I was about to post the same thing. Are we talking about separation of church and state or the attempt to remove religious symbols and references from all aspects of society?Can you define it so there’s a place we can start with? State or society?
While I appreciate the question, I think it should also encompass the 80% of Catholics who don’t practice their faith, and some of the 20% who attend Mass out of obligation.Protestants, what is your view of secularism?
P. S. Ok, I realize this is a rather weak opening post, but I also know that on occasion such threads have worked out alright, so I’m just going to hope for the best.
I think I would answer this more as an American than as a protestant. I support separation of church and state as intended by the writers of our constitution, which is actually free exercise of religion. I also understand that there’s not one system of government that is perfect, and we have to limp along until Christ decides to return.Protestants, what is your view of secularism?
Sorry, I haven’t been on CAF very much today, but probably will be later.Can you define it so there’s a place we can start with? State or society?
I support secularism in the way it has historically been practiced in the USA–as in the government does not favor any one denomination, church or religion over another but lets all religious beliefs compete in the marketplace of ideas on an equal footing.Protestants, what is your view of secularism?
I agree with you for the most part. Though I will say in response to your last paragraph, it’s not necessarily absence of religion from the public sphere that is being mandated. Rather it’s the absence of supporting one religion over others that is being mandated.I support secularism in the way it has historically been practiced in the USA–as in the government does not favor any one denomination, church or religion over another but lets all religious beliefs compete in the marketplace of ideas on an equal footing.
While the state has been ordained by God to restrain the wicked, it has no business telling people what they should believe or what church they should support. History is full of examples of religious institutions being subordinated to unholy political purposes when the two are inextricably linked. And there is always the inescapable problem that occurs when religious minorities dissent from the officially sanctioned religious dogma. Someone’s rights of conscience always ends up being violated–sometimes requiring dissenters to make the ultimate sacrifice.
I am concerned about recent tendencies to define secularism as the constitutionally mandated absence of religion in the public square. I believe this goes against American values as articulated in the First Amendment.
I"m not saying that the government on the whole mandates the absence of religion. I’m pointing out that some people would like the government to do that and are attempting to redefine the parameters of religious freedom in this country through social pressure and other influence that attempts to silence religious views in the public sector.I agree with you for the most part. Though I will say in response to your last paragraph, it’s not necessarily absence of religion from the public sphere that is being mandated. Rather it’s the absence of supporting one religion over others that is being mandated.
But it’s not my responsibility to present other religious viewpoints. The First Amendment gives me the right to express my religious beliefs; it does not require me to also present other religious views.Now often that results in all religion being removed because those pushing the one religion over others don’t want to shoulder the burden of presenting religious viewpoints other than their own. But again, that’s not a mandate to remove religion. That’s on the people pushing the religious viewpoint.
If you’re presenting your religious viewpoint as part of an official public action/proceeding/display, etc… then yes it is your responsibility to ensure all viewpoints are being shown if you want it to pass constitutional scrutiny. That’s the price you pay for bringing a religious viewpoint to the public sphere. You’re welcome to express your viewpoint as a private individual to your heart’s content in the public, but the second you make the state a party to that expression, then it must make sure ALL religions are able to be represented equally. That’s where the issue lies. Take a recent and classic example, the ten commandments in a public building. That’s fine courts have rightly ruled, but then other religions similar codification of laws have to be given equal treatment or the government has in effect become a sponsor of Christianity. And in this classic example typically the private individuals who introduced the ten commandments in the first place, or the state actor in the instances the state did it at a private individual’s behest, don’t want to bother with other religions so they pull the commandments. As they should. Because refusing to so becomes government sponsorship of Christianity.I"m not saying that the government on the whole mandates the absence of religion. I’m pointing out that some people would like the government to do that and are attempting to redefine the parameters of religious freedom in this country through social pressure and other influence that attempts to silence religious views in the public sector.
