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


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


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


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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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"?

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

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



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.

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.

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.

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



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:



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?



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.



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.

1. Certainly, some members of the Religious Right feel that the politicians that they support owe they something in return. They say so in their own words:

Link

"Focus on the Family" founder Dr. James Dobson:



Let's face it; the Religious Right played a very large part in putting Bush into office, and in giving the GOP a majority in the legislature. Why would they not expect something in return?

2. "Wholesale war" is too strong a statement, but these aren't really "isolated incidents" either. The Religious Right has more influence on the American government than ever before, and they are simply exerting their power. This is going on all over the nation. In my part of the world, Rhea County, Tennessee, (infamous as the site of the Scopes trial) was visited by anti-gay activists from other areas just a day or so ago. The focus of this rally was, of course, entirely from a conservative Christian point of view. (Sorry, I can't find an on-line link.)

The reason why this is all going on is simple. As stated above, the Religious Right knows it has the ear of the President and many others (including the Senate Majority Leader from my home state:)

Link (Editorial from the New York Times)




3. The separation of church and state, which should be tall, wide, and strong, has always been full of holes. Maybe it's not a big deal that the money I have to use promotes monotheism. But adding more and bigger holes isn't a good idea. The current administration and legislature turn a blind eye on those who are drilling holes in the wall.

I sense a misconception from some that all government activities are either pro-religious or anti-religious. What the proper functions of a government should be is always open to debate, but all functions should be done with no opinions on religious matters expressed by government agencies, or government officials acting in their official capacities.

If teacher's unions were the only impediment to vouchers we would have vouchers.

Of course, we had a recent debate where representatives of the secular humanist left would go so far as to end the careers of pharmacists who would not issue contraceptives even if their employer had no problem with the pharmacists decision. Another example of the secular humanist left trying to expand the powers of government at the expense of religion. Another example of the secular humanist left adopting policies that are anti-religion. Yes. health care is another area where the expansion of government into the sphere is reducing the influence of religion.

Statistics show, what any rational person could infer, that the rise of poor laws, public charity programs, etc. led to a reduction of private charity sources. Just like any other good there is a limited demand for charity, public charity puts the squeeze on private charity. The result when you add a large supplier to an existing market is some of the existing suppliers go out of business or have their "sales" greatly reduced.

Yes, Federal dollars for the use of acts of benevolence are unconstitutional. It don't matter if the dollar comes directly from the government coffers or the local church. It is hypocrisy to ignore unconstitutional acts that fit your agenda then cry when the other side also ignores the Constitution.

I disagree. I know plenty of liberals who are open to the idea of vouchers. However, the intense opposition of teachers unions convinces many to defer to the teachers' wishes.



You are therefore opposed to the idea of government regulating the sales of medications? You argue that we could go back to the nineteenth century, when snake oil salesmen touted all manner of crazy and dangerous medications, leading to many deaths? That seems absurd to me, so I will proceed on the assumption that you do indeed believe that government regulation of the sales of medications is a sound policy.

The only way that the government can carry out such regulation is to regulate the sellers by licensing them and revoking that license if they violate the laws regarding the sales of medication. Surely you do not oppose these licensing requirements?

These licensing requirements reduce the openness of the marketplace; they create what economists call "barriers to entry" that make it harder for a competitor to enter the marketplace. In effect, the licensing requirement creates a weak form of monopoly for the pharmacist. Not a true, absolute monopoly, but a decidedly unlevel playing field in his favor. This reduction in competition permits the pharmacist to raise his prices above what they might be in a perfect marketplace.

All licensing regimes therefore have associated regulations that prevent sellers from taking undue advantage of their position to the detriment of the consumer. If we the people grant you a special market privilege to sell medications, then we the people also restrict your right to use that privilege in ways that hurt consumers. It's only fair.

And denying consumers legal medications is such a case. If the government has decided that a medication is legal BUT can only be obtained through a pharmacist, then a pharmacist who denies that medication to the consumers is taking advantage of his government-created position to cheat the consumer. He is using one law to foil another law. This is wrong.

