Sponsored Links

[NiteGuy]

I've been more than a little surprised, and bemused at some of the news stories I've been seeing lately. To wit:

The Alabama judge who refused to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments on his courthouse lobby.

The Right-Wing showing at the Terri Schiavo circus, and the ability of the religious right to force politicians to submit legislation in an attempt to overturn a legally rendered decision.

A fundamentalist Kansas school board is attempting to bring Creationism into science classes: Link

"Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed," said (Kathy) Martin, 59, a retired science and elementary school teacher who is presiding over the hearings. "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them…. We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science."

The hearings in Topeka, scheduled to last several days, are focusing on two proposals. The first recommends that students continue to be taught the theory of evolution because it is key to understanding biology. The other proposes that Kansas alter the definition of science, not limiting it to theories based on natural explanations.

In Tennessee, one County Commissioner wants to ban Gays from his county altogether. Link

The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution is asking lawmakers to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.

Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the measure, also asked the county attorney to find a way to enact an ordinance banning homosexuals from living in the county.

"We need to keep them out of here," Fugate said.

And finally, this story from North Carolina, where a Baptist minister has ex-communicated nine Democratic members of his church for failing to vote for Bush during the last election: Link

Some in Pastor Chan Chandler's flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP. Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who didn't support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town, about 120 miles west of Charlotte. ~

During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said former member Lorene Sutton.

I believe that we are seeing a dangerous trend in this country by the more radical fundamentalist elements of our churches, religious leaders and politicians. An out and out attempt to overturn or just plain disregard the idea of Church-State separation in this country.

Yes I know that philosphically speaking, none of these stories actually deals with Congress establishing a religion. However, it seems that some are rather indifferent at best, and encouraging at worst, of individual counties or states, and in some cases even the federal government (faith-based programs) pushing the envelope as far as it can be pushed. Left alone, or cheered from the sidelines by fundamentalist politicians, can an American Theocracy be far behind?

Questions for Debate:

1. Is the upsurge of stories like this due to the belief by fundamentalists that they are "owed" something by the politicians they supported?

2. Is all of this leading up to a wholesale war by fundamentalists on the institutions of government and society, or are these merely isolated incidents?

3. What does this say for the idea of a separation of church and state in this country, when secular institutions and are coming under a more direct attack, both locally and at the federal level?

[ralou]

1. Is the upsurge of stories like this due to the belief by fundamentalists that they are "owed" something by the politicians they supported?

They're making hay while the sun shines. They know there might be a backlash next election, or at least a weakening of their powerful allies, so they're doing all they can now, piling it on in hopes some might survive the next political season.



2. Is all of this leading up to a wholesale war by fundamentalists on the institutions of government and society, or are these merely isolated incidents?

These incidents are the result of politicians who have no moral concerns garnering the misguided support of citizens who do. In the 1770s, the Baptists in Massachusetts weren't allowed to worship as they chose. They lashed out, and along with their anger at religious restrictions, they, along with other colonists, lashed out against the power structure. After the war, the veterans were sent home with IOUs, the poor became desperate, and the well-to-do continued to prosper. But the Baptists led an attack on that power structure and in several towns succeeded in ousting the old guard. They refused to ratify the Massachusetts state constitution, because they said the Legislature didn't properly represent the people.

In any case, the Baptists got what they wanted from the legislature: a good deal more religious liberty. And throughout the 1780s, when people rioted over the debtors prisons and depreciation of currency and the collection of greater wealth into a few hands, the Baptists tended to side with those in power. They had gotten what they wanted. And that is what is going on today: people who vote Republican because they think it's moral are vital to the neocons in the Republican Party, and the neocons are doing all they can to keep that base loyal. There will be no war, so long as a party who gains from theocratic tendencies has power.

But if a religious group who demanded a theocracy based on Jesus' teachings of: "love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemy, feed the hungry, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned, do not concern yourselves with wealth, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword," became a threat, then you would see a religious war, because none of our politicians want a country dedicated to those principles.





3. What does this say for the idea of a separation of church and state in this country, when secular institutions and are coming under a more direct attack, both locally and at the federal level?

Separation of church and state is as vulnerable to political machinations as the right to free speech and assembly and the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution as a whole is under attack from both sides, and not because either side wants to make sure we have more liberties. They're scared, and they'll do whatever they can to stay in power.

This post has been edited by ralou: May 7 2005, 02:49 PM

[Goldblum]

Questions for Debate:

1.  Is the upsurge of stories like this due to the belief by fundamentalists that they are "owed" something by the politicians they supported?

