I think what is missing from this debate are the very people here in the US who would be quite offended by the very notion that the US could be called a secular nation. I’m really surprised they haven’t shown up yet.
These people are quick to point out the mention of god in the declaration of independence, and want to preserve the mention of god in the pledge of allegiance. Despite their claim to “God” not being specific, I doubt they’d be ready to switch to “In Allah We Trust” or “one nation under Vishnu” on a whim.
It seems that a false dichotomy is being drawn here between a theocracy (which the US obviously isn’t and which Aldeberaan never claimed it was AFAIK) and a secular government. The US, in terms of public policy seems to me to distinguishable from a purely secular government. Certainly it is not largely concerned with religion on a day to day basis yet it remains symbolically very important.
Ultimately the electability of the president seems to be a cultural question to me. But if a culture has religious leanings, it’s inevitable that it’s goverment will exhibit them no matter its stated intention.
Now I’m waiting for your proof that “members of various political parties where following their religious beliefs” all through the period between 1970 and 1980 (I was a little child then and most of the time not in Belgium, so if you are older then I am you must know all the details).
In addition to that you seem to claim that every single memeber of every single party in that period followed his/her religious beliefs when opposing to that law and that this is reflected in their public statements and the statements of their parties.
Or where else can you get your proof.
And although the king didn’t act directly in the parliament, his signature was - as it still is - explicitely needed on every new law before it can be published, which needs to be done before it can be implemented.
As for the judge we are talking about.
I have seen interviews with him and in particular I recall one where he made clear statements that his “laws” were the 10 commandments and that he acted accordingly in his decisions. He even had a copy in his office of what looked exactly as what he placed in the building and pointed at it while giving that statement.
So I guess it is only reasonable to take in account that there must be a whole lot of decissions made by that man who were made based on “the law of the ten commandments”.
Unless that whole interview was fake of course and they were using a double. I never trust anything if I’m not there while it happens. But allow me to have at least some reasonable doubt about this case seen the fact that in other interviews he looked the same and his statements weren’t different in their tone and not even all that different in language.
And add to that that I understand Enlgish 1000 times better then I can write it and that in addition the interview I refer to was subtitled in a language I master perfectly.
If the remark by that other member was meant as sarcasm or not… His remark overhere was certainly not. And not seeing him face to face, I can’t distinct if he meant it as a sort of joke when insinuating that he is in a position able to influence the way I decide to post here. So I take it that he was serious about that.
The only ones who are in a position to influence what I post or how and where, are the administrators and the moderators.
And you of all people beleive him? Sounds to me like another politician trying to justify his political goals with religion. I don’t know of a religious person out there who doesn’t claim to have their decisions guided by god in some respect. Isn’t it funny how god always seems to agree with what choice you were going to make anyways.
Also I think it would be very possible for a non-religious person to become president. There have been non-religious presidents in the past. I just don’t think there is not much chance of a atheist president in the near future.
The discussions surrounding abortion always centered on the moral declarations issued by the Catholic Church and a few of the smaller Evangelische (rarely the Reform) denominations. I do not recall any opposition to abortion that was not couched in terms of moral law and Christian belief.
(If you would like a citation, I will be happy to provide it as soon as you catch up on all the citations that have been requested of you in the last few months. Fair’s fair, after all.)
(Boudewijn’s participation was based on his religious beliefs and I am declining to use him to bolster my case. If you want to go into the legal machinations that they had to use to get around his refusal to sign while pretending that religion has no influence on Belgian politics, go ahead, but I was going to give you a pass on that topic.) For those not familiar with the situation, the signature of the head of state was required for all Belgian laws to be enacted and no king in recent history (each recognizing his figurehead status), had ever refused to sign any law. Boudewijn, who was a deeply religious Catholic refused to sign the abortion legislation. So, for one day, the entire Parliament signed a decree that he was no longer recognized as the head of state, they then authorized the Government to be the effective Head of State and authorized the legislation. The next day, they all assembled again and signed a new document recognizing him head of state, again. Note that I have chosen NOT to include Boudewijn’s actions as a “typical” entanglement of church and state in Belgium.)
Political parties in Belgium don’t represent the Vatican and its doctrine nor do they give a forum at the Vatican and its doctrine.
What you call “Evangelische Kerk” is hardly present in Belgium, let be in any political partyprogram. The country is still dominantly Catholic even when not that much Catholics-by- conviction/education are practicing the religion openly these days. (You must have been looking at the Netherlands when you wrote that.)
If you can come up with a citation of a Belgian politican or a political party then I can possibly see where you come from with your assertions. If you choose not to, I don’t mind.
And when coming to the case of the King and how he was declared to be in the impossibility (and not “no longer recognized”) to be head of State for one day: That is part of the amusing aspects of the Belgian creativity to deal with impossible situations.
