How secualr is the USA when it comes to elect a president.

Great Debates
41

Mehi, not to disturb you unnecessary, but since I am completely uninformed about what you just posted above I must hijack for a moment my own thread:

Can you be so kind to clue me in about what you mean with “all the clues fit” in order for underscribed to be “our resident Saudi”?

Not that I have something against it to be “yours” if you want to be mine. But it is just that I have no clue about your clues that seem to be necessary to fit in in your imagination.

Thank you.
Salaam. A
Always ready to make fellow posters feel happy at any given occasion

42

EK

I don’t think we reason completely on the same line here, but I then that is not exactly something surprisingly new.

Salaam. A

43

If you’ve forgotten what you’ve written, I really don’t see how that’s my problem. Nothing wrong with being a Saudi, don’t be ashamed of it.

Anyway, please deal with the assertion that you seem to think that having four little words in indecipherable engraving on the edges of coins shows that the US is a less secular nation than those that have currency dominated by the head of a woman who is the supreme head of an entire distinguished Christian sect. Thanks.

44

Mehi, excuse me for being so dumb, but where did I ever post one single letter that made reference to me being a citizen of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? I mean: Other then in your imagination.

I find this game of yours very amusing, but it raises the question as to why you aren’t you capable to give up this guessing about where I am born and live. Is it some sort of cyberspace hobby or do you expect an invitation for a visit while trying to imagine yourself where that location would be.

And like some others who contributed here, you seem to miss the point that we are discussing the situation in the USA, not the situation elswhere.
I know my writings aren’t always an example of clarity for unwarned readers, but I think the title of this thread is clear enough, no?

Does it say USA and then mention also other nations or does it only mention USA. I am sure you can make that distinction even when you let your imagination influence you when reading other posts of mine.

Salaam.

45

Maybe you haven’t noticed, but very few people who have reponded to this thread appear to reason “completely on the same line” with you. That, in fact, is the foundation of debate.

You asked for an example of a country where a presidential candidate “needs” to express a specific religious belief to get elected. I suggested France might be such a country. I went on to point out, much as others have, that while there is most certainly an influence by Christian religious beliefs, in general, on US social and political life in general, that does not automatically mean that the US society as a whole is not secular. I really don’t see how you can claim my responses are off-topic when I am directly addressing points you raised.

Now, you have expressed your main point several times already in this thread, so it is really not necessary to restate it again. If you have nothing new to add, there is no need to bother replying, and I won’t think the worse of you for it.

46

Well, I think part of the problem is that I’m unsure what you mean by ‘secular’. Is it a place like the Soviet Union, where priests were driven out of their churches and the ones that weren’t knocked down were taken over for museums, and official doctrine was that the old religions were to be overtaken by Marxism? Or more like Italy or France, which have one dominant church whose doctrines are largely ignored in daily life but whose architecture, history, and laws still often reflect the church?

And are you on the Gulf or Red Sea side of the country? I bet it’s beautiful in the spring, but kinda bleak now.

47

Mehi, I said already that you amuse me with your vivid imagination. No need to repeat it endlessly because then it becomes boring.

To answer your on topic questions:

I refer to the obvious discrepancy between the way US’er seem to proclaim their nation “secular” and how at the same time there is such a pressure on politicians to show that they aren’t “secular” at all.

You don’t see in EU countries anything similar to this enormous and -as it seems- inevitable social-religious pressure on politicians in order to be electable. None at all.

There is also no reference to God, an no necessity to do that, in public speaches made by presidents or prime ministers.
If any politician, let be the prime minister, would do that in Belgium he/she would be considered to be as good as ready for the madhouse and the press would be all over it to crack him/her down and ridicule.

Add to this all the rest I described already, and which only adds to the impression that the USA can declare itself to be completely secular while in reality religion influences it from top to bottom on a daily base.
As is said by people posting on this topic, or do you have the impression the opposite is said and explained.

Salaam. A

48

EK

Where and when did you see in France a presidential candidate put in the explecit necessity to express any form of religious beliefs in order to be electable?

And I think that several posters here in one way or an other are in agreement with my observation that in the USA there is a visible discrepancy between “principle” of secularism and the situation in pracitce.