The counterargument is that anybody else can set up their own pharmacy and sell the medications in question, but the government has made that more difficult to do with its licensing requirements. The government created the situation that led to the frustration of the consumer's legal desires; the government is the proper authority to correct that frustration.



In the first place, statistics don't show anything of the kind. Don't confuse correlation with causation.

In the second place, government contributions to charity in no way prevent anybody from contributing to any charity they want. Your economic model is based on the stated assumption that there is a limited demand for charity. This is true -- but that limit is far, far higher than the supply. There are still lots of poor people in our country. There are still plenty of people in need of food, clothing, and shelter. It is absurd to suggest that government has put charities out of business by eliminating poverty. There's plenty of room in the charity business for all comers.



Could you cite the provision in the Constitution that forbids acts of benevolence?

One huge red herring on the pharmacist issue. Which we have a thread on. The fact a drug is legal does not mean a merchant should be required to stock it. No one grants a monopoly to an individual pharmacist. The fact is, rather you think it is justifiable or not, government requiring an individual to lose his job or disregard his religion is an attack on religious freedom. I realize that the secular humanist left is only interested in freedom from religion, not freedom to practice it.

Read Erassmussimo's justification for eliminating religion now from any business that is regulated by government. What business is not regulated by government?

Charity is given by it's suppliers based on the perceived needs of an individual. Public charity removes many from the dire straits that private charity would otherwise fulfill. Sorry, no matter how you would like to twist it, if a large supplier enters the market other suppliers have demand reduced.



The Constitution was intended to limit the federal government to powers enumerated in Article I Section 8 and the amendments. Do I need to refer you to Federalist Paper #41 again.

I didn't say "monopoly", I said "a weak form of monopoly for the pharmacist. Not a true, absolute monopoly, but a decidedly unlevel playing field in his favor". The pharmacist enjoys powers granted to him by the government; it is entirely reasonable for the government to require him to exercise those powers in a manner consistent with the law.


Government enforcement of the law is not an attack on religious freedom. If a man blows up an abortion clinic because of his religious beliefs, and the government puts him in jail, is this a government attack on religious freedom?


Perhaps some do; if you find one, you're welcome to bring the matter up with him.


You have reversed the logic. The government enforces its regulations regardless of religious intent, not because of them. If a factory manager creates unsafe conditions for his workers in violation of Federal regulations, then the government will punish him. If the factory manager claims that he's doing it for religious reasons, that's beside the point. You can't cite religious reasons for breaking the law.


I appreciate your condolences. You are incorrect in stating that demand elasticity is always greater than zero. In situations where demand is absolute, such as basic needs, demand elasticity is in fact zero. If you have 100 starving people and you feed 20 of them, then you don't end up with 79 starving people, you still have exactly 80 starving people. Feeding 20 people did not reduce to any degree the needs of the remainder. If you feed all 100 starving people, then the demand elasticity rises above zero; now they can afford to worry about how much food they want.


Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Do you claim that providing food to the needy is NOT providing for the general welfare?

I can give you an example, Erasmussimo, but it actually supports your argument against allowing pharmacists to use their religious beliefs to refuse a woman medication while still keeping their jobs.



Essentially, sacremental use of peyote was protected, but the consequences of actually using the drug were not. The two were fired and were unable to claim unemployment benefits because they were using these drugs, despite the fact that this use was, for them, lawful.

Therefore, the pharmacists can't constitutionally hide behind their religious beliefs to keep their jobs while refusing to perform their jobs if laws and regulations prohibit refusing to fill a customer's legitimate prescription. Apparantly, laws that aren't designed to discriminate against a religious belief or practice aren't unconstitutional if the state can prove it has an overriding interest in the laws and that the laws weren't designed to specifically hinder the practice of a religious belief.


