What do you consider to be the purpose (or purposes) of the Establishment clause of our First Amendment?
What in your view is the proper balance between the so-called Establishment and Free Exercise clauses?
Given that the US government is made up of people, many of whom are to some degree religious, what role can they allow for their religious beliefs as they go about their work?
Being a UK resident, you have more experience than I with politically established religion. In your opinion, how is the US Govt. establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment?
Weren't secularists' goals ultimately served by the establishment of religion in Europe?
You seem to be quite sensitive to the goings on in US politics. Why is that? Are you an ex-pat American?
What do you consider to be the purpose (or purposes) of the Establishment clause of our First Amendment?
I have absolutely no idea. My knowledge of American Constitutional history goes from minimal to non-existent.
What in your view is the proper balance between the so-called Establishment and Free Exercise clauses?
I have absolutely no idea. My knowledge of American Constitutional history goes from minimal to non-existent.
Given that the US government is made up of people, many of whom are to some degree religious, what role can they allow for their religious beliefs as they go about their work?
In my opinion the State should have nothing whatsoever to do with religion regardless of the beliefs of its citizens or politicians. Modern democratic states are Secular in nature - which means that Laws and so on are non-partisan with regard to religious belief (or disbelief). A persons religious affiliation is a personal matter not a public one.
Being a UK resident, you have more experience than I with politically established religion. In your opinion, how is the US Govt. establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment?
I do think that there is *far* too much religious motivated interference and influence on decisions in what should be a Secular state. Gay marriage and Stem cell research are amongst the two most prominent areas at the moment. I'm sure that there are more (like limiting the availability of abortion and contraceptives).
Weren't secularists' goals ultimately served by the establishment of religion in Europe?
Sorry but you're going to have to expand on that one.
You seem to be quite sensitive to the goings on in US politics. Why is that? Are you an ex-pat American?
Nope. Born & raised right here in the UK.
There are several reasons why I post on things American:
About 30% of my readers are from the US. Some of the stuff I post gives them an outside perspective of their own culture they may not have seen.
American power in the world is hard to ignore. So its inevitable that it's going to be a topic of some interest all over the globe. Whatever America does (or doesn't do) has a global impact.
Also, as an advanced Western society the US is an aberation in that religious issues play such a large part in the everyday and political life of the country. This alone makes it interesting to watch (and comment on).
In my opinion the State should have nothing whatsoever to do with religion regardless of the beliefs of its citizens or politicians.
That would be great if issues came clearly differentiated between secular and religious. If a democratic government is principally a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then it can't tell the people to go sit in a corner while it makes laws that, like it or not, have religious significance. If the majority of the people think that, say, embryonic stem cell research is immoral, then their democratic government should reflect that. Otherwise the government would be imposing it's "religious" views (i.e., that embryos are non-life) on the people whose will they are designed to reflect.
It interested me recently when the 'will of the people' was mentioned in two very different circumstances.
Tony Blair was lauded for *not* bowing to public pressure and taking us into the Iraq war.
At the same time the French President was criticised for pandering to 'popular opinion' by *not* taking his country into war.
Likewise we gave up the death penalty in the UK many years ago. In Poll after Poll the majority of the people want it back - and yet sucessive governments of both the Left and the Right have denied them their wish.
Democratic governments throughout history have resisted public opinion for good reason. It is often fickle, fractured and uninformed. Deciding every important issue on a national basis by popular vote is impractical at best. Do we impose rules and laws because 60% of the population wants them...? Or 70% or even 80%. Where then are the rights of minorities to live in peace? Do you want democracy or the tyranny of the majority?
Democratic governments throughout history have resisted public opinion for good reason. It is often fickle, fractured and uninformed.
I agree, but they do so to keep the government from altering its course with every change in the wind (as if our massive government could do that anyway). The purpose is not to resist (long-term) the will of the majority because the government knows better. That is just another form of tyranny.
Deciding every important issue on a national basis by popular vote is impractical at best.
Right. That's why we have representational government. If people care that their representative is not representing their will in government, they will replace him or her with a person who does. That's how it works.
Do we impose rules and laws because 60% of the population wants them...? Or 70% or even 80%.
In a way, yes. Laws are imposed by a majority vote by our elected representational government. See my previous answer.
Where then are the rights of minorities to live in peace?
In our Constitution. In the laws that our popularly-elected representatives enact. They are not imposed against the will of the majority but with it.
