legislating morality

[z0wb13]

A person has rights from the moment of creation. Therefore, he has rights simply by being created, i.e., by existing.

The idea that someone has rights only if he exercises them is rationalization and an absurd assertion, much like the argument that a fetus is not alive because he is not breathing and therefore not a person. It would also mean that slaves had no rights because they didn’t exercise them. Never mind they had rights that were being universally denied.

ok, actual argument. i’m too tired to respond, but i will think about it and rebut as thoughtfully as possible. i think that my tact will be that slaves can speak, breathe, etc., but this is just a prelude;p

also, the DoI isn’t a legal document, but whatever. i’m probably going to call you on equivocation, as a fetus isn’t a person. look at a picture of a fetus, then look at a picture of a person, and you have to admit that they are two different things. but the rights issue, i need to think about, if only to argue better.

kthxbye

oh, and happy end of the world this saturday!

 

[z0wb13]

So dogs, children, and infants should all be murdered because they can’t vote?

this is a straw man. or maybe a red herring. murder is bad, but it smells like a straw man.

 

[Mumbles140]

this is a straw man. or maybe a red herring. murder is bad, but it smells like a straw man.

Why? According to you, none of them can exercise their rights, so those rights don’t exist for them? A newborn infant can’t speak, as you claimed humans can. In appearance, a newborn looks much more like a child in the womb than an actual adult human. Neither of them can work, drive, or throw a baseball. Pretty much, they both just lay around and eat. Based on all of your criteria, this puts them on the same page. Therefore, infants should be killed, but we can’t call it murder because that has too many negative connotations to it. Infanticide sounds too violent, almost like pesticide. Well, I’m sure they’ll think of something to try and convince people it isn’t actually killing an innocent life…

 

[sedonaman]

… i think that my tact will be that slaves can speak, breathe, etc., …

Now you are changing the requirement for having rights. First you said they had to be able exercise their rights; now you are saying they have to be able to “speak, breathe, etc.” What about a dead person? Does he have a right to have his property distributed according to his will?

…also, the DoI isn’t a legal document …

That might be the case, but it is a founding document establishing the basic beliefs of American society. Every idea starts with a statement that is assumed true without proof. That is why DoI starts out with, “We hold these truths to be self-evident …” The Constitution is the codification of how those self-evident truths are to be protected by the government.

… i’m probably going to call you on equivocation, as a fetus isn’t a person. look at a picture of a fetus, then look at a picture of a person, and you have to admit that they are two different things. …

If you want visuals to be the determining factor, then look at these pictures and tell me they aren’t human. [Click on them individually to see full size.] If you can’t see that they are human, I would run, not walk, to get some mental counseling if I were you.

Frankly, you are all over the place looking for an excuse to rationalize that a human fetus is not a person … more semantic gymnastics to remove the idea of killing from abortion. God creates with His Word. Humans, made in God’s image and likeness, use their words to create death.

None of your arguments are new, for they have been used innumerable times to justify enslaving and/or killing the undesirable down through history. See Dehumanizing the Vulnerable.

 

[Hail_Linus]

i hear the term “moral relativism” bandied about all the time on these forums. the implication is that morals are becoming relaxed, and that it is somehow part of a conspiracy between hollywood, the media, liberals, etc.

This is actually an overt conspiracy that everyone ignores. Take for instance the UN World Population commission. At their meeting at the UN in New york in March 2009. The Director, Hania Zlotnik, addresses the members and tells them:

“It is time to applaud the concerted International action that, in the span of just four decades, has supported the rapid reduction in fertility that has occurred in the majority of developing countries, mainly by expanding access to effective methods of contraception.”

In a video-taped interview Hania Zlotnik (Director of UN Population Division) is asked how the commission has been able to get these countries to accept contraception and abortion when the people of the countries find it so immoral. She responds by saying, “It depends of course on what types of methods countries want to “push,” in a way. The how to do it again, is with people that are trusted by the community. And another very important component is what is called education and communication campaigns, because in almost every country where contraceptive methods have been accepted in a wide way . . . widespread among the community, there have been important communication campaigns. To let people know that they exist, and to make them feel comfortable about the idea of using them. Because that’s not . . . there’s always some barriers among people about either talking about these issues or realizing that, yes, they can do it also.”