In 1990, the Court decided that a Bill passed by Congress circumventing their ruling was unconstitutional:





(On a side note: I think a law protecting religious beliefs without protecting the reasonable practice of those beliefs is worse than useless and I think the Court was in error both times, but the proper course for those who object to the ruling is to attempt to bring another case before the Court-perhaps the case of a pharmacist fired for refusing to dispense birth control pills-in order to obtain a different ruling, one in favor of those who would like the right to practice their Constitutionally protected religion, instead of merely the right to believe, without the right to act on those beliefs. The dissenting opinions in this case would be an excellent foundation for any pharmacist wanting to challenge the law. I doubt that a pharmacist fired for refusing to prescribe these drugs for religious reasons will win out on the other point, because it seems to me that any state which refuses to protect a pharmacist in the exercise of this belief can claim a compelling interest in preventing these pharmacists from disrupting the dispensing of prescription medicines.)

Ummm Hugo, The last time I looked the drug store was NOT a church. It also occurs to me that the pharmacist having CHOSEN that line of work, already KNEW that one of the drugs often dispensed in drug stores is BIRTH CONTROL (btw, many women use birth control for reasons NOT relating to pregnancy prevention) and there are other women for whom pregnancy can lead to DEATH. Who is this pharmacist to decide for these patients whether or not the get their scripts filled? Is he a doctor? Does he know the reasons the script has been issued? Does he know the patients medical history? As I said, the drug store is NOT a church and the pharmacist has no right to impose HIS religion on other people. If he was unwilling to do the job, he ought not have become a pharmacist. I seem to recall many Republicans claiming that behavior has consequences as it related to the blackballing by the Clear Channel Network of the Dixie Chicks for voicing their views of President Bush. I would put to you that failure to do your JOB based on your religious views likewise carries consequences when you attempt to impose those religious beliefs on others in the work place. That would be like an Amish man taking a job repairing PC's , then refusing to do the job or religious grounds. Yes, people's right to worship God in whatever way they chose IS protected but it's NOT protected when you attempt to impose your brand of worship within your JOB. People have the right to worship God in their churches, homes, families but not to impose it on others as it pertains to goods and services. The pharmacist has the right to follow his beliefs and he also has the consequences of that choice...To be fired by the drug store for failure to do his job.

As for the issue of church related charity...No one is stopping churches from providing services to the needy. It seems to me the government got involved when churches became unable to deal with the level of need they were encountering.

This is a debate topic I've been considering starting here and although it's not quite framed the way I was thinking, it's close enough I think. First the direct reponses to the questions.


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

There are a few charlatans out there who would like to take credit for a lot of things I think. And, I'm talking about some of the public figures like Dobson who in my opinion have lost sight of their faith and in doing so, over-estimated their importance. However, to characterize their words and actions as representing the "fundamentalists" is simply a stereotype that has no basis.

I am not a so-called "fundamentalist", at least I don't consider myself one, but I have quite a few friends who are. Their convictions, their faith - actions - deeds are driven by the message delivered by Jesus Christ, not by Dobson, Falwell or Robertson. I don't think they believe they are "owed" something other than to have their voices heard, their opinions considerd. Just like every other American.


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?

I don't know what this means really. Many of the instututions of society are religious institutions, but I'll have more to say on this later.


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?

At least this was phrased "separation of church and state" as opposed to "separation from church and state". And, there is a difference. Religious people have the same rights as those who aren't. Ministers, priests, rabbis, imams all have rights. That includes the right to express opinions even political ones, and even if those opinions are grounded in their religious faith.

As far as "direct attack" is concerned, I wonder. Is it pre-emptive or reactionary? There is the perception among many, and not just those of the "radical religious right" that we constantly hear about, that religion is what is under attack in this country and in this world. I would offer as an example this thread here on AD where the ACLU is seeking to use the courts to remove the cross from the Los Angeles County Seal. The mere threat of court action from the ACLU was enough initially to cause the LA County Board of Supervisors to cave on this one. This is classic ACLU operations, but that's beside the point.

I don't want to lead this into a re-hash of that debate, but rather offer it as an example of an "attack from secular institutions" on religion. The ACLU seeks to deny the historical contribution of the Catholic Church in Southern California simply because the Catholic Church is a religious institution and they seek to do this through the courts. Many, including myself, consider such actions a direct attack on religion and quite frankly, we're going to fight back. I think that's a lot of what's happening in this country, and in this world today.

