Religion in the Public Square

[Leela]

No, he wasn’t, for the perfectly obvious reason that Kildare pointed out (in his first two paragraphs). Democratically elected leaders who act in accordance with their consciences are clearly not thereby promoting theocracy - your claim is nonsense. And you still haven’t said what you think democracy is - can you tell us that??

Democracy is the ideal that political power ought to be shared equally by the citizenry and ought not be denied based on religious affiliation or lack thereof.

 

[edwest2]

There is no prevention of people using Christian dialogue in their Political discussions. Living in democracies with free speach we are entitled to do so. The fact that this will “put off” some voters is not the fault of any institution or system but a failure on behalf of Christian politicians to stand up for what they believe in. It is the individual politicians right; as well as responsibility – to stand up for what they believe in.

If Christian politicians don’t stand up for what they believe in; and Christian voters don’t vote sensibly; then is it any wonder the world is secularising? Theists have no one to blame but themselves for the lack of religion in politics.

That blame should be expanded to include a media that has become increasingly hostile to religion over the last 40 years. At first, it was respectful of such views, then, gradually, it went from a trustworthy source of news to an increasingly biased one. This did not happen overnight. This indoctrination dripped its poison into the veins of everyone in the West.

This “secularizing” happened slowly and gradually, like chipping against a great wall until a breach is made. That breach is in the process of being repaired. The Dictatorship of Relativism has been identified. Things are turning around and all Catholics need to be on board.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I like this statement:

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.” ~Barry Goldwater

Just substitute Leftist and Liberal today. This discussion should be about the truth. That is why I have zero Party affiliation. That is why I am only interested in the most sensible ideas regardless of which Party proposed them.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Hi all,

Here are a few more examples of the theocratic movement.

Former Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay helped raise money for an organization called the Traditional Values Coalition to fight back against the “war on Christianity” and "stop the all-out assault on Christians being waged by our government, by America’s educational institutions, by the media and throughout popular culture and, according to a fundraising letter, “to help [TVC founder Reverend Lou Sheldon] show America how the liberal Democrat have hijacked America’s courts to push a radical anti-God, anti-family agenda on America.”

Delay’s home state is Texas, where the State of Texas GOP platform of 2004 stated that, “The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation.” Lest anyone think that theocracy is merely an extremist concern that we need not worry about, let’s read on:

“Our Founders expected that Christianity–and no other religion–would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples’ consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.”

I think that last sentence is probably true and that the one preceding it then is probably false for that very reason. The Founding Father’s would not have sought any governmental favor for Christianity, if only because no other religion was on their radar any more than radars were on their radar. They didn’t imagine a country where Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and atheists resided together any more than the could fathom blacks and whites on equal social footing. That last sentence is only true in the way that it is true that most of the Founding Fathers apparently thought of “all men are created equal” as applying only to land-owning white males. Nevertheless, we now take the Constitution as ensuring that all people regardless of sex, race, or land-owning status are all deserving of the same protection under the law, and of course we all agree that we should. Likewise, we ought to regard all religions and the lack of religious belief as equally respected and equally not respected in terms of the establishment clause.

Of greatest concern all to democracy in the Texas Republican Party’s platform is its resolution that “Our party pledges to exert its influence to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and to dispel the ‘myth’ of the separation of church and state.” The myth of the myth of separation of church and state seem so be gaining traction, and we therefore ought to be prepared to argue for secularism as a way of ensuring religious freedom.

The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 filed by Republicans Richard Shelby and Robert Aderholt sought to make explicit, in the words of Roy Moore, a drafter of the bill,
“the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government…contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the ‘organic law’ of our Country by United States Code Annotated. The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal courts.”

The bill was originally introduced in 2004 and them was reintroduced in 2005. On both occasions in stalled in committee. That last sentence refers to part of the intent of the bill as to protect Christmas nativity displays in the so-called “war on Christmas.” I don’t think it ever had any chance to make it to the floor for a vote. The point of mentioning it and the Texas GOP platform is to point out that the theocratic movement is no straw man. It has some real state and national level appeal and is a real danger to furthering the cause of secularism. But it also enough of an extremist view that liberal and moderate Christians can be enlisted to help fight it alongside atheists so long as the defeat of the new theocrats is not allowed to be painted as an atheistic campaign.

To the atheists out there, we need to fight theocracy not in the name of atheism but in the name of democracy. Fighting theocracy in the name of atheism will only result in more theocrats.