Do you want democracy or the tyranny of the majority?
Our constitution (which continues to have broad popluar support) incorporates protections for minority voices. We supremely value freedom for ourselves and others. It is a fundamental concept of our national consciousness which is founded on the theistic principle that all men are created equal. Of course, states based on atheism, have no such foundational principle which is why their histories are filled with bloody programs of social Darwinism.
It is a fundamental concept of our national consciousness which is founded on the theistic principle that all men are created equal. Of course, states based on atheism, have no such foundational principle which is why their histories are filled with bloody programs of social Darwinism.
Welllll, not exactly.
First off the "created equal" part is simply a legal status, not an actual one. I mean the founders certainly weren't egalitarian socialists or some crazy thing like that. It's basically a hat tip at the whole British monarch system where some people are born into royalty and some are not. The founders were simply stating the obvious that we're all born with equal rights. (This of course didn't pertain to blacks at the time because they weren't considered fully "human" by some.)
The understanding that men are created equally requires no theistic belief. It's simply, as Mr. Paine put it, common sense. In fact if you look at that particular piece of work you'll find that Paine spent the majority of his time discounting the reasoning stating that monarchs are born some how above the rest of us.
All that from a man who developed a reputation for being an atheist. In fact Teddy Roosevelt referred to him as a "filthy little atheist." But then Teddy was a warmonger and Paine was a bit of an anarchist. So you can guess maybe which one I like better. :)
As several of my colleagues...have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
—Thomas Paine, Age of Reason
That's one seriously confused atheist.
First off the "created equal" part is simply a legal status, not an actual one.
I don't think the Declaration of Independence has people's legal status in mind when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", or when it says,
"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."
I think the founders are stating the reason all men should have equal rights under the law.
But then Teddy was a warmonger and Paine was a bit of an anarchist. So you can guess maybe which one I like better. :)
I'm not sure. You haven't had nice things to say about anarchy lately.
Well like I said, he developed a reputation as an atheist, whether he was one or not is up for debate.
I don't think the Declaration of Independence has people's legal status in mind when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", or when it says,
"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."
No? Then what do you suppose they meant? Equal in physical ability? Equal in intelligence? Clearly neither of these are the case. The only thing it can refer to is equal in relationship to the State.
And as far as rights being "endowed by their Creator", this could just as easily be written endowed by nature. The point was simply that rights are not something that are given by the State, but rather inherent in man's nature. I know this is confusing now-a-days because we have things that are given by the State like healthcare and they call them "rights" but they aren't rights at all, they're privileges.
Read up on your Locke if you want to know more, the Declaration of Independence was pretty much taken straight from his second essay on civil government. Except Jefferson changed "Life, liberty, and property" to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for some reason. Locke wrote property because he understood that all right derive from property, which is something we've kinda forgotten. Makes you wonder why ol' TJ changed it.
Also you might want to check out Locke's letter on toleration, which was the basis for Jefferson's statement about the wall of separation between Church and State. Good stuff, good stuff.
You haven't had nice things to say about anarchy lately.
I think we're talking past each other. Of course when the founders are talking about equal rights they are talking about legal rights to be offered by the State. I don't think the rights themselves which are accorded to us by the State are those "God-given" rights merely passed on.
My point is, what rationale do they use to justify this talk about equal rights? They appeal to God. A theistic principle if there ever was one.
laughing boy said: My point is, what rationale do they use to justify this talk about equal rights? They appeal to God. A theistic principle if there ever was one.
Didn't they say "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."
Their 'justification' was that such equality of Rights was "self-evident" - or in other words obvious.
I mean, apart from minor variations, we are all the same. How then do you justify allowing some people Rights whilst denying others? That's what I think they were getting at.
CK, read the words. We hold these truths to be self-evident,
1. All men are created equal,
2. they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
3. that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
At heart they were concerned about people's rights as citizens, but premise #2 seems plainly to say that these rights were "endowed" by God (which, btw, I don't think is true). I should take Scott's advice and familiarize myself more with the thinking of the time.
Nonetheless, my point still stands that this "self-evidence" is founded on a theistic presupposition. Take that away and the paragraph is pretty much nonsense. That's all I was trying to say.
12 comments:
Hey CK, some questions for you.
What do you consider to be the purpose (or purposes) of the Establishment clause of our First Amendment?
