That article has some interesting historical background. It also has a false conclusion.
Basically the article states that the SCOTUS erred in making reference to a statement by Jefferson and then interpreting it wrong. But if you read the quote from the SCOTUS decision, they never reference Jefferson. They are interpreting the first amendment - which is basically their job. Their conclusion is that the first amendment mandates a separation (a “wall”) between church and state. The article goes to some length to refute any claim that Jefferson said so. But the SCOTUS had never claimed that he did.
Oh you mean the guy that owned other human beings??? Oh wow, what a GREAT source of moral authority he is!!!
[Quote=ITR Champion]
How do you know what’s going to happen 100 years in the future? Have you time-traveled to 2115 A.D?
[/quote]
You didn’t answer the question.
Why are we even talking about something from 1789? Seriously. In 1789 black people were slaves and women couldn’t vote. So why is what they thought in 1789 relevant to 2015?
Yes, I did.
No they aren’t. Confucianism is a religion, but most Confucians aren’t members of a church.
That’s beside the point, though. You’ve saidd that the Hobby Lobby decision is a violation of “separation of church and state”. When asked to explain why, you’ve said nothing, other than saying that it involved a religious ideal. I asked you to explain why that matters, and you haven’t explained.
I asked you to explain how you know what will happen 100 years in the future. You didn’t explain how you know what will happen 100 years in the future.
Moreover, every person in the thread can clearly see that you didn’t answer. Who on earth do you think you’re fooling by falsely claiming that you did answer?
Because objection to birth control is a religious ideal. If there is a wall of separation between church and state, it matters. I predict that in the next 5 or 10 years the SCOTUS will be forced to hear another case and will reverse their decision.
It’s called the march of progress. We are less ignorant now than we were 100 years ago. You are battling on the side of ignorance. It’s “cute” that you want to pretend I didn’t answer your question.
The point I was making is actually that it is not. Contrary to what the cited article said, the SCOTUS did *not *make a reference to Jefferson’s letter.
What is relevant to their decision is the first amendment in its current form. That is what the judges were working with. One may argue with their interpretation that it entails a “wall between church and state” (whatever that means). But they were well within their rights to make that interpretation.
I think it’s possible to predict some things 100 years into the future, but others aren’t so obvious. Even a society where most people are not religious is going to probably want to respect religious freedom. Plus there isn’t even really a guarantee that we won’t be more religious 100 years from now. When this country was founded it was actually a less religious time. This country went through a couple of resurgences in religious faith and there’s no reason it can’t happen again.
Do you dispute the claim that as our scientific knowledge has grown religious faith has declined?
Then there’s the fact that while the trend has been towards being more scientifically and socially advanced, that sometimes results in harebrained ideas that don’t work out. Examples:
- Prohibition
- Treating crime as a social problem instead of a law enforcement problem
- Wartime controls on industry in peacetime
- The idea that the country can be managed using the latest scientific knowledge and the smartest people
- Trying to end poverty simply by giving people some money
- Eugenics
The great thing about old ideas is that they’ve stood the test of time. They can still be wrong, of course, but if society has lived with them for thousands of years then society will continue to get by pretty well continuing to live by those old rules. Those six new, fashionable ideas, however, nearly led to societal breakdown and were abandoned for the most part as a result. Many of the bright ideas we have today that seem really smart will 100 years from now be scoffed at. We just won’t know which ones until we’ve tried to implement them. But I think it’s safe to say that religious freedom will always be in vogue, given that it’s a “new” concept in itself based on modern Western philosophy, even if it means tolerating some relatively minor offenses to our sensibilities.
Why yes, I agree that your statement is remarkably illogical. Why you first made a statement, and then pointed out that your own statement is illogical, is a mystery to me.
But hey, every single thing you’ve said in this thread is illogical. Why didn’t you attach a similar acknowledgement of the fact to every post you made?
Yes and no and depends.
Intensity of religious faith seems to be on the downswing. Church attendance and profession of faith have gone up and down throughout our nation’s history though.
I’m not going to comment on your list of 6 items. Another distraction. I will comment on your claim that if an idea has been around for a thousand years then we will benefit from continuing with the same idea. But to counteract your claim I would have to give my own list of distracting political agenda.
ah, but we ARE less ignorant than we were 100 years ago. the fact that you think we won’t be less ignornat 100 years from now is what is illogical. please, keep “arguing” your position.
Just addressing your argument about things being scoffed at 100 years from now. When an idea is new, it’s chances of being looked at as wise 100 years later are pretty poor. Some of the recent pushes against relatively minor offensive religious practices are unlikely to be considered good ideas. And I didn’t say that we should keep old ideas just because they’ve worked out for us. Only that new ideas carry risks that old ideas do not. Many new ideas have nearly wrecked us. Outside the US, some bright smartass ideas have actually wrecked the countries where they’ve been implemented. One of those ideas was that religious practice should be stamped out because it’s ignorant and backwards.
Careful there. While that appears reasonable at first glance it is only a small step away from following an idea just because it has been around for a long time. Let us not forget that ideas like the superiority of men over women, the acceptance of slavery or the evaluation of homosexuality as a “perversion” all are very old and have existed for centuries before being called into question.
I’m quite sure that 100 years from now opposition to birth control or to SSM will look just outdated as using leaches to cure disease looks to you.