Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...

[Stone holm]

Were in the 1st amendment is the phrase "Separation of church and state" found?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Initially this did not apply to the States, but was eventually applied to the States as a result of the 14th Amendment. Massachusetts gave up its established Church in the 1830's I believe. The first two clauses are what is known as the religion clauses. the so- called establishment clause had as its historical background Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Resolutions. From the early days the Founders were of the opinion that this, insofar as the Federal government was concerned, created a wall of separation. Madison regretted having allowed certain traditions to develop which he felt really violated the clause such as a Chaplain for the Congress, etc.

[DH]

I'm not clear on why specifically religious morality would be necessary in public discourse. It is possible, and widespread, to be an ethical person without being religious. Of course people are people, and their religious beliefs are going to have an affect on how they want to see the country run, but if they want other people to agree with them, they're going to have to argue for those policies not in terms specific to their religion, but in terms that others can agree with. IMO.

[wenglund]

I'm not clear on why specifically religious morality would be necessary in public discourse. It is possible, and widespread, to be an ethical person without being religious. Of course people are people, and their religious beliefs are going to have an affect on how they want to see the country run, but if they want other people to agree with them, they're going to have to argue for those policies not in terms specific to their religion, but in terms that others can agree with. IMO.

I can see you point regarding effectiveness. It is just that agreement is not always possible from whatever direction (keep in mind that religious people aren't the only one's needing to persuade. Sometimes it is useful to persuade them), nor always the optimal outcome--particularly where too much compromise may be required. Sometimes it comes down to simply voting one's conscience (religious or otherwise) regardless. And, thankfully, the constitution protects that right whether some people may be clear or not on whether it is necessary.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Initially this did not apply to the States, but was eventually applied to the States as a result of the 14th Amendment. Massachusetts gave up its established Church in the 1830's I believe. The first two clauses are what is known as the religion clauses. the so- called establishment clause had as its historical background Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Resolutions. From the early days the Founders were of the opinion that this, insofar as the Federal government was concerned, created a wall of separation. Madison regretted having allowed certain traditions to develop which he felt really violated the clause such as a Chaplain for the Congress, etc.

The short answer in Wikipedia is: "The phrase 'separation of church and state' itself does not appear in the United States Constitution."

Too often this phrase is pressed into service in attempts to keep religion completely out of state affairs (up to and including denying religionists the right to freely express their faith through voting their religious conscious), where if one rightly considers the context in which Jefferson coined the phrase, it was in response to concerns about the state meddling in the affairs of religion. In other words, people (including Supreme Court Justices) tend to get the intended meaning of the phrase exactly backwards.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 12, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

The short answer in Wikipedia is: "The phrase 'separation of church and state' itself does not appear in the United States Constitution."

Too often this phrase is pressed into service in attempts to keep religion completely out of state affairs (up to and including denying religionists the right to freely express their faith through voting their religious conscious), where if one rightly considers the context in which Jefferson coined the phrase, it was in response to concerns about the state meddling in the affairs of religion. In other words, people (including Supreme Court Justices) tend to get the intended meaning of the phrase exactly backwards.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Possibly, but not likely. The double clause is intended for the State to stay out of religion. It should not be interfering with people exercising their religious beliefs so long as those beliefs do not violate some other secular non-religious based law, and likewise it should not be trying to establish religion. Interestingly, Jefferson allied with the Evangelicals in order to pass the Virginia Resolution because the Evangelicals were as a minority afraid of being snuffed out by the Anglican Church which was the predominant Church in Virginia. There is no question but what in legal discourse in the United States that people are influenced by their religious beliefs, however, they need to find a secular justification for those beliefs if they want to adopt coercive legislation. There have been very tough calls, but for the most part the liberals have tended to protect freedom of religion more than the conservatives. Many of the cases which conservatives complain about the most were not brought by atheists or humanists as has been suggested, but rather by people protecting minority religious groups such as the Jehovah Witnesses. Utah should, however, be proud that Senator Hatch attempted to correct the SCOTUS with regards to the Native American Church in trying to carve out an exemption so they could continue to use peyote in their sacrament services, unfortunately his attempt was struck down. It is a very tough and complicated area of Constitutional Law because of the double clause where the State is not supposed to be establishing religion on the one hand, but on the other it is supposed to be protecting its free exercise. Sometimes SCOTUS gets it right, sometimes they get it wrong. One of the more interesting cases is Wisconsin v. Yoder wherein the Court upheld the right of the Amish families to pull their kids out of school before high school under the free exercise clause. We unfortunately got government and religion all tangled up during the Cold War Era due to the Marxist position on religion -- which resulted in all kinds of questionable activity to weed out suspected Communists like the change in the Pledge of Allegiance so that an agnostic or atheist or Wiccan can no longer pledge their allegiance to the country without violating their religious conscience.

[california boy]

Those that want the government to enact laws based solely on what they consider sin would be the first ones to scream bloody murder if the government started enacting laws on what a religion could or could not call a sin.

Breaking down the barrier between church and state may very well be a pandora's box that you wish would have never been opened.

[thesometimesaint]

I am not and neither were the found fathers.

What I am against is a state run Church though or a state run organization that is trying to be athiestic. Note, that is different from Separation of church and state.

I found them a while ago.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the dangerous of the combining of Church and State. They were products of not only the Renaissance but the Reformation as well.

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”

―Thomas Jefferson

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”

― James Madison

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

-John Adams

“One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.”

― Thomas Paine

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

― George Washington

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”

― Thomas Paine

[wenglund]

Those that want the government to enact laws based solely on what they consider sin would be the first ones to scream bloody murder if the government started enacting laws on what a religion could or could not call a sin.

It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.

Breaking down the barrier between church and state may very well be a pandora's box that you wish would have never been opened.

We are fine with the barriers and rights as the Constitution defined them. What we object to, and are wise to break down, are the extra-Constitutional barriers people have tried to erect that infringe upon our Constitutional rights. In other words, we are creating barriers to the illegitimate construction of a Pandora's box.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 12, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

It wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.

We are fine with the barriers and rights as the Constitution defined them. What we object to, and are wise to break down, are the extra-Constitutional barriers people have tried to erect that infringe upon our Constitutional rights. In other words, we are creating barriers to the illegitimate construction of a Pandora's box.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The Pandora's box was clearly understood to already exist. In the early opinions that I have read, the Courts when discussing the establishment clause (that part of the First Amendment which the Christian Right would prefer to ignore), the Courts have pointed out that this clause also actually tended to invigorate religion since religionists had to make their proselyting case based on the merits of the religion which they were espousing without leaning upon the government to push people one way or another. While it is possible to have a government which relies on the "authority" of God (a theocracy), that has never been the approach under our Constitution. There have in fact been attempts to amend the Constitution to make it clear we are a Christian nation -- these attempts have always failed. That is not to say that many of our laws do not have their initial concept based in the Bible, they in fact do -- everything from how real estate is held between husband and wife in most States, to the Bankruptcy laws are embedded in our laws because as the Common law of England developed it developed in conjunction with Ecclesiastical Courts. But the Founders were primarily Deists and were guided primarily by the humanist doctrines of the Enlightenment, not the Bible. That is not to say they were atheists -- although the jury may still be out on that with regards to Jefferson -- but they were strong believers in the idea that laws should be based upon human accessible reason rather than necessarily Divine declaration. They were all familiar with the problems that had arose with the religious conflicts in the mother country and in Europe. The United States did recognize the value of religion, more than say the French and certainly didn't reject it as did the Russians -- but we recognize the fact that mingling religious arguments in political debate tends to sully both religion and politics.

[wenglund]