Salaam. A

49

I can find you two of those wacky European Bible-thumping countries with overt references to God in their very constitutions (bolding mine):
PREAMBLE-- The German People in the Laender of Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Promerania, North-Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Saar, Schleswig-Holstein, Thuringia, and Wuerttemberg-Baden, conscious of its responsibility before God and men, animated by the resolve to preserve its national and political unity and to serve the peace of the world as an equal partner in a united Europe, desiring to give a new order to political life for a transitional period, has enacted, by virtue of its constituent power, this Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. It has also acted on behalf of those Germans to whom participation was denied. The entire German people is called on to achieve by free self-determination the unity and freedom of Germany.
…
In the name of God Almighty!
We, the Swiss People and Cantons,
Whereas we are mindful of our responsibility towards creation;
Resolving to renew our alliance to strengthen liberty and democracy, independence and peace in solidarity and openness towards the world;
Determined to live our diversity in unity respecting one another;
Conscious of our common achievements and our responsibility towards furure generations; and
Knowing that only those remain free who use their freedom, and that the strength of a people is measured by the welfare of the weakest of its members;
Therefore we adopt the following Constitution:
…

There are also those out-of-control British folk, whose leader is officially called

“Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”

and whose subjects on this very continent from which I am writing call her
“Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”

Do you similarly find the UK, Germany, and Switzerland to be non-secular nations?

Cite? Really, I’m serious.

I suspect that you would find that in Iran, at the very least. And by “suspect” I mean “would be astonished if you disagreed”.

50

My grasp of Belgium’s political structure and the intricacies and nuances of it’s parties is not the best, so maybe you can help me out Aldebaran. What is the Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams political party in Belgium, because this site seems to indicate it is a Christian party, and this site seems to indicate it is a offshoot of the old Catholic Party.

Perhaps it’s just my misunderstanding, but it also seems there is a Humanist party in Belgium. With these political parties using religious names, I get a little confused when you say that religous references are unheard of in Belgium. Please help me out.

51

As a resident of the US, I would say that’s only a mild exaggeration. Sure, Bush, may really just be a cold-hearted liar when he talks about religion, but the fact that he depends upon a rather large segment of the population that is affecting his policy decisions and whose beliefs are being exploited to support other policies is notable to me.

As far as militancy goes, you can’t get more militant than the Bush administration. While they’ve hardly been “holy wars” they’ve certainly had their sickening appeals to God and country. Our chief warmonger, Bush, making frequent references to God and his characterization of “crusade” has hardly helped matters in the realm of world opinion.

hmm I thought we were discussing the degree of secularity regarding presidential elections not trying to prove that the US is not a secular society.

Is this a legal debate? I don’t think anyone made an allegation that the law requires a christian president.

That’s not the bottom line to me.

To go back to some of the other issues you brought up such as race. In the old south, it wasn’t a legal requirement that black men accused of raping white women in the south to get lynched, but it was still a problem worthy of discussion.

The culture inevitably affects the government no matter how the laws are written.

IMO, the election of the president of the US has very important religious overtones. Is gay marriage, for example, really a secular issue? People’s rights and recognition are at stake, the bill of rights only goes so far against the tyranny of the majority.

Some may dismiss the “under god” reference as meangingless, but I didn’t fail to notice that house of representatives voted 401-5 in favor and the senate voted 99-0 in favor of reaffirming its presence. Something with that much overwhelming support can hardly be seen as meaningless. I think in many districts, it could definitely affect electability.

While currently I would say that secular attitudes are becoming more prevalent, that doesn’t mean the struggle is over by any means. Prayer in schools, creation science, censorship, are examples to me of the religious right’s very current, persistent and noticeable influence in our society.

The issue has obvious significance in the US and it seems to me people are trying to downplay the issue, either out of wishful thinking or because they have problems with Aldeberan’s purported motivations.

52

You’re not under the impression that these Bible-study meetings are mandatory at all, are you?

And thanks, asrivkin, for the cites. Most modern nations seem to be very comfortable with both a secular and religious identity, which intertwine in different spheres at different times, interpreted by each citizen as their own consciences dictate, something our friend doesn’t seem to grasp, as his nation is organized in very different lines.

53

Asrivkin

The quesiton about the examples you bring up should be then first of all: Do those nations oficially declare themselves to be secular or not.

And the question here is that the USA declares itself to be secular.
Or does the USA declares itself to be non-secular? In this case we don’t need to discuss what we are discussing.

As for Iran: I would be indeed surprised if you could bring even there example of politicians who have the habit of organising themselves reading/study of Al Qur’an for their administration and eventual other co-workers, as part of the job’s requirements so to speak.