If this is the best example of government suppression of religion available, then I think the case for government suppression of religion is woefully thin. C'mon, chaps -- does the presence or absence of a cross on a seal really add up to much? Does the removal of this cross constitute a significant case of government repression of religion? Don't we all have better things to do than argue about that cross? I'm surprised that the ACLU spent the money to send the letter, but if they chose to, then that's their business. I think that the local government was being admirably prudent in its choice not to fight the case.

Can't you martyred defenders of religion come up with a good example of how the government is attacking your religion?

Once again we get a strawman argument from Erasmussimo. I never claimed this to be the "best example" of an attack on religion at all. Rather, I simply cited it as an example of where a governmental institution was invoked to deny a significant part of the history of Los Angeles County simply because that history involved a religious institution.

Whether you consider it to be important or not is completely irrelevant. It is important to some people, people with same rights that you have, Erasmussimo. If you don't like that then consider the words of Rhett Butler.

Well said Aquilla, I agree wholeheartedly. Two points I want to make:

1) I think it is unfair and inflammatory to characterize the "religious right" as believing the administration owes them a debt. People like Dobson came out strong for Bush, yes. And they are making their voices heard and have the right to do this just as every American has that right.

2) I also think that many people perceive the government as anatagonistic toward religion because of the aggressive law suits that have been brought by the ACLU as Aquilla points out. Silly things like having to remove a miniscule cross in a city seal-- have caused people to become very defensive.

Nor did I. Note the "If".



Oh, Rhett, don't leave me! I'll change, Rhett! Really I will!

Very well, then, if the LA case is not your best one, then please present me with one that you do consider to be important, or even your best.

However, I'll short-circuit this game of cat-and-mouse by offering a hypothetical scenario you can sink your teeth into. Let's just suppose that the government issued a blanket dictate against any and all symbolic references to god in any form in any government. No more "In God We Trust". Say goodbye to "...one nation, under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. No crosses or crucifixes in any symbolic fashion in any government-image. No Ten Commandments in courthouses or any other government facility.

Note that this fantasy-law applies only to symbolic use of religious imagery or text. If the New Mexico Tourism Board has a photograph in a travel brochure of an old Spanish mission, and the mission has a cross on it, that's not a symbolic use of the cross. If a state-approved textbook has a picture of Jesus Christ in it along with text explaining that Christianity was an important factor in the development of Western Civilization, that's not a symbolic use. Any usage with practical significance is fine. It's symbolic uses that symbolically associate any god with the country that would be forbidden.

Can you cite any consequence of this fantasy law that would in any fashion hamper the practice by any person's of his/her religious faith?

Once again, folks, it matters not if you believe restrictions on peyote use, or abortion bombings, or pharmacists denying contraceptives is justifiable. The fact is all represent infringements on religious liberty. I have never argued that religious liberty should never be infringed, I certainly think the state has a legitimate role in preventing abortion bombings and human sacrifice. My argument is, that expansion of government by its very nature inhibits individual freedom and if it moves in to a sphere where religion exists it reduces the influence of religion. The secular left could care less about the 1st Amendment guarantees enabling individuals to worship as they please.

Look at this statement:



Seems to imply the sphere of religion should be limited to places of worship. I wonder if city regulated cab drivers should be able to hang a rosary on their rearview mirror? I wonder if those living in public housing should be allowed to have a Bible in their home?



I hate to keep repeating myself here. Once again, read Federalist Paper 41. This quote kind of sums it up>



The anthem of the secular left:



Whoever wrote that should have been shot. Please pardon those who don't like the godless communist vision and fight against it.

So you agree that infringements on such exercises of religion as intrude on other people's basic freedoms are good and proper? If so, we have no disagreement.

Your last sentence is a double-take-inducing non-sequitur.


You are mixing private areas with public areas. There's a huge difference.



The Federalist Papers provide useful insight into the Constitution as perceived by two of its major contributors. However, the Federalist Papers are not on an equal footing with the Constitution and where the Constitution is clear the Federalist Papers do not override it. The Constitution is clear on this point and your quote from Madison is irrelevant. You are avoiding my question: Do you claim that providing food to the needy is NOT providing for the general welfare?

