posted
You guys mostly know by now that I'm an armchair philosopher...or more accurately, a workplace philosopher. Since I have so much time alone at work, I spend a lot of it thinking. Recently it occurred to me that there seems to be a divide between churches, not on whether there should be a separation between church and state, but on what that separation means.
For centuries, many countries in Europe had official state churches; a few still do to one degree or another. Alongside these churches existed "free churches" which had no direct relationship with any state, and which tended to be persecuted by it. These latter churches, to varying degrees, deliberately lacked the political machinery used by the state churches to throw their weight around. Some of them were purely congregational; others had weak representational governments such as conferences.
After the Revolutionary era in America, state churches (meaning those churches that were or had been established religions somewhere) declined in power and free churches grew; most of the new churches that appeared in America were modeled after the free churches to lack governmental apparatus. By and large, the free churches were openly afraid of what the formerly-established churches would do if they were to gain power, and were careful to insist on church-state separation. Eventually, most of the ex-state churches came around to support it as well.
The key insight, I think, is this: most of the free churches still think of that separation in terms of a kind of power they cannot exercise anyway. They do not and cannot have, and do not want, the kind of relationship with the government that churches had in old Europe. And that is all they mean. Churches such as the Baptists and Churches of Christ feel free to vote along religious lines or get candidates who are their staunch members nominated because this is not a part of what they consider entanglement. Ex-state churches, by contrast, have withdrawn further from the political process, either from conviction or out of fear that they will be seen as exerting undue influence.
These conflicting definitions, rooted in the history of the various churches, are at the heart of the dispute over issues like abortion and gay rights today. Most of the free churches, many of which are "conservative", feel that they have fulfilled their obligations to the Constitution simply by being structured in such a way that they cannot take overt control of governments. They remember their own oppression, or that of their predecessors, in those terms. Therefore they are deeply offended when outsiders claim they are violating separation of church and state.
I do not know if this is a new insight, but it is something I have not seen discussed anywhere before. Have at it!
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really see a problem with specific churches/religions trying to get their members vote along certain lines, as long as they encourage their members legally. But it's when you try to justify political actions with an argument based on your view of God, sin, etc, that the line is crossed.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may be right, Leah. What I am getting at is that these churches would not agree with you on where the line is. They would say their members (and everyone else) are free to vote on any basis they want, religious or otherwise, and that they are not violating the law unless they try to create an official relationship between their church and the government.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But it's when you try to justify political actions with an argument based on your view of God, sin, etc, that the line is crossed.
Um... no. That is their job. If people want an argument not based on a certian view of God, sin, etc., then they certainly will not go to a church. A church, and its clergy, and its community, are their to provide the religious view of things. They are not crossing a line at all, they are doing exactly what they are there to do. Just because you feel that religious arguments are invalid does not make them so. Churches that refuse to take a stance on issues may as well close down, because they are useless.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
When I said "they" I meant politicians and lawmakers. Just because, for example, someone feels that homosexuality is a sin or that abortion is murder doesn't mean they should be able to use evidence from the bible to support thier claim. At least not in connection to the governmnet. In a religious context they can do what they want.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the end, people (including politicians) will vote because of their views of the world. That view will invariably include religious ideas. You can't ask a Christian politician to not to let his views of religion and god influence his voting any more than you could ask an athiest politician to ignore his own atheism.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Just because, for example, someone feels that homosexuality is a sin or that abortion is murder doesn't mean they should be able to use evidence from the bible to support thier claim. At least not in connection to the governmnet.
But of course, anyone supporting abortion or gay marriage can use totally unsubstantiated claims to push their views through? Such as life begins at birth (which is totally arbitrary) and homosexuality is genetic (which is also totally unfounded)?
Somehow, I find the religious arguments to be much more solid. Of course, I'm biased about it, but I think "God says so" is a much better argument than "it's convenient for me, so I will joyfully wish it into reality".
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mabus, I took a class on the history of American Religon over the summer and we touched on this subject a lot. If you want a thorough analysis, I suggest Stephen Carter's The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion.
According to Carter, the founders of the Constitution had absolutely no intention to keep religion out of government. What they did intend, was to keep the government out of religion. State established churches continued in several states, like Virginia, after the Constitution was created. The nonestablishment clause of the Consitution was considered only to apply to the national government. The founders were strongly influenced by Baptists who had suffered great legal persecution in England. For example, at one point, there was a law that no more than five Baptist could ever be in the same building. The founders wanted to avoid this type of legal persecution. They wanted everybody to be free to hold and exercise their religious beliefs.