Part of this can be seen in how people attempt to subtly redefine the First Amendment to be “freedom to worship as one chooses” instead of what it actually is–freedom to exercise your religion. Freedom of worship is often code for you have the right to express your religion in your church or mosque or synagogue but religious expression outside of those limited spheres is not protected.
But it’s not my responsibility to present other religious viewpoints. The First Amendment gives me the right to express my religious beliefs; it does not require me to also present other religious views.
Same issue here. State colleges are state actors. And their official organizations are arms of that state actor. They have to be religion agnostic in terms of membership to be constitutionally compliant. If they’re not then the state by extension is endorsing the religion the group is representing.This mindset is similar to restrictions placed on religious groups on state college campuses, for example. Student organizations at some universities have lost recognition because they have religious requirements for members (for example, that members of a Christian group actually be a Christian or that they not be practicing homosexuals). Universities have argued that these membership requirements violate anti-discrimination policies even though adhering to such policies essentially undermines the religious identity of the organizations.
.
That’s a state responsibility, not an individual responsibility. For example, you can open up city council meetings with prayer from a specific deity without violating the establishment clause as long as you invite clergy from any and all faiths on a revolving basis. However, a Catholic priest is not responsible for invoking every deity in his prayer when provides a public benediction.If you’re presenting your religious viewpoint as part of an official public action/proceeding/display, etc… then yes it is your responsibility to ensure all viewpoints are being shown if you want it to pass constitutional scrutiny. That’s the price you pay for bringing a religious viewpoint to the public sphere. You’re welcome to express your viewpoint as a private individual to your heart’s content in the public, but the second you make the state a party to that expression, then it must make sure ALL religions are able to be represented equally. That’s where the issue lies. Take a recent and classic example, the ten commandments in a public building. That’s fine courts have rightly ruled, but then other religions similar codification of laws have to be given equal treatment or the government has in effect become a sponsor of Christianity. And in this classic example typically the private individuals who introduced the ten commandments in the first place, or the state actor in the instances the state did it at a private individual’s behest, don’t want to bother with other religions so they pull the commandments. As they should. Because refusing to so becomes government sponsorship of Christianity.
Public colleges and universities are not required by the Constitution to ban all religious discrimination in student organizations. Universities and colleges set their own non-discrimination policies. There is nothing stopping these institutions from making exceptions to their policies, such as allowing explicitly religious student groups to require adherence to a statement of faith from members. Many universities do make exceptions, but the fact that other universities will not allow these exceptions demonstrates that they do not value protecting the rights of religious groups to fully function on their campuses.Same issue here. State colleges are state actors. And their official organizations are arms of that state actor. They have to be religion agnostic in terms of membership to be constitutionally compliant. If they’re not then the state by extension is endorsing the religion the group is representing.
It is a burden because student organizations that lack official recognition cannot access university resources (such as access to minimal school funds, use of school space, access to channels for official communications, and the right to use the school branding and logo).This disadvantages religious organizations that actually want to be religious organizations not only in name but in practice and composition. Whereas other organizations are free to define who can be members, religious organizations by their very nature are prohibited from setting membership requirements that are most important to them.Now that may place a small burden on the individuals of a particular religion in that group, but that’s the price we pay to have a government that doesn’t endorse one religion over another. And functionally, is it really such a burden? Individuals in such clubs can still create clubs without official school ties privately.
While you probably would not have an influx of atheists or homosexuals into an evangelical organization, you can conceivably have situations in which people who are already members change their religious views or no longer meet the moral requirements of the organization who refuse to cease involvement and then you have an issue over maintaining the organizations theological and moral integrity.Or alternatively remain tied to the public institution but make it clear what their club is about without officially banning non-Christians or homosexuals. You’re not going to see many non-Christians or homosexuals hanging around the clubhouse under such circumstances.
