secularists as nothing more than lower life forms that should have no right to take part in any debate taking place in the public square. They are not equal to those holding to the "superior" viewpoint. I suspect that you and all the other like minded will soon create the new super race.
"I believe that people who don't want to use the government to either inhibit or advance religion (i.e. secularists) are, to that extent, superior to people who want to use the government to advance religion. They should be elected to office, and militantly pro-religion (or militantly anti-religion) people should be denied office. If you want to call that special treatment, sure, I can live with that."
Our world views, that WE ALL HAVE, are the engine that drives our political views. You can deny being religious all you want but there are many aspects in your world view that parallel religious viewpoints. I suspect that you have some sense of morality and values that you hold to.
So great, you don't claim any religious title, but other than that, what makes you so all fire different? You, just like the religious whom you apparently detest, are part of a segment of society seeking to force your agenda and values on those that disagree with your values, world and political view.
Sounds an awful lot like hypocrisy, doesn't it.
"I think that's far from obvious, and that the limits of such democracy as we have need to be firmly circumscribed by a vigorous judiciary, acting in the interest of individual rights against the majority when necessary (and it's frequently necessary)."
Oh, you must be talking about examples like the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision, or Trinity decision where the court ruled that America is a Christian nation - good old judicial activism.
NEWS FLASH: Judges are appointed by Politicians - politicians are ELECTED through the DEMOCRATIC process. The politicians, by and large, reflect the world views and moral values of the majority that elected them to power. The MAJORITY forcing it's views and values on the MINORITY. It's the American way and will remain so until folks like you succeed in creating something improved - like fascism perhaps?
This is going nowhere because you are misusing the word 'secular' to mean something approximating "crusading atheism". As I said, the secular order consists of police, national defense, education, and other things that benefit virtually everyone and are opposed by almost no one. It is not an "imposition" of anything on the religious per se. (I can imagine an anarchist or extreme libertarian considering the secular state an imposition, but that would have nothing to do with his religion or lack thereof.) On the contrary, religious law is most definitely an imposition on those who do not wish to live by the religion's tenets. There is just no comparability there.
The day I recommend closing down churches, or forcing taxpayers to subsidize American Atheists, or printing "In Rand we trust" on our currency, I will accept your characterization of me as no different than the religious wingnuts. Until then, it's not even close.
This is going nowhere because you are misusing the word 'secular' to mean something approximating "crusading atheism". As I said, the secular order consists of police, national defense, education, and other things that benefit virtually everyone and are opposed by almost no one. It is not an "imposition" of anything on the religious per se. (I can imagine an anarchist or extreme libertarian considering the secular state an imposition, but that would have nothing to do with his religion or lack thereof.) On the contrary, religious law is most definitely an imposition on those who do not wish to live by the religion's tenets. There is just no comparability there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques
You must mean religious tenets such as: Don't steal. Don't murder. Don't Lie. Don't cheat on your spouse. Is it tenets such as these that you don't wish to live by?
The day I recommend closing down churches, or forcing taxpayers to subsidize American Atheists, or printing "In Rand we trust" on our currency, I will accept your characterization of me as no different than the religious wingnuts. Until then, it's not even close.
You're right about at least one thing, this is going nowhere.
It's going nowhere because your so caught up in your agenda and rage that you can't even attempt to make a rational argument. I guess I can't blame you. There are really few options left when you have no argument to begin with.
No, because your original point is bupkis. You claim everyone is religious so there should be no separation of church and state.
Everyone is not religious, so why continue with the conversation?
First, the idea of everyone being religious has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is what does the US Constitution say. Th 1st Amendment states that CONgress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
This does not mean that government can have nothing to do with religion. The founding fathers, who wrote the 1st Amendment, knew what they meant, and it is obvious from their writings that they believed that the government should adhere to the Judaeo-Christian beliefs. How is it that man today feels that having the ten commandments in a public building is a constitutional violation when the men who wrote the Constitution did not? What it means is that government shall not establish a state religion.
Second, even atheism is a faith. It is the faith that there is no supreme being. When people start screaming about the alleged separation of church and state, what they really mean is that they don't want to know anything about the Creator. There must be something to that old saying that the truth hurts.
You are of course correct in pointing out the founders original intent with regard to the relationship between church and state. I agree with you.
Here is the problem. Over the years the political left, groups such as the American Communists and Liberals Union aka ACLU, have used the Joseph Goebbels method (If you repeat a lie long enough, it will eventually become the truth) to redefine the church and state relationship.
What I'm doing here in these threads is pointing out the fallacy of their false premise.
I don't know if you've noticed, but they aren't too happy about it.
It's been fun though. I have to say that I'm amused by their inability to mount a rational counter argument.
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.
