.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Foster, Stephen
2012
|
Exactly what is it about the word “secular” that particular elements of the American religious-political class find so objectionable; so much so that it is routinely considered and used as a pejorative? The following is from dictionary.com.
sec·u·lar
[sek-yuh-ler]
adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
Neither the name nor the concept of God is mentioned in The Constitution of the United States. What’s more the American Constitution expressly forbids there to be a religious test for holding public office and further forbids Congress from enacting “any law respecting an establishment of religion” or any law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.
So, why would any major party candidates for the presidency of the United States, or any other office, make it a point to criticize the fact that the U.S. is not regarded as religious, spiritual or sacred, and is not connected with religion, and does not belong to a religious order or bound by monastic vows?
What exactly does it indicate, or what is actually implied in the criticism of secularism; which curiously is defined, by defenitions.com, as follows:
sec·u·lar·ism
[sek-yuh-luh-riz-uh 
m]
noun
1. secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
I would suggest that a denial of the fact that American civil jurisprudence—of which an American President is the chief executor—should be secular is founded in the rhetorical use of the first of these definitions of secularism to the exclusion of the second; and that the implementation of the second definition of (of secularism) is endangered by the “successful” rhetorical use of the first (of these secularism definitions).
In other words, the U.S. is and should be an officially/operationally secular nation in accordance with the second definition of secularism above, but the rhetoric of contemporary religious-political leaders is predominantly in keeping with the first definition—without regard to, or to the exclusion of, the second. Evidently the founders intended the U.S. to be operationally secular (in accordance with the second definition) as witnessed by the omission of any reference to God, or even the concept of God, in The Constitution.
If you happen to be somewhat unclear as to what I mean about the religio-political class rhetorically lamenting the civil rejection of religion in order to reverse or undo the practice of conducting public affairs without a religious element; you should know that a well-known politician, who for now shall remain nameless, recently asserted that the United States is not a secular nation.
Now, look at those two definitions of secularism again. Is he right or wrong?
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
But when they told me that by far most Israelis do NOT believe that the Bible is the word of God, but simply a history book with God interpolated into the narrative, I was staggered! That few Americans today understand that Israel is one of the most secular cultures on Earth is amazing. Many evangelicals see Israel as God's chosen people and their territory as God's Holy Land. That this land is governed by a population that by and large questions the very existence of God, let alone the religious reliability of Scripture, comes as a bit of a shock. Israel protects the rights of its religious minority, but itself is one of the most secular governments on the planet.
It is interesting that Charles Taylor - one of the leading scholars when it comes to secularisation - sees the Protestant churches as being highly secularised in their day-to-day life. The same process can be observed in our own church. Perhaps the greatest danger does not come from politicians 'out there'.
Secularism is the most dangerous kind of religion. It denies being a religion, while wrapping itself in the trappings of whatever religious precepts happen to advance its agendas. It is, pure and simple, paganism. This secularist mindset frees politicians (who shall go nameless) to assert to one audience in one breath that we are not a Christian or religious nation, and then turn around days later to say (absurdly and inaccurately) that if you counted only the Muslims in the U.S., the U.S. would be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. It enables politicians to say at the National Prayer Breakfast that Jesus would be in favor of his (the politician's) wealth redistribution policies.
When it comes to policies regulating human activity, with public consequences, in a nation of citizens who overwhelmingly profess a desire that their communal and individual lives be guided by faith and religious beliefs, does it not seem preposterous to postulate an ideal - much less a norm - in which faith and religion play a subsidiary to nonexistent role in the debate?
Our nation is no more governed by the Declaration of Independence than is a company bound to honor a contract in which it enters as a result of its having previously issued a mission statement.
The governing document of the United States of America is the Constitution of the United States. The President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend it, alone.
What various founders believed or thought or wished or hoped is perhaps interesting; but frankly, what the Constitution says and means and implies is what is most relevant.
This being the case, “the inescapable reality” of consequence is the fact that God is not once mentioned in the U.S. Constitution; and that cannot be considered accidental.
In reality, it isn’t secularism at all that “frees,” or motivates politicians to pander to Muslims and alternately Christians; or to claim that Christianity informs their policy making. That would, by definition and practice, literally be whatever the opposite of secularism is.
Here’s another way to look at it, “When it comes to policies regulating human activity, with public consequences, in a nation of citizens” who are governed by a Constitution that doesn’t mention God, or faith, or religious institutions—much less dogma—and by individuals who are sworn to uphold and defend this same Constitution, it does not seem at all “preposterous to postulate an ideal” that “public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.” In fact, it would seem to follow.
As you well know, the Constitution prescribes and limits the role and functions of governmental branches. The gaping hole in your argument is the erroneous assertion, commonly shared by the Left, that the purpose of the Constitution is to govern the citizens. Just where do you find that language in the Constitution? Nothing could be farther from the truth. To the contrary, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect private rights and leave the citizens free to govern themselves, choosing their own representatives, and enacting the laws they choose according to the dictates of their consciences, whether or not those consciences are governed by faith.
Suppose the Constitution was amended to read, "Congress shall make no law establishing a diet for Americans." Would you therefore conclude that Congress is prohibited from offering food stamps, that cafeterias in government buildings are precluded from offering any food to workers, or that school lunch programs are unconstitutional? Let's take it a step further. Suppose the Constitution says nothing at all about medical care (of course I know that's preposterous). Would you therefore concluded that the government is inferentially proscribed from getting involved in the delivery of medical services?
I would strongly recommend that you stay confined within traditional First Amendment arguments rather than wander off a Constitutional cliff that no courts or Constitutional scholars have ever approached.
Self-governance has more to do with national sovereignty and representative government than with individualism. If you doubt that the Constitution is a governing document, you may want to take a minute to read the Preamble. (“…establish justice, ensure domestic Tranquility…defense…general Welfare”)
You make a good point however at least with regard to other documents informing us as to what certain founders believed. However these “other” documents only inform the debate or perhaps strengthen the case of one side or the other as to what the intent of the drafters was.
The questions hereby being raised are does the First Amendment language and the fact that neither God, faith, or religious dogma is referenced in the Constitution suggest that “public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element;” and does the First Amendment language and the fact that neither God, faith, nor religious dogma are referenced in the Constitution suggest that the American civil government should have no official interest in “things that are regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred;” but only things that we would consider to be “temporal”? (The quotations in this paragraph are from the definitions of “secularism” and “secular,” respectively.)
You already know what my answer is to these questions is. I am with Horace and Joe (below) on this one.
Of course, a company isn't governed by a contract, either. But the problem in your analysis is deeper. A company has a constitution and bylaws, just as a government does. But the constitution and bylaws only determine what it does; the mission statement is the purpose for which the company exists, and which the governing documents are designed to implement.
The Constitution--and before it, the Articles of Confederation-- declares how we go about the business of being this country, the United States. But the Declaration of Independence is who and what we declared ourselves to be. The Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation as a governing document, but both documents were designed to implement the ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. . . that to secure these, governments are instituted . . . ."
The Constitution assumes these inalienable rights, and goes about limiting government power in order to secure the rights the Declaration mentions. The Constitution and its authors saw government as the most likely to infringe upon these God-given rights.
In accordance with this, the Bill of Rights is in fact a series of specific limitations of government power. In other words, the right already exists; the Constitution ensures that government will not infringe upon it.
Thus:
1st amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . .
2nd amendment: . . . right to bear arms . . .shall not be infringed.
3rd amendment: limits government comandeering of private property.
4th amendment: government cannot search or sieze w/o warrant
5th amendment: limitations on gvt police power
6th amendment: limitations on how citizens may be tried
7th amendment: trial by jury in civil cases
8th amendment: limits bail, fines, and punishment government may prescribe
9th amendment: rights listed not exhaustive
10th amendment: any rights not mentioned default to the people and the states, not the government.
Now, the Declaration isn't a Christian document; nowhere does it mention Christ or the Bible. But it does mention a creator, and nature's God, who endows men with inalienable rights. Eliminate the Declaration, and the Constitution lacks a rationale, and your rights become privleges granted to you by the government in power. Government becomes the master, then, rather than the servant of a people made sovereign by nature, and nature's God.