She then goes on to say, “One means that seems to be very useful is soap operas in which the characters seem to be like the normal person and have these problems and they go to the providers, and you see that there are different possible outcomes depending on how they use it. So all these thing are known to help. The experts know it. But in order for them to be successful there has to be legitimacy, and this legitimacy cannot come from the outside. IT has to COME FROM the engagement of, on the one side I think, civil society, on the other the government, preferably the two, but at least one of them has to be very much engaged.”

but if you think that there are one set of morals that never changes, then you don’t know history. it used to be moral to own slaves, and it was immoral to eat shellfish, or meat on fridays. maybe i don’t know what the term is supposed to mean.

These are not examples of morals. Morality applies to all. These are laws and disciplines.

here’s another one, you have a right to privacy (it’s not explicitly stated in the constitution, but the supreme court says it’s in there). but, you only have that right when you are able to exercise it, like when you are in a private setting. you don’t have a right to privacy if you are out in public, because it is impossible to exercise that right.

The reason one does not have the right to privacy in public is because there is no expectation of privacy. We always maintain the ability to exercise the right to privacy if we choose by moving ourselves to a private setting (absent a warrant of course).

 

[sedonaman]

This is actually an overt conspiracy that everyone ignores. …

“… But in order for them to be successful there has to be legitimacy, and this legitimacy cannot come from the outside. IT has to COME FROM the engagement of, on the one side I think, civil society, on the other the government, preferably the two, but at least one of them has to be very much engaged.”

There is one very important exception to this. The world-wide population control movement tried desperately to get the various pills and abortion accepted by American women so that their acceptance could be used as a selling point in other countries.

 

[mackbrislawn]

i understand that there are probably as many opinions on abortion as there are people on this forum. that said, why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith?

so abortion is a sin in the catholic church, but why should hindus or muslims have to accept that? some do or don’t anyway, but there doesn’t seem to be any general consensus in those religions. most muslims allow it until the fourth month, and many, but not all, hindus ban it outright.

so my question isn’t on whether or not abortion is a sin. rather, i want to know is if it is ever alright to force one person’s beliefs on another person, and why or under what circumstances.

Most of the laws we have are a legislator’s attempt to force his or her morality and values upon everybody else. They don’t even have to come from a religious faith–atheists will have beliefs too and want to force them upon the populace.

An example is Obamacare which is simply a certain group’s desire to force their values and beliefs upon the people.

Which is sad, because the true way of pacifism is to use moral suasion, not force.

 

[sedonaman]

Most of the laws we have are a legislator’s attempt to force his or her morality and values upon everybody else. …

-]Most/-] ALL of the laws we have are a legislator’s attempt to force his or her morality and values upon everybody else. But what is wrong with that? Can you name one law that isn’t an attempt “to force someone’s morality and values upon everybody else”? The whole idea of the law is to force people to do or not do, as the case may be.

 

[mackbrislawn]

-]Most/-] ALL of the laws we have are a legislator’s attempt to force his or her morality and values upon everybody else. But what is wrong with that? Can you name one law that isn’t an attempt “to force someone’s morality and values upon everybody else”? The whole idea of the law is to force people to do or not do, as the case may be.

I have liberal friends who are terribly afraid of the religious right, because they fear the religious right will try to enforce its conservative morality upon them. They feel that is wrong, because it is morality they do not share.

The Nazis forced their values upon the people. Was that wrong? Caesar tried to force his values and religion upon the early Christians. Was that wrong? The Christians thought so! Jim Crow forced its morality by law upon the African-Americans. What was wrong with that?

Can I name one law that isn’t an attempt to force someone’s morality and values upon everybody else? A proper law is one where everybody agrees about its morality. Even a thief would not disagree about laws against stealing. It protects him too. If a significant number of the people are opposed to a law, that is good reason to think long and hard about passing it, even if you are a majority.

