Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

A friend recently wrote:
I watched Ketanji Brown Jackson being sworn in today.
The Constitution prescribes the text of the oath for the President taking office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
_ Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, U.S. Constitution

The Constitution does not list the exact wording for the oath a new Supreme Court Justice takes, so Congress decided a new Justice should pronounce similar words, closing with, "... so help me God."

The Constitution is clear, “there shall be no religious test” for those holding office in the United States. Yet, “… so help me God” was added to the oath which is administered while the new President or Justice holds their hand on the Bible (or two Bibles).
I’m wondering what would happen (and why it hasn’t) if a principled President or Supreme Court Justice refused to say “so help me God” or refused to put their hand on the Bible.
Note: Theodore Roosevelt and John Adams did not put their hands on a Bible when sworn.
I wonder whether there are Christians here who resist the current movement among evangelicals to resist the combining of religion and government. For debate:
Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'*

___________
Yes, I am aware 'separation of church and state' is not the phrase used in the Constitution, despite Jefferson referencing the phrase. So for those who reflexively think that actually represents an argument... it does not. The government being foreclosed from 'establishing a religion' amounts to the same thing.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Post #2

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Diogenes wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:51 am A friend recently wrote:
I’m wondering what would happen (and why it hasn’t) if a principled President or Supreme Court Justice refused to say “so help me God” or refused to put their hand on the Bible.
Note: Theodore Roosevelt and John Adams did not put their hands on a Bible when sworn.
Your friend raises a valid point but I still think there would be some backlash. Like it or not, being religious or a Christian is still seen as some implied litmus test for character and morality. Eventhough in reality, many politicians probably don't even put Christianity into practice but they'll still call themselves that to help with their image, just like Donald Trump did when he held up the Bible in front of St. John's Church.
Diogenes wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:51 amI wonder whether there are Christians here who resist the current movement among evangelicals to resist the combining of religion and government. For debate:
Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'*
I don't believe it would be bad to remove the Separation of Church and State, and by that I mean, allow the State and/or Fed. Government to endorse religious views. BUT, my condition for that would be to only endorse those views that are supported by reason and evidence. My reason for this is because secular views can be just as unsupported as religious views, so if you allow one then why not the other? Don't conservatives already disguise their views as being political or secular when it is often times very similar to biblical views, like their views on abortion?! Of course, religious views should not be given any special status which may've happened in the earlier history of America. All views, whether religious or not, should be considered for public policy if it is based on reason and evidence.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Post #3

Post by Athetotheist »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:57 pm
Diogenes wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:51 am A friend recently wrote:
I’m wondering what would happen (and why it hasn’t) if a principled President or Supreme Court Justice refused to say “so help me God” or refused to put their hand on the Bible.
Note: Theodore Roosevelt and John Adams did not put their hands on a Bible when sworn.
Your friend raises a valid point but I still think there would be some backlash. Like it or not, being religious or a Christian is still seen as some implied litmus test for character and morality. Eventhough in reality, many politicians probably don't even put Christianity into practice but they'll still call themselves that to help with their image, just like Donald Trump did when he held up the Bible in front of St. John's Church.
Diogenes wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:51 amI wonder whether there are Christians here who resist the current movement among evangelicals to resist the combining of religion and government. For debate:
Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'*
I don't believe it would be bad to remove the Separation of Church and State, and by that I mean, allow the State and/or Fed. Government to endorse religious views. BUT, my condition for that would be to only endorse those views that are supported by reason and evidence. My reason for this is because secular views can be just as unsupported as religious views, so if you allow one then why not the other? Don't conservatives already disguise their views as being political or secular when it is often times very similar to biblical views, like their views on abortion?! Of course, religious views should not be given any special status which may've happened in the earlier history of America. All views, whether religious or not, should be considered for public policy if it is based on reason and evidence.
The problem then is deciding who gets to determine what constitutes reason and evidence. Once an argument for a position is presented, it will be challenged, questioned and bandied back and forth ad infinitum (just look at the threads on this site). That's problematic enough with secular issues; add organized sectarian ferver and it gets even worse.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Post #4

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:29 pm The problem then is deciding who gets to determine what constitutes reason and evidence. Once an argument for a position is presented, it will be challenged, questioned and bandied back and forth ad infinitum (just look at the threads on this site). That's problematic enough with secular issues; add organized sectarian ferver and it gets even worse.
Good point. I don't think there is a perfect solution for that, but a working or practical solution would probably be to have a bipartisan (or even non-partisan) panel decide that. otseng has a moderator system that includes just that. :) That would be the ideal but that's not the way the American system is set up now since the voters also play a role in determining public policy, and they may still choose to vote based on their beliefs.