As you well know, we have a huge disagreement. We all agree that there are limits to any individual right. It all depends where you draw the line.





A cab driver's vehicle is as public as a drugstore owner's store.




Totally off topic. Federalist Paper 41 clarified this point when the anti-federalists were making the same argument you are making. Madison was correct the argument was absurd then and it is absurd now. If you wish to address this issue further go to the proper thread.

Edit: Fixed quotes...I think. -Amlord

Not that you asked me, but since I'm having a little lunch anyway... I could make a case that the FEDERAL government subsidizing those who refuse to feed themselves is counter to the general welfare clause. I'd leave this to the states or to the people.

editing to add -
Just to tie back into our topic, it's ironic that the vast majority of programs to feed the needy are church-related, at least at the local level. Every church I've ever seen has a food bank and food assistance. Some of them are "fundamentalists," too.

Hugo, I agree with your observation that the determination of whether the Constitution permits Federal grants to charity is off-topic, so I agree to drop the topic. After all, you were the one to raise the question of the constitutionality of Federal grants to charity, so I'm happy to drop the matter.

However, this takes us back to your original claims that such grants constitute an attempt to shrink the spheres in which religion can exist. The legality of such funding is not the issue -- as you point out. The issue is whether such grants shrink the sphere of religion. You offered an argument from economics theory to defend your claim, and I responded with a statement about demand elasticity. You never responded to my statement. Do you disagree with my point about demand elasticity?

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

It's more than belief. Fundamentalists have discovered that they can be more politically active and influential, legally, if they form lobbying groups. As with any lobbying group, payback is expected. I do think they're putting in a nickle and expecting a dollar song/dance, and that's a bit amusing.

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?

I do think fundamentalists would be most happy if all other takes on Christianity were to be banned, and that we all lived under their narrowly-defined world views. This effort has been going on for decades. The fundamentalists are selecting higher profile battles due to feeling flush with the winning of both the Executive and Congress. Public opinion seems to be against these selections, so as with President Bush, there's no mandate to do as the fundamentalists please. Looks like these folks are in for some rude awakenings.

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?

From school boards to Judiciary appointments, the direct attacks go on. As mentioned, folks are getting wise to the tactics and the true underlying causes. Take for instance abortion. It didn't work to argue, as this ultimately comes down to a woman's choice, whether it's sinful or not. It didn't work to intimidate, as this just brings strong reactions and hurts the cause. So now load the Judiciary with the right kinds of mindsets, whether other competencies and integrities are questionable.

We now have a church preacher kicking out his congregation if they aren't politically correct in his almighty eyes. We have a Catholic bishop doing nearly the same thing. We already have corporate non-profit entities that will not hire, and I assume that they will fire, anybody not having the correct ideas about religion, and by default probably, politics.

The fundamentalists are bringing us down the road to where our political leanings and our religious beliefs will become litmus tests not just for public office, but for employment as well. We now have laws against this, but laws can always be pulled back or changed.

This looks to me like a bad place to go and terribly threatening to religious freedoms. Some states might decide to go with just one official religion, and I bet this comes about down the line. I've seen where this tactic is being seriously discussed among the fundamentalists, the idea being to take over some state's government. Seems way out there to me, but so have the recent actions brought up in the opening post.

What if Dobson takes Colorado? What will he do with an ornery old freethinking, guitar playing, book writing, mountain loving guy who thinks Dobson's brand of religion is plain old wrong, and a lot stupid? Do I get thrown into the slammer, and if so, do I get health care? Or do I get dah box, boss man?

Ah well, a nightmare that might find itself in reality. Hope not.

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

Definitely. It has been proven over and over again by those religious leaders who constantly grumble that they are “owed” something by having urged their followers to support Bush in the election.

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?

Hmmm, while not quite yet a war, I think it’s a systematic, constant creeping of religion into government that makes me uneasy. Anytime there is an “us and them” mentality, “them” is going to suffer for it.

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?