2.  Is all of this leading up to a wholesale war by fundamentalists on the institutions of government and society, or are these merely isolated incidents?

3.  What does this say for the idea of a separation of church and state in this country, when secular institutions and are coming under a more direct attack, both locally and at the federal level?

1. I don't think it has anything to do with that. I think it's what these people honestly believe.

2. What would constitute a "war" in your opinion. If you're asking if this movement will gain greater ground, it is unlikely. There simply are more pressing issues this country has to face over the long-term than worrying about the constitutionality of a Ten Commandment's Plaque.

3. I think this is a good thing. There's no separation of church and state. The law is that government shall make no law establishing a religion. However, the law is also that the government shall not impede with the free exercise of religion. These clauses contradict each other and were included in the constitution for that very reason. We don't want our government to become a theocrary (it's not), but at the same time we don't want a person's exercise of religion to be confined to the doors of the church/mosque/etc.

[Erasmussimo]

First off, I fear that your questions are of so general a nature that the gods on Olympus may hurl a topic-closing thunderbolt down upon our heads, but in the hope of creating "facts on the ground" , I shall reply nonetheless.

2. Is all of this leading up to a wholesale war by fundamentalists on the institutions of government and society, or are these merely isolated incidents?

There is definitely a fundamental cultural war between fundamentalists and secularists for the governance of this nation. They have an agenda: crack down on gays, end abortion, replace evolution with creationism, get rid of judges who hamper their efforts, officially recognize Christianity in government installations, and so on. They are pushing that agenda hard. They have enjoyed much success, and can be expected to continue.

3. What does this say for the idea of a separation of church and state in this country, when secular institutions and are coming under a more direct attack, both locally and at the federal level?

I believe that the majority of Americans remain weakly committed to the spirit of separation of church and state, but do not see the danger in the current fundamentalist efforts, and so acquiesce to them. I believe that separation of church and state are under threat; many fundamentalists deny the principle, arguing that since the phrase doesn't occur in the Constitution, it has no place in American government. That scares me.

[turnea]

1. Is the upsurge of stories like this due to the belief by fundamentalists that they are "owed" something by the politicians they supported?

I believe the "upsurge" of stories has more to do with the slow news spell than anything else....but there is some truth to this.

Of course it's more of a truism. Voting blocks always feel they are owed something and, to some extent, they are. That's the idea of democracy.

2. Is all of this leading up to a wholesale war by fundamentalists on the institutions of government and society, or are these merely isolated incidents?
This gets a little more complicated.

From what I'm hearing there is something of a plan in the works on the side of a large group of protestants (calling them fundamentalists is a bit unfair and inaccurate to boot) to organize legal and legislative efforts in their favor.

This is nothing new. To be honest the other side, the secularists (of which I'm a card-carrying member) have been doing so for years. "Americans United for Seperation of Church and State" is a busy group.

In any case, full scale war is an exaggeration. This is an age old fight that hardly merits too much fear.

Certainly not from "Christianists." They are on the losing end, religion is on the decline in this country and this will have an effect on the way our government conducts buisness.

The other reason these policies are gaining attention is because they are increasingly rare.

There is more to fear from the secularists in the long run.

Although they are now mosly harmless in there goals they could go to far. There are hints that they may be going the way of French secularism which has of late become the agent of an authoritarian mockery of religious liberty.

3. What does this say for the idea of a separation of church and state in this country, when secular institutions and are coming under a more direct attack, both locally and at the federal level?
Granted I'm young, but I've heard of these types of fights for as long as I could remember. It means that the seperation of church and state is still in need of vigurous protection, but it is a concept on the rise rather than the wane.

This post has been edited by turnea: May 7 2005, 04:11 PM

[Hugo]

3. What does this say for the idea of a separation of church and state in this country, when secular institutions and are coming under a more direct attack, both locally and at the federal level?

This simply counters the attack of sacred institutions by the expansion of government. When you have seperation of church and state and an all-powerful state you have the repression of religion. It is no coincidence communist nations have traditionally persecuted religious groups.

What we have here is the left taking the Jeffersonian viewpoint on the seperation of church and state while ignoring the Jeffersonian philosophy on limited government. The unconstitutional federal welfare state is an attack on sacred institutions.

[Erasmussimo]

This simply counters the attack of sacred institutions by the expansion of government. When you have seperation of church and state and an all-powerful state you have the repression of religion.

Hugo, could you list for me any examples of "attacks on sacred institutions" by the government? Could you give any examples of "repression of religion"?

