Separation of church and state

Is it a two-way street? Because church influence in the secular state seems more like a vicious circle - in the absence of a defined separation between church and state, the church gains untoward control of the state, and then uses it to oppress other churches. (Proponents of Christian control of the state may wish to reflect on the likely consequences of that control falling into the hands of a denomination they view as heretical - Mormons? Catholics? - or another religion altogether, such as Islam. How does Christianity tend to fare where the state and Islam are not so separated?) Sure, but it's also the ratified law of the United States. You can't simply discard the law where you find it "inconsistent" or "political." It's worth reminding you of the words that do appear in the Constitution:

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

as well as reminding you of a word that appears nowhere in the Constitution: "God." Fitting for its role as the foundation of an entirely secular state, the Constitution is an entirely secular document. But it's not wrong. The US Constitution isn't based on Biblical principles, it stands in direct opposition to almost all of them. That's obvious by any plain inspection of the text.

I'm sorry? In what sense don't you have freedom of speech?

If you're using the term "scientism" to conflate people's acceptance and enthusiasm for science with some kind of religious devotion, surely you have to see how stupid that is.Science and scientific findings, for the most part, are popular and sought out by people. People want "the science" on their side. Why is this true? It's not because science is a religion; it's because science works. Two centuries of science have doubled human lifespans, connected disparate peoples across the globe (including you and me), democratized knowledge and information, and provided incredible understanding of how the world around us actually operates.Nothing that two thousand years of Christianity has ever achieved could measure up to a hundredth of the utility science has provided in one-tenth the time. People are enthusiastic and passionate about science not because they've been brainwashed, but because they've been convinced. Results are convincing. Nothing succeeds like success, and the history of science has been one of a consistent roll-out of ever-increasing wonders. There's nothing religious about noting that; the notion of "scientism" is a pernicious myth meant to obstruct human progress and prop up the failed legacy of do-nothing religions like Christianity.

---

"Knowledge in most scientific domains is now doubling about every five years. How fast is it growing in religion?" - Sam Harris

(Sorry for the title but it's what it called.) Let me just make a quick aside - I can appreciate that it is aggravating to field posts from so many participants at once. My hope is that you can consider it somewhat of a compliment - it means your posts are clear, understandable, well-formatted, and interesting, and you're at least willing to grapple with replies. Frequently creationists lack some number of these qualities and the result is that few if any of us will talk to them simply because it's too laborious just to puzzle out what they're saying, or because there's no point - they're on a script and simply won't respond meaningfully to anything you have to say.You've gotten some attention for indicating that you're an intelligent, responsive, clear communicator. I know it suddenly feels like you're one against the hordes. If it would help you, I think it's fair for you to ask some participants to bow out (or some to bow in.) If you like we have a "Great Debate" format, where you can select one or more individuals as your sole opponents. (Further rules for debate are up for negotiation.)I'd invite you to do that - pick the individual or individuals you feel are making the most representative case for the opposition and challenge them to a "Great Debate" on the topics you'd like to discuss. I think you'd find that anybody you picked would be willing to take up the challenge, simply because you've proven yourself interesting, polite, and capable.

You're aware that the American electorate voted for Gore, right? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

It must be incredibly debilitating to go through life thinking that words can only have one meaning. That's not "religion having a major role in government."Why not just admit you didn't understand what he was saying, and let it go? There is no state in the United States that applies a standard of "no gays or atheists in public office, because it upsets Christians" to eligibility for elected office, mostly because that's completely unconstitutional.Why keep digging yourself in this hole? Why not just admit you misunderstood? It's not like you're going to "lose points" or something.

So what?Do you think we're keeping track of "points"? We're mostly keeping track of how ridiculous you're willing to make yourself look to avoid admitting error. Voters can, of course, vote according to any means they wish, but that's not what we were talking about. Because that's what they're called. Nobody had trouble with the context switch but you. Why not just admit your error and stop looking ridiculous? I don't believe that there are any US states that would not be characterized as "secular", no. Regardless of their variations in other characteristics all states in the United States are secular in government. Why do you think Jefferson "didn't have a thing to do with" the governments of other states? Perhaps you're not aware of Jefferson's enormous contributions to French democracy and the degree to which he's celebrated by French society?Talk about revisionism - but don't you have to know history before you can attempt to revise it?

This is perhaps your most ridiculous attempt at revisionism yet. The founders were fundamentally men of the Enlightenment - Ben Franklin was both a statesman and a scientist, for God's sake! The notion that the framers of the Constitution were somehow opposed to the advancement of human knowledge, that they fundamentally feared it, is completely ridiculous. Franklin was one of the great scientific minds of his day; this means of communication we're using now is based on his original discoveries. Jefferson was a statesman, historian, inventor, architect.The US Constitution is a document that embraces change, embraces the advancement of knowledge. The founders were men engaged in an act of overturning tradition - the tradition of divine-sanctioned rule by kings - not men who feared change. Change was the entire point of the nation.There's nothing in any of the founding documents or the writings of the founders that suggests that their greatest fear is that one day humans would know too much. You're just making history up, at this point. Sorry, buddy. Taking incredibly counterfactual positions frequently leaves you out in the cold.

I think what he's saying is that there's no way to stop voters from voting against a candidate because they don't like his religion or sexuality.He's right about that, at least, but that's not any form of "religion having a major role in government." That's voters being prejudiced.

But it is in the Constitution, in the form of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing a state religion or from prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. True, but the Bible doesn't. The message of the Bible is "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"; the Bible's message is obedience to governing figures, not skepticism about their legitimacy or governance. Quite wrong. Secularism embraces the notion of flawed human governance and applies skepticism to the actions of governing figures. The Christian approach to governance is to identify the individuals who are most "Godly" and then unquestioningly obey them, because God won't let them make mistakes.

