Philosophical debates can certainly get personal, if someone suggests that a particular religious viewpoint is more worthy of support that others - especially if those viewpoints that are seen as lesser are held by people participating in the thread.
I’m shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.
I have no doubt you are correct in that. As I’ve stated, I see an inconsistency concerning the founders and find it interesting. So, atheists and pantheists can rest—for now. It’ll take me a good eight or nine weeks to have the law changed.
As far as the line being nebulous, you are again correct. But just because time has worn away the distinction and everyday usage has obscured the line doesn’t mean that there isn’t a line. Very often in debates like this we have to go in and magnify the nuances of words that have been worn down. That is part of the process.
I’m not too familiar with buddhism. I just read a couple of articles and it seems to be more of a philosophy concerning a personal journey. On the one hand they do have texts considered sacred. On the other, I thought this interesting:
I don’t see how you can say that. Looking at the D of I and The Constitution, the distinction seems to have been very evident to them. That at least makes logical the acknowledgement of a Creator and recognition of him as the grantor of our rights, and the the Establishment Clause. No?
There are two different concepts plaited together in that. One is what the founders intended as concerns religion, philosophy, and dogmatism. Whether or not we should feel bound to forever live with that intention—even if documents were found tomorrow making it crystal clear (in either direction)—is a completely seperate mattter. And one that is worthy of a few long threads in it’s own right. In fact, I’d be surprised if they don’t already exist.
Miller, I’ll accept this as pure hyperbole and move on.
Not the same thing. It would be more like breaking up with your first wife because you come out of the closet and move in with a guy. When the colonies broke with England that didn’t just switch allegiance to another parent country, they planted a flag in the ground, via the D of I, that prevented any such relationship ever again. And I kind of view a a document that is a “hugely important and necessary step in the formation of our country” the very definition of a founding document. I’m surprised you typed that. You’re slipping, Miller. Unless it was a softball lobbed over the fat part of the plate in sympathy.
Or it was common ground. Something the Deists and Christians agreed on. I have seen no evidence that would lead me to think that the Deists were not actually Deists, but atheists instead, lying to the populace. Are you aware of any?
Again, nothing I’ve read has implied this. The reluctance that the Loyalists had toward the revolution was very practical: they didn’t think the revolution had a chance in succeeding against the most powerful army in the world. Can you point to anything that would support your recollection. I’m not busting balls for a cite, just curious if oyu recall something that gave you that impression.
This “inconsistency” exists entirely in your head. The “founders”* justified their revolution in religious terms, insofar as they appealed to a theory of natural rights grounded in the endowment of a Creator; but the writers of the Constitution, given the opportunity to insert any test that officeholders must pass, beyond solemnly promising to uphold the Constitution itself, declined.
This is no inconsistency, contradiction, or hypocrisy–just because I believe something, based on some particular religious or philosophical grounds, does not mean that I must also believe that other people should be forced to agree with me, or should be denied their civil or political rights if they disagree with me. Nor does it mean that I cannot make political alliances with people who agree with me on some particular issue–say, the importance of separating church and state–but on different philosophical grounds–say, that church and state must be kept separate so that the true faith is not polluted by worldly matters.
I mean, here’s a wild and crazy thought: Just for the sake of argument, suppose the drafters of the Constitution meant for public office to be open to “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination” (as Thomas Jefferson once described those whose liberties his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom protected–you remember Thomas Jefferson; he’s the guy who wrote that Declaration you’re so fond of.) Just what the fuck do you think they should have put in Article VI? “…[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, and we really mean it, magellan01, so no fucking around with idiosyncratic definitions of the word ‘religion’ that only you have ever heard of”?
*Strictly speaking the drafters and signers of the Declaration of Independence were a separate group of people from the drafters and signers of the Constitution. Only a handful of men signed both. Say, maybe there’s the solution to your “dilemma”–the bunch who signed the Declaration were a bunch of Deist theocrats in favor of your “monotheists only” rule, but then there was a second (bloodless) revolution, and the atheist-polytheist-pantheist axis seized power and enacted the Constitution.