Best,
Leela

I don’t know why you think the atheists out there aren’t interested in dismantling religion in the West. Take down the crosses in France. Take down the crosses in Arizona. Stop playing that religious music with the words to the street outside. We’ll let you play the music but not the words. Put plastic Santas and reindeer around that creche or we’ll take you to court!

amazon.com/dp/0805440453?tag=pageturners0c&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0805440453&creative=373489&camp=211189

The ACLU has done a lot of work to remove religious monuments from public buildings.

Somehow, they missed the religious monuments in the Supreme Court building:

morallaw.org/blog/?p=31

God bless,
Ed

 

[Betterave]

Democracy is the ideal that political power ought to be shared equally by the citizenry and ought not be denied based on religious affiliation or lack thereof.

Do you recognize that that is an idiosyncratic definition, not at all justifiable in light of the standard use of the term?

 

[antroji]

That is right, Betterave, because in today’s doublespeak standards, when we say “democracy,” particularly relative to but not restricted to foreign relations, we mean “plutocracy.”

 

[Leela]

I don’t know why you think the atheists out there aren’t interested in dismantling religion in the West.

One good reason for me to think so is that I am an atheist and I have no interest in “dismantling religion in the West.”

Take down the crosses in France. Take down the crosses in Arizona. Stop playing that religious music with the words to the street outside. We’ll let you play the music but not the words. Put plastic Santas and reindeer around that creche or we’ll take you to court!

The ACLU has done a lot of work to remove religious monuments from public buildings.

It should do so, and the courts have agreed because of the First Amendment. What you are missing is that while the ACLU fights against attempts to get the government to endorse a particular religion it also fights on behalf of the individuals right to free expression of religion.

aclu.org/religion-belief/…teal-christmas
"As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school.

There are many more examples, because the ACLU is committed to preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all. We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community’s courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse."

see also:

"The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today asked a federal district court in Springfield to protect the First Amendment rights of high school students who were disciplined by school officials for distributing candy canes with religious messages just before Christmas. "
aclu.org/free-speech/aclu…gious-messages

ACLU Fights for Christmas Tree
youtube.com/watch?v=6n7dAUnSBFg

Lots more examples of the ACLU fighting for the rights of Christians to practice Christianity here:
aclufightsforchristians.com/

 

[kildare]

One good reason for me to think so is that I am an atheist and I have no interest in “dismantling religion in the West.”

Do you seriously think that the church would survive if it was relegated to the private sphere?
Do you seriously believer that the Catholic Chruich would have emerged without:
the Public hierarchy as formed in 1st-2nd century, sustained by the blood of marthrys(PUBLIC executions), teh PUBLIC adoption of Christianity by the Empire in the 4th century, and the PUBLIC re-evangelisation of pagan Europe by Irish missionaries during the dark ages?

Secularising the state is like denying religion oxygen to breathe.
At least be honest about what you propose to do.

 

[zdon011]

Very good post, zdon! As no doubt you are aware, the Catholic Church is the number 1 soft target for all manner of assailants. The level of such antipathy here in Ireland is shocking but, alas, not surprising.
Still, we live in Hope that said assailants will be healed.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

You’re right, Colmcille. People pick on the Catholic Church for political reasons (e.g. Mr Paisley in Ireland), or because it doesn’t endorse their lifestyles, or because they’re just plain ignorant (like Mr Chick). It’s been a ‘soft target’ for 2000 years.

God bless you, too.

 

[Betterave]

That is right, Betterave, because in today’s doublespeak standards, when we say “democracy,” particularly relative to but not restricted to foreign relations, we mean “plutocracy.”

I don’t follow. That’s not what anyone I know means. Who is this ‘we’ you speak of and what evidence do you have for your claim about them? (And how is this relevant to the topic of this thread?)

 

[Betterave]

One good reason for me to think so is that I am an atheist and I have no interest in “dismantling religion in the West.”

What you do seem to be interested in is muzzling sincerely Christian politicians by fomenting bigotry towards them and those who might vote for them by gratuitously labeling them as “anti-democratic theocrats” because they believe in promoting the kingdom of God as they understand it - which is no different from what secular atheists like yourself do, except you obviously avoid the use of terms like “the kingdom of God.”

 

[colmcille1]

Do you seriously think that the church would survive if it was relegated to the private sphere?
Do you seriously believer that the Catholic Chruich would have emerged without:
the Public hierarchy as formed in 1st-2nd century, sustained by the blood of marthrys(PUBLIC executions), teh PUBLIC adoption of Christianity by the Empire in the 4th century, and the PUBLIC re-evangelisation of pagan Europe by Irish missionaries during the dark ages?

Secularising the state is like denying religion oxygen to breathe.
At least be honest about what you propose to do.

Very good post, kildare!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Irish_Saved_Civilization is the work that directly relates to your last example above.
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Betterave]

From an interview with the Very Rev. Dr. John Hall, Dean of Westminster Abbey:

Q: What do you think Anglicans stand to gain from the papal visit?

