Stone holm Posted April 2, 2013 Author Posted April 2, 2013 While it is not at all clear that the early European colonists came here seeking to establish freedom of religion, I do think it is clear that many came fleeing religious oppression.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 Example of oppression of religion please.My reply was in the context of this from DH:This is one reason why they were persecuted--people were afraid they would gain too much power!Referring, of course, to the Mormon people in early Church history.And in that context, do you really need me to provide an example? Where do I start? Haun's Mill Massacre? The martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum? The tar-and-feathring of Joseph Smith? The burning of the printing press at Independence, Mo.? The imprisonment of the prophet and other Church leaders at Richmond, Liberty and Carthage? The attempted illegal execution of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders by the militia in Missouri? The depredations against and ultimate displacement of the Mormon people from their homes, driving them out in the dead of winter? The Extermination Order by Gov. Boggs?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 While it is not at all clear that the early European colonists came here seeking to establish freedom of religion, I do think it is clear that many came fleeing religious oppression.The oppression was having their religious liberty deprived. Why is it unclear that they came seeking religious freedom? 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 Conceivably, the opposite extreme is oppression by a secularist government antithetical and hostile to the interests of religious people. Catholic agencies being required by government edict to provide abortions and adoption services to gay couples are real-world examples of oppression by dominant secularism in government.Neither extreme is desirable; surely, a happy medium can be found. Isn't that, in fact, the essence of democracy?The US government is not hostile to religion. We are officially secular not atheistic.They weren't forced to do any such thing. The Catholic church wanted to take public funding and not abide by the rules governing those monies.
bluebell Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 While it is not at all clear that the early European colonists came here seeking to establish freedom of religion, I do think it is clear that many came fleeing religious oppression.I think you do have a point.They were definitely seeking religious freedom for themselves, but they were not at all interested in granting religious freedom to others or in setting up a place where religions other than theirs would be free of persecution. Puritans were definitely "my way or the highway" kind of people. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 The US government is not hostile to religion. We are officially secular not atheistic.The point is that absolute secularism untempered by religious influence could leave the field open for hostility toward religion and faith. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 I think you do have a point.They were definitely seeking religious freedom for themselves, but they were not at all interested in granting religious freedom to others or in setting up a place where religions other than theirs would be free of persecution.Puritans were definitely "my way or the highway" kind of people.True. Which is a good illustration of why people of varying religious faiths, creeds, professions, etc. should be allowed a place at the table in formulating public policy -- so that one group, be it secular or religious, does not dominate government. 2
Stone holm Posted April 2, 2013 Author Posted April 2, 2013 The oppression was having their religious liberty deprived. Why is it unclear that they came seeking religious freedom?Not sure you are referring to the article or the quote above, but the Puritans came here with the avowed purpose of establishing a theocracy and promptly did so. People were tried for heresy and banished from their colonies. Suspected witches were burned or crushed under heavy stones. Ethan Allen was run out of Massachusetts for the crime of inoculating himself against smallpox because that was viewed as interfering with the will of god. In early Massachusetts you could have your land reassigned for violating the Sabbath. Does any of that sound like religious freedom to you? Massachusetts gave up its established church around 1830. The early Evangelicals, who were in the distinct minority at the time, allied with Thomas Jefferson to get the resolutions on religion passed in Virginia to avoid being snuffed out by the established church of Virginia, which was Anglican. No the early colonist were, to the extent they were motivated to come here by religion at all were interested in establishing colonies where their brand of religion made the rules. There were some exceptions like Penn.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) Not sure you are referring to the article or the quote above, but the Puritans came here with the avowed purpose of establishing a theocracy and promptly did so. People were tried for heresy and banished from their colonies. Suspected witches were burned or crushed under heavy stones. Ethan Allen was run out of Massachusetts for the crime of inoculating himself against smallpox because that was viewed as interfering with the will of god. In early Massachusetts you could have your land reassigned for violating the Sabbath. Does any of that sound like religious freedom to you? Massachusetts gave up its established church around 1830. The early Evangelicals, who were in the distinct minority at the time, allied with Thomas Jefferson to get the resolutions on religion passed in Virginia to avoid being snuffed out by the established church of Virginia, which was Anglican. No the early colonist were, to the extent they were motivated to come here by religion at all were interested in establishing colonies where their brand of religion made the rules. There were some exceptions like Penn.Re-reading your prior post, I grant that you are correct in light of your use of the verb "seeking to establish". That is, they were seeking religious freedom for themselves but perhaps not seeking to establish it for others.This, by the way, contrasts with the behavior of the Mormon pioneers, who not only welcomed people of other religious faiths to their settlements, but supported and aided them as well. Edited April 2, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 The point is that absolute secularism untempered by religious influence could leave the field open for hostility toward religion and faith.Under our system of government we can believe anything we want, including antagonistic atheism. I really don't want my government telling me what, if anything, I have to believe in order to be a citizen. Our experience with governmental antagonism to LDS polygamy should be reminder enough of the pitfalls.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 Under our system of government we can believe anything we want, including antagonistic atheism. I really don't want my government telling me what, if anything, I have to believe in order to be a citizen. Our experience with governmental antagonism to LDS polygamy should be reminder enough of the pitfalls.How does allowing religiously minded people a voice in the formulation of public policy lead inexorably to the government telling us what we have to believe in order to be a citizen? I don't get the connection there. 2