Okay, from here on in, this is public notice: Anyone who claims that the Constitution does not guarantee freedom from an established religious ritual put in place by law, should be invited to do the right thing, and move their membership to the American branch of the Established Church which His Majesty George III insisted was the proper place for all his subjects as of as late as July 1, 1776. Since freedom from this is, in their mind, not one of the things we fought for in the Revolution and guaranteed to each other in the Constitution, they need to obey the law of the land, like good citizens – and not try to break it by attending some separatist sect of their choice. Swampbear, Siege, Skammer, Vlad/Igor, Baker and myself, among others, will be glad to guide them to the nearest one, and help them through confirmation classes. (We’ll consider an exception for people who sincerely believe what John Wesley did – check with Jodi in that case.) May I respectfully request the assistance of the general membership in getting compliance with this? 
You do realize, don’t you, that philosophically speaking, Deists and atheists are “first cousins.”? For there’s not much difference in believing in an non-intervening creator, and no creator at all. In fact, for all practical purposes, there’s none at all.
Thus I’d say Deists are closer to atheists than they are to any organized religion, be it Christian or not.
So what you’re saying is Deists and atheists are almost identical? After all, the main difference is the atheists believe in one fewer god than the Deists, right?
(This old chestnut is courtesy of a polytheistic Wiccan friend of mine.)
Not to spite your Wiccan friend but the line is usually attributed to Stephen F. Roberts, although as you can see from the link, it can be traced in one form or another even further back. i.e. Bertrand Russel.
And no, that is not what I am saying. Simply put, a non-intervening god and no god at all, are pragmatically speaking, the same thing.
I don’t believe any other major religion proposes a non-intervening deity, no soul, no after life “benefits” – or even a belief in same. So really, what difference does it make to believe – or not – in an entity who has exactly zero effect on our lives?
That’s not true in all situations. A debate on the merits of the philosophy of national socialism, for example, is almost guaranteed to become very personal, and very emotional. Philosophy is not always bloodless and abstract. Often as not, it involves real and potentially dangerous ideas that could prove harmful to millions of people, if applied in real life.
What inconsistency? The founders felt it was necessary to break with England, in part because of their religious beliefs. When the time came to form a new government, they decided that the government would work better if they kept their religious beliefs out of it, and explicitly crafted the Constitution so as to mandate this. There really is not a lot of room for interpretation in the first ammendment. I suspect you would be hard-pressed to find any jurist, no matter what his political leanings, who would support your arguments in this thread.
To the contrary, I maintain that time has sharpened the distinction between these terms, which were far more porous in our founder’s time. Philosophy was an incredibly broad term back then, that encompassed everything from theology to the hard sciences. It’s only much later that we began to see a serious distinction between philosophy and science, and we still have not made a universally agreed distinction between philosophy and religion.
No. I don’t see any evidence at all that the Founders intended this distinction, and such claims seem to directly contradict any but the most tortured readings of the relevant texts.
We already have that document. It’s called the Bill of Rights. I can’t imagine a document that could make it any more clear. Now, we’re certainly not bound to follow it for all time, and we can change it at need, but until we change it what Prager - and yourself - are advocating is clearly a violation of the Constitution as it currently stands.
That’s a pity, because I did not intend it as such.
I thought my analogy was pretty clear. The DoI is not a document for how our new government was supposed to be run, it was an explanation for why their old government did not function. Like re-marrying, you cannot form a new relationship without terminating the old. The DoI ws intended to end our relationship with England, which was a necessary step in forming a new government. However, it’s direct influence on that new government is minimal. It does not create any laws, or give any direction on what nature the new government should take. It is not a foundation for our current government: it is the obituary for the old.
I’m slipping? In this thread, you’ve argued that requiring candidates to swear on the Christian bible is not an establishment of religion, because it symbolic of our shared Chirstian heritage, and it is important (for some undisclosed reason) that this heritage be recognized when our elected representatives take office. However, if someone doesn’t want to swear on the Christian bible, they can swear on no book at all. Somehow, ignoring our shared heritage by swearing on no Bible is less damaging to the fabric of the Republic by swearing on a book other than the Christian Bible. Also, recognizing our shared Christian heritage is not an establishment of religion, because we’re not actually recognizing Christianity, but monotheism, which isn’t a religious principle. It’s a philosophic principle, largey because you say that it is, and never mind that the word itself explicitly refers to a God. However, we still have to use the Bible to recognize the importance of monotheism, and not any other holy text from a monotheistic religion, such as the Koran. Your entire argument in this thread is a mess of contradictions, idiosyncratic definitions, and heroic leaps of illogic. You’re usually a better debator than this. Not a lot better, but this is still remarkably weak, even coming from you.
