A Call for Consistency

[Cow Poke]

No - the government is remaining mute.

I wish that were true, my friend, but time after time, courts take that "separation of church and state" thing and use to act in a hostile manner to Christianity. I have often said that I wish the first amendment stopped after the first five words.

NOT saying anything about any religion or any god does not say "there is no god." It simply says nothing.

I wish that were the case.

A period of silence before each session lets each member exercise their faith as they see fit, prayer, meditation, etc. The same in a school. Likewise, the public school system is not atheist or agnostic (oer it shouldn't be); it is mute (or it should be). I would take as much exception to a teacher prosletizing students with an atheist or agnostic agenda as I would to a Christian or Muslim or Judaic agenda. And discussion of religions is not prohibited, if it is in the cotext of a compartive religion class, or a history of literature class, or a history of the world that focuses on when and how each religion originated.

What is NOT ok is for anyone to promote their own belief (atheist, agnostic, or theistic) using government resources or as a representative of a government or government-funded institution. So - to be clear, things I think SHOULD be permitted include:

- comparative religion classes
- study of religious books as literature
- a student privately praying at the start of a class, or in the school cafeteria.
- room set aside for any group to use as a "quiet space" as they see fit (meditation, prayer, even a religious ritual, etc.)
- a student sitting at a table in front of the school before or after school with religious tracts for distribution (as long as they are passive, only addressing students that come to THEM).
- a student wearing clothing with religious symbolism (I used to have a jean jacket I wore to school with a big Px symbol on the back and "Jesus Saves" embroidered around it. Made it myself )
- a teacher or parent hosting a prayer service before or after school time in that "quiet room" (THAT really irritates my liberal friends! )
- excused dismissal for religious observances
- religious music played by the chorus or school band (as long as it is not in the context of ritual and is simply another form of music)

Things I think SHOULD NOT be permitted include:

- the principal leading a student assembly with a prayer (students are required to attend - not appropriate)
- a teacher requiring a moment of prayer at the start of class (same thing)
- ANYONE actively prosletyzing ANY belief system on school grounds. (students have to be there, and active prosletyzing means they may not be able to avoid it if they do not wish to be so exposed)
- Any school official sponsoring prayer services or rituals during school hours

You get the idea. Government resources should never be used to promote a religion

... or prohibit the free exercise thereof. (that's actually in the first amendment)

(including atheism or agnosticism) in a context where people have no choice but to comply or participate or be subjected to it.

The money issue is a harder thing. From the "use" side, allowing a student to use the money in a school of their choice does not violate any of my prohibitions listed above, so you would think, "why not?" After all, only the student is affected and they are going where they want to go.

The problem isn't on the use side - it is on the suppply side. It means some part of my tax dollars aere being used to pay for the religious education of a belief system I do not agree with.

I do not believe in secular humanism, but MY tax dollars are being used to very aggressively promote that.

Would you be comfortable if a satanic school was opened, and your tax dollars were used to fund students attending this school and be indoctrinated into those beliefs? Or if an explicitly atheistic school was opened, and your tax dollars were used to indoctrinate children into atheism?

My tax dollars already support things like somebody peeing in a glass with a crucifix under the guise of it being "art".

For that reason, I am not in favor of a voucher program. I think our schools, as government institutions, should be mum on systems of religious belief, and people should take responsibility for themselves if they want their children indoctrinated in one belief system or another. Public schools should be focused on basic knowledge (3 Rs) and the skills a child needs to get a job and function in society. It should be mute on the issue of gods and belief systems.

That train has LONG AGO left the station - our children are being indoctrinated with secular humanism and all manner of things that go against the beliefs of many people in this country. But, yes, I would LOVE it if our schools would actually focus on teaching the 3 Rs, and the skills needed to function in society - like how to balance a checkbook as part of the math curriculum - how to interview for a job, how to work a trade.

One of the few things Trump advocates that I applaud is the idea that not everybody needs to go to college. We need the 'vocational classes' we used to have - auto mechanics, welding, electricity, home economics, wood shop....

Ah, the days gone bye!

[demi-conservative]

AbsoLUTEly, you can have the last word...

Run along now.

[carpedm9587]

Run along now.

As you wish

[carpedm9587]

I wish that were true, my friend, but time after time, courts take that "separation of church and state" thing and use to act in a hostile manner to Christianity. I have often said that I wish the first amendment stopped after the first five words.

