I'm on Twitter! More Must Reads

    follow me on Twitter

    Monday, February 11, 2008

    Religion - A Pain the Rear to Non-Believers

    My fellow sub blogger, Doc McDonald, has, I think, some interesting views regarding the separation of Church and state. I happen to vehemently disagree with them. The discussion that started it is here, with a synopsis of a longer reply I intend to place in this post.

    My summary post was this.

    My problem with this line of thinking is that somehow, intolerance of Christians and Christianity is no problem. Nearly all Christians will bend over backward to show tolerance and respect for people who practice their religions (even atheism) peacefully. If Christians were so hell-bent on forcing their theology down the throats of all non-believers, why is it that Israel seems to have no stronger defender than Evanegelicals? Is it because Christians make up so much of a majority of relgious people in this country that you fear they are only steps away from creating a theocracy, despite over 230 years of proof to the contrary?

    Your response centers mostly on the issue of prayer, and publicly-sanctioned prayer. So, for the record, as a Christian, in the public square, I see NO need to have the government sanction prayer. Furthermore, I don't really WANT the government to sanction prayer. However, I also see no need to have the government, in the interest of serving the minority or political correctness, BAN prayer. I see room for compromise in a civil society, wheer we could agree, for example, that it is acceptable to start the school day with a 1 or 2 minute "moment of silence" or "contemplation." Then all those that choose to use that moment to pray to a God of their choosing should be able to do so. Those that choose not to, well, I'd ask them to be respectful of the others and use it for their own contemplation (or take a nap, or pick their nose, or whatever). There was a time when we recognized that Faith was a very personal and important thing to many people, yet, I can understand how those that consider themselves "rationalists" scoff at those of Faith, and I wonder how much of that condescension sinks into the consciousness of those people.

    Finally, you state in your reply that because the Constitution provides Freedom "of" Religion, it also, therefore, guarantees, Freedom "from" Religion. However, this is a very 9th Circuit kind of interpretation of the 1st Amendment, and one which I, and many Constitutional Scholars, reject. I do believe that in a civilized society, you have the right to reject religion, and not be forced to participate in religious ceremonies, nor should the state compel you to do so. We might actually have honest agreements on what you consider "forced," and we can certainly debate those. As a matter of fact, I will place a point-for-point rebuttal to your detailed reply on my blog, but, for this is the summary.

    However, I chose to take his reply bit by bit, my comments are in BOLD interspersed with Doc's comments.

    Let me substitute the word "Christian" for Catholic - a religion which was part of my past, and one, therefore, that to me, is a familiar synonym for Christian.