Those who have such a fear of secularism never go all the way and express a desire for a true theocracy. If what they want is religion allowed to dominate the areas currently protected by the separation of church and state, then why not admit a desire for theocracy? Is this the government we want?


I, for one, do not want to live in that sort of country (the first 3 paragraphs are a real country’s government, with the titles changed-I’ll leave it to you to guess who). But, why don’t those who whine and cry about how the secular humanists are out to remove their religion come right out admit that this is what they truly want?

It is hard to debate this in typical free market economic terms because to a large extent charity is a "free good". You are correct that on the demand side there is pretty much an unlimited demand for free goods. If I offer to give something away, someone will take it. On the individual level, however, many will not accept charity except when in dire need.

On the charity supply side there are usually limitations to what level of prosperity a charitable organization is willing to bring up a receipiant of charity. If the state welfare system meets the minimal needs (as opposed to wants) of an individual then some charities focusing on the minimal needs of an individual will no longer have a function. Similarly some individuals will not visit the church food pantry if the state already fulfills there nutritional needs.

Let us suppose though that not a single dollar of private charity is reduced by public charity. Let us assume the status of charity giving before a public welfare program is this; 50% from religious groups, 50% secular charitable organizations. Now let us imagine the state decides to match the dollars that charitable organizations give and dole it out to individuals in need of charity. Now we have 25% of charity dollars from religious organizations and 75% from secular organizations. Thus even if private charity is not squeezed out (currently can't find the study of the effects of England's Poor Laws in squeezing out public charity in the 19th Century, there are also many other studies noting the squeezing out effect) the proportion of charity delivered by religious groups is cut in half, thus reducing the sphere of religion in charity. How could we be religious neutral in this situation? Simple, dole out the dollars to the groups already providing charity, regardless of if they are secular or sacred.

Here we come to a fundamental assumption underlying all the arguments about "the attack of sacred institutions by the expansion of government" and "repression of religion": that the opposite of religion is secularism. It is not; the opposite of religion is atheism. Thus, the government can take three broad positions with respect to religion:

1. There is no god.
2. No comment.
3. There is a god.

Our government has largely aimed for option #2, although there remain many nooks and crannies of past practice that constitute expressions of option #3. The slow elimination of those nooks and crannies is what has the religious right so upset, and what leads to wild-eyed claims about the "attack on religion".

The scenario you describe exemplifies the problem. You claim that the way to neutrality is to divide the money equally between secular groups and religious groups. But secular groups are not atheist groups. If you want to be fair, and include money for all concerned, then you should give just as much money to atheist groups as to religious groups. This gets us into a horrible mess trying to define what constitutes an atheist group and what constitutes a religious group, and whether Group A is "more" religious than Group B, and so forth. Rather than get into such a mess, we instead achieve neutrality by simply declaring, "No money for anybody pushing any kind of religious or anti-religious agenda. Money goes only to groups that have no position on religion."

Ah yes, "nooks and crannies" like the Declaration of Independence, in which our Creator endows us with unalienable rights...

Your suggestion about funding atheist groups is absurd, in that there are no atheist groups feeding the poor. Unlike say, 99% of churches and many religious groups. Personally, I'd like the state not to fund any of these, but if they are going to fund, what's the advantage in discriminating against religion here? There is no "horrible mess" for reasonable people who do not fear religion.

There's a mountain of insinuation here sitting on top of a pinhead of logic. Would you care to expand on this point?


The moment somebody finds just one atheist group (how about them godless communists, for example?) that does any charity work, your argument is blown out of the water. I won't bother diggiing one up, because we both know that somewhere out there, there's somebody who violates your generalization. Do you really want to found your case on the nonexistence of any such group? To put it another way, if I go to the trouble of finding such a group and produce results, will you abandon the case that American government is attacking religion?


The advantage of discriminating against religion here is that you don't get government funding of proselytization. How would you feel if your tax dollars went to support a soup kitchen emblazoned with swastikas and preaching hatred of Jews? Or a shelter for the homeless organized by an imam who also had a lot of nasty things to say about America? Or, for that matter, a Christian charity that required people to listen to readings from Scripture while eating their food?