I am personally glad it doesn't - however - I do agree that there are times the government goes too far in trying to stay "neutral," like preventing a child from praying in a public school.

I wish that were the case.... or prohibit the free exercise thereof. (that's actually in the first amendment)

And there is the rub. Because there are so MANY religions, there are times when some must abandon exercise to preserve the over-arching principle. So a Christian teacher may feel that their "right to pray" is being impinged on because they are not permitted to lead prayer in their public classroom, but if they are permitted to, then the rights of the students to NOT pray or to pray differently is beging impinged on by a representative of a government-sponsored agency.

I find a fairly good litmus test is to ask oneself how it would feel if a member of the <insert the most objectionable religion you can think of here> were permitted to do the same thing, with <insert appropriate family member or yourself here> present and in the same circumstances. If you go, "no way!" then it's probably not just that that happen at all for ANY religion or belief system.

I do not believe in secular humanism, but MY tax dollars are being used to very aggressively promote that.

That one you will have to explain. How is the modern school system promoting secular humanism by being mute on religion?

My tax dollars already support things like somebody peeing in a glass with a crucifix under the guise of it being "art".

On that one we mostly agree. It does not seem to me that government dollars should be used to support "the arts." It is not necessary infrastructure, it is not meeting a human need related to subsistence, and it is not in defense of the public welfare. It is a nice-to-have, not a have-to-have. And it is far too prone to objection, with the wide range of attitudes and opinions about art. If you want to start a campaign on moving the arts to the private sector, I would sign on (or at the very least sign a petition )

That train has LONG AGO left the station - our children are being indoctrinated with secular humanism and all manner of things that go against the beliefs of many people in this country. But, yes, I would LOVE it if our schools would actually focus on teaching the 3 Rs, and the skills needed to function in society - like how to balance a checkbook as part of the math curriculum - how to interview for a job, how to work a trade.

One of the few things Trump advocates that I applaud is the idea that not everybody needs to go to college. We need the 'vocational classes' we used to have - auto mechanics, welding, electricity, home economics, wood shop....

Ah, the days gone bye!

I'll still need you to explain how the schools are pushing "secular humanism." Meanwhile, I agree that not all children NEED to go to college. Vocational and trade schools likewise have their places, and if there is any program that is designed to support colleges without supporting trade and vocational schools, I would object strongly. By I also think there is something wrong with an education system in which the wealthiest can go, but those without those means either cannot go or emerge with crippling debt. When school loans outweigh credit card debt in the U.S., something is wrong.

I think admission to college/vocational/trade schools should be based on demonstrated aptitude, not financial means. I think it is in our best interests as a country to find ways to encourage our young people to become the best they can be in whatever field they choose. The numbers are unambiguous about this: the young people with proper training become far more stable tax payers and more than return the investment made in them in the form of future taxes. To me, that one is a no-brainer.

But, while we are at it, I am not a fan of affirmative action, and I say that as the white father of two African-American boys. Affirmative action tries to solve a social problem with a race-based (or ethnicity-based) solution. All it does is further the race rift. It justifies the white supremecists who say, "if there can quotas for African-Americans, why not white people?" Or, "if there can be a "black appreciation month, why not a white appreciation month." The only just answer to that, IMO, is "of course there should be." However, if there is an "equality appreciation month," everyone is included. If instead of racial and ethnic quotas, there are requirements to accept the top 10% of the students from every school (I believe Taxes state universities did this), or if the extra support for stuents was based on academic need rather than racial identity, then the problem would be addressed without making it race-based.

My liberal friends don't like that idea either...

[Mountain Man]

That is not what I said, MM, or at least not what I meant. I'll assume I simply was not very clear. My bad.

Certainly, if there is a statement in the Constitution and it is unclear and we want to know what the original Founding Fathers thought about it to help us understand, referring to surrounding documents by the same people is a meaningful exercise. What you are trying to do is different. You are trying to take something that is NOT in the Constitution, and argue that the Founding Father's "intended X" because of their personal beliefs. THAT is not an appropriate application of the writings of these men. Using it to understand what is IN the Constitution is fair game. Using it to "read between the lines" about something that is NOT in the Constitution is not.

Let me guess: any interpretation you disagree with will be rejected as "reading between the lines".

Seeing how the overwhelming majority of our Founding Fathers were Christian, then it seems to me that the only proper way to interpret the Constitution is how a Christian would interpret it. As John Adams famously said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[carpedm9587]

Let me guess: any interpretation you disagree with will be rejected as "reading between the lines".