    "First, when a student who does not believe as Christians do, be it a Muslim, a Jew, an Atheist, etc. is forced to listen to a Christian prayer in a public setting such as school, he or she is forced to participate at gun point."
    1. Are you implying that when a Christian Prayer is allowed in a school, the state uses it's police power to force others to participate, like the tax system? I think you stretch that point a tad, as your next sentence seems to admit.
    2. It's amazing to me that for how hard objectivists and atheists preach individuality, they would consider that non-Christian kids are so obsequious that they will go along with a prayer to a God they either don't believe exists, or in whom they don't believe. If my kids were Jewish, Atheists, Muslim, Objectivists, Scientologists, Whateverists, I would explain to them that in those moments of "public" prayer to a God that either doesn't exists, or that they don't acknowledge, to spend a couple of moments either a)praying to your God, or b)picking your nose, or c)laughing at the sheep, or d)allowing those believers their few moments to pray and show some respect for their heartfelt faith.
    3. I realize that somewhere in this country we have become so obsessed with the rights of the minority that we have become a tyranny of the minority.
    "Granted, no one can force them to pray, but they are forced to "pretend" they are praying, giving the illusion that "everybody does it"; therefore, it's the right thing to do."
    Silently respecting the desires of the majority does not diminish your own beliefs. In fact, I think it identifies you as a thoughtful, conscientious human being.
    What would happen to a student who just got up and went about his or her business during this "moment"?
    I think he would be immediately identified as a non-believer. Is that such a bad thing? I would challenge these students to have the courage of their (parents') convictions.
    "What would your reaction be if a school official penalized a child of yours for praying in an obvious manner during a break in the classroom routine?"
    It's been said that as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in school. I would be upset if this happened, certainly. But, I think there is room in our society for tolerance.
    What would a "Christian's reaction be if suddenly, ALL students had to kneel on "prayer blankets", face the east and recite a Muslim prayer?
    I can't tell you what your generic "Christian's" reaction would be, only mine. If all students HAD to kneel and face Mecca, I would find that offensive and Unconstitutional. However, if that payer were optional, I would have no problem with it, and I would instruct my kids to pray in their own manner or do nothing, but be respectful of the religious beliefs of those Muslim kids. If this event, though, was disruptive of the school day, I might also protest it. But, let's assume for argument that you live in a school district that is 50% Muslim, and that the school's schedule is arranged so that there is time allotted for a traditional Muslim prayer say around the lunch period. If that community decided they wanted to allot that time for (insert euphemism for prayer here), I would tell me kids, use that time for your own purposes.
    How about a simple Jewish prayer - although one really wouldn't know the difference by the words, one would "feel" the difference in knowing it came from a Jewish text.
    Since a Jewish prayer would probably be in Hebrew, we'd likely know the difference. But, asked and answered.
    The only difference is in the activity or the source that has been sanctioned, and who decides what to sanction? Me? You? Hardly. To pray or not to pray, that is the question.
    If that IS the question, then the answer seems to be, in many states, "To pray." Because nearly all organized religions pray, then the setting aside of a few moments of our public lives to pray would not seem a terrible imposition on society, were that what society (in the form of our elected leaders) decided. Why don't we attempt to let people govern themselves locally?
    What to pray and how to pray, that is the other question. To live free or die, that is the imperative our founding fathers left for us to follow.
    What to pray, and how to pray, is left to the pray-er. During the time of prayer, or silence, or contemplation, I leave it to the non-believer to come up with what to do. I trust they can make good use of the time, without resorting to disrespectful activity.
    Prayer has NOTHING to do with a public school curriculum or any other activity, unless one is enrolled in a religious school or attending a religious event. Would you wear Bermuda shorts to a formal dinner or feel comfortable dressed that way at such an affair?
    A red herring. Should our leaders choose to make it part of the curriculum, it becomes part of the curriculum. We have legislative bodies at many different levels in this country (I propose that such decisions, like most government decisions, are best decided closest to the governed, let's posit in this case, the local school board) and those that oppose are welcome to challenge those leaders at the ballot box, but, as in many things, I find it obnoxious that they would use the power of the courts to obtain what they can't do legislatively. As to your Red Herring question, if the custom became Bermuda Shorts, or the host(s) requested Bermuda Shorts, I would dutifully comply with the wishes of my hosts, or not attend, as would be my prerogative.
    The gun holder, of course, is the authority representing the school, i.e. the local and the federal governments. They hold a power over students that require conformity or penalty.
    The problem here is the non sequitur that there is a penalty for non-compliance. Perhaps there should be a penalty for disruption, but not for compliance. I think certainly to impel people to comply would be wrong, and should not be sanctioned. The force of peer pressure, or of weakness, is not analogous to forced compulsion.
    An invocation at a public ceremony: swearing in ceremony, swearing to tell the truth with a hand on a bible - a book that is absolutely meaningless to an atheist, but serves as a symbol or "depth" to Christians.
    Here, I agree with you. I find it unnecessary that anyone be required to take an oath on the Bible (in fact, I believe in most states, even here in Georgia, witnesses are no longer sworn to Truth using a Bible). However, I think anyone that wants to use the Bible (or the Qu'ran) to demonstrate their fealty to the Truth during a swearing in or affirmation, should be permitted to do so, public ceremony or not.
    The United States Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, and therefore, freedom FROM religion.
    Another non sequitur. While some WANT and desire to believe this (most serving on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a handful on the Supreme Court), it is not what the founders intended.
    In order to afford the same opportunity to each group, religion is appropriate in a religious setting; it is not appropriate in a public or civil setting where people of disparate beliefs may gather for a purpose other than religion - a State of the Union message, a swearing into office ceremony, a graduation ceremony and so on.
    I think that's open for debate. I vote for Federalism on this one.
    I could go on, but that wasn't the point. The point was that one could accomplish all of these things and more without the imposition of government force. Atheists do not come into your place of worship and demand you include even brief secular discussions about the advantages of a life of reason vs a life that contains elements of "the willful and blind acceptance of the improvable and the unknowable".
    We're not talking about my place of worship. We're talking about the public sphere, where, unfortunately, secularists (whether they're atheists or well-intentioned religionists) ARE demanding that the public schools teach children philosophies and doctrines that are anathema to Christians (things like the acceptability of gay marriage, the acceptability of "alternative families, the promotion of promiscuity, the re-writing of American History, etc), while these things do little to further the educational experience of our kids.
    So, what gives people the right to force those of us who choose to live according to the world as it is, to instead accept and to live in the same manner as those whose faith demands otherwise?
    I don't believe that anyone is asking those who "choose to live according to the world as it is" to live in any specific manner. You're free to choose your own way. Even if you were a Christian, free will provides you the means to behave as you are compelled. The only difference is that the Christian will answer for his deeds to a higher power someday in some way, the non-believer believes he will not.
    We each have an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I spent 20 years of my life protecting those rights and would reluctantly, but willingly die to protect your right to worship. What are you willing to do to protect my right to be left alone when it comes to matters of religion?
    I too would die reluctantly protecting anyone else's rights (I think Patton addressed this the best), but, like you, I would die willingly.
    I am sorry that non-religious people seem to feel assaulted or offended by the majority in this country. However, I don't need to DO anything special to protect your right to be left alone, as that right already exists. In this entire opus, other than stating a distaste for public prayer (which I addressed ad nauseum), I am not sure where religion is encroaching on your right to be left alone. If you have specific other areas you'd like to point to where religion is impacting your right to be left alone, I'd like the opportunity to address them.

