"While Most Americans Want Church/State Separation, Not Many Know What That Means"

[Miles]

.


...............................


What disturbs me is the percentage of people on the very left who want mess with our secular government by putting religion, and in particular the Christian religion, into the mix. It's as if the First Amendment and its Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State) doesn't exist. I can only conclude they're from the bottom half of the IQ scale.

Your thoughts?



.

[otseng]

I can only conclude they're from the bottom half of the IQ scale.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid denigrating any group of people.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

Yes, there are extremes on both ends of the spectrum. There are those on one extreme who want to establish a specific religion in the country, and there are those on the other extreme who say that freedom of religion is the freedom to believe whatever you want but not the freedom to act accordingly.

I consider both of those views toxic. However, they are both thus far fringe ideas. On their own they have minimal power in the nation. In practice their biggest effect is that they are used to manipulate and scare otherwise sensible people into moving toward the opposite extreme.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

Yes, there are extremes on both ends of the spectrum. There are those on one extreme who want to establish a specific religion in the country, and there are those on the other extreme who say that freedom of religion is the freedom to believe whatever you want but not the freedom to act accordingly.

I consider both of those views toxic. However, they are both thus far fringe ideas. On their own they have minimal power in the nation. In practice their biggest effect is that they are used to manipulate and scare otherwise sensible people into moving toward the opposite extreme.

Not quite understanding how the freedom to believe whatever one wants but not the freedom to act accordingly, would be toxic. Assuming you don't mean never being able to act in accordance with one's belief no matter how benign, shouldn't people be forbidden to act in opposition to the law even if their religion says it's alright?


And honestly, I don't see your extremes here as being a true dichotomy If one wants to construct such a contrast I'd put "those who want to establish a specific religion in the country" at one end and its opposite "those who don't want to establish a specific religion in the country" at the other end.

Like "True ___________________________ False" might bracket events in accordance to an actual state or condition.



.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

Yes, there are extremes on both ends of the spectrum. There are those on one extreme who want to establish a specific religion in the country, and there are those on the other extreme who say that freedom of religion is the freedom to believe whatever you want but not the freedom to act accordingly.

I consider both of those views toxic. However, they are both thus far fringe ideas. On their own they have minimal power in the nation. In practice their biggest effect is that they are used to manipulate and scare otherwise sensible people into moving toward the opposite extreme.

Not quite understanding how the freedom to believe whatever one wants but not the freedom to act accordingly, would be toxic. Assuming you don't mean never being able to act in accordance with one's belief no matter how benign, shouldn't people be forbidden to act in opposition to the law even if their religion says it's alright?


And honestly, I don't see your extremes here as being a true dichotomy If one wants to construct such a contrast I'd put "those who want to establish a specific religion in the country" at one end and its opposite "those who don't want to establish a specific religion in the country" at the other end.

Like "True ___________________________ False" might bracket events in accordance to an actual state or condition.



.

If you dont understand how toxic it is, then try putting yourself on the other side of it. Imagine that the legal stance in our nation was: "Atheism is legal and acceptable. Everyone must declare that Jesus is Lord, never say anything to the contrary, attend church weekly, read at least two chapters from the Bible every day, pray several times every day, give at least 10% of the money to a church and seek to live every aspect of their lives according to the moral standards set forth in the New Testament. Obviously you can still be an atheist, agnostic, or subscribe any other belief system as long as your actions align with Christianity."

Not establishing a specific religion in the country is the middle ground. Enforcing a specific religion or allowing beliefs but not allowing people act accordingly are the toxic extremes.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

Yes, there are extremes on both ends of the spectrum. There are those on one extreme who want to establish a specific religion in the country, and there are those on the other extreme who say that freedom of religion is the freedom to believe whatever you want but not the freedom to act accordingly.

I consider both of those views toxic. However, they are both thus far fringe ideas. On their own they have minimal power in the nation. In practice their biggest effect is that they are used to manipulate and scare otherwise sensible people into moving toward the opposite extreme.