Would this have been better understood: we are no more governed by the Declaration of Independence than any company is obligated to honor a contract in which it enters as a result of it having previously written an inspirational mission statement?
In other words any contract (legal document) stands on its own, irrespective of any mission statement of any company that has signed a contract. The contract is what is actually binding. The mission statement is a company’s rationale for its own existence; but essentially serves no practical legal purpose.
In my view, the various American civil office holders and military personnel are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States—without specific mention of the Declaration of Independence—for this reason.
Whereas we may be motivated and inspired by the Declaration of Independence (mission statement); we live by, and in many cases die for, the Constitution of the United States (the national binding contract.)
The “endowed by their Creator” phrase is occasionally a key for en vogue revisionism—specifically, an attempt to invest the Declaration of Independence with quasi-legal status as it relates to contemporary society for the purpose of rhetorically rationalizing the introduction of religious elements into civil government and jurisprudence—in my opinion.
And at the risk of incurring wrath, I'm going to point out that "original meaning" is the only correct way to interpret the Constitution.
What so many Christians miss is the simple fact that "exegesis" is practiced both on scripture and on legal documents. And at the base must be what was understood by those who produced the document or law in the first place. To simply ignore that is to cast aside all mooring and turn the document into mush.
We see that today: many people think anything they perceive as 'good' must also be 'constitutional,' and anything they don't like as 'unconstitutional.'
And since 'church and state' is such a hot issue, two things need to be pointed out. The 'wall of separation' is from a letter by Jefferson, not in the Constitution. And the Constitution does not forbid individual states from having establishments of religion. In fact, several states did have established churches. This continued into the 1800's.
Do I think states should have established churches? Of course not. But if they tried to do so, the correct battle ground would be the legislature, not the courts. Unless, of course, the state constitution also had a provision similar to the 1st Amendment.
On the other side of the coin, I don't believe that the intent of the Constitution is to eliminate all references to God from every entity connected with government. Common sense would go a long way to settling this issue.
Our founders would not have referred so freely to rights being endowed by our Creator, or Divine Providence if they intended to creat a secular state. Rather they sought to have a pluralistic state (E. Pluribus Unum) whereby each citizen had the right to worship as his own conscience determined.
Your misunderstandings of the US Constitution, American history and the concept of secularism are showing in bright neon.
You stated that the President is the chief executor of American jurisprudence. WRONG! There are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. While the president nominates federal judges, that is the extent of his influence because he is chief of the Executive Branch, not the judicial. Any attempt on his part to influence a judge to rule in a particular way could get him moved from the White House to the Big House.
Your proposition that the judiciary should be secular is also a misconception. Yes, judges should rule on issues fairly based on the facts, law and the constitution and without prejudice toward any party. But to say the judiciary should be secular is to adopt the liberal-socialist concept that God should not just be totally absent from government, but forcibly removed from any influence on it. One of the key foundational concepts of liberal-socialism is that there is no god, so there is no divine law that people should follow. The immediate result of this is that people lose their moral compass. Thus jurispridence becomes like the captain of a ship dropping anchor when he knows his anchor chain is broken. Yes, that was his anchor, but his vessel is going to get blown by the winds in whatever direction they are pushing. Unfortunately we are seeing the secondary result of secularism where the lack of a moral foundation among members of the judiciary allows them to interpret issues and issue rulings in ways that are directly contrary to God's law.
The President of the United States, as head of the Executive Branch, is the chief executor of the American civil system of laws (constitutional American jurisprudence); including the enforcement of the decisions of federal courts. That’s why it’s called the Executive Branch.
Granted, we may come from different cultural planets; but let’s try not to disagree with each other for this reason alone. There is more to say about your post, but this will do for now.
Stephen,
Dispute definitions if you wish. We're facing a far greater problem: the rapid erosion of both civil and religious freedom while Adventist church leaders are blind to the danger and even defending what they should be shouting against.
The Constitution doesn't address every issue related to law and both the courts and politicians over recent decades have taken advantage of this to push incremental expansions in their interpretation of both the constitution and laws to distances well outside the boundaries any of the Founding Fathers ever imagined. This has both seriously eroded basic freedoms and made it far easier to trample more. The stated objective of these actions is simple: destroying the Judaeo-Christian principles, laws and morals upon which our country was established. The ruling this week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stating that prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is unconstitutional is a current example among many. (The judges on that court are on-record describing themselves as the most liberal-minded and "activist" judges in America.)
The new HHES rule requiring religious groups to pay for birth control for their employees who want it is another. I think the Obama administration may have picked a far bigger fight on that one than they expected. This situation presents us with a delicious irony where we Adventists, who see actions by the Catholic Church as threats to our religious freedoms, now find ourselves strange bedfellows where both are defending against attacks on our religious freedoms.
While the courts are structured to restrain lawmakers from such overreach, the speed with which that happens is far too slow for that restraint to happen in a timely manner and great damage is done before it is reversed, if it is not upheld by a judge who is ruling based on the same philosophy. We are seeing the prophecy fulfilled that America will abandon the principles on which it was founded and follow the Beast of Rome. The great tragedy in all this is how many leaders in the Adventist Church have been blinded by the deceptions of Satan in this effort, embraced the stated social objectives of the politically powerful and as a result become unable to see where it is all heading. Instead of crying-out in opposition while it was easy, they have instead helped smooth the path for Satan's final works.
William, perhaps the parsing each letter is not the only flaw. Requiring and enforcing a more rigid dogma in a "church" (at risk of frustrating author by asking hidden deeper question, or making self guilty of likewise arguing lexiocon, were we "the self proclaimed remnant" not defined more as a progressive movement towards truth, than a church ctatic?) and actually doing the SAME (demanding legislation protect US) all the while, within, eroding our own members freedom exercising their individual autonomous choice, and becomiong more active in legal matters (to wit, resistance to "gay marriage" or to providing birth control).
To forestall charge some might make that i am FOR gay "marriage" or "free birth control for all", let me state I am not. But I am for individual right to choice, without church meddling and enforcement. And if the state codifies something we find untenable, the only solutions are realizing that choice will be the battleground. It was in the very beginning of the first fall to abyss, as well the first and second trees.
If the church "keeping secularism out" (OR legally fighting states requirement that all employers provide birth control etc) is what "saves people", then we, as a church, are giving testimony antithetically representing the character of God. Perhaps THIS is the deeper error, than creeping secularism, drums in church, bith control, abortion, even day of worship. The merits of accepting grace, and being individually transformed by God and His agencies is propably completely different than the merits of a church rigidly enforcing, and limiting choice of its members under guise of "church disipline" or "order".
With apologies to Stephen, I am sorry that my mind and heart draw me to other levels of the conflict, which perhaps you do not wish to entertain (in your prerogative), choosing instead to remain in the letter of the law and its narrowly defined constraints.
Did anyone else listen to Eric Metaxa's prescient speech at the White House Prayer Breakfast, and "the un-named politicians" rather flat response-and hidden rejection of Christianity-choosing to bring in panoply of other religions into the same breath? Our leader is where he is for purpose; perhaps this purpose is being realized, each day, as people begin to forgo freedom for safety, liberty for salvation, work ethic for nanny state, and that entire slide. Perhaps we the people cling to these promises from the pulpits as well the state, because we'd prefer abdicate choice to avoid risk (but actually this choice risks all anyway).
I'd suggest the battle is not secularization at all, but liberty. God ratified right to choose, for all peoples, genders, status, title, roles, cultures, from the throne in heaven to the first tree, through to the second, and all the way to the midnight cry. Sorry, I'm veering far from the narrow construct of Stephens posed argument construct. Please forgive me! But do, if you understand this, give it a bit of thought!
Well said, my friend! I think we are on the same basic wavelength.
At every point where such attempts are made, those sworn to uphold the constitution are obligated to turn back those attempts. In a pluralistic society, such as ours is, whose God or god or viewpoint should be selected without impeding the rights and liberty of others? Freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of choice, are all fundamental human rights in America. Among other things, that means that the default position must be secular.
When secular becomes "secular-ism," as if it is the worship of "anti-God," I think I see why that should be a concern--but all too often, as is evident in some posts above, "secular-ism" exists only in the imagination of those who seek to establish their own belief as the default option.