The Pandora's box was clearly understood to already exist. In the early opinions that I have read, the Courts when discussing the establishment clause (that part of the First Amendment which the Christian Right would prefer to ignore), the Courts have pointed out that this clause also actually tended to invigorate religion since religionists had to make their proselyting case based on the merits of the religion which they were espousing without leaning upon the government to push people one way or another. While it is possible to have a government which relies on the "authority" of God (a theocracy), that has never been the approach under our Constitution. There have in fact been attempts to amend the Constitution to make it clear we are a Christian nation -- these attempts have always failed. That is not to say that many of our laws do not have their initial concept based in the Bible, they in fact do -- everything from how real estate is held between husband and wife in most States, to the Bankruptcy laws are embedded in our laws because as the Common law of England developed it developed in conjunction with Ecclesiastical Courts. But the Founders were primarily Deists and were guided primarily by the humanist doctrines of the Enlightenment, not the Bible. That is not to say they were atheists -- although the jury may still be out on that with regards to Jefferson -- but they were strong believers in the idea that laws should be based upon human accessible reason rather than necessarily Divine declaration. They were all familiar with the problems that had arose with the religious conflicts in the mother country and in Europe. The United States did recognize the value of religion, more than say the French and certainly didn't reject it as did the Russians -- but we recognize the fact that mingling religious arguments in political debate tends to sully both religion and politics.

Spin it however you wish. I am not particularly interested in fruitless and tangential debates and selective regurgitations of data about whether the religious or irreligious, Conservative or Liberals, pose a bigger threat to the Constitution and/or who is the "Pandora's box."

What is important to me, and pertinent to this thread, is the blessed reality that religious liberties are protected by the Constitution, including the right of religionists to vote according to the dictated of their religious conscience. Religious morality has as much of a right to a seat at the table of political discourse as secularist amorality or immorality, and to influence the cultural composition of our respective communities, states, and nation.

Granted, there are Constitutional limitations on what enactments, resulting from the exercise of those rights, may remain standing, but those limitations apply to religionists and irreligionists alike.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Were in the 1st amendment is the phrase "Separation of church and state" found?

It isn't. However to idea behind it is. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

[Stone holm]

Spin it however you wish. I am not particularly interested in fruitless and tangential debates and selective regurgitations of data about whether the religious or irreligious, Conservative or Liberals, pose a bigger threat to the Constitution and/or who is the "Pandora's box."

What is important to me, and pertinent to this thread, is the blessed reality that religious liberties are protected by the Constitution, including the right of religionists to vote according to the dictated of their religious conscience. Religious morality has as much of a right to a seat at the table of political discourse as secularist amorality or immorality, and to influence the cultural composition of our respective communities, states, and nation.

Granted, there are Constitutional limitations on what enactments, resulting from the exercise of those rights, may remain standing, but those limitations apply to religionists and irreligionists alike.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don'T see anyone denying religionists a seat at the table, they in fact enjoy special protections under the Constitution. But, since we are not all of the same faith or perhaps of any faith, we have to justify our arguments in non-religious terms in the political realm. Obviously religion is going to continue to bias us towards certain views. For example Mormonism takes a dim view of intoxicants so we may expect that most Mormons will probably not be enthusiastic about ending the prohibition of marijuana. But I don't think such should go in and base their argument on the WoW. Instead they will argue against its side effects, it's potential to lower inhibitions especially amongst youth, etc. etc. (don't get me wrong I am actually in favor of eliminating the prohibition). Otherwise, you might have an Orthodox Jew coming in and demanding we legislate against frog legs and pork.

[CV75]

mingling religious arguments in political debate tends to sully both religion and politics.

This thread opened with the premise that the US legislative process has evolved to the point where laws are passed with a focus on securing rights and not morality, creating an opportunity for religions (as long as they are protected to do so) to prove themselves in the field of morality.

But “human accessible reason” and “Divine declaration” can each rightly focus on both rights and morality. The appreciation for both rights and morality provide a proper basis on which to propose and pass laws according to the will of the people. “Human reason” and “Divine declaration” are just terms of attribution for the origin of the particular rights and moral positions espoused.

So taking morality (even if only the product of human reason) out of the legislative equation goes against even human reason.

This is why I think that strictly placing rights under the purview of the legislative branch of a democratic republic while keeping morality strictly under the purview of religion creates a dysfunctional barrier between the two systems that might otherwise synergistically create the best kinds of law. As the Founding Fathers demonstrated, recognition that power is vested in the people actually increases their tendency to assert both their rights and their morality regardless of how they might recognize, define and promote them.

[thesometimesaint]

Seriously?

Ok I'll be nice. Have you heard or read anything on the proposed gun bills as of late? Just so you know those bills violate the 2nd amendment.

Do you know what the 2nd amendment states?

