Thread: The (false) wall of separation between church and state Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020082
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
There is a heresy that is perpetrated among certain secularists that in America there must be a wall of separation of church and state. That the church must be divorced from the state.

Now, all of the sudden, the Orange One is saying he wants to make our country more Christian.

My local paper recently came out claiming the Orange One wants to create a fourth branch of government by giving the church more say in the government. The editor claimed this violates the separation of church and state. I had to respond: Here is the letter I sent to the paper:

13 February 2017

Your recent editorial about the fourth branch of government makes a glaring mistake. The constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” However, it does not restrict a religious organization from making its views known concerning any political or social matter.

Religious organizations have the obligation to speak up for the marginalized. They have the right to speak truth to power. They have the responsibility to stand for the oppressed.

The civil rights laws of the 60's would not have been passed if it weren't for the black churches, synagogues and, eventually mainline denominations taking a stand against the status quo of the day. Likewise, churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious entities need to speak for the refugee, the undocumented resident, and homeless of today, to affirm the rights of all people.

That said, if a Muslim woman chooses to wear a hajib, she cannot expect her neighbors to wear one too If a Hasidic Jew wants to wear a tzitzit as an expression of his faith, he cannot expect others not of the faith to follow his dictates. Likewise, conservative Christians cannot impose blue laws on others to protect their Sabbath.

The only restriction religious entities have comes from the 1954 Johnson amendment to the Internal Revenue Code which discourages any not for profit 501(c) (3) entity from endorsing a political candidate, but that also includes service organizations, even state universities. They can, but they could lose their tax-exempt status. Few have lost it, though.

The government is fenced in from imposing its will on religious institutions, but there is really no constitutional prohibition from religious bodies addressing societal concerns through the government. Nor should there be. Rather, they need to speak up loud and clear.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Anyone can have their say about government, the separation of church and state is no religion being part of government.

I think the false wall is that religion has very much been part of government in America, in violation of the Constitution.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Aren't we really talking about the false definition of "secular". i.e. that there can be no place for public religious discourse in a secular State? This is the view which I sometimes har in Britain.

Yes, there can and should be; but there should be no place for any religious view to be allied with the powers of the State. Interestingly enough, it has often seemed strange to me that American politicians are much more free to make reference to God than British ones, even though the latter are living in a country with an Established Church.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Well, the English and in a rather different sense, the Scots have establishd churches. No longer the Welsh or the Northern Irish though.

[ 14. February 2017, 06:15: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The issue, from the atheists' side is that religion is often seen as a private thing done amongst consenting adults in a specially-designed building. (How dare they indoctrinate children there too!?)

What atheists don't realise is that faith is not a hobby, a leisure interest, a political opinion or out-of-school club; it cannot be left at home or out of public view. We all realise that faith is part of who we are, it's how we live as human beings and so, regardless of whether church and state is officially separate, ne cannot separate personal faith with public attitude and action.

Atheists want to take religion out of the public arena; too late, it's already there.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Aren't we really talking about the false definition of "secular". i.e. that there can be no place for public religious discourse in a secular State? This is the view which I sometimes har in Britain.
The battle in France right now is between secularism - the view expressed above - and secularity (laïcité) which I would argue is laïcité as originally designed, i.e. ensuring a level playing field between all faiths and none, including in the public space.

The US arrangement is already puzzling to the French, what with God being in the pledge of allegiance, on the currency, and so forth.

Another difference in France is laïcité being a reaction against Catholic hegemony, and as such largely supported and devised by protestants. Protestantism has always had more of a feel for diversity, I think.

It is very hard for protestants to find common ground with catholics when addressing secularity in France; the latter see even the generous variety as much more of a threat.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The battle in France right now is between secularism - the view expressed above - and secularity (laïcité) which I would argue is laïcité as originally designed, i.e. ensuring a level playing field between all faiths and none, including in the public space.

Another difference in France is laïcité being a reaction against Catholic hegemony, and as such largely supported and devised by protestants. Protestantism has always had more of a feel for diversity, I think.
Yes, I'd agree with all that. Of course, in England since the Reformation, it's the other way round: the Catholics have been the "nonconformists".
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The issue, from the atheists' side is that religion is often seen as a private thing done amongst consenting adults in a specially-designed building. (How dare they indoctrinate children there too!?)

What atheists don't realise is that faith is not a hobby, a leisure interest, a political opinion or out-of-school club; it cannot be left at home or out of public view.
Absolutely. What many atheists also fail (or don't want) to realise is that their own position is not a "neutral" one - it is one which actually declares"there is no such thing as God". Of course, teaching that to children as received truth could not possibly be regarded as "indoctrination" - could it?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
The newspapers here find it strange that a person's conscience will align them with the stance of the church to which that person may belong. This commonly surfaces in such matters as SSM and euthanasia. A newspaper writer will assume that if a conscience vote is allowed in Parliament, an MP 's conscience will not be informed by religious beliefs.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It does raise issues on both sides of the Pond.

Like Mudfrog, I firmly believe that our faith should inform our actions and our engagement in the public sphere. It's not something for Sundays.

However, I had a run in recently on a particular social media platform with some of the Christian Peoples Alliance folk who are canvassing in a nearby city in the run up to a by-election. Let the reader understand which one.

Sure, they were getting stick from atheists and others about how they shouldn't mix religion and politics and so forth - and whilst I have some sympathy with the CPA stance, what set my alarm-bells ringing was the way they seemed to be combining an almost JW-style door-knocking/canvassing approach with evangelism.

Of course, we shouldn't separate our beliefs from our politics - but when they were po-facedly asking someone who - they claimed - was a Satanist (it was obvious to me he was winding them up) whether he was concerned about Hell - it rather put me off ...

The way they were glibly trotting out proof texts from the Quran to demonstrate that Muslims are duty-bound to murder us all - if they are to be true to their core text - and the rather cack-handed way they were dealing with objections put me off completely.

I've read their manifesto and it seems to me that the only way they could make it work would be if this country were to return to some kind of theocratic government - which ain't going to happen any time soon.

Our local Conservative MP is an evangelical Christian and comes in for some stick for wearing her faith on her sleeve. I don't have a problem with that and she's a very good constituency MP - although her politics are very different from mine.

I would far rather Christians of whatever stripe become engaged with mainstream political parties rather than hive off into parties like the CPA which blithely assume that they are speaking for the rest of us - they aren't.

I'm also very, very wary of Trump's claims that he can shift the USA back to 'Christian values' and so on - because this allies Christianity with a particular populist, right-wing stand-point - and that is something to eschew as firmly as possible.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
And yet Mr Trump had at his Inauguration , among others, a Jewish Rabbi, an Evangelical CEO of a Christian Charity and a Catholic Priest.

Pretty broad as far as faith is concerned.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet Mr Trump had at his Inauguration , among others, a Jewish Rabbi, an Evangelical CEO of a Christian Charity and a Catholic Priest.