Not quite understanding how the freedom to believe whatever one wants but not the freedom to act accordingly, would be toxic. Assuming you don't mean never being able to act in accordance with one's belief no matter how benign, shouldn't people be forbidden to act in opposition to the law even if their religion says it's alright?


And honestly, I don't see your extremes here as being a true dichotomy If one wants to construct such a contrast I'd put "those who want to establish a specific religion in the country" at one end and its opposite "those who don't want to establish a specific religion in the country" at the other end.

Like "True ___________________________ False" might bracket events in accordance to an actual state or condition.



.

If you dont understand how toxic it is, then try putting yourself on the other side of it. Imagine that the legal stance in our nation was: "Atheism is legal and acceptable. Everyone must declare that Jesus is Lord, never say anything to the contrary, attend church weekly, read at least two chapters from the Bible every day, pray several times every day, give at least 10% of the money to a church and seek to live every aspect of their lives according to the moral standards set forth in the New Testament. Obviously you can still be an atheist, agnostic, or subscribe any other belief system as long as your actions align with Christianity."

But this is far different than what you had said:

"There are those on one extreme who want to establish a specific religion in the country, and there are those on the other extreme who say that freedom of religion is the freedom to believe whatever you want but not the freedom to act accordingly."

"A specific religion," which simply denotes another religion, specific or not, is far different than "a mandatory," MUST, religion, which you now assert.


.

[nobspeople]

.


...............................


What disturbs me is the percentage of people on the very left who want mess with our secular government by putting religion, and in particular the Christian religion, into the mix. It's as if the First Amendment and its Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State) doesn't exist. I can only conclude they're from the bottom half of the IQ scale.

Your thoughts?



.

This is even more proof of the failing education system in the USA. Beyond that, I'd like to see the people on the left polled about which religion they want to see implemented specifically.
Baptist or just Catholics?
Scientologists and JWs but not Mormons?
What about Muslim belief?
Native American beliefs? And if so, which tribe(s)?
Of course, that's sarcasm as they'd only want THEIR belief implemented - to hades with the others as they aren't right and are 'of the devil'.

[Purple Knight]

What disturbs me is the percentage of people on the very left who want mess with our secular government by putting religion, and in particular the Christian religion, into the mix.

It looks like only Christians were surveyed. Or at least, the study is skewed to show Christians in particular as this kind of individual that normal, rational people such as yourself find disturbing.

Where's the option for teachers being allowed to lead the students in any kind of prayer they want, including, "God is dead, so sayeth the great Nietzsche!" Children chant after: "And the Great Queen Spider!"

The second question, "Public school teachers should..." neatly adds up to 100%, meaning that the open-minded everything-goes types were forced to select the off-puttingly conservative Christian option, or selected the other or no opinion options. Or else only Christians were surveyed. This paints a very Cubist picture where we're seeing a veneer of reality, just one side, and we don't get to turn anything round and see what's painted on the back.

[Difflugia]

The second question, "Public school teachers should..." neatly adds up to 100%, meaning that the open-minded everything-goes types were forced to select the off-puttingly conservative Christian option, or selected the other or no opinion options.

I'm guessing that's because the Supreme Court narrowly (at least in this context) ruled specifically that leading public school children in Christian prayers was unconstitutional and this is a compromise to accurately represent "we should change current US policy" while also avoiding the conflation of "we should change state religions" with "there should be no state religion."

The reason it's 100% is because the infographic lumped together "other/neither" and "no answer."

If you're interested, the questionnaire and official report are linked from this Pew article.

[Athetotheist]

One trick they like to pull is asking, "Where do the words 'separation of church and state' appear in the Constitution?" This is their way of arguing that since church-state separation isn't expressed in those exact words, it must not be constitutional. The problem with that reasoning is that it would also apply to the words "no taxation without representation". That expression isn't in the Constitution either, but they'd throw a hissy if you suggested that it was unconstitutional.