And sorry, but I don’t do “cites” as seems to be understood on this message board as forming a “trustworthy source of information” = place a link to websites of whatever type that may be.
Salaam. A

54

Mehi,
No, they are not mandatory, but it seems that htere is a lot of “social pressure” on people to show up even if they aren’t religious at all.
One doesn’t always need to explicitely make something a command to be obeyed. Suggestion can have similar or even greater effect in dozens of cases.

Salaam. A

55

Damn, I was gonna ask for a cite for that, but…*

Neither Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, or Condie Rice attend these prayer sessions, yet they still seem to have the President’s ear. Funny that. And I think if there was evidence that the President was having guards frog-marching Jews and Quakers and Catholics into his office to pray weird Methodist prayers, it just might have leaked out by now, the press being a curious little beast.

  • And maybe if you don’t like to do cites you shouldn’t start threads in GD?
56

Here’s a recent Reason article that seems helpful:

http://www.reason.com/links/links010704.shtml

57

You are the only one who says the US declares itself to be secular. Look, the Constitution is the basis for the US gov’t. Can you show any of us where it says the US is “secular”? There are precisely two sections that are relevant to religion:

Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. " [my bolding]

and

Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

There is a constant debate in the US about what the true scope of the 1st Amendment is, but that’s it.

Where do you get this “the US claims to be secular” from? No such claim exists. The Constitution makes an effort to draw the demarkation between the gov’t and religion. In a free and open society, it should be expected that there would be tension and debate about exactly where to draw that line. Big freakin’ deal.

58

Well, I’d hate to come across as rude, but given this:

If you’re so curious, look it up yourself.

No, that was not the question. You asked if there was another nation with “In God We Trust” or a pledge of allegiance including God. I responded with something that can be seen as a functional equivalent from three European countries, two of them in the EU.

As far as I know, and I am discinclined to look further, the only “official” statement on religion in the USA is in the Constitution where the government cannot establish a state religion or interfere with an individual’s freedom to worship or not worship. Religious figures are free to take part in politics, as people as distinguished as Dr. Martin Luther King (PBUH) did. Though he did not run for office, others have. In some cases, I personally believe being too associated with religion doomed some presidential campaigns, like Pat Robertson’s.

We are a secular country in that we are not a theocracy. And even if Pat Robertson were to become president with 100% of the vote, as long as he did not attempt to establish a theocracy, we would remain secular in that sense.

The supreme leader of Iran is an ayatollah. Thus, he is a politician. Are you really telling me that you don’t think he attends prayers in an offical capacity? Are you really telling me that a non-religious person can hold a high office in Iran?

I won’t bother asking for a cite.

59

So did I, but the OP seems intent on drawing wider conclusions which, IMO, are not necessarily warranted. See, read this line from his last post:

Well, being as “the USA”, as an official entity, does not post here, the question is unanswerable in any way that would satisfy the OP.

As for this:

Or maybe because some may object to the degree of hyperbole with which he tries to hype his conclusions, or his instant dismissal of any reasoned rebuttal as off-topic. In any event, I for one have no vested interest in “downplaying the issue”.

Also, I see no reason why the OP’s motivations should not be subject to consideration, given that they seem to so brightly color the subjects of most of the threads to which he contributes.

Me, I’m done here. Carry on.

60

From the link in English:

Voilà.

And where did say that no nome of a political party refers to its original religious root?

I said that a politician, talking/acting in his function as politician, shall not refer to religion in public speeches.

There is one party with a historical Catholic background. It is not an off-shoot, it is how the party presents itself now. This party is splitted in French and Flemish section (now in the opposition role)

The existence of this party with roots in Catholicism however doesn’t mean that they only have voters who are Catholic/Christian. Nor does it mean that Catholics don’t vote for other parties.
There was a time that such was the case, especially in rural aerea’s but that time is long gone.

The political landscape in a country like Belgium is very diverse and the programs of the parties accordingly. Results of elections has little to do with the name of the parties and depends on how parties profile themselves and in how much their program makes appeal to the public.

There are a lot of smaller political parties that are not mentioned in that report, yet have a role to play, especially in local politics.

By the way, since when is “humanism” a religion?

And by the way: the description of the Liberal parties is incorrect when labelling them as “conservatist”. They are Liberal which is the opposite of conservative.

If you want to debate Belgian politics, may I suggest you to open an other topic for those interested in the issue.
Thank you.

Salaam. A