One of the purposes of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to protect the minority. The Bill of Rights limits the power of law to enforce its values upon the people. That’s one purpose of freedom of religion, so the state cannot force its religious views upon the people. What is wrong with forcing your religion upon everybody else?

I suppose if you are convinced you are right, and others are wrong, maybe you do have a duty to enlighten them, and make them follow the true path. That is a philosophical question. However, that viewpoint wouldn’t be considered compatible with a democracy.

 

[sedonaman]

I have liberal friends who are terribly afraid of the religious right, because they fear the religious right will try to enforce its conservative morality upon them. They feel that is wrong, because it is morality they do not share.

So your liberal friends find nothing wrong with their efforts to force morality they share onto people who don’t share them? If they are indeed against forced morality, then they should also oppose the Left’s attempt to force its morality on the Right.

The Nazis forced their values upon the people. Was that wrong? Caesar tried to force his values and religion upon the early Christians. Was that wrong? The Christians thought so! Jim Crow forced its morality by law upon the African-Americans. What was wrong with that?

I’m not saying the imposition through law of values and morality are all right and good, only that law, whether bad or good, is the imposition of its advocates’ values/morality on those subject to the law. You must be a liberal because you can’t see that. Liberals are convinced they have special knowledge that makes their opinions so right and good that they must even force them on others who don’t share them. Liberals just cannot accept that they might be wrong. Their opinions are so right and good that they are assumed to be society’s normal state of affairs and a given as a reference point [baseline zero, if you understand the terminology], and everything takes off from there and “progresses” Left. They are so right and good that anything else is “evil” and/or “extreme” and must be crushed. They are so right and good that liberals are absolutely blind to the idea that they are forcing their ideology on society. Even institutions dedicated to free inquiry [education] must toe the party line.

Can I name one law that isn’t an attempt to force someone’s morality and values upon everybody else? A proper law is one where everybody agrees about its morality. …

You will never get “everybody” to agree on what is morality. But that aside, I want you to quote word-for-word a specific law that is not the imposition of values and/or morality.

If a significant number of the people are opposed to a law, that is good reason to think long and hard about passing it, even if you are a majority.

Liberals don’t seem to have any reason to think at all, even when they are in a minority. A marriage amendment has passed in all 30 states that have put it up for a vote. Do liberals think maybe they are trying to force something on people who don’t want it? When they lose Kansas, do they re-examine what was wrong with their position? No. They go off and write books like What’s Wrong With Kansas?

… What is wrong with forcing your religion upon everybody else?

You would be forcing others to practice what they don’t believe, IOW, it is forced ideology, no different from liberals’ attempt to force their ideology.

I suppose if you are convinced you are right, and others are wrong, maybe you do have a duty to enlighten them, and make them follow the true path. That is a philosophical question. However, that viewpoint wouldn’t be considered compatible with a democracy.

You might have such a duty, but it would be limited to persuasion, not the abuse of the law. Democrats have been forcing us to “follow the true path” for as long as I can remember [50 years], and they call themselves “DEMOCRATS”. One would think this means they support democracy = rule of the majority. But no. They continue to write books like What’s Wrong With Kansas?

 

[mackbrislawn]

sedonaman;7897371

So your liberal friends find nothing wrong with their efforts to force morality they share onto people who don’t share them?

That’s right, liberals don’t like it when someone else forces morality upon them, but at the same time think it is just fine to force their own morality upon someone else! Quite a contradiction.

If they are indeed against forced morality, then they should also oppose the Left’s attempt to force its morality on the Right.

They should alright, but they don’t seem to care. The Left is right and the Right is wrong.

I’m not saying the imposition through law of values and morality are all right and good, only that law, whether bad or good, is the imposition of its advocates’ values/morality on those subject to the law.

Yes, I agree.

