Edwynn
Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Edwynn, that blurb in red is so wrong, in so many ways. It is a complete "opposition safari" from what the words say.
Actually no, it is a counter to the 'safari' you are on concerning the state/religion question.
"The words are pretty clear." To some more than others, indeed.
quote:
In fact, one could argue that the words, as written, do not completely rule out the idea religious principles, influencing the laws.
One could argue that it does not rule it out completely, but only in the way that religion glommed and co-opted existing moral and societal codes for itself and its own purpose in the process of taking over the societies of their day at the time the religious tomes were written. Again, money lending, care for the poor, etc. are dealt with in the bible, but to say that banking laws and TANF laws are a product of religious influence is quite a stretch. The establishment of religion prohibition clearly intended that no law would be influenced by specifically religious concerns.
quote:
People need to stop calling that the "seperation of church and state clause" and start calling it the "protection for religion from government clause" because that is all it says.
In that case, your hero Jefferson, the man who wrote that amendment and used the separation phrase exactly to describe it at a later time, is wrong, by your account. This in a letter from T. Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Society in 1802:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#cite_note-0][/link] (emphasis added)
quote:
It's written pretty plainly.
Indeed it is. And that 'separation of ...' is the description used by the SC in their various considerations of it, but of course you are welcome to write the SC and inform them of the error of their ways in using Jefferson's phraseology and henceforth should use yours instead.
quote:
The government can't establish a religion (tell us what we must believe) and can't stop us from worshipping how we wish (tell us how to believe). Yes, we can't grab people off the street for involuntary human sacrifice but, surely, we can tell our followers that they are forbidden from wearing purple on Tuesdays?
Yes, any religion can tell their flock they can't wear purple on any day, because not wearing purple does not conflict with US law, and in fact can tell their congregation they should abstain from taking the pill, because abstaining from the pill is not a violation of the law. What they cannot do is to actively restrict their employees, members of church or not, from doing what is allowed by law. Preach against; yes, actively prohibit; no. Is the proposed law prohibiting what priests and preachers can tell their flock? No.
quote:
Jefferson wrote the first part because he (at the time) was an Atheist and didn't want fundementalism shoved down his (or anyone's) throat by mandate of law. That's what the first part is about.
It didn't matter if Jefferson was an atheist or not (though in fact he wasn't) or the fact that some co-signers of the Constitution and the ten amendments were active christians, the horrendous wars and persecutions and torturing and gross interference by both Catholic and Protestant bishops and other even more zealous religious leaders into the affairs of government, to the grave detriment of both government and citizens, was what was being very specifically addressed in this amendment.
"... and didn't want fundementalism shoved down his (or anyone's) throat by mandate of law." Indeed! Which is precisely what is being attempted in the congress as we speak.
quote:
Of course society has a right to keep itself from from religious zealotry taking over but it does not have the right to prevent people from practicing their religion as they see fit as long as they are not harming others.
True enough, that what constitutes harming or not of others as considered such by the law, not by the church.
"A church ... any church, refusing to condone the use of birth control is not harming anyone."
The last part of that sentence is debatable, considering that society is affected by the fallout of children born unwanted or born to parents unable to raise the child with out assistance from others, whether family or private or public. In any event, there is no law requiring the religious condoning of birth control. The proposed law merely would prohibit religious organizations from restricting access to it by women who chose to pursue this legal course of action. People need to look up the word 'condone' and then the word 'require' and understand that one does not necessarily condone everything he/she is required to do.
quote:
To ask them to indulge in the very thing they denounce is preposterous and that flies in the face of the first amendment.
Prohibiting the church from restricting access to contraception does not constitute the church 'indulging' in anything, nor does it constitute them 'condoning' anything, for those who understand the dictionary meaning of those terms.
However briefly was explained in my earlier post the historical and contemporaneous situation of great tumult and large and deep suffering of societies resulting from religious interference (more than 250 years of strife to that point), an understanding of that is most helpful and indeed should be considered a requirement in effort towards understanding the prohibition of establishment of religion clause in the first amendment -and its intended purpose-.
< Message edited by Edwynn -- 2/17/2012 11:44:10 AM >
|
RE: Conservatives seem to be socially tone deaf - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread