Seperation of Church and State--- Already a Memory

[leejosepho]

I didn't say anything about leaving sectarian religion out of the picture. I said that if we discuss a value on its own merit without pigeonholing it as a product of a religion or sociopolitical group., the discussion will likely be much more productive than it will be if we discuss them as 'Christian values', or "Jewish values' or "Democrat" values or whatever.

We essentially agree there, and that is what I meant by "leaving sectarian religion out of the picture". For example ...

I would assume everyone here agrees it is not okay to murder -- life is "precious" and to be "protected", so to speak -- and we could even argue that man somehow inherently or instinctually knows or senses that just as any mother would quite "naturally" protect even her unborn child. But when the matter of abortion is raised, we are first going to have to agree as to the origin or source of "it is not okay to murder" before attempting to proceed in our discussion.

I am not getting this said very well, but I am trying to say that mankind cannot productively "discuss a value on its own merit without pigeonholing it" as having originated *somewhere*, and that any discussion along that line will ultimately go nowhere of real value if mere "religion" is involved (even if merely in the minds of those present) and until we recognize some kind of transcending and immutable absolute.

 

[AlbqOwl]

We essentially agree there, and that is what I meant by "leaving sectarian religion out of the picture". For example ...

I would assume everyone here agrees it is not okay to murder -- life is "precious" and to be "protected", so to speak -- and we could even argue that man somehow inherently or instinctually knows or senses that just as any mother would quite "naturally" protect even her unborn child. But when the matter of abortion is raised, we are first going to have to agree as to the origin or source of "it is not okay to murder" before attempting to proceed in our discussion.

I am not getting this said very well, but I am trying to say that mankind cannot productively "discuss a value on its own merit without pigeonholing it" as having originated *somewhere*, and that any discussion along that line will ultimately go nowhere of real value if mere "religion" is involved (even if merely in the minds of those present) and until we recognize some kind of transcending and immutable absolute.

Actually I think you said it very well and yes, I think we do agree. Abortion, stem cell research, the definition of marriage, decency laws, roles for women, parents, and/or children, etc. cloning, affirmative action, minimum wage, role of government, etc. are all value-laden issues. Discussions about any of them almost always break down and dissolve into 'whose is blackest' contests whenever they are identified as belonging to some religious, cultural, social, or political group.

 

[marchare]

Separate of Church and State is silly. It should be done away with. The MAJORITY of America is Christian, so why shouldn't that be the official religion? The president doesn't have to win by a huge margin to be president.. All other heathen religions would still be legal, but the government would make decisions based on Christian values.

A central feature of my own reality is that I simply don't know "THE TRUTH", and that I should be concerned about my sanity if I felt that I did. How arrogant would I be if I insisted that my "TRUTH" be made into law over all. Obras believes majority consensus should supply us our spirituality. The meaning of ideas such as "endowed by thier creator" and "unalienable" just may be beyond Obra's grasp. Incidently, you show me a Christian who's children attend an all Muslim public school, and I will show you Christian who opposes school prayer.

 

[AlbqOwl]

A central feature of my own reality is that I simply don't know "THE TRUTH", and that I should be concerned about my sanity if I felt that I did. How arrogant would I be if I insisted that my "TRUTH" be made into law over all. Obras believes majority consensus should supply us our spirituality. The meaning of ideas such as "endowed by thier creator" and "unalienable" just may be beyond Obra's grasp. Incidently, you show me a Christian who's children attend an all Muslim public school, and I will show you Christian who opposes school prayer.

I don't agree with this. If I sent my child to an all Muslim public school, I would certainly expect my child to be thoroughly exposed to Muslim thought and practices and would be boning up myself so I could answer the questions s/he brought home. I would fully expect that an innocuous prayer at commencement or a football game would to to Allah instead of God. I would have no problem with that. I would also expect that if it was my child's turn to give a prayer, s/he would be allowed to pray to God.

I am opposed to mandated or prescribed prayers in any public school even if 99% of the kids are all Southern Baptists or Druids. I have no problem with a short generic student led prayers at sporting events or assemblies or graduation or whatever and think those who object to same have far more problems than any problem a simple prayer could cause.

And I also think that banning any reference or symbol of religious faith in the school is government overstepping its constitutional authority and violates the First Amendment bigtime. I know several court rulings disagree with me, but I think the courts are wrong in that case. (And I am backing conservative judges who understand the intent of the First Amendment.)

 

[marchare]

Please forgive me , AlbqOwl, for my lack of clarity in saying "opposes school prayer". I thought that from the title of this thread, and the context of my remarks (and those of Obras), that "opposes mandated or prescribed prayers" would be the assumed meaning. I agree with most of your reply(it's clear that you understand the limits of majority rule) and applaud your willingness to give your family the multicultural exposure that is essential for life in a free society(many Americans fear this). This learning would take place without the assistance or coercion of officials, right? We have our First Amendment guarantee of "free exercise" which does prohibit the interference by public school officials with, for instance, prayer before lunch. The whole of the First Amendment intends to protect freedom of thought, and a legal distinction between thought and prayer is impossible. The prohibition of legal "establishment of religion" implies that free exercise does not mean that "majority rules" through the use of government. Students have a right to wear a religious symbol in public school, but have no right to attach it to the school, or to expect to be led in prayer, or legally declare America Christian. Our spirituality is not to be government issue.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I did misunderstand Marchare and thanks for clarifying your intent. Yes, we are in agreement I think.

I am positively militant in my defense of the First Amendment.....I agree 100% that there shall be no establishment of religion (by the government), but I get very frustrated when the anti-religious types and the reliophobes want to ignore the second part of the phrase:. . ."or prohibiting the free excercise thereof".

 

[marchare]

Ditto that “militant in my defense of the First Amendment”. I hope that we can include as “the anti-religious types”, those who would have me locked up for celebrating my spirituality through the occasional use of psychoactive mushrooms.

What gives me the creeps is that elected officials, Gee Dub included, are making the same kind of noise as our frightened co-debater, Obras.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I believe the law is pretty specific that people of faith are not allowed to do anything that people of no faith are not allowed to do, so the mushrooms are out, I'm afraid. That's where the fairness doctrine comes in. (Yes, yes, I know there have been some very narrowly defined exceptions made now and then, but personally I think everybody ought to live under the exact same laws so far as government is concerned.)

 

[Alex]

I did misunderstand Marchare and thanks for clarifying your intent. Yes, we are in agreement I think.

I am positively militant in my defense of the First Amendment.....I agree 100% that there shall be no establishment of religion (by the government), but I get very frustrated when the anti-religious types and the reliophobes want to ignore the second part of the phrase:. . ."or prohibiting the free excercise thereof".

What is being prohibited?