You must be a liberal because you can’t see that. Liberals are convinced they have special knowledge that makes their opinions so right and good that they must even force them on others who don’t share them. Liberals just cannot accept that they might be wrong. Their opinions are so right and good that they are assumed to be society’s normal state of affairs and a given as a reference point [baseline zero, if you understand the terminology], and everything takes off from there and “progresses” Left. They are so right and good that anything else is “evil” and/or “extreme” and must be crushed. They are so right and good that liberals are absolutely blind to the idea that they are forcing their ideology on society. Even institutions dedicated to free inquiry [education] must toe the party line.

You are completely right. Well said. Liberals today no longer believe in democracy, they no longer believe in the people. They think of themselves as an intellectual elite; they know more than the masses, and so it is their duty to impose their superior knowledge upon the rest. They are so assured they are correct, they don’t even bother to listen to other ideas. After all, why bother? Other ideas are all foolishness anyway.

You will never get “everybody” to agree on what is morality.

No, you won’t get everybody to agree. However, there are certain moralities that are common to all. That protect all. That deal with values that are pretty much universal. These are proper laws.

Improper laws are those that impose a morality that is specific to only a few, a limited number, but who nevertheless want to impose it upon the rest. They know that by moral suasion they will never be able to conince many people, so they take a shortcut, and shanghai the legislature by political maneuvering and coalitions, and impose their ideas by law.

But that aside, I want you to quote word-for-word a specific law that is not the imposition of values and/or morality.

No, I don’t know of one. Although there probably are some laws that deal with procedural matters that are by nature somewhat arbitrary and are not really dealing with values. A good proper law regarding values should not be arbitrary nor specific to a small minority.

Liberals don’t seem to have any reason to think at all, even when they are in a minority. A marriage amendment has passed in all 30 states that have put it up for a vote. Do liberals think maybe they are trying to force something on people who don’t want it? When they lose Kansas, do they re-examine what was wrong with their position? No. They go off and write books like *What’s Wrong With Kansas?*You would be forcing others to practice what they don’t believe, IOW, it is forced ideology, no different from liberals’ attempt to force their ideology.

Again, well said! Some people (well, liberals) are so convinced they are right, that they don’t care about the constitution anymore, but stampede the legislatures into imposing their thinking. Imposing from the top down, instead of the democratic way of from the bottom up.

You might have such a duty, but it would be limited to persuasion, not the abuse of the law. Democrats have been forcing us to “follow the true path” for as long as I can remember [50 years], and they call themselves “DEMOCRATS”. One would think this means they support democracy = rule of the majority. But no. They continue to write books like What’s Wrong With Kansas?

Yes, abuse of the law is the way to describe it. That’s what it is. The Democrats know they can never be able to persuade, so they co-opt the law and abuse it for their purposes. And they are not true liberals, for true liberals believe in the people, and the intelligence of the people, which today’s liberals no longer believe in.

 

[sedonaman]

… Although there probably are some laws that deal with procedural matters that are by nature somewhat arbitrary and are not really dealing with values…

Looks like we are in agreement on just about everything; however, I’m not sure I know what “procedural matters” you are thinking of here. Are you thinking of how a trial is conducted, for example?

I think that whenever people say, “You can’t legislate morality,” they are thinking of the “Thou-shalts” and “Thou-shalt-nots” in the Bible, not ordinary every-day law that make society orderly so that individual freedom is maximized. [Sorta like one man’s liberty ends where the next man’s nose begins.] These are all a given, like your examples of the universal acceptance of the laws against theft and murder. Duke calls it the “invisible morality": “You see, there is a morality that is so popular, so taken for granted, so much a part of the spirit of the age, that some folks don’t even recognize it as morality.”
“The Reality About Legislating Morality” by Selwyn Duke
thetruthpage.homestead.com/TheRealityAboutLegislatingMorality.html

P.S. Sorry I thought you were a liberal.

