THE VEXED QUESTION OF RELIGION

excellent

actually, Scrat you're doing very nicely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3074245.stm

Gee, first they rape from their groins, and now they rape from their mouths. c.i.

My original quote referred to what the people and their elected representatives might choose to do, and the citation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is in support of that contention. You've made yet another unsubstantiated contention in writing: "Hamilton and Madison wrote EXPLICITLY that "promote the general welfare" meant only through the use of those powers enumerated in the Constitution." Quite apart from providing no evidence for this claim, just making a bald statement, you ignore that thrity-nine individuals signed the constitution. It was written neither by Hamilton nor Madison, nor the pair of them together, but rather, by a committee of style, which included Gouveneur Morris, overwhelmingly accepted as the editor, and therefore as close to an author as any single individual comes. So even if you could come up with an unassailable quotation, it would not comprehend the opinions of the other thirty-seven delegates who signed, nor of the sixteen delegates who did not sign the finished document. After the "Grand Compromise" which finally settled the issues of representation and sovereignty between large and small states which was adopted over the vehement objections of Madison, the old alignments broke up. Madison had even less power, and he was pointedly not included in the "grand committee" which hammered out that compromise. When that committee reported to the convention, Madison's demand for a congressional veto power over state legislation was also denied. Madison contributed much to the Virginia Plan which was brought to the convention, but events and committee deliberations increasingly marginalized his contribution as one sacred cow of his after the other was slaughtered on the altar of national unity--and in the end he agreed with the final document because he found it superior to the possibility of failure of union. On July 26, the convention turned their resolutions and compromises over to a committee of detail--Madison was once again excluded, having by then resorted to such histrionics as suggesting that the large states could form their own union, to which the others would eventually adhere out of necessity. By this time, Madison had little influence left in the convention, and could only make his voice heard when joined to the sentiments of others. The committee of detail consisted of John Rutledge (to allay the fears of slave owners), Edmund Randolph, Nathaniel Gorham, Oliver Ellsworth and James Wilson. They were charged with making a draft to include "decisions" made and to provide a text for those issues still not resolved. The convention adjourned for ten days, and sat again on August 6, to receive the report of the committee of detail. The documentary evidence available suggests that Wilson and Randolph wrote the draft presented to the convention. Madison was a member of the committee of style which was created on September 8 to produce the final draft of the document--along with Alexander Hamilton and Gouveneur Morris. All accounts, including the private correspondence of Madison and Hamilton agree that Morris did the editorial work of slashing out unnecessary verbiage, and reducing the agreed upon mechanisms of the government to as brief and simple a statement as possible. Those same sources, Madison's and Randolph's included, agree that Morris rewrote the Preamble. If you think you can, provide citations that show that Madison and Hamilton meant specifically what you've stated they did with regard to the "general welfare" statement. I will be very much surprised if you do, as you have not yet provided a single citation for your contention about the meaning of the first amendment. The sources for what i have written are as numerous as to make the statement that there are thousands of them not at all an exaggeration. I re-read the history of this period roughly every two to three years. Most recently, i've read the Oxford History of the United States, Volume II, The Glorious Cause, by Robert Middlekauff, Director of the Huntington Library of San Marino, California. Those wishing to get a good overview of the participants in the convention can go to the "Founding Fathers" page of the Library of Congress' "Thomas" section, which is their legislative section.

The Charters of Freedom Founding Fathers Page[/color]

Setanta said
We have to stipulate our definitions in some such way as Set has done here in order to talk coherently. And this differentiation he's made serves the topic well. On the subject of state/church separation, I have no disagreement with Set at all.

But I think religious behaviour is enormously complex and multi-faceted, and that the stipulated definitions aren't entirely satisfactory. If what follows rambles a bit, please excuse me, as I'm not clear on some things in all of this. I'll note too that a political scientist looking at religious behavior will likely have a different focus that would a sociologist.

It would seem to me that a more fundamental fact of human behavior than spirituality is our gregariousness, or our need/propensity to wish to operate within a group structure. If we consider what is entailed in group action - any group action - a core component must be agreement (joe is boss, home is this group of trees, food is found over there, you're my mom, the other guys we bump into aren't us, etc. Other groups will have other sets of agreements (logically, they must). But for any group, some set of agreements seems clearly entailed. In this limited or functional view, I don't know that there is any significant difference between how a church functions and how the Rotarians or The Broadway Street Boys or the grad class of 83 function.