[Hugo]

This simply counters the attack of sacred institutions by the expansion of government. When you have seperation of church and state and an all-powerful state you have the repression of religion.

Hugo, could you list for me any examples of "attacks on sacred institutions" by the government? Could you give any examples of "repression of religion"?

Let us simply take one example; the public school system. Private schools may be either secular or sacred, public schools cannot be religious in nature. Government pays almost entirely for a public school education. This is a huge subsidation of secularism. School vouchers would provide a neutral government position on this issue.

Suddenly, with vouchers, the conflicts concerning the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer in school go away. Students and their parents can pick a school that caters to their beliefs.

This post has been edited by Hugo: May 7 2005, 05:41 PM

[Erasmussimo]

Hugo, could you list for me any examples of "attacks on sacred institutions" by the government? Could you give any examples of "repression of religion"?

Let us simply take one example; the public school system. Private schools may be either secular or sacred, public schools cannot be religious in nature. Government pays almost entirely for a public school education. This is a huge subsidation of secularism. School vouchers would provide a neutral government position on this issue.

Suddenly, with vouchers, the conflicts concerning the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer in school go away. Students and their parents can pick a school that caters to their beliefs.

I think you mistake the source of the problem. The primary obstacle to the adoption of vouchers comes from the teachers; their resistance is economically motivated, not religiously.

Given that we are stuck with public schools (for the time being), then is it not best that government simply stay out of the religion business and not talk about it at all?

[Hugo]

Hugo, could you list for me any examples of "attacks on sacred institutions" by the government? Could you give any examples of "repression of religion"?

Let us simply take one example; the public school system. Private schools may be either secular or sacred, public schools cannot be religious in nature. Government pays almost entirely for a public school education. This is a huge subsidation of secularism. School vouchers would provide a neutral government position on this issue.

Suddenly, with vouchers, the conflicts concerning the Pledge of Allegiance or prayer in school go away. Students and their parents can pick a school that caters to their beliefs.

I think you mistake the source of the problem. The primary obstacle to the adoption of vouchers comes from the teachers; their resistance is economically motivated, not religiously.

Given that we are stuck with public schools (for the time being), then is it not best that government simply stay out of the religion business and not talk about it at all?

It does not matter what the motivation is. The end result of a public school system that is forced, by application of the 14th Amendment and due to the unconstitutional infusion of federal dollars in education, to be secular in nature is the elimination of religion over one whole sphere of an individual's environment.

This post has been edited by Hugo: May 7 2005, 06:13 PM

[Erasmussimo]

It does not matter what the motivation is. The end result of a public school system that is forced, by application of the 14th Amendment and due to the unconstitutional infusion of federal dollars in education, to be secular in nature is the elimination of religion over one whole sphere of an individual's environment.

You seem to be arguing that government funding of education must rightfully be non-religious in nature, and therefore that government should not fund education. Is this your position?

[Hugo]

It does not matter what the motivation is. The end result of a public school system that is forced, by application of the 14th Amendment and due to the unconstitutional infusion of federal dollars in education, to be secular in nature is the elimination of religion over one whole sphere of an individual's environment.

You seem to be arguing that government funding of education must rightfully be non-religious in nature, and therefore that government should not fund education. Is this your position?

No, I support vouchers as the only means of both providing universal education and keeping the state a neutral force on religious issues. I do believe the federal government should have no role in funding of education on constitutional grounds.

[Erasmussimo]

No, I support vouchers as the only means of both providing universal education and keeping the state a neutral force on religious issues. I do believe the federal government should have no role in funding of education on constitutional grounds.

OK, well I certainly won't argue with that. However, you must agree that the government's behavior here with respect to religion is by no means an effort to repress religion, just an unfortunate byproduct of other processes. So let me ask again, can you cite examples of government "attacks on sacred institutions"?

[Jaime]

Hugo & Erasmussimo, perhaps one of you should start a school vouchers topic. This thread is for debating:

1. Is the upsurge of stories like this due to the belief by fundamentalists that they are "owed" something by the politicians they supported?

2. Is all of this leading up to a wholesale war by fundamentalists on the institutions of government and society, or are these merely isolated incidents?

3. What does this say for the idea of a separation of church and state in this country, when secular institutions and are coming under a more direct attack, both locally and at the federal level?

[Erasmussimo]

[mod]Hugo & Erasmussimo, perhaps one of you should start a school vouchers topic.  This thread is for debating:

1. Is the upsurge of stories like this due to the belief by fundamentalists that they are "owed" something by the politicians they supported?