    4 comments:

    Rick "Doc" MacDonald said...

    GOING THROUGH YOUR FRAGMENTED MISSIVE WAS TOO MUCH TO BEAR; SO, FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED, YOU SHOULD CUT, PASTE AND PUT THIS UP SIDE BY SIDE WITH JAY’S POST FOR CLARITY IF NEEDED. AS FOR ME, I DON’T USUALLY USE A CHECKLIST TO RESPOND TO A POST. THIS WILL BE MY FIRST AND LAST TIME DOING SO.

    1. Are you implying that when a Christian Prayer is allowed in a school, the state uses it's police power to force others to participate, like the tax system? I think you stretch that point a tad, as your next sentence seems to admit.

    [I am stating outright that when a class is told to observe a moment of silence, that the authority representing the government is in fact using the power of the government to enforce compliance – if a student decides to not observe the moment, and instead, chooses to organize his papers and prepare for the next class (which, by the way is the reason he is there) he or she would be disciplined in some form or another – force would be applied to prevent such behavior in the future, even though the behavior is appropriate for a school activity. Public schools are government administered schools. I’d like to see the government get out of the school business and stop keeping tuitions artificially high by increasing a demand for private education through incompetence and inefficiencies and minimizing alternatives (keeping supply low) by maintaining a monopoly – the same thing the government is threatening to take away from major league baseball through anti-trust legislation. In my view, the government needs to allow market forces and individuals work out suitable arrangements that they can end if a disagreement should arise. In my view, education is not one of the functions of government – So, the short answer is YES! – immoral is immoral.]

    2. It's amazing to me that for how hard objectivists and atheists preach individuality, they would consider that non-Christian kids are so obsequious that they will go along with a prayer to a God they either don't believe exists, or in whom they don't believe. If my kids were Jewish, Atheists, Muslim, Objectivists, Scientologists, Whateverists, I would explain to them that in those moments of "public" prayer to a God that either doesn't exists, or that they don't acknowledge, to spend a couple of moments either a)praying to your God, or b)picking your nose, or c)laughing at the sheep, or d)allowing those believers their few moments to pray and show some respect for their heartfelt faith.