They had no concept of people keeping their religious views out of politics. Jefferson's famous "wall of seperation" was meant to be a one- way wall. Of course, modern day Supeme Court cases do not always see this as being the case.
Carter also argues that current attitudes like:
quote: But it's when you try to justify political actions with an argument based on your view of God, sin, etc, that the line is crossed.
serve to trivialize religious devotion. If you truly believe that abortion is against the will of God, why shouldn't you try and stop it? To say otherwise, says that you should place something else above God. This completely underminds religion, and to me seems utterly disrespectful. This doesn't mean that religious arguments should be given any special weight, but that they should be viewed with the same understanding and respect given to all arguments, regardless of their source.
quote: If you want a thorough analysis, I suggest Stephen Carter's The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion.
I haven't read the book and am not familiar with Carter. I do think that the title alone paints him as more than a little biased. I wouldn't say that U.S. laws trivialize religious devotion. I think they should, however, ignore it.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, I'm biased about it, but I think "God says so" is a much better argument than "it's convenient for me, so I will joyfully wish it into reality".
Well, my god says you're wrong and you owe me chocolates. I await your truffle-filled apology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you could get a majority of Americans to agree with you and pass a law accordingly, then you can expect your chocolate...
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the quality of the argument is independent of its source, and depends rather on its popularity? Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the bill of rights was taken to only apply to the federal government, and not the state governments. As the state governments quickly took advantage of this and trampled on lots of peoples rights (in ways that were generally agreed to be bad), the mistake (and quite properly called so) was corrected.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Republic that's founded on BOTH respecting the wishes of the many AND protecting the rights of the few.
The question is not do we do one or the other, but where we find the balance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it's clear that the mere existence amongst some supporters of a law of a religious motive for that law is not enough to trigger an Establishment Clause violation.
So a law about "morality" is only unconstitutional if there is another provision of the Constitution invalidating it.
Hence, the First Amendment, or the underlying principle of seaparation, is irrelevant to many issues where it is invoked
quote: So the quality of the argument is independent of its source, and depends rather on its popularity? [Smile]
In a democracy (or democratic republic, for the nitpickers), that is how we decide which argument wins.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to make clear, I'm not arguing about the main point, but about side points.
And no, M_P_H, that's just part of how we decide which side wins. For instance, even if you could get most (or even all) people in an area to vote for a law which banned black people from certain things in that area, that law would still be thrown out by the courts. This is one reason we have different levels of law.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it is the default method. Exceptions from that need very strong justification. This justification must be more than, "This is a good (or bad) idea."
And if we're going to take the entire system into account, then the political branches can still totally override judicial decisions through amendments. By design, this is very difficult. But ultimate authority is based on the will of the majority (or super-majority).
posted
Yes, but fortunately it doesn't happen too often.
Even in cases where it looks like it's happening, often Congress is merely trying to pass a law that does as much of what the overruled law did that it can while correcting constitutional deficiencies. Considering the way the Court writes its decisions, it's not really surprising when they get it wrong 2 or 3 times in a row.
But you're right, there are times it's just flat out ignored.
posted
To expect a religious person to vote without a thought to their diety's will, would be like asking an atheist to vote how they think God would want them to.
You can't ask someone to base their voting decisions on something that is not part of their internal belief system, whatever it might be.
By the same token, however, it is very illogical to think that every vote cast is purely based on religious/irreligious reasons.
There are Christians who see nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, just as there are atheists who oppose abortion; both for their own reasons that make sense to them.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And truthfully, there is no objective or non-religious way to assign value to things. Claiming people shouldn't be murdered because they have a right to live is no more objectively provable than claiming people shouldn't be murdered because God outlaws it. Either way you're talking about a right or God or moral rule that we can't prove exists.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I do expect that any legislation passed is fully justifiable on secular grounds, however.
The problem with this is that you have a bias that makes secular grounds, in your view, equal to neutrality and rationality. I disagree.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps we're using different definitions of "secular," then.
There should be sufficient reasons for legislation that do not rely solely on religious dogma for their justification.
There could be a majority of people in the country who would vote to make working on the Sabbath illegal, with perfect scriptural justification, and it would be wrong. It may be one of the commandments but there is not sufficient non-religious reason to make it a law.
Or, to put it more bluntly, if the only reason you have to pass a law is that your religion recommends it, I'm probably going to fight it.
[ November 08, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There should be sufficient reasons for legislation that do not rely solely on religious dogma for their justification.
But why? What makes your "secular" reason any better than a religious reason? Isn't that just an arbitrary tossing aside of a large segment of the population's reasons?
