I get what you’re saying, mswas, if that’s any comfort - and I agree, there seem to be people for whom the notion of separation of church and state seems to mean state abolition of church. They’re wrong, because the act of trying to abolish religion could not be performed within a prevailing condition of separation. Interference requires interaction.
Who? I’ve never come across this.
I’ve heard people argue that way over the issue of whether Muslim students should be able to wear headscarves to school - and not just as a compliance with uniform/dress code issue - specifically arguing that a secular state should be restricting people’s expression of their religion.
Here is a specific example of the phenomenon. Note that at this point in the discussion, Lightnin’ was arguing not against any school-organised expression of religion, but was arguing that in a school, people should be restricted from freely expressing their religion.
As MEBuckner pointed out, you are confusing secular Government with secular society.
I live in England, where the Monarch is also automatically the Head of the Church of England. I teach at a school founded by an Archbishop, which has daily Christian services.
At no time have I ever had to express an opinion on religion, nor show any faith. I am an atheist, but nobody has ever asked me my views. (I would have to affirm if I ever appeared in court, but that’s it.)
No politican here has to say anything about his religious beliefs.
State religion - secular society.
In the US, the Government specifically states it will not establish a religion.
Yet religion is pretty active in school boards (over evolution), politics (over abortion), on TV (religious channels) and every candidate for President has his religion examined. Even a candidate’s pastor’s views are a national story.
Secular state - religious society.
Slight hijack: Could a private, non-religious charity–say, Der Trihs’s “No one will rouse us before the nuts work loose” Soup Kitchen–get money from the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives?
I have a hard time resolving the thread title with the second post in this thread. I’m particularly confused because both were composed, apparently, by the same person.
As I understand it, the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is not itself a funding source. Before the office was established, faith-based charities could not get federal money. The office was established to allow faith-based charities to compete with non-faith-based charities for the existing pool of federal funds for community programs.
From their website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/president-initiative.html
"Focus of the Initiative
Identifying and eliminating barriers that impede the full participation of FBCOs in the Federal grants process.
Ensuring that Federally-funded social services administered by State and local governments are consistent with equal treatment provisions.
Encouraging greater corporate and philanthropic support for FBCOs’ social service programs through public education and outreach activities.
Pursuing legislative efforts to extend charitable choice provisions that prevent discrimination against faith-based organizations, protect the religious freedom of beneficiaries, and preserve religious hiring rights of faith-based charities. "
American society might be less secular in some respects than European society, but it’s not as non-secular as you seem to suggest. Daily commerce is largely conducted on a secular basis. Places of employment are largely operated on a secular basis. Even a huge proportion of non-commercial, non-employment relationships operate in a largely secular atmosphere. It’s not like the only way you can interact with other people is by engaging them on a religious basis.
I think the OP is saying that some people argue that secularism is the enemy of religion in a deliberate attempt to turn the word into a pejorative. These people are wrong, and probably know that they’re wrong, but adhere to the Big Lie principle – that repeating a known untruth often enough will cause it to be taken for truth.
A secular government is not guided by any particular religion but that in itself does not mean it is hostile to religion.
Sailboat
Quite so. You hit the nail on the head.
I think it’s ironic that American society can be happily, even deliberately, Secular but it’s the people in Goverment who can’t afford to be.
How many Atheist presidents have there been?
I agree. There is a large contingent who don’t like secular society and politicians have to play to them.
None admittedly atheistic, so far as I know.
For the record any President, be it Obama or Ron Paul won’t have any power whatsoever to do away with congress having a chaplain.
Actually, “secular,” at its root , means “of an age.”
This is true. My wife is a government grant writer for a major religious charity and has explained this to me (who usually has a hair trigger about SOCAS issues) pretty well. It allows religious charities to compete for government funds, but it doesn’t make them any more likely to get any money and any services or projects which do get funded cannot include any sort of proselytization or religious conditions. For instance, Catholic Charities might get a grant for a food shelf, but it has to be run essentially as a secular service. They can’t proselytize anyone or impose any religious conditions. They can provide information to those who ask (usually that just means giving them a pamphlet directing them on how they can receive specifically religious services), but if they don’t ask for it, no religion is served.
My wife tells me that most of these religious organizations were already allowed to compete for these grants anyway and that the F-BI is mostly empty symbolism. According to her, the Faith-Based Intitiative has not allowed her to collect a single extra cent for her organization.
According to David Kuo, the former Directer of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Bush originally pitched a much grander plan with billions of dollars earmarked for specific programs, but almost all of that funding was cut in order to pay for the repeal of the estate tax.
Here’s an interesting piece written by Kuo about the ultimate flaccidity of the F-BI.
Would you please quote the post in the thread where Lightnin’ argues that? I saw only objections to organized prayer, not a single objection to an individual student freely expressing their religion. The “organized” part of it is exactly the problem many of us have with it.
The link was supposed to go directly to the post in question - it’s post #35 - it had already been explained at this point in the thread that the prayer was not organised by the school, or performed by employees of the school - it was merely permitted to happen - yet Lightnin’ persisted in objecting and asserted that it should not happen, but should be confined to church.
So when the coaches, teachers, and administrators bow their heads during this little prayer, that doesn’t count as performing prayer? Seriously, the Smalkowski situation was fucked up (on the part of the school), and this coming from someone who doesn’t really have an issue with after school Christian prayer groups being allowed to meet in school, as long as after school atheist groups, muslim groups, etc., are also allowed to meet. It doesn’t belong on a basketball team, a football team, or any other group other than a group specifically gathered for prayer. Basketball isn’t a religious activity. Football isn’t a religious activity. Prayer groups ARE religious activity. If Billy Bob wants to pray by himself before taking his stance, something like “God, give me the power to knock the shit out of this guy in front of me, so we can score a touchdown, win the game, and then maybe get me in the panties of the head cheerleader”, more power to him. When the quarterback leads the huddle in prayer, or the team has a prayer before or after the game, I have a problem.
Again, Lightnin’ was arguing against organized school prayer, which is what was happening in the Smalkowski case. He/she did recommend that there might be a more appropriate place for it, and it’s hard to argue against that, but never said that there was a problem with an individual praying in school. Perhaps it was another post where this was put forth?
Christianity is specifically about the community. So you are saying that the Christian members of the team should not be allowed to practice their religion as a group. You are saying that the government should limit their franchise for their religion in favor of the non-practicing.
To be fair though, praying to win a sporting event is kind of missing the point of Christianity.