The Jeffersonian Compromise

[Leela]

1. All human beings are created equal. Or, alternately:
2. All human beings are equally valuable, under the law.

I don’t believe that there are any secular *justifications *for #1 or #2. This does not mean that a nonreligious person may not choose #1 or #2 as a first principle, I suppose.

But the larger point is this: **if Senator JoeBob is making a speech, and says that we ought to free the slaves because every person is equally dignified under God, and uses a Scripture passage to back up this claim, how has Senator JoeBob violated the separation of church and state? **Any atheist is free to agree or disagree with the senator’s statement. In your view, has JoeBob crossed the line?

Senator Joe has not violated any law. My point is that custom rather than law ought to forbid making such claims since they are inadmissible as justifications for laws. Saying that all people ought to be treated with dignity is a position that all people can in principle get behind. The claim that God wants it that way is one that would require a specific religious view and is therefore irrelevant to political rather than religious discourse. in government, voices claiming to be God’s are on a par with every other voice. It doesn’t lend your claim any extra weight to claim God’s authority for it. It is no more than saying that you think it ought to be so. This is not to say that your claim carries no weight. It does.

 

[Leela]

The government shouldn’t fund religion, like it does in Germany and (I believe still) the UK. People should not be denied public service jobs because they are the wrong religion, which happened well into the 20th century in Northern Ireland. People should not be executed because they have converted from one religion to another, and no force whatsoever should be allowed to cause anyone to convert. People should not be taxed at different rates based on their religion.

Agreed.

However, materialistic atheism is a religious position, and it is no more fair to force all laws to pass its criteria than it is to require everyone to attend Mass every week. “There shall be no establishment of a state religion” is vastly different from “The established state religion shall be atheism.”

I think you are correct to say that materialism is as much a metaphysical claim as those made by religion. I am not saying that government ought to subscribe to materialism. I am saying that in justifying laws we ought to avoid metaphysics.

In any case, having (for example) a privately paid-for creche on public land at Christmas is not creating a state religion. It’s not forcing, coercing, or even pursuading anyone to change religions. In my experience, devout Jewish and Muslim people are not bothered by such things.

There is no problem wrong such displays so long as space is also given for displays celebrating the holidays of other religions. The appearance of endorsing a particular religion is what is problematic.

The fact of the existance of God, and His revelation of His will for us, is a central fact of my existence and I refuse to leave it outside the polling place, nor do I desire all politicians to leave it outside the Capitol.

Accepted. No one should ask you to.

There is nothing in any part of the Constitution that says that people’s religious beliefs (including those of elected officials) should not inform their voting decisions on moral issues.

Agreed.

The actual effects of your position are that only atheists in public office would be allowed to vote their consciences at all times, because none of their beliefs would be religiously based. Instead they would be based on personal preference, the views of various philosophers, whatever pseudo-science they happened to pick up misrepresented in a newspaper (these are politicians still, not scientists), whatever the guy at the raquet club said yesterday, etc. While at the same time, anyone who believed in God (still a great majority here) would have to prove that his views were not based on religion before he could vote them. It doesn’t sound like the free exercise of religion to me.

I’m wondering how you think you have absolved yourself of the responsibility of your moral decisions. I can’t see ho we as individuals can avoid such responsibility simply by subscribing to a religion.

In any case, as a Virginian, I highly object to your stating your position under Jefferson’s name. I do not think he would recognize or endorse your position as stated. The “wall of separation” letter was written to reassure a religious minority that its freedom to practice religion in its own way was not something that they enjoyed as some sort of favor from the government, but something that they had a right to (at least at a federal level). It was not in any way that people shouldn’t be allowed to enact laws based on moral principles that are based in personal religious belief. You are putting words into Mr. Jefferson’s mouth that I’m pretty sure he would spit out.

–Jen

I really don’t think so. Can you be more specific about something I said that Jefferson would not endorse?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Leela,
In your compromised country, would I be able to not prescribe a ‘morning after pill’ as a pharmacist to a woman who came seeking it, on the grounds that I morally object -or will the secular law of the land require me to prescribe it?

This compromise isn’t something I just made up. It is something the Constitution already ensures. I was making a somewhat cheeky appeal that we all support it. It should be obvious that we ought to , but since so many theocrats are emerging these days who are claiming that the separation of church and state is a myth it is worth making explicit why we ought to.

