A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

Thank you crashie. Nice when you are being fair.

What do you think the definition of "state church" implies?Government tax funding of religious activities and facilities? Religious prohibitions enforced with the civil power of law?I don't see how a reasonable person could argue that a government could do those things and yet avoid conflict with the First amendment simply because the government did not come right out and say "this is the new state religion". If you're doing the above things, you have already established a state religion, whether you admit it openly or not.

All it meant was that the state was not to have an official National Church, that is ALL. The whole point was to protect the church from government, not government from the church as it is now misread. Madison argued that this association with power corrupts the church, meaning it is bad for the church, not government, and the Baptists that Thomas Jefferson reassured in his famous letter about the separation of church and state were concerned about the persecutions of minority sects such as themselves by an official state church which is what had happened in Europe. These were the reasons for the first amendment, NOT restricting religion's influence on the state in any way whatever, but only the reverse. Congresses funded religious activities then and that is not in any way a violation of the separation idea, as Christian influence in the nation and in government too was considered a good thing, and some of the founders are on record saying so. It was ONLY a National Church being corrupted by and wielding the power of the governemnt against other churches that was prohibited, NOT the encouragement of Christian influence at all levels of American life. To DISCOURAGE this as is now done in the name of government is in fact a violation of the amendment.

What is taught is schools is certainly relevant to the ID debate. Indeed, that's where much of the controversy lies.However, recent messages are wandering into questions of constitutional law. It seems to me that these are drifting too far from the topic.For the purposes of this thread, I suggest going by the conventional wisdom as established in recent practice including recent court rulings on the church/state issue.If you want to further debate what should be the proper reading of the constitution, please open a separate thread on that (maybe a thread in Coffee House).Thanks.

---

Funny thing...I seem to remember Faith making the same kind of arguments regarding the Separation of Church and State three or four months ago. The more things change, the more they remain the same, I guess.Anyway, thank you, AdminNWR.

Of course. It was true then and it's true now.

Particularly like your 7-day-seminar format.

And what do you think that means? I mean, what's the harm in a government simply saying "such-and-such is our national religion", as they do in a lot of Europe?Isn't it the effects that go along with that that the framers tried to prevent? Isn't it the effects, not the statement, that do the harm? And if you have the effects, what does it matter if the government avoids the appearance of a state religion?The protections of the first amendment go way beyond a declaration of state religion; they protect the citizenry against government implementing a state religion under any name. It's a two-way street. The idea that you can somehow prevent one but allow the other is incoherent; they're the same thing. What you propose makes as much sense as trying to flip only one side of the coin, but not the other. Sure. And some of them are on the record as disagreeing. See, it's kind of funny how that works, in a democracy. The people have decided that we'll have a secular society. Reasonable people understand that that's what you have to have if your society has a plurality of religions.

Glad you like it! That was one of the symmetries I was aiming for -- thought that particular symmetry might help people -- particularly on the other side of the aisle -- get my meaning. They are one of the audiences I hope the essay is able to speak to.

I think the new separation concept really is the opposite of what you think it is here. What we are seeing now is the enshrinement and codification of secularism as the official state religion in all but name only, and that's the opposite of the intent of the first amendment to ban prohibition of religious expression.The idea is not that religion per se is dangerous or bad, but that no one should have to adopt certain beliefs; that there should not be a national religious establishment should include banning any national ideology, as ideology and religion in this regard as essentially the same thing. The State should not be imposing beleif systems on the population.But the way secularists have banned public religious expressions, they are essentially making secularism and hostility towards religion the de facto State religion/ideology, and that's what is wrong.Religious people, Christians and otherwise, don't want the State to force beliefs on people, except the secularists, and they want secularism rigourously maintained and all religious expression except secularism banned from public events.This message has been edited by randman, 11-28-2005 06:49 PM

I truly don't follow your logic here, crash.The use of the word "respecting"--in the sense of "regarding"--generalizes and broadens the meaning of the clause. That is genuinely my opinion, no digging in involved.The FFs (Founding Fathers) could have simply said that Congress shall make no laws establishing religion, but they didn't: the difference is, as I said, one that broadens that stricture of the amendment."Respecting"--to me--generalizes the meaning of the clause to say that Congress shall not make laws favoring or disfavoring any religion.I'll look at my post again, and I am honestly open to a explication that suggests I seemed to be (or was) weaseling my words. I will gladly apologize for either case, but I am not yet persuaded.

Secularism is only a religion if "bald" is a hair color.It's logically incoherent to suggest that secularism, the absence of a religion, is somehow a religion. If secularism is, then nothing is. And everything is. Well, they haven't. You had a thread where you were challenged to provide examples of that, of secularists violating your free expression, and you weren't able. All you could show were public officials using my tax dollars to promote their personal religion.We're not going to talk about it again, here. That's the consequence of you losing the debate, you see.

I still have to disagree, crashie I wrote: "If there is any definitional doubt"=if the plain primary meaning of establish--which is to support, not create--were unclear, then"the term "respecting" removes it"=the broadening use of respecting, meaning any impact on establishing a religion, removes any doubts about the intended broad definition of "establish", which leaves us with"producing a plain meaning of "shall not make any law supporting a religion"I suppose I could have added "or suppressing a religion," but I cannot find any basis to suggest I was fast and loose about the actual meaning of respecting.Anyway, my apologies if I seemed to be playing two word monte, but I don't believe my text supports that conclusion.Edit: spelling correction before Faith sees itThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-28-2005 07:09 PM

Sorry, AdminNWR. I'm done--and imperviously done, I promise.

I believe you, but that's not the impression one gets from that post. A lot of people make the mistake of interpreting that clause to mean that Congress can't make laws that show respect, deference, or support to religions, and your post seemed to imply that that was the view you were putting forth.I'm sure it was just a mistake, and it was compunded by the fact that you appeared to paraphrase the clause in question by substituting "support" for "respect", though I see now that what you did was substitute "support" for "respecting an establishment."It was an error of ambiguity, the way I see it. Your post was simply ambiguous, Faith and I both interpreted it in a different way than you obviously intended, and naturally, she challenged you a little more forcefully than I have, because she's your opponent. And naturally, you've defended yourself a little more forcefully than I think you have a right to, because the criticism is coming from your opponent.Well, take it from me, who's on your side. Faith wasn't wrong to read it the way that she did, it was a reasonable interpretation due to the ambiguity of your post, and I think you'd be better served to own up to the ambiguity. Your choice, though. Maybe it seems perfectly clear to you. But when two people, including one from your own side, arrive at the same erroneous interpretation, you have to kind of wonder if you maybe weren't as clear as you thought you were.