Pretty broad as far as faith is concerned.
I didn't notice any imams.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
It's been said by some that having an established church actually protects the state against religious intrusion. For example, the CofE and the Church of Denmark receive official recognition and in return provide a bulwark against smaller, more extreme churches which have very little political impact, despite whatever fuss they may make at the local level.

The American situation is obviously different. The concern is not that churches are getting involved in party politics, but the kinds of churches. Usually very conservative ones.

For this reason, I don't think the mainline churches should shrink back from Trump in righteous horror. If he's going to curry favour in religious quarters then surely the mainline groups need to be there, adding a bit of balance and seeking to have an influence of their own.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think the mainline churches should shrink back from Trump in righteous horror. If he's going to curry favour in religious quarters then surely the mainline groups need to be there, adding a bit of balance and seeking to have an influence of their own.
No way.

Trump has no discernible interest in matters of faith at all except insofar as they serve his own personal agenda. He doesn't appear to put up with being surrounded by anything other than yes men. Having religious leaders around him is a cloak of legitimacy to try and discredit opposition from religious leaders worth their salt, that's all.

I would go with arms-length recognition of the office of President and no further. Certainly not accepting an invitation to pray at his inauguration or even be on the platform at all.

(And somebody please explain to me why they swear on the Bible and have a Christian prayer at all. Over here in France we look on these shenanigans with a mixture of [Eek!] , [Paranoid] , and [Help] )*

==

*On not a few occasions I have accompanied French politicians around the States of Jersey parliament building. It's worth it for the look on their faces when they learn each session is opened with the Lord's Prayer, in French.

[ 14. February 2017, 11:25: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Well, if you want to leave the political influence to conservative evangelicals then I suppose you have to take what comes with that.

(We all know, of course, that Trump is not a religious man. But that doesn't seem to matter in the USA; the president just has to make the right noises. Maybe Trump's supporters are hoping that if he surrounds himself with pastors he'll eventually be converted.)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, if you want to leave the political influence to conservative evangelicals then I suppose you have to take what comes with that.
What, you mean you think Trump will just welcome the first socially liberal Christian delegation to approach him with open arms?
[Roll Eyes]

He's selected them (the con-evos), not the other way around, in the hope of securing their constituency's vote on the basis of DH issues.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Eutychus

Wasn't there a mainline cathedral choir that sang at his inauguration? People were aghast at that, but I wondered why he'd invited them in the first place if he only loves evangelicals. There are loads of great evangelical church choirs he could have picked instead.

What the mainline churches offer is tradition and prestige. That's something that Trump probably appreciates, in his own way.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Do you think the choir did much in the way of influencing how he thought in a positive manner?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Maybe not, but at the very least they could have asked if their minister or other church leaders could have a short private meeting with Trump. Did that happen?

My impression was that their only concern was over appearing to 'support' Trump's awfulness, or give him some kind of legitimacy. I.e., PR concerns. But I could have the wrong end of the stick.

Basically, I feel that speaking truth to power has to be about more than shouting angrily from a distance. It's only a feeling, though. People will do as they think best.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
He's selected them (the con-evos), not the other way around, in the hope of securing their constituency's vote on the basis of DH issues.
Actually Reagan selected them, and Fox News and the conservative radio talk show circus have been watering and weeding and pruning them ever since, just to hand to someone like Trump.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet Mr Trump had at his Inauguration , among others, a Jewish Rabbi, an Evangelical CEO of a Christian Charity and a Catholic Priest.

Pretty broad as far as faith is concerned.
He was very careful which Rabbi and Catholic Priest participated.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe not, but at the very least they could have asked if their minister or other church leaders could have a short private meeting with Trump.
[Killing me]

They were hired as entertainment service providers. The idea of assuming it might somehow get their head honcho an audience with Trump is almost... evangelical in its naivety.

quote:
Basically, I feel that speaking truth to power has to be about more than shouting angrily from a distance.
Of course it does. I've done some myself. I'm obviously not going to go into details here, but I can assure you it hasn't happened through the kind of arrangement you are imagining. The knack is in having access without compromise.

[ 14. February 2017, 12:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
You mentioned compromise, not me. I'm not sure who was compromising what at the inauguration ceremony. One could argue that Trump compromised by inviting a group of rather antagonistic people to sing for him; and they were compromised by showing their faces at his horrible event. Who won? After all, Trump haters still gonna hate!

It'll be interesting to see what notice Trump takes of mainline churches and their disapproval. He may well find it in his interest to oblige them in some way.

As for you, I can see that you're used to telling important people off in your own non-compromising way, so what I say is neither here nor there. Keep on keeping on!

[ 14. February 2017, 13:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The issue, from the atheists' side is that religion is often seen as a private thing done amongst consenting adults in a specially-designed building. (How dare they indoctrinate children there too!?)

What atheists don't realise is that faith is not a hobby, a leisure interest, a political opinion or out-of-school club; it cannot be left at home or out of public view.
Absolutely. What many atheists also fail (or don't want) to realise is that their own position is not a "neutral" one - it is one which actually declares"there is no such thing as God". Of course, teaching that to children as received truth could not possibly be regarded as "indoctrination" - could it?
Oh Jesus, can you give it a rest? Everything you teach your children beyond basics is indoctrination. Religious or secular.
Those in favor of disestablishment are not only atheists. There are theists involved even, gasp! Christians!
I'm small words: disestablishment does not mean that politicians cannot have a religion. It is meant that one person's religion does not infringe upon the rights of those with another or none.
Marriage equality is a good example of this.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh Jesus, can you give it a rest? Everything you teach your children beyond basics is indoctrination. Religious or secular.
You might acknowledge that, but a hardline secularist in France never would. It's practically treasonable to suggest as much in their eyes.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's been said by some that having an established church actually protects the state against religious intrusion. For example, the CofE and the Church of Denmark receive official recognition and in return provide a bulwark against smaller, more extreme churches which have very little political impact, despite whatever fuss they may make at the local level.
You do realise that the CofE was extreme by today's standards when it became established? The founding Americans enshrined a seperation precisely because of how easily religion can become tyranny. The problem in America is though Christianity isn't technically official, it is part of the warp and weft of that country. The founding fathers failed. Or rather, the people have failed them.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not sure who was compromising what at the inauguration ceremony. One could argue that Trump compromised by inviting a group of rather antagonistic people to sing for him; and they were compromised by showing their faces at his horrible event. Who won? After all, Trump haters still gonna hate!
Nonsense. Trump is the one in the position of power. It's the people doing his bidding who will look compromised, not the other way around.

I see no opportunity whatsoever for an inauguration choir to speak truth to power in any meaningful way. Compare it with the Hamilton protest in which the cast were in a position to speak out to Pence who was captive in the audience.

quote:
It'll be interesting to see what notice Trump takes of mainline churches and their disapproval. He may well find it in his interest to oblige them in some way.
Exactly. Like just about every politician, he will take no notice of them at all except inasmuch as it serves his agenda. That is not the same as influencing him. Many naive religious attempts to speak truth to power fall at that first hurdle.

quote:
As for you, I can see that you're used to telling important people off in your own non-compromising way, so what I say is neither here nor there. Keep on keeping on!
I'm not going to be goaded into giving examples or into claming any particular effectiveness, I'm simply asserting that I am not speaking from a position of no experience whatsoever here. I have no idea whether you are.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh Jesus, can you give it a rest? Everything you teach your children beyond basics is indoctrination. Religious or secular.
You might acknowledge that, but a hardline secularist in France never would. It's practically treasonable to suggest as much in their eyes.
With kinda good reason, given history. Yes, reality is more nuanced, but people kinda aren't.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Eutychus

I wasn't goading you. It's already clear that you have such experience. It comes through in what you've said here and other threads. You post in a very assertive way.

I agree that Trump is a 'politician'. I don't have particularly high expectations of him, regardless of whichever flavour of Christian is trying to have his ear.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Exactly. Like just about every politician, he will take no notice of them at all except inasmuch as it serves his agenda.
Trump's agenda is aggrandisement. He serves this alone. He is capable of adopting whatever facilitates this and this is dangerous.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
With kinda good reason, given history. Yes, reality is more nuanced, but people kinda aren't.
The problem of militant secularists is being convinced they haven't got a doctrine whilst simultaneously upholding one.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Scotland does not have an Established Church.
It does, however, have a religious body which claims to be the National Church. The state ,as such, has no control over the National Church of Scotland. The state does not appoint any of the clergy.

At the Annual General Assembly of the National Church of Scotland the Sovereign is present in person, or more commonly in the person of her representative , the Lord High commissioner. Neither the sovereign nor the Lord High Commissioner have any right to speak, although it is generally considered good form that they are allowed to say a few words.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
With kinda good reason, given history. Yes, reality is more nuanced, but people kinda aren't.
The problem of militant secularists is being convinced they haven't got a doctrine whilst simultaneously upholding one.
Ok, I don't know the French secularist movement. But what doctrine? Any foundational belief is a doctrine, so merely believing religion should be separate qualifies. Same argument with atheism being a belief. It is one that is technically correct, but functionally irrelevant.
And, so what? That there may exist extremist views in a philosophy doesn't inherently negate that philosophy.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You do realise that the CofE was extreme by today's standards when it became established?
Obviously. I'm talking about the current context, in which state churches have to cooperate with pluralistic and/or post-Christian governments.

I wasn't suggesting that the USA should somehow create a state church now. And if it did, it wouldn't be the TEC or any other mild institution, because those are now relatively minor groups in terms of numbers.

People who approve of the CofE's status in England wouldn't be very happy if some conservative evangelical denomination sought similar official recognition in the USA. Non-members are unhappy enough thanks to the unofficial influence of such conservative groups.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
We need to keep in mind the historical background of the separation. It is mandated in the Constitution because the Founding Fathers had before them the relatively recent example of European history. Sectarian violence based on religion (the Hundred Years' War, etc.) had been a sanguinary running sore for a thousand years.

The US was founded, in great part, by sects (Puritans, Quakers, Catholics) who were oppressed in Europe because of their religion. We are not talking tax breaks here, we are talking execution. Many of these groups were looking happily forward to continue feuding with people of different beliefs here. (The Puritans had to toss some dissenters out of Massachusetts; luckily there was room for them to start their own polity in Rhode Island.)

The writers of the Constitution had no difficulty discerning that favoring one religion over another was a can of highly destructive worms that did not need to be opened. So they carefully dealt the government out of it. Believe whatever you want; the government is not involved.

The implementation has inevitably been wobbly. The swearing-in on the Bible is of course the choice of the swearer (they also swear in for Congress, and you can use a Koran or a Talmud or a book of Mormon, whatever you want, nobody cares) and irrelevant. More important is the tax breaks that are given to 'religions', which are often abused. You can google on it, websites showing you how to start your own cult and then file for tax exemptions.

It is also important to recall that Americans have a nasty history of denouncing a series of religions as dangerous. Catholics, Mormons, Jews -- everybody has had their turn in the barrel. There was a period of time when none of those persons could, for instance, go to Harvard. (Boston College was essentially founded by Jews who couldn't get into Harvard.)

So this is the season that Muslims are denigrated. Deplorable, but not permanent; we are a melting pot. I am willing to predict that in fifty years we will look at Muslims the way we now look at Jews -- a distinct subset of the culture but entirely assimilated; all their more charming traits (bagels and lox would be an example -- I went to a famous Jewish deli in the Lower East Side of Manhattan this year, and the number of Asian diners would make you blink) adored by all, seats in Congress and the courts, etc. We will have some new religion to dislike.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
However, it does not restrict a religious organization from making its views known concerning any political or social matter.

<snip>

The government is fenced in from imposing its will on religious institutions, but there is really no constitutional prohibition from religious bodies addressing societal concerns through the government. Nor should there be. Rather, they need to speak up loud and clear.
There's a thin line between "addressing societal concerns through the government" and "using the levers of government power to advance a religious agenda". Take, for example, an entirely non-hypothetical Baptist pastor who "addresses" the "societal concern" about false religions by lobbying government against permitting the building of a mosque. Or if you cast your mind back to 2010 a much larger similar action against the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque". That would seem to fall within your proposition that this is a perfectly legitimate "addressing societal concerns through the government". It's also requesting that the government restrict the free exercise of religion. The main purpose of the "wall of separation" is not just to protect religion from government interference but also to protect government from becoming the agent of a specific religious agenda.

[ 14. February 2017, 14:06: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You do realise that the CofE was extreme by today's standards when it became established?
Obviously. I'm talking about the current context, in which state churches have to cooperate with pluralistic and/or post-Christian governments.
The problem with a religion being established is that it can easily be used as a tool of oppression. The CofE is currently mild, I'd generally agree. However, the equal marriage issue shows this doesn't mean harmless.

[ 14. February 2017, 14:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ok, I don't know the French secularist movement. But what doctrine? Any foundational belief is a doctrine, so merely believing religion should be separate qualifies. Same argument with atheism being a belief. It is one that is technically correct, but functionally irrelevant.
And, so what? That there may exist extremist views in a philosophy doesn't inherently negate that philosophy.
In the early days of the French Revolution there was actually quasi-religious worship of the goddess Reason, although it never got taken all that seriously it seems.

The kind of secularism I object to is one that combats religion as a hive of authoritarian groupthink with what I can only describe as authoritarian groupthink. It's totalitarian (it is also completely clueless about how to combat radicalisation since these people simply can't allow themselves to think in terms of any religious belief at all. It's completely alien to them).

The kind of secularity I like is one in which the state is non-religious but recognises the freedom of all religious expression alongside the freedom not to believe, up to and including in the public space.

The difference, if you like, is between having a set of rules and promoting an ideology, a (non-)belief system.

I think there are plenty of laws that can be used to keep religious beliefs that are or become dangerous in check without having to invent things like headscarf bans.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet Mr Trump had at his Inauguration , among others, a Jewish Rabbi, an Evangelical CEO of a Christian Charity and a Catholic Priest.

Pretty broad as far as faith is concerned.
I didn't notice any imams.
Or Hindus. Or Buddhists.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Brenda:
quote:
Sectarian violence based on religion (the Hundred Years' War, etc.)
<pedant's hat on> I think you mean the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War]Thirty Years War.[/url] The Hundred Years' War (between England and France) was a couple of centuries earlier and was not a religious dispute. <pedant's hat off>

[ 14. February 2017, 15:37: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And yet Mr Trump had at his Inauguration , among others, a Jewish Rabbi, an Evangelical CEO of a Christian Charity and a Catholic Priest.

Pretty broad as far as faith is concerned.
I didn't notice any imams.
Or Hindus. Or Buddhists.
So that'll be Judeo-Christian foundations covered then.

[ 14. February 2017, 15:46: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
And that's the crux of the issue. Promoting one religion (or connected religions) over others.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, but what about the Native American animist religions that held sway across what became the USA after a process of colonialisation and a struggle for independence?

Not to mention various deals and treaties between the independent States and the French and Spanish - as well as some land-grabs from neighbouring states - as in the case of Texas.

[Biased] [Razz]

Plus attempted invasions of Canada too, of course - although that seems to have happened both ways and sometimes by proxy as the British bribed Native American tribes to attack the newly independent States ...

Of course, one could say that it's all very well and good the UK trumpeting its Christian credentials as part of its DNA ... what about the Druidic religions and the Romano-British religions and whatever belief-system was practised by the Beaker Folk and even earlier settlers of these islands ...

I don't have a big problem with anyone championing the Judeo-Christian tradition, of course - but I do object to it being hijacked by opportunist politicians or by far-right groups of one form or other.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
No, there were not any imams or bhikkhus or pujaris at the inauguration, as far as I could tell, but they were present at the National Prayer service which was held at the national cathedral the next day. It was interesting that during both the procession and recession, though, the lead imam refused to recognize Trump.

Concerning atheists. I do not mean to imply that atheists are immoral people. The letter was addressing the false separation of church from state.

Often times, I would grant that the state has used religion to justify their actions. The Nazis, for instance, tried to get the church's blessing for their war crimes.

Yes, the French secularism creates a bit of problem for their country, I think. However, I note some French courts are beginning to break through that wall. There has to be a balance between religious freedom and secularism. Not sure where that balance really lays.

Dealing with the One nation under God, and the In God we trust phrases. They were not included in American law until 1954. It was thought no self-respecting communist would ever say those phrases in America. The ninth circuit of appeals--the same circuit that has declared Trump's immigration executive order--has said those phrases are unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has refused to address the issue. This means that all public entities within the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit should not use the phrase "under God" in the pledge. Most still do, though.

[ 14. February 2017, 16:26: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Often times, I would grant that the state has used religion to justify their actions. The Nazis, for instance, tried to get the church's blessing for their war crimes.
That's a very anodyne way of explaining away centuries worth of anti-Semitism in the German church. Wouldn't it be just as accurate to say that the Third Reich was a means of "addressing societal concerns" identified by (among others) Martin Luther "through the government". In other words, pretty much the system you advocate (though hopefully not that specific outcome).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I am comforted by the fact that the Nazis more or less polluted that well pretty thoroughly (that and eugenics). When Crooked Donald began turning away Muslims at the airports here, the air was thick with flying verses from Matthew 25, and the memes on Facebook were unending, the images of Christ with the words REFUGEE and ILLEGAL ALIEN pasted on.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
And that's the crux of the issue. Promoting one religion (or connected religions) over others.
Well I guess a nation that proclaims 'One Nation Under God' is always going to offend atheists and Buddhists.
They should just get over it; it doesn't actually take anything away from them.

And that is precisely the question I want to ask:
What does the mention of God in the public and civic realm actually remove from the atheist? What d they suffer when the name of God or a god is invoked?

And, if, for example, the Inauguration became an entirely secular-themed event, what would the atheists actually gain that at present they are deprived of? (other than having to hear the name 'Jesus' spoken in their intolerant ears?)

[ 14. February 2017, 19:56: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Eutychus

Wasn't there a mainline cathedral choir that sang at his inauguration? People were aghast at that, but I wondered why he'd invited them in the first place if he only loves evangelicals. There are loads of great evangelical church choirs he could have picked instead.

What the mainline churches offer is tradition and prestige. That's something that Trump probably appreciates, in his own way.
Well, yes the choir from the National Cathedral of The Episcopal Church did sing, if you call that a mainline cathedral choir. That choir is very good and has sung at almost evry inauguration for getting on for century now. The invitation followed tradition.

The world's a more complex place than your post suggests, not black and white.

[ 14. February 2017, 20:06: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Eutychus

Wasn't there a mainline cathedral choir that sang at his inauguration? People were aghast at that, but I wondered why he'd invited them in the first place if he only loves evangelicals. There are loads of great evangelical church choirs he could have picked instead.

What the mainline churches offer is tradition and prestige. That's something that Trump probably appreciates, in his own way.
Well, yes the choir from the National Cathedral of The Episcopal Church did sing, if you call that a mainline cathedral choir. That choir is very good and has sung at almost evry inauguration for getting on for century now. The invitation followed tradition.

The world's a more complex place than your post suggests, not black and white.
I thought it was The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and a University Choir at the Inauguration.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I stand corrected - of course I had read the discussion on the Ship beforehand, but had not picked up that the National Cathedral Choir had withdrawn.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
And that's the crux of the issue. Promoting one religion (or connected religions) over others.
Well I guess a nation that proclaims 'One Nation Under God' is always going to offend atheists and Buddhists.
It won't affect the imams. How come they didn't get invited on the same basis as the "Judaeo-Christians"?

quote:
What d they suffer when the name of God or a god is invoked?
Burn marks from the scorching hypocrisy given off when he is invoked for party political or nationalistic ends?

Isn't there something about taking God's name in vain in the bible somewhere?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And that is precisely the question I want to ask:
What does the mention of God in the public and civic realm actually remove from the atheist? What d they suffer when the name of God or a god is invoked?
I'd say there's harm in receiving a government-sanctioned message that you're not really part of the citizen body. If you're not under God then you're not part of that "One Nation". If you don't trust in God, that puts you outside the "we", making you a "they". It would seem to throw into question the idea that anyone adhering to a minority faith will be treated the same as a member of the favored religion.

Most of these "mentions of God in public" are exercises in asserting Christian (and usually Protestant) supremacy. If that weren't the case there wouldn't be all these examples of city councils suddenly deciding to cancel the opening prayer the moment a Satanist (or other adherent of a 'wrong' belief) gets handed the mic.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Yup, I find myself in agreement with Croesos here.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Other than the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung at every Republican inauguration since LBJ.
 
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
On Croesos' last post, like Eutychus, broadly in agreement with him. I don't see it as appropriate for secular council meetings to start in prayer or any kind of church/mosque/temple choir to sing at a presidential inauguration, royal coronation or similar event.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Other than the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung at every Republican inauguration since LBJ.
Is there some reason Barack Obama doesn't count as a president? Is it the Kenyan usurper thing?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Other than the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung at every Republican inauguration since LBJ.
Is there some reason Barack Obama doesn't count as a president? Is it the Kenyan usurper thing?
He doesn't count as a Republican President, though, does he [Biased]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Nor does Lyndon Johnson, which makes it an unusually confusing way of stating the case.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
According to the MTC's own website it still isn't true that they've sung at "every Republican inauguration since LBJ". They missed Nixon in 1973, Ford in 1974, Reagan in 1985, and George W. Bush in 2005. You could claim that they've performed at inaugural ceremonies for every Republican president from Nixon onward, but you'd have to add "except Ford" at the end. There's also so many unspoken exceptions being covered by changing "inauguration" to "inaugural ceremonies for" to exclude the missed quadrenniums that it seems more like stretching to make whatever point is trying to be made.

Of course simply saying "the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has performed at five of the last nine Republican Presidential Inaugurations" (which seems the most straightforward way to put it) doesn't sound nearly so impressive.

[ 15. February 2017, 13:44: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
The Mormon Tabernacle Choir did not sing at the inauguration of President Obama, or at any Democratic Inauguration other than LBJ.

At Obama's first inauguration the San Fransisco Boys Choir and the San Fransisco Girls Choir sang.

At his second inauguration, the Fifth Grade Choirs of Public School 22 (Statin Island, NY) sang.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
IMHO, the presence or absence of a church choir at an inaugural is not very core to the separation between church and state one way or another. These appearances are often booked way in advance, before the election even, so that funds for the trip may be raised -- it costs a goodly bit to haul a hundred choir members from SLC to DC and house them.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Point of information: There was no official inauguration ceremony of President Ford. He was sworn in after Richard Nixon resigned, but there was no parade or public review of the troops.

On August 8, 1974, President Nixon tendered his resignation at 1135. At 1200 hours, Nixon left the White House grounds by helicopter. At 1205 Ford was sworn in in the East Room of the White House. Ford was not elected as president when he came up for a national vote. Reagan was elected.

LBJ, you might remember was sworn in on Air Force One after Kennedy was shot. There was no inauguration ceremony then, either. But when LBJ won the election in 1964 the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang at his first, and only, inauguration.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Let me clarify just a bit.

The MTC performance was at the swearing in of LBJ, in 1965.

The swearing in of Gerald Ford in 1974 was an emergency swearing in, so no ceremony was planned.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Point of information: There was no official inauguration ceremony of President Ford. He was sworn in after Richard Nixon resigned, but there was no parade or public review of the troops.

On August 8, 1974, President Nixon tendered his resignation at 1135. At 1200 hours, Nixon left the White House grounds by helicopter. At 1205 Ford was sworn in in the East Room of the White House. Ford was not elected as president when he came up for a national vote. Reagan was elected.
Incorrect. Ford's inauguration (called an 'extraordinary inauguration' by historians who care about such things) consisted of the ceremony being conducted in the East Room of the White House. It may not have had all the pomp associated with an ordinary inauguration, but it was still an inauguration ceremony.

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
LBJ, you might remember was sworn in on Air Force One after Kennedy was shot. There was no inauguration ceremony then, either.
Another 'extraordinary inauguration', and yet a ceremony was still held, albeit a very truncated one. It was commemorated in this somewhat obscure photograph. Maybe you've never come across that image before?

Interesting historical footnote: the book LBJ has his hand on in that photo is not a Bible but a Catholic Missal, the only vaguely scriptural book they could find aboard Air Force One that day.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Semantics

The extraordinary swearing in of LBJ and the extraordinary swearing in of Gerald Ford were not planned and were not public.

My point about the MTC performing at all Republican public inaugurations still stands.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Other than the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has sung at every Republican inauguration since LBJ.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Semantics

The extraordinary swearing in* of LBJ and the extraordinary swearing in* of Gerald Ford were not planned and were not public.

My point about the MTC performing at all Republican public inaugurations still stands.
That's the spirit! Keep cramming those modifiers in there and you'll get it right eventually. Still waiting for your explanation as to why the 1973, 1985, and 2005 inaugurations don't count as "Republican public inaugurations".

Maybe if you tweak it a little to "all regularly-scheduled Republican first-term inaugurations" it'll finally be right. Quite a mouthful though, and I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to prove. That Republican Presidents like Mormon singing, but only in their first terms? [Confused]


--------------------
*A "swearing in" is more commonly known as an "inauguration" in politics. Semantics, I know, but sometimes terminology can be important.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian.
How so?
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Not so. They prove that the -person being sworn in- is either Christian or (in the case of the PGinChief) hoping to be taken for one. You don't see it so far at the Presidential level, but judges, congresspersons, etc. are also sworn in and they can use any volume they like or none at all.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian.
How so?
Because they swear on the Bible (or in that case, the Missal, a Christian prayer and Scripture reading book.

Has anyone ever used a different religious book or a book of no religious content?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
If it's simply a matter of what book they're placing their hand on then we're forced to conclude that Theodore Roosevelt was not a Christian when he was (extraordinarily) inaugurated in 1901, but had converted by the time of his second (ordinary) inauguration in 1905. Likewise John Quincy Adams has to be classified as a non-Christian, since he took his oath of office on law book.

Even more interestingly, using this technique we can determine that LBJ was actually a Catholic, since he used JFK's missal in 1963. It would certainly have alarmed voters in 1960 to know that both halves of the Democratic ticket were Catholic.

[x-post]

[ 15. February 2017, 18:25: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Oh, and Franklin Pierce followed JQA's lead by taking his oath on a law book. Pierce even went one step further by being the only president (to date) to affirm rather than swear his oath of office.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If it's simply a matter of what book they're placing their hand on then we're forced to conclude that Theodore Roosevelt was not a Christian when he was (extraordinarily) inaugurated in 1901, but had converted by the time of his second (ordinary) inauguration in 1905. Likewise John Quincy Adams has to be classified as a non-Christian, since he took his oath of office on law book.

Even more interestingly, using this technique we can determine that LBJ was actually a Catholic, since he used JFK's missal in 1963. It would certainly have alarmed voters in 1960 to know that both halves of the Democratic ticket were Catholic.

[x-post]
We get why the Missal was used - there wasn't a Bible.
Do we know why the law book was used in the other example?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We get why the Missal was used - there wasn't a Bible.
Well, you were the one who claimed we could prove things by the texts used during extraordinary inaugurations. Using your endorsed standard, LBJ was a Catholic.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do we know why the law book was used in the other example?
John Quincy Adams allegedly wanted to emphasize that his primary duty as president was to the laws of the United States.

Of course, we actually don't know a lot of details about early (meaning pre-Lincoln) presidential inaugurations. It's possible that using a law book was commonplace and George Washington was the exception for using a Bible. Or maybe JQA and Franklin Pierce were oddballs for emphasizing law over scripture. It's even possible that a book was a non-standard prop and most early presidents didn't place their hands on anything. We just don't know.

Or at least most of us don't know. You claim to have some kind of inside information on all past U.S. Presidents having used Bibles at their inaugurations. Perhaps you'd care to share the source of your insight?

[ 15. February 2017, 18:53: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Wasn't there a mainline cathedral choir that sang at his inauguration? People were aghast at that, but I wondered why he'd invited them in the first place if he only loves evangelicals.
Yes, a choir from the National Cathedra (which is formally the cathedral of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington) sang at the inauguration.

To reply to the OP, yes we do have separation of church and state in the US. The phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution, but the idea is clearly present. There shall be no established religion, and the government takes a fairly hands-off attitude toward the practice of religion. There shall be no religious test for public office. We can quibble about the amount of separation that is proper, but church and state are clearly separate institutions in our country. Of course none of this means churches can't express themselves on issues of the day, Johnson Amendment or no Johnson Amendment.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Crœsos, When did I say such a thing?

[ 15. February 2017, 19:22: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Crœsos, When did I say such a thing?
You said it here, when you claimed that "Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian." Note: Extraordinary inaugurations of American presidents go back to 1841, so you're claiming knowledge at least that far back.

You then clarified that all American presidents, even those inaugurated under extraordinary circumstances, "swear on the Bible (or in [Lyndon Johnson's] case, the Missal". This is a falsehood, contradicted by presidents who held other books (JQA, Pierce) or nothing (Theodore Roosevelt at his first inauguration). Or at least it's a falsehood according to the historical record as most people know it. Which brings me back to your claimed special knowledge. We have no real evidence that John Tyler, for example, used a Bible at his (extraordinary) inauguration in 1841, but you assert this as fact. Where are you getting this information from?

[ 15. February 2017, 19:40: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
There is sufficient evidence from the founding fathers to establish that there was indeed intended to be separation of church and state in America. To claim otherwise is simply a distortion of facts and history.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
This is the sum of what I wrote:

quote:
Even the extraordinary inaugurations prove one thing - they are Christian.
I was asked how could I know that the extraordinary inaugurations were Christian. In the context of Johnson and Ford, the only ones mentioned, I replied:
quote:
Because they swear on the Bible (or in that case, the Missal, a Christian prayer and Scripture reading book.
I then asked, because I genuinely wanted to know and was interested to read:
quote:
Has anyone ever used a different religious book or a book of no religious content?
I was not in any way claiming special knowledge about all Presidential inaugurations -as evidenced by my question about others (other than recent presidents and the two extraordinary inaugurations, whether other books had indeed been used.

I then asked a simple question, firstly referencing the Johnson inauguration and then referring to the John Quincy Adams inauguration, which I didn't know :

quote:
We get why the Missal was used - there wasn't a Bible.
Do we know why the law book was used in the other example?
It was a genuine question.
I think you misunderstood my questions. I never claimed 'inside information'.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:

To reply to the OP, yes we do have separation of church and state in the US. The phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution, but the idea is clearly present.
I guess that depends on how one spins it. But the first line of the First Amendment,* pretty much says just that. Given the background of Jefferson and the founding fathers, any spin other than the separation is special pleading.

*The Amendments are technically part of the constitution as soon as they are ratified by three-fourths of the states.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
There is sufficient evidence from the founding fathers to establish that there was indeed intended to be separation of church and state in America. To claim otherwise is simply a distortion of facts and history.
It hasn't slowed down those fundies who incessantly claim that the US was founded as a Christian nation (and the corollary, that it is specially ordained by God). It is particularly annoying when they put words into the Founding Fathers' mouths. As if we cannot go and read the Federalist Papers for ourselves.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It hasn't slowed down those fundies who incessantly claim that the US was founded as a Christian nation (and the corollary, that it is specially ordained by God). It is particularly annoying when they put words into the Founding Fathers' mouths. As if we cannot go and read the Federalist Papers for ourselves.
Like virtually everything else, "the Founders" did not have a uniform opinion on this question. There were "accommodationists" like George Washington and John Adams who believed that the government should not take sides in religious controversies but that it could promote religion generally, provided it did not favor one sect over another. Then there were the "separationists" like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who thought even the vague, feel-good promotion of non-sectarian religiosity advocated by Washington and Adams was going too far. Jefferson notably drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Madison pushed through to passage by the Virginia legislature and later used as a template for the religious portions of the First Amendment.

The term "wall of separation between Church & State" was actually coined by Jefferson in a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They had written then-President Jefferson saying:

quote:
October 7, 1801

Sir, — Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association.
Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson
TL;DR = We're glad you've been elected president and look forward to the day something like the First Amendment is applicable to the Connecticut state government. (Until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the protections of the First Amendment were applicable only to the actions of the federal government.)

Jefferson replied:

quote:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
TL;DR = Thank you for your lovely letter, and I look forward to the day something like the First Amendment is adopted by the government of Connecticut.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Simple question the answer to which may resolve the arguments about swearing in a President.

In the US, when a person swears an oath before giving evidence in court, by whom do you swear, and on what book or symbol do you place your hand?


Here, what determines upon what you swear is what you hold sacred. The background is that you swear by what might make you terrified of the moral consequences of your lying or breaking your oath. It isn't about the state endorsing one religion over another. The issue is what's binding on you.

Courts keep a stock of different holy books. It is also possible to affirm. Originally this was for Quakers, Moravians and others who take Jesus's command seriously about not swearing oaths. For well over 100 years, this has been extended to those who do not believe in any god at all.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the US, when a person swears an oath before giving evidence in court, by whom do you swear, and on what book or symbol do you place your hand?
I think it may vary from state to state. In any trial on which I've been a juror, the witness is simply asked to raise his/her right hand and "swear" that the testimony about to be given is true. No hand on a book, although I've heard "so help you God" tacked on the end.

When I worked as a legal secretary and set up an office conference room where a deposition would be given, I always placed a Bible on the table but to my knowledge it was never used in the administration of oaths.

[ 15. February 2017, 21:42: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
And, although Lyin' Don put his hand on a Bible when he was sworn in, I am certain he has no more Christianity in him than my cat. (Who attends Bible study and folds his paws neatly for prayer.) The action means nothing, it's purely cosmetic PR.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Can't say I understand swearing on a bible means anything at all. Nor "one nation under God". Better would be to swear on an accounts ledger.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It won't affect the imams. How come they didn't get invited on the same basis as the "Judaeo-Christians"?
IIRC, there was an imam at the National Cathedral service, and possibly a Buddhist or Hindu.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
And that's the crux of the issue. Promoting one religion (or connected religions) over others.
Well I guess a nation that proclaims 'One Nation Under God' is always going to offend atheists and Buddhists.
They should just get over it; it doesn't actually take anything away from them.