2. Is all of this leading up to a wholesale war by fundamentalists on the institutions of government and society, or are these merely isolated incidents?

3. What does this say for the idea of a separation of church and state in this country, when secular institutions and are coming under a more direct attack, both locally and at the federal level?[/mod]

Yes, I'm trying to get back to the topic, and avoid school vouchers.

[Hugo]

No, I support vouchers as the only means of both providing universal education and keeping the state a neutral force on religious issues. I do believe the federal government should have no role in funding of education on constitutional grounds.

OK, well I certainly won't argue with that. However, you must agree that the government's behavior here with respect to religion is by no means an effort to repress religion, just an unfortunate byproduct of other processes. So let me ask again, can you cite examples of government "attacks on sacred institutions"?

Let me try to how how I am simply using the public schools as an example when addressing the question:

3. What does this say for the idea of a separation of church and state in this country, when secular institutions and are coming under a more direct attack, both locally and at the federal level?

We are talking about government secular institutions which under our constitution should remain secular. As with all battles there are two sides. The religious right has as an opponent the secular humanist left. There is a cultural war going on and both sides are willing to bend the Constitution to support their cause. The religious right is not operating in a vacuum. Most of the actions of the religious right are simply a reaction to loss of ground in the culture wars.

The fact is if government is required to be secular in nature then expansion of government is de facto limiting the sphere of religion. Jefferson was a strong supporter of seperation of church and state. Unlike Washington and Adams, his predecessors in the Presidential office, Jefferson refused to proclaim a national day of thanksgiving and prayer. Remember though that Jefferson also was a stronger supporter of states rights and a limited federal government than, the Federalists, Washington and Adams. Jefferson, possibly more than any other founding father, feared concentrated power, be it the state or religion. When you combine the power of the state with the power of religion you have a even greater recipe for tyranny. Similarly atheistic regimes, such as the Soviet Union and China in our century have shown that the repression of religion is also a means used to increase a state's power over it's citizenry.

As much as I disagree with the religious right's vision of America. I also disagree with the secular left's vision of America. Neither side is looking for a government that is neutral on religion. One side wishes to push Jesus in our face; the other side wishes to shrinken the spheres in which religion can exist. The religious right is simply a countering political force, that as Turnea (correct me if I'm wrong Turnea) implied is actually losing the war. They look like Wallace on the schoolhouse steps to me.

Probably Jefferson's most famous quote is "The government that governs best, governs least." It is almost impossible for government to be neutral on an issue; too many partisans on each side.

Remember the issues of school prayer and God in the Pledge (Yes, I know the Pledge did not exist at that time) would not have been constitutional issues before the passage of the 14th Amendment. In these cases expansion of federal power led to a restriction of religion.

[Erasmussimo]

As much as I disagree with the religious right's vision of America. I also disagree with the secular left's vision of America. Neither side is looking for a government that is neutral on religion. One side wishes to push Jesus in our face; the other side wishes to shrinken the spheres in which religion can exist. The religious right is simply a countering political force, that as Turnea (correct me if I'm wrong Turnea) implied is actually losing the war. They look like Wallace on the schoolhouse steps to me.

Can you give me an example -- other than public education -- of shrinking "the spheres in which religion can exist"? After all, it's difficult to condemn people for wanting to improve education, even if in the process religious toes get stepped on. Are there any direct cases of leftist attempts to snuff out religion?

[Hugo]

As much as I disagree with the religious right's vision of America. I also disagree with the secular left's vision of America. Neither side is looking for a government that is neutral on religion. One side wishes to push Jesus in our face; the other side wishes to shrinken the spheres in which religion can exist. The religious right is simply a countering political force, that as Turnea (correct me if I'm wrong Turnea) implied is actually losing the war. They look like Wallace on the schoolhouse steps to me.

Can you give me an example -- other than public education -- of shrinking "the spheres in which religion can exist"? After all, it's difficult to condemn people for wanting to improve education, even if in the process religious toes get stepped on. Are there any direct cases of leftist attempts to snuff out religion?

Of course, it is difficult to condemn people for wanting to improve education, even if in the process secular humanist toes get stepped on. The primary reason for vouchers is to improve education through the introduction of competition, something the secular humanists do not want.

Besides public education another sphere? Sure...charity. Before state and federal welfare programs the churches had a much greater role in helping the needy. As public charity replaced much of private charity the role of the church in the everyday lives of the individual once again shrunk. Look at the controversy over charitable programs that utilize the churches. Despite restrictions on evangelizing with the federal dollars the left is in an uproar over the giving of dollars to religious organizations. Of course, the left never questions the constitutionality of government expenditures for charity despite clear evidence that federal expenditures for poor relief is unconstitutional.