 

[valentino]

There has to be separation of Church and State.That’s the only way religions will be able not to be discriminated against.However there has to be a some basic fundamental moral values which in which the state operates.Otherwise a church which allowed bigomy,or denied doctor care to children because of the belief that God takes care of everyone,and so forth would have to be allowed.So the question is where does that moral basis come from.The Catholic Church is the one church or religion which sees the universal value and dignity of the human person and that all people should be respected.thats why the Church cannot accept abortion because you are disrespecting life which all people of every faith have a right to.We mustn’t kill ourselves so to speak because someone thinks there is a better end to be gained.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Looks like we are in agreement on just about everything; however, I’m not sure I know what “procedural matters” you are thinking of here. Are you thinking of how a trial is conducted, for example?

I think that whenever people say, “You can’t legislate morality,” they are thinking of the “Thou-shalts” and “Thou-shalt-nots” in the Bible, not ordinary every-day law that make society orderly so that individual freedom is maximized. [Sorta like one man’s liberty ends where the next man’s nose begins.] These are all a given, like your examples of the universal acceptance of the laws against theft and murder. Duke calls it the “invisible morality": “You see, there is a morality that is so popular, so taken for granted, so much a part of the spirit of the age, that some folks don’t even recognize it as morality.”
“The Reality About Legislating Morality” by Selwyn Duke
thetruthpage.homestead.com/TheRealityAboutLegislatingMorality.html

P.S. Sorry I thought you were a liberal.

Nope, not a liberal. I’m a very liberal person, but not a liberal!

Yes, procedural matters like how a trial is conducted, how to do things, administrative matters that are set in law, but really don’t have to do with the people’s behavior.

I like your invisible morality, so taken for granted that folks don’t even recognize it. And that is a concern of mine–today’s proliferation of laws that micromanage people’s affairs. It becomes such that things are not a matter of right and wrong, but only of legal and illegal. The only thing that is wrong anymore is to get caught!

 

[mackbrislawn]

There has to be separation of Church and State.That’s the only way religions will be able not to be discriminated against.However there has to be a some basic fundamental moral values which in which the state operates.Otherwise a church which allowed bigomy,or denied doctor care to children because of the belief that God takes care of everyone,and so forth would have to be allowed.So the question is where does that moral basis come from.The Catholic Church is the one church or religion which sees the universal value and dignity of the human person and that all people should be respected.thats why the Church cannot accept abortion because you are disrespecting life which all people of every faith have a right to.We mustn’t kill ourselves so to speak because someone thinks there is a better end to be gained.

Definitely there has to be separation of Church and State.

However, alas, it seems that separation is difficult to maintain. Not that Church will take over State, but that State will take on the functions of Church. The actual Church will become marginalized and its freedom of expression will be inhibited. You can have your religious beliefs but, boy, you had better keep them to yourself. Already in Canada a preacher was prosecuted for hate crimes because he preached against homosexuality. Will that happen here? Will the Church be forced to accept women as priests because men only is discriminatory? It sounds far-fetched but it is not.

So, there is the tendency ultimately for the State to become Church. By means of laws the State determines what is right and wrong, or rather legal and illegal. What the Church thinks is right and wrong becomes irrelevant. Religion becomes discriminated against and only secular values, atheistic values, can be preached.

 

[narrowgatequest]

I think the real question at hand here is not CAN people vote in line with their own religious views, it’s how much SHOULD they vote in line with their religious views, balanced with having a care for the views of others. This is the place where you have to start taking the greater good into account.

In the case of the “church which wants to make treating children with modern medicine illegal,” which one is the greater good, the child’s welfare or the parents’ religious liberty? The child’s welfare is the natural answer, and it probably has some backing in the Constitution. I argue that abortion is the same matter, the unborn infant’s life vs. the mother’s religious liberty to believe that the child isn’t a human? I choose the unborn infant’s life. Same would go for human sacrifice, if there was ever a revival of an ancient religion which called for human sacrifice, we wouldn’t hesitate to tell them that they cannot practice that part of their religion, because we are putting OUR religion ahead of theirs and the Constitution backs us. Conversely, the idea that preaching the Bible should be labelled as hate speech vs. religious liberty and freedom of speech, I argue that religious liberty and freedom of speech are more important than a person feeling uncomfortable. (This is in a reasonable fashion of course, I’m not talking about harassment or assault, just preaching.)