Besides that scenario, I still think it would be fair to allow the government to endorse religious views as part of public policy since any secular view can also be on the table. I know that the rationale for the 'Establishment Clause' was to prevent the government from controlling the practice of religion, but at the same time I'm sure religionists wouldn't mind government making religious views into law just as long as it's not a unilateral process in that the voters also wanted it. Besides that, some religious views also gets into secular issues, like marriage, divorce, etc. I'm sure conservatives would rather the government pass a law that aligns with their religion rather than passing one based on a secular view that goes against their religion. And again, I'd be for BOTH types of views being on the table for public policy. Why allow one and not the other when both tend to be based on opinion, anyways? The Constitution would weed out some obvious harms, and hopefully reason and evidence would as well.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Post #5

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #4
I still think it would be fair to allow the government to endorse religious views as part of public policy since any secular view can also be on the table.

Why allow one and not the other when both tend to be based on opinion, anyways?
Precisely because both would be part of public policy. The government endorses the religious view that Jesus is God and establishes a religious test to that effect for public office. A Jew, who doesn't believe that Jesus is God, is prohibited from running for office because he can't take the oath of office without violating his faith.
The Constitution would weed out some obvious harms
How? Without the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment, the scenario above and many like it are entirely possible.

I've recommended it before, and I'm recommending it again:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 08-02-0163

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Post #6

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 5:51 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:43 pm I still think it would be fair to allow the government to endorse religious views as part of public policy since any secular view can also be on the table.

Why allow one and not the other when both tend to be based on opinion, anyways?
Precisely because both would be part of public policy. The government endorses the religious view that Jesus is God and establishes a religious test to that effect for public office. A Jew, who doesn't believe that Jesus is God, is prohibited from running for office because he can't take the oath of office without violating his faith.
I don't expect for all religious-based views to make it into law, and I also don't expect every single secular view to become public policy either (like requiring Churches to conduct same-sex marriages). I think religious-based laws that serve a secular purpose at some level would be more likely to pass and cause less problems. In fact, one law I would pass is that couples should not have kids out of wedlock. The simple reason for that is stability and support that a TWO parent (esp. the biological parents) home can provide compared to a single parent home. If someone says that it's religious and it violated their own religion or rights, then there is a concept in the law referred to as "compelling state (or government) interest".
A compelling governmental interest may override fundamental constitutional rights, if it satisfies the strict scrutiny test. A government interest is compelling if it is essential or necessary rather than a matter of choice, preference, or discretion.[1] When government action infringes an individual's fundamental rights, the government must show that the government's action is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. The protection of public health and safety, including the regulation of violent crime, the requirements of national security and military necessity are considered compelling government interests. Restricting access to unapproved prescription drugs is also a compelling government interest.[2] In Wisconsin v. Yoder, on the other hand, the requirement for compulsory education beyond 8th grade was not compelling in the case of Amish children, based on the parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion.
Source: Wikipedia

If we know single parent home are becoming an epidemic due to the poor choices of adult, and the kids are being harmed and neglected (also the costs to the tax payers), especially in low socioeconomic populations, then I think such a religious-based law requiring marriage could be seen as a "protection of public health and safety". That law should apply to everyone, just as many other laws apply to everyone, whether you're religious or not (e.g. age of consent laws).
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Post #7

Post by Purple Knight »

"Don't murder people," is a fundamentally religious value. It's not supported by reason. If somebody wants to make this a purge planet, and they have good reasons, does that make it good?

America thought it was higher than it was and it lost. Values like free speech and a basic respect and consideration for all ideas failed because people can't defend them, and people can't defend them because they're pretending to be areligious.