Seeing how the overwhelming majority of our Founding Fathers were Christian, then it seems to me that the only proper way to interpret the Constitution is how a Christian would interpret it. As John Adams famously said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

You would guess incorrectly (which seems to be a theme when you guess about what I am thinking or feeling ). Any attempt to inject something into the Constitution that is not there I will reject as "reading between the lines." If the Constitution does not say something, a method for adding it exists: an amendment. That is actually, ironically, the argument of "strict originalists."

There is no indication anywhere in the Constitution of a legal preference for one religion or another; ergo, all religions are on a legal footing. There are two explicit prohibitions about government involvement in religion or religion as a basis for government-related choices. Given the fact that the Founding Fathers were majority Christian - and apparently devout - this state of affairs is fairly telling. It seems more reasonable to believe this state of affairs is because they explicitly did NOT want religion to be the basis for legal decisions.

In any event, a strict interpretation of the Constitution demands we not add to it something that is not there. It seems inconsistent to me that this argument is made by "strict originalists," until it is pointed out that the Constitution does not contain anything about favoring one religion over another and actually explicitly prohibits religious intrusion/involvement in two places. Then, all of the sudden, the document is open to "interpretation" to include things it does not contain?

That the country has been (and continues to be, so far) majority Christian - so there have been some religious actions that have continued as a tradition is beyond question. That they ought to continue is up for debate. When the country is no longer majority Christian, these traditions will likely end. None of that is a Constitutional matter. Tradition is not law.

[Jedidiah]

MM, you are citing things outside our Constitution to try to defend a position that should be based on the Constitution itself. "Tradition" is not a basis for law, except in so far as "precendence" is used in the legal system. Article VI explicitly prohibits using any form of religious test to determine suitability for government office. And your focus on the First Amendment is on the first half of the sentence; the ENTIRE sentence is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Many SCOTUS decisions have been around that second half, especially the question of whether the government taking a position on one religion or another (e.g., Commandments in a government courthouse) is interfering in the "free exercise" of a person's religion. The argument is a simple one: if a person from a non-Christian background comes to a court that is clearly advertising Christianity (or any other religion), can they be assured of a fair judgment? If they believe they are not, would that not then cause the person to feel "constrained" in the exercise of their religion? SCOTUS has, so far, come down definitively on the side of "yes," and such things are prohibited.

As for prayer, we are definitely not going to agree there. It has been traditional for Congress to open with prayer, and that is not likely to change in the near future. But I suspect it will eventually, for the same reason that a teacher is not permitted to lead a class in prayer in a public school: it divides and take a position on religion using government resources. As an atheist, to have a government body, in their capacity as a government body, to essentially support "theism" over "atheism" is unacceptable. It is as unacceptable to me as I suspect it would be for many here to have to listen to a Muslim chant at the start of a Congressional session, or a reading from the Satanic Bible.

If a period of silence is introduced, for each to use as they see fit, you would never hear me complain. The same is true of "In God We Trust" on our money. Leaving it off does not deny god, but having it on denies the beliefs of (a growing) part of the population. It requires us to handle currency that professes a belief we do not hold. Again, our feelings on it are similar to how you would probably feel if the slogan on the money was imprinted with the Muslim Shahada. The quote was added as part of the great communism scare in the mid 20th century, as was the reference to god in the pledge of allegiance. It does not deny god for the government to be neutral on the issue. If you want to write "In God We Trust" on every check you write, or have it emblazoned on the check itself, you should have every right to do so. But the money we all use as members of the country should be silent on the question of religions and gods, IMO.

That being said, there are some battles I am willing to fight (e.g., for unborn children) and others I am not (getting prayer out of our legislatures and "In God We Trust" off our money). In the list of issues I feel passionate about, the latter rises to roughly the same level as my need to keep my sock drawer orderly. I believe what I have just expressed - but beyond expressing it here, I'm not interested in spending any more energy on it.

The Constitution of The United States does not require the government to be mute on the topic of religion. It simply requires that 1: the government does not establish a State Church, and 2: it not interfere with peoples practice of their religion. That is the whole of the issue. What is actually reading between the lines is worrying about non Christians feeling feeling constrained by Christian courts. You do not get a fair judgement by being of the right religion, but by being in the right re the law. Feelings have nothing to do with it.