A little point of history for illustration. When the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the Constitution) were being debated, the Presbyterian Church was the official church of the state of Massachussets and a person had to be a member if they were to hold public office, vote, etc. The First Amendment was written to insure that personal liberties would not be infringed by the church or the legislature of a state with a particular majority in spiritual allegiance.
Instead of restricting what allegiance an individual may exercise in their practice of religion, what we are dealing with today is the exact opposite where laws, regulations and the courts are being used to increasingly constrain and restrict any and all liberties claimed as part of a person's religious beliefs.
I now live in a state, that like several others, forbids those who are unwilling to declare belief in one God and in the authenticity of the Old and New Testaments, from holding public office. That has, however, been declared "unenforceable." So, according to the law, someone who is not absolutely positive about God--enough to declare belief--or is unwilling to lie about it, may not serve in public office. Who here thinks that is right? Or that the declaration that the statute is unenforceable is some left-wing liberal conspiracy?
I regret that some here find me so abrasive. For those who grew up in the SDA church, please understand that I did too. Even so, I did not regard every traditional practice as based on direct orders from God. A few people here seem to have no problem with disrespecting our current President with false assertions that he is a "socialist," but are quick to cry foul if mention is made of "reactionary" or "right-wing" perspectives. It is sad that the polarization has become so extreme in this country that people cannot even consider working together for the common good. Of course, that would be "communism."
Now, much of my own perspective on religious freedom in America comes from understanding that I was taught and that I learned during my rearing as an adventist. It is interesting to see that the position of some of the most stridently traditional SDAs here hold an almost opposite view--a view consistent with current reactionary conservative political dogma. Those partisan perspectives are powerful, aren't they?
Maybe we should have a blog at some point to discuss which make of car is best. There will surely be those who argue for Chevy over Ford, American vs. foreign, etc. Such a discussion will not lack polarization (part of the fun?) and is likely to be just as productive as most of the discussions here.... ; )
There is hope for you yet my man…and everyone knows that Honda automotive products are superior, in terms of value!
Seriously though, the way that things have been playing out in American religion and politics for the past 30 plus years in accordance with historical Adventist eschatology, and the demonstrable efficacy of the SDA health message have gone a long way toward convincing me—previously the king of cynicism—of the legitimacy of historic Seventh-day Adventism.
To your point, “It is interesting to see that the position of some of the most stridently traditional SDAs here hold an almost opposite view--a view consistent with current reactionary conservative political dogma. Those partisan perspectives are powerful, aren't they?” Wow!
Tom, perhaps the real issues (of how we teach what is right, and that each has right to choice) are hidden behind the rhetoric of these peripheral issues that serve to bring to the fore the real issues (how to choose right, right to choose). Perhaps the anti-equality zealotry fails on both accounts,...
The challenges to our church are NOT whether our hospitals must provide abortion in order to accept federal monies, being forced to provide same-sex benefits (and ceremnonies!), or our education system being required to teach a scientifically more sound evolutionary biology.
These are but catalysts, just the "citations" which summon us to court. They are NOT the issues, despite how much we wring our hands and cry in some righteous angst. Now, what shall we do with them-and uphold our core tenets of choose right, but right to choose, and the over-arching central fulcrum of 'love'?
BTW Joe, what's with this penchant for veering off topic to smear those you disagree with by negative association ("reactionary conservative political dogmatists"). Why turn what has been a fairly civil discussion about the meaning of the Constitution into a personal attack?
Having grown up in a very traditional Adventist home, I would be most interested to learn of any Adventist source material championing the notion that the U.S. Constitution, by its silence on the subject, commands that faith and religion should not inform citizens' political advocacy. Certainly Adventists who fought slavery, advocated for prohibition laws, and supported anti-smoking laws, based upon their religious convictions, would be surprised to learn that they were undermining the Constitution by bringing faith convictions to public policy debates.
I cannot argue with your personal experiences, Joe. But they do not square with my upbringing in the Church during a time when faith based moral values, deeply embedded in law and culture since our founding, were not yet under attack from a secularist judiciary, cheered on by Leftist intellectuals and journalists. There was no reactionary religious right when I was growing up because there was no militantly anti-Christian Left trying to force its secularizing agendas down the throats of Christians.
I haven't done the research, but I strongly suspect that one could readily find traditional Adventist sources in which America is referred to as a Christian nation. Anyone care to look that up?
Why are comments like "militantly anti-Christian Left" or "Leftist intellectuals and journalists" not as abrasive as the comments you object to? Repeatedly you seem to project your own inclinations to others. I'm not sure why you feel it is necessary, but clearly you do.
Let me just say that I do not comment here to be mean or obnoxious, and I feel that my only honorable choice is to not continue to engage in conversations of this kind. "No reactionary religious right" when you were growing up? You did live in a very restricted world even then.... So, I can only say, live in peace, and I hope you come to terms with whatever is irritating you so much. I will try not to be a source of abrasion.
I have no reason to believe that you are part of what I call the "militantly anti-Christian Left." So why does it offend you that I think such a group exists? It certainly does not offend me that you think reactionary conservative political dogma or stridently traditional Adventists exist. I agree with you that they do. I am just offended when you force me into such groups - (comment deleted)
It may come as a surprise to you, Joe, that you too grew up in a restricted world. And perhaps - just maybe - even now, you live in a world that is just as cloistered and dogmatic in its own way as the world you presume to know that I inhabit. It does not follow from your vastly superior enlightenment that my world is more restricted than yours; I may simply have a less capacious mind (LOL!) Yes, Joe, that was a joke. Finite knowledge and experience are inescapable facts of human experience. I'm open to the idea that there may have been a concerted religious right political movement in the country when I was growing into adulthood in the 60's. I just don't recall it. Refresh my recollection - Who were the leaders of that movement; what names did it go by; and what role did the movement play in American politics?
Your first paragraph misses my point. I never argued that America is a Christian nation. My point that Adventist leaders have historically referred to America as a Christian nation was offered to refute Stephen's argument that traditional Adventism views America as Constitutionally a secular nation. For most of its history, America has rather proudly worn the moniker of "a Christian nation". Of course you're right that calling it Christian doesn't make it so. The truth or falsity of that statement depends on your definition of "Christian nation".
Why did Adventists single out alcohol and tobacco for their political passion? Why did they think these particular practices, among many other unhealthy things in society, merited the collective efforts of the Church? Because of fundamental belief number 6. The Adventist emphasis on health is a product of the Adventist religion. Saying they became politically engaged for health reasons is just playing word games. If I argued that Mormons opposed Proposition 8 for moral and health reasons rather than for religion reasons, would you find that argument persuasive?
Comment edited and paragraph deleted by moderator.
Good joke, Nate. I'm sure your mind is considerably more "capacious" than mine. I need to be sure that I do not seem to imply that I have "vastly superior enlightenment." I do think I have learned a few things across my 70 years, but much of what I have learned has really been an expansion of awareness of what I DON'T know that I once thought I knew. (But I can recognize sarcasm--I just need to be careful that I do not respond in kind or with excessive emotion or rancor). I'll try not to be a troublemaker. I recognize that I am a guest here.
An office seekers was asked once whether he was a christian candidate. He replied that he was not a christian candidate but a candidate who was a christian. That may seem like doubletalk or a puzzlement as to what is the difference. In the same vein this nation is not a christian nation, but it is a nations predominately of christians.
A christian candidate or nation holds the law of God as the supreme law of the land and seeks to make and enforce laws that would best describe that form of government as a theocracy. On the other hand a candidate who is a christian and a nation founded by christians, is a protector of everyone's right of conscinece and seeks to uphold that truth whether they are a christian or not.
The drafters of the Constitution understood the dangers of religous dogma having dominant sway over the affairs of state, so they in effect created a wall separating church and state. That wall was to be a protector of individual freedom, which undergirded our founding Judeo-christian belief in religius liberty.
Today we have two extremes pulling in opposite directions. One wants to tear down that wall and creat in essence a christian nation, and the other wants to make government insitution a absolute religious free zone. Both extremes do hostility to the principle of liberty and freedom.