Groups can and do function with varying degrees of agreement. It seems that a fundamental difference between the conservative and the liberal is the preference for either more strictly held or more loosely held agreements. If so, then one might locate part of the liberty problem in this variation in human preferences.

For example, we witnessed here in a2k as we did more broadly in the US a debate about the propriety of freely speaking out against the Iraq war once it had begun. Clearly, that is a similiar liberty problem, but arising out of national group ideas and values, rather than religious group ideas and values. Ethnic or cultural groups too can display this sort of variation in desire for uniformity, as can political parties, etc.

Thus if we could somehow do away with religions, we would, I think with certainty, still be beset by the same dilemma. It is for this reason that I don't think religion is the problem we really face when dealing with coercive controls by those in power. Religion facilitates the problem by defining a group and the group's others, but just in the same way as do borders and flags.

Another factor in the mix is that religion can be used to suggest some clear and imminent threat to everyone (Satan, desecration of a holy place which will make god mad and your crops won't grow) and thus it can function to make demands for uniformity particularly acute. But again, look at what Bush did with Sadaam, or at what earlier administrations did regarding communism...same thing.

Clearly, it seems to me, one real danger in a close union between a national or ethnic grouping and a religious grouping is that liberty can suffer a double whammy from the folks within the group who wish to enforce uniformity.

So finally, when they vote me King, it won't be religion particularly that I'll go after in order to protect liberty. It will be the personality types who demand high uniformity.

Scrat, I've enjoyed our little exchange. It would seem that there is nothing to be gained by its continuation. I retire in the full expectation that you will soon experience a epiphany in which you will see that the first amendment means what it says, and that it does not mean the opposite of what it says.

Blatham, a very perceptive post. I have long noticed that Liberals and Conservatives have opposing lists of issues upon which they require conformity. For example Conservatives demand that all citizens refrain from having or promoting abortions. Liberals say, "Get the government off my back." On the other hand, Liberals say, "All meat produced by the meat packing industry ought to be inspected by a government agent in order to prevent food poisoning." Conservatives shout, "Get the government off my back."

Many of the Conservative imperatives are moral issues, while the Liberal imperatives are more often social issues.

The idea that you've got hold of can work itself out in many ways. I hate to think of it, but have you made a strong argument for Libertarianism?

Blatham

Good points about religion and other group structures such as borders and flags. However there is a subtle way in which religion sustains intergroup aggression.

If you follow my earlier point about "only a few dying in battle " being "good" from the point of the group but "bad" from that of a particular bereaved family then "religion" functions to resolve the ensuing group tensions. i.e. "He has gone to join his maker"..."He is at rest now"..." His reward will be in heaven"..." He was so young, but God moves in mysterious ways".
From an atheists view these are all meaningless paliatives, especially when casualties are often ignoble errors in the fog of battle.

A key issue therefore is that "religion" attempts to answer the need to find "the meaning of existence" and this puts it in a potentially much more powerful position than flags or borders in motivating or justifying intergroup conflict.

In this discussion, i've used spirituality to indicate an individual's beliefs about ultimate causation-a prime mover, if you will-and religion to indicate the organization of a group of believers, with the concomitant codification of belief. Whether or not one would wish to quibble with those terms, i believe that i've given definition enough for my meaning to be understandable, at least so far as concerns those terms. I will stipulate the existence of spirituality, because an exegesis on the nature and origin of that is not germain to this topic, and i will stray far enough in this passage.

The human race has been as intelligent in the whole as it now is for tens of thousands of years. When the basic unit of human community is an extended family group, or a clan, the amount of available knowledge among the illiterate is necessarily restricted to esoteric memory and rote. The individual members of a community can vary widely in their intelligence-but the circumstances of the primitive mitigate against detailed, extensive education, and the dull-witted adult is very likely to raise a dull-witted child. A good brief statement of these conditions is provided in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes: "And in that state of nature, no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes was responding from the then (mid-seventeenth century) available accounts of tribal people, and was consciously opposing the idealistic view of the "noble savage." It is also worth noting that observations of tribal society, from the Germania of Tacitus to the present day, have shown that individual adults are by and large free agents, acting only within the social constraints which consensus has created to avoid direct violent confrontation.

