|
subrosaDom -> RE: What Does The Constitution Really Say About Religion? (10/3/2014 9:03:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[71]
NOWHERE does it say that a theocracy cannot exist on our shores (not what I'm calling for, by the way). It does specifically say that government can't fuck with religion but it does not state the converse.
The language is pretty simple, really; congress can't establish a religion nor can it hinder our ability to practice as we see fit (no forcing us to pay for abortions and birth control. Sorry, Andrea).
It's ironic because when I read the article, earlier today, somewhere in the first paragraph were the words "separation of church and state" but those words don't appear in the constitution ... anywhere (I've looked).
I want to be clear: I NEVER want to see a theocracy in this country but, until you change the constitution, it could happen, legally. It doesn't matter. It already has. Liberalism is the political wing of the "earth religion".
That's because you left out part.
How exactly could a theocracy function with this as part of the Constitution:
Article VI
quote:
no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Partly because there's a de facto religious test. If you announce you are an atheist and run for your President, do you have any chance today? No. Atheists are bottom of the barrel when it comes to approval. Now, it's not as much so as it used to be and it's not as though politicians won't lie about that, like anything else.
The point is that if most people won't vote for someone unless he's of a certain religion -- or religious -- then democratically speaking, you have a vox populi religious test. Nothing to do with Congress.
There are plenty of laws that have a religious basis, both right and left. So once you're in, you can use your personal religious beliefs to guide you as you want and you can even trumpet those beliefs in running for office (even if you're lying).
Thus, we can't prevent someone from trying to run. Pragmatically, though, the chances of atheistic success aren't very high (sure, there are likely limited regions where exceptions would apply, such as Los Alamos, NM, which comprises mostly scientists).
The other way to circumvent the Constitution here has to do with the definition of "religion." The Founders likely had in mind the conventional religions. But once you step outside the major religions, then you do have issues such as: Is worship of Gaia "religious"? worship of "The Earth," not even Mother Earth?; etc.?
So could we have a state religion, de jure? No. But a lot could be accomplished (so to speak) without that. And, consider that a severely attenuated state religion (e.g., Church of England) doesn't establish a theocracy at all. Thus, it is technically possible (not that I am advocating this at all: this is a rhetorical point) to have a state religion without having a theocracy.
|
|
|
|
