Religion and government--explain it to me

I wasn't going to do this today because I'm not really in the mood to get stomped on but I really couldn't help myself. I really want to know the answers and understand the reasons. So, for all of you on the right and for all of you people of faith here is your chance to educate the hethan liberal. I mean, come on, how often do you hear someone from the other side ask you for answers?

What is this driving need for religion in government and in the "public square?"

I'm sorry. I know that I am probably deficient in oh so many ways but I just don't get it.

Why do you insist that religion be part of government?

Lately, when I read blog posts and news reports on the religious and conservative movements I see scathing attacks against secularism. I looked it up just to make sure that I had the right definition. Here is what it said:

a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation

OK, so simply put, secularism means not religious.

Why is this a bad thing? I can't imagine that there is anyone who denies that we are a country of many kinds of people with many different faiths or no faith. Why is being not religious worse then being religious? And I don't mean that from a religious point of view, I mean it from a government point of view. Of course if you are Christian you are going to think Christianity is the right path and that those who believe differently are misguided. I understand that, what I don't understand is why one would advocate that Christianity be made part of government?

It used to be, and I wish it still was, that many things were private. Sex was private. How you raised your children was a private matter. How you practiced your faith was private. Parents used to be the main influence in the lives of their children. Parents used to teach right and wrong and decide whether you went to church and taught you about responsibility.

It worked well that way. Now, government has gotten out of control in some areas with how far they reach into our lives and that needs to be fixed, but why would you advocate putting religion in government which would only involve government more in your private lives?

How do you see it working that a government so involved in religion will be able to govern people of many faiths or no faith. How do you justify it?

There are almost no rules governing how you practice your faith. We have gone out of our way to make sure that those freedoms remain in place. Why mess up a good thing?

Chris

Comments

[Matt Hurley]

Chris: "Why do you insist that religion be part of government?"

ME: Why do environmentalists insist on their religion be a part of government?

Why does the Sierra Club, NARAL, NOW, and all the other special interest groups insist that their religions be a part of government?

That's right...they are all Americans too.........

[Matt Hurley]

And let me clarify...I wish all of those organizations, including the religious ones, would go away...

[Chris]

that isn't religion they are policy positions--

[Matt Hurley]

You say tomato.......

[Chris]

OK you made me giggle but you didn't answer the question babe...just danced around it and dragged tree huggers and women with facial hair into it--you are gonna get yelled at by the people who don't think we should denegrate people for how they look--oh no, wait...I'm gonna get yelled at for that--but you made me do it!

[Rita]

Chris: I am not religious, I was never raised that way. I am Lutheran, but I have no idea what that means. I have never been to church except for weddings, funerals, and when I was trying to get out of cleaning the floor in the military. My father before Hitler took over went to church in Germany, then that was banned. My mother never really was religious either. I don't know why government has to "be in my business" trying to direct our paths through religion. I think that it is great for people to have faith in whatever they believe in, and I hope it helps them guide their lives and others. I think it should be personal, not invaded by others, or having others tell you what you can do or not do based on religious preference. I think the only time I wanted to know more about my religion was when my father passed away. I wanted to know where he passed on too, and I wanted to know something to make me feel at peace with his passing. I never went, and I in my own mind think he is in a far better place. But I still have not made myself take that course into religion. I just have not wanted to step into that direction. But, I know that morally I am a good person, and I do (except in my weird way) am kind to others. So I hope when my time comes, I will be sitting at my father's side with a good glass of wine saying to others on Earth "Up Yours"..:)

[Matt Hurley]

My point, Chris, is that everybody has a right to be heard...including the religious...for far too long, the ACLU has hammered away at the religious and NOBODY stood up for them...so they stand up for themselves now. I got no problem with that, do you?

[dr wnc]

Chris,
To be honest, I don't think we do in a total sense however in order to have order we need a code of laws. The only historical code of laws is religion. The muddling begins,..... and I'm with Matt because it is a religion to those groups.

[USMC Steve]

Let's make sure there is absolutely NO religious reference to or influence on any facet of our governmental operation.

Murder - no longer a crime of any sort. Since "thou shalt not commit murder" is irrelevant, there is no justifiable reason to say one cannot murder others.

Theft - Same argument applies, it is fine now.

Perjury - Again, same deal.

In other words, our legal system must now be abolished in its entirety. It was established based on the old English system, which was in turn based on the religious tenets that were widely adhered to in that time period. Since we cannot have religion having anything to do with Government, the whole system must be scrapped.