What in your view is the proper balance between the so-called Establishment and Free Exercise clauses?
Given that the US government is made up of people, many of whom are to some degree religious, what role can they allow for their religious beliefs as they go about their work?
Being a UK resident, you have more experience than I with politically established religion. In your opinion, how is the US Govt. establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment?
Weren't secularists' goals ultimately served by the establishment of religion in Europe?
You seem to be quite sensitive to the goings on in US politics. Why is that? Are you an ex-pat American?
Laughing boy asked questions, LOTS of questions:
What do you consider to be the purpose (or purposes) of the Establishment clause of our First Amendment?
I have absolutely no idea. My knowledge of American Constitutional history goes from minimal to non-existent.
What in your view is the proper balance between the so-called Establishment and Free Exercise clauses?
I have absolutely no idea. My knowledge of American Constitutional history goes from minimal to non-existent.
Given that the US government is made up of people, many of whom are to some degree religious, what role can they allow for their religious beliefs as they go about their work?
In my opinion the State should have nothing whatsoever to do with religion regardless of the beliefs of its citizens or politicians. Modern democratic states are Secular in nature - which means that Laws and so on are non-partisan with regard to religious belief (or disbelief). A persons religious affiliation is a personal matter not a public one.
Being a UK resident, you have more experience than I with politically established religion. In your opinion, how is the US Govt. establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment?
I do think that there is *far* too much religious motivated interference and influence on decisions in what should be a Secular state. Gay marriage and Stem cell research are amongst the two most prominent areas at the moment. I'm sure that there are more (like limiting the availability of abortion and contraceptives).
Weren't secularists' goals ultimately served by the establishment of religion in Europe?
Sorry but you're going to have to expand on that one.
You seem to be quite sensitive to the goings on in US politics. Why is that? Are you an ex-pat American?
Nope. Born & raised right here in the UK.
There are several reasons why I post on things American:
About 30% of my readers are from the US. Some of the stuff I post gives them an outside perspective of their own culture they may not have seen.
American power in the world is hard to ignore. So its inevitable that it's going to be a topic of some interest all over the globe. Whatever America does (or doesn't do) has a global impact.
Also, as an advanced Western society the US is an aberation in that religious issues play such a large part in the everyday and political life of the country. This alone makes it interesting to watch (and comment on).
In my opinion the State should have nothing whatsoever to do with religion regardless of the beliefs of its citizens or politicians.
That would be great if issues came clearly differentiated between secular and religious. If a democratic government is principally a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then it can't tell the people to go sit in a corner while it makes laws that, like it or not, have religious significance. If the majority of the people think that, say, embryonic stem cell research is immoral, then their democratic government should reflect that. Otherwise the government would be imposing it's "religious" views (i.e., that embryos are non-life) on the people whose will they are designed to reflect.
See the problem here?
...they are designed to reflect? What the...?
...it was designed to reflect.
laughing boy said: See the problem here?
It interested me recently when the 'will of the people' was mentioned in two very different circumstances.
Tony Blair was lauded for *not* bowing to public pressure and taking us into the Iraq war.
At the same time the French President was criticised for pandering to 'popular opinion' by *not* taking his country into war.
Likewise we gave up the death penalty in the UK many years ago. In Poll after Poll the majority of the people want it back - and yet sucessive governments of both the Left and the Right have denied them their wish.
Democratic governments throughout history have resisted public opinion for good reason. It is often fickle, fractured and uninformed. Deciding every important issue on a national basis by popular vote is impractical at best. Do we impose rules and laws because 60% of the population wants them...? Or 70% or even 80%. Where then are the rights of minorities to live in peace? Do you want democracy or the tyranny of the majority?
Democratic governments throughout history have resisted public opinion for good reason. It is often fickle, fractured and uninformed.
I agree, but they do so to keep the government from altering its course with every change in the wind (as if our massive government could do that anyway). The purpose is not to resist (long-term) the will of the majority because the government knows better. That is just another form of tyranny.
Deciding every important issue on a national basis by popular vote is impractical at best.
Right. That's why we have representational government. If people care that their representative is not representing their will in government, they will replace him or her with a person who does. That's how it works.
Do we impose rules and laws because 60% of the population wants them...? Or 70% or even 80%.
In a way, yes. Laws are imposed by a majority vote by our elected representational government. See my previous answer.
Where then are the rights of minorities to live in peace?