    [This is not intended to be a smart ass answer, but why are they required to respect the beliefs of Christians when Christians are allowed to trample all over the beliefs of atheists or people of other faiths?]

    3. I realize that somewhere in this country we have become so obsessed with the rights of the minority that we have become a tyranny of the minority.

    [As a member of the white male club, I have to say that I have not experienced this so called “tyranny of the minority”. In what way have you been subjected to tyranny? When someone says that “we’ve become so obsessed with the rights of the minority” I get a feeling that I suppose to be similar to the one our founding fathers had when they left England expressly to experience a sense of religious freedom different from the Church of England and an equality previously denied them. Those in the majority came only when they realized that there was something in the “New World” that could be exploited by force.]

    4. Silently respecting the desires of the majority does not diminish your own beliefs. In fact, I think it identifies you as a thoughtful, conscientious human being. think he would be immediately identified as a non-believer. Is that such a bad thing? I would challenge these students to have the courage of their (parents') convictions

    [How many people stood by silently with the courage of their convictions during the lynching, beating or burning of a minority or one thought to be possessed. How many who thought differently stood by silently out of fear that by speaking out that they could be next? You are talking about presuming that children can do what adults could not or would not depending on the courage of their convictions. Is that such a bad thing?]

    5. It's been said that as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in school. I would be upset if this happened, certainly. But, I think there is room in our society for tolerance.

    [I have no problem with someone praying to pass a test, but they don’t need me to assist them. Let them do it on their own. I would be concerned, however, if one stated that by praying, he or she actually heard a voice give them the answer. I’d prefer my child take his chances under the duress of hard work and study.]

    6.I can't tell you what your generic "Christian's" reaction would be, only mine. If all students HAD to kneel and face Mecca, I would find that offensive and Unconstitutional. However, if that payer were optional, I would have no problem with it, and I would instruct my kids to pray in their own manner or do nothing, but be respectful of the religious beliefs of those Muslim kids. If this event, though, was disruptive of the school day, I might also protest it. But, let's assume for argument that you live in a school district that is 50% Muslim, and that the school's schedule is arranged so that there is time allotted for a traditional Muslim prayer say around the lunch period. If that community decided they wanted to allot that time for (insert euphemism for prayer here), I would tell me kids, use that time for your own purposes.

    [I find it interesting here, that you qualify the population. How about if you just reverse the roles of Christian and Moslem, but let the Christian population rise only to the level of the current atheist population? Are you telling me that you honestly would have no problem with your child having to kneel & face the east as if in prayer so long as he or she could simply remain silent? I’ll take your word for it but the non-Moslem religionist I know would be apoplectic over the prospect.]

    7.Since a Jewish prayer would probably be in Hebrew, we'd likely know the difference. But, asked and answered.

    [A Jewish prayer in a public school would be in English – so, you would not know unless told, and upon being told, is it your position that people such as Ann Coulter wouldn’t see that as the insult of an “imperfect prayer”. I know she’s a pundit, but now put her as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court or as President of the United States. Still have the same opinion?]

    8. If that IS the question, then the answer seems to be, in many states, "To pray." Because nearly all organized religions pray, then the setting aside of a few moments of our public lives to pray would not seem a terrible imposition on society, were that what society (in the form of our elected leaders) decided. Why don't we attempt to let people govern themselves locally?

    [My point is exactly that free men should be “governed” as little as possible. Prayer is not the business of government; therefore, no government institution should involve itself or those under its governance in sanctioned religious activity. As I said in my last response on my own blog, I have no problem with various religions putting up religious decorations such as a manger, a cross, a star of David, a crescent, etc., so long as they do so at THEIR expense and that equal space and access is provided to ALL groups, including the non-religious group. The public square is where people voluntarily come together. It is not where they divide – it’s a space to be shared COMFORTABLY and FREELY by all – not just the majority]

    9. What to pray, and how to pray, is left to the pray-er. During the time of prayer, or silence, or contemplation, I leave it to the non-believer to come up with what to do. I trust they can make good use of the time, without resorting to disrespectful activity.