Read the first amendment people, and stop inserting bullshit into it. Here it is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THERE THAT SAYS ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION OR A STATE OF RELIGION, ONLY THAT IT WILL NOT BE PROHIBITED. If you read it ANY OTHER WAY than that YOU ARE WRONG. It goes back to England and their official state sanctioned religions, and the reason the US became the USA and not the United States of Britain. Were it not for the seeking of religious freedoms, this country would not exist right now. Got that gang? Religious Freedom, people. Find me one Federal law that has ANY religious connotation or requirement, or that requires any defined observation of religion.

The simple fact of this whole debate is that liberals and athiests and other assorted idiots are infringing on MY right to religious freedom. Not the other way around. The only group in this country that has had their rights systematically trampled on is the religious in this country.

I find it totally reprehensible that there are people out there who use their CHILDREN to exert power over others regarding the pledge of allegiance, when it is not even a mandatory event. They don't like it so it must be STOPPED. Funny how the rest of the country that has no problem with it has to go along with a few undisciplined assholes.

[Lisa]

Why is it atheists have more rights than those who follow a religion. Why is it that if one atheist doesn't like the use of God in the pledge the rest of us have to suffer.

The ACLU is out of control. They are not interested in equal rights for "all"... they are just interested in pushing their agenda.

[Bombtruck]

Well, a couple of things about this post:

Government is by nature intrusive, and it doesn't matter whether it is caused by religious fervor or not. If you've had to pay the IRS off, that's government intrusion. If the government has used emminent domain to take property, that's government intrusion. Religion has nothing to do with it. I consider this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46514 a far more severe intrusion of government than, say, government reimbursing churches in Louisiana for being on the front lines of hurricane relief.

Matt was right in the sense that why is it environmentalists get to promote their religion/way of thinking/whatever through the courts on the rest of us? That's a group imposing its beliefs through government on the rest of us just like you claim religion does. Cuts both ways. Just like what gives Michael Newdow the right to ban my child from saying the Pledge in school? Now, before you go into the opposite arguement of Government FORCING kids to say the pleged, in numerous school districts it has been deemed optional, and that's the way it should be, not sent to the extreme of you're banned from saying it or you're forced to.

In any instance, the case for religion being a bedrock in the foundation of this country's government is a much easier arguement to make if you read the writings of the Founders on the subject. Let's not forget: the establishment clause, along with saying the Government can't create its own church and forcibly impose it, also cannot ban the free exercise of others to use religion in the public square. Read it, it says it cleary. The fact that some slick s#!t ACLU lawyer has dazzed enough out-of-touch judges to make them think it says no religion anywhere is just a product of spin and slick packaging.

Why ARE people so afraid of religion nowadays, anyway?

[Matt Hurley]

I'm with USMC Steve right up until he says this "THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THERE THAT SAYS ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION OR A STATE OF RELIGION"

Actually, it does...in the first phrase: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

But, USMC is right that it does come from the English tradition...the founding fathers didn't want a state religion - that's why the original colonists came over anyway, to do their own thing - any more than the ACLU does.

Here's the thing, though... When the ACLU engages in their actions against the religious and get government to go along with it, they are violating the First Amendment ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). One can make the argument that the ACLU does it through the judiciary, not Congress ("Congress shall make no law..."), but I think that violates the "spirit" of the founding fathers' intentions...but that's a whole other argument...

[USMC Steve]

Actually Matt, I might not have been clear in what I was trying to say before. What I meant was that the clause forbids the Government from mixing in religion. What this means is that they cannot require that Catholicism or Protestantism or any other religion is now the official one for the USA. Constitutional scholars claim that this goes back to the formal authorized state religion present in England for so long, and that the American system didn't want the Government making any regulations or rules regarding how religion worked in this country. The clause specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from acting on religion in its operations.

[Matt Hurley]

USMC,

I thought that's what you meant, I just wanted to clarify... :)

[Rita]

Hey, another thing. What in the Hell is wrong with Merry Christmas? I want to know? It is not the same when people say "Happy Holidays" Exactly, what holiday is it? It is about time we stop being so damn Politally Correct. I call it as I see it, and that means if I want to say "Merry Freaking Christmas" then I can. See, and I am not really that religious, just sensible. I miss the old days. Oh, by the way ACLU, "Merry Up Your A$$ Christmas, Morons...I know, still a several months away.

[Angela]

Chris ~

I’m not sure I understand your post. Do you want to do away with freedom of religion?

[HC Steve]

I feel sorry for those who need to force their Religion on others to give themselves their moral Compass.

[April]

I didn't get the impression that Chris wants to do away with freedom of religion--quite the opposite.

We see a cyclical trend in this country, when civil liberties seem "immoral" and over the top to certain religious group, there is a big push to get "God back in government," and attempts to revise the constitution to support a religious view.

