Brain Fertilizer

I have no problem with the government "paying the salaries of military chaplains," so long as they provide pay for rabbis and muslim clerics as well where such are desired, or with it "building chapels on military bases," so long as it provides synagogues and mosques if such are in demand. Certainly you do not take having "In God We Trust" on the currency as religious? If it is intended as a religious expression, it is a thoroughly misguided one, as there is no more worldly a thing as money, and perhaps no better way to break several Commandments at once than to invoke God on our cash. Opening sessions of Congress with prayer can hardly be objected to by anyone but the Congressmen and women themselves. If and when Congress is populated by muslims or atheists, they can open their sessions with what *they* see fit for themselves as well. I see the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience as another non-religious expression. I would not, if I were you, rely on such changeable things as what is "constitutionally sound and appropriate," as that tends to vary quite a bit over time, regardless of what time you're talking about, e.g. 1880-1905 OR 1980-2005. And maybe I'm just dull, but what distinguishes a faith-based charity that does not proselytize from a secular one? What the people who run the charity carry around carefully closeted in their hearts? Nonsense. Faith-based charties are merely extensions of the church, formed to do the church's work. As such, they should not be funded with public money except that which they can collect in their plate on Sunday morning.

"Got it? Note the capitalizations implying proper nouns. Once you understand the full implications, you should see that deflates the majority of atheist/secular arguments in one stroke"

Really? But the very article you quote also includes a statement that various Constitutional scholars interpret the First Amendment as prohibiting favoritism in action or policy. Let's face it, the Supreme Court has been fairly clear about this interpretation as well.

A proper State position on Church and religion would be an agnostic one. By agnostic I mean the State should expressly have no interest in matters of faith or religion. In short, the State should remain mute and exist without official reference to deities. To do otherwise is provides the basis for a State Church.

The State has no business forming an opinion, endorsing or denying any deities. The State has no business endorsing or denying various religious teachings as such. Therefore, pledges including reference to gods, mentions of gods on money, forced prayer in schools, commandments on State-owned buildings and funds to Bush's proselytizing faith-based organizations are improper because they provide funds and endorsement to one or more deities, religious beliefs and religions. That endorsement implicitly provides governmental recognition and validation to specific religious doctrines at the expense other beliefs.

The State's action creates a de facto State religion (Church) of a new State demonination, no matter how watered down or seemingly inclusive of other religions, by specifically endorsing religious belief such as "under God" or "In God We Trust." Clearly, this is violation of the Establishment clause. Again, the State has no business in this realm and should refrain.

Why are the religious so terrified of an agnostic State? Such a State wouldn't require the citizens to believe anything (religious freedom) and wouldn't use their money to support religious expressions that all can't agree on. An agnostic State furthermore wouldn't mean that morals would be forced outside the halls of government or that individuals and private organizations couldn't express their faith in the 'public square.' The only conceivable reason that theists keep trying to force religion from the public domain and into the realm of government is to force the rest of us into submission. This is exactly why we need explicit and strict separation of Church and State.

[No saracasm/humor, well, maybe humor) alert] "Religion" is nothing more than a sub-heading under which we group certain types of similar belief systems. To base government upon only one specific belief system is dangerous, because then other belief systems are derided and excluded.” Nathan

See how silly everyone has been being? All you silly Red Sox and Yankees fans. We have no problem here at all. So, since the Yankees were founded prior to the Red Sox, from now on we will play yankeeball in yankee stadiums using yankeerules. The Yankee Hall of Fame will be in Yankeetown. The yankeetickets will be purchased with yankeemoney and prior to each game we will all sing Hail To The Yankees. You, of course, being a Red Sox fan, don’t have to sing. Just pretend that you are not there. Part of your ticket costs, even if the Yankees are not playing, will be used to build a Yankee clubhouse in each stadium to cater to the needs of Yankee fans and to provide pin-striped officials to attend all league games and to minister to Yankee fans who might attend the game. Another portion will be used to provide a Yankee representative at all meetings of the League officials, who will take a few moments prior to each meeting to praise the Yankees and thank them for their contributions to yankeeball. And always remember: all teams are equal in this league. Your team is just as good as any other team and there is no official league team. May the Yankees bless us.
Uh huh. That'll work.

...same words, different understandings...

Never underestimate the possibility that we are just talking past each other.

That goes for all four of us.

I'm kind of carrying on three slightly different conversations with 3 different people on slightly different aspects of the situation. Forgive me if I get confused. I just got finished typing a long response to you, Suzie, and then realized I was responding to something you didn't say.
[sigh]
This would be so much easier over beer.

Here's part of my problem: many of the aspects that Suzie has no problem with are exactly what a-[e] objects to. Should I let you two argue amongst yourself first?
Instead, though, for ease of discussion, I tend to lump you all together as part of the problem I face, in that I'm sure Suzie agrees with a-[e] enough that if a-[e] ever manages to make progress on his goals, Suzie would do nothing to stop him from removing "under God" from the pledge and "In God We Trust" from currency. Even if I'm wrong about Suzie, specifically, there are millions who are described by what I'm saying.
In a battle of opinion over symbols, the direction you are facing has as much to do with battle lines as the actual position you adopt.
In any case, a-[e], when I link an article, it's so you can read all of the discussion, not that I agree with every single word. I said it was a good discussion, not that I endorsed every line in it. Still, I find it highly ironic that you point out, "But the very article you quote also includes a statement that various Constitutional scholars interpret the First Amendment as prohibiting favoritism in action or policy" because you seem to ignore the reverse: various other Constitutional Scholars don't interpret the First Amendment that way. And even the "prohibiting favoritism in action and policy" is subject to interpretation, since I am absolutely arguing that establishing atheism as the default is precisely favoritism in action and policy for one belief system (atheism) over others, and thus violates the freedom of religious expression.
That interpretation, which is held by many Constitutional Scholars as well as many common citizens (whose opinion should not be ignored: we are a nation with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, remember?), does deflate the majority, though not all, of the atheist/secularist arguments.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean I think any of you are automatically and completely wrong. I don't make appeals to authority with the assumption that the authorities I listen to and agree with are the only experts.
This is a debate. There is quite a bit of gray area.
Simply put, I don't like the direction we are going, and there are enough Constitutional Scholars and intelligent, educated laymen who agree with me that there is no compelling reason for us to concede defeat.

Nathan: Good points, but you're mistaken on a crucial point in my argument. Specifically, I'm in favor of an agnostic government, not an atheistic government. An agnostic government would be one that refuses to take a position or endorse any religion or deity because it has no place making such decisions. Essentially, the government is mute and refrains from religious action and policies. Of course, that does not mean there should be restrictions on believers serving in office.

An atheistic government would explicity deny the existence of god or gods, a position that would be an endorsement of a view of religion. I'm not in favor of that. That, too, would be an establishment of Church, one of non-belief, but an establishment nonetheless.

A secular government need not be atheist, but it should be agnostic and refrain from actions and policies that create a de facto State Church. This failure to refrain is the situation the US government finds itself in now. It should be corrected.

Fair enough.
And another point surely is:
I don't have to persuade you, really, I just have to oppose you (you being: a general "you", mainly the ACLU and judges sympathetic to their cause) and express my opinion. That's what Democracy is all about. You don't need to come to a 100% consensus, you just need a plurality.

*****You don't need to come to a 100% consensus, you just need a plurality.*****

You are correct that *you* don't have to persuade anyone, but the government, on the other hand, IS beholden to every single last individual citizen. On matters where reasonable people differ and a consensus cannot be reached, the government has a duty to remain silent. Whether the ACLU or Pat Robertson understand this or not is irrelevant to its truthfulness.

On matters where reasonable people differ and a consensus
cannot be reached, the government has a duty to remain silent.
Either you didn't type that right, or I'm missing a subtlety, because nothing in the history of this nation has ever gotten 100% agreement on anything. Ever.

You are obviously too intelligent to have meant that, so could explain again or go a little more in depth? I mean, surely you aren't saying that since there wasn't a consensus on Judge Moore's display of the 10 Commandments, the courts had a duty to remain silent, right?
We have courts for precisely the purpose of not only making decisions in the absence of 100% consensus but to go against majority consensus
if Congress goes against the Constitution. And we have Congress so that we can get laws passed on isses that aren't 100% supported.
So I think I misunderstood what you said.

And as far as the govt being beholden to every single last citizen, I think that also only goes so far. Not every citizen can or will be happy with the decisions of govt. Criminals, specifically, will often be downright dissatisfied at times [understatement]. Taxes are yet another example where the govt doesn't listen to the people directly.

I've always thought that taken as a whole, citizens are like adolescent kids. You can't always do whatever people want, you have to make decisions based on what is actually good for the people whether they like it or not.
So you work to get a plurality, and then you enact your agenda. And if it works, people see that and are happy, even if they weren't happy to begin with. And if it doesn't work, people reject it, even if they were happy to get it in the first place. Which explains the reason why Democrats are losing support despite promising the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars to its special interest groups.

*****I mean, surely you aren't saying that since there wasn't a consensus on Judge Moore's display of the 10 Commandments, the courts had a duty to remain silent, right?*****

Actually neither Moore nor the courts should have been supporting or not supporting religious expression. No monument, no order to have it removed, no court case.

*****We have courts for precisely the purpose of not only making decisions in the absence of 100% consensus but to go against majority consensus
if Congress goes against the Constitution. And we have Congress so that we can get laws passed on isses that aren't 100% supported. So I think I misunderstood what you said.*****

Well, maybe so, but only because you didn't know that I think the government shouldn't be doing half of what it currently does. There is, I believe, a broad consensus for things like maintaining the armed services and law enforcement offices for security.

*****You can't always do whatever people want, you have to make decisions based on what is actually good for the people whether they like it or not.*****

On a local level, I sort of agree, but the further away geographically you get from the governed, the worse this kind of government becomes. That's why I think local government is superior for regulating commerce, or for setting educational standards (or whatever the people in the area want) but I will never agree that the job of govt. (at any level) is to decide what is "good for the people," where religion is concerned. And, quite frankly, I'm surprised that you do. Such an argument could just as easily be used to oppress Christianity as to support it.

Nathan,

ou may be interested in reading this blog http://thewanderingmind.blogspot.com/
which deals with some of the same issues you have been talking about. I wanted to post it to you privately, but couldn't find your e-mail.