By way of context, I should mention that I spent some time every year for about 20 years doing some zoological field work in Indonesia. Indonesia is often called an "Islamic nation," but that is deeply and seriously inaccurate. The founders of Indonesia were very careful to insist on a commitment to religious freedom and a secular government. The Pancasila, the five fundamental principles, do specify that "belief in God" is essential, but, to avoid favoring one religion over others, the urge to specify the name of God has been fiercely resisted. Although 85-90% of Indonesians specify Islam as their religious preference, there are some provinces where the majority of people are Christian (e.g., Sulawesi Utara) or Hindu (Bali). People do Indonesia a great disservice when they characterize it as an Islamic state or republic.
It seems to me that describing or identifying the US as a "Christian nation" rather than a nation that is committed to religious freedom, puts us in a very bad position internationally--especially when we get into conflicts with nations that DO have a national religion or exist to advance a specific religion.
up on Joe McCarthy's claims that we were in a final struggle between "atheistic communism and
Christianity." These were certainly extremist politically motivated groups that sought to strengthen
the role of Christianity in government. Popular groups like "Youth for Christ" were relatively
moderate, in many places, though not so much some places. (I'm talking about the 1950s and 1960s)
I found the messages preached by Billy Graham and others pretty positive at the time (I recall
meeting the Rev. Graham at a Youth for Christ rally in Santa Barbara in the summer of 1958).
But there were also some fairly bizarre emerging figures (e.g., Oral Roberts and others) who
became politically influential. A lot of the white evangelical groups in the 50s and 60s were on
what I consider to have been the wrong side of the civil rights movement--and many saw (and
still see) the civil rights movement as a communist/socialist left-wing plot.
It is often difficult to objectively differentiate or distinguish between religious values and religious dogma; much less to determine who gets to make the call. This is problematic.
Likewise the values and ideals articulated in the Declaration of Independence may well have informed or even inspired the Constitution; but both documents are devoid of dogma, with the plausible exception that the Declaration acknowledges and presupposes ("natural rights,"without identifying them with that specific nomenclature, and) a Creator.
The 14th amendment prohibits a state from making a law that infringes upon the liberties available to all citizens. The prohibition that the First Amendment imposes upon Congress affords Americans religious liberty. This would make any law establishing a state religion unconstitutional; except, possibly, to those who want to do that which is in violation of two bedrock constitutional principles—for obvious reasons.
Adventists, of course, have historically anticipated these very principles—of religious liberty and equal protection—to, eventually, be violated and ignored. It is more than interesting to witness Adventists attempting to make a constitutional case—or identify a postulate—for such abrogation.
Furthermore, why do you need to believe that I, or others who disagree with your argument, are against religious liberty or equal protection? Why do complex issues, about which SDAs of good will and integrity should be able to differ, have to reduced to either/or? Those of us who disagree with you are not opposed to religious liberty, nor do we devalue the 1st Amendment. We simply disagree with your novel argument regarding Constitutional interpretation. You argue that, despite the absence of explicit language in the Constitution defining America as a secular nation, it nevertheless should be inferred, from the omission of any reference to God, that the Constitution intends for America to be a secular nation. Do you have any Constitutional scholar, or other thinker that you can cite as authority for this notion? If not, might you infer from the silence of others that your theory is a bit of an intellectual cowlick? Surely, if this idea has merit, a similar apple must have fallen on the head of another sometime in the past 200 years, no?
If you support the President mandating employers to guarantee that their insured employees will have access through their insurance coverage to contraceptives and abortifacts, notwithstanding the religious convictions ofthe employers, would it be fair for me to argue that you are thereby supporting "abrogation" of religious freedom? Of course not! You just prioritize values differently than I. Can't we all have good faith differences about these things without being "in" or "out"? Did someone designate you to tell us what the official Adventist position is or sould be on these issues?
We are all sort of reading rabbit entrails as we prioritize liberties and rights in a pluralistic society, and try to decide when one good needs to be sacrificed or sublimated to another. And we can all make plausible arguments for the propostiion that the politicians we find odious are a danger to religious liberty. But what is neither plausible nor fair is to argue that those who disagree with you want to establish a religious state or abrogate religious liberty and the non-establishment clause of the Constitution.
Of what are you speaking? I am not aware of any such attempt.
If you will recall it actually was you Ed who attempted to make the case, which was not disputed by you Nathan, that it would indeed not be unconstitutional for a state to pass a law establishing a state religion. That is an unmistakable example an Adventist making a constitutional case for, or seeking to establish a postulate for, the abrogation of the constitutional principles of religious liberty and equal protection; Ed’s disclaimer notwithstanding.
Although Ed said that he would not favor the passage of such a law, the fact that he would think that “the Constitution does not forbid individual states from having establishments of religion” is telling.
I don’t question that Ed would not favor the passage of such a law, but he minimally is indicating empathy for the abrogation of the constitutional principles of church and state separation and equal protection; and you Nathan, an attorney, immediately followed his remarks with the “Excellent point” approbation.
There is a trend along these lines.
"a constitutional case for . . . the abrogation of constitutional principles"
I can't figure out if that's circular, just begging the question, or just . . . confused. First, you apparently decided what constitutional principles are, then you state that I was making a consitutional case which violates those principles.
That individual states did indeed have established religions for years after the Constitution became the law of the land is not speculation, not a guess, we know that they did, and that they were not considered to violate the US. Constituion--and most of the framers of the Constitution were still alive, and did not see these state-established churches as a violation. In addition, the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . ." but says nothing about state legislatures. Laws are what they say, not what we wish they said.
The founders, who regarded the judiciary as 'the weakest branch,' would be horrified to see the degree to which the minutiae of our lives are dictated by the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The legislature is the place where the vast majority of these issues should be decided. If people suddenly discovered that it would be possible for the state to establish a religion, do you imagine that there would be a rush to do such a thing? It would be political suicide for any legislator to suggest such a thing.
And no, it does not follow that what Congress cannot do, neither can state legislatures. In fact, the contrary was true. The Constitution forbade Congress from levying taxes on individuals. It took an amendment to change that. Yet states levied taxes on individuals all that time.
You, Stephen, are the one who has argued that Constitutional 'principles' can only be derived from the Constitution itself, that the Declaration and (I assume) the Federalist Papers are not relevant. IF that's true, Jefferson's letter with the "wall of separation" status is even further out.
So your notion of religious liberty not permitting any state to establish a religion cannot be derived from the Constitution itself. It says not such thing, and we know the framers agreed with that. As we have discussed, the Constitution is not a document of principles, but of policies; of laws. Now, if you wish to change your stand, and insist that there are principles underlying, but not explicitly stated in the Constitution, then we might discuss where those principles can be found.
Now Stephen, assuming you must surely be satisfied that I do not think the Constitution permits states to establish their own religions, perhaps you can respond to the question of where you find "The Wall of Separation" written in the U.S. Constitution, and how you square your support of that doctrine with your professed opposition to using extra-Constitutional sources to guide our understandings of the Constitution's meaning and intent. While you're at it, perhaps you could make a principled argument for why the Constituion's silence about a whole host of other matters doesn't lead to the conclusion that all matters not affirmatively mentioned in the Constitution are taboo in the public square.
Actually, C.S. Lewis dispatched that fallacy almost 70 years ago in The Abolittion of Man.
"This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgements. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgement of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or (as they now call them) 'ideologies', all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they possess. . . .The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had destroyed themselves. The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in."
No, I was actually saying that you were attempting to somehow make a constitutional case for the abrogation of constitutional principles. If you prefer, for the sake of clarity, I can delete the first “constitutional.”
Religious freedom and equal protection under law are constitutional principles as I understand it; however, here we can agree to disagree.
Something that you apparently missed is that I had previously pointed out that the 14th amendment (of the Constitution) is where the Constitution prohibits the states from enacting laws that would abridge or infringe upon a constitutionally protected liberty of “citizens of the United States.” This would render a state law establishing a state religion unconstitutional because the First Amendment—which prohibits Congress from making laws that establish religion or prohibiting (abridging or infringing upon) the free exercise (practice or observance or non-observance) of religion—provides “citizens of the United States” immunity, if you will, from religious laws and/or laws that essentially establish religion.
(Again, the fact that I am having this discussion with a Seventh-day Adventist minister and attorney is more than noteworthy.)