    [Would you call opening your desk and organizing your papers for the day’s work disrespectful. How about sharpening a pencil or checking a pen to ensure that it works. These are the tools of the trade to a student. If he were a carpenter, he may check out his saws, examine the handle of his hammer or the bits of his drill prior to beginning his work. He is, however, a student in a public school who is there to receive a secular education. He is not a theology student being taught to self immolate for the benefit of strangers or a mystical paradise. For all we know, “they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”]

    10.A red herring. Should our leaders choose to make it part of the curriculum, it becomes part of the curriculum. We have legislative bodies at many different levels in this country (I propose that such decisions, like most government decisions, are best decided closest to the governed, let's posit in this case, the local school board) and those that oppose are welcome to challenge those leaders at the ballot box, but, as in many things, I find it obnoxious that they would use the power of the courts to obtain what they can't do legislatively. As to your Red Herring question, if the custom became Bermuda Shorts, or the host(s) requested Bermuda Shorts, I would dutifully comply with the wishes of my hosts, or not attend, as would be my prerogative.

    [Red Herring or Purple Trout; let’s posit this: The Constitution of the United States defines what the government may or may not do. The people of this nation are responsible to keep the government in check by voting and discussing issues important to the basic triad of a free nation: the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Do you see the word RELIGION anywhere in there? Some say those rights are derived from God, but I don’t see the signature of God on that document, the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. What I do see is the signature of great men, who having been born of families who left a repressive existence in the “Old World” still on the fringe of the “Dark Ages” of Christianity for a new life of liberty in the “New World”. What I see is the product of the Age of Enlightenment expressed in the voice of Freedom taken directly from the minds of free thinking men, some of whom happened to believe in God to varying degrees or not at all. What I see whenever I glance at these documents is the promise of a life lived and enjoyed to the fullest measure imaginable. If it can be thought, it can be done. I prayed for the gift of flight ever since I saw Superman for the first time and all I ever got was more weighted down with time and interactions with the world around me. So, when I want to fly, I think the Wright brothers and buy a ticket. If I did otherwise, I’d have never made it to my first boat.]

    11. The problem here is the non sequitur that there is a penalty for non-compliance. Perhaps there should be a penalty for disruption, but not for compliance. I think certainly to impel people to comply would be wrong, and should not be sanctioned. The force of peer pressure, or of weakness, is not analogous to forced compulsion

    [Really? Tell that to the kids who get suspended for not remaining silent and who simply used the time to try to prepare for class – again – the reason that they came to school. They can pray at home. If they could learn as well at home as they do in school, then there wouldn’t be an issue, government would be out of the school business and my taxes wouldn’t be taken from me to fund someone else’s child’s education]

    12. Here, I agree with you. I find it unnecessary that anyone be required to take an oath on the Bible (in fact, I believe in most states, even here in Georgia, witnesses are no longer sworn to Truth using a Bible). However, I think anyone that wants to use the Bible (or the Qu'ran) to demonstrate their fealty to the Truth during a swearing in or affirmation, should be permitted to do so, public ceremony or not.
    [As much as a book actually can reflect fealty, why not use a comic book? Say, Spiderman – he’s a good guy, but of questionable character truly worthy of an inquisition.]

    13. Another non sequitur. While some WANT and desire to believe this (most serving on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and a handful on the Supreme Court), it is not what the founders intended.

    [So, your view is that NO ONE is free FROM religion; unless, of course they live in the district of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? That alone justifies fighting against religious intrusion into the public square whenever, wherever and to whatever degree it raises its despotic head.]

    14. I think that's open for debate. I vote for Federalism on this one.

    [So, your position is that under Federalism, the public square belongs only to the majority, but minorities may also enjoy that benefit if they are compliant enough to gain the beneficence of the majority. Are you voting for Putin?]

    15. We're not talking about my place of worship. We're talking about the public sphere, where, unfortunately, secularists (whether they're atheists or well-intentioned religionists) ARE demanding that the public schools teach children philosophies and doctrines that are anathema to Christians (things like the acceptability of gay marriage, the acceptability of "alternative families, the promotion of promiscuity, the re-writing of American History, etc), while these things do little to further the educational experience of our kids.

