Author Topic: Religious freedom  (Read 5338 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Religious freedom
« on: December 10, 2007, 01:49:24 AM »
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM -- THEN, NOW AND ROMNEY
Sun Dec 9, 3:47 PM ET

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- I had trouble choosing a lead for this column on Mitt Romney's nice speech about religious freedom last Thursday morning. I am for religious freedom and for freedom from religion. I am not for Romney, though, God knows -- oops! -- he certainly looks like a president should.

I considered four first paragraphs:

Lead 1: More than 175 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, an intellectual Roman Catholic, traveling in the new United States to write a book he came to call "Democracy in America," wrote this in his notebook:

"It's incredible to see the infinite number of subdivisions into which the sects of America have split. ... Each new sect separates a little further while nearing pure Deism. ... The reformed religion is a sort of compromise."

Lead 2: More than 20 years ago, I received a package in the mail from a man named Arthur Glauberman, in Newton, N.J., a place my father often went to fish for trout he never caught. He said his father, Isadore Glauberman, who died in 1978, had found a Bible in the attic and thought it might be mine. The inscription on the first page read: "Presented to Richard Reeves by the Primary Department of The Church School of Old Bergen Dutch Reformed Church, September 22, 1946." It was mine and still is, well-thumbed and read, one of my most important possessions.

Lead 3: Sometime in the early or mid-1970s, I settled into my seat on a United Airlines flight, and the man next to me, wearing a small gold cross in his lapel, turned to me and said: "Have you found Jesus?" I reached for the overhead button, then told the stewardess I wanted to change my seat.

Lead 4: In 1979, I had a conversation about religion in the White House with former President Nixon, who was raised a Quaker and rather cynically began a tradition of White House prayer breakfasts, and he said something interesting: "When religion started talking about the masses rather than what it could do for the individual, then religion went ..." He thrust both his thumbs down and made a noise something like "Phffft!"

I debated using one of those because I think it would be offensive and too provocative to begin by saying that I consider many of the tenets of Mormonism to be very odd stuff. I can handle its rejection of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in favor of a God who is Himself a physical being.

But I will never get over my first visit to the museum of the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City. A great mural there depicts the origins of the phrase "Latter-Day Saints," the idea that when Christ was resurrected he did not go to the side of his Father, but instead stopped off in North American to preach to and convert Jews who were dressed as Indians. OK, believe what you will -- I agreed with Nixon that religion should personal -- but all the feathers did me in.

Obviously, Romney did not want to try to defend such beliefs, though he did say he believed the doctrines of his faith. His Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a singular kind of problem. It was founded in 1830, while Tocqueville was in America, and that means it has modern records; it was all written down at the time. We remember historically that a guy named Joseph Smith was talking to angels and found golden plates from God -- which no one else ever saw -- that ordered the creation of a new religion. And we know that the greatest of Mormon leaders, Brigham Young, the Moses who led his people to the promised land of Utah, had 56 children and 51 wives and was indicted for murder in a massacre of innocent farmers heading west on the Oregon Trail.

You can read all about these things in accounts by participants and witnesses. Jews, Christians and Muslims are better protected because their religions were founded before writing was common, and their histories are essentially verbal.

As for us, we live in interesting times. I, for one, am thrilled by the diversity of the candidates in both parties. But I am appalled by the rise of public religiosity that I began looking into after my airplane encounter with a fellow "born again." It is people like him, and their evangelical fundamentalism, who have been determined to turn American democracy into a struggle between religions, values and cultures. Not only have they succeeded, but they have been a driving force in turning American foreign policy into a cultural-religious war with Islam, a horrific, deadly confrontation that will do neither side any good.

There was a reason our Founding Fathers, who had seen Europe tear itself apart in religious wars, were so determined to separate church and state. They were right then, and they are right now. The candidates would do well to reaffirm that separation.
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2007, 02:02:07 AM »
"There was a reason our Founding Fathers, who had seen Europe tear itself apart in religious wars, were so determined to separate church and state."

[[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]]

Is there any evidence that they were "so determined to separate church and state"?

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2007, 02:18:24 AM »
I think Mitt doesn't want to defend his specific doctrinal beliefs because of slanted nonsense like that.  There is so much misinformation and ignorance about Mormonism that trying to put out those fires is a futile exercise.  But my main disagreement with this article is that the author puts the blame on Evangelicals and the like for trying to make this a country of sectarian strife.  He acts as if this is a new phenomenon.  That's not even close to true.  Mormonism itself was born in an era known as the "Second Great Awakening" when religious fervor (and the attendant sectarian strife) was rampant.  The history of violence and persecution against Mormons, Catholics and other sects - not to mention interfactional bickering and denunciation is nothing new.  Heck, we have a couple of Church of Christ congregations here in my town that are carrying on a battle in purchased inserts for the local daily paper condemning each other to hell because one group believes in organ music in church and the other doesn't.  (I swear I am not making that up!)   We have less of the kind of extreme violence than our old world counterparts did, but not less sectarian strife.

The battles over church and state today are based just as much on Atheist and anti-religious zealotry that did away with a lot of the religious freedom that we once had as it is on Christian sectarianism.  Starting most relevently with Madeline Murray O'Hare's victory over school prayer, our society has gone down the slippery slope that starts with demanding religious freedom for smaller factions and ends up restricting religious freedom for everybody.  Not only has the country rejected the idea of mandatory religious participation (a good thing) but it has rejected religious expression altogether in many places.  Beyond that, we have also rejected the moral values once defined by our generally shared religious backround.  We can't pray in public, but we can show our asses.  We can't hang a poster defending religion in a school, but we can hang a poster advocating a gay lifestyle.  We can't ban "Heather has Two Mommies" but we do ban the Bible.  We can't force a child to learn the Bible in school, but we can force them to learn evolution.   It's one thing to seek freedom for minority groups.  It's another thing to restrict majorities to accomplish it.

What has made religion such a big issue in politics today is not that Christians are trying to change this country.  It's because we are trying to change this country back.
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2007, 09:13:29 AM »
<<Is there any evidence that they [the Framers of the Constitution] were "so determined to separate church and state"?>>

Yes, it's called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  Plainer than that it just doesn't get.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2007, 10:37:50 AM »
Quote
Yes, it's called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  Plainer than that it just doesn't get.

Taken literally the clause means that the federal government will not establish an official Church or the United States like the Church of England.

It does not mean that church and state cannot recognize each other or cooperate.




sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2007, 11:16:37 AM »
Quote
Yes, it's called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Taken literally the clause means that the federal government will not establish an official Church or the United States like the Church of England.   It does not mean that church and state cannot recognize each other or cooperate.

PRECISELY
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2007, 04:45:02 PM »
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Quote
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress shall make no law...

...respecting an establishment of religion...

...or...


.....prohibiting the free exercise thereof....


All right I see Congress being forbidden to make restriction , perhaps restricted from offering encouragement to religion.

Where does all the other meaning come in?

How does one go from this to forbidding prayer at football games? High school is not Congress.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2007, 05:07:01 PM by Plane »

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2007, 05:05:33 PM »
Quote
How does one go rom ti to forbidding prayer at football games? High school is not Congress.

Public schools are generally entities of local and state governments.

"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2007, 05:07:53 PM »
Quote
How does one go rom ti to forbidding prayer at football games? High school is not Congress.

Public schools are generally entities of local and state governments.



Right , neither are they  Congress.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2007, 11:11:06 PM »
It means that Congress shall make no laws in which it advocates or bans any specific religion.

Congress cannot allow a specific religion (ie Christianity, or any form thereof) from carrying on religious services within any entity controlled by the local, state or national government.

I know of no posters in any school advocating a gay lifestyle, by the way.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

yellow_crane

  • Guest
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2007, 12:36:54 AM »
I think Mitt doesn't want to defend his specific doctrinal beliefs because of slanted nonsense like that.  There is so much misinformation and ignorance about Mormonism that trying to put out those fires is a futile exercise.  But my main disagreement with this article is that the author puts the blame on Evangelicals and the like for trying to make this a country of sectarian strife.  He acts as if this is a new phenomenon.  That's not even close to true.  Mormonism itself was born in an era known as the "Second Great Awakening" when religious fervor (and the attendant sectarian strife) was rampant.  The history of violence and persecution against Mormons, Catholics and other sects - not to mention interfactional bickering and denunciation is nothing new.  Heck, we have a couple of Church of Christ congregations here in my town that are carrying on a battle in purchased inserts for the local daily paper condemning each other to hell because one group believes in organ music in church and the other doesn't.  (I swear I am not making that up!)   We have less of the kind of extreme violence than our old world counterparts did, but not less sectarian strife.

The battles over church and state today are based just as much on Atheist and anti-religious zealotry that did away with a lot of the religious freedom that we once had as it is on Christian sectarianism.  Starting most relevently with Madeline Murray O'Hare's victory over school prayer, our society has gone down the slippery slope that starts with demanding religious freedom for smaller factions and ends up restricting religious freedom for everybody.  Not only has the country rejected the idea of mandatory religious participation (a good thing) but it has rejected religious expression altogether in many places.  Beyond that, we have also rejected the moral values once defined by our generally shared religious backround.  We can't pray in public, but we can show our asses.  We can't hang a poster defending religion in a school, but we can hang a poster advocating a gay lifestyle.  We can't ban "Heather has Two Mommies" but we do ban the Bible.  We can't force a child to learn the Bible in school, but we can force them to learn evolution.   It's one thing to seek freedom for minority groups.  It's another thing to restrict majorities to accomplish it.

What has made religion such a big issue in politics today is not that Christians are trying to change this country.  It's because we are trying to change this country back.



Wonder what Mitt has in mind, if he gets elected to lead the charge in getting the country "back?"


http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/blackwaters-buine-by-jeremy-scahill/



Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2007, 12:41:42 AM »
It means that Congress shall make no laws in which it advocates or bans any specific religion.

Congress cannot allow a specific religion (ie Christianity, or any form thereof) from carrying on religious services within any entity controlled by the local, state or national government.

I know of no posters in any school advocating a gay lifestyle, by the way.


This seems contradictory.
If you forbid a religious practice in a place or a circumstance are you not making " law respecting an establishment of religion" just as congress is forbidden to do?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2007, 01:36:58 AM »
Congress cannot allow a specific religion (ie Christianity, or any form thereof) from carrying on religious services within any entity controlled by the local, state or national government.

Why?  As long as there's no official endorsement or government mandate to listen, then there's no establishing of an official Church of the United States akin to the Church of England, as referenced in the Establishment clause to the 1st amedment
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2007, 03:50:54 AM »
I think anyone who wants to pray at school can already pray.

I always did before a math test, no one stopped me.  I heard a lot of muttered Hail Mary prayers back then. 

Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Religious freedom
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2007, 09:11:15 AM »
Why should parents have to put up with a teacher in a public school teaching their child a religion they might not believe in? Why should a child of, say, Buddhist or Hindu or even (gasp!) atheist parents feel like some sort of outcast because they don't participate when the teacher calls for a prayer, or a Bible verse to be read every day? If you want your kids to learn religion in school, instead of at home or at church, then there are any number of church run schools you can send them to. For the rest of us, we should be able to send our kids to school to learn the things they need to know to get along in life without getting some sort of religious indoctrination in the process.
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016