This is false. Anthropogenic global warming is sound science; there have not ever been any attempts to "destroy data" or manipulate the publishing of facts except by global warming deniers. In that sense you're quite correct that there is a side of the global warming debate more motivated by faith and greed than by knowledge, a side not engaged in a disinterested search for truth, and that side is yours. Part of the reason that global warming continues unabated is that governments don't have billions of dollars invested in it; they have billions of dollars invested in the production, exportation, exploration for, and consumption of greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels. Funny that it's so "basic", yet the words "homosexuals shall not marry" don't appear anywhere in the Bible. Origin of life isn't taught in any school, public or private, for the very simple reason that there remains precious little to teach. It's an emerging field of research, not yet a field with robust findings to be communicated to schoolchildren. Except that the founding fathers were elites! They believed in the merit of expertise, in the notion that one's hard work and perspicacity in a field of inquiry was something to be respected, not something to be resented. They cherished learning. Your notion that the founding fathers were just Sarah Palin-style Real Murikans who hated learning and expertise is belied by the fact that the founding fathers only gave the vote to white male landowners. Not exactly the actions of a group of people deathly afraid of the notion of being ruled by a "group of elites." Typically for you, you've ignored that they used the word "tyrant" most frequently to refer to the kings who asserted divine right of rule as described in the Bible, and the priests and churches that supported them in their assertions.People exactly like you, in other words. Well, except for the part where they only allowed those to vote who could be assumed to be educated - wealthy, white male landowners.I'm not saying they got everything right. But your notion that the founding fathers were a bunch of ass-scratching anti-intellectuals is an absurdity. The founding fathers were eggheads. Rich nerds. "Enlightenment thinkers" is the historical term of art. Because it's a fact, and the purpose of public school education is to prepare citizens for democracy by educating them in what is factual. That's an Enlightenment notion that dates back to - when else? - the thoughts of the founding fathers and their influences.

Right.By people like you. Did you not get that when you read the Federalist Papers? That you are who the founders were most afraid of: ignorant, religious demagogues, clamoring for religious authoritarian rule? No, I think they represent objective, verifiable fact.

I don't understand why you think we would want to play that, or even how we possibly could. Short of outright banning for rules infractions, we have no way to make anybody stop posting. And if creationists find it discouraging when trained biological scientists aren't immediately convinced by the arguments the creationist heard in church last week, maybe they should take it upon themselves to educate themselves in biology before they try to stump us.And if we prevent all the creationists from posting - who do we have to talk to? I think you really need to stop and rethink this whole notion. None of us have ever said anything of the kind. The point is to try to convince creationists not drive them away in retreat. RNA world, anyone? We've got it covered, I think. No, they're called "states." Why do you think the nation's most senior diplomat is called "the Secretary of State"? Why do you think we call a foreign leader a "head of state"? Because one of the dictionary definitions of "state" is "nation."Honestly. He used the word in a definition you weren't familiar with. It wasn't a trick or a trap. You just made a mistake. Get over it, you're being ridiculous. Nobody is judging you based on the mistakes you make but on your capacity to recognize and correct them. And by the standard of what states apply by law, all 50 states are secular states, because the law of the First and Fourteenth amendments apply in all 50 states.Religion may play a large role in the life of a voter but that doesn't mean that religion plays a role in that voter's government. That's forbidden in the United States under the First Amendment, and you should be thankful that it is, because the first priority of a number of religions is eliminating the competition. Why is it that the clowns who demand the government establish a religion always assume that it's their religion that would be established? Huh? You're the only one who misunderstood. That has nothing to do with the fact that the post was directed to you. The rest of us are reading all the posts, you know, regardless of who they're to or from. Because we know more than you. We're aware of the fact that "state" is commonly used to refer to nations and their government, and you were not.There's nothing more tricky than your own ignorance going on, here. That makes no sense. The source of a putative "natural moral order" is natural moral law, not religion. Personally I don't accept such a construct, but if something has a "natural moral order" the source of that order is not religion. Christianity doesn't define natural moral law, it is defined by it (if it exists, which it doesn't.) He's by far the most influential and did the most to define the project of democracy as it exists in the United States. In a large part the US is a secular nation because Jefferson argued that it should be so.I mean I guess we could focus on John Hancock instead but aside from his huge signature, he's not remembered for an enormous amount of influence on the drafting of the US constitution.

Who says Calvinism is the correct Christianity? Are you a Calvinist?And let's take a look at Romans 13:

quote:

---

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

---

The United States was founded in rebellion. The notion that you can use Romans 13 to defend rebellion against God's appointed king is absurdly contrary to a plain reading of the text. I mean did you even look up Romans 13 before you quoted John Calvin? I don't get any sense that you did. Chalk up another instance, I guess, where the atheist knows his Bible better than the Christian. Exactly. Skepticism in human knowledge necessarily includes skepticism about the knowledge of humans in the past. Why would being old make something more right? That's nonsense.Skepticism in human tradition is part of that skepticism in human infallibility. It's people like you who will brook no skepticism in their knowledge whatsoever. I can't imagine what you think you're on about. Why would people have to elect people to be clear-minded? Either they're clear-minded or they're not. I guess you're opposed to the notion that people should be intelligent, as well; surely if secular humanists came out against cancer, you'd stand up in support of more cancer.

Don't trust it, Marc, read the journals and see for yourself.People aren't supposed to trust scientists. Scientists don't trust other scientists. The entire community is based on the state nickname of Missouri - the "Show Me" state.The whole notion of science is that you just don't trust people, you look at their data and their methodologies to see if they did it right.If you think it went wrong somewhere, Marc, then grab the research for yourself and demonstrate that it did. That sounds like a great idea! Why don't you start by reading them?