One fact is indisputable; if religion is not allowed in the sphere of government than the expansion of government is an encroachment on religion.

This post has been edited by Hugo: May 7 2005, 11:50 PM

[psyclist]

 
3.  What does this say for the idea of a separation of church and state in this country, when secular institutions and are coming under a more direct attack, both locally and at the federal level?

I believe that the majority of Americans remain weakly committed to the spirit of separation of church and state, but do not see the danger in the current fundamentalist efforts, and so acquiesce to them. I believe that separation of church and state are under threat; many fundamentalists deny the principle, arguing that since the phrase doesn't occur in the Constitution, it has no place in American government. That scares me.

I too believe the line separating church and state is getting a bit more blurred but I don't think a majority of Americans are necessarily apathetic or don't see the danger in the issue. From my personal experience as a Christian I feel like I'm put in a hard spot when trying to say, "Hey aren't we going a bit too far here?" when events like these pop up in the news. It's easy for a Christian in favor of such actions to "call us out" for not supporting these things and often times I'm labeled as "betraying my religion." So our "voice of opposition" is either suppressed or people don't speak up out of fear or not wanting to make waves which can be seen as indifference as you pointed out. This too me, is much more scary.

[Erasmussimo]

Hugo, your comments teem with vague accusatory phrases but you don't seem willing to explain them. For example:

Of course, it is difficult to condemn people for wanting to improve education, even if in the process secular humanist toes get stepped on.

What do you mean here? Are you saying that secular humanist toes are being stepped on, or might be stepped on? By what or by whom? When? How? I don't recognize what you're talking about. Or consider the next sentence:

The primary reason for vouchers is to improve education through the introduction of competition, something the secular humanists do not want.

Are you asserting that the opposition to vouchers is coming from secular humanists? My own impression is that the opposition is coming primarily from teachers' unions. Are you saying that teachers' unions are the same thing as secular humanists?

Besides public education another sphere? Sure...charity. Before state and federal welfare programs the churches had a much greater role in helping the needy. As public charity replaced much of private charity the role of the church in the everyday lives of the individual once again shrunk. Look at the controversy over charitable programs that utilize the churches. Despite restrictions on evangelizing with the federal dollars the left is in an uproar over the giving of dollars to religious organizations. Of course, the left never questions the constitutionality of government expenditures for charity despite clear evidence that federal expenditures for poor relief is unconstitutional.

Here your logic seems garbled to me. First you say that public charity replaced private charity. Now, how would public charity take away from private charity? It's not as if Federal agents broke down the church doors and hauled off the people ladling the soup into the bowls of the poor. There has never been anything preventing churches continuing their good work. How can government charity interfere with private charity?

Next, you seem to take umbrage at objections to Federal grants to churches. While we can argue the fine points of the meaning of the First Amendment, surely you will agree that government grants to churches do at least appear to raise problems with the First Amendment? Perhaps it's right, perhaps it's wrong, but you seem angry that the left would dare raise the question in the first place. Do you maintain that they shouldn't even bring up the point?

Lastly, you condemn the left for not questioning the constitutionality of government expenditures for charity. Well, OK, if you think that there's a case there, by all means bring it up. Perhaps it deserves a topic here. Perhaps it deserves a court challenge. I myself don't see any "clear evidence" that federal expenditures for poor relief are unconstitutional, so the matter is certainly debatable. But there's certainly no foundation for the charge of hypocrisy that you seem to be insinuating.

One fact is indisputable; if religion is not allowed in the sphere of government than the expansion of government is an encroachment on religion.

Well, actually, I'll dispute it, so it isn't indisputable. The assumption behind this is that the universe is divided into just two realms: the realm of government, and the realm of religion, and that there is no empty space not covered by either. I can think of a bunch of areas that are the province of neither government nor religion. Art is one. If government wants to support art, that's fine with me, and in fact some governments do. If religion wants to support art, that's also fine with me, and in fact some religions do. But neither one owns art. The expansion of government into art (by providing funding) does not intrude into religion. The same thing goes for sports. If Joe wants to go fly fishing, that's his own business, not the government's nor the church's. (Unless, of course, Joe hurts somebody else by fly fishing.)

We've built a fairly solid wall between church and state and your claims that the government is tearing down that wall seem weak to me. On the other hand, with such things as the Kansas actions on evolution and the attempts to get the Ten Commandments into public institutions, it seems to me that religion is making a hard push to invade what is clearly part of the government sphere.