It might be useful to quote it.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Is telling some one that they cannot have a certain type of gun or restricting magazine size a type of infringment?

I would love to hear an arugment on how that is not an infringment.

Interesting that you ignore the first part of that Amendment.

Yes it is an infringement.

But so what? There are "infringements" on every right we have. Is it a rational legal infringement is the real question. Is it a rational legal to restrict those whom have access to a machine gun, a hand held rocket launcher, or a fully armed F-16 jet fighter. Or how about a thermonuclear device?

[ERayR]

Were in the 1st amendment is the phrase "Separation of church and state" found?

Totally correct. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." It is a restriction on congress.

[ERayR]

That is what has plagued many of the opponents of SSM. Each argument has been refuted until they are eventually left with "Well god told me so".

Not really refuted. Its just that you have set the bar of refutation pretty low.

[california boy]

The Pandora's box was clearly understood to already exist. In the early opinions that I have read, the Courts when discussing the establishment clause (that part of the First Amendment which the Christian Right would prefer to ignore), the Courts have pointed out that this clause also actually tended to invigorate religion since religionists had to make their proselyting case based on the merits of the religion which they were espousing without leaning upon the government to push people one way or another. While it is possible to have a government which relies on the "authority" of God (a theocracy), that has never been the approach under our Constitution. There have in fact been attempts to amend the Constitution to make it clear we are a Christian nation -- these attempts have always failed. That is not to say that many of our laws do not have their initial concept based in the Bible, they in fact do -- everything from how real estate is held between husband and wife in most States, to the Bankruptcy laws are embedded in our laws because as the Common law of England developed it developed in conjunction with Ecclesiastical Courts. But the Founders were primarily Deists and were guided primarily by the humanist doctrines of the Enlightenment, not the Bible. That is not to say they were atheists -- although the jury may still be out on that with regards to Jefferson -- but they were strong believers in the idea that laws should be based upon human accessible reason rather than necessarily Divine declaration. They were all familiar with the problems that had arose with the religious conflicts in the mother country and in Europe. The United States did recognize the value of religion, more than say the French and certainly didn't reject it as did the Russians -- but we recognize the fact that mingling religious arguments in political debate tends to sully both religion and politics.

Very well put. No one is saying that religion can not be used to weigh political decisions and vote according to your conscience. The problem becomes if laws are passed that would restrict someone's rights even if they are a minority group. I and the majority of Americans feel this is the case with Prop 8. Just because some people think that homosexuality is a sin is not enough of a reason to deny gays the benefits of marriage. Since marriage is both a religious and secular institution, it must be open to all. It is for those reasons that most people believe the Supreme Court will be ruling against Prop 8.

This is just an example of how religious beliefs can come in conflict with what the constitution guarantees all of its citizens. While some may say that there is no right to gay marriage, the Supreme Court will weigh the arguments against it and for it. If it simply comes down to tradition and religious beliefs, then it should rightfully be thrown out.

When moral laws do not infringe on anyone's rights, then yes they are beneficial to society and come into no conflict with the constitution.

Relegating religion to preach the truth as they see it without impingement and then letting government protect the rights of the individuals has been a formula that has kept this country free from tyranny of religion that the founding fathers so desperately wanted to guard against. It is also in complete harmony with the way Joseph Smith saw the role of the church. "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" When Mormons start to think that they need government to force their morality on citizens, they in my opinion are pushing another plan of salvation that was rejected in the grand counsels of heaven.

[wenglund]

For those on the Left who have deep concerns about the influence of the Religious Right in the U.S., may want to take a perspective-orienting gander across the pond at what has been happening within the bastions of liberalism (Europe) and the so-called "Islamic Problem."

It is not coincidental that the biggest "problem" areas are within Liberal countries, since certain Liberal policies (like a lax immigration policies and multi-culturalism) lend themselves to the "problem."

Islamics and Socialists make for strange bed-fellows because their end game is conflicting. However, they tend to be in bed with each other since they often share the same means to their divergent ends. Kevin D. Williamson, in his book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism," points out a number of corollaries.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Totally correct. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." It is a restriction on congress.

Which is binding on all the States, and jurisdictions the US has under its control. Add in that all military personnel, public officials, and civilians(former and current) working for any level of government, swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. There is no expiration date on that oath.