Witnessing for the Anglican Church belongs in GD .
And if that were what I was doing, I’d put it there.
I am, as that whooshing sound you heard should have suggested, essaying a reductio ad absurdam argument of sorts against Magellan01’s position. Either the Constitution guarantees religious freedom (as I firmly believe it does), or it does not. This little shell game of calling it a “philosophical dispute” and alleging that “the country’s Christian heritage” makes it incumbent, if people use any symbol, to use the Bible, does not in the slightest obfuscate the underlying position – “It’s a Christian country; accept that and go along with the majority, or screw you!” And I’m a Christian, and don’t believe that that’s either American or Christian in its attitudes.
I think Dutchman was kidding, Poly.
Polycarp isn’t stupid. He can see the winky too. He just doesn’t trust me.
Probably doesn’t trust the Dutch in general since they harbored Dissenters like the Pilgrims.
You’ve got to be kidding. If you didn’t use that continent-sized safety net of “in part” it would be completely absurd. So we disagree. I guess we’ll never know for sure since it was so long ago and all. If only there was a document of sorts, some kind of…declaration that stated the reasons for their desire to break with England. Then we could look at that document and see exactly what their reasons were, and what percent of them—if any—had to do with religious beliefs. If only such a document could be found…
Fortunately (IMO), the contributors to this thread, or even the SDMB at large, are not representative of all sentient beings. And you may want to go back and read what the First Amendment says. You are adding an interpretation to it, which is of course, fine. But to think that yours is the only interpretation based on logic is closed-minded. At best.
I think were basically in agreement on this. My overall point was that when engaging in a philosophical examination, one often has to first tighten focus and define the terms.
Step 1) Craft a document that states why we want to break with England. In doing so, invoke the natural rights of man as justification—no, the mandate—for the break, as those rights are derived from a supreme being and cannot be usurped by any crown.
Step 2) Craft a set of laws for the new government to function under, In those laws, remain mum on the role of religion in society except to say “Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion…”. Yet, leave the date to read “In the year of our Lord…”
It seems that #s 1 and 2 are a in fact conrtadictory. They are* less* contradictory if you take my explanation from a previous post that The Constitution was meant to be a practical document (no philosophy to speak of, even in the preamble) and that the Establishment Clause means precisely what it says: that there can be no NATIONAL religion. Each state, as I’m sure you know, was able to establish it’s own state religion.
Now if youhave another way to view the two documents as being less contradictory I’d enjoy hearing it.
The bottom line is, as I asked earlier, do you really think that after having just fighting through a revolution—based on the words in the Declaration of Independence—that the founders would have advocated someone holding office who did NOT believe in the basic philosophical principles put forth int the D of I and over which so much blood was shed?
It is a violation as far as the current interpretation by the courts. That, too, can change. Unless you’re of the opinion that the court cannot be wrong. Again, this is a debate board.
Yes, your analogy was clear. It was poor, as well. My response should have explained why even more clearly. I’ll ask you to reread it. The major point being that the D of I did not simply end one relationship. It also made impossible and such relationship again. It was not just a litany of compaints, it was a recognition of the right to self governance.
Yes I’ve argued a lot of different things as a lot of people have raised many of the issues you listed. So I’m not sure what your point is. As many of these mini-debates use the same language with nuances in connotation depending on the specific discussion there may be seeming contradictions. If you have noticed any of genuine substance, please identify them clearly.
As far as your closing line, we can continue to discuss this in the manner we have. Or we can take another tack. You’re call. If your tone was in response to a perceived snark on my part, I’ll apologize in advance. I thought my last line would have made clear that none was intended. But perhaps not.
I’m not sure what your specific objection is to that part of my post. You’ve been arguing that the founders were motivated by their religious beliefs, right? I just agreed with you. Did I not go far enough in my agreement? Did you want me to say that they were motivated entirely by religion?
