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

[McCulloch]

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?

I have always made the argument that the Free Exercise clause protects the tax exempt status of churches and other various faith based organizations.

So far, the courts and general practice agree with you. The underlying question is whether religious institutions should receive favorable tax treatment. My own view is that the governments should be blind to religion.

And I would argue, that although a wall of separation does exist, America is still nonetheless a Christian nation.

Jefferson and others disagree. The United States of America, is the world's first major secular nation, albeit one with a largely Christian population (at least nominally).

I would cite Alexis de Tocqueville as evidence.

Was that an observation regarding the faith of the people or the country's laws and governance?

[Crazee]

The intention of the first amendment isn't to control any aspect of individual behavior. The intention is to control aspects of government behavior. And your heroine example doesn't make sense. If the religion you belong to says that heroine injections are required every sunday and the state you live in has outlawed heroine, I'm sorry, but you don't get to inject yourself with heroine every Sunday since the law was not created with an expressed purpose to suppress free exercise. If a law is created with an expressed purpose to suppress free exercise, then you would be exempt. Like in this

Okay, the heroine example was a bad one.

Anyways, you get certain advantages by declaring oneself to be a church or religious practice. The one that comes most immediately to mind is taxes, religious institutions get all sorts of cuts on taxes. So, in regards to religion, the first amendment could be used as a legal loophole to get out of paying taxes.

[Goat]

The first would be when an individual makes a religious statement or a statement based on a religious view, and is criticized or even attacked by other individuals, or media organizations. They then claim their religious freedom is being violated.

Sorry, the First Amendment applies to actions by government bodies, not individuals. The attackers may be unkind, unfair, rude, or wrong, but the First Amendment does not guarantee your right not to be criticized.

Amen to that.

My thoughts on the free exercise clause are thus, if it stems from a spiritual need or religious obligation and hurts no one else nor is anyone who doesn't want to forced to participate then the action (whatever it might be) should be allowed and the person's right respected.

The difficulties arise when you try to pinpoint exactly what a spiritual need is. It's also hard to say exactly when we are hurting others and when we aren't.

What if someone said that injecting heroine was a spiritual necessity for them since it made them feel closer to God. In the immediate sense, they aren't hurting anyone. But if you account for the drug wars that occur because of the transport of drugs, as well as emotional damage done to friends and family through this person's drug addiction, than it doesn't seem so harmless to others.

Ah, but the drug wars exist because the Powers that Be, through their religious belief, have made Drugs illegal, and that had the unintended consequences of people using the profit motive to supply drugs to those who don't care what the Powers the Be want for them.

So, ultimately , the harm comes from people using the State to try to enforce their religious beliefs.

[LoveALL]

The fact is that most people who actually have a religion don't like the people who only give a crap when they get what they want out of it or push it down the throats of others anymore than anyone else. We also don't like it when the law forces us to go against deep-rooted practices and traditions or when individuals try to make us do so and the law doesn't help us.

For example, this is a forign example and not happening in my country but I'm going to use it anyway... Currently there is a law against thye students and staff of French public schools wearing religious symbols... This becomes an issue when the "symbols" are part of the practice of the faith. The biggest and most obvious comes in religions like Islam and certain traditional forms of Christianity and Judaism which strongly encourage or require women to wear a head-covering.

[Crazee]

Ah, but the drug wars exist because the Powers that Be, through their religious belief, have made Drugs illegal, and that had the unintended consequences of people using the profit motive to supply drugs to those who don't care what the Powers the Be want for them.

So, ultimately , the harm comes from people using the State to try to enforce their religious beliefs.

Interesting way of putting it. But then the next question is: how can we say when a law is religiously motivated, versus humanistically or politically motivated?

[JoeyKnothead]

Thought I best delete this'n.

[Goat]

Ah, but the drug wars exist because the Powers that Be, through their religious belief, have made Drugs illegal, and that had the unintended consequences of people using the profit motive to supply drugs to those who don't care what the Powers the Be want for them.

So, ultimately , the harm comes from people using the State to try to enforce their religious beliefs.

Interesting way of putting it. But then the next question is: how can we say when a law is religiously motivated, versus humanistically or politically motivated?

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'.

The early days of the prohibition of Marijuana happened during the early years near prohibition, with news articles talking about 'they will smoke this once alcohol is illegal'...

[WinePusher]

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?

I have always made the argument that the Free Exercise clause protects the tax exempt status of churches and other various faith based organizations.

So far, the courts and general practice agree with you. The underlying question is whether religious institutions should receive favorable tax treatment. My own view is that the governments should be blind to religion.

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.

And I would argue, that although a wall of separation does exist, America is still nonetheless a Christian nation.

Jefferson and others disagree. The United States of America, is the world's first major secular nation, albeit one with a largely Christian population (at least nominally).

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.

I would cite Alexis de Tocqueville as evidence.

Was that an observation regarding the faith of the people or the country's laws and governance?

It was an observation of both. The majority of the content in his book is devoted not to a critical analysis of the American legal and political system, but rather American society and the influence Christianity has on it.

[Donray]

First, there should be no laws that are based on religion. This means that nothing in the tax codes should be based on if a person or organization is religious.
The problem is any law that would attempt to define what a religion should not be constitutional. For example, what makes the Catholic Church a religion and a coven of watches not a religion? Both are religions and should be free of government laws per say. For example, making a law that prohibits killing animals for the practice of any religion is would be a law directed at religions that kill animals and should be unconstitutional. But, having laws on how animals should be treated and killed in a humane manner is not directed at any religion.
Another example is the idiot idea from Rick Perry that we should have a law to allow pray in school. So good old Rick want to interrupt school at least twice so the anyone that wants to roll out a pray rug and spend ten or so praying to Allah in the school room should be OK. I hope he will also allow anyone to express their religion. This would include praying to the devil, praying to Thor and Zeus if anyone wants. I think the kids would enjoy spending all day listening to all these pray.

Of course Perry and other Christians only think that their religion should be allowed. What about a religion that says abortion is Gods will, should that ne expressed in public schools?

[WinePusher]

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?

I have always made the argument that the Free Exercise clause protects the tax exempt status of churches and other various faith based organizations.

So far, the courts and general practice agree with you. The underlying question is whether religious institutions should receive favorable tax treatment. My own view is that the governments should be blind to religion.

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.

And I would argue, that although a wall of separation does exist, America is still nonetheless a Christian nation.

Jefferson and others disagree. The United States of America, is the world's first major secular nation, albeit one with a largely Christian population (at least nominally).

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.

I would cite Alexis de Tocqueville as evidence.

Was that an observation regarding the faith of the people or the country's laws and governance?

It was an observation of both. The majority of the content in his book is devoted not to a critical analysis of the American legal and political system, but rather American society and the influence Christianity has on it.