The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State

“France during the revolution descended into exactly the kind of violence I am talking about and decided to invade the rest of Europe in a bid for mastery”: France was attacked by a coalition o monarchs who were afraid of the Revolution, then when victorious decided to free the enslave people against their will. Robespierre, not the most notorious hippy said once: “The nations don’t like armed prophets”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

But could someone raise an example of a state that failed due to the Western tradition of separating the church from the state? Please post if you can think of one, 'cause I'm coming up empty.

---

Turkey.

Turkey are constitutionally secular but the current government is leaning toward Sunni muslim teachings in law. Turkey is also suitably dysfunctional and oppressive to meet your criteria

Ooooh, Turkey, I didn't think of them. Good one. Although one could argue that the repressive nature of the Turkish gov has to d owith other factors, but still, good one ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“France during the revolution descended into exactly the kind of violence I am talking about and decided to invade the rest of Europe in a bid for mastery”: France was attacked by a coalition o monarchs who were afraid of the Revolution, then when victorious decided to free the enslave people against their will. Robespierre, not the most notorious hippy said once: “The nations don’t like armed prophets”.

---

The rise of a Fascist state on their borders somewhat concerned them! Go figure. Those crazy monarchies just couldn't understand that if you leave Fascists, and Communists alone, they will leave you alone.

They did what we should have done against Hitler when we had the chance!

Freeing people against their will? That would be a "Peoples Democracy"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

I did answer a question (post #7) that asked for an example of an oppressive/dysfunctional state that came from the Western tradition of separating the church from the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And I certainly appreciate it, although I'm not sure I'm in total agreement. The Soviet Union actively persecuted religion, as you said, "excised" faith. Although one can argue that this sprang from the Western tradition of separation, I'm not sure it's representative.

---

---

The Soviet persecution of religion would be one example of the oppressive nature of the state you asked about. Mass slaughter of its own citizenry would be another. I think the Soviet Union fits all the base criteria you put forward: an oppressive/dysfunctional state that was part of the Western Tradition that separated church from the state.

Regarding the use of representative above: I'm not sure which sense you are using this. The initial question simply asked for an example. I think the U.S.S.R. is a perfect example. Representative status may mean more than an example of a thing however, it can mean something that qualifies for a whole. The Soviet Union is not representative of the Western Tradition of secular/religious division as there are other models. It is an interesting case however in that they actively sought to replace traditional religious sentimentality with a new ethic.

Quote:

---

Let's suppose a continuum, spanning from abosulte theocracy to state-enforced atheism. Lots of room for gradations in between. I don't think it's intellectually honest to put the Western tradition of separation between church and state at the atheist end of that scale.

---

That is true. The separation of church and state itself does not imply atheism, but a base recognition of distinctive spheres. The rhetorical impetus for separation of church and state in the West comes from St. Augustine who was quite a religious guy.

Quote:

---

Anyway, here's the sort of fightin' language from a legislator that you would never hear today. Can you imagine the uproar if a 2006 politician said he would "fight" religious pressure groups? Unthinkable. Barry Goldwater, 1961:

---

Goldwater would never have been able to stomach the Moral Majority. But then, the 50's and 60's were not the 70's. Times change and politics change to reflect the times. The seduction of the G.O.P. by Evangelicals is a fascinating topic all on its own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So Pindar, what is it you think America should be doing differently?

---

Hello,

Do differently regarding the separation of church and state? I'm not a fan of the governmental 'do something' mentality. Rather, I believe in liberty and freedom of expression. I therefore oppose government encroachment. The state should not impose faith or impede its expression. Faith should have the space to present itself, be accepted, rejected, or ridiculed as people see fit. Any 'do' would therefore be a renewed understanding that the state is properly impotent regarding religious expression.

I put forward the initial piece as it is a simple illustration of the jurisprudential shift that has occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Regarding the use of representative above: I'm not sure which sense you are using this. The initial question simply asked for an example. I think the U.S.S.R. is a perfect example. Representative status may mean more than an example of a thing however, it can mean something that qualifies for a whole. The Soviet Union is not representative of the Western Tradition of secular/religious division as there are other models. It is an interesting case however in that they actively sought to replace traditional religious sentimentality with a new ethic.

---

Yeah, I appreciate your clarification. The Soviet Union seems more like a fuller, fouler expression of the let's-replace-everything ethos that began with the French Revolution. (Well, I guess it really began with the Levellers, the Diggers, and some of the Italian egalitarian heresies, but let's not go crazy.)

But absolutely, you answered my initial criteria entirely. As usual, my criteria just weren't very well expressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hello,

Do differently regarding the separation of church and state? I'm not a fan of the governmental 'do something' mentality. Rather, I believe in liberty and freedom of expression. I therefore oppose government encroachment. The state should not impose faith or impede its expression. Faith should have the space to present itself, be accepted, rejected, or ridiculed as people see fit. Any 'do' would therefore be a renewed understanding that the state is properly impotent regarding religious expression.