Of course what gets ignored in this topic is the actual intent of the Freedom of Religion issue, is that the whole thing was fully intended to prevent government from elevating on Christian Denomination over others. In the early years of the nation non Christian religions were not given this sort of protection. It is only the evolution of the English language that began to include non Christian religions. I have pointed out before that one early Supreme Court decision (I do not recall or know how to find just which one it was) prevented the establishment of a college not founded upon Christianity. We have been constrained by the change of the English language not by the actual constitution.

[carpedm9587]

The Constitution of The United States does not require the government to be mute on the topic of religion. It simply requires that 1: the government does not establish a State Church, and 2: it not interfere with peoples practice of their religion. That is the whole of the issue. What is actually reading between the lines is worrying about non Christians feeling feeling constrained by Christian courts. You do not get a fair judgement by being of the right religion, but by being in the right re the law. Feelings have nothing to do with it.

That is certainly one POV. The other is that if the government of a country endorses or centers itself on a particular religion, that fact itself will be an obstacle to the free exercise of religion, raising questions about the impartility of that government and the existence of fair treatment for those NOT of that religion. I find that POV valid and, apparently, so too does SCOTUS.

Of course what gets ignored in this topic is the actual intent of the Freedom of Religion issue, is that the whole thing was fully intended to prevent government from elevating on Christian Denomination over others. In the early years of the nation non Christian religions were not given this sort of protection. It is only the evolution of the English language that began to include non Christian religions. I have pointed out before that one early Supreme Court decision (I do not recall or know how to find just which one it was) prevented the establishment of a college not founded upon Christianity. We have been constrained by the change of the English language not by the actual constitution.

Again, that is not IN the Constitution. It is being read in from the outside. It is valid to take statements IN the constitution that are subject to interpretation, and look to outside writings to see what the intent of the writers might have been. It is NOT valid to try to read intent into something that is NOT in the Constitution - it simply is not there to be "interpreted." I repeat, our Constitution contains NO references to god (except the possible inference of the exclusion of Sunday), and contains two explicit restrictions on the role/relationship of religion and government. This from men who were devoutly Christian and DID include such references in the DOE. To presume that they intended the U.S. to legally prefer Christianity is an unsubstantiated claim not in line with a "strict originalist" position.

That they personally preferred Christianity - that they did not foresee the change in demographics - none of that is in question. What is being discussed is the LEGAL parity of all religions under the Constitution.

Somehow - I have a feeling we're not going to agree on that one....

[Mountain Man]

Any attempt to inject something into the Constitution that is not there I will reject as "reading between the lines."

Like I said... any interpretation you happen to disagree with, you will reject as "reading between the lines". John Adams told us how the Constitution should be understood, but that will never sit well with secularists, leaving us at an impasse.

[Mountain Man]

The Constitution of The United States does not require the government to be mute on the topic of religion. It simply requires that 1: the government does not establish a State Church, and 2: it not interfere with peoples practice of their religion. That is the whole of the issue. What is actually reading between the lines is worrying about non Christians feeling feeling constrained by Christian courts. You do not get a fair judgement by being of the right religion, but by being in the right re the law. Feelings have nothing to do with it.

Of course what gets ignored in this topic is the actual intent of the Freedom of Religion issue, is that the whole thing was fully intended to prevent government from elevating on Christian Denomination over others. In the early years of the nation non Christian religions were not given this sort of protection. It is only the evolution of the English language that began to include non Christian religions. I have pointed out before that one early Supreme Court decision (I do not recall or know how to find just which one it was) prevented the establishment of a college not founded upon Christianity. We have been constrained by the change of the English language not by the actual constitution.

Exactly. Our Founding Fathers simply never anticipated a day when Christianity would not be the de facto religion of America.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said... any interpretation you happen to disagree with, you will reject as "reading between the lines". John Adams told us how the Constitution should be understood, but that will never sit well with secularists, leaving us at an impasse.

Since you are not responding to what I am actually saying, MM, no further response from me is really possible, other than this one.

I am interested, however, in which specific documentation you are using for the position of John Adams.

[tabibito]

Dictionary of the English Language 1792
Religion - 1/ Virtue as founded on reverence to God ... 2/ A system of divine faith and worship as opposed to others.
Divine - 1/ Partaking of the nature of God 2/ Proceeding from God 3/ Excellent in a supreme degree 4/ Prescient ...

Note the capitalised "G" for "God" - There is no "a god" in view, it's a proper noun.

Further to this, practitioners of religions that were not "of the book" were at the time termed atheists - as demonstrated by American "advisors" to Japan in the late 19th century, who deemed Shintoism to not be a religion.