The Constitution is not, in fact, morally neutral. The Constitution has values, but they are guideline values, meant to prevent any one group from forcing their beliefs onto another to the point of violating the Constitution’s particular concepts of justice and liberty. Yes, even atheist or humanist beliefs. Every single person has a belief system, and the “separation of church and belief system” is just as important as the separation of church and state. If a belief is not found in the Constitution, then it is up for discussion, and atheist and humanist arguments have no more weight than a person of faith’s arguments in the eyes of the Constitution, as I already cited with the supreme court case.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Most of the laws we have are a legislator’s attempt to force his or her morality and values upon everybody else. They don’t even have to come from a religious faith–atheists will have beliefs too and want to force them upon the populace.

An example is Obamacare which is simply a certain group’s desire to force their values and beliefs upon the people.

Which is sad, because the true way of pacifism is to use moral suasion, not force.

Folks, you are having a great discussion here - I very much enjoy reading this thread.

I have had a special interest in bioethics for almost 20 years now (I happen to be a pharmacist and bio-medical scientist), and here are some developments I continue to be very preoccupied with.

There have been some decades-old conscience protection laws in place for healthcare professionals, but progress in this field is fast and furious. Thus, President Bush passed some regulations in late 2008, before he left office, to bring conscience protection up to date. E.g. there have been conscience protection for doctors and nurses who refuse to perform surgical abortions, for a long time. But there are new developments: drugs that cause a chemical abortion, drugs for euthanasia and assisted suicide - should a pharmacist ever be forced to fill a prescription for those? Should a doctor, or nurse, ever be forced to kill a patient through euthanasia/assisted suicide, or kill a baby by giving an abortive drug or so-called “contraceptive drug” with abortive activity, to the mother? Should a doctor, a scientist ever be forced to perform in vitro fertilization, embryo destruction, and embryonic stem cell research?

All these things are relatively recent developments, and the decades-old laws did not protect the conscience of healthcare providers. Thus, Bush passed a regulation in late 2008, before leaving office. And President Obama, predictably, rescinded everything that Pres. Bush passed, with the single exception of doctors and nurses still being able to refuse surgical abortions. If you work at a university hospital, and your boss thinks my way or the highway, you either dispense that abortive drug RU486/mifeprest/mifepristone or lose your job, well, you will lose your job and there’s nobody and nothing to protect you.

But this is not enough when it comes to one group imposing its morality on everybody else, because certain states like Washington and Illinois went further than that, imposing state laws meant to drive pro-life healthcare providers out of business.

With a supposed private university hospital, you could argue, well, that’s how the bosses want to run their hospital, and you either accept that or find another job.

But here comes in Washington state Governor Christine Gregoire. She pushed for laws forcing every single pharmacy and every single pharmacist in the state of WA, to either carry and dispense the morning-after pill “Plan B” which is abortifacient (causes abortions), or close their pharmacies and stop practicing their jobs as pharmacists in the state of WA. When Washington state’s Board of Pharmacy didn’t want to go along with the proposed law, Gov. Gregoire threatened to fire the members of the Board of Pharmacy, and also to have them sued for “gender discrimination” as if refusing to give abortive drugs to women was a gender discrimination issue. Gov. Gregoire was finally able to break the opposition, and only one single member of the Board of Pharmacy voted against the law - the rest voted for it, or abstained. As it stands today, if you are a pharmacist in the state of Washington, you are forced by law to carry Plan B, and dispense Plan B to the patient, or else you lose your license. If you have your own private business, your own private pharmacy, it still doesn’t matter a bit, because the state of WA will tell you what to do in your own business - stock and dispense the abortive drug Plan B, or lose your license as a pharmacist, and close down your pharmacy.

How’s that for one group legislating their morality and forcing their abortive agenda on everybody else?

The same thing was the case in Illinois - Gov. Rod Blagojevich passed a similar law, but now he is out of office, and a judge threw out his law when some pharmacists sued against this state-imposed mandate to carry and dispense Plan B.