It's actually okay to have those values and to found a nation on them. But this is no better and no worse than a nation founded on radical Islam that wants Sharia Law. Neither society has to back down if something bad happens to someone because of that ideology. But only if it admits its religiosity in this way: Yes, we see this value system as good and desirable, in and of itself, not as a means to some end.

If you say your value system is a means to an end then any time anyone has a good argument you can't counter, you must cave and discard your value system. And furthermore if they say your end goal is not good then you must discard that because you don't have a reason it is good. And that's what happened and now a lot of people are miserable because they couldn't admit that they were religious and it made them happy to believe in things.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Post #8

Post by Athetotheist »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 7:35 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 5:51 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:43 pm I still think it would be fair to allow the government to endorse religious views as part of public policy since any secular view can also be on the table.

Why allow one and not the other when both tend to be based on opinion, anyways?
Precisely because both would be part of public policy. The government endorses the religious view that Jesus is God and establishes a religious test to that effect for public office. A Jew, who doesn't believe that Jesus is God, is prohibited from running for office because he can't take the oath of office without violating his faith.
I don't expect for all religious-based views to make it into law, and I also don't expect every single secular view to become public policy either (like requiring Churches to conduct same-sex marriages). I think religious-based laws that serve a secular purpose at some level would be more likely to pass and cause less problems. In fact, one law I would pass is that couples should not have kids out of wedlock. The simple reason for that is stability and support that a TWO parent (esp. the biological parents) home can provide compared to a single parent home. If someone says that it's religious and it violated their own religion or rights, then there is a concept in the law referred to as "compelling state (or government) interest".
A compelling governmental interest may override fundamental constitutional rights, if it satisfies the strict scrutiny test. A government interest is compelling if it is essential or necessary rather than a matter of choice, preference, or discretion.[1] When government action infringes an individual's fundamental rights, the government must show that the government's action is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. The protection of public health and safety, including the regulation of violent crime, the requirements of national security and military necessity are considered compelling government interests. Restricting access to unapproved prescription drugs is also a compelling government interest.[2] In Wisconsin v. Yoder, on the other hand, the requirement for compulsory education beyond 8th grade was not compelling in the case of Amish children, based on the parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion.
Source: Wikipedia

If we know single parent home are becoming an epidemic due to the poor choices of adult, and the kids are being harmed and neglected (also the costs to the tax payers), especially in low socioeconomic populations, then I think such a religious-based law requiring marriage could be seen as a "protection of public health and safety". That law should apply to everyone, just as many other laws apply to everyone, whether you're religious or not (e.g. age of consent laws).
Hmm.....maybe we could use 1 Timothy 6:10 to outlaw corporate greed......establish a Separation of Wall Street and State.....

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Post #9

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:38 pm Hmm.....maybe we could use 1 Timothy 6:10 to outlaw corporate greed......establish a Separation of Wall Street and State.....
Seems you're being sarcastic. But why limit religious-based laws to Christianity? I think all of the major religions have good things to offer and can potentially be used to make law or give us some ideas, at least. Let's put everything good on the table!
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Is it bad for America to remove 'Separation of Church and State?'

Post #10

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Purple Knight wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:30 pm "Don't murder people," is a fundamentally religious value. It's not supported by reason. If somebody wants to make this a purge planet, and they have good reasons, does that make it good?

America thought it was higher than it was and it lost. Values like free speech and a basic respect and consideration for all ideas failed because people can't defend them, and people can't defend them because they're pretending to be areligious.

It's actually okay to have those values and to found a nation on them. But this is no better and no worse than a nation founded on radical Islam that wants Sharia Law. Neither society has to back down if something bad happens to someone because of that ideology. But only if it admits its religiosity in this way:
Good points. Perhaps some people associate religion with ignorance (esp. fundamentalism). So when they think about making religion into law, their mind automatically jumps to the NEGATIVES of religion and only that. A more balanced look would acknowledge the wrongs of religion along with the positives or good aspects. A more balanced view would also reveal that secularism is not guaranteed to be right. We should be open to accepting ideas from ANY system just as long as it provides a common good (if backed by logic and evidence then that's even more reason to accept it!). If it serves a common good, then we should be open to making it public policy.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Post Reply