tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post3826425237178709822..comments2023-08-14T08:57:27.750-04:00Comments on The View From Here: Blog Against TheocracyGunfighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05762432006297768871noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-33831733448615473892007-07-08T11:26:00.000-04:002007-07-08T11:26:00.000-04:00This is a great post! I absolutely agree with the...This is a great post! I absolutely agree with the criticality of separating church and state. However, I do believe a strong separation was intended by the framers.<BR/><BR/>The Constitutional justification for separation of church and state comes from two sources. First, the establishment clause was intended not just to prohibit a government established religion but to prohibit the government from establishing a preexisting faith as a formal state religion. The argument continues that if the government enacts legislation that is based on the tenets of an individual (or group of) religions, it is effectively giving that religion state endorsement or establishing at least some elements of the religion as part of the body of laws of the state.<BR/><BR/>Second, enforcing the tenets of one faith automatically excludes religions with contrary beliefs and those who are not part of an organized religion.<BR/><BR/>To me gay marriage is the most obvious example, because the overwhelming majority of arguments for prohibiting it are based on individual faiths and religious doctrines. Further, they disregard religions, like Unitarian Universalism which recognize and perform gay marriages as part of our religious practices and faith tradition.<BR/><BR/>In high school, I was the only person in my homeroom who stood and recited the pledge of allegiance every day when it came over the loudspeaker, although I refused to say "under God." While I believe in a higher power, I do not accept that my belief (or anyone else's religious beliefs) is a constraint on our nation's laws. <BR/><BR/>To viciousrumours's point, I do not believe we can or should expect individuals to deny their religious views when making decisions. I expect our leaders to act morally (although the current national leadership leaves those expectations more disappointed than usual), but I expect them not to <I>enforce</I> a moral code.<BR/><BR/>When we elect politicians, it is obvious that their moral and religious views are among the factors that determine their behaviors and decisions. It is critical to understand a leader's views in advance, for example knowing whether a Catholic politician adheres to his or her faith's views on abortion and gay rights. I am unlikely to vote for a candidate whose policy decisions are heavily driven by a conservative religious agenda. However, the issue of separation of church and state is not about executive or legislative decisions based on what politicians believe to be right. It is about a legal construct designed to ensure that no individual's views (or even no majority's views) may restrict the religious liberty of anyone else. <BR/><BR/>For example...<BR/><BR/>The question of whether schools should distribute birth control is a public policy question. The question about whether it is legal for stores to sell birth control is a rights and freedom of religion question. There are many people who do not believe in birth control. Those who consider it immoral are likely to be among those you oppose making it available in schools. They should not try to have it banned from stores, because that limits the freedom of others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-79117607484530342412007-07-05T10:30:00.000-04:002007-07-05T10:30:00.000-04:00"Doesn't that constitute a violation of the church..."Doesn't that constitute a violation of the church/state idea right there?"<BR/><BR/>I think it does. <BR/><BR/>It has to work both ways. Not establishing a national religion is critical and must be prevented at all costs.<BR/><BR/>Gunfighter mentions that a theocracy is a system of government in which religious laws become the law of the land (paraphrasing as I can't go back to reference the exact quote and I'm too lazy to open a new window and navigate back here - hope I didn't mangle your sentiment).<BR/><BR/>True. Sharia, for example.<BR/><BR/>Many argue that the ten commandments form the basis of some law in the US and therefore religion is slowly creeping into government. There have been numerous court battles over the fact that the ten commandments are posted in public buildings, etc.<BR/><BR/>It's all nonsense when you stop to realize that the ten commandments really weren't handed down to Moses by God (sorry to all the fundies I just insulted). They are part of an ancient code of law developed by men in order to live together in a decent way.<BR/><BR/>The Constitutional amendment in question, I think, was meant to be all-inclusive, not exclusive, in nature. And that includes atheists, of course.Deadmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08449318388713585299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-14093727950967447532007-07-04T11:02:00.000-04:002007-07-04T11:02:00.000-04:00Great post, GF. I tend to think that our children...Great post, GF. I tend to think that our children should not be indoctrinated into any particular belief by our government. When we moved to the U.S. when I was a teenager, I was horrified that children had to say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. I just stood there respectfully and kept my mouth shut. "Liberty and justice for all?" I could see that wasn't happening. In terms of religion, a person's personal relationship with the Lord is one of the most sacred and private things. No one should be able to impose limits or guidelines on that relationship. That said, I'd rather know someone who has faith in something than faith in nothing...PT-LawMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12003033623703820510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-76326614065258211222007-07-04T00:15:00.000-04:002007-07-04T00:15:00.000-04:00"...the argument was never made that there should ...