Separation of Church and State
A poster on another political discussion site I read pointed out a recent episode of Speaking of Faith, a podcast I'd never heard of, and likely wouldn't have been interested in if I had. This particular episode however was regarding the Founders' views on religion and its place in government. The guest, Steven Waldman, had done a substantial amount of research for a new book on the subject. Based on the poster's recommendation I was intrigued enough to give it a listen this morning.
Though the show and host are obviously religiously oriented, there wasn't any preaching or evangelizing. The discussion itself was on an historical/intellectual basis and was very even handed. The guest's overall conclusion was that both the liberal and conservative sides of the modern debate are missing the boat in their understanding of the Founder's original intent. I thought you guys might be interested in it, and it might provoke some interesting discussions here. The download can be found at:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/liberating_the_founders/index.shtml
Note: The main download is an actual episode of the show itself. The entire episode is dedicated to this discussion, though apparently a third of the interview had to be edited out for length. There's an extended version that contains the entire interview, I may go back and check that out as well.
Now is the winter of your discontent! - Stewie, Family Guy
What does he believe is the Founder's original intent? I'm suspicious of any single answer, really, but the concensus covered views from fire-and-brimstone types to Enlightenment universalists accused of atheism.
Some of us can't watch videos at work.
Edit - Might this sum up his views? He's arguing that evangelicals were so persecuted by others that they *wanted* Church and State separation and celebrated when it was put into the Constitution.
If wishes were trees the trees would be falling, Listen to reason, Reason is calling
Your feet are going to be on the ground, Your head is there to move you around -- REM
I'll have to give this a listen when I get home.
In the meantime, I would say that separation of church and state only helps both the church and the state. The kind of state some of these evangelicals want is essentially state-enforced moral code in line with their beliefs. The problems with that should be obvious. Resentment for the church and the state would build rapidly, and the nation would explode under the pressure.
XBL: NSMike | Steam | PSN: NSMike | Wii Friend Code: 7763 1519 2475 2278 | GWJ Google Calendar
The problem, Robear, is that Evangelicals believe that they were and still are unequivocally right. Of course it was a bad thing when they were suppressed in the 18th century, because they were right and therefore the truth was being suppressed. Now it's bad that they can't insert their beliefs into government because those beliefs are STILL right. If it's their religion suppressing others then there's no problem because they're only suppressing deception and heresy.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
It probably doesn't make a difference, but it's an audio only file, not video. I still wouldn't be able to listen to it at work though, that's why that hour long commute comes in handy
I agree with you, as it seems does Waldman, that any single answer is going to be simplistic. I've only had time to skim the article you linked, but the excerpt is similar to the one of the central points he makes in the interview.
Basically the argument is that the original purpose of the separation of church and state was to protect religion from government. The protection from overt persecution you mention was a part of it, as was an intent to enable and even foster overall religious growth by allowing freedom from governmental interference. The part I found most interesting is the contrast between that and the use of the doctrine of separation of church and state in today's climate, which is primarily geared towards protecting government from religious interference.
I'm not doing justice to the interview, partly because I'm rushing to get this response out before my next conference call. The thing that really hooked me though was the reasoned, centrist approach to the issue. It is my personal belief that the majority of things in life fall towards the center of whatever spectrum is in question, not on either of the extremes. This discussion hit on that in a big way. Waldman claims that the modern day liberal view that the Founders were a bunch of secularists set on erasing any trace of religion from government is incorrect - the majority of the Founders were of one religious stripe or another, and actually had the intent of providing an environment where religions of all types could prosper. But he also claims that the modern day view of the Religious Right that because the Founders were religious they would support greater involvement of religion in governmental affairs is equally wrong.
Now is the winter of your discontent! - Stewie, Family Guy
Bingo. I think that's very much in line with Waldman's argument, and is what he's saying the Founders were after all along.
Now is the winter of your discontent! - Stewie, Family Guy
Not to pour gas all over the thread... but it is possible that the founders were wrong.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Blasphemy! The founders were perfect beings. How dare you doubt them!
Fletcher wrote:
I agree with you, except I think the first point is actually an exaggerated liberal view, since most liberals are religious. I believe it's a straw man in the Evangelical's "Why We Fight" toolbox.
Even the idea that most liberals are, say, Universalist Unitarian in their beliefs is incorrect. Rather, anyone who believes that one religions rules should not be reflected in government and the courts is going to be painted as an atheist or secularist, rather than a person of reason.
If wishes were trees the trees would be falling, Listen to reason, Reason is calling
Your feet are going to be on the ground, Your head is there to move you around -- REM
Bingo.
This is not to suggest I think the separation of Church and State is wrong in any way. Quite the opposite, but I think it's being taken a little too far when every group on the planet gets pissy about a Christmas display or some such.
But, the founders knew they were not infallible. Why do you think we have the ability to amend the Constitution? Dur, because the founders knew they could not predict every single dilemma on the planet that our nation would face and they needed to equip us to deal with what they hadn't thought of.
Either way, I'm kind of sick of just about every goram person in the country who claims they know what the founders would be thinking. I'm pretty sure no one alive today has ever really talked to Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, or any of the others about their personal beliefs and opinions on how to govern best. So I vote that that line or argument should henceforth be banned from every debate. (of course, if a new world order of some kind arises and you actually can talk to a founder of said government... then you can use this again up until the last person who was alive and cognizant of them dies... then it's retired again
)
"Just remember that sometimes you need to allow problems to just roll like water off of a duckilama's back." ~Reaper
Well there are times that they were fairly explicit in what they meant, so while one might not have personally talked with the person, when their writing is repeatedly and explicitly saying that the writer felt in a certain way, I think you can indeed say this is what they thought.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
You ought to listen to the podcast, the interviewee agrees with you. He doesn't claim that he knows what the founders were thinking. What actually started his research on the book was him getting fed up with people on both sides of the argument claiming that one snippet or another from the founders supported their position. He comments at one point that he'd greatly prefer it if people would stop saying "Jefferson said" or "Madison said", and rather take up the lines of reasoning and arguments that Jefferson, Madison and the others used and move them forward.
Now is the winter of your discontent! - Stewie, Family Guy
Re-reading it now I can see how it appears that I'm setting the liberal view up as a ridiculous strawman and the conservative view as at worst a reasonable mistake, that wasn't my intent. I was actually trying to pick exaggerated/extreme views on both sides to make my point that both sides of the modern day argument are equally incorrect. I didn't do such a good job of expressing the extremist/nut-job view of the Religious Right, (too much material and not enough time to distill it into a single point I guess!).
Now is the winter of your discontent! - Stewie, Family Guy
From my point of view, there are very, very few people getting pissy about a Christmas display, and many more people getting pissy at the thought that someone might be against their Christmas display.
I base this on that I live in a blue state yet I'll see a new pro-atheist or anti-religion bumpersticker maybe once every few months and a new "Keep the Christ in Christmas" every week.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Agreed.
I also think that this issue suffers from the very human failure of seeing two sides of an argument as somehow equally weighted. The fact of the matter is that there are not just notably few, but infintessimally few folks who publically complain about nativity creches or 70 foot tall roadside crosses. Fox Nuisance searched far and wide for them and gives them far more credit for influence than they deserve, but the plain and simple fact is that they largely do not exist.
To equate a handful of fed up atheists with the overwhelming onslaught of religious dominionists who wish to replace rational discourse with medieval superstition (eg: abstinence only sex education, Creationism, et al.) is an exercise in statistical illiteracy.
There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism,... those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
This statement seems to be an example of opinion put forth as fact.
It seems from some as though whenever we have this discussion, what we have is a picture of mature, intelligent group of atheist/agnostic persons who are obviously right in their beliefs, or lack thereof, of God, fending off a slobbering horde of fanatical Luddites who crusade around the countryside lighting crops on fire, pillaging innocent townsfolk, and devouring the livestock...
I can assure you that I do none of these things, and most of the "Christians" I know don't either. Painting people who don't agree with you in theatrical negatives is common practice that has gone on since the inception of the spoken word, but the longevity of a practice does not equal it's helpfulness.
A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him, than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word "darkness" on the wall of his cell.
-CS Lewis
*Slow Clap*
XBL: NSMike | Steam | PSN: NSMike | Wii Friend Code: 7763 1519 2475 2278 | GWJ Google Calendar
Here we go again...
Nomad, you can't argue that activist Christians aren't activists. Maybe most of them aren't slobbering religious fanatics, but most of them aren't activists either.
While Paleocon was generous enough to call them "fed up atheists" I happen to think they're total douchebags who somehow feel offended by someone else's faith. On the other side are Christians who aren't even trying to understand what it's like to be an atheist in a Christian country, or simply don't care. It's a stupid debate on both sides.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
You forgot the bit where the law agrees with the intelligent group. And how the slobbering horde tries to equate a lawsuit over improper, government sponsored displays of religious preference with repressing personal beliefs.
But I agree with you, sadly the practice is in use on both sides. Apparently it is unpatriotic not to believe in angels and demons.
EDIT: Sorry, clipped from the wrong quote.
Politely rude. Briskly vague. Firmly uninformative.
Christians have eternal salvation going for them. They've got the WHOLE afterlife to be right. We atheists, all we've got is this one lifetime. Can't we have it? What's a few years compared to all eternity?
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
The temporal pain you experience now is peanuts compared to the suffering you're be subject to at the hands of demons and the devil. You're just getting a preview.
"If Blizzard announces a subscription fee for Diablo III we will have to build a second Internet to make room for all the complaining." - muttonchop
Oh. Well, I'm glad I have something to look forward to then.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
To be fair, the whole "keep the Christ in Christmas" and "reason for the season" bumper stickers rarely have anything to do with countering pro-atheist or anti-religious sentiments. These statements are far more often targeted at Christmas commercialization than anything specifically anti-religious.
Gaming / PC Tech Blog: www.blastprocessing.net
Xbox Live: Legion SB / PSN: Legion_SB / Steam: legion028
How often do you get to follow greatness? http://twitter.com/legion
Dunno about that.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
I'm with Lobster. In my area of MD, the bumper stickers don't reflect commercialization, but are usually explained with reference to the war on Christmas.
If wishes were trees the trees would be falling, Listen to reason, Reason is calling
Your feet are going to be on the ground, Your head is there to move you around -- REM
Heck yeah they were wrong. The founders were genocidal maniacs, and we spanked their asses all the way back to the Gamma Quadrant!
Quote of the Day!
Xbox Live Gamertag : Barab
EVE: Hannibal Dax