---

Most of the arguing here in the backroom is about posting the ten commandments in schools or keeping 'in god we trust' in the pledge. In your opinion would those be the government doing something it shouldn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

So Stalin was a religious man because he shot priests?

I think anti-religious movements qualify as secular movements or the word has no meaning.

---

You kinda missed the point there... anti-religous people are also secular, but they're still in a different catagory from regular secular people. Like wise, Klan members are white, but they're not in the same catagory as white people who aren't racists.

And as long as we're talking about seperation of chruch and state, Soviet Russia is not at all an example of this philosophy. Although the chruch couldn't interfere with the state, the state could interfere with the church. The protection should go both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

The rise of a Fascist state on their borders somewhat concerned them! Go figure. Those crazy monarchies just couldn't understand that if you leave Fascists, and Communists alone, they will leave you alone.

They did what we should have done against Hitler when we had the chance!

Freeing people against their will? That would be a "Peoples Democracy"?

---

Go read a book, or even watch a documentary before you go claiming crazy stuff like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Most of the arguing here in the backroom is about posting the ten commandments in schools or keeping 'in god we trust' in the pledge. In your opinion would those be the government doing something it shouldn't?

---

Three views: personally, I see ten commandment placards/statuary, monetary declarations to God etc. as symbolically vacuous. My devotional life is not dependant on their existence or absence.

As to whether such violate the establishment clause: those examples are not religion specific* and do not place any burden on the citizen to alter their personal beliefs or behavior and thus do not constitute a violation.

As to religious encroachments into the civic domain i.e. Christmas as a national holiday etc.: any legal standing given to faith expressions can only have weight insofar as it reflects the popular will. Law is only of force according to majoritarian principle which serves as the basis for democracy. Thus, should the populous agree to said holiday: so be it. If they oppose said holiday: so be it. As an aside, insofar as say Christmas is a national holiday it is absurd for a local judge to then declare a seasonal nativity on public lands a violation.



* The Ten Commandments is recognized by at least three distinct faith traditions. "God we Trust" according to the words alone is a generic appeal to an Absolute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yeah, I appreciate your clarification. The Soviet Union seems more like a fuller, fouler expression of the let's-replace-everything ethos that began with the French Revolution. (Well, I guess it really began with the Levellers, the Diggers, and some of the Italian egalitarian heresies, but let's not go crazy.)

But absolutely, you answered my initial criteria entirely. As usual, my criteria just weren't very well expressed.

---

Having little lemurs running around gives you excuse.

Quote:

---

* The Ten Commandments is recognized by at least three distinct faith traditions.

---

The problem is that there are more than 3 distinct religions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mongoose

The problem is that there are more than 3 distinct religions...

---

He's not making the point that the 10 commandments are adhered to by all religions. He's saying that since at least 3 significantly different religions honor them, the 10 commandments in and of themselves do not represent the adoption of a state religion.

If you're arguing for total inclusion or none at all, you had better be careful. There is no behavioral model to which 100% of the population would ascribe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

He's not making the point that the 10 commandments are adhered to by all religions. He's saying that since at least 3 significantly different religions honor them, the 10 commandments in and of themselves do not represent the adoption of a state religion.

If you're arguing for total inclusion or none at all, you had better be careful. There is no behavioral model to which 100% of the population would ascribe.

---

What I'm arguing is that favoring 3 religions over others isn't that much better than favoring 1 religion. The state being connected to 3 different religions is obviously better than just one religion, but it's still not good.

I don't think recognizing the 10 commandments as a cultural legacy, regardless of their divine or not-so-divine origins, is favoring the 3 religions, but I think I understand your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I don't think recognizing the 10 commandments as a cultural legacy, regardless of their divine or not-so-divine origins, is favoring the 3 religions, but I think I understand your point.

---

Fair enough, though a museum might be better location then a courtroom in that context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Soulforged, my point was that secular ethics have considerable difficulty in rationalizing a lot of what we in the west, take for granted. It essentially piggy backs on Judeo-Christian morality. On its own it tends to degenerate into a rather cold moral code that leads as it has done historically, to Totalitarian regimes. It seems that this becomes a necessity due to the lack of a absolute code of ethics.

---

Which is precisely what I dispute. You claim that this "becomes a necessity" is, quite frankly, unprovable. Your assertion essentially lays down to claiming that the development of secular authorities separate from religion -- such as Christianity -- would always result in Stalin or Mao. I think that's just bollox. A Stalin and a Mao exists all the same under the banner of His Godliness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

If there is no higher authority dictating a moral code we are left with personal opinions. If God says 'Thou shalt not commit murder", that is a commandment. If you say... "Hey, it's just me but shooting those people is... like not real cool". That is your opinion. My opinion may be that they have a car I want and I never liked 'those sort of people' anyway. That's my opinion. There is no higher authority for the two of us, to determine whose opinion should prevail. Or maybe there is! Maybe if we make a God of a man, we get our higher authority. Let's call him Der Fuhrer, and lets create a cult around Stalin, or Mao. If we then enforce the higher authority with enough control and brutality we can essentially recreate what we just got rid of. That is why this Atheist is comfortable with the flawed doctrine of Christianity. It's better than what the secular alternative has shown itself to be!