I support a libertarian stance, where civil liberties are liberally defined, and if your religion prevents you from participating in certain behaviors, that's your business. Don't participate in those behaviors, don't allow your kids to watch it on tv, play it on their video games, keep a close watch on who their friends are, etc., but I don't see that it's beneficial to a free country to make laws against behaviors that don't cause harm to others.

I understand USMC Steve's point about religion being ingrained in our moral code, but I disagree. I suspect that there has been a moral code since humans existed, and that it is ever changing according to our understanding of the world and each other, and that it predates religion. To say that without religion we have to throw morals away is disingenuous.

[Matt Hurley]

Yeah, Hard Core, I agree...that global warming stuff is nonsense, ain't it......

[Matt Hurley]

April: "To say that without religion we have to throw morals away is disingenuous."

ME: I dunno about that.

Moral: "Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character"

Code: "A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct"

'Get' Religion: "To resolve to end one's immoral behavior"

Sounds to me like having a moral code and getting religion has something to do with each other.

But I think it is something of a paradox (one of those chicken and the egg arguments) as to which came first...

[April]

Matt, in your example, only religion is dependent upon morals--morals are not dependent upon religion. I maintain that morals can be held in the absence of a specific belief in God.

[USMC Steve]

April makes no sense. Try this on for size. If you have no concept of religion, where would the concept of right and wrong come from. What basis would someone have for saying any given behavior is correct or incorrect? And the particular religion involved makes no difference since in so many ways, they reflect each other. An example: many hardcore liberals have no moral code whatsoever, hate religion of any kind, and EVERYTHING is seen in shades of gray. Thus, many of them feel they can justify any given behavior at some point in time since they are situational ethicists. A typical fundamentalist Christian is much more black and white, and a behavior or action is either right or it is wrong, period type of person.

What I am trying to point out here is that without some basis in which to say, this right or that is wrong, how would any of us know right from wrong. Then it would all just be opinion. And it is a FACT that our legal system right up to today is based on Judeo-Christian values.

[dr wnc]

Once again HC with his “left talking point”, Think for yourself.

I believe a “lack of personal” convictions make those offended with “religion” denounce it for fear of it.
All too frequently, such denunciations come in response to our free exercise of religious speech in a public place or public forum, or, even more often in protest to like speech in privately-owned media, in privately owned businesses, in privately owned schools, or on privately owned doorsteps and in any mention of God in government. How is it that the mere opening of one's mouth in defense of a religious principle forces anything down anyone's throat? Let's be frank or george, force is an awfully strong five letter word to cut from a dictionary and paste into the context of speech, and those who carelessly define religious speech in terms of force can do better, HC!
Borrowing from Matt’s MO
From Webster: "force" defined as follows:
As a noun: "Violence; power exerted against will or consent; compulsory power"
And as a verb transitive: "To compel; to constrain to do or to forbear, by the exertion of a power not resistible.
If a person chooses to not be a part of religion then instead of denouncing them as HC did, choose to personally have the will and resist, because true force is not being used by most people of religion or being felt by those who do not have religion.

[April]

USMC, religion is not the only basis for a sense of right and wrong. The very existence of society and community may well be that basis.

I would think communities would have seen very early on--again, probably prior to any organized religion or belief in God--that killing each other, stealing their stuff, etc., was detrimental to their cohesion and general safety, and caused them grief.

I realize this is hypothetical, because none of us can know the absolute origin of morality.

I think the important thing is that we not be completely rigid in our application of religion/morality to law. If no one is harmed, let it go.

Just so you're clear on my left/right position (middle), I would say the same to the people who get so uptight about the pledge of allegiance. If you don't want to say it, fine--don't say it. But it's not harming anyone to say it, and we don't need to create new laws to prevent anyone from saying it.

[Matt Hurley]

April: "Matt, in your example, only religion is dependent upon morals--morals are not dependent upon religion. I maintain that morals can be held in the absence of a specific belief in God."

ME: USMC Steve makes the case a bit harsher than I would, but essentially he's right. In my example, the guy getting religion has to have some idea about what is right and wrong, he gets that from the moral code. It seems clear to me that the moral code and the getting of religion have the same goal: affecting behavior positively.

Where I diverge from USMC Steve is that I am not entirely certain that either preceded the other. And to some degree, I agree with April that morality can exist without religion (but not to the extent that she thinks it does - I think you can lead a moral life and not be religious, but just because you don't ascribe to a religion doesn't mean that religion hasn't been the foundation of the morality; conversely, you can be religious and not moral - see the Holy $#|+ series over at WMD for more on my thoughts on that).