Religious Freedom In America

[CASteinman]

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.

bah... boring argument... done to death a million times all over the internet. Not the least bit interesting.

But in her book, does she mention that no one ever used the word "Secular" or "Secularism" in defining the United States for at least 100 years after its founding?

[Stone holm]

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.

Thomas Jefferson published his own edition of the New Testament which eliminated all references to the resurrection and the Divinity of Christ. While there is some truth that the Revolution was planned after Masonic Lodge meetings, and George Washington was the Worshipful Master of the Lodge near Mount Vernon and nearly all the original Founders were Master Masons, the Constitution was drafted and the nation envisioned as a secular republic.

[Avatar4321]

I'm of the opinion that there is the freedom of religion just as there is the freedom from religion. This must always be maintained. Churches, no matter the group, should have absolutely no political clout. Politics is secular and there is no reason why atheists should be governed by religion.

There is no freedom from religion. No one has the right to use the government to prevent everyone else from exercising their religious freedom so a handful of people can not be bothered by religion. The choice not to have a faith is part of freedom of religion. Just like we have freedom of speech, not freedom from speech. we cannot silence religions we dont like any more than we can silence speech.

[CASteinman]

No it isn't.

Yes it is. Your beliefs are false on this. They absolutely were not secularists. While some may have been deists and perhaps other things, they were not, as a body, secularists and I am not sure any one of them was. I have yet to see a convincing case for any of them being so.

But as a body ... they prayed for the providence of Almighty God to be upon their proceedings -- an idea put forward by one of those "deists" you are talking about. This is not secular.

You may be fooled into thinking that non-partisan with respect to religion is the same a secular. It is not.

[Avatar4321]

Religious politics in America had calmed down and we went through a period of relative calm. But now religion is very much back into politics and it poses some very serious ethical questions for us as individuals and for the Church as to where you draw the line.

The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep government from infringing on Churches. The Founders expected religious people to be involved in politics and encouraged it, especially since they were religious men.

[Avatar4321]

There is always the potential for things to go awry. Most felt that the United States would be a failure because if was too large and confederations of that sort had never been tested. However, if you begin using religion as a sword then you encourage other people to use it in the same manner. I think religion will always be in American politics do I think pushing religious arguments is good politics, no I don't. Why because where I grew up, I have absolutely no trust in the Christian Right and believe that they will turn on us Mormons in a heart beat if they get control.

Why are you suddenly making this discussion partisan when you specifically asked us not to?

[Avatar4321]

The oppression was having their religious liberty deprived. Why is it unclear that they came seeking religious freedom?

Because it undermines his point?

[Avatar4321]

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.

Because there is none.

[Avatar4321]

Thomas Jefferson published his own edition of the New Testament which eliminated all references to the resurrection and the Divinity of Christ.

You mean "The life and morals of Jesus Christ" which Thomas Jefferson specfically wrote to help teach people the moral lessons Jesus taught the people? He wasn't trying to rewrite the New Testament. He was trying to encourage people to focus on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Why? Because he believed in them. In fact, he was using the book as a missionary tool. Which is why it was also called "The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, being Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; Being an Abridgement of the New Testament for the Use of the Indians."

This world would be a much beter place if we all tried to follow the teachings and morals of Christ.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Avatar4321

[Avatar4321]

Yes it is. Your beliefs are false on this. They absolutely were not secularists. While some may have been deists and perhaps other things, they were not, as a body, secularists and I am not sure any one of them was. I have yet to see a convincing case for any of them being so.

But as a body ... they prayed for the providence of Almighty God to be upon their proceedings -- an idea put forward by one of those "deists" you are talking about. This is not secular.

You may be fooled into thinking that non-partisan with respect to religion is the same a secular. It is not.

Considering secularism wasn't a word or concept that was even used until 1851, im pretty confident that they were not secularists.

[Stone holm]

The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written to keep government from infringing on Churches. The Founders expected religious people to be involved in politics and encouraged it, especially since they were religious men.