---

What punishes murder in America? God? Or the court?

Does the court adheres to the Ten Commandments?

Of course, to relate this back to the topic about the United States, there would be arguments on the other side that the Constitution -- the ultimate authority in the USA; hence, the Rule of Law -- is a Christian document. A very weak claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

The basic thing that preserves social order, protects property and safeguards our liberty is the basic morality that individuals hold in their own hearts. When too many people follow their personal code of conduct, rather than a societal code, society has to resort to the passing of many laws to govern people. The law cannot be used as a substitute for virtue. No law can protect you from a dishonest man, because the law can always be circumvented, and in any case is always applied after the fact. The rapid growth of laws, rules and regulations in our society is a reflection of this.

---

Erm, no. Since you're atheist, which, by definition, does not recognize the "fact" that God came down one day and gave a big stone to Moses to tell them how they must not commit murder, yadda yadda, I think it's worth a look on how societies without the luxury of meeting face-to-face with His Awesomeness maintain stable societies. What I'm saying, really, is that morality doesn't need the Big Very Good Guy up there to hold you back. Unless you think Confucianism is Godly. Or the entire Chinese civilization was eternally inferior morally to the West. I don't care if a government official thinks to himself that murder is very, very wrong because the Bible said so or His Noodliness visited him on vacation, as long as he acts on his capacity as a government official based on the law and not his Pastafarian beliefs.

A general morality that a society adopts can come from many sources. You seem to claim that all sources without the Supremely Holy One backing it -- technically, of course, since I don't believe the Supremely Holy One is up there somewhere anyway -- would lead to Uncle Joe claiming that place. I think human nature -- instincts, really -- is a far stronger guideline than any philosophy. And that laws of all kinds, be it that the "justification" (the "main philosophy") is by God or by a series of written books that points to, you know, another idea, often hold back on such instincts to a point for the purpose of maintaining a functioning society. So if we adapt the Constitution as our ultimate readable document on how-to-run-a-state instead of the Bible I'd think that it'll work also. And probably better, since the non-Christians aren't as endangered or "merely" disadvantaged as they would've been under the Cross; because, you know, they don't think they should pray to the one on the Cross.

It's not like I think that the Constitution comes out of nowhere because Madison has a good idea after a good night sleep. I recognize influences of the Book in it, but I also believe that it isn't meant to be Christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

The secular movements consistently show that the divergent voices are silenced and the movement is 'purged' of dissidents. They need to do this as any society or group of people must do, to become capable of effective action. Too many cooks and the soup never gets done. This is why we have no committee's ruling nations for very long. Secular ethics almost always assume that men are basically good, and this is nonsense. Communism was based on this flawed concept and it simply didn't work. Free enterprise is based on the idea of harnessing greed to do good for society as a whole, and it works. If men were by nature virtuous we wouldn't need laws, and wars would be something we observe in ant farms. It ain't that way at all. The problem is that virtue cannot be created by legislation! It must come from something else. An unimpeachable authority whose name we all know... Uncle Joe Stalin. All hail the glorious leader!

---

You equate all "secular" -- non-religious -- with communism. Again. Not to mention your mention of oppression and purging reminds me of something like the rise of Christianity under the late Roman Emperors or the religious wars in Europe after all that mess about Luther.

How about the Enlightenment? That's secular through and through -- a foundation of modern philosophy, the chief influence on the United States' framework as a nation, and not very Christian. Christian would be Aquinas, not Locke. It doesn't matter if you're not impressed with his prose, his influence is probably the strongest of all philosophies -- counting Christianity as part of those philosophies -- that result in the creation of the Constitution of the United States. I'd go so far as to say that Madison essentially translated Locke's philosophy into a piece of law, but that would be too big of a stretch.

And about the communists thing, how about France? Oh, but the Republic of France is either completely religious or they are simply evil commies and secretly worship the Magnificent Josef!

The irony is: Stalin was once a priest. I don't believe I've ever read anywhere that he was specifically atheist either, though it might be just me never reading it myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

There is no purpose to the universe, There is no purpose to human life, there is no purpose to your life, or mine. It is just a vast swirl of matter and energy and we face a future extinction of endless cold. Thats all! So what kind of ethical standards about the lives of chickens, men, or ants can you come up with that has any solid foundation?

---

You contradict the very foundation of Christian morality (I'm aware, of course, that you don't believe in it). Then you say that it should uphold the society you live in?

Are you trying to argue for a society with religion in the State from some pragmatic point of view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mongoose

The problem is that there are more than 3 distinct religions...What I'm arguing is that favoring 3 religions over others isn't that much better than favoring 1 religion. The state being connected to 3 different religions is obviously better than just one religion, but it's still not good.

---

Hello,

An ecumenical religious appeal or one that encompasses a multiplicity of beliefs cannot constitute an establishment of religion as such requires governmental advocacy of sect specific dogma. Government advocacy of an X means that X being inculcated into law. The Ten Commandments, as found within the Supreme Court for example, place no burden upon the behavior of the citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Which is precisely what I dispute. You claim that this "becomes a necessity" is, quite frankly, unprovable. Your assertion essentially lays down to claiming that the development of secular authorities separate from religion -- such as Christianity -- would always result in Stalin or Mao. I think that's just bollox. A Stalin and a Mao exists all the same under the banner of His Godliness.

---

Stalin and a Mao are not religious so, no they do not march under the banner of Christendom.

My assertion IS NOT... REPEAT...IS NOT, that secular authorities naturally develop towards Totalitarianism. It IS that in the absence of a religion code to guide them, secular authorities tend towards Totalitarianism. You may imagine what you will, but in the real world, when religious ethics have been displaced for secular ethics, the results have been horror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

What punishes murder in America? God? Or the court?

---

Well, neither at the present time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Does the court adheres to the Ten Commandments?

Of course, to relate this back to the topic about the United States, there would be arguments on the other side that the Constitution -- the ultimate authority in the USA; hence, the Rule of Law -- is a Christian document. A very weak claim.

---

This would be more convincing if you could show me in the constitution where murder or theft is prohibited. You can't, because the underlying assumption behind the constitution is that there existed a code of laws based on the moral imperatives of the Judeo-Christian faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Erm, no. Since you're atheist, which, by definition, does not recognize the "fact" that God came down one day and gave a big stone to Moses to tell them how they must not commit murder, yadda yadda, I think it's worth a look on how societies without the luxury of meeting face-to-face with His Awesomeness maintain stable societies.

---

What society are you talking about? As far as I know there are no non-religious distinct societies currently on the planet. Nor in fact can I recall any that have existed in history. Which one are you referring to? Where are these godless heathens? There have been some secular movements that have in fact risen to power, but for some reason, you don't want to claim them as your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

What I'm saying, really, is that morality doesn't need the Big Very Good Guy up there to hold you back. Unless you think Confucianism is Godly. Or the entire Chinese civilization was eternally inferior morally to the West.

---

Are you honestly trying to claim that pre-revolutionary China was not religious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

A general morality that a society adopts can come from many sources. You seem to claim that all sources without the Supremely Holy One backing it -- technically, of course, since I don't believe the Supremely Holy One is up there somewhere anyway -- would lead to Uncle Joe claiming that place.

---

Well, that is what has in fact happened when secular ethics have displaced religious ethics. I can only go on what has actually happened, and from all the available evidence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

So if we adapt the Constitution as our ultimate readable document on how-to-run-a-state instead of the Bible I'd think that it'll work also.

---

Yeah, well you know the guys who wrote that darned thing DON'T agree with you. They thought that a Republic guided by Christian principles, was a necessity. And there's still that thing about murder, not being mentioned in the constitution? I realize you could rip-off a religious code to use instead, but as I have pointed out, you have to justify it somehow. I mean Communists think rich folks should be shot, Fascists think Communists should be shot, and Nazi's think Jews should be shot. What code of ethics are you talking about, if you leave out religious codes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Are you trying to argue for a society with religion in the State from some pragmatic point of view? .

---

Yeah. I don't want to end up in some concentration camp in Kansas, or Saskatchewan! That pragmatic enough for you? Of course, I realize it would never happen here, because we are good folks and all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Stalin and a Mao are not religious so, no they do not march under the banner of Christendom.

My assertion IS NOT... REPEAT...IS NOT, that secular authorities naturally develop towards Totalitarianism. It IS that in the absence of a religion code to guide them, secular authorities tend towards Totalitarianism. You may imagine what you will, but in the real world, when religious ethics have been displaced for secular ethics, the results have been horror.

---

And you still can't prove them. You completely ignored the example of France and kept bringing up Russia and China. Quite frankly, neither were very open when they were supposedly religious either. Unless you think the Tsar was all enlightened and candy.

Your assertion that this lack of God would screw a society is something I really don't think holds up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Well, neither at the present time!

---

The court, actually. Aren't you in the US? Kill someone and you won't have the local Bishop to judge you, but the federal court system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

This would be more convincing if you could show me in the constitution where murder or theft is prohibited. You can't, because the underlying assumption behind the constitution is that there existed a code of laws based on the moral imperatives of the Judeo-Christian faith.

---

So you claimed. Prove it. The Constitution clearly gave the power to dictate laws to the legislative branch, without mentioning any specific religious authority within the legislation. If anything, the First Amendment nullifies a government attempt to publicly endorse any specific religion.

Oh, and Treason is the one defined crime in the Constitution that can be used as something of a guideline for the rest. Or would you tell me that the US laws are Christian and then come back to tell me that the "Give The Other Cheek" or whatever exact wording of that phrase is also happens to come with a caveat of "except in cases of Treason"?

On the other hand, I'd like to present to you a certain well-accepted idea that the Constitution is written as an Enlightenment document, relying on the developing philosophies of the Humanist philosophers of that age. You don't like Locke -- neither do I, his writing sucks -- but his influence in the USA's framework is undeniable. Is Locke's philosophy religious in nature? Wants real-life proof? There it is. The USA's function as a state.

It's a human law, not God's law, that upholds the function of the USA as a state. I couldn't care less if Prophet#321 says I must not steal stuff from my classmates or God will smite me. The written law, the human written law, which derives its authority from the Constitution (and ultimately "The People" that technically endorses it) is the thing that keeps me from taking that shiny Ipod away. Oh, and instinct. I know people will get angry when I steal their stuff. Bad for social life.

Since you're an atheist, what keeps you from being totally evil since you don't claim any morality anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

What society are you talking about? As far as I know there are no non-religious distinct societies currently on the planet. Nor in fact can I recall any that have existed in history. Which one are you referring to? Where are these godless heathens? There have been some secular movements that have in fact risen to power, but for some reason, you don't want to claim them as your own.

---

Ask the French if they are religious. The majority of them would disagree. From what I know, they aren't particularly oppressive. You can ask the Canadians also, though I suspect some ties with the British government would have some weird legislative claim on the religious affiliation of Canada. Or not. Unlikely.

Heck, Mexico. For all the crappiness of the country it's still quite more free than the majority of nations in history. I don't think the Mexican Constitution is Catholic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Are you honestly trying to claim that pre-revolutionary China was not religious?

---

Is Confucianism a religion? Didn't Confucianism serves the same purpose in China as Christianity apparently did in the West?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Well, that is what has in fact happened when secular ethics have displaced religious ethics. I can only go on what has actually happened, and from all the available evidence...

---

Again with this so-called "evidence." I argue that the thing that did it was totalitarianism of all kinds. I presented examples of religious societies in a religious world that proved to be equally as oppressive, violent, criminal, and all that. And you simply did not address the point and come back with "with all the evidences...non-religious societies are to blame."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Yeah, well you know the guys who wrote that darned thing DON'T agree with you. They thought that a Republic guided by Christian principles, was a necessity. And there's still that thing about murder, not being mentioned in the constitution? I realize you could rip-off a religious code to use instead, but as I have pointed out, you have to justify it somehow. I mean Communists think rich folks should be shot, Fascists think Communists should be shot, and Nazi's think Jews should be shot. What code of ethics are you talking about, if you leave out religious codes?

---

You don't have the evidence that the Founding Fathers who "wrote the darn thing" don't agree with me, whereas the very article at the first post clearly mentions Thomas Jefferson -- who, while did not participate in the Constitutional Convention, was, by all accounts, one of the most important Founding Fathers ever in the United States -- as someone who advocates a clear barrier between a religion and a State.

Also, Fascists are Ultra-Conservative. Christianity and absolute morality was part of their doctrine. How else did the Falangists gain the support of the more "devout" of the Spanish Catholics against the "Godless" commies and anarchists?

Moreover, I presented a correlation between the Nazi crimes and a long-standing European tradition of persecution with religious roots. While I certainly does not claim that Christ is to blame for the Holocaust or something like that, such a link nullifies your claim that this extremity is the direct result of the "abandonment of religion."

Communism's only interest about religion can be mixed into its inherent hatred for the standing societal traditions. It would destroy a Democracy as willingly as it would any other traditions, religion included. It is a Revolutionary doctrine by nature. To equate communism with all philosophies that don't subscribe to God isn't quite believable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Yeah. I don't want to end up in some concentration camp in Kansas, or Saskatchewan! That pragmatic enough for you? Of course, I realize it would never happen here, because we are good folks and all...

---

Not only that you completely missed the point, if you actually claim that the US is a society where Christian morality has an active, formally endorsed presence in the government, then you will also find the example of a certain camp called Manzanar...

And if it is not, then the USA appears to survive just fine with the separation of Church and State being as complete as it is.

Quote:

---

You may imagine what you will, but in the real world, when religious ethics have been displaced for secular ethics, the results have been horror.

---

It depends on what kind of secular ethics they're being replaced with. You're basicly arguing that if you replace religous ethics with secular ethics that are totalitarian in nature, you'll get a totalitarian government.

:idea2:

And just FYI, there are many non-totalitarian governments that are very secular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hello,

An ecumenical religious appeal or one that encompasses a multiplicity of beliefs cannot constitute an establishment of religion as such requires governmental advocacy of sect specific dogma. Government advocacy of an X means that X being inculcated into law. The Ten Commandments, as found within the Supreme Court for example, place no burden upon the behavior of the citizen.

---

Point taken. I wouldn't see it as being an establishment of state religion, so much as an endorsement of the Abrahamic religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Point taken. I wouldn't see it as being an establishment of state religion, so much as an endorsement of the Abrahamic religions.

---

Notation of the Buddhist Eightfold Path is certainly missing similar wall space inside the precincts of the U.S. Supreme Court. That Moses might serve as a more common reference than The Buddha is understandable enough given the cultural context in which the republic was born. Even so, the legal operative remains establishment which is distinct from simple endorsement. Simple endorsement is benign.

“My assertion IS NOT... REPEAT...IS NOT, that secular authorities naturally develop towards Totalitarianism. It IS that in the absence of a religion code to guide them, secular authorities tend towards Totalitarianism. You may imagine what you will, but in the real world, when religious ethics have been displaced for secular ethics, the results have been horror.”
I understand your assertion. The problem I have with it is you assume that Religious code is a fence against totalitarianism and genocides. You ignore the reality of history. It was BECAUSE the Religious Ethics and its failure that other movement like the Enlightenment took place. It is BECAUSE the theocratic Rulers who got their powers from Gods were so brutal and oppressive that the people lost faith and started to think.
The second thing is your assumption that values are coming from religions, that humans are naturally savages and just want to kill rape and destroy. Human are social animals, so they did developed social skill to prevent such events within their community. Long before Judaism, Christianity and Islamism they help each others. How do we know that? A discovery of a female skeleton, which showed she died around 40 years old but also that she was handicapped. She couldn’t have survived without help. And she was from Neanderthal …

You choose (for your demonstration) to ignore the facts which demonstrate against you point of view. Franco and Mussolini were religious. You assume Stalin was atheist (and he was probably, but no one can be sure). You did the same with Hitler even the Dr Kersten’s (personal doctor of Heinrich Himmler) testimony shows that Hitler asked Himmler to write a new “Bible”, more in accordance with the Nazi principles and for the benefit of the future generations.
You choose to ignore the fact that most of most religious people were in fact at the roots of the biggest slaughter in history. Nobody can deny Isabel to be Catholic, Louis the XIV to be a real believer, Torquemada to be a good Catholic. However, when your own beliefs make you to deny the others the right to exist, that makes your criminal, even if you strongly believe in your own values. "You shall not kill" should be understand with a complement, kind of “except all unfaithful, unbelievers and others miscreants who can be slaughter at will or, at least, enslave for their own good (and ours, as side effect)”.

I think, in complete opposition with your opinion that Religions naturally go to Totalitarianism. It is due to the nature of religions. Accept the Truth, don’t think, we priest know better… The absence of common sense, the accepted lost of critical spirit, the demand for unconditional obedience (Do you love me, Peter?), the co-optation, (can be priest if you are chosen by a priest, of equivalent), all these ingredients made religions ready to be cook as dictatorship and intolerant.

Secularism does NOT prevent slaughters and massacre, but State Religions is a sure way, a receipt, for discrimination, “ghettoisation”, exploitation of credulity and finally civil/Religious wars…

Brenus, you seem to be exhibitting the same fault that you criticise in Sharukin; selectively quoting evidence to support your own view, and making assertions that at best are only partially true.

You ascribe the rise of the the Enlightenment to disenchantment with religious ethics, whereas the situation was more complicated than this. The disenchantment you refer to was more to do social changes, more learning outside the Christian churches, wider education and disenchantment with authority rather than disenchantment with ethics. The enlightenment co-incided with a relaxation of absolute rulership. Which caused which? It is difficult to say, but your simplistic interpretation is a best partially true.

Your second point is more valid. Human beings are not entirely savage and are capable of being unselfish without religious. What Christianity calls us to do is to behave unselfish and forgiving beyond sensible and reasonable limits. In fact law codes in Christian countries are more likely to match natural human unselfishness than the ideals put forward by the religion.

You then list some despots who you claim to be Christian. Mussolini was baptised as a Catholic but this was probably to appeal to Catholic Italians. Hitler was baptised as a Catholic but did not practice in adulthood. There is very little evidence that these two were Christian. You are on stronger grounds with Isabella (presumeably of Castille) and Torquemada, but your choice of Louis the XIV is strange. I don't think he was particularly religous, and didn't he reduce the power of the church in order to maintain his own authority? You then ascribe to these people the notion that people who don't hold their faith do not have a right to exist. The trouble here is that for Isabella (and other Monarchs of the time) religion was an instrument of political unity. She would not have put her beliefs in that way, but she would have said that refusing to be Catholic was treason. You are judging her by modern standards, which you are free to do, but you can't use her as an example of what mixing religion and politics would do today. Apart from anything else, she would not have understood the difference. In the C16 religion was politics. Of course to set against Isabella and Torquemada there are leaders who have used their religious convictions to premote something more benign such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King and Francis of Assisi.

Neither is this characterisation of religion fair or accurate:
" Accept the Truth, don’t think, we priest know better… The absence of common sense, the accepted lost of critical spirit, the demand for unconditional obedience (Do you love me, Peter?), the co-optation, (can be priest if you are chosen by a priest, of equivalent), all these ingredients made religions ready to be cook as dictatorship and intolerant."

Some of the greatest thinkers have been people with religious conviction, so it is presumptious of you to claim that say, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Martin Luther etc. thought for themselves less and have less common sense than you do.

Religion, like secularism has made both negative and possitive contributions to mankind and to modern culture. You also claim that "but State Religions is a sure way, a receipt, for discrimination, “ghettoisation”, exploitation of credulity and finally civil/Religious wars…"
Now, for the country you live in, with its state religion, how does this contribute to ghettosiation, exploitation of credulity (cause we religous people are so much more credulous than you clever secularists) and discrimination, and how many decades do you have to go back for an example of a Religious/Civil war?

“Brenus, you seem to be exhibitting the same fault that you criticise in Sharukin; selectively quoting evidence to support your own view, and making assertions that at best are only partially true.” Of course I do. I id it to show that is general assumptions are wrong. And I didn’t say it was a law.

I broadly agree with what you wrote. Everything in human behaviour is complex and complicated. I do not intend to give a full explanation for the Enlightenment, considering it happens in various countries living under different rules. However, you have to agree it’s happened because old systems didn’t work. “your simplistic interpretation is a best partially true” was what I intend.

“I don't think he was particularly religous, and didn't he reduce the power of the church in order to maintain his own authority?” Of that I am quite sure his was. In his demand of total obedience was based on the fact he got the power from God.
Louis the XIV history is a complex one, and his obsession to diminish all powers (not only the Church) is rooted in La Fronde and his fight for his life as young kid. His God Father was the Cardinal of Mazarin.

“In the C16 religion was politics.” And nowadays?

“Neither is this characterisation of religion fair or accurate”: In saying what? That faith is faith; there no need of proof, the fact is you have to accept a dogma, that to become a priest who have to get a teaching done by priests…

“so it is presumptuous of you to claim that say, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Martin Luther etc. thought for themselves less and have less common sense than you do.” Why? Because they are famous? They believed in something I don’t, and until now, nobody proved me wrong. They accepted a revealed truth, I don’t. And I am not particularly happy wit St Augustine’s order (those who pray, those who fight and those who work thank you very much, few centuries of oppression).
And I think I am quite presumptuous, or arrogant.:shame:

“how many decades do you have to go back for an example of a Religious/Civil war?” One year ago, with few suicide bombers exploding themselves in the tube and bus, or do you prefer IRA, 10 years ago?
Do you know that, I think 2 years ago, there were demonstrations in Belfast because the Catholic kids were allowed to go to school by the maim entrance. Until two years ago, they had to go by the back door… That still now, you have parade in Northern Ireland to commemorate battles won against another religion.

“cause we religious people are so much more credulous than you clever secularists”: Well, I didn’t said that. But when I see people go to buy pictures to be cure or going to pray in special caves, and others who believe than in a remote mountain of Bosnia the Virgin Mary appeared, well, you have to agree that I could raise some suspicions… That make religious as credulous as the ones who believe that tomorrow will shine. Just, in my opinion, you gather two possibilities of manipulations, religion and politic. The problem when you want to have a State govern by religion you can’t at least be free of one. It is package.

OK, so you were exaggerating for a rhetorical effect - fair enough. The unfair characterisation of religion is the one that says it is for unthinking, gullible people who don't have any common sense. The list of people in my argument is not there because they are right (I don't agree with everything each one of them said), but because they were intelligent, thought for themselves and yet had strong religious convictions - counter examples to your thesis that religion is for silly people.

I don't agree with your examples of religious conflict in England. The London bombers were not attacking or defending the state religion; they were attacking an ally of America. Having strict separation between church and state did not protect the USA. The IRA example doesn't work either, partly because the IRA is a secular organisation (check Sinn Fein's position on abortion and gay marriage if you don't believe me) and partly because Northern Ireland does not have an established religion. The six counties with their sectarian problems and no state religion contrasts with England with an established faith and very few sectarian problems. You have to go back 300 years for a religious war in England and 200 years for the type of civil disturbance you noted in Ulster.

“Having strict separation between church and state did not protect the USA”
Funny enough, I don’t consider US as an example of separation between State and Church. “In God We Trust” on the US dollar, oath on the Bible and things like that are not good presumptions on this matter.
But anyway, it didn’t protect France neither, when the Algerian Extreme Islamist GIA decided to put bomb in Paris, Lyon, Marseilles and others parts of the country for French alleged-support to the Algerian Government.
Separation between Church and Religion won’t protect from external aggression (even if the cases of UK and France it was Muslims born in the country who killed the people they went at school with), but it will protect the various religious communities against the temptation of the leading one to keep power.

“The IRA example doesn't work either, partly because the IRA is a secular organisation (check Sinn Fein's position on abortion and gay marriage if you don't believe me) and partly because Northern Ireland does not have an established religion.”
I think this example is valid. The Irish Problem rose because a clear discrimination against the Catholic Minority in jobs, positions and education. That was based on religious background. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, so the State Religion is the Church of England. The tenants of English Rules in Northern Ireland use discriminatory laws and habits to keep the power and to deny their Catholic co-citizens their human rights. That was based purely on religion.
Now, the fact that Sinn Fein adapts to modern demands is good but doesn’t invalidate the example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Secularism does NOT prevent slaughters and massacre, but State Religions is a sure way, a receipt, for discrimination, “ghettoisation”, exploitation of credulity and finally civil/Religious wars…

---

Really ? Then how come Finland has had a Protestant state church since the mid-1500s or so (back when Gustaf Vasa, King of Sweden, gave Rome the finger) and never really had any of that ? Russian Orthodox merchants have been allowed to worship their own way since God knows when, and there's actually been a small Muslim community in Helsinki since early 1800s (Russian Tatars come in as merchants and craftsmen) without any trouble... Catholics have been few and far between since the 1500s - these days about 5% of the population I think - but AFAIK they've been left in peace too, even during the nominally religious Thirty Years' War when people still thought grapeshot was a valid theological argument (to paraphrase the Swedish historian Peter Englund).

We had one ugly civil war right after breaking off Russia in 1917 though, but that was all about entirely secular matters.

And nowadays we're the just about most socially progressive and secularized state in the world. Well, the Swedes easily top us, but I'm pretty sure their Protestant church is a state one too...

Watchman, good for you it worked out, but a secular State is NOT a guarantee you won’t have inter-religious clashes. It prevents most of them in keeping religion in private life, but it can’t 100% riot-proof. Like freedom of expression won’t prevent by itself Fascism, secularism won’t prevent religious fanatics.

Oh, we have those all right. There's the odd handful of religious nutsos every here and there, and nobody pays them any particular attention. And some diehards in the Church proper who for example refuse to work with female clergy, and so on.

You get all sorts. However, you seem to have missed the point a bit. Finland is not a secular state as such (ie. no official division between Church and State, rather the former is subordinate to the latter), but a secularized society with a really tame and rather progressive state church (title of a book written by a senior clergyman - bishop or around that rank - some years ago: "Everyone Goes to Heaven"). Something like 90% (although it's probably dropped to the high 80%'s now) of the populace are Church members, and just about the exact only things this shows in are the assorted ceremonies like baptism, marriage and funeral.

In other words the sort of indifferent religiosity that in practice has managed to do away with just about all the problems organized (monotheistic) religions tend to bring.

...
...actually, the Catholic Church was a lot like that before the Reformation too by what I've read, now that I think about it...

Quote:

---

The Irish Problem rose because a clear discrimination against the Catholic Minority in jobs, positions and education. That was based on religious background. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, so the State Religion is the Church of England. The tenants of English Rules in Northern Ireland use discriminatory laws and habits to keep the power and to deny their Catholic co-citizens their human rights. That was based purely on religion.
Now, the fact that Sinn Fein adapts to modern demands is good but doesn’t invalidate the example.

---

The Irish Problem and the UK itself is more complicated than this. Ireland as a whole did have a state religion - the Church of Ireland, but this was disestablished in 1871. (1871 also so the ending of the last vestige of privelidge for Anglicans in the UK when the University Test Act was passed, unless you count the Act of Settlement). Now the Church of Ireland is so far from being a state religion that it is a cross-border institution - its diocese boundaries don't even respect the national border, for example the diocese of Derry and Raphoe. To say that conflict in Northern Ireland has a religous backgound is an understatement, but descrimination against Catholics is unofficial, and where it happens it is either against the law or without the encouragement of the law, and much less now than it was when the modern troubles really kicked off at the end of the sixties. You also need to remember that Anglicans in Northern Ireland acount for a smaller fraction of the population than either Catholics, or the largest protestant denomination - prebyterians. These were also outside the official church until it was disetablished.

When you say that the Church of England is the state religion of the UK, you risk offending the Scots who have their own, quite different state religion. Wales, like Northern Ireland has no established church.

I think Northern Ireland is an interesting contrast with England. England has an established church but is a broadly secular society where religion and politics are kept apart due to culture and not the law. Northern Ireland has no state religion, but a culture where religion is an important part of identity and dominates politics. It is this link between religion, identity and politics which is dangerous rather than having an established church.

NI is a good example of why church and religion and state should be kept as far apart as possible...