Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scott Lloyd

What is a secular nation?

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, provoman said:

So does this mean you support morality police that enforce the morality of the popular religion...because that is what I meant

Person A can say "My deity said certain gender cannot vote" 

Ok that speech is protected, but do you really want to live under a government that prohibits a specific gender from voting because a deity said so?

A secular state would not allow that any more than it would allow prohibiting members of a religious faith from voting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, provoman said:

Will have to read the legislative intent.

I'd be interested in knowing that, as well.  Let me know if you find it through an accessible source.

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

However, it does not treat religious and non religious as equals. 

Could that be because the government didn't do so in its actions which eventually led to RFRA's passage as a reaction?  I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

Marijuana use because you want to...well the government has a low standard to met in order to punish possession and/or consumption.

The merits of criminalizing marijuana, particularly in an environment in which a majority of states are rebelling against the idea that they must defer to the federal government on the matter, certainly can be debated. 

 

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

Marijuana use because you are of the Rastafarian religion, the government has to met the highest standard to met in order to punish possession and/or consumption.

I'm not sure that Employment Division, State of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), was rightly decided.  In fact, I'll go somewhat out on a limb here and say that I don't believe it was, or at least that a plausible argument can be made that that's the case.

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

Can any law which gives preference or privilege to the religious but not the non-religious met the definition of secular as set forth in this thread.

I don't know.  While I don't know that I have any particular objection to that definition, I think I would have to study the issue in greater depth and detail than I'm prepared to do in order to determine or to defend the merits of that definition.  While we could discuss endlessly the proper contours of the First Amendment in an increasingly religiously-pluralistic and increasingly-irreligious society, it should be noted that until relatively recently, courts, including the United States Supreme Court, interpreted the First Amendment to privilege religion over non-religion. 

 

18 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Side note: I tend to doubt the Federal Government would prevail under the RFRA against a religious polygamist. But could the United States be long united if religious polygamy were legal but not non-religious polygamy?

I don't know.  I think, with respect to the doctrines and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the chances that plural marriage would be reinstituted even if the United States Supreme Court were to overturn Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) aren't very good.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A secular state would not allow that any more than it would allow prohibiting members of a religious faith from voting. 

I tend to agree.

And I think it went to Meadowchick point of something not being law because "god said".

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, that's why I tried to make some inclusive statements on my own, and then attempted balance to yours ;)

There are imo principles that may grow out of various sources, but then can also reasoned out as well, thus their epistemology is non-esoteric and more accessible.

I wouldn't say that reasoning is less esoteric or more accessible than intuition, revelation or other approaches. The approach is ultimately a subjective individual matter, whether due to innate preference or conscious discipline.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, provoman said:

So does this mean you support morality police that enforce the morality of the popular religion...because that is what I meant

Person A can say "My deity said certain gender cannot vote" 

Ok that speech is protected, but do you really want to live under a government that prohibits a specific gender from voting because a deity said so?

I don't see that as an example of protected speech, but instead of permitted or sanctioned speech.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'd be interested in knowing that, as well.  Let me know if you find it through an accessible source.

Could that be because the government didn't do so in its actions which eventually led to RFRA's passage as a reaction?  I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me.

The merits of criminalizing marijuana, particularly in an environment in which a majority of states are rebelling against the idea that they must defer to the federal government on the matter, certainly can be debated. 

 

I'm not sure that Employment Division, State of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), was rightly decided.  In fact, I'll go somewhat out on a limb here and say that I don't believe it was, or at least that a plausible argument can be made that that's the case.

Here is what I meant by legislative intent


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’’.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise
of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws ‘‘neutral’’ toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

----------

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Pete Stark of California was a member of Congress for 40 years and is openly and avowedly atheist. He lost his re-election bid to fellow Democrat Eric Swalwell in 2012.

There may be others in Congress; he's the one who springs immediately to mind, and I haven't bothered to check if there are others.

Here at least it would not even be worthy of mention. No one would care. It's those ignorant right wing religionist deplorables you have to watch out for. ;)

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Here at least it would not even be worthy of mention. No one would care. It's those ignorant right wing religionists you have to watch for. ;)

 

Or crazy Californians. ;):D

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Or crazy Californians. ;):D

Crazy indeed!

But honestly most of these comments seem like they were written in the 1950s to me, they are so innocent.

Amazing the difference of a few hundred miles can make

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

Incidentally if "secular" means "in favor of religious freedom" we now have a calling to promote secularism

It's called "Religious Freedom Specialist"

Yes, I am serious. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Crazy indeed!

But honestly most of these comments seem like they were written in the 1950s to me, they are so innocent.

Amazing the difference of a few hundred miles can make

That's me!  I'm pure as the driven snow, and charming and perfectly delightful in every way! ;):D

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's me!  I'm pure as the driven snow, and charming and perfectly delightful in every way! ;):D

I didn't mean you, you evil being! Show us your horns, we know they are there! 👺👹👿😜

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/7/2019 at 5:42 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

On another thread, the declaration was made that “we are a secular nation.” I pose the question of what is meant by “secular nation.” After others have weighed in, I’ll give my view. It may be surprising to some. 

A good start is to read Susan Jacoby's book Freethinkers: A History of Americ Secularism and to later move on to One Nation Under God by Kevin Kruse which deals with how "Corporate America Created Christian America".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

It's also good to refer to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 where it is stated that the US government is in no way founded on the Christian religion. Furthermore, it should be recognized that Glen Beck made the erroneous claim that it was the finger of God that wrote the Constitution. Likewise it should be recognized that this Jon McNaughton picture is misleading and vile propaganda:

 

Screen-Shot-2019-03-31-at-3.10.03-PM-1024x691.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The art of McNaughton merely dresses up wrong-headed propaganda, in my opinion.

Edited by Jake Starkey

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. 

The First Amendment is based on the concept of tolerance, that we can’t realistically expect to agree on everything, but for the common good, we try to live peaceably with those with whom we disagree. 

Some of us do.  Sadly, that value seems to be disappearing.  I will continue to try my hardest to recognize that, for many people who disagree with me, their positions rest on principles to which they are as fiercely committed as I am to mine, that we share the same goals even if we have different ideas about how to reach those goals, and if two people are of exactly the same opinion on absolutely everything, one of them is unnecessary.  These days, however, it seems that many in an opposing camp are not willing to accord that same level of respect to those who believe differently than they do: Not only are opponents wrong, they are mentally and morally deficient, evil, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Some of us do.  Sadly, that value seems to be disappearing.  I will continue to try my hardest to recognize that, for many people who disagree with me, their positions rest on principles to which they are as fiercely committed as I am to mine, that we share the same goals even if we have different ideas about how to reach those goals, and if two people are of exactly the same opinion on absolutely everything, one of them is unnecessary.  These days, however, it seems that many in an opposing camp are not willing to accord that same level of respect to those who believe differently than they do: Not only are opponents wrong, they are mentally and morally deficient, evil, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Sounds like you are describing the dominant wing of the Democratic Party and the social justice warrior movement. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Here at least it would not even be worthy of mention. No one would care. It's those ignorant right wing religionist deplorables you have to watch out for. ;)

 

 

Maybe I should change my avatar from “dethpicable” to “deplorable.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sounds like you are describing the dominant wing of the Democratic Party and the social justice warrior movement. 

Now if we could just get the president to stop firing back using even more childish name calling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Incidentally if "secular" means "in favor of religious freedom" we now have a calling to promote secularism

It's called "Religious Freedom Specialist"

Yes, I am serious. :)

 

In truth, religious freedom is the essence of the secular state. Which I have been at pains to point out by starting this thread. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Now if we could just get the president to stop firing back using even more childish name calling.

Trump gives as good as he gets. I know social justice warriors don’t like that. Neither do leftist Democrats or extremist talking heads and preening reporters on cable news shows. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think so.  Science may describe evolution, but evolution, in itself, is not science.

Nope.  Evolution is a scientific fact.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe I should change my avatar from “dethpicable” to “deplorable.”

Great idea!

Put me on that proud list as well if you ever need to put one up together.

In fact there should be a PAC called "The Deplorables".   I do not like the person DT - but who could?  But I do love what he has done for the economy- among other things- I think that is indisputable. As always in war and politics,  Pragmatism reigns.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend. We need to stop hiding in the shadows and stand up as the Deplorables we are!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

It's also good to refer to the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 where it is stated that the US government is in no way founded on the Christian religion. Furthermore, it should be recognized that Glen Beck made the erroneous claim that it was the finger of God that wrote the Constitution. Likewise it should be recognized that this Jon McNaughton picture is misleading and vile propaganda:

 

Screen-Shot-2019-03-31-at-3.10.03-PM-1024x691.jpg

Oh my gosh!!

YOU MEAN THAT REALLY DIDNT HAPPEN?

Clue:  All art all literature, can be seen as "propaganda".   There is no such thing as "objectivity" if it is written or created by a human being.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I wouldn't say that reasoning is less esoteric or more accessible than intuition, revelation or other approaches. The approach is ultimately a subjective individual matter, whether due to innate preference or conscious discipline.

Reasoning is something that can be put on paper and explained, or posted on s message board. Intuition and revelation are experiences one may personally have, but they are not transferable at will like reasoning can be. That is why it is powerful that, if you can articulate intuition or revelation through reasoning, maybe you have a more powerful message. Or if you are without intuition or revelation on a matter, reasoning can be used in a collaborative effort, one that others can allow access, to progress in finding answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...