Into such a situation, he or she who is a genuinely brilliant individual would bring a comprehension so far removed from those around them coping with a "life . . . solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" as must be described in orders of magnitude. With each adult (and in such societies, that is anyone successfully attaining breeding age) independent of coercion, and persuasion from intellectual argument likely falling upon deaf ears, mysticism is likely to occur to said brilliant individual as the most effective means of exerting control over others as regards the collective world view. This speculation roughly describes my concept of the origin of shamanism, and eventually of organized religion. Were such an individual begins to practice mysticism as a means of persuasion or control, it becomes necessary to "keep one's story straight." Even in an illiterate society, internal inconsistencies in statements about the origin and ordering of the world are going to be pounced upon. I believe this to be the origin of dogma. I will take this opportunity to note that this is not necessarily to say that all shamans, priest, priestesses, etc., are to be considered insincere. I am only speculating on the origins of shamanism, which i believe most likely to derive from the interaction of brilliant individuals with those around them who, from innate capacity or lack of educational opportunity, are not sufficiently intelligent to argue the subtleties of a world-view or a statement of origins.

Within such small groups, division of labor is likely to arise from natural cause-someone displays a talent for pottery-making, and none for hunting or farming, and the conclusion will be sufficiently obvious to allow for the rise of an avocation of potter. For larger groups to successfully coalesce, however, a greater measure of social control is necessary. The potter may be obnoxious to a degree, but her bowls and pitchers are still needed. The weaver may be contentious and argumentative, but everyone will need a warm, serviceable cloak before winter. In this, i believe, is the rise of the temple society-shamans using the authority of their mysticism in aid of group cohesion. As smaller groups gather into larger-family to clan to sept to tribe to nation-it seems to me very natural that shamans, who likely have already been in communication, will gather to regularize their dogmas, to "codify" the spiritual into the religious. The great cities of the Nile valley, of the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, of the Indus valley, of the central Mexican plateau were possible because of the organization provided by the priests and priestesses of the temples-and this clergy can resolve all issues of personality which might eventually doom the efforts of simple community good will. However, the problem of authority descends from the old independent groups just as surely as does a primitive division of labor and shamanism. Mere dogma is insufficient, and the appeal is made to moral authority based upon the commandments of the deity or deities, and after the rise of literacy, those commandments become the stuff of "revealed truth" from scripture.

It is possible, and much more obvious, to trace the rise of individuals to positions of aristocratic power in a similar manner from leaders of the hunt, to leaders of the raid, to leaders of the military. These persons may have little skill in forensic contest, but a well-honed spear would usually resolve any issues of authority between such a man or woman and a shaman to the satisfaction of the former. The "marriage" of military authority with religious and the consequent rise of aristocracy seems to me to be an obvious progression. Differences in the rate of such "progress" between neighboring groups adds a great deal of variation. Legendarily, the Greeks credited Cadmus, a Phoenician, with gifting them an alphabet. Were a rough-and-ready clan or tribal group suddenly catapulted to a "higher" degree of social and technological development without the intervening stage of the temple society, the rise of democracy, or, at the least, oligarchic republicanism seems sensibly to flow from the "free agency" enjoyed hitherto by the individual adult within the clan or tribe. The Assyrians seem to have relied somewhat upon a division of labor with overtones of a temple society, as well as trade and raid. This is an outline view, and not intended as a comprehensive statement.

My point at the end of it all, is to note that complexity of community requires complexity of activity requires complexity of control. At most times, religion has provided this; at other times, militarism in the guise of aristocracy has provided this control. The horrors and sorrows which have arisen from the clash of dogmas is not less than, and all to often concomitant with the clash or armies-and are legion in history, and need no rehearsal here. I believe that both a general understanding of history and the rise of civilization, as well as specific cultural memories of recent events such as the English civil wars and the repression of the established churches during the revivalism of the "Great Awakening," account for the attitudes of the "framers" who wrote the first amendment. To obviate silly arguments, i would here note that those amendments were written by the First Congress, with Muhlenberg as Speaker of the House sending them to the states-although arguably informed by the writings of the "framers," as well as ordinances promulgated by them, and discussion of the sources for those amendments is of necessity much broader than simply what was said or written by a few individuals.

It was not only to arrive at the Bill of Rights that i wrote the foregoing. I am here positing that a history over millennia teaches, or ought to teach us, that religion entails a will to power and control which is not necessarily a part of simple spiritualism. I am positing that just as the venal and self-interested arise within any profession, so they will arise among religious leaders. I am positing that such venal religious leaders pose a threat to the freedom of all members of society, and that as a result of keen insight and the application of wisdom, those who wrote the First Amendment gave us a needed protection from such venality.