A: If the papal visit manages to raise, in the right sort of way, for debate the questions which I’ve referred to earlier about the fundamental relation between Christianity and our nation, then I believe we shall all have gained from it.
We should all see our country as being founded on Christian principles, and the life of the Church is deeply embedded in our country. That doesn’t mean to say that we don’t welcome those of other faiths. Of course we do.
And we want a good respect and proper dialogue between people of all faiths, and indeed of none.
That’s important, but nevertheless, we can’t simply slough off our history, and regard ourselves as a secular state. That is not what we are. We are a state that’s founded on religion. And the papacy was a very strong supporter of that for many centuries.
Since the 16th century things have gone slightly differently, but we’re all talking about the same things. And very often the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England in this country speak with the same voice on issues – not absolutely universally, but very often. And it’s much stronger when it is with the same voice.

 

[Leela]

Do you seriously think that the church would survive if it was relegated to the private sphere?
Do you seriously believer that the Catholic Chruich would have emerged without:
the Public hierarchy as formed in 1st-2nd century, sustained by the blood of marthrys(PUBLIC executions), teh PUBLIC adoption of Christianity by the Empire in the 4th century, and the PUBLIC re-evangelisation of pagan Europe by Irish missionaries during the dark ages?

Secularising the state is like denying religion oxygen to breathe.
At least be honest about what you propose to do.

The Church already is “relegated to the private sphere” and yet it survives.

Perhaps it would help to clarify what I mean by the public square. I’m not saying that religion literally has no place in public, only that it has no place in government or the reasoning behind out laws. From the ACLU website:

"Religion is pervasive in the public square in the United States — and it is constitutionally protected. The ACLU has long defended individuals, families, and religious communities who wish to manifest their religion in public. Particularly when compared to other industrialized democracies, religion plays a prominent role in American public life. Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, cathedrals, and Gurdwaras are plainly visible in the public sphere and their right to display religious symbols and to construct religious edifices is protected by the Constitution and by statutes. The ACLU has actively supported the right of people to preach their religion in public places and to go door-to-door to spread their religious messages. The Constitution properly protects the right of religious figures to preach their messages over the public airwaves. Religious books, magazines, and newspapers are freely published and delivered through the U.S. Postal System. No other industrialized democracy has as much religion in the public square as does the United States.

Some people, however, mistakenly use the word “public” when they really mean “governmental.” This can be seen, for example, with Ten Commandments monuments. The right of churches and families to erect such monuments on their own property is constitutionally protected, regardless of whether it is public or private and regardless of whether someone is offended or not. A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution. The issue is not “religion in the public square” — as the rhetoric misleadingly suggests — but whether the government should be making decisions about whose sacred texts and symbols should be placed on government property and whose should be rejected."

 

[Leela]

What you do seem to be interested in is muzzling sincerely Christian politicians by fomenting bigotry towards them and those who might vote for them by gratuitously labeling them as “anti-democratic theocrats” because they believe in promoting the kingdom of God as they understand it - which is no different from what secular atheists like yourself do, except you obviously avoid the use of terms like “the kingdom of God.”

No, that isn’t it. I am not trying to muzzle anyone. I am just describing why things are as they are with regard to the relationship of religion to government, so that the religious stop blaming the atheists because we didn’t do it, secularize government and political discourse that is. There is a far less insidious reason why the government is secular. It is because it always has been, and political discourse has become more secular because religious premises cannot be presupposed in political arguments today. Secularization of political discourse didn’t happen because people felt pressure to taylor their arguments to atheists. It happened because even within the modern Christian community, there is a broad diversity of opinion about the authority given to Biblical passages and the interpretation of those passages. It is that fact in addition to the fact that there are more and more members of non-Christian religions that religious traditionalists can no longer rely on the authority of Bible quotes or the Church to argue for their political positions. Nothing prevents them from attempting it other than the imprudence of pursuing such a strategy of presuming agreement on premises upon which there is such a diversity of opinion.

The reason I want to get politicians to stop all the Southern Strategery and playing on cultural enmities that are irrelevant to government (since religious reasoning cannot enter the law anyway) is because it gets people to vote against their own interests and takes all our eyes of the ball so that the plutocrats have their way. Theocracy is NOT a big threat to democracy by itself. What is a threat to democracy is the way the plutocrats are exploiting the theocrats and getting us all to argue about nonsense like this ground zero mosque.

 

[JohnDamian]

No other industrialized democracy has as much religion in the public square as does the United States.

Absolutely correct.

There is more religion in the public square in America; and it is clearly different from governmental control.