Stone holm Posted April 2, 2013 Author Posted April 2, 2013 True. Which is a good illustration of why people of varying religious faiths, creeds, professions, etc. should be allowed a place at the table in formulating public policy -- so that one group, be it secular or religious, does not dominate government.You seem to be equating "secular" with atheist. Marxist Communism was atheist. American democracy was established based on secularism . We are in nowise a theocracy we have a secular Constitution not a religious text as our social contract. We believe in separation of church and state. We defend religious beliefs in the Constitution not because the founders thought religion was necessarily absolutely critical, but because it is essential to any country which values individual liberty to protect an individuals right to believe or not believe in whatever god or doctrine he feels is right and true, and to further protect that freedom we made sure that we would not legislate any particular form. But the religious right wants to equate secularism with atheism and claim it is a religion and therefore they should have a right to preach in our schools and enact religious dogma as laws. No we cannot and should not prevent people from giving sermons and religious pep rallies and calling them political speeches or political campaign rallies, but we can question the wisdom of doing so and setting one set of citizens against another because of religion.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) You seem to be equating "secular" with atheist. That is a mistaken impression. I define secular as non-religious, not anti-religious.I'm simply saying that if only secular dialogue is allowed in the public arena, people of faith are denied a voice. Edited April 2, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
mfbukowski Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 What about philosophies that masquerade as religions .....Please explain why a religion is not a philosophy
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) No we cannot and should not prevent people from giving sermons and religious pep rallies and calling them political speeches or political campaign rallies, but we can question the wisdom of doing so and setting one set of citizens against another because of religion.The essence of politics is people of contrasting views being allowed to voice those views and influence others. Why exclude people with religious views from the process? That strikes me as un-American.(And I mean no offense if you don't happen to be a U.S. national. This is, after all, a thread on "religious freedom in America.") Edited April 2, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 How does allowing religiously minded people a voice in the formulation of public policy lead inexorably to the government telling us what we have to believe in order to be a citizen? I don't get the connection there.I've never advocated that religiously minded people should be denied a voice. Only that the law serve a secular purpose an not an overtly religious one.See https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/download/4906/4556
CASteinman Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 We are officially secular not atheistOfficially? Are you sure?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 I've never advocated that religiously minded people should be denied a voice. Only that the law serve a secular purpose an not an overtly religious one.See https://journals.lib...nload/4906/4556Then you have no quarrel with me.
CASteinman Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 American democracy was established based on secularism . This is false.
mfbukowski Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 Or are you referring to like Ayn Rand (neo-Niechte -- never can get that spelled right) ideologues?http://www.pekingduck.org/2009/09/ayn-rand/Jonathan Chait reviews two (!) biographies of Ayn Rand, an astoundingly muddled thinker who was, apparently, also an astoundingly unpleasant human being. She’s worth studying, as any pathological phenomenon is worth studying, and her thinking (if it can be called that) still has influence over part of the Right; her very shallowness has a deep appeal for adolescent males of all ages and both sexes.What’s most astounding is how completely unoriginal it is. A college friend showed me some Randite document just after I’d finished reading Also Sprach Zarathustra for a course.At once I saw the relationship: Rand is Nietzsche for stupid people
thesometimesaint Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 This is false.Actually he is correct. We the people get to decide, not a King, Pope, or Minister of any faith.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) Actually he is correct. We the people get to decide, not a King, Pope, or Minister of any faith.I can see where CASteinman is coming from (I think; he can correct me if I'm wrong).American democracy stems from the thinking of John Locke and other philosophers and embodied in this line from the Declaration of Independence, that men and women are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." That the government does not grant rights to the people, rather it preserves rights that have already been given to the people by "their Creator" and protects the people in the enjoyment of those rights.That is, by nature, a religious, not a secular, concept. And, I might add, it is very much an LDS concept. Edited April 2, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
CASteinman Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 Actually he is correct. We the people get to decide, not a King, Pope, or Minister of any faith.No, he is incorrect. I don't even think the word "secularism" even existed in the 1700's.
Damien the Leper Posted April 2, 2013 Posted April 2, 2013 No, he is incorrect. I don't even think the word "secularism" even existed in the 1700's.The US was not necessarily established as a Christian nation either especially considering that not all of those who signed the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution considered themselves to be Christian. You can read Susan Jacoby's book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.
Stone holm Posted April 3, 2013 Author Posted April 3, 2013 This is false.No it isn't. The Constitution was drafted by Secular Deists guided by the Enlightenment. The document may have been inspired, but it is a secular based document. There were several attempts in the 19th Century and possibly one in the early 20th Century to insert that it was a Christian nation by amendment, all were defeated. My ancestors who were Scottish Covenanters rejected the Constitution as a blasphemous document for that reason.
Recommended Posts