I'd like to comment on your very impressive last post, Setanta - and what I refer to is contained just in the last paragraph, quoted above.
You make a convincing case that threats from "shamans" and "shamanism", like threats from military and/or political leaders both have their genesis in the corruption that arises from the misuse of power. And I can in no way dispute that such "venal" people can and do find easy avenues to potentially damaging influence over average lives. Your's are very apt words to the wise explaining the necessity of separation of church and state.
I would remind, however that although "religion entails a will to power and control which is not necessarily a part of simple spiritualism", "simple spiritualism" (for want of better words at the moment to describe something with as real an influence as mother's love) is still the core and backbone of country churches, neighborhood mosques, and family synagogues all over. In some neighborhoods the ways that the community and the church feed one another cannot be overstated, and it is a healthy, vital relationship.
I can easily understand why it is neccessary to have church separate from state. I don't know if those who feel most compelled to voice their views about that separation would feel the same if they had the memories and experiences that I have, of a church that provided fellowship, solace, and responsibility, to name a few things.
I become alarmed when I see Ashcroft, Falwell, Graham or Farrakhan stand astride or trample the fragile border that's supposed to separate the spiritual from the political. And I will add my voice when necessary, to those who oppose them, when their foolishness and madness seek to oppress. But I cannot forget ever that the God of my experience has best expressed himself throughout my lifetime in the personalities and deeds of human beings, and those human beings have often operated within the constructs of religion.

Thank you, Snood, for your kind remarks. I greatly appreciate that following statement by you:



I wish to state once again, as i have elsewhere, and may have neglected to do in this thread, that i have no complaint of the individual believer, except as exploited by the venal. Your comments on the relationship between community and church are cogent, and i would suspect that the ancient relationship between shaman and clan was the same. It is not the Reverend Miller or Father Sheehan we need to fear-that individual within the community who is the embodiment of the link you describe. We have every reason to fear, and every right to thwart the Fallwells and the Farakhans.

And neither would any quote or quotes you provide.

Which brings us back to the point of each expressing our own OPINIONs based on those facts and quotations we've read, what we think they mean, and what we personally believe. You pretend to have "proven" something while simultaneously arguing that it cannot be proven by the very methods you choose. You attack me for stating my point of view in my own words--which at least shows I'm thinking rather than regurgitating what others have told me things mean--then you argue that citing quotes, which you have challenged me to do, won't prove a thing. What's the point? You KNOW you are right and I am wrong. Why continue to argue it if you have proven it?

Thanks for your develoment of such an interesting topic. I've been reading it since the beginning... the first post being a real marvel. It was quite moving to read the words of earlier presidents & statesmen who felt, as I do, that religion & government shouldn't mix. I am aghast at the plans of the current government to increase religious-based contracts. (I'm aghast at the current government's interest in increasing all contracts... but that's another topic.)

One thing that was brought up and not expanded on is that the LDS charitible wing, Catholic Community Services & Lutheran Community Services showed commendable foresight in not rushing to accept government money. Not only is religion bad for government, but government is bad for religion. Apparently that was a truth they recognized. I sometimes wonder if religion isn't bad for spirituality, too, while government-sanctioned spirituality is too awful a horror to be contemplated.

Organized religion. An oxymoron.

Piffka - All in all, I think this has been a great discussion too. But may I ask you a question about your statements above? What is a "religious based contract", and how does it differ from any other contract?

Lastly, I share your concern at the overall willingness to increase spending by this government.

Scrat -- You asked what I meant by the religious-based contract. I meant giving government contracts to faith-based organizations because of a (false) sense that good works based on religious motivation will serve the needs of the country. It is wrong for a number of reasons which have already been discussed.

We don't agree on government spending. Government should be spending more on many things like maintaining national parks. They should not make it a policy to "save money" by eliminating government jobs and contracting out the work.

[quote="Scrat]You KNOW you are right and I am wrong. Why continue to argue it if you have proven it?[/quote]

Good point--first good point you've made in this thread. Consider yourself ignored from here on out.

Now, that's the Setanta I've come to know and love!

Set, Your mention of a shaman brought to mind my recent trip to Cuzco where a shaman peformed a ceremony for us for a safe and happy journey. All eleven of us participated by having the shaman do a sort of prayer on us. The Inca culture is an interesting one, which will disappear when they bring in more western culture. c.i.

Disappear, or evolve with the passage of history as do all cultures? (I'm not claiming that this is universally good, just that it is universally inevitable.)