    [As an atheist, the public square is my place of worship. If that’s fair game for you to dictate to me, then, its fair came for me to consider dictating to you. Are you saying that because you drop to your knees in worship that you are somehow special and deserving of some sort of preference? I think they are attempting to teach not the acceptability of these things, as much as the reality of them. Do you deny that they exist? I remember being brought to Measles parties as a child. Measles is a reality. The thought was that by my being exposed to the disease, I would have the ability to build up antibodies and end up healthier as an adult for the experience. What if you took any of those things you list and substituted the “acceptability of Hinduism”? Would you hold your child out of school to prevent them from learning about Hindus? There is a difference between the existence of something and its acceptability. If I were a praying man, I’d pray that more people understand that difference, rather than pray for another Sodom and Gomorrah – one is so much more pleasant than the other; especially in the eyes and mind of a child.]

    16. I don't believe that anyone is asking those who "choose to live according to the world as it is" to live in any specific manner. You're free to choose your own way. Even if you were a Christian, free will provides you the means to behave as you are compelled. The only difference is that the Christian will answer for his deeds to a higher power someday in some way, the non-believer believes he will not.

    [I understand, fully, that just because I want to live a life absolutely free of religion, that I will not get my wish – even if I prayed for that outcome ;-) Religionists will be in my life no matter what. I’m married to one and I raised two, who in turn have raised 5 more. The difference is that they respect my wishes and I, in turn, accept their indulgences when the church(es) call on them to sacrifice (Lent), celebrate for an extended period of time or a special event (Christmas, Good Friday, etc). I accept these things from them because they are people I care deeply about and who I understand have a right to their beliefs and to practice the customs and rituals that come with those beliefs. So, in essence, what I expect is a world where everyone is respected, regardless of beliefs and where one demonstrates that respect by considering those who live differently than I and trying to not interfere with their right to fully experience life as they see fit. I also expect them to do the same. I only need government in cases where rights clash and arbitration is a necessity. At that point, the Constitution and the first 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights) is the document of reference. I didn’t swear to support and defend it in order for people ignore it in considering a judgement]

    I too would die reluctantly protecting anyone else's rights (I think Patton addressed this the best), but, like you, I would die willingly.

    [If life is a gift from God, no one should die willingly. That’s an affirmation of suicide. The goal should always be to live, but living doesn’t mean escaping the possibility of death in an effort to preserve liberty. I would willingly risk my life for my family and my country, but I wouldn’t willingly just toss it on the ash heap for the sake of glory or some God.]

    17. I am sorry that non-religious people seem to feel assaulted or offended by the majority in this country. However, I don't need to DO anything special to protect your right to be left alone, as that right already exists. In this entire opus, other than stating a distaste for public prayer (which I addressed ad nauseum), I am not sure where religion is encroaching on your right to be left alone. If you have specific other areas you'd like to point to where religion is impacting your right to be left alone, I'd like the opportunity to address them

    [If you haven’t figured that out by now, then, there is nothing else for me to say on the matter. So, I will say, fair winds and following seas. I wish you the life you seek and only good things to come. Differences come and go, but we will always be brothers of the dolphin and comrades in arms. I couldn’t wish you anything less than the very best without wishing the same upon myself.]

    Jay said...

    Rick,

    I appreciate the point by point review, it really helps to see inside your thought process.

    My fundamental problem is that I think those who think this way start from a premise that Christians somehow desire to oppress those who don't share the same religion or views, and in my experience, that is pretty far from reality. I don't know if it's the sheer preponderance of Christians that gives that impression, the shrillness of some of us, or the impression that the media wants to convey. But, whatever it is, in day-to-day life and as groups, the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians want you to live your life in peace, freedom, and relative obscurity, just as they do.

    Regarding specific points you make:
    1. I agree that the government should get out of the school business, but, as long as they are in it, school policies should be set at the local level. What the residents of Monroe Parish, LA will accept and tolerate in their school district is different than what the parent in a heavily Muslim district in Detroit will tolerate. I thought we had a political system in this country that could handle those differences, but, in the last 50 years, perhaps we're finding out that many who make their living off being offended have learned to game that system.