Also, I’ve met my fair share of doctors in my life, and worked with them and developed friendships. One top practitioner was telling me that doctors should be forced to perform surgical abortions whether they want to or not, because women in rural areas don’t have easy access to abortions. Thus, the way to increase access, is to pass laws that would force all doctors and nurses to perform surgical abortions. Thanks God this doctor happened to be an oncologist, not an ob-gyn.

But I have known a pediatrician doctor who was outraged with parents who loved their hydrocephalic children and wanted them to receive the standard medical care that all babies receive, instead of “letting them go”. And what did she mean by “letting go”? Don’t give antibiotics to a hydrocephalic baby, don’t cure his/her pneumonia or common cold, let the baby die of a trivial disease that’s always treated, and cured with practically 100% success rate, in those other babies who are not hydrocephalic and thus deserve to live, in this pediatrician’s opinion.

Folks, all it takes is some doctor like the two I mentioned above, getting in a position of power, and I assure you they won’t hesitate to team up with politicians/legislators like Barack Obama, Rod Blagojevich, Christine Gregoire, and impose and force their own version of morality down the throats of everybody else.

 

[sedonaman]

…Yes, procedural matters like how a trial is conducted, how to do things, administrative matters that are set in law, but really don’t have to do with the people’s behavior.

Even these are moralaity legislated. Take a trial, for example. The rules for its conduct are laws that mandate that it will be conducted in a certain way to ensure the accused receives due process.

… And that is a concern of mine–today’s proliferation of laws that micromanage people’s affairs. …

This is where subsidium should come into play.

 

[sedonaman]

Definitely there has to be separation of Church and State.

However, alas, it seems that separation is difficult to maintain. Not that Church will take over State, but that State will take on the functions of Church. The actual Church will become marginalized and its freedom of expression will be inhibited. You can have your religious beliefs but, boy, you had better keep them to yourself. Already in Canada a preacher was prosecuted for hate crimes because he preached against homosexuality. Will that happen here? Will the Church be forced to accept women as priests because men only is discriminatory? It sounds far-fetched but it is not.

So, there is the tendency ultimately for the State to become Church. By means of laws the State determines what is right and wrong, or rather legal and illegal. What the Church thinks is right and wrong becomes irrelevant. Religion becomes discriminated against and only secular values, atheistic values, can be preached.

I agree with most of what you are saying here, except your first sentence. We have to be careful because “separation of church and state” has come to mean that the government has a permanent open season against anything that is religion in any way in order to prevent someone from being offended at its sight. Thus a little kindergarten girl becomes “congress” [as in “congress shall make no law”] and “establishment” becomes her saying grace over lunch at school.

While the current thinking of the courts has taken a broad definition of “establishment of religion” in order to target anything Christian, it doesn’t appear to extend to atheism or Islam. Should there be separation of atheism and state? Mosque and state?

The idea of “separation” deciding issues, as though it were part of the constitution, has been a disaster. “The metaphor of a ‘wall of separation’ is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” – William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

 

[mackbrislawn]

I agree with most of what you are saying here, except your first sentence. We have to be careful because “separation of church and state” has come to mean that the government has a permanent open season against anything that is religion in any way in order to prevent someone from being offended at its sight. Thus a little kindergarten girl becomes “congress” [as in “congress shall make no law”] and “establishment” becomes her saying grace over lunch at school.

While the current thinking of the courts has taken a broad definition of “establishment of religion” in order to target anything Christian, it doesn’t appear to extend to atheism or Islam. Should there be separation of atheism and state? Mosque and state?

The idea of “separation” deciding issues, as though it were part of the constitution, has been a disaster. “The metaphor of a ‘wall of separation’ is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” – William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

I agree with everything you’ve said.

The idea of separation of church and state has been completely turned upside down and inside out and is now used as a weapon against church and religion. It was meant to protect church and religion but has become by means of anti-democratic rulings, a tool to destroy church and religion.

There doesn’t seem to be a separation of atheism and state. It appears that atheism and state have become the same thing.