And that is precisely the question I want to ask:
What does the mention of God in the public and civic realm actually remove from the atheist? What d they suffer when the name of God or a god is invoked?

And, if, for example, the Inauguration became an entirely secular-themed event, what would the atheists actually gain that at present they are deprived of? (other than having to hear the name 'Jesus' spoken in their intolerant ears?)
That's easy to figure out. Ask the Christians who are so insistent on Jesus being mentioned how they would feel if the mention of Allah was central.

As far as "In God We Trust" being on the coins, it does upset some theists because it appears the god is Mammon.

As for those noisy Christians who are upset that secular people don't want religion endorsed by the government, they should just get over themselves.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
Actually an interesting thing is how relatively recent all the clergy at the inauguration is. Franklin Roosevelt seems to have been the first to do it. The later public prayer service didn't start until 1977; the Episcopal Washington Cathedral got involved in 1985.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

In the US, when a person swears an oath before giving evidence in court, by whom do you swear, and on what book or symbol do you place your hand?

Courts keep a stock of different holy books. It is also possible to affirm. Originally this was for Quakers, Moravians and others who take Jesus's command seriously about not swearing oaths. For well over 100 years, this has been extended to those who do not believe in any god at all.
Any judge here to whom you speak would say that there shoud not be a religious oath at all, and most of us at the Bar would agree. All that is needed is a short affirmation that what will be said is the truthmuch along the lines of the non-religious oath ; an acknowledgement that the witness has moved into the witness box and is now of a different status. We don't do any holding up the right hand though.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Any judge here to whom you speak would say that there shoud not be a religious oath at all, and most of us at the Bar would agree. All that is needed is a short affirmation that what will be said is the truthmuch along the lines of the non-religious oath ; an acknowledgement that the witness has moved into the witness box and is now of a different status. We don't do any holding up the right hand though.
I wasn't asking what anyone thinks ought to happen. I was asking 'what does happen?' and so 'what does the current practice enshrine?'.

If, in a US court a person simply 'swears', without mentioning by whom they are swearing, then that answers the question one way. On the other hand, if a person is required to say 'so help me God' at the end of it, then presumably that's either a reference to whoever they believe God is (i.e. my test in the previous post), or to the same God as the one 'in whom we trust' on your coins. I recognise though that that though leaves the position ambiguous. Perhaps it's supposed to be.

Amanda, when a person swears their deposition in an office, if they don't have to use a holy book, does the standard wording include 'I swear by Almighty God that' or is it just 'I swear that'?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
In US courts, I think there's an option of saying something like "I solemnly affirm", because some people don't believe in swearing an oath. I don't think that version mentions God.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Going back to Jefferson, it is is interesting to note that his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom begins: "Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free ...". I suppose that, at the time, there was still a general consensus that "God" exists. Moreover, although the Statute doesn't define "God", there seems to be a strong presumption for thinking of Him is largely Christian terms. So, in a sense, there appears to be a bias built into this Statute which seems to be arguing for the opposite point of view.

[ 16. February 2017, 08:12: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think that's the problem pretty much everywhere in "Judeo-Christian" societies. They were established in a context of religious belief.

The challenge now is to find the best accommodation of religious belief, religious pluralism, and secularisation.

I think that starts by decoupling religion from the state and making the state the referee ensuring fair play for those of all faiths and none.

That is a very different proposition from having the state replace or suppress religion.

I do think protestantism, especially dissenting protestantism, is well-placed in this debate because a) envisaging other beliefs is pretty much an intrinsic part of its identity b) its emphasis on the individual makes it less susceptible to territorial aspirations.

[ 16. February 2017, 09:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I think you are right. However Dissenting Protestantism has to my mind strayed from its roots in that (and I speak from the English context) it is now often demanding that "Christian values" and laws be upheld. You will often find Evangelicals - from admittedly all ecclesial traditions - arguing vociferously for what, in effect, is a privileging of the Christian faith over others.

Of course they don't know our Dissenting history which shows difficult things were for their forebears under the National Church of the early 17th century; they ought also to think of the disaster of the Commonwealth later in the same century.

I of course agree that Christians deserve to be heard equally with other groups; possibly more so, given our nation's religious heritage and the fact that the churches still represent a significant minority of the population. But I think these folk also need to recognise that, in fact, they have been in a situation of religious inequality which is now becoming normalised.

I don't believe that we are being "persecuted" for our faith but I think there may be some truth both that Christianity may be being somewhat marginalised from public discourse and also that it now receives a lower profile than Islam
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Baptist Trainfan:
IIRC, Jefferson was a Deist, not really a Christian.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't believe that we are being "persecuted" for our faith but I think there may be some truth both that Christianity may be being somewhat marginalised from public discourse and also that it now receives a lower profile than Islam
I think less marginalized than receiving less priority. If Islam has a higher profile than before, it is because it is actually under threat.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Going back to Jefferson, it is is interesting to note that his Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom begins: "Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free ...". I suppose that, at the time, there was still a general consensus that "God" exists. Moreover, although the Statute doesn't define "God", there seems to be a strong presumption for thinking of Him is largely Christian terms. So, in a sense, there appears to be a bias built into this Statute which seems to be arguing for the opposite point of view.
Jefferson was always fairly vague and cagey when discussing his religious beliefs in public, describing God in the most generic terms available. He was a lot more detailed in his private correspondence, particularly with John Adams with whom he cultivated a strong friendship after they'd both retired from politics.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Baptist Trainfan:
IIRC, Jefferson was a Deist, not really a Christian.
Historian Gregg Frazer uses the term "theistic rationalism" to describe the religious beliefs of most of America's key founders, including Jefferson. Unlike deism, theistic rationalism posits a deity that intervenes in the affairs of human beings; "divine providence" in the terms Jefferson would have understood.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't believe that we are being "persecuted" for our faith but I think there may be some truth both that Christianity may be being somewhat marginalised from public discourse and also that it now receives a lower profile than Islam
Given that some of Islam's higher profile involves things like an American travel ban I'm not sure a higher profile is all that beneficial.
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In US courts, I think there's an option of saying something like "I solemnly affirm", because some people don't believe in swearing an oath. I don't think that version mentions God.
Courts in the US use a variety of oaths. I testify as an expert witness from time to time, and the form used in my jurisdiction these days is: "Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth?" No Bible, no "So help you God." I don't think I'm any less truthful as a result.