No that is incorrect. They were written to keep the government from interfering in the religious liberty of individuals. There was a belief that religion would benefit as well because if men were free to choose their religion or no religion in the free market of ideas, that the Churches would be more vigorous in their attempts to persuade men to their way of thinking, and that they should do this without the aid of legislative compulsion. Yes, Deists believed in Divine Providence and a Watchmaker Deity, but they believed it was necessary to restrain government from getting involved in religious doctrine. They knew if they allowed the government to get involved in religious doctrine that the people would be set against each other and potentially tear the country apart. Religion had been tearing apart the Old Country for centuries. The concept was that the public needed to be governed by reason and rational laws, and religion may be rational at times, but it is primarily based up declaration of the will of God which will is not subject to debate. That is why laws must in the United States be based upon rational reasoning which the citizens can test logically -- it may well be that rational debate will lead them to a conclusion that is consistent with religion, for example that murder is bad, or it may lead them to a conclusion that is inconsistent with religion, for example that there are no grounds to interfere with two adults commiting sodomy in the privacy of their own home.

[CASteinman]

This world would be a much beter place if we all tried to follow the teachings and morals of Christ.

Thanks! I appreciate that. Jefferson was a complicated man. (FYI I was not the person whose words you quoted.)

[RobertAC]

Uh if you think the church has political clout, you obviously don't live in California.

It might be a nice problem to have, but here it is a fantasy.

What about the Prop 8 campaign? LDS is big enough to garner clout, political and otherwise. I'm not saying that's necessarily a negative, but it is a reality.

[Stone holm]

So is the general consensus that in America we have the right to use religion as a sword in political debates and policymaking, and that the use of religious arguments in policymaking is a wholesome endeavor in establishing national cohesiveness and harmony?

[Calm]

Define "as a sword" please.

[CASteinman]

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.

You pretty much got it. Our Founders were men who had grown up with the "enlightenment" an accomplished fact. Science was making very substantial discoveries about the nature of the Universe. Things were not quite as presented in Genesis it seemed. And documents other than the New Testament were starting to come to light. A stronger approach to atheism was being developed -- and in France we see a revolution that was entirely "secular" in nature -- utterly rejecting God in any way. The French Revolution was a horror.

The US Revolution, for a variety of reasons was not such a horror. And one of those reasons was that although these were thoughtful men, who gave credit to science, they were not rejecting God. They had different views of God, but they felt that God somehow was directing the affairs of man and that God was behind the American Success. They recognized that differences -- religion, population and slavery being some of the most important differences -- needed to be worked out in such a way that the union could hold together. But they never intended for the Union to be Godless and/or anti-God.

[Stone holm]

Define "as a sword" please.

Using a religious argument to promote legislation which forces others who may not hold your religious beliefs to conform their lives to your religious beliefs, as opposed to using it as a shield to prevent others from forcing you to cease practicing your religion in your own daily life. An example of using it as a shield would be Wisconsin v Yoder where Amish children were allowed to quit school before entering high school. Probably one of the best examples of the use of it as a sword that I can think of is U.S. v Reynolds although the SCOTUS covered a thinly veiled cultural argument to cover what was basically a religious argument. Another more murky was when the State government hauled off all the women FLDS members and their children in Evangelical Sunday school buses when they raided the FLDS compound (the Courts, however, intervened to restore the children to their mothers)

[CASteinman]

So is the general consensus that in America we have the right to use religion as a sword in political debates and policymaking, and that the use of religious arguments in policymaking is a wholesome endeavor in establishing national cohesiveness and harmony?

What on earth? Why are you doing this? No one has taken that up as a position. Total strawman -- and weirdly -- its not a strawman against anything anyone is saying. Its just random.

Edited April 3, 2013 by CASteinman

[mfbukowski]

What about the Prop 8 campaign? LDS is big enough to garner clout, political and otherwise. I'm not saying that's necessarily a negative, but it is a reality.