P. S. To be perfectly honest, this definition was a little bit of a surprise to me.Anyhow, let it be known by all the words of the Wikipedia, none other than these same: "Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries"
Did you like JFK? Maybe you aren’t old enough, but even historically?I think I would answer this more as an American than as a protestant. I support separation of church and state as intended by the writers of our constitution, which is actually free exercise of religion. I also understand that there’s not one system of government that is perfect, and we have to limp along until Christ decides to return.
I don’t support attempts to erase religion from the public sphere as that is the antithesis of the intent of separation of church and state. I believe in freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Yeah, he was a bit before my time, my first president I can actually remember well is Reagan. I haven’t studied JFK’s constitutional positions enough to know if I would have liked him, or not. Was there something he took a stance on or said that was about what we are talking about? I’d like to read it, if so.Did you like JFK? Maybe you aren’t old enough, but even historically?
Separation of Church and State stance. Here is a speech he gave to a group of Protestant ministers:Yeah, he was a bit before my time, my first president I can actually remember well is Reagan. I haven’t studied JFK’s constitutional positions enough to know if I would have liked him, or not. Was there something he took a stance on or said that was about what we are talking about? I’d like to read it, if so.
As the groups are extensions of the public institution itself the university should not participate in assisting a religious group representing itself as tied to the university in discriminating against students based on race, religion, creed, etc… To me that comes part and parcel with getting university funds, right to use their logo, etc… If you can’t abide by that, that’s fine. But don’t expect the state to fund you.Public colleges and universities are not required by the Constitution to ban all religious discrimination in student organizations. Universities and colleges set their own non-discrimination policies. There is nothing stopping these institutions from making exceptions to their policies, such as allowing explicitly religious student groups to require adherence to a statement of faith from members. Many universities do make exceptions, but the fact that other universities will not allow these exceptions demonstrates that they do not value protecting the rights of religious groups to fully function on their campuses.
It is a burden because student organizations that lack official recognition cannot access university resources (such as access to minimal school funds, use of school space, access to channels for official communications, and the right to use the school branding and logo).This disadvantages religious organizations that actually want to be religious organizations not only in name but in practice and composition. Whereas other organizations are free to define who can be members, religious organizations by their very nature are prohibited from setting membership requirements that are most important to them.
There was a lot he said I agree with, and some I didn’t, but I think the main thought I had was that his pov would only work in an ideal state… I don’t think we actually live in that ideal state, nor never will until Christ comes and then we’ll have the King, so the rest will be moot! lolSeparation of Church and State stance. Here is a speech he gave to a group of Protestant ministers:
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
Sure. I don’t think it’s all very realistic either. To the point of believing it was politically inspired (to generate votes). Any man (or woman) who is acting as President of the United States, will be influenced by what they believe. Their Christian morals (or if another religion) would not be completely set aside. It’s not even possible to do. If one is Christian, then they derive their morals through their faith and it’s Teachings.There was a lot he said I agree with, and some I didn’t, but I think the main thought I had was that his pov would only work in an ideal state… I don’t think we actually live in that ideal state, nor never will until Christ comes and then we’ll have the King, so the rest will be moot! lol
I do agree with the above, which is why I think it is a fair question to ask any politician. And, yes, God is acknowledged, though I do think that it could be interpreted not so much the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so much as the Creator/philosophical Originator idea. I’m not one that says the constitution can only be utilized by Christians… but I do think it helps, as well as the fact that for the constitution to have any real power or meaning, the country must be a moral one, and hence, to believe (in the main) in something Absolute and beyond us.Sure. I don’t think it’s all very realistic either. To the point of believing it was politically inspired (to generate votes). Any man (or woman) who is acting as President of the United States, will be influenced by what they believe. Their Christian morals (or if another religion) would not be completely set aside. It’s not even possible to do. If one is Christian, then they derive their morals through their faith and it’s Teachings.
I’m not sure where JFK even stood on various moral issues. But it is also fair to say that he could serve the Constitution in order to administer decision making and not so much his/her personal faith. But we can say that because Christianity is not necessarily absent from the Constitution. God is acknowledged and afforded a “place”, right?