In the case you asked about, there is no law (in most states) that requires pharmacists to do that and no Constitutional argument against pharmacists refusing to administer any contraception or the morning after pill. The issues I am talking about are about government endorsing a religion, not pharmacists endorsing a religion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Senator Joe has not violated any law. My point is that custom rather than law ought to forbid making such claims since they are inadmissible as justifications for laws. Saying that all people ought to be treated with dignity is a position that all people can in principle get behind.

This reminds me of Kant, but it didn’t work for Kant either. As a person more verbally intelligent than many people around me, I see no (secular) reason to believe that all people are of equal worth. I may “not be able to shake” my sense that this is so, but my sense is entirely rooted within the religious tradition. (Check the history on this, if you really doubt it).

The claim that God wants it that way is one that would require a specific religious view and is therefore irrelevant to political rather than religious discourse. in government, voices claiming to be God’s are on a par with every other voice. It doesn’t lend your claim any extra weight to claim God’s authority for it.

Well, if it really makes no difference, then why would you want a custom against it? Do you want a custom against senators saying that their great Aunt Sue looked at her Ouiji board and saw that we should vote no?

I suspect the reason for your custom is that people actually DO care about what the Bible says, and people actually DO change their opinions because of it. But I fail to understand what is so distinctive about religious speech. A senator could cite the writings of a prominent jurist, or an environmental ethicist, or a libertarian, or an anarchist, even though many people are personally opposed to such rhetoric. So why not the Bible?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

It should be obvious that we ought to , but since so many theocrats are emerging these days who are claiming that the separation of church and state is a myth it is worth making explicit why we ought to.

Theocrats are emerging? What about atheists emerging who want to suppress the spirit of religion in public affairs?

What you don’t seem willing to admit is that the term “secular” is really a euphemism for “atheist.” Until we start recognizing that secularism is not a value-neutral word, but really signifies the collective forces that are opposed to religion, we are not really going to get a handle on what is happening in the country today. When the government adopts a secularist position on controversial social issues, it is really saying that the minority values are entitled to overcome the religious ones, and that this entitlement is embedded in the Constitution. This is what happened with Roe v Wade, when the nation first discovered, with quite a shock, that the unborn were not regarded as human beings and could be summarily executed in the womb with impunity so far as a secular Supreme Court was concerned. The religious establishment certainly did not promote this decision. And so, we have an instance where the minority ruled against the will of the majority … hardly a situation that reflects democracy in action.

 

[edwest2]

I can’t see anyway of shirking the responsibility for deciding for one’s self what is best. Can you?

Then why do you post here and tell Christians: Hi. Your beliefs are irrelevant. Keep them out of the government? Everyone has beliefs, including atheists. It doesn’t matter how they’re cobbled together but that’s what it amounts to. Secular people are not perfect containers of all logic and reason. I’ve met people who don’t believe in anything in particular with faulty reasoning skills.

My point is - Why do feel the need to dictate to Catholics? If you support the concept of radical individualism then why tell Catholics anything? We are free to decide for ourselves what is best.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Leela]

Then why do you post here and tell Christians: Hi. Your beliefs are irrelevant. Keep them out of the government? Everyone has beliefs, including atheists. It doesn’t matter how they’re cobbled together but that’s what it amounts to. Secular people are not perfect containers of all logic and reason. I’ve met people who don’t believe in anything in particular with faulty reasoning skills.

My point is - Why do feel the need to dictate to Catholics? If you support the concept of radical individualism then why tell Catholics anything? We are free to decide for ourselves what is best.

I never said that your belief are trivial or irrelevant. They are just irrelevant to government. There are lots and lots of things that are far from trivial but nevertheless have nothing to do with government.

 

[Leela]

It should be obvious that we ought to , but since so many theocrats are emerging these days who are claiming that the separation of church and state is a myth it is worth making explicit why we ought to.

Theocrats are emerging? What about atheists emerging who want to suppress the spirit of religion in public affairs?

Such militant atheists are also prater of the problem. The militant atheists and the theocrats are more flame throwers than conversationalists, and both live one another’s deaths. What you need to do in the above (as well as atheists who tend toward militancy) is to distinguish between “public” and “governmental.”

The freedom of public expressions of religion is something we can both support and should support. Likewise, the exclusion of religion from government is something we both ought to support.