Yes, we can't prove religious dogma to be true. But we can't prove nonreligious dogma to be true either. We can't prove anyone has any rights. We can't prove we should care about racism, or fairness, or equality, or even the happiness of others. Why do we accept reasoning based on those values, but reject religious values?
That's just discrimination against the religious viewpoint, in favor of the atheist or agnostic viewpoint, without reason.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In general, religion's input into lawmaking is in selecting policy goals, not in selecting methods to achieve them.
Since ultimately all such goals rest on unprovable moral tenets, there really is no reason to discard religious reasoning for such goals over any other.
posted
I haven't rejected religious values. I simply don't want legislation decided only on that basis. I expect that most legislation is passed by people voting on their religious beliefs, but as it also applies to me I'd like it make some sense outside of the religion, please.
Ideally I'd like legislation that can be accepted by everyone, whether they're agnostic, atheist, or theist.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well so would I. But we can't get legislation passed that is acceptable to all religious people, or all agnostics, or all atheists.
And no legislation can be decided solely on religious grounds, since religion doesn't speak to the practical matters of how much money is needed for a particular program, or which legal rights are needed by married couples in order to thrive.
posted
Since ultimately all such goals rest on unprovable moral tenets, there really is no reason to discard religious reasoning for such goals over any other.
Depends on the reasoning.
Why do we need this law?
A. "Because it will have this effect and stop this activity and promote this socially beneficial attitude." B. "Because the (insert holy book) says so."
Note that the first one can be wholly based in religious values, but there are secular reasons provided. I don't particularly care why the legislator thought up the law, be it his faith or his inner conscience or whatever. I want to know how it will affect me and the society I live in and what goals the legislator expects to achieve.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A. "Because it will have this effect and stop this activity and promote this socially beneficial attitude." B. "Because the (insert holy book) says so."
B is just a more specific case of A, where the "socially benefitical attitude" is "obeying the word of God" or the "acitivty" is "the violation of God's word."
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One, that the purpose of civil marriage is to provide a supporting structure for the creation and raising of new citizens, that the current admission rules to marriage are over-inclusive for administrative reasons, and that further expansion merely moves it farther from this goal.
Second, even if the reason one thinks homosexuality is immoral is religious, the decision not to extend marriage benefits to homosexual unions is a secular decision, based on the underlying religious valule. And we've already agreed that this happens.
Third, people think homosexuality is "abnormal" and that allowing homosexual unions is to give homosexuality a stamp of normalcy that might encourage it's spread.
I reject all three, for several reasons each. But the first and last are secular reasons, and the second is a secular extension of a religious principle.
Dagonee Note: this isn't even getting into the far stronger separation of powers/majoritarian principles for measures that prevent judges from implementing homosexual marriage or unions absent legislative approval.
posted
Yes, we can't prove religious dogma to be true. But we can't prove nonreligious dogma to be true either. We can't prove anyone has any rights. We can't prove we should care about racism, or fairness, or equality, or even the happiness of others. Why do we accept reasoning based on those values, but reject religious values?
My immediate answer would be that those are ideals that the country was based on, and they don't conform to any one religion specifically. A ground state of ideals, as it were. They share many goals of religious belief but are not tied to any one faith.
However, I've been thinking about this question and about Dagonee's responses for some time now and I've come to the personally disturbing realization that I have no convincing reason why following the principles listed over the preferences of any one religious sect is inherently better. Anything I could say could be instantly countered by someone who believes the opposing view just as strongly.
Which leads me to believe that, barring a sudden exodus of our citizens from religious belief, Christian values will always hold tight on the reins of our legislative process with sheer numbers if nothing else. Under all but extreme examples, the separation of Church and State is utterly irrelevant to lawmaking.
I wish I could say that pleased me.
[ November 08, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But why? What makes your "secular" reason any better than a religious reason? Isn't that just an arbitrary tossing aside of a large segment of the population's reasons?
In abstract principle, nothing makes secular reasoning any better than religious reasoning. But we do have some historical experience to draw on. When states are constituted for religious reasons, they have historically become tyrannies. Simple as that. I'm not saying this would automatically happen, or that secularity is a safeguard against tyranny; but there is a strong correlation between religion in government, and oppression, bloody warfare, and injustice.
Moreover, secular reasoning has the advantage that it is exactly that, reasoning. The axioms are not usually to be found in an unquestionable authority, and the logic is often better. (Not always, please don't flame me, I'm not saying you can't argue reasonably from religious premises. Just that it isn't often done.) Further, people can disagree, and agree to disagree, on secular premises more easily than on the religious, for the good and simple reason that there is no moral duty to convince the other.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