How much interpretation is possible in the phrase, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? What interpretation have I added to that? What interpretation do you think should be used? I’ll note that the best you’ve been able to do in arguing around that is to redefine the word “monotheism” to somehow have nothing to do with religion.
Do you honestly have no idea how tenuous your point number two is? They specifically said, “No state religion,” and you think the way they wrote the date is somehow more important than that?
Oh, and that’s one huge fuckin’ “except” you got in there. Yeah, they didn’t say anything at all about religion. Except to say that it’s absolutely not allowed in government. How much more is there to say there? Did you want an ammendment 1.5 that says, “We really, really mean it about that establishment thing. No foolin’!”
Okay, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, as I thought you were talking about contradictions within the Constitution itself. The DoI is a wonderful piece of political philosophy, but it has no practical effect on how we run the country. It’s not a legal document. If the DoI says one thing, and the Constitution says another, the Constitution wins. The DoI talks a lot about a Creator. The Constitution says, “No establishment of religion.” Therefore, the state cannot establish a religion, no matter how many religious references you find in the DoI.
Depends on what you mean by “advocated.” Do I think they would have personally supported such a person? No, of course not, no more than I would personally support a Republican candidate. Do I think they wanted such people to be barred from running from office? If they did, why didn’t they write that into the Constitution?
Do you have a better interpretation of the first ammendment? Specifically, do you have an interpretation of the words “Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” that can make those words mean, “Congress can make laws respecting an establishment of religion?” Because that would be a very neat trick.
No, your response didn’t make anything clear at all. I didn’t even understand what you were talking about with the gay analogy. How did that demonstrate anything that was not equally demonstrated by my divorce analogy? And why did the DoI make it impossible for the colonies to revert to British rule? Certainly, it made it impossible for the signers of the Declaration to return to British rule, because they’d all have been hung for traitors. But I don’t see anything in the DoI that would have impossible for the colonies to voluntarily return to British rule, or for the British to reassert their rule by force. Of course, there were any number of other factors that made either of these outcomes highly unlikely, but a piece of paper saying, “You suck!” isn’t one of them.
Mostly, my point is that your position in this thread is not internally consistent. Your arguments change to such a fundamental degree depending on what you’re trying to rebut that your later arguments flatly contradict your earlier arguments. If the Bible is important because of our shared Christian heritage, then its use in a swearing in ceremony is religious. But if it’s because it represents monotheism (and one accepts that monotheism isn’t a religious doctrine) then there’s no reason one couldn’t use the Koran, which is also monotheistic.
And you still haven’t explained why its important that our "shared Christian/monotheistic heritage be recognized during a swearing in ceremony in the first place.
Yes, my tone in my last post was in response to the tone you presented in yours. If that tone was not intended, I’ll refrain from replying in kind.
Here is everything the Constitution has to say about the “philosophical” qualifications of officeholders (that is, all qualifications for office excluding such things as being at least 25 years old, residence in the state represented, etc.):
“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”
“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.”
That’s it. Note that the famously tricky First Amendment isn’t even involved here. You might wish the Constitution said something else, but it doesn’t. If you think the Constitution needs to say something else, perhaps you should go out and found the Party of Deist Theocracy and see about getting enough Congressmen and state legislators elected to get it amended. I sure as fuck won’t be signing any petitions to get you on the ballot, but hey, it’s a free country.
I’ve done only a cursory read of this extremely long thread, but I didn’t see anyone else point this out.
The point of swearing an oath on the Bible isn’t to bring solemnity to the proceeding. The rules of civil procedure, and IIRC criminal procedure as well, state that witnesses in court are to be sworn in “in a manner calculated to arouse the conscience”; i.e., Christians swear on the Bible because it’ll make them feel guilty if they lie.
The point being that using a Bible is not a sign of the state endorsing Christianity; it’s a sign of the affiant doing so. Having non-Christians swear an oath on the Bible would be as pointless as having someone swear on a phone book.
I’m way too tired to go find a cite in the FRCP; maybe someone else will want to dig it up.
And some of us Christian types don’t swear in court at all. We affirm. No swearing, no religious book.