 

[edwest2]

I never said that your belief are trivial or irrelevant. They are just irrelevant to government. There are lots and lots of things that are far from trivial but nevertheless have nothing to do with government.

“They are just irrelevant to government.” Why do you think that? The words “In God We Trust” just magically appeared on United States coins one day? The Supreme Court building accidentally included references to the Ten Commandments in its architecture?

The Catholic voice will Always be heard in government - always.

Once again, what you are doing here is nothing less than dictating. And I do read the atheist sites. The big “fear” is that “we will lose this.” The “this” meaning the perceived gains atheists have made in the United States for what they call reason and reality. Which are, in fact collectivist ideas of personal freedoms that include certain issues like gay marriage and legalizing dope. They want the United States reformed into their image and likeness.

Please do not post dictatorial comments here.

Catholics are entitled to our beliefs and we are free to base our lives on them.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

The freedom of public expressions of religion is something we can both support and should support. Likewise, the exclusion of religion from government is something we both ought to support.

I support the exclusion of religion from government only to the extent that I support the view that taxes should not be levied by the government to support religious denominations. That and that alone was the intention of the framers, that no religious denomination was to put their collective hand into the taxpayers’ pockets, a practice that had been going on for centuries in Europe. That is what is meant by the “wall of separation.” If you can find another definition of that phrase and give us your source from Jefferson, you are welcome to do so. However, even the “wall of separation” phrase is not in the Constitution.

The Constitution certainly does not say that laws may be passed that do not reflect the moral consensus of the religious majority, but rather a secular minority. Nor does it say that religious people have to pay taxes for programs that are directly contrary to their beliefs (such as taxpayer funded abortion). Nor does it say that physicians who are Catholics must perform abortions or lose their certification as physicians, or their federal or state funding if they are Catholic hospitals.

---

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hi all,

I have a nice compromise to offer you. The government will guarantee your right to have any religious beliefs and practices you want. No one will be able to impose their religion upon you. You and only you get to choose what church you belong to, or if you want, you can even choose to belong to no church at all. You will retain the same rights and voice in government no matter what you choose with regard to religion. In fact, the government will not even tax churches so long as churches don’t endorse any particular political candidates.

Nice, huh? In exchange we only ask one thing, that laws will be made based on justifications available to all people regardless of whatever other-worldy vision your religion might have. Our government will be secular, i.e., of this world. It must be in order to enable religious freedom for all where no religious group gets to dominate another religious group. A government is a set of laws and institutions, and for our government to be secular (of this world), the justification for the existence of all its specific laws and specific institutions must all be arguable based on premises referring only to this world.

This compromise is indeed the best solution. And you’ve described it with meticulous and laudable precision.

Please note that I think many vocal atheists and libertines fail to live up to the reality of this compromise just as much as would-be theocrats do, just in the opposite direction.

 

[Leela]

“They are just irrelevant to government.” Why do you think that? The words “In God We Trust” just magically appeared on United States coins one day? The Supreme Court building accidentally included references to the Ten Commandments in its architecture?

These are interesting examples. The Supreme Court actually didn’t have a building until 1935. A law requiring In God We Trust on our money was passed only in the 50’s. Likewise, Under God in the Pledge was added in the 50’s. Both as part of the Communist scare. So, yeah, in a sense, they did just “magically appear” at some late point in American history rather than being fundamental to its inception.

Catholics are entitled to our beliefs and we are free to base our lives on them.

You certainly are, Ed. I never said otherwise. What you can’t do is force other people to base their lives on them. In exchange, no open else will be able to force you to practice their religion. That sounds like a good compromise to me.

Best,
Leela

 

[revert_jen]

I think you are correct to say that materialism is as much a metaphysical claim as those made by religion. I am not saying that government ought to subscribe to materialism. I am saying that in justifying laws we ought to avoid metaphysics.

What exactly would you have them based on, if not materialism and not philosophy? Or would we have to use some philosophy that avoids metaphysics? Is there one?

revert_jen;6985064:

The fact of the existance of God, and His revelation of His will for us, is a central fact of my existence and I refuse to leave it outside the polling place, nor do I desire all politicians to leave it outside the Capitol.

Accepted. No one should ask you to.

Actually, as far as I can tell, you just did. If none of my religious justifications are valid reasons for any law whatsoever, then how can I bring them to the polling place, and how can politicians use them for their voting?

revert_jen;6985064:

There is nothing in any part of the Constitution that says that people’s religious beliefs (including those of elected officials) should not inform their voting decisions on moral issues.