As to the Presidential oath of office, here's the full text as given in the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Again, no mention of God. Adding that and placing one's hand on the Bible is an extraconstitutional tradition. I can just imagine the s--tstorm from the religious right, though, if a President--especially a Democrat--were to omit these traditions. They'd insist he or she is not validly sworn in and is probably the Anti-Christ.
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And, although Lyin' Don put his hand on a Bible when he was sworn in, I am certain he has no more Christianity in him than my cat. (Who attends Bible study and folds his paws neatly for prayer.) The action means nothing, it's purely cosmetic PR.
I was kind of hoping a lightning bolt would jump out of Lincoln's Bible and smite Trump when he touched it. No such luck.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
As to the Presidential oath of office, here's the full text as given in the Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Again, no mention of God. Adding that and placing one's hand on the Bible is an extraconstitutional tradition. I can just imagine the s--tstorm from the religious right, though, if a President--especially a Democrat--were to omit these traditions. They'd insist he or she is not validly sworn in and is probably the Anti-Christ.
We don't have to actually imagine it, just remember their reactions to the idea that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, was going to take his oath of office* with his hand on a Qur'an. There were a lot of folks on the American right who argued all that and worse. Ellison eventually used a Qur'an (in English translation) owned by Thomas Jefferson in (the staged re-creation of*) his oath of office.


--------------------
*Congressional representatives are actually sworn in en masse without having their hands on anything, but a staged recreation with scripture and other trappings for each individual Representative is done later for photo-op purposes.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Has anyone ever used a different religious book or a book of no religious content?
A solicitor only had a dictionary to hand but told me That all the words in the Bible were in there somewhere.

[ 16. February 2017, 17:26: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
We don't have to actually imagine it, just remember their reactions to the idea that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, was going to take his oath of office* with his hand on a Qur'an. There were a lot of folks on the American right who argued all that and worse. Ellison eventually used a Qur'an (in English translation) owned by Thomas Jefferson in (the staged re-creation of*) his oath of office.


--------------------
*Congressional representatives are actually sworn in en masse without having their hands on anything, but a staged recreation with scripture and other trappings for each individual Representative is done later for photo-op purposes.
Yes, I'd forgotten about that! Then there was the fumble at Obama's first inauguration on the phrase "faithfully execute," which prompted a do-over the next day just to forestall any objections that Obama wasn't properly sworn in. As a result, there was no further questioning of Obama's legitimacy for the next eight years.
[Two face]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
The original text of the constitution only dictates the words by which the president is sworn in. It does not dictate the use of a Bible or even the phrase, "so help me God." Those were added by tradition. Washington started the tradition of using the Bible at his inauguration.

It is my understanding that John Quincy Adams used a book containing a copy of the constitution--not a holy book of any kind. In my mind, if anything should be used, it should only be the constitution.

The phrase, "so help me God," was probably used by Washington (we only have written accounts of the inauguration and some include the phrase, others do not). Up until FDR some presidents used it, others did not. After FDR all presidents have used it.

All federal oaths are basically patterned after the constitutional oath of the president. When I was sworn in as an officer in the United States Air Force, the officer who swore me in did use a Bible, but I cannot remember the "so help me God" phrase.

The phrase "so help me God" is not uniquely American. Other nations that allow it but not necessarily require it, are Australia, Canada, Fiji, New Zealand, Poland, The Philippines, and the United Kingdom. Historically it was even used in medieval France but not now.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Like virtually everything else, "the Founders" did not have a uniform opinion on this question. There were "accommodationists" like George Washington and John Adams who believed that the government should not take sides in religious controversies but that it could promote religion generally, provided it did not favor one sect over another. Then there were the "separationists" like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who thought even the vague, feel-good promotion of non-sectarian religiosity advocated by Washington and Adams was going too far. Jefferson notably drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Madison pushed through to passage by the Virginia legislature and later used as a template for the religious portions of the First Amendment.

And as noted in the link you gave. he was proud of that Statute that he had it listed on his tombstone along with the Declaration of Independence. It was not an idle passing thought.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
We don't have to actually imagine it, just remember their reactions to the idea that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, was going to take his oath of office* with his hand on a Qur'an. There were a lot of folks on the American right who argued all that and worse. Ellison eventually used a Qur'an (in English translation) owned by Thomas Jefferson in (the staged re-creation of*) his oath of office. ...
That reaction is barmy. The whole point about swearing on something is that a person swears by what they are afraid of breaking, not what someone else thinks they ought to be bound by.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Jefferson notably drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which Madison pushed through to passage by the Virginia legislature and later used as a template for the religious portions of the First Amendment.
And as noted in the link you gave. he was proud of that Statute that he had it listed on his tombstone along with the Declaration of Independence. It was not an idle passing thought.
Those two things plus his role in founding the University of Virginia are the only accomplishments listed on his tombstone. If that grave marker was the only evidence future historians had of the life of Thomas Jefferson they'd never know he was once President of the United States.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
He drafted the tombstone's inscription himself, so we must assume that it is as Jefferson wished it to be.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
My own interpretation of Constitutional History is that the reason non-establishment was important enough to be the first amendment, and one of the Bill of Rights that was considered essential is that pretty much all the colonists could look around and see other states with majorities of other religions. One would like to be able to move through Boston, Maryland or Connecticut without being subject to a state theocracy which was not of your religion.
 
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
My own interpretation of Constitutional History is that the reason non-establishment was important enough to be the first amendment, and one of the Bill of Rights that was considered essential is that pretty much all the colonists could look around and see other states with majorities of other religions. One would like to be able to move through Boston, Maryland or Connecticut without being subject to a state theocracy which was not of your religion.
The European wars of the 16-17th centuries were also recent enough that they could see how well having a state religion worked out.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
My own interpretation of Constitutional History is that the reason non-establishment was important enough to be the first amendment, and one of the Bill of Rights that was considered essential is that pretty much all the colonists could look around and see other states with majorities of other religions.
The European wars of the 16-17th centuries were also recent enough that they could see how well having a state religion worked out.
There's that, and the fact that a lot of the key Founders, as I mentioned previously, had some pretty heterodox religious beliefs. It seems plausible that the Constitutional provision against religious tests was put in because people like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would fail any religious test likely to be adopted.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
One would like to be able to move through Boston, Maryland or Connecticut without being subject to a state theocracy which was not of your religion.
It should be noted that initially the First Amendment only applied to the federal government and that many of the individual states had official, established churches in the early days of the Republic. However, largely due to the influence of people like Jefferson and Madison, plus the notion that an official state church was a European-style political perversion like monarchy, most states disestablished their state religions within the first decade of the ratification of the Constitution. Massachusetts was the last holdout, not disestablishing themselves until 1834.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Has anyone ever used a different religious book or a book of no religious content?
A solicitor only had a dictionary to hand but told me That all the words in the Bible were in there somewhere.
I've heard oaths administered with various wordings, the least orthodox being:

"Q. Is it true?
A. Sort of."

English law specifically endorses the oath "with uplifted hand" or "Scottish" oath which does not require any sacred text. The form of words is "I swear by Almighty God [and as I shall answer to God at the [great and terrible] day of judgement] that...". The words in parentheses being optional.

There is also a (possibly apocryphal) story of a Magistrates Court using a first aid manual for the administration of oaths for years (the suggestion being that it had the cross of St John on the cover and was mistaken for a bible) before a curious witness opened it to read.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0