But if you need to find a way to declare the king to be in the impossibility to be king in order to stay within the limits of legality for a law to be approved, I think that says a lot about the absence of religious influence in law making.
(And I need to correct you when you talk of the Belgian king as “figurehead” because that is an unjust accusation in daily practice).
By the way: Maybe it escapes you, but I didn’t post an OP that includes reference to Belgium or any other country besides the USA.
Political parties in the U.S. don’t represent the Vatican or the Southern Baptists or the Presbyterians, etc. and their doctrines, nor do they give a forum for the Vatican or the Southern Baptists or the Presbyterians, etc. and their doctrines. By your logic on this point, you have proved that the U.S., like Belgium, is secular.
I did not say that the Evangelische were any sort of majority. I pointed out that there were a few references to their theology, so I am not sure what your point is supposed to be.
Go back and read the political statements of the debates from the late 1980s.
Too bad. If you want to create threads that contain an anti-U.S. bias, you invite other nations to be compared to see how they handle similar circumstances, because it may turn out that while the U.S. doesn’t have a perfect solution, it may be less imperfect than almost anyone else’s.
As to the basic question at hand, legally the process of selecting a U.S. President is completely secular. Even the oath of office each President must make contains nor formal reference to God (the “so help me God” is a tacked-on addition not required by the Constitution, as defined in Article II, Section 1.)
Now as to why citizens vote the way they do, no doubt some are influenced by their own religious beliefs. So what, though? Only a hardcore lunatic fringe suggests a President has a mandate from God, which is kind of implied in constitutional monarchies like, say, Belgium and (I’m sad to say, since I’m a republican at heart) Canada.
By the way, by “hardcore lunatic fringe”, I’m not including any President who goes to church or makes occasionaly references to God and whatnot. I’ll sure you’ll be happy to contradict me, though.
So what’s your “other” country, Aldeb? I bet we could come up with all kinds of faults with it, real or imagined.
I think Aldeberan raises an important and interesting point. Yes, the U.S. is a secular society in form, but is it a secular society in function? If you HAVE to believe in God to get eleced ot office in the U.S., isn’t belief in God a de facto requirement for office whether or not there’s a rule explicitly stating it?
And if there is a de facto requirement for a belief in god to hold public office, it’s reasonable to ask to what extent religious beliefs govern our laws. I would argue that we have religious elements in our laws which have gradually been eliminated, generally with the stupidest ones being the first to go. Frex, blue laws. There simply is no equivalent of sharia in U.S. laws, though some dimwitted moral conservatives believe that the basis of all law is found in moral beliefs promulgated by religion.
One can discuss the degree of secularism outside of assuming a divine right. There are plenty of women who are wary of the influence of the religious right on government policy. This is a real issue. We are discussing the degree of secularism in this thread. Thank you for pointing out the obvious(that we don’t have a constitutional monarchy).
I guess this is up to Aldebaran, but I’d prefer if you tried another thread for this discussion.
Actually, the point is that Aldebaran has repeatedly posted to the effect that the U.S. is falsely identified as a secular society or a secularly run government and has, on several occasions, pointed to Belgium as a country that is “superior” in its secularity to the U.S.
My point has been to demonstrate that he simply picks and chooses what to view when he makes his claim. Heavily Catholic Belgium waited twenty years after other European nations had legalized abortion before they did the same. There was no political party that opposed abortion as medically unnecessary or as being at odds with the Belgian constitution. Rather, just as in the U.S. where secular laws are implemented by religious people, Belgium’s more or less religious population was only slowly persuaded to change their collective minds.
There is, in my view, nothing wrong with that. Each human is informed by his or her religious views or lack thereof. U.S. culture still has more religious influence at the personal level than anywhere in Europe, but that personal level is separate from the claim that Aldebaran insists on making that individual beliefs cause the U.S. to not be secular.
In contrast to Evil Captor, I would suggest that we continue to have a culture of religious tradition, but that we still have a basically secular society. Two separate trends work to that end: the general drift away from religiosity and toward secularism and the specific pluralism of society. Even with an overwhelming majority of people affirming some sort of Christianity, there are enough rifts and opposing voices to any specific denomination that no truly religious belief is enshrined in law. The (disappearing) blue laws, restrictive liquor laws, the celebration of Chrstmas as a national holiday, and even the resistance to voting for an avowed atheist are all cultural in nature. Few people could give a coherent reason defending most of those actions. They are simply part of the philosophical landscape of the country.
I would not say that the U.S. could not move back from secularism the way that Falwell and Bush would like to take us, but I do not see that they have succeeded at this time.
Where is that “repeatedly posting” of mine you talk about?
I may have given some comments in that direction, but you make it sound as if I pop up on every thread here to declare that Belgium is much more secular then the USA.
It is in my opinion much more secular. And coming up with something sensitive like a debate about abortion laws isn’t that good of an example to “prove” the contrary.
