Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Again Turkey is a good example. It is not a U.S.A. style republic, but a republic it is and the benefits have been enormous. Is there strict separation of church and state? No, nor has there been in the USA until just recently (and I still say there is neither constiutional basis nor intent for that). Is there freedom of religion in Turkey? Yes, but it is restricted. All faiths are permitted to be who they are peacefully and without interference, but no non Islamic faith may advertise itself even with a sign on the building and it may not proselytize.

In time I believe the Turks, descended from and currently a progressive people, will relax laws re religion and be less restrictive, but I do not foresee Islam not being an important factor and influencing Turkish laws in this century. Religious, specifically judeo/Christian, ethics have had profound influence on U.S. law and will likely continue to do so. That in no way violates the letter or intent of the First Amendment.

Countries who have attempted to install and enforce athiesm, which is the only true separation of church and state, have not fared so well. I have great hope that Iraq will fare well. Their constitution and their government won't look like ours. But it does not have to in order to be successful.

0 Replies

rosborne, foxfyre,

Great to see both of you again! Rosborne's question is central to this discussion. Can there be true democracy without separation of church and state?

Foxfyre: what about secularism rather than atheism? Secular government does not necessarily require atheism.

0 Replies

Wandel, I don't think there is any such thing as secular government when it is populated by religious people. Our government is 'secular' in that no religious group or leader may dictate anything to the government nor may the government dictate to the people what they must or must not believe. In that sense, even the Turkish government is secular and, if they do it right, so will Iraq's government be secular.

Otherwise to assume that religion will not affect the moral center of those elected to office and this will not be reflected in the laws and decisions they will make is simply absurd. Our founders certainly did not expect religion to have no affect or presence in the laws passed; in fact many if not most were very explicit that they did not believe the government would succeed if elected leaders were not religious.

The key is: can the government make me believe or practice any religious faith? If it cannot, there is separation of church and state in the way it was intended in the Constitution. Can the Church demand the government operation in a certain way? If it cannot, there is separation of church and state in the way it was intended in the Constitution.

We don't need to get our panties in a bunch over whether somebody says a religious word or makes an argument based on a religious tenet or even if the government recognizes people of faith as being part of its constituency and allows their voices to be heard too. The key is whether you are allowed to believe as you choose with no fear or interference from the government.

0 Replies

Thanks, Foxfyre, that you mention the US Constitution again.

That's the clue for some disturbtion, I think:

the separation of church and state as proclaimed first during the French Revolution and lead to the "French separation" (and later a lot more in many other countries). It was aggravated by the social revolutionary criticism against the wealthy ecclesiastical hierarchy.
The French state took over education and other hitherto churchly functions of a civic nature.
[The (final) attempt was to totally exterminate the church.]

The separation of church and state in the USA was a result of ideas arising from the struggle of the Puritans against the English episcopal system and the English throne.

The attitude here was supported by a tendency to leave to the church, set free from state supervision, a maximum freedom in the realization of its spiritual, moral, and educational tasks.

0 Replies

Exactly Walter. That 'wall of separation' that some are so fond of using as their favorite metaphor did not come from Jefferson though it used it metaphorically in one specific instance in a letter to a colleague. The term actually came from Supreme Justice Hugo Black and has been grasped by anti-religious people as the gospel and misused prolifically by various judges ever since.

Walter's comment about the state's attempt to 'exterminate the church' rings especially poignant right now in an era where some equate separation of church and state with keeping the Church out of sight, out of sound, out of view, with no reminders of it in any form of public life. That would be about as bad a violation of separation of Church and State as you can get--equal to a law beng passed that you all have to go to Sunday School every Sunday morning.

0 Replies

And now I have to go to the salt mines, join the rat race, put my nose to the grindstone, row with the other slaves for awhile. Back later.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The French state took over education and other hitherto churchly functions of a civic nature.
[The (final) attempt was to totally exterminate the church.]

Walter,

Last year France banned religious symbols in public schools (even the wearing of Muslim headscarves). What was the basis for this ban?

0 Replies

Thanks for the invite, Wand.

I think I've pretty much said all I have to say on this issue earlier in the thread. I took the time to re-read my comments on the early pages...and it all still holds.

I think the religious among us are fighting a final battle...and I think they are going down. Our country is bigger than this nonsense.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

What was the basis for this ban?

Separation of church and state - there's at least one thread about that here. (Like it is the reason for a similar ban here in Germany.)

0 Replies

hyper,

Your original topic has current application not only to Iraq but also to France and Germany! (See Walter's information.)

Frank,

Thanks for responding! (I completely empathize that you have had your fill of controversy.)

0 Replies

Too bad I am not debating this anymore, just posting on it. I am really enjoying learning from ya'll. I am open minded, so I want to learn all I can. I can't post too much now, but I will get back to some of the comments later. Choa

0 Replies

Well, I'm already at the salt mines, and I don't have much time to respond to this, but I couldn't just let Fox's comments go unchallenged...

Foxfyre wrote:

Exactly Walter. That 'wall of separation' that some are so fond of using as their favorite metaphor did not come from Jefferson though it used it metaphorically in one specific instance in a letter to a colleague. The term actually came from Supreme Justice Hugo Black and has been grasped by anti-religious people as the gospel and misused prolifically by various judges ever since.