What words meant at the time that they were written is far from irrelevant.

[Mountain Man]

Since you are not responding to what I am actually saying, MM, no further response from me is really possible, other than this one.[/

I am interested, however, in which specific documentation you are using for the position of John Adams.

Yes, as I said, we're at an impasse. You will reject any Constitutional interpretation that does not assume a strictly literal, strictly secular intent behind the words as "reading between the lines".

The words of John Adams that I refer to are from his letter to the Massachusetts Militia in 1798:

Source: founders.archives.gov

October 11. 1798

Gentlemen

I have received from Major General Hull and Brigadier General Walker your unanimous Address from Lexington, animated with a martial Spirit and expressed with a military Dignity, becoming your Characters and the <Place> memorable Plains, in which it was adopted.

While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while the continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep <[...]> simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by <[...]> morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition <and> Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

An Address so unanimous and firm from the officers commanding two thousand Eight hundred Men, consisting of such substantial Citizens as are able and willing at their own Expence, compleatly to arm, And cloath themselves in handsome Uniforms does honor to that Division of the Militia which has done so much honor to their Country. Oaths, in this Country, are as yet universally considered as Sacred Obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable Spot is an ample Pledge of your sincerity, and devotion to your Country and its Government.

-John Adams

https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../99-02-02-3102

© Copyright Original Source

(Emphasis mine)

[carpedm9587]

Yes, as I said, we're at an impasse. You will reject any Constitutional interpretation that does not assume a strictly literal, strictly secular intent behind the words as "reading between the lines".

The words of John Adams that I refer to are from his letter to the Massachusetts Militia in 1798:

Source: founders.archives.gov

October 11. 1798

Gentlemen

I have received from Major General Hull and Brigadier General Walker your unanimous Address from Lexington, animated with a martial Spirit and expressed with a military Dignity, becoming your Characters and the <Place> memorable Plains, in which it was adopted.

While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while the continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep <[...]> simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by <[...]> morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition <and> Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

An Address so unanimous and firm from the officers commanding two thousand Eight hundred Men, consisting of such substantial Citizens as are able and willing at their own Expence, compleatly to arm, And cloath themselves in handsome Uniforms does honor to that Division of the Militia which has done so much honor to their Country. Oaths, in this Country, are as yet universally considered as Sacred Obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable Spot is an ample Pledge of your sincerity, and devotion to your Country and its Government.

-John Adams

https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../99-02-02-3102

© Copyright Original Source

(Emphasis mine)

Yes - the emphasis is definitely yours. Have you actually read the words? That Adams was religious is clear. That Adams felt the U.S. was a "religious nation" is also clear (presumably Christian, given what I know of his beliefs). That Adams felt strongly that religious belief "bridles" passions and (hopefully) prevents the kind of "mouthing the rules" while behaving differently is also clear. He also believes that the structure given to our country was a fit for "moral and religious people" and not a fit for others. He clearly believes, and says, that the Constitution is not going to make immoral and irreligious people moral and religious. He might even believe "immoral and irreligious" people, governed by this Constitution, would fail as a nation. In essence, he is saying that the Constitution does not ensure morality - it requires a religious people for moral action. In his view, the combination of the Constitution and an immoral/irreligious people is pointless.

All of these things are true, in the context of this letter. What is NOT shown is that Adams (or any Founding Father) intended the Constitution to give legal preference to any religion - which was the point of this discussion. Indeed, even in this letter, Adams does not single out a religion, or suggest anything other than the Constitution was designed for a body of people who were "moral and religious." From my perspective, that includes ALL religions, including agnosticism and atheism, which are themselves statements of belief, so a form of religion (I'm pretty sure Adams would not have thought that way). The government should not prefer atheism, theism, deism, agnosticism, or any of the other theisms in its treatment of the law.

Most of this letter is a reflection of a message Jesus of Nazareth is purported to have preached: nice words without action are meaningless, especially if any action actually belies the words. He adds the twist that the Constitution is not going to provide that moral framework. I agree with him.

[Mountain Man]

From my perspective, that includes ALL religions, including agnosticism and atheism...

That's a very modern understanding, but it's clear from the writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers that it never once dawned on them that the Constitution would be used in this manner, to promote and defend worldviews that were contrary to and even hostile towards Christianity. They simply took it for granted that Christianity would always be the religion of America, and that "religious freedom" simply meant the freedom to practice Christianity. To deny this is to reject not ideology but history.