Of course, the state religions and blue laws of various states were largely, though not entirely, remnants/vestiges of colonial (pre-Constitution) days. (There had even been religious tests for holding offices in some colonies as well.) That they existed previously or existed for decades after ratification of the Bill of Rights is as relevant as the fact that slavery existed previously or for decades after (the Declaration and) the Constitution’s ratification.
The Declaration of Independence, with all its lofty ideals and sentiments regarding the rights and equality of “all men” did not, by law, prohibit slavery. The Constitution is all that matters for all practical/legal purposes. Other documents can and should inform us as to what certain of the framers (those who authored or signed those documents) meant about that which they wrote or that which may pertain to the Constitution.
Accordingly the “wall of separation” phraseology is found in a post-ratification letter written by a particular founder. That phraseology is not in the Constitution. The principle found in the words of the First Amendment prohibiting laws that respect (or pertain to, or acknowledge) the establishment of religion or prohibiting (abridging or infringing upon) the free exercise (practice, or observance, or non-observance) of religion is what Jefferson believed to be constitutionally enshrined. The fact that the Constitution also forbids any religious test for holding public office, and the absence of dogma or religious language, or mention of God in the Constitution is further evidence to some (including me) of the intent—and wisdom—of the founders on this particular issue; not to mention their intentionality regarding same.
Nathan,
Everyone is different, and may only be able to do what seems natural for them to do to a large extent; but I think that some of the problem you ran into with Joe is that you have a tendency to characterize the discussion—and the participants—in ways that reflect a judgment rendering about something other than the issue being discussed. With me, you feel a need to say that I am either embarrassing myself or in a pickle or some such thing, as if this somehow strengthens the particular case you are attempting to make. (I know this syndrome/tactic because I’ve used it myself when I have verbally debated with some of my more argumentative friends.)
As to religion in the public square as relates to the blog and the Constitution, let me say that it is evident that invoking/introducing religious elements into civil affairs/policy is clearly appropriate in instances which exempt religion from public policy that may be in violation of the free exercise, or practice (or even non-practice), of religion. The salient question is whether these are the only circumstances under which it’s appropriate to introduce religious elements into public policy. I believe that it is. You apparently disagree.
This brings me to an earlier issue you raised as to whether Adventists have previously considered America to be a Christian nation (as if that would be dispositive). Well…I didn’t exactly find “Christian nation,” but this is what I have found, “When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.”
I happen to believe this is true.
Either there are principles underlying the Constitution, or there are not. Laws are what they say, nothing more, nothing less.
And I'm sorry, but as a matter of law, you're mistaken. The Constitution prohibits congress from establishing a religion. It says nothing about the states. And the fact that the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers means that if it is not a power explicitly given to the federal government, it reverts to the people and the states.
The fourteenth amendment is not one that I missed. It, too, does not say what you think it does. It says a state may not enforce a law which abridges the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States. Just because a state establishes a religion I do not share does not necessarily abridge my privileges or immunities. And I am aware that subsequent court decisions have made this practically impossible. But court decisions not anchored in the original meaning of the text can easily be replaced by another decision unanchored. That makes the courts political institutions rather than judicial ones. It makes judges participants in the game, rather than referees. It's beyond dangerous.
You keep saying this debate "is telling." Yes, it is. I think the Constitution is a great document, but it is not the protection people think that it is. This is especially true as it is increasingly interpreted in ways which are not consistent with the original meaning of the text. Eisegesis is a bad habit, wherever it takes place.
The question is not whether I think establishing a religion is a good idea, the question is what the Constitution says. You might want to ponder the connection between the way we read the Constitution, and the way we read the Bible. In both cases, there is a tendency to interpret the text in terms of what we think today, rather than what the authors were thinking when they wrote it. In both cases, it leaves the interpreter completely unmoored, driven by every wind of popular perception.
I happen to be a Hamiltonian with regard to how enumerated and implied powers are related to the objects of the Constitution; but even if I wasn’t, your application of the Tenth Amendment to this case could not be more backwards.
You are arguing that since the Constitution prohibits congress from establishing a religion, that a state can do so. For those who are proponents of “states’ rights” and a small federal government, the Tenth Amendment indicates that what the Constitution does not “delegate” or empower (via enumeration) the federal government to do, is then “reserved to the states” or the “people.” It says, specifically, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” You are arguing, in effect, that “the powers prohibited to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States…”
There is more than a semantic difference, my friend, between something that is “not delegated” and something that is “prohibited.” Something not delegated by enumeration, can be (and has been) delegated by the necessary and proper laws the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) permits Congress to enact in carrying out the objects the Constitution (listed in the Preamble) of a sovereign national government. Something expressly prohibited to the U.S. can only become lawful by Constitutional amendment.
No, I am not. I am simply quoting what the 1st Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law . . ."
It does not address whether the states can do this or not. It is not the prohibition that grants this power to the state, it is the silence that leaves the power where it already was. An important omission, since states had established religions at the time. If the framers meant to prohibit the states from doing so, they would have stated that. If they believed this prohibited it to the states, it would have invalidated the state establishments. But neither happened.
This can be contrasted with the various interstate tariffs and fees, which were one of the reasons the Articles of Confederation failed, and which were invalidated by the Constitution.
And then, there's the 10th Amendment : "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Your exposition of "not delegated" vs. "prohibited" is interesting, but not relevant here.
Establishing a religion was prohibited to the federal legislature "Congress shall make no law" but not any other jurisdiction. Again, this is obvious because none of this ended established churches in the states.
"Something expressly prohibited to the U.S. can only become lawful by Constitutional amendment.
And again, taxing individuals was expressly prohibited to the federal government, it took an amendment (the 16th) to change that, yet states levied such taxes.
Further, with all respect, how can you possibly deny that you are arguing that because the Congress is prohibited from enacting a law establishing religion that therefore the states have the right to do so?
It's easy, because that is not what I have said. I will state it once again.
Under the first amendment, Congress is prohibited from making a law concerning an establishment of religion. The first amendment is silent concerning state legislatures. It is the silence that permitted state establishments, not the prohibition to Congress.
The language of the 2nd amendment shows how simple it would be to extend that prohibition to the states: " . . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (emphasis mine)
It does not say Congress shall make no law, it does not say the states, it simply states an absolute.
Really, if you cannot see the difference between silence and explicit prohibition, there's no point in continuing. Most of your misunderstandings of my positions arise from just such mistakes.
One reason some countries - like the UK and Australia - have been resistant to anything like a bill of rights is that tradition and consensus is often a better guarantee of rights than a formal statement that can be interpreted by the judiciary. To make explicit is ofen to limit in a way no one likes. The High Court/Supreme Court/etc is always only a small number of judges, but they do have great power in being able to say "this means that". Not having a formal bill of rights takes away their right to do that and leaves the right to define our rights with the people.
I happen to believe this is true.
So do I. But some are so focused on worries about the right wing (some of which I think are justified) they cannot see when just such things are imposed by the left wing.
the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.
Have you been paying attention to the birth control flap? The infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters is already a reality.
Here, on full display, is the pretzel logic by which the sphere of freedom and privacy is constricted, and freedom of conscience is choked to death by the superior moral claims of of a secular state which pays lip service to religion - in its proper sphere and scope - which of course the secular state, as the supreme authority, gets to define. We see here that in a secular state, words, including those used in the Constitution, mean precisely what the secular authorities intend them to mean, and that meaning is only operative at the time and in the context in which the words are used.
I can't say that I feel much sympathy for the Catholic Bishops however. They led the cheering squad for Obama care, never dreaming that the benign sounding mandate for "preventive care" in the Affordable Health Care Act would be used to draft them as combatants advancing the secular agenda of preventing and terminating such dread diseases as pregnancy. Had the Bishops reminded themselves of the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog, they might not have been so reassured by our "secular" president's professed regard for protecting the free exercise of religious conscience when they signed on to Obamacare.
I will just simply attach what the 14th Amendment says, and note that (thus far) any state establishment of religion certainly seems unimaginable; and that is clearly an indication that one would widely believed to be unconstitutional. I live in Alabama, and I can tell you that a law establishing Christianity as the state religion would not be politically unpopular.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Are you saying that the Bill of Rights, including (of course) the First Amendment, don’t provide the citizens of the United States “privileges or immunities”? What “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” would this be referencing? Why wouldn’t the immunity from a law establishing religion be among those from which a citizen of the U.S is protected?
Seriously? An Adventist wants to rely on what is "widely believed."
"Why wouldn’t the immunity from a law establishing religion be among those from which a citizen of the U.S is protected?"
It is. We are protected from Congress making such a law.
Because of the First Amendment, wherein Congress is prohibited from making a law establishing religion, we are protected—immune—from such a law; and the states are prohibited, by the 14th Amendment language, from enacting or enforcing a law from which we, as citizens of the U.S., are immune.
Such a law, therefore, is widely believed to be unconstitutional. I would have said “…universally believed to be unconstitutional;” but there are a few individuals who want the states to have such latitude, and therefore will believe what they want to believe.
Many people have a very hazy idea of what the Constitution means and says. I'm also aware of Scalia's recent statement that the 14th amendment says nothing about women's rights. And history once again vindicates that position. That's why the 19th amendment was necessary. So while I grant that court decisions have done what you say, icnluding women's rights, I think Scalia is right.
The fourteenth amendment is now cited in favor of gay marriage. Whether or not one supports gay marriage, the idea that those who passed the fourteenth amendment understood it to mean that two men or two women could marry is absurd.
IT is by just such eisegesis that the courts precipitate deep divisions and erode their own authority. And it cannot be too much stressed: one can think an interpretation of the Constitution is mistaken while still desiring the outcome that decision would achieve.
Ed, you demonstrate a great sense of humor! I introduce the 14th Amendment (without which there is no Incorporation Doctrine) into the discussion; yet the fact that the Incorporation Doctrine is widely believed to apply to this question, directly—but not unanimously or universally believed to do so— means that, uh…what, I’m not familiar with it?
Better to simply admit you were mistaken.
Had you mentioned the incorporation doctrine, I would have agreed that this has been applied to the Bill of Rights. But your language and reasoning are so imprecise I could not take that for granted. For example, inability to distinguish between prohibition and silence.
And it's a very different thing to say the text of the Constitution itself incorporates or prohibits something, than to say that judges have ruled in a particular way. Such fuzzy thinking brought us Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Griswold v Connecticut, and a host of other such decisions.
I cite Griswold especially because of the important distinction between agreeing with the outcome sought in a case, and the reasoning used to get there. Justice Stewart called the law being challenged "an uncommonly silly law," but that did not make it unconstitutional.
But we have a huge number of people today who think if a law is 'silly,' or 'bad,' it is automatically unconstitutional. And that is just not so. So precision of language and reasoning is important, especially in regards to the Constitution.
You eventually said that had I mentioned the Incorporation Doctrine by name you would have yielded; although it is precisely what I outlined as the reason why a state cannot make a law establishing religion.
I did write: “Are you saying that the Bill of Rights, including (of course) the First Amendment, don’t provide the citizens of the United States “privileges or immunities”? What “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” would this be referencing? Why wouldn’t the immunity from a law establishing religion be among those from which a citizen of the U.S is protected?”
“Because of the First Amendment, wherein Congress is prohibited from making a law establishing religion, we are protected—immune—from such a law; and the states are prohibited, by the 14th Amendment language, from enacting or enforcing a law from which we, as citizens of the U.S., are immune.
The Incorporation Doctrine is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment by that term. Its effects and meaning is from the 14th Amendment; just as the so-called Elastic Clause in not mentioned in Article 1 Section 8, or identified by the word “elastic.”
(In Nathan’s explanation of how this worked, he didn’t mention the Incorporation Doctrine either. This “widely believed” business is likewise, another canard. It being “widely believed” unconstitutional is deduced from the fact that not even where an establishment would be politically popular, in deeply red Alabama, Oklahoma—or Utah—states that are as culturally conservative and—in the case of Alabama and Oklahoma—are as quintessentially “Bible Belt” as there are, is there talk/consideration of establishing religion.)
It’s not that the 14th Amendment/Incorporation Doctrine is so popular or necessarily technically understood; but as it relates to a state establishing a state religion, it is widely enough believed to apply in such instance so as to make “establishments” currently unimaginable.
It’s not that the courts have made law of thin air or whole cloth. In this case, the courts have ruled that the text of the Constitution (14th Amendment) prohibits what it says it does.
As for the 14th amndment, I mainly agree.
Our discussion began with the 1st amendment, and my point still stands. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that prohibits state-established religion.
Your whole 'widely believed' argument is so much fluff. It is widely believed that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided, but it remains the law of the land. And people keep trying to change it, not because they have doubts about it being law, that's the whole point. They're trying to change it because they think it's wrong.
I have little doubt that a day will come when people will decide that we need a national religion, and they will change the law that forbids it. Niether wide belief nor the Constitution will protect us, because the Constitution is no better than the people who interpret it.
I live in Iowa, where, the media will tell you, Evangelicals reign supreme in the Republican party. Having been active in the legislative arena, I can tell you that there is as much religious fervor here as anywhere in the country. But nobody wants a state established religion. And if they did, they couldn't agree on which one. Supposing they could agree on what religion they wanted to establish, someone would file a bill to that effect. Crazier laws are proposed every year.
As to decisions out of 'thin air or whole cloth,' they happen all the time. Some appeal to the 14th amendment in support gay marriage. If not out of 'thin air or whole cloth,' such a position is the next thing to it. Whether you support gay marriage or not, there is exactly zero likelihood that such a thing was envisioned by or would be endorsed by those who framed the 14th amendment. And in Griswold, and a whole host of decisions since then, the decision was made out of 'emanations' and 'penumbras.'
Precision in language is important. As Orwell said, "The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
The point was to ensure that all women who want to use contraception have access to it--in part,
because prevention of unwanted pregnancies would result in enormous cost savings for public
health programs.
The information I have seen reported indicates that substantially more than half of Catholic
women of reproductive age use some means of contraception, even though they are under
orders from their church not to do so.
"Liberal" and "progressive" citizens overwhelmingly favor a "single payer" universal health care
system--which would have dramatically cut the cost of healthcare by removing all or most
insurance carriers, with their enormous costs. They were not and are not pleased with the
health care system as planned. In the school district in which I live, the cost savings would
have been hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, just regarding the health care for teachers
and other education employees. If any of this was about costs and taxes, both parties would
have supported that approach.
But what it is really about is desperately trying, at every possible opportunity, to make sure
our current President (note that I use "President," rather than "'secular' president") does not
succeed in accomplishing anything. It is not about "religious liberty" at all. It is about defeating
President Obama, and the desprate efforts to find some issue that will cause people to think
less of him. It is all about partisan political power.
Surely you are not suggesting that the Catholic Bishops and columnists like E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post have created this issue in order to defeat Obama? And surely you do not think that the contraception mandate has no religious liberty implications?
I am not seeking to debate or question universal medical care as a national policy. I am merely pointing out evidence which should serve as a warning that religious liberty and freedom of conscience would be no safer in Foster's secular utopia than in a theocracy which he believes is desired by the religious right. How can the administration say that the work of Catholics and other non-church owned faith-motivated service providers is in fact the work of Christ and the heart of true Christianity; and then turn around and say that religious healthcare providers are not engaged in religious activity when they provide those services unless they only provide them to members of the faith? Isn't this a fair question?
You commit the fallacy of impugning the motives behind my question in order to avoid the issue ("It's not about religious liberty; it's about defeating Obama."). But the truth is that the question has been put on the front pages by liberal Catholics who have for decades been strong supporters of the Left and championed Obamacare. If Stephen or you want to argue that the mandate is inconsistent with how a secularized government would be expected to act vis a vis religion, I'm all ears. But I raised the issue because I think it is precisely what happens when political panjandrums predicate policy on the conviction or assumption that we are a secular nation.
For a very interesting analysis of the history of what Professor Paul Rahe calls "American Catholicism's Pact with the Devil" go to ricochet.com, where you will find stimulating pro and con exchanges between Rahe and K.C. Mulville. Yes, Joe, this issue is politically polarized and polarizing. But it seems highly germane to the issue Stephen is raising. And if we can't talk about it here, on a blog idealizing a secular state with secular laws and regulations, then where?
I purposely did not mention any politicians by name, or identify any by party affiliation, or by any particular political ideology.
I purposely referenced no issues or controversies.
I readily acknowledged that the President’s recent speech at the National Prayer Breakfast reflected something representative of the opposite of secularism.
It was not necessary to politicize the topic in order to discuss it. However, if I had mentioned a politician by name, or identified a political party or political ideology, or mentioned a current issue or controversy, I would—if history would tell us anything—have been accused of pushing a socialist agenda which is at enmity with God; or something quite similar.
On the other hand, those who politicize the topic by mentioning political leaders by name, and/or identifying (opposing) political parties and ideologies, or by broaching particular current issues or controversies, are merely discussing the topic.
You see how it works now, Joe?
It’s a similar, if not identical, syndrome or pattern as to when the President takes an idea originated in an American political conservative think tank (the so-called health insurance mandate), endorses it and subsequently shepherds its passage legislatively into law; it then becomes a Bolshevik-like plot of an enemy of God—ironically dependent on an unelected activist judiciary to overturn...you get the idea.
This is but one example of how political partisanship can obscure the larger picture.
I have to say that I am impressed by your phrase "...political panjandrums predicate policy...." I'm confident that I am not alone in being impressed by your literary prowess.
I saw recently where someone expressed concern that the religious affilitation of her employer might impinge on her access to reproductive health care. In this case, no one was ever being forced to choose contraception over reproduction--the issue was access for those wishing to choose contraception and who would pay for that. Requiring providers to provide access is probably a pretty good solution, all around, mainly because the payouts from insurance should be considerably LESS if those covered have fewer pregnancies and fewer children. If anything, the cost of insurance premiums for plans including access to contraception should be lower than those not doing so.
Despite various ways of characterizing the President's religious inclinations, he is a professed Christian, who seems to be quite committed to secular government, while bending over backwards to avoid being intolerant of religion (even allowing more governmental support of activities of faith-based groups than I am entirely comfortable with).
If the secular state believes that legislatively protected traditional family values and sexual mores create attachments which are inimical to the inculcation of collectivist morality, will it not rightly attempt to hack away at what it perceives to be the religious root causes of traditionalist "pathologies"?
Our founders understood these concerns very well. That is why they set up a government which would protect a free marketplace for religion - including secularism - without attempting to establish any religion as dominant, rather than a government which would, by virtue of its secular self-perception, attempt to attenuate the power of competing religions and stamp out the stigma of any competing religious sentiments from the body politic.
That said, these values are universally accepted and universally adopted in civil society; so people who do not claim a religious persuasion are able to credibly espouse, and indeed practice, these values just as readily.
Frankly, I have no idea what you could possibly mean by “the inculcation of collectivist morality.” I understand what inculcation means; I have no idea what constitutes a collectivist morality and how any actual morality would conceivably differ from any other morality.
Finally, if you generalize/conceptualize (at all) that secularists have a tendency to be more militaristic than are the religious, then we probably need to start all over again.
The thing is, universal, or near universal, acceptance of values by societies does not necessarily translate into full acceptance by individuals within those societies, or successful practice in living up to ideals. So, there is a wide range of actual moral behavior among those professing religion and those not doing so. The overlap area is so enormous that characterizing religious or nonreligious as superior to the other becomes almost meaningless. Regardless of the actual distribution of morality, we can all easily think of examples of what seems to us to be immorality by people regardless of the ideal values they espouse. This a long way of saying that I agree with you, Stephen, regarding your second statement (as well as, your 3rd and 4th).
That all values originate with religion? Not so much. But it is an interesting assertion that is worth discussing. Do others agree with this idea?
Surely there are values and morals that transcend the religious-secular dichotomy.
When I suggest that a good guide to ethical behavior is "due consideration" of others,
and treating others as one wishes to be treated, that does not require an espousal of
either a religious or a secular foundation.
Suggestions that people who are not religious are any less moral than those who are
religious is unfounded, inconsiderate, and unnecessary.
and treating others as one wishes to be treated, that does not require an espousal of
either a religious or a secular foundation.
Suggestions that people who are not religious are any less moral than those who are
religious is unfounded, inconsiderate, and unnecessary."
I'm wondering where that moral outlook originated :)
An enormous amount of thought has been put into the question of where morals, ethics, and values originate. Discussion of such falls under areas of philosophy called "ethics" or "moral philosophy." There is also a lot of interest in psychology and economics regarding the formation of values and choice behavior. We probably do not need to recreate all those arguments here. I don't spend a lot of time on philosophy, because I feel that many problems cannot be solved just by thinking about them--especially if underlying assumptions are inaccurate. But your question may have been rhetorical.... Perhaps you feel that all morality originates with God, which seems to be a position that has been suggested here previously.
Thus, the political philosophy of secularism is without historical context and impetus in the U.S. I think it is also shunned here, and deemed to be unAmerican, because it implies a level of public, political hostility to religion that is inappropriate to our history, character and temperament as a people. We are a people that has always highly valued religion and personal piety. We think religion is a good thing, as long as it stays in its proper sphere, and does not seek to be established by the state and supported by public funds. We also value government in its proper sphere, which is not to try to enforce a philosophy of secularism on the people.
I haven’t meant to ignore your comments; and thank you for them. I won't quarrel with your history of secularism relating to France, Mexico, and the RCC.
However your historical assessment of how “secularism is without historical context and impetus in the U.S...[And] shunned here, and deemed to be un-American, because it implies…political hostility to religion that is inappropriate to our history, character and temperament as a people… [who have] always valued religion and personal piety” is, shall we stay, quite another story.
This brings us back to the blog and the question posed in it. The second definition of secularism cited in the blog is by no means “without historical context and impetus in the U.S.,” and is indeed keeping with the fact that the Constitution forbids Congress from making a law establishing religion, does not mention God, contains no religious dogma, makes no references to faith, and forbids a religious test for holding office. If this isn’t historical context, I don’t know what would be.
There's an apt saying: "Bad people do bad things, for good people to do bad things it takes religion." History has proved this to be very true. How many wars have originated with religious beliefs, and are still continuing today? Is an agnostic neighbor less loving and kind than one who espouses religion? It is in our relationships with others that our true values are demonstrated, not by our religious affiliation.
Trying to determine "what the founders meant" in writing the Constitution is seeking for the Holy Grail; they lived in a different time and 200 years later while the principles remain, the SCOTUS' job is to interpret it in today's world. For any of those judges to believe they can, with absolute surety, know exactly what those framers meant and intended is sheer arrogance.
With relation to the current controversy over contraception being offered to employees of Catholic INSTITUTIONS, not churches, it is similar to all such entities (hospitals, universities, etc.) have always been subjected to federal and state laws (OSHA, non-discrimination, etc.). For the bishops to claim that these entities should be exempted from OFFERING contraceptions should be a no-brainer: the church is no more endorsing their use than endorsing any prescription drugs that a physician may order. Do the bishops plan on approving all such drugs? ED drugs? As someone has mentioned: why not eliminate smokers and obese people from coverage, also? The well-publicized fact that 98% of all Catholic women practice birth control should demonstrate that this is simply a moot point, but one which the bishops and Republican nominees are actively touting. The overwhelming financial support recently given to Planned Parenthood is another indication that the not only are Catholics, but the public is not in support of this fight--it's the bishops--the same ones who hid sexual molestation in their enclaves for decades.
Roe vs. Wade was made on the issue of privacy: if the most private realm of humans must be policed and punished by the government, this is flouting all the principles on which the U.S. was founded.
It is curious how few people who claim it is not possible to understand what the Founding Fathers meant can name even one of them other than Washington, Jefferson or Franklin, or who have read anything written by any of them. That claim of inability to understand and discern their intent is an excuse avoiding having to admit they don't know what they're talking about. I have ready extensively from the writings of the founders and the Federalist Papers. The meanings of the authors are very clear to any who will take the time to read them and the writing far more precisely descriptive than the vast majority of today's writers. Many of their discussions are timeless or easily applied to current situations because the principles are explained so well.
