Comments on: The value of a secular state http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/the-value-of-a-secular-state/ poetry, politics, reason, morality Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:30:49 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: luaphacim http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/the-value-of-a-secular-state/#comment-1262 luaphacim Thu, 28 Sep 2006 03:46:53 +0000 http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/the-value-of-a-secular-state/#comment-1262 I can't believe that you godless Communist scum keep wanting to kick our lord and savior out of America once and for all! Don't you know that the Bible says we need to make everybody Christians by force or else? It's in THE BIBLE, HELLO! Jeez Louise, some people are so dense. Reference? No, I don't need a reference. Hezekiah or someplace. ITS IN THE BIBLE I can’t believe that you godless Communist scum keep wanting to kick our lord and savior out of America once and for all! Don’t you know that the Bible says we need to make everybody Christians by force or else? It’s in THE BIBLE, HELLO! Jeez Louise, some people are so dense. Reference? No, I don’t need a reference. Hezekiah or someplace. ITS IN THE BIBLE

]]> By: Spartacus http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/the-value-of-a-secular-state/#comment-1258 Spartacus Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:07:25 +0000 http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/the-value-of-a-secular-state/#comment-1258 I'm with you on this one, EB. I just can't understand Christians sometimes. Those who gave their lives to the work of separating church and state IN ORDER TO BENEFIT CHRISTIANS IN AMERICA must be rolling over in their graves at all this talk of "separation" as if it were intending to exile faith from government. Church and State does not equal Religion and Government. Religion is a personal issue and cannot be separated from any aspect of life. No governing body will ever be without individuals who hold religious beliefs. Church and State MUST be separated in order to ensure freedom for any religious group. People are so short-sighted. Separation is the best thing that happened to this country in its early stages. I hate how we're trying to break down that wall, blind to the fact that it will fall on top of us. I’m with you on this one, EB. I just can’t understand Christians sometimes. Those who gave their lives to the work of separating church and state IN ORDER TO BENEFIT CHRISTIANS IN AMERICA must be rolling over in their graves at all this talk of “separation” as if it were intending to exile faith from government. Church and State does not equal Religion and Government. Religion is a personal issue and cannot be separated from any aspect of life. No governing body will ever be without individuals who hold religious beliefs. Church and State MUST be separated in order to ensure freedom for any religious group. People are so short-sighted. Separation is the best thing that happened to this country in its early stages. I hate how we’re trying to break down that wall, blind to the fact that it will fall on top of us.

]]> By: The Lizard Queen http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/the-value-of-a-secular-state/#comment-1251 The Lizard Queen Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:50:56 +0000 http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/the-value-of-a-secular-state/#comment-1251 Obviously I don't wish to speak for Amato, but I think an important part of his point is that if Democrats maintain a hard-line stance on the absolute separation of church and state, then that is likely to alienate many voters. I do think he has a point there, if for no reason other than the fact that many people who are made uncomfortable by connections between church and state are not necessarily getting out and voting--not to mention the number of people who claim not to care either way, and so don't feel the need to try to change the status quo. Where Amato loses me for good is when he states that wanting a completely secular government means that "we will have to undo the gains of a more humanistic government in the last century and a half: abolition, suffrage, child labor laws, and the civil rights movement, to name a few, will have to also be bleached of the critical public voices of religious activists." Why? I'd like to backtrack for a moment and quote the first sentence of Wikipedia's definition of humanism: "Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism." Why must that idea be stripped from our history? Many of the gains listed above may have been brought about by lawmakers' or social leaders' religious beliefs (though I'm not entirely willing to concede that they were), but I believe that they were ultimately incorporated into our laws because of humanism--which I should point out is often placed in opposition with theism. Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was Christian, and his faith prompted him to do great things. However, for one thing, he kept his speeches fairly ecumenical (go take a look at "I Have a Dream"), and for another, he was not a policymaker. Furthermore, on that note, I (as someone who is a firm supporter of the separation of church and state) have absolutely no objection to policymakers leading spiritual or religious lives. My objection comes when policymakers attempt (and often succeed) in limiting the freedoms of Americans based on that spirituality or religion. Some examples: 1. Denying GLBTQ people the freedom to marry. 2. Denying women reproductive freedom. 3. Openly endorsing a particular faith by conspicuously posting its tenets (this is controversial, I know, but I ask Christians to consider how they would feel if a government building hung Tibetan prayer flags in its archway or posted a stone monument to the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha). I think all too often religious people understand "separation of church and state" to somehow mean that we advocate an entirely atheistic or areligious society, when that's not the case at all. Personally, I would simply like to see mutual respect between the religious and the non-religious, the spiritual and the non-spiritual, and I think the only way to reach that point is to keep religion out of government--and that includes anything overtly against religion as well. It should be a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps that's too idealistic of me. In short (I didn't intend to write this much, but got a bit incensed...), I agree, EB. We don't lose if we advocate the separation of church and state; we lose if we continue to allow the right wing to set the terms of the debate. Obviously I don’t wish to speak for Amato, but I think an important part of his point is that if Democrats maintain a hard-line stance on the absolute separation of church and state, then that is likely to alienate many voters. I do think he has a point there, if for no reason other than the fact that many people who are made uncomfortable by connections between church and state are not necessarily getting out and voting–not to mention the number of people who claim not to care either way, and so don’t feel the need to try to change the status quo.

Where Amato loses me for good is when he states that wanting a completely secular government means that “we will have to undo the gains of a more humanistic government in the last century and a half: abolition, suffrage, child labor laws, and the civil rights movement, to name a few, will have to also be bleached of the critical public voices of religious activists.” Why? I’d like to backtrack for a moment and quote the first sentence of Wikipedia’s definition of humanism: “Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism.” Why must that idea be stripped from our history? Many of the gains listed above may have been brought about by lawmakers’ or social leaders’ religious beliefs (though I’m not entirely willing to concede that they were), but I believe that they were ultimately incorporated into our laws because of humanism–which I should point out is often placed in opposition with theism. Yes, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was Christian, and his faith prompted him to do great things. However, for one thing, he kept his speeches fairly ecumenical (go take a look at “I Have a Dream”), and for another, he was not a policymaker.

Furthermore, on that note, I (as someone who is a firm supporter of the separation of church and state) have absolutely no objection to policymakers leading spiritual or religious lives. My objection comes when policymakers attempt (and often succeed) in limiting the freedoms of Americans based on that spirituality or religion. Some examples:

1. Denying GLBTQ people the freedom to marry.
2. Denying women reproductive freedom.
3. Openly endorsing a particular faith by conspicuously posting its tenets (this is controversial, I know, but I ask Christians to consider how they would feel if a government building hung Tibetan prayer flags in its archway or posted a stone monument to the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha).

I think all too often religious people understand “separation of church and state” to somehow mean that we advocate an entirely atheistic or areligious society, when that’s not the case at all. Personally, I would simply like to see mutual respect between the religious and the non-religious, the spiritual and the non-spiritual, and I think the only way to reach that point is to keep religion out of government–and that includes anything overtly against religion as well. It should be a non-issue, as far as I’m concerned. Perhaps that’s too idealistic of me.

In short (I didn’t intend to write this much, but got a bit incensed…), I agree, EB. We don’t lose if we advocate the separation of church and state; we lose if we continue to allow the right wing to set the terms of the debate.

]]>