Agreed.

Really? Because you said:

religious reasons ought to be regarded as illegitimate in the “public square”

If the religious reasons are regarded as illegitimate, then how am I able to use them for voting? Are you saying that religious people are allowed to vote for legislation on religious grounds, but must then keep their reasoning a secret because the reasons are illegitimate?

revert_jen;6985064:

The actual effects of your position are that only atheists in public office would be allowed to vote their consciences at all times, because none of their beliefs would be religiously based. Instead they would be based on personal preference, the views of various philosophers, whatever pseudo-science they happened to pick up misrepresented in a newspaper (these are politicians still, not scientists), whatever the guy at the raquet club said yesterday, etc. While at the same time, anyone who believed in God (still a great majority here) would have to prove that his views were not based on religion before he could vote them. It doesn’t sound like the free exercise of religion to me.

I’m wondering how you think you have absolved yourself of the responsibility of your moral decisions. I can’t see ho we as individuals can avoid such responsibility simply by subscribing to a religion.

Me, I’m wondering what your response has to do with what I said. You have said that religious reasoning is not allowed. If my reasons are religious, then they are not allowed, so you are telling me I can’t vote my conscience because my reasoning is illegitimate. I am quite happy to take all responsibility for my views, of course. That is not the same as saying that I can argue all of them effectively if I am not allowed to acknowledge the reality of the existance of God, the eternal life of souls, and so forth. What I am saying is that your proposal takes away from me either the right to vote my conscience, or my right to explain my reasons for my vote. If your “utopia” were to be achieved, I would have to refuse any public office in principle, because my choices would be to either vote against my conscience in certain cases, or to underhandedly and secretly use illegitimate reasons for my vote. Currently, for example, personal financial interest is an illegitimate reason for an official’s vote on an issue. Your proposal makes voting because of one’s religious ideas comparable to voting because one has taken a bribe.

Can you be more specific about something I said that Jefferson would not endorse?

Pretty much all of it, I would think.
Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom:

…the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right…

…That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

(emphasis mine) Jefferson very strongly believed both that the government should in no way inhibit the freedom of people to practice, profess, and argue their religious beliefs in public and in private. He also very strongly believed that in no way should religious practices or financial support of religion be in any way enjoined on anyone. However, as far as I can tell, he would have been very opposed to muzzling all religious arguments in favor of particular moral positions. Jefferson was very much in favor of allowing everyone to argue their own religious positions and would therefore not hold that religious reasons were illegitimate, but instead that any attempt to prevent them from using their religious beliefs to inform their moral and voting decisions would be very wrong.

Your idea and Jefferson’s ideas seem to me to be opposed. You want to have a completely secular public square by muzzling all religions. Jefferson wanted to have a completely secular public square by allowing all religions to speak unrestricted.

–Jen

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

What you can’t do is force other people to base their lives on them. In exchange, no open else will be able to force you to practice their religion. That sounds like a good compromise to me.

Have you ever heard a bishop say that non-Catholics should be taxed to support the Catholic Church? That is the wall separating Church and State. I’m not aware that, for example, abortion is an issue that obliges everyone to become a Catholic. Abortion is the taking of human life. Common sense. We do not kill our children. Anyone who wants it to be legal is violating common sense and common human decency. The Catholic Church happens to stand for both, so its opposition to abortion is not a matter of forcing its religion on someone else, but rather persuading others to also stand up for common sense and human decency … rather than the worship of Moloch, the god to whom children were sacrificed in the pagan world.

Ditto for all the other hot button social issues on your mind.

Can you be more specific about something I said that Jefferson would not endorse?

Can you be more specific about how Jefferson defined the “wall of separation”? I think you have taken considerable liberties with his definition, but possibly you have found somewhere a private letter in which he expresses the wish the religious views could be suppressed in the market place of ideas.

I doubt it.

 

[edwest2]

These are interesting examples. The Supreme Court actually didn’t have a building until 1935. A law requiring In God We Trust on our money was passed only in the 50’s. Likewise, Under God in the Pledge was added in the 50’s. Both as part of the Communist scare. So, yeah, in a sense, they did just “magically appear” at some late point in American history rather than being fundamental to its inception.