In the UK there is far less religion in the public square; even though there is far more religion in regards to government (with about 4-5% of the house of Lord’s (part of Parliment, the other part being the house of Commons) being Bishops of the Church of England).

It is not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing to have religion in Government; but it is certainly a good thing to have religion in the public square. The fact that Bishops and Priests are encouraged not to partake in government reflects the Catholic Church’s commitment to avoid Governmental involvement with the Clergy; and visa versa.

 

[Leela]

From an interview with the Very Rev. Dr. John Hall, Dean of Westminster Abbey:

Q: What do you think Anglicans stand to gain from the papal visit?

A: If the papal visit manages to raise, in the right sort of way, for debate the questions which I’ve referred to earlier about the fundamental relation between Christianity and our nation, then I believe we shall all have gained from it.
We should all see our country as being founded on Christian principles, and the life of the Church is deeply embedded in our country. That doesn’t mean to say that we don’t welcome those of other faiths. Of course we do.
And we want a good respect and proper dialogue between people of all faiths, and indeed of none.
That’s important, but nevertheless, we can’t simply slough off our history, and regard ourselves as a secular state. That is not what we are. We are a state that’s founded on religion. And the papacy was a very strong supporter of that for many centuries.
Since the 16th century things have gone slightly differently, but we’re all talking about the same things. And very often the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England in this country speak with the same voice on issues – not absolutely universally, but very often. And it’s much stronger when it is with the same voice.

What are these “Christian principles”?

 

[kildare]

I must admit, I’m looking at this from a more european rather than american persepctive. In European countries like sweden, humanists want to ban religion entirely from education system. Even in Ireland there is now a debate.

By the way, thanks Colmcille for highlighting that link. I’ve read the book and its very good. Sadly a fact too often ignored by historians. If it wasnt for the Irish monks, Western civilsiation would also have lost Latin secular texts, many of which formed the inspiration to the American founding father’s “secular” constitution.
Anyway Its amazing to think that in Ireland today, after centuries of standing up to religious persecution, people are now falling away. Not all thankfully, but the attacks are relentless. The irish media is an utter disgrace, but its nothing compared to the venom you read in the general european press. Americans have it easy in comparison.

 

[edwest2]

One good reason for me to think so is that I am an atheist and I have no interest in “dismantling religion in the West.”

It should do so, and the courts have agreed because of the First Amendment. What you are missing is that while the ACLU fights against attempts to get the government to endorse a particular religion it also fights on behalf of the individuals right to free expression of religion.

aclu.org/religion-belief/…teal-christmas
"As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school.

There are many more examples, because the ACLU is committed to preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all. We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community’s courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse."

see also:

"The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today asked a federal district court in Springfield to protect the First Amendment rights of high school students who were disciplined by school officials for distributing candy canes with religious messages just before Christmas. "
aclu.org/free-speech/aclu…gious-messages

ACLU Fights for Christmas Tree
youtube.com/watch?v=6n7dAUnSBFg

Lots more examples of the ACLU fighting for the rights of Christians to practice Christianity here:
aclufightsforchristians.com/

Now atheists have a lobbyist in Washington:

cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/25/politics/main974730.shtml

I’m seeing a pattern here. Just like the creches that suddenly turned unconstitutional or the religious monuments in buildings that suddenly turned unconstitutional. On balance, the ACLU is still mostly against religion in America.

I appreciate your time, research and links. There are two sides to this story.

God bless,
Ed

 

[zdon011]

It should do so, and the courts have agreed because of the First Amendment. What you are missing is that while the ACLU fights against attempts to get the government to endorse a particular religion it also fights on behalf of the individuals right to free expression of religion.

aclu.org/religion-belief/…teal-christmas
"As part of our justice mission, we work hard to protect the rights of free religious expression for all people, including Christians. For example, we recently defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets in southern Indiana. The ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian valedictorian in a Michigan high school, which agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries, and supported the rights of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at their school.

There are many more examples, because the ACLU is committed to preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all. We agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s firm rulings that this freedom means that children who grow up in non-Christian homes should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community’s courthouse, legislature or public schoolhouse."

see also:

"The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today asked a federal district court in Springfield to protect the First Amendment rights of high school students who were disciplined by school officials for distributing candy canes with religious messages just before Christmas. "
aclu.org/free-speech/aclu…gious-messages

ACLU Fights for Christmas Tree
youtube.com/watch?v=6n7dAUnSBFg

Lots more examples of the ACLU fighting for the rights of Christians to practice Christianity here:
aclufightsforchristians.com/

So they’re not biased against Christians. Well, then I have nothing against the ACLU. Thank you for your proofs, Leela:thumbsup: