1/3 of Americans are absolute morons!

[Monty]

@Darth_Panda

Yeah, but of that group:

[ul]
[li]80% have no idea wtf ceremonial deism means[/li][li]5% are doing it just to piss you off[/li][li]40% honestly can’t understand why it would bother Muslims, Jews, etc.[/li][li]50% would do exactly nothing to preserve it[/li][li]16% have genital herpes[/li][/ul]

Deeps (Can I call you Deeps? Thanks, I will for this post); You’re slaying me here. That was hilarious.

Apropos of nothing (perhaps), here’s a sad commentary from real life. A couple of my relatives, one who is college educated from a damn fine school even, are firmly convinced that big school prayer case not that long ago in Texas was a couple of atheist agitators getting the evil ol’ ACLU to strike a blow against good ol’ American religion. When I politely informed them, with proof even, that the “agitators” happened to be a Roman Catholic and a Latter-day Saint, well, deer should take lessons from them on how to stand in a beam cast by headlights.

I should be asleep now, what with it being just past two in the morning here, but I’m not sleepy and anyway I don’t have to teach any classes on Tuesday. So, I’ve decided to start a list of the terminology used by one side of this issue in an attempt to get around the Constitution. Feel free to add the ones you’ve heard.

[ul][li]Ceremonial Deism. False labeling of religious practice forced upon others.[/li][li]Judeo-Christian. Nifty trick to look like they’re not excluding Jews. In reality, this one means Christian, and usually Protestant Christian.[/li][li]{Insert your (or your interlocutor’s) favorite anti-Arab slur here}. Non-Christian. But could also be applied to a Christian, Jew, Atheist, Baha’i, Hindu, Sikh, etc. who just so happens to “look like a Muslim.”[/li][li]Foreigner, Foreign Bastard. Someone who is neither White nor Black. Doesn’t matter how many generations that person’s family has been in the US nor that the person’s actual citizenship is American. This one may be substituted with, “Well, he doesn’t look American.”[/li][li]Half-breed. Sadly, this one is still in current usage. Almost invariably including the word bastard before or after.[/ul][/li]
I can’t go on. I’m starting to get depressed. Every one of those is something I’ve actually heard from people who should know better. Well, everyone should know better; but the people from whom I’ve hard these terms recently really, really should know better.

Oh, yeah; lest I forget. There are still folks who believe firmly that Muslims CANNOT be good Americans, that Roman Catholics CANNOT be good Americans, that Mormons CANNOT be good Americans, that Jews CANNOT be good Americans. Some of these people even believe that citizenship should not be granted to them and for those who have such citizenship, it should be revoked.

Ah, yes. It’s now 2:40 on the clock. Or is that 240 on the calendar?

[John_Mace]

@Spiff

If you are making the point that we have lax enforcement, then I agree with you.

If you are making another point, then I’m not seeing it.

No, I’m making the point that we do not have separation of church and state. Never had, and (AFACT) never intended to. Sure, Jefferson had his famous quote about a wall of separation, but he was neither a drafter nor a signer of the constitution, and nothing those FFs did in the early days of the republic is consistent with such a separation.

We developed, in the last 50 years or so, this elaborate jurisprudence that gives us the appearance of separation of Church and State, but explicitly lets us grandfather in all sorts of leakages through that “wall of separation”.

And truth be told, most Americans don’t want that wall to be an absolute barrier anyway.

Darth Panda: I have no doubt that most Americans don’t really understand what “ceremonial deism” is, but I also have no doubt that most Americans, if it were explained to them, would have no problem with it. In fact, they’d probably wonder what the big deal was and why there wasn’t more of it!

[BrainGlutton]

@John_Mace

Here are the raw results.

Take heart: If you look closely, you’ll see a very definite, unmistakable and linear correlation between age and likelihood to say “yes” on the official-religion question.

IOW, Americans with this pov are dying out. This is not an age thing, it’s a generational-culture thing – the kind of generational culture that stays with you for life.

[tomndebb]

@John_Mace

Darth Panda: I have no doubt that most Americans don’t really understand what “ceremonial deism” is, but I also have no doubt that most Americans, if it were explained to them, would have no problem with it. In fact, they’d probably wonder what the big deal was and why there wasn’t more of it!

And there is ample evidence on this board for that statement. One of the biggest champions of ceremonial deism on this board has mentioned on more than one occasion a lack of a belief in spiritual or religious matters, but insists that compelling people to engage in behaviors dictated by ceremonial deism is just a good thing to do.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Take heart: If you look closely, you’ll see a very definite, unmistakable and linear correlation between age and likelihood to say “yes” on the official-religion question.

IOW, Americans with this pov are dying out. This is not an age thing, it’s a generational-culture thing – the kind of generational culture that stays with you for life.

There is a correlation, but it’s not linear. That has a specific mathematical meaning.

[panaccione]

Matthew 6 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."

What don’t they get about this?

[John_Mace]

Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

Matthew 5:15.

[panaccione]

Well that is quite a contradiction.

[ElvisL1ves]

@tomndebb

And there is ample evidence on this board for that statement. One of the biggest champions of ceremonial deism on this board has mentioned on more than one occasion a lack of a belief in spiritual or religious matters, but insists that compelling people to engage in behaviors dictated by ceremonial deism is just a good thing to do.

That odd position is more directly explainable by ultrapartisanism, assuming we’re thinking of the same person, for whom taking the opposite position of whatever the Democrats seem to be for, and calling it “thought”, is a matter of simple reflexive habit.

John, all the exceptions you can point to are also more directly explainable, as the result of evangelism and simple disingenuous hypocrisy rather than thought-out political principle. The fact that SOCAS has often been violated does not mean it isn’t a constitutional principle at all, any more than violations of equal protection mean that it isn’t a constitutional principle either.

[MEBuckner]

@John_Mace

No, I’m making the point that we do not have separation of church and state. Never had, and (AFACT) never intended to. Sure, Jefferson had his famous quote about a wall of separation, but he was neither a drafter nor a signer of the constitution, and nothing those FFs did in the early days of the republic is consistent with such a separation.

Well, nothing, except for drafting a Constitution which doesn’t say anything about the government being dependent on Christianity (or even Deism) nor anything about the people being grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of this or that, and following up with an amendment which merely guarantees “free exercise of religion” and nothing about the right “to worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience”. (Of course other documents, before and since the U.S. Constitution, have had language like that.) And at least one of the Founding Father–James “Father of the Constitution” Madison–wrote approvingly of "the separation between Religion & Govt ".

The idea of secular government isn’t just something that was dreamed up by the Supreme Court in the last 50 years (or even in the last 66 years). It’s an idea that goes back to at least the founding era of the Republic, although there have certainly always been those who disagree with it. If anything, the late 18th century was something of a high water mark for the idea of secularism; if the Constitution and First Amendment had been written in, say, the mid-19th century (or the mid-20th century), the Premable probably would have said something about God, and the First Amendment something about the “right to worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience”, instead of the secular language we actually have.

[BrainGlutton]

@panaccione

Well that is quite a contradiction.

One suspects Jesus himself of being conflicted on the point: On the one hand, he’s disgusted with public shows of piety; OTOH, how is anybody ever going to know that unless . . .

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

The poll question might have included those who believe Barack Obama is an Antichrist even if not the Antichrist. The difference being that some Christians see all who are not really Christian as “Antichrists”.

[panaccione]

@John_Mace

Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

Matthew 5:15.

I think mine trumps yours though. It’s much more clear and direct and preludes the “Our Father”

[panaccione]

@BrainGlutton

One suspects Jesus himself of being conflicted on the point: On the one hand, he’s disgusted with public shows of piety; OTOH, how is anybody ever going to know that unless . . .

Funny that Jesus (aka God) is conflicted. Trust me I get it. It’s unfortunate that others don’t.

[Martin_Hyde]

The concept of secular government has evolved over time, John Mace has mostly explained it how I would have. There is not actually a “wall of separation between Church and State” that 100% comes from a post-Constitution quote of Thomas Jefferson.

We’ve had a long history of the state commingling with religion in certain ways and in certain scenarios. The more modern interpretation, over time, has been for greater legislative/court enforced segregation between issues of state and issues of religion. The best catch-all term to describe this concept of keeping the two separate is the old, “separation of church and state” but it’s never been an absolute legal doctrine and certainly isn’t right now. But it does explain why school prayer was okay at one point, but not anymore, it explains why forcing kids to recite a pledge “under god” was okay at one point but not any more, it explains why In God We Trust is still okay as a motto and on our currency, why the ten commandments can be on some structures (like the Supreme Court building) but not others (public monuments erected in recent times by people in Alabama), and why chaplains can open the U.S. Congress and most State legislatures with a non-denominational but ultimately Christian prayer.

But all of that is actually irrelevant in this case: we’re talking about a literal establishment of religion. You don’t have to delve into the murky waters of how we separate our state from religious beliefs on this one, and it actually undermines that point to even bring up the vaguely defined “separation of church and state” doctrine.

[ElvisL1ves]

Martin, that was an admirable job of listing some of the myriad ways that the Constitutional requirement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” have been flouted over the years. Unfortunately, your summary says nothing about the clause or its intent not existing, or even being, in your words, “ill defined”.

[Martin_Hyde]

@ElvisL1ves

Martin, that was an admirable job of listing some of the myriad ways that the Constitutional requirement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” have been flouted over the years. Unfortunately, your summary says nothing about the clause or its intent not existing, or even being, in your words, “ill defined”.

I never said the establishment clause doesn’t exist. I said the “separation of church and state” only exists as an ill-defined general concept with many exceptions. My point is that is the case because the establishment clause only specifically covers “establishment” which has a literal meaning (establishing a religion) and implied meaning (along with the next clause about freedom to practice etc which can also add protections against government involvement.)

So I’m saying in a case like this, there’s no reason to go to the “separation of church and state” doctrine, which does not exist as a “firm” thing, when the actual establishment clause precisely covers such a scenario (once it was incorporated onto the States via the 14th, anyway.)

[Darth_Panda]

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

The Treaty of Tripoli

Signed by President John Adams
Ratified by the 1797 Senate (unanimously by those present)

[Darth_Panda]

@John_Mace

Darth Panda: I have no doubt that most Americans don’t really understand what “ceremonial deism” is, but I also have no doubt that most Americans, if it were explained to them, would have no problem with it. In fact, they’d probably wonder what the big deal was and why there wasn’t more of it!

I don’t doubt that at all - very few people have a problem having their own ideology put into a place of prominence.

[John_Mace]

@MEBuckner

Well, nothing, except for drafting a Constitution which doesn’t say anything about the government being dependent on Christianity (or even Deism) nor anything about the people being grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of this or that, and following up with an amendment which merely guarantees “free exercise of religion” and nothing about the right “to worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience”. (Of course other documents, before and since the U.S. Constitution, have had language like that.) And at least one of the Founding Father–James “Father of the Constitution” Madison–wrote approvingly of "the separation between Religion & Govt ".

Well, that pretty much shows that Madison was out of step on the subject with the folks who actually ratified the constitution, since they were generally OK with Congressional Chaplains and he was not.

The idea of secular government isn’t just something that was dreamed up by the Supreme Court in the last 50 years (or even in the last 66 years). It’s an idea that goes back to at least the founding era of the Republic, although there have certainly always been those who disagree with it. If anything, the late 18th century was something of a high water mark for the idea of secularism; if the Constitution and First Amendment had been written in, say, the mid-19th century (or the mid-20th century), the Premable probably would have said something about God, and the First Amendment something about the “right to worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience”, instead of the secular language we actually have.

There’s a lot of space between what can reasonably be called a “secular government” and a government with a real, live, honest-to-God established religion. Plus, the federal government at the time of the Constitution was very weak, with the states retaining much more power than they have today. Several states actually had established religions, and that had much more impact on everyone’s daily lives than what went on in Wash DC. In fact, it might be argued that the establishment clause was there, in large part, to prevent the federal government from overriding the states in the area of Established Religions.