[wenglund]

I don'T see anyone denying religionists a seat at the table,

It is the question of the thread, and I am addressing it.

But, since we are not all of the same faith or perhaps of any faith, we have to justify our arguments in non-religious terms in the political realm.

No, we don't. It may be more effective to do so, but it is not required or prohibited to do otherwise.

Obviously religion is going to continue to bias us towards certain views. For example Mormonism takes a dim view of intoxicants so we may expect that most Mormons will probably not be enthusiastic about ending the prohibition of marijuana. But I don't think such should go in and base their argument on the WoW. Instead they will argue against its side effects, it's potential to lower inhibitions especially amongst youth, etc. etc. (don't get me wrong I am actually in favor of eliminating the prohibition). Otherwise, you might have an Orthodox Jew coming in and demanding we legislate against frog legs and pork.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion about what should or should not go into an argument. But, your opinion is just that, and not the law. Gratefully, people are still free in this country to base their opinions and their arguments on whatever they wish.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Very well put. No one is saying that religion can not be used to weigh political decisions and vote according to your conscience. The problem becomes if laws are passed that would restrict someone's rights even if they are a minority group. I and the majority of Americans feel this is the case with Prop 8.

I don't see the lawyers on your side arguing that Prop 8 is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and this is because the very thought is absurd and woefully uniformed, way more so than some of the inane arguments those lawyers have actually presented.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 12, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

I don't see the lawyers on your side arguing that Prop 8 is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and this is because the very thought is absurd and woefully uniformed, way more so than some of the inane arguments those lawyers have actually presented.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have not read the briefs on Prop 8, however, I have read the case which paved the way for Civil Unions and eventually gay marriage in Vermont. And although Vt was a Common Benefits clause case after going through each of the arguments against and explaining that each argument had already been nullified by legislative action, they were left with only religion and that was an unacceptable argument. I do not think, however, that it is necessarily a slam dunk with the SCOTUS. As I understand the brief filed by the President , even he has not gone with an absolute right, but has simply argued that if a State has granted all the rights other than the use of the term married that it cannot discriminate in that use. The SCOTUS used an obtuse cultural argument in US v Reynolds which avoided the religious freedom argument when the Church sought to defend polygamy. There has been a lot of water under the dam since then and we have switched sides in the traditional marriage debate, but we may see a similar obtuse argument come out again.

[ERayR]

Which is binding on all the States, and jurisdictions the US has under its control. Add in that all military personnel, public officials, and civilians(former and current) working for any level of government, swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. There is no expiration date on that oath.

You failed to note that the constitution does not prohibit bringing religious values into the debate. It only restricts congress(and the states) from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Interesting that you ignore the first part of that Amendment.

Yes it is an infringement.

But so what? There are "infringements" on every right we have. Is it a rational legal infringement is the real question. Is it a rational legal to restrict those whom have access to a machine gun, a hand held rocket launcher, or a fully armed F-16 jet fighter. Or how about a thermonuclear device?

Glad you went there. It is an infringment. Why was the 2nd amendment given to us TSS? What was it there for? I am waiting for you to make my case for me. This is something I have thought a great deal about in recent weeks and months.

[Stone holm]

For those on the Left who have deep concerns about the influence of the Religious Right in the U.S., may want to take a perspective-orienting gander across the pond at what has been happening within the bastions of liberalism (Europe) and the so-called "Islamic Problem."

It is not coincidental that the biggest "problem" areas are within Liberal countries, since certain Liberal policies (like a lax immigration policies and multi-culturalism) lend themselves to the "problem."

Islamics and Socialists make for strange bed-fellows because their end game is conflicting. However, they tend to be in bed with each other since they often share the same means to their divergent ends. Kevin D. Williamson, in his book, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism," points out a number of corollaries.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You have to be careful when you jump across the pond. The legal precedents and history are different. They had to cope with the churches having oppressive political control for much longer than we did. Our theocracies were primarily limited to New England and tended to mellow rather rapidly because people could vote with their feet. In parts of Europe it is accurate to say they adopted freedom from religion, rather than freedom of religion as we have here.