Jefferson did originate the phrase of separation of church and state, and even though it was used as a metaphore, if you read many of his writings, including the letter to the Danbury Baptists, it's clear that he meant what he said: Separate Church and State. And that intent is clearly one of the most important concepts in the constitution, as evidenced by it being in the first amendment.

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter's comment about the state's attempt to 'exterminate the church' rings especially poignant right now in an era where some equate separation of church and state with keeping the Church out of sight, out of sound, out of view, with no reminders of it in any form of public life. That would be about as bad a violation of separation of Church and State as you can get--equal to a law beng passed that you all have to go to Sunday School every Sunday morning.

Separation of Church and state is not a hard thing to understand. And despite the fact that Fox wants to diminish it's significance, it's the most important concept we can hope to incorporate into governments no matter where they may be.

History is replete with examples of religion invading and corrupting government to such an extent that we really have to err on the side of solid separation, rather than fuzzy separation (which seems to be what Fox is suggesting). My feeling is that fuzzy systems work at local levels, but are too easy to exploit in large systems.

0 Replies

I believe that I am inclined to agree with you. I do not believe religion is a bad thing, in fact, I have become partial to it, but I believe that if the Koran is the official law, that is the gov. imposing on the people. Moral teachings are fine. But not practices. The gov. should encourage morality, and they can base that on the Koran, but I don't see how they can be a democracy when imposing certain beliefs and practices on a populace. As far as I know, it is then a theocracy, not a democracy.

0 Replies

I see two extremes in the examples we looked at today. The possibility of the new democracy in Iraq requiring non-Muslim women to wear veils in public and the democracy in France banning young Muslim women from wearing headscarves in public school.

0 Replies

We had discussed this here a couple of times already: France didn't ban young Muslim women from wearing headscarves in public school but ALL religious symbols from public institutions - with the peculiar amusing effect that christmas (and Easter) symbols are banned e.g. from some kindergartens as well.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Exactly Walter. That 'wall of separation' that some are so fond of using as their favorite metaphor did not come from Jefferson though it used it metaphorically in one specific instance in a letter to a colleague. The term actually came from Supreme Justice Hugo Black and has been grasped by anti-religious people as the gospel and misused prolifically by various judges ever since.

Foxfyre, revising history again? Jefferson's letter was not a letter to a colleague. It was a letter addressed to

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

His use of the term "wall of separation was not in a vacuum, it was used as a means to describe his view of the meaning of the first ammendment.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter's comment about the state's attempt to 'exterminate the church' rings especially poignant right now in an era where some equate separation of church and state with keeping the Church out of sight, out of sound, out of view, with no reminders of it in any form of public life. That would be about as bad a violation of separation of Church and State as you can get--equal to a law beng passed that you all have to go to Sunday School every Sunday morning.

I pass by dozens of churches every day. They are in plain view from public roads and I have yet to see one done up in camo. :wink:

I still can't buy beer here on Sunday mornings. Why do you suppose that is?

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

I see two extremes in the examples we looked at today. The possibility of the new democracy in Iraq requiring non-Muslim women to wear veils in public and the democracy in France banning young Muslim women from wearing headscarves in public school.

That is a good contrast between the secular and theocratic thoughts regarding veils. Unfortunately using sharia law has many more consequences than just wearing a veil. It is based upon ancient supposedly divine texts which makes them unchangeable except through interpretation. If Iraq's laws must be based upon the Koran as the religious leaders want, I do not see a government remotely resembling what we call a democracy arising. Can you just imagine if our constitution said that all legislation had to be based on the Bible? There is a major difference between legislating from the collective viewpoint and experiences of elected officials and legislating in accordance with an unchangeable ancient text.

0 Replies

I could post a couple of dozen quotes from Thomas Jefferson that would clearly show he did NOT interpret the 'wall of separation" as it has been characterized by some of you. Again, this was never an issue even though previous generations were much better schooled in constitutional principles than they are now. . .until Hugo Black wrote his opinion regarding this some decades ago.

As much as some wish to say I am saying what I have not said, I have read and sat in classes and taught the First Amendment enough to be pretty confident that I am on solid ground as to the original intent of the First Amendment by Jefferson and the other framers of the U.S. Constitution.

So far as Islamic law winding up in the Iraqi Constiution, it's going to happen just as Judeo-Christian law wound up in ours. It would be perfectly reasonable, for instance, given the huge majority of Moslems in Iraq, that Iraqi law will include provisions for Islamic holy days or provide that employers must allow their employees to respond to the Islamic call to prayer five times a day. This would not prevent them in any way of having all the important components of a democratic republic.

Inalienable rights are paramount and rarely is anything else fixed in stone. A responsive government of the people will conform itself to the people and will evolve as they evolve. Don't count the Iraqi people out if their sense of propriety is somewhat diferent than ours.

0 Replies

getting around the debris when the train of pedantic ideology ran into the wall (of separation) I opt for a digression into reason;

Quote:

... shake off all the fears of servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country. Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that it's [sic] falshood [sic] would be more improbable than a change of the laws of nature in the case he relates.... Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of it's [sic] consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in it's [sic] exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement. If that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat that you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject any thing because any other person, or description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision....

(Thomas Jefferson, letter to his young nephew Peter Carr, August 10, 1787.

0 Replies

Thanks Dys. I had forgotten about that one. Jefferson believed so very strongly in keeping an open mind in all things including relgiion.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know