Church and State

[LoveALL]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That's the 1st Amendment... now I'd like to debate our interpretations

[LoveALL]

but there isn't a religion that says abortion is "God's will" in fact th sentiment of most seems to be just the opposite. Of course if one is allowed they all shuld be.

[East of Eden]

And I would argue, that although a wall of seperation does exist, America is still nonetheless a Christian nation. I would cite Alexis de Tocqueville as evidence.

It's only logical that a Frenchman (no slur) would define what it is to be America

Here's a few de Tocqueville quotes for you:


The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money

Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith

[Donray]

but there isn't a religion that says abortion is "God's will" in fact th sentiment of most seems to be just the opposite. Of course if one is allowed they all shuld be.

But if there is a God, it does cause most of the abortions and therefore God must be OK with it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

It's only logical that a Frenchman (no slur) would define what it is to be America

Here's a few de Tocqueville quotes for you:
...

And here's a map for you:

[McCulloch]

And here's a map for you:

This would have been closer to America at the time:

My interpretation of the first amendment is based on the text.

I think that this kind of literalism is not useful. Is the US Constitution divinely revealed text? Why treat it so? Is the principle of separation a good one? Should the first amendment be applied only to the actions of the Congress, as the wording of the text would imply, or should it apply more broadly as the Courts have ruled?

Well what's the problem with interpreting the first amendment as it's written? McCulloch, you're offering up a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The text is very clear, government cannot establish a religion and government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. What more do you want?

The first amendment is an application of a principle. Rather than debate the specific application, which differs from country to country and from era to era, why not debate the underlying principle? That's all I am asking.

If you want to be consistent in enforcing the seperation of church and state, a statute people like you consider sacrosanct, then government cannot tax churches or faith based organizations no matter what. Taxes are by definition government intervention. It's impossible for the government to be totally blind towards religion under this framework.

I disagree. Governments do tax religious organizations, but currently it is selective. They pay sales tax and income tax for their employees, but not property tax. It is possible for governments to be totally blind towards religion by taxing them exactly the same as they tax non-religious charitable and non-profit organizations.

Is it or is it not a fact that the United States was initially colonized by a group of individuals known as puritans? Is it or is it not a fact that the dominant religion in the United States has always been Christianity? Western civilization rests upon the foundation of Christian Thought, and in the mind of people like Jefferson and the other founders, the government is to be secular. The society can follow whatever path it chooses, and fortunately American society has been entrenched in Christianity and will continue to be.

Christianity is an important part of the societal and cultural history of the American peoples. I would argue that the Enlightenment philosophies upon which the American secularism is based on are largely post-Christian, not Christian.

[Crazee]

It is often the case the 'politically motivated' and 'religiously motivated' go hand in hand. Often you can tell by 'who is pushing for the law'. The initial major force behind temperance in the United States was the 'Woman's Christian Temperance League'.

Agreed, but any groups can go hand in hand if everyone is willing to cooperate and not let there differences cause them to fight.

[Goat]

It is often the case the 'politically motivated' and 'religiously motivated' go hand in hand. Often you can tell by 'who is pushing for the law'. The initial major force behind temperance in the United States was the 'Woman's Christian Temperance League'.

Agreed, but any groups can go hand in hand if everyone is willing to cooperate and not let there differences cause them to fight.

In the case where the organization in specific does not claim religious origins, the next step to look at the leaders. Often, you will see that the person who is pushing the organization to a specific goal belongs to a number of other highly religious organizations. Although that doesn't make the organization officially 'religious', the motivations of the people running the organization IS religious.

[Donray]

The first problem we have is defining what a religion is. Does everyone agree with the courts definition? The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

In addition, a belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology"a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body"does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations.

Thus atheism is also religion.

So, should any religion be given any special treatment?

Does everyone agree that if Christians are allowed to pray in public schools that Muslims should be allowed the use of pray rugs and pray also?

[LoveALL]

Of course Muslims should be allowed prayer in public schools, I'm for free practice as extended to everyone but I also think that sometimes atheists take the establishment clause (or whatever other countries have in its place) much too far

[Donray]

Of course Muslims should be allowed prayer in public schools, I'm for free practice as extended to everyone but I also think that sometimes atheists take the establishment clause (or whatever other countries have in its place) much too far

You have no objection to four hours of pray by different groups in school? Nothing wrong with Witches doing their thing in school or calling God a murderer during the atheists allotted pray time?

Could you explain what taking the establishment clause to far means?

I think it means that the government should not promote any religion. For example when the government added under God to the pledge that should have been unconstitutional in that Christianity is being promoted. If we use the lower case god it might be OK.