In our Constitution. In the laws that our popularly-elected representatives enact. They are not imposed against the will of the majority but with it.
Do you want democracy or the tyranny of the majority?
Our constitution (which continues to have broad popluar support) incorporates protections for minority voices. We supremely value freedom for ourselves and others. It is a fundamental concept of our national consciousness which is founded on the theistic principle that all men are created equal. Of course, states based on atheism, have no such foundational principle which is why their histories are filled with bloody programs of social Darwinism.
It is a fundamental concept of our national consciousness which is founded on the theistic principle that all men are created equal. Of course, states based on atheism, have no such foundational principle which is why their histories are filled with bloody programs of social Darwinism.
Welllll, not exactly.
First off the "created equal" part is simply a legal status, not an actual one. I mean the founders certainly weren't egalitarian socialists or some crazy thing like that. It's basically a hat tip at the whole British monarch system where some people are born into royalty and some are not. The founders were simply stating the obvious that we're all born with equal rights. (This of course didn't pertain to blacks at the time because they weren't considered fully "human" by some.)
The understanding that men are created equally requires no theistic belief. It's simply, as Mr. Paine put it, common sense. In fact if you look at that particular piece of work you'll find that Paine spent the majority of his time discounting the reasoning stating that monarchs are born some how above the rest of us.
All that from a man who developed a reputation for being an atheist. In fact Teddy Roosevelt referred to him as a "filthy little atheist." But then Teddy was a warmonger and Paine was a bit of an anarchist. So you can guess maybe which one I like better. :)
As several of my colleagues...have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
—Thomas Paine, Age of Reason
That's one seriously confused atheist.
First off the "created equal" part is simply a legal status, not an actual one.
I don't think the Declaration of Independence has people's legal status in mind when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", or when it says,
"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."
I think the founders are stating the reason all men should have equal rights under the law.
But then Teddy was a warmonger and Paine was a bit of an anarchist. So you can guess maybe which one I like better. :)
I'm not sure. You haven't had nice things to say about anarchy lately.
That's one seriously confused atheist.
Well like I said, he developed a reputation as an atheist, whether he was one or not is up for debate.
I don't think the Declaration of Independence has people's legal status in mind when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", or when it says,
"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."
No? Then what do you suppose they meant? Equal in physical ability? Equal in intelligence? Clearly neither of these are the case. The only thing it can refer to is equal in relationship to the State.
And as far as rights being "endowed by their Creator", this could just as easily be written endowed by nature. The point was simply that rights are not something that are given by the State, but rather inherent in man's nature. I know this is confusing now-a-days because we have things that are given by the State like healthcare and they call them "rights" but they aren't rights at all, they're privileges.
Read up on your Locke if you want to know more, the Declaration of Independence was pretty much taken straight from his second essay on civil government. Except Jefferson changed "Life, liberty, and property" to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for some reason. Locke wrote property because he understood that all right derive from property, which is something we've kinda forgotten. Makes you wonder why ol' TJ changed it.
Also you might want to check out Locke's letter on toleration, which was the basis for Jefferson's statement about the wall of separation between Church and State. Good stuff, good stuff.
You haven't had nice things to say about anarchy lately.
Hmmm, not sure what you mean by that...
I think we're talking past each other. Of course when the founders are talking about equal rights they are talking about legal rights to be offered by the State. I don't think the rights themselves which are accorded to us by the State are those "God-given" rights merely passed on.
My point is, what rationale do they use to justify this talk about equal rights? They appeal to God. A theistic principle if there ever was one.
laughing boy said: My point is, what rationale do they use to justify this talk about equal rights? They appeal to God. A theistic principle if there ever was one.
Didn't they say "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."
Their 'justification' was that such equality of Rights was "self-evident" - or in other words obvious.
I mean, apart from minor variations, we are all the same. How then do you justify allowing some people Rights whilst denying others? That's what I think they were getting at.
CK, read the words. We hold these truths to be self-evident,
1. All men are created equal,
2. they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
3. that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
At heart they were concerned about people's rights as citizens, but premise #2 seems plainly to say that these rights were "endowed" by God (which, btw, I don't think is true). I should take Scott's advice and familiarize myself more with the thinking of the time.
Nonetheless, my point still stands that this "self-evidence" is founded on a theistic presupposition. Take that away and the paragraph is pretty much nonsense. That's all I was trying to say.
Post a Comment