You certainly are, Ed. I never said otherwise. What you can’t do is force other people to base their lives on them. In exchange, no open else will be able to force you to practice their religion. That sounds like a good compromise to me.

Best,
Leela

You are suggesting something that I never said. And you are saying that some Catholics, if not most, are forcing something on someone. There will be no compromise on the truth.

There is no optional truth, only one truth. You are still attempting to dictate.

You, and anybody reading this, can do whatever you want right now. There is no permission phone line where anyone has to call a Catholic to get our OK before you do something.

Perhaps you can offer one clear example of Catholics, rank and file Catholics, forcing anhything on anyone.

In the meantime, you have dodged my questions with opinions. There was a real Communist threat in the 1950s. Only Leftists and Communists promote the “scare.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

A law requiring In God We Trust on our money was passed only in the 50’s.

In God We Trust was first applied to U.S. coins in 1864 during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.

The Supreme Court actually didn’t have a building until 1935.

And over the entrance to that building is a statue of Moses holding up to be viewed the two tablets of the Ten Commandments. Since taxpayer money was used to erect that statue, would you argue, consistent with your position, that the stature should be removed?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Some of you grumblers should be ashamed of yourselves. You’ve distorted Leela’s words in your knee-jerk reactions. The reason you should be ashamed of yourselves is that it shows how insufficiently grateful you are for the freedom of religion we have in the United States.

For instance:

Leela’s original post, if you actually read it impartially instead of spazzing out, in no way objects to religious people serving in the government and attempting to carry out their duties motivated by religious reasons. What she did say cannot be allowed, is for such Congressmen, senators, etc. to base their justification for laws solely on religious reasons.

That certainly doesn’t rule out natural law. It certainly doesn’t rule out human rights. It certainly doesn’t rule out laws based on common-sense human decency, or on a sexual ethic worthy of a culture of life, or even on philosophy.

None of those need be religious/theological.

Same goes for the bizarre objection that “in God we trust” somehow shows that religion and government can mix. Newsflash: religiously neutral references to “God” don’t elevate, endorse, or refer to any one particular religion. “In God we trust” is perfectly acceptable according to separation between church and state, and only the loudest, most virulent, most whiny atheists object to it. Of course those atheists are wrong.

Leela’s laudable precision in explaining religious freedom in no way contradicts things like “In God we trust” being our nation’s motto.

In fact, she was even ludicrously accused of taking a position with which Jefferson would disagree - and this accuser offered a Jefferson quote that essentially said that no one’s religious views should ever be an impediment to his or her having a voice in government, whether as a voter or an office-holder.

And Leela nowhere contradicted that. In fact, her original post is an endorsement of the ideal.

If you guys disagree with Leela - with what she actually said - then that means you believe that purely religious reasons should be sufficient to establish laws, in which case there’d be nothing to stop radical Muslims from instituting Sharia Law if enough of them infiltrated the government.

It’s the very principle which Leela described so effectively which ensures that that could never be the case. Freedom of religion and separation between church and state are there for all of our protection.

Please. Don’t jeopardize our freedoms just because you’re too intellectually lazy to expose the atheists who falsely claim that abortion and gay marriage must be religious issues.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Here’s another example of a particular situation in which people - though not in this thread - were confused about what separation between church and state really means:

Remember back when the Democrats’ health care bill was being debated in the House? Remember how Catholic bishops actually wielded quite a bit of influence over the proceedings, and how their lobby was very influential in working with Democratic lawmakers and ensuring that the Stupak amendment got the up-or-down vote it deserved?

Well, some extremist atheists and secularists objected to that, decrying the influence of the Catholic bishops. Their violent reactions included serious attacks on the Catholic Church, including the assertion that the government should start taxing it.

Which was, of course, absurd. Those atheists were wrong. The bishops shouldn’t be forbidden from having a political influence just because they’re bishops. And the key is that their arguments were not based on purely religious reasons: they wanted health care reform for the betterment of human life in the United States, and they wanted no abortion funding due to the fact that abortion is unquestionably a violation of almost universally accepted (in theory…) human rights.

That’s why those whiny secularists were dead wrong, and please notice that under the conditions that Leela initially laid out, our bishops who involved themselves in the House bill/Stupak amendment were in no way violating separation between church and state.

If so much weren’t at stake, it would be downright comical to see Catholics here striking at phantoms, at an attack on religious freedom which is in actuality its greatest political defense.