    2. I'd like a specific example where Christians are trampling all over the beliefs of atheists or other religions?

    3. If we all consider ourselves minorities, that will lead to the Balkanization of this country. It was quite some time from the period the New World was settled until it was assimilated enough to form a separate country.

    4. The inability to distinguish between public prayer and murder cheapens the argument. Whats' next, the death penalty for parking tickets.

    5. LOL, perhaps God will send his answers in the form of a text message.

    6. I didn't say my kid was going to Kneel and Face East, you did. I said my kids would be respectful.

    7. My answer on the Jewish prayer remains the same. Accept that Jews have different beliefs, and respect their moment of prayer.

    8. You see religion as divisive, I see religion as an opportunity to bring people together. I don't know that we're ever going to agree here. However, I think the public square and our elected officials are a great place to work from. If we decided, as a locality, as a state, as a nation, to outlaw certain religious activities in the public square, that's a debate I am willing to have. it's even a debate, Rick, I'm not really scared of losing, because, crazily enough, I don't think any strong religion needs the assistance of the state to thrive. But, I also don't think it's a bad think for elements of religion to inform the state. On the whole, most religions tend towards peace and understanding, vice the other way around.

    9. Yes, I might call it disruptive. I know disruptive when I see it.

    10. I find it interestting that you start with the Consitution, yet immediately jump to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," a phrase used in the Declaration of Independence. A sentence that in it's entirety is:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Note that the Founders made no effort to enumerate ALL the rights that men were endowed by their creator with. These do, pretty much, sum them all up nicely. But, the capitalization of Creator was no accident by the founders. They had an abiding belief that these rights were passed to man from that Creator, and, after detailing the litany of evils that King George had foisted upon the Colonies, the Declaration closes with another reference to the Creator:

    "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

    The signatures follow that statement. So, either all our Founders were believers, or they held their nose at the founding of this country, at our own Declaration of Independence, and they signed it anyway. Perhaps there were non-believers who felt peer-pressured to sign.

    The Consitution does have a little to say about religion. In Article VI, it states that there shall be no religious test for representatives, either nationally elected, or of the several States. Obviously, the First Amendment requires that Congress "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." As I have posted previously, I believe it's open for debate whether this provides some freedom FROM religion. I would suggest to those that are concerned by this, try to get this amendment re-written to make it more clear. The Founders gave us a means to change this document, if necessary, use it.

    11. Where are the kids who are getting suspended for not praying? Seriously, show me an example where this has occurred? I'm amazed that somethign so benign as a moment of silence is viewed so nefariously. Is there really no room for compromise?

    12. You seem to have a fixation with Spiderman, if you, Rick, are elected and want to use Spiderman #1 to take your oath, I will find that compelling proof of your devotion to your oath.

    13. My view is actually that there is NO state-sponsored assault on non-Christians/non-believers by the state.

    14. Look, we live under a Federalist Republic. The public square belongs to the victors, obviously within the framework of what is considered Constitutional. But, the 10th Amendment left to the people those powers that were not enumerated in the Constitution.

    15. Nice to get that admission on the public square being the atheists place of worship. I thought your position was to remove religion from the public square?

    Do I deny homosexuality, alternative families, etc, exists? I may believe in God, but I also live in this World. I would like some consideration given to parents in how they might want to educate their children about these things. In many School Districts, that happens.

    16. Here is where we violently agree. I have asked specifically where Christians are encroaching on your ability to practice your life freely, and where the government is aiding and abetting them. So far, the prayer issue seems to be the only one, and I ask, in the spirit of compromise and good governance, surely there are reasonable compromises we can all make in a tolerant and polite society.

    Also, I don't think I said I would toss my life on the ash heap for the sake of glory or some God. My God doesn't ask me to do that.

    17.Sorry you seem frustrated by this topic, but I am trying to understand the specific problems that people have with religion on the public sphere, because I truly believe there are some misunderstandings and misconceptions.

    Rick "Doc" MacDonald said...