In case you hadn't noticed that, "we" lost miserably. Yessirreee that's clout all right. The same kind of clout Mitt Romney has right now.

Edited April 3, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

What on earth? Why are you doing this? No one has take that up as a position. Total strawman -- and weirdly -- its not a strawman against anything anyone is saying. Its just random.

[Scott Lloyd]

So is the general consensus that in America we have the right to use religion as a sword in political debates and policymaking, and that the use of religious arguments in policymaking is a wholesome endeavor in establishing national cohesiveness and harmony?

Your resort to histrionics notwithstanding, I think some of us have made it clear that deeply held religious beliefs are not an apt reason for excluding someone from the political process.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

Last I looked the US Constitution was the supreme law of the US, and not the Declaration of Independence. What we do is circumscribe those unalienable rights through law. We bestow upon our government the power over life, liberty, and property as long it is not used in an arbitrary or capricious manner as voted for by our legal representatives, and ultimately by we the people. The Creator may well have inspired the Founders to write the US Constitution, but we the people get to decide how that document works.

[Stone holm]

In case you hadn't noticed that, "we" lost miserably. Yessirreee that's clout all right. The same kind of clout Mitt Romney has right now.

Not sure I understand what you are saying. Prop 8 was passed by the voters which indicates political clout, it got overturned by the Courts which decided it violated individual rights. With regards to protected individual rights, it is irrelevant what the majority decides -- that is why they exist to protect the individual from the so-called "tyranny of the majority".

[Stone holm]

You pretty much got it. Our Founders were men who had grown up with the "enlightenment" an accomplished fact. Science was making very substantial discoveries about the nature of the Universe. Things were not quite as presented in Genesis it seemed. And documents other than the New Testament were starting to come to light. A stronger approach to atheism was being developed -- and in France we see a revolution that was entirely "secular" in nature -- utterly rejecting God in any way. The French Revolution was a horror.

The US Revolution, for a variety of reasons was not such a horror. And one of those reasons was that although these were thoughtful men, who gave credit to science, they were not rejecting God. They had different views of God, but they felt that God somehow was directing the affairs of man and that God was behind the American Success. They recognized that differences -- religion, population and slavery being some of the most important differences -- needed to be worked out in such a way that the union could hold together. But they never intended for the Union to be Godless and/or anti-God.

There has been some legitimate debate amongst historians as to whether the American Revolution was in the classic sense a "revolution" at all. The reason being was that some contend that instead of overthrowing an established order, they merely established the independence of the de facto order. In other words, except for throwing off the ties to Britain the same people who were pretty much leading American Society before the war were the same leading society after the war. There is at least some truth to this which accounts for the difference between the French, Russian and English revolutions than ours. The French overthrew the established order, namely the Monarchy, Nobility, and Church, and they determined to do it in a rather permanent way by chopping off heads. The Russians did the same except they used bullets. The English were more restrained -- but the result was their revolution was more limited. There were no Kings, Barons or Princes of the Church to lead to the chopping block here in America, although we did tar and feather a few Royal Governors, instead we just sent them home. That is why I tend to use the phrase War of Independence rather than revolution. But yes, you are right the French horror show resulted in very strict restrictions on the Churches -- ours did not, because religion was not a major source of political power at the time, although some ministers like Patrick Henry did exhort to war from the pulpit.

[Sleeper Cell]

Using a religious argument [as a sword] to promote legislation which forces others who may not hold your religious beliefs to conform their lives to your religious beliefs, as opposed to using it as a shield to prevent others from forcing you to cease practicing your religion in your own daily life.

You mean like this?

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places plains, and the crooked places will be made straight, and before the Lord will be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. …

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the mount with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the genuine discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, pray together; to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom forever, …

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we're free at last!"

Or this?

that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Or, heaven forbid, like this?

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;

He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:

His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,

They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;

I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:

His day is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:

As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,

While God is marching on.

　

　

BTW, I believe that my next post will be # 666. If you choose to respond, you might keep that in mind.

Be afraid. … be very afraid.