Does it ever occur to you that one doesn’t need to be “religious” to be opposed to laws permitting something that is as drastical -and deadly for an innocent unknowing life that has nothing to say about it - as abortion?
Or do you belong to those who claim that atheists can’t have any moral objections to that because in your perception they don’t have morals at all.
When it comes to influence of religion on political carreers, and thus on politicians and their election, do you see any comparison with what happens in the USA and what happens in EU nations?
I mean: can you name a nation where someone “needs” to be religious, be it only in wording to please the public (I should say: mislead the voters) in order to be able to have any chance of being electable as president or prime minister?
And can you name an other nation that has currency with “In God we trust” on it and that has a pledge of allience with “one nation under God” in it, has at this very day a president who refers to God every given moment while acting in function as president and who declared that he was guided by God when invading an other nation?
Do you see in other nations politicians organising Bible studies/readings for members of their administration and eventually also other co-workers?
It seems that this indeed happens these days in the USA. And I don’t think you would even in Islamic nations where Islam has an influence on every step you take in daily life, see politicians taking such initiative with Al Qur’an as study/reading object.
Is all of this pointing to a complete secular election proces and functioning of the government of a nation or is it rather pointing to religion having an influence on this.
Can we now proceed while staying on topic.
Thank you.
Salaam. A
I’ll add to this that our system of government gives an unfair advantage to rural states with low population. These places tend to be more religious, and despite the low population, send the same number of senators to Washington as do big states like New York and California. Being a sentator is an extremely high profile, and can result in international as well as national attention, particularly if the senator becomes a committee chairman or Speaker. Sentators often get appointed to presidential cabinets, John Ashcroft being a good example of this. So we have people like Orrin Hatch, whose rise to political prominence took place in rural, Mormon, and highly religious Utah. Missouri is not quite so small or rural a state as Utah, but still seems a likely stomping ground for the fundamentalist John Ashcroft.
But I doubt you’d find that coastal, urban Americans are any more religious than their European counterparts.
Well, those nice ladies in fancy hats and suits getting off the subway in Harlem on Sunday mornings sure are going SOMEwhere…
I think that you’ll find plenty of religious people all over the place including in inner cities and the near smaller communities. But speaking as an outer-boro mostly-practicing Catholic, I think many of us East Coasters are so used to being crammed together with people of different faiths that it’s considered tactless and implite to talk about it much, especially in politics where anything you say about it is guaranteed to piss off large segments of the diverse populace. So while I wouldn’t say we’re less believing in religion than our European counterparts, probably statistically a lot more in fact, we have more of a European attitude towards it.
After having lived in France for a ten year period, I’m trying to imagine a French Presidential candidate repeatedly reminding voters that he is an atheist, or Buddhist, or even Jewish, and successfully being elected. Sorry, but I’m having a bit of trouble summoning up that image.
The OP apparently wants to beleive that there is some sort of fundamentalist Christian cabal currently at the seat of power in the US:
Yeah, and according to this site, the majority of our presidents have freely confessed to being members of such radical, militant sects as the Episcopalains and Presbyterians.
I mean, really, that’s the evidence is not a secular society? A phrase on the currency? A completely false statement that the current President “refers to God every given moment?” Sheesh.
Yes, whether or not a US presidential candidate expresses belief in the Christian deity seems to be important to a large percentage of the population. So are a lot of other things that I, personally, don’t particularly care about; I mean, so far we have not had a non-white or non-male president either. And just try to run for high office wearing anything other than a dark blue or gray suit with a white shirt and red tie, if you happen to be the already-approved white male.
Bottom line is, there is no specific, legal requirement that I know of to be a member of any specific Christian church in order to run as a candidate for political office in the US, just as (at least since the early 20th century) there is no requirement that the candidate be a white male. The US political system is secular in principle, whether or not certain segments of the population choose to apply those principles to their political choices. The OP can continue to claim otherwise all he wishes, but he is flogging a very dead horse.
I got the impression Aldeberan wants us to believe that he believes the U.S. is irreddemably evil.
Well, he succeeded, at least in my case. I believe that he believes this. I believe he doesn’t believe anything else. I believe he believes we should all believe him. I believe that if I were to belive what he believes, I’d belive just about anything.
Since you seem to have failed to notice it :
We are actually discussing the rather visible discrepancy between “principle” and “reality”.
Which other members are trying to explain to me by giving examples of cause and effect of cultural/religious influences and undertones in the US society in general.
I wouldn’t call that “flogging a dead horse”.
It rather seems to have the effect of a horse that gets beaten to make it jump over the principle’s fences.
Our resident Saudi (all the clues fit) has another fan!
I’m also confused as to what defines a ‘secular nation’ too. By his definition, all the Commonwealth countries are theocracies since the Queen is their head of state and BY DEFINITION the head of the C of E and she’s on all their money! So everytime a Canadian dollar or Jamaican one changes hands, everyone is paying tribute to the Anglican church!