By the way, if you read the Supreme Court transcripts from Roe v Wade (as I have) you will find that privacy was a minor issue and that it was more about the ability of the state to penalize a physician for providing medical services requested by a patient.
One cannot make an argument that morality was inevitable in an evolutionary model. Natural selection would not produce morality; it would only produce individuals that were more fit than others. All Hitler was doing was following natural selection to its logical conclusion to build a superior race. That’s good evolutionary thinking.
If it weren’t for the morality found in Scripture, mankind would have wiped itself out long ago.
It's a tragedy when that happens.
First of all, moral systems based on "reciprocal altruism" (mutual helping or tolerance) are entirely plausible within evolution by natural selection. There is some sense in which fundamental decency can be adaptive and contribute to survival--it is quite clear that brute strength is not the only, nor even the strongest, factor in fitness. Being able to run fast, climb well, fly, see, hear, anticipate, strategize, etc., all have some selective advantages over brute strength and big teeth. Formation of groups, protection of young, developing affectional bonds, defense of kin against predators--all these are positive values that involve or resemble moral behavior.
Please, friends, don't be too quick to accept the distorted concepts about evolution by those who clearly do not understand it--or those who base their arguments on ideas about evolution that were discarded long ago. The policies of Hitler's Nazi Germany were based on deeply distorted ideas about "fitness."
How can any thoughtful person imagine that without scripture "mankind would have wiped itself out?"
Please, someone, explain to me how anyone could be that gullible.
Actually it is more than ironic; it is hypocritical, in the sense that in this instance, the actual words don’t matter.
However, even had the framers written it as some wish (i.e., “a particular religion”), the fact is that Christianity is a religion. It is indeed a major religion. How can America be considered a Christian nation when the Constitution unquestionably forbids any law establishing America as a Christian nation?
If it is only a culturally Christian nation—whatever that may mean—who decides to what extent; and what are the appropriate or inappropriate Constitutional implications of this?
Well, why don't you just tell everyone, Stephen. Since people who disagree with you are hypocrites, and the words of the Constitution don't matter, then all of this is a pathetic waste of time.
Wasting my time was my fault. It won't happen again.
You may want to re-read my post. I said that those who misread/misinterpret the First Amendment to say (or mean) “a particular religion” as opposed to “religion,” are the ones to whom the words do not matter, in this specific instance.
Careful reading is indispensible on this site.
Perhaps I should have written, “Actually it is more than ironic; it is hypocritical, in the sense that in this instance, the actual words don’t matter for people who would normally claim that the words are the key to determining the framers’ intent.
Only someone who has not read the discussions regarding the roles of faith and religion in society in the Federalist Papers could make such a statement as you have. Those who claim it is not possible to understand the intent or meaning of the founding fathers are really saying that having such knowledge is inconvenient because it would refute their present concepts or objectives.
Horace, I wish to apologize to you. It is not my intention to be intolerant of those with whom I disagree or to ridicule them or their beliefs. I know I am merely a guest here, and that the church is no longer my home. Sometimes I find it difficult to appreciate how profoundly faith can alter what people can find believable. I should not expect you to have a deep understanding or appreciation of evolutionary biology. That would be incompatible with the beliefs you express.
Other friends here, I'm afraid that I am less tolerant of the religion in which I was reared than of other religious traditions. I'm a little uneasy about that. I've been around a pretty long time--more than 70 years. In that time I have had the good fortune of meeting many people from many traditions. In various parts of the Americas, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Europe, I have met ordinary people in urban and rural areas, and have sometimes stayed with them in their homes. I have been treated very generously in nearly all cases and places. People who could easily have beaten or robbed me did not do so. No person traveling with me was ever harmed. The people I met were of many different faiths. Some were agnostic or atheistic. In my experience, one could not have predicted anything about morality from the religious traditions of any of these people. Many had never read scriptures, and some had never encountered anyone who knew scripture. In some cases, I was told that I was the first westerner they had ever met. Yet, I was treated kindly and with consideration.
The experiences of others surely have not been identical to mine. I'm not trying to convert any of you nor do I wish to threaten your faith, but please, please do not teach your children that the world is full of evil savages--unless you have been out in the world and that is what you have found.
How can that be certain? Where is there written evidence in the OT that a legitimate morality ensued? Where was it demonstrated? A distinct assumption without a single shred of evidence; merely a sincere wish that it were so.
Anyone whose faith is too fragile to withstand skepticism has no faith at all. But, to forget that faith is never a concrete reality but it is abstract: no two individuals have exactly the same faith in the same idea, just as everyone has a different description and picture of God.
I can respect those who have implicit faith in the Bible. The problem is when they wish to foist that same belief on others, even to the point of denigrating those who cannot accept their criteria. The Bible will stand without either you or I defending or rejecting it. Each person must decide for herself if it is literally true in every single verse, or if it has meaning and principles that are timeless and the stories are merely illustrations for the reader, much like Aesop's fables carry moral truths.
Millions of Christians attempt to live by the ethics that Christ gave us as recorded in the Gospels. He was long on principles and his parables should not always be considered literally true (Lazarus and Abraham?), but were told to convince the hearers of his messages. Christ has a much larger group of followers that can never be limited to any one earthly organization, despite the claims that only one, the "remnant" will be those who are saved.
We should never forget that each individual who reads the Bible does his own interpretation as he reads--just as those who read any book have their own concepts. To even imagine that all should read and see as you do is most juvenile and not befitting a mature Christian.
Besides, what might any of this possibly have to do with secular-ism as defined?
As the O’Jays say, "you’ve got to give the people what they want." To wit: “Christ has a much larger group of followers that can never be limited to any one earthly organization, despite the claims that only one, the "remnant" will be those who are saved.” –Elaine Nelson
Now, if you think she was not referring to SDA’s here, you are mistaken.
With time, a cadre of "Historic Adventists" has emerged, and a new dimension known as "evangelical Adventists" has also come forward, perhaps echoing the zeitgeist of the Jesus Movement of the 1970s. Each of these subgroups of Adventism looks at salvation a bit differently, and as has been noted, there is no universal "Adventist position" anymore on this matter.
As of today, only the very, very "Historic" side of Adventism would argue that at the end of time, only those on Adventist church books (and children of parents on Adventist books) can be translated live to meet the Lord in the air. When I was very young, one of the first lessons I grasped was that being an Adventist was pretty much a pre-requisite for endtime salvation. It wasn't explicitely stated, but evangelistically-driven sermons tended to leave little doubt that this was the conservative view of that time, back in the early 1950s. What was true of the mainline Adventist church 60 or so years ago is now true mainly of our "Historics."
I find none of these groups more "secularized" or "less devout" than the others. I think this differentiation is a natural result of the doubling of size of the church in North America, the passage of time, and the increasing ease with which we can communicate and assimilate alternative views in North America. In South America and other Third World nations, conditions in Adventism remain much as they were in the 1950s. What we would call "Historic" here is still "Traditional" there.
Dictionary def:
Inference: the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow.
Implication: the act of implying; a logical relation between two propositions that fails to hold only if the first is true and the second is false.
The statement I made about the remnant was neither implying nor inferring. You have inferred (it is always subjective) that it was referring to the SDA church. Never did I make that statement and for someone to assume much more effectively describes their thinking. Let writers speak for themselves rather than rewording it.
Might you have any opinion on the question raised in the blog, Elaine?
I am objecting because I find it insulting that my remarks are misconstrued. Is that odd?
As for commenting on questions on this blog, there have been more than one.
I did not quote you as saying that Adventists believe that they represent the organization which considers its members the “remnant” who will be the only people saved. I certainly inferred from your sentence (“Christ has a much larger group of followers that can never be limited to any one earthly organization, despite the claims that only one, the ‘remnant’ will be those who are saved.”) and from the context in which it appears, that you were referring to the one earthly organization that we constantly talk about on this Adventist Today site which claims to be the “remnant” who will be saved; commonly referred to as the SDA Church.
In the immediately previous post, I said that the respective words that we both have written will have to stand. You wrote “remnant” and I indicated (and wrote) that you were referring to SDAs. I did not either quote you, or misquote you. As you say, I infer that you were referring to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
It is a common practice to infer from a speaker his exact meaning. This does a disservice to the speaker. Thanks for recognizing the difference. (My English training!)