    "Nice to get that admission on the public square being the atheists place of worship. I thought your position was to remove religion from the public square?"

    It's not the discussion that frustrates me, it's tap dancing like the statement above that does the trick. I think you know exactly what I mean by "the public square being my place of worship". You are too intelligent for it to be otherwise.

    So, let me be blunt. Liberty depends upon individual freedom, especially property rights and the rights of individuals over collectives.

    The right to create, to trade in your creation for profit and the right to keep your property and distribute it as you see fit depend upon property rights. The American dream is home ownership, accumulation of wealth as a result of hard work, fair play and dedicated growth intellectually. Without this basic and essential right balanced by stringent responsibility, liberty becomes a fiction.

    The American dream begins to look like the old Soviet Union. Creativity is stifled, people are placed into housing projects, and essential products become scarce because there is no financial incentive to produce. Technology belongs only to the well connected because there is no incentive for innovation.

    Religion, like statism, subsumes the individual into the collective. The individual is expected to self sacrifice for the good of the whole. Women are forced by an alliance between church and state to immolate their right to self determination by relinquishing control over their own bodies on the whim of men and a mystical force that no one can prove exists.

    Government aides and abets religion, specifically the Christian faith in the United States, whenever it supports mixing anything religious into the secular realm. As Ayn Rand puts it, Attila (government) and the Witch Doctor (religious mysticism) have allied with each other in every culture and every civilization.

    That alliance was deliberately held at bay with the United States Constitution including the Bill of Rights and to a lesser extent, through the Declaration of Independence. As our government allowed the spread of religious activities into the secular political arenas and the courts, liberty began a slow process of erosion and decay that continues today.

    Instead of celebrating and expanding the rights of individuals, the government and churches began to expand the notion that the individual must become less than the collective. That, my friend, by any other name is communism. The similarities between religion and communism are startling when one considers that communist countries tried to outlaw religion. I guess Attila decided that power sharing was not a good thing.

    Altruism and self sacrifice are immoral and anti-liberty. It took me a long time to get to a point where I was comfortable with this realization. I have one life to live and a finite time in which to live it and I'll not sacrifice any part of my life, my property or my thoughts to anyone unless I choose to. That is the legacy Jefferson, Madison, and the rest left for us.

    And to your other question, yes, they were pious men, for the most part - but they were wise enough to put individual liberty above the establishment and protection of any one religion. Our founders were wise enough to understand that religion was a private matter and that the affairs of government belong to the people - all of the people.

    I lack the audacity to attempt to read their minds from the grave, but their documents make clear to me that government (and therefore the public square) is secular and religion is a private matter to be practiced in privately built houses of worship.

    If our government were truly doing its job, then churches would be subject to property and income taxes like any other business or individual. But, they don't want to sacrifice their property rights for the collective good. In fact, I remember having a priest as a representative in the United States Congress, Father Drinan, (D-MA)

    He was the first priest elected to Congress. He was ordered not to run for reelection by the Pope when he stood up for a woman's right to an abortion as he believed the Church and the Law were separate. It was at that point that I left the Catholic Church. You see, I had also just finished reading about how Pope Pius IX maintained restrictions on Jews and even had a boy kidnapped from his parents because he had been baptized Now that was a true measure of altruism and respect for the family of man. Ann Coulter's expressed desire to "perfect Jews" seems to be from the same cloth cut by a former Pope and I believe she's a born again charismatic Christian, isn't she?

    As I said, I see religion as dangerous to liberty for a variety of reason. I've given you my final explanation on the matter. Take it or leave it. I'm not the missionary in this debate.

    Have a fine Navy day, shipmate!

    Jay said...

    Rick,

    It's a very well-reasoned argument.

    As someone who is usually inclined to not head down slippery slopes, you make a compelling case for not going down the religion/state slope, and, it's one I am open to. I think I said elsewhere, I don't think my religion needs the assistance of the state, and, I am a little uncomfortable being part of an alliance with the state.

    But (and of course, there's a but), we have headed down these slopes many, many times during our nation's history. I accept your desire not to head down this particular one. I don't share the same fears that you do, particularly on the local level, but I can follow the logic.