<I>"...the argument was never made that there should be a combined church and state.</I><BR/><BR/>Not by you, perhaps. There are no small number of people that would argue that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation". I am here to state, unequivically, that this isn't the case. The suggestion of which is historically inaccurate.<BR/><BR/><I>"...how do you prevent someone who is a member of the Executive, Legislative or Judiciary branch from using their religious or "moral"... in the decision making process."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think that this has ever been suggested... Certainly not by me.Gunfighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762432006297768871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-7664137095123092722007-07-03T19:41:00.000-04:002007-07-03T19:41:00.000-04:00Now...the argument was never made that there shoul...Now...the argument was never made that there should be a combined church and state. However, how do you prevent someone who is a member of the Executive, Legislative or Judiciary branch from using their religious or "moral" (because to most people, it's the same thing) in the decision making process. By extension, how do you ever really seperate church from government? <BR/><BR/>You can prevent the government from declaring a national religion and thereby insure that individuals will retain the right to practice their own religion, but how do you keep that religion from leaking into government? Doesn't that constitute a violation of the church/state idea right there?Serena Woodwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11179752219711641865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-55345809947079442762007-07-02T22:29:00.000-04:002007-07-02T22:29:00.000-04:00Your insight into what it would be like to part of...Your insight into what it would be like to part of the non-sanctioned religion is so often overlooked by those talking about "our christian nation". I think many don't realize the christian diversity we have in the US.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246047045851719992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-44115824247817436262007-07-02T22:23:00.000-04:002007-07-02T22:23:00.000-04:00Brilliant post, GF!Brilliant post, GF!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-61309398293746961852007-07-02T21:45:00.000-04:002007-07-02T21:45:00.000-04:00Having just spent time in another part of this gra...Having just spent time in another part of this grand country where folks actually think the church and state should be combined gave me the shivers. But then, I proudly live in the Commonwealth with marriage equality so I may not have a good sense of how the rest of the country thinks.soccer mom in denialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15779961065417497337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-57303575359339587142007-07-02T18:45:00.000-04:002007-07-02T18:45:00.000-04:00Yes, it was Jefferson who wrote about a "wall of s...Yes, it was Jefferson who wrote about a "wall of separation" between church and state. And how necessary it was to *protect* all religions.<BR/><BR/>You made your argument very well, GF!Lawyer Mamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06819273107327846943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-46898479866032992142007-07-02T18:25:00.000-04:002007-07-02T18:25:00.000-04:00Amen, amen, amen. I agree with all of the above.S...Amen, amen, amen. I agree with all of the above.<BR/><BR/>Some people of faith see the separation of church and state as an infringement on their right to pray or whatnot, and I just have to disagree. We need the separation exactly because everyone deserves to be free to pray and practice their respective faiths.jessabeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03891661157643478813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-15333327416702796772007-07-02T17:56:00.000-04:002007-07-02T17:56:00.000-04:00As a kid, I went to school in a foreign country wh...As a kid, I went to school in a foreign country where every single morning I was forced to say a prayer that I didn't believe in. <BR/><BR/>Then I came back here, and everyone around me (I come from a very conservative, religious state) was horrified that prayer in school was being done away with. I was so relieved. Yes, being a Mormon in Utah means that they were likely going to be saying MY prayers, but having been on the opposite end of that--being forced to say someone ELSE's prayers, gave me the realization that there just isn't any fair way to mix church and state.Brillighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13694582598855276158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24607242.post-35710668556716796552007-07-02T10:35:00.000-04:002007-07-02T10:35:00.000-04:00Not just the US, but Canada too. North America had...Not just the US, but Canada too. <BR/><BR/>North America had been seen as the place to be for safe practice of one's own religion; the Duokhobors as a way out of there example.<BR/><BR/>But on the other hand, theocracy is showing its ugly head in small ways... where law (even local law)is deciding, or is attemping to decide what is right... girls who cant compete in international soccer leagues 'cause they wear the hijab.. and so on... the news that makes the local papers.... but it is society ultimately using the state (law) to direct us in our day to day life.MedStudentWifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01880210553933529491noreply@blogger.com