Brain Fertilizer

Uhm, could it be that city hall's religious demonstrations come out of my taxes (in addition to violating the First Amendment), and TV channels don't? And that leading prayers in public school is government establishment of religion? These aren't even controversial arguments anymore.

"It bothers me that if the overall thrust of the secularization move gets its way, the Peanuts Christmas and Thanksgiving Specials will have to be banned, censored, or modified."

I don't think that the overall thrust of secularization will have Peantus Christmas or Thanksgiving specials banned, etc. That kind of programming is private programming, albeit over licensed airwaves. Regardless, the broadcast of that kind of programming isn't government endorsed. Religious programming should be available for those that want it, but so should non-religious programming.

The typical theist straw-man is to accuse non-believers of trying to remove religion from the 'public square.' That is entirely false. We just want religion out of our government. We don't want our schools teaching religious doctrine. We don't want our tax dollars to pay for proselytizing organizations and religious displays. What theists do with their own property and broadcast channels is up to them. Why should I fund your religion's activities?

The Owner's Manual,
Not necessarily. There are cases of Post Office managers and the like who have purchased displays with their own money and been banned from setting them up.
...and I could as easily argue that putting up a Santa Claus symbol but not a religious symbol is tax money going toward a belief system I don't agree with...
Remember, my assertion is that all belief systems are equal, and so atheist or secular as the default is just as bad as Christian being the default.
I think that officials should be able to express whatever view they have. Since the nation is mostly Christian, we'd have mostly Christian expressions. So what? I'd fight like a tiger to make sure B'hai and Wicca and Muslim religions would be able to express theirs, too.

See, rather than banning a nativity scene, I'd allow every religious group that wants to pony up the money to put their own display up.

If it ever got to be too crowded in the Town Square (or where ever) or if some of the displays began to be disrespectful or combative (like Satanism seems to specifically use Christian symbols in profane ways), then maybe we'd have to make some rules or try a different tack. But there doesn't seem to be any danger of that yet.

a-[e] catches something you missed, as well: that "public" airwaves are licensed and regulated by the government. Thus, tax dollars are involved in that.

a-[e],
You don't think the overall thrust of secularization will have the Peanuts specials banned. I do. There's no way to prove either of us right, except by waiting and seeing. Oh, and one thing you could do is pledge to join the theists in fighting if a group ever does try to ban.

It's actually not a straw-man that non-believers are trying to remove religion from the 'public square', because it is happening. Right now. Obviously, our different viewpoints of the nature/importance/validity of religion lead to different conclusions, but even if you don't feel the push to remove the "Under God" from the pledge is wrong, I do.
We can disagree as to the significance/implication of all the things I've linked, but that hardly makes it a straw-man.
We also disagree on the nature of the Intelligent Design theory. You equate it with Creationism, I don't. You also equate opposition to teaching only Evolution Bad Science Crap-Theory with trying to impose Non-science Creationism-only education. I don't. There are some groups trying to impose Creationism-only. But you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking I don't actively oppose them.
Generalization is a two-edged sword. I can recognize the horribly fatal flaws of Evolution without trying to impose a theocracy. You should be able to recognize that in a like manner, your opinion of secularization and agnostic government is not necessarily shared by the ACLU and other people initiating lawsuits. If you aren't trying to fight for what I oppose, you aren't really my opponent, but that doesn't make my arguments straw-men. I do think the ACLU is trying to ban religion completely from the 'public square'. There is a recent escalation in attempts to stifle religion. secularization may be approaching the level you prefer, and you are certainly entitled to fight for your views. But I'm entitled to fight for mine, too, especially since we have a good 180 years of national history that provides evidence that a significantly-religious society without undue religious influence on government is doable. It's only been in the last 40 years or so that we've really pushed toward a secular society, and we've had a significant rise in all sorts of social problems with it. Drugs, STDs, AIDS, teen pregnancies, abortion, murder, violence...
(not that there weren't problems before, too, but things seem worse these days compared to my youth).
All this begs the question: what would you do if a group was trying to slippery-slope our society into not being able to express religion anywhere outside their own home?

My apologies if this didn't read totally smoothly. I've got bunches of ideas jumbling around in my head, and they don't always come out coherently. The overall tone should be: lightly self-deprecating, recognizing that we have some fundamentally different assumptions, and that we are delving into some highly subjective areas in which it is nearly impossible to "prove" anyone's point.
To a certain extent, this is merely an academic thinking exercise.

*****Oh, and one thing you could do is pledge to join the theists in fighting if a group ever does try to ban.*****

Sign me up. Although I'm an anti-activist, I can confidently agree to this because I KNOW that such people do not exist. I know quite a few far-left, atheistic radicals, and none of them would be bothered by a Christmas Peanuts. You know who this *does* sound like though? Those nuts who got the screenings of "Saving Private Ryan" yanked because it offended their sensibility. You want to talk about re-injecting common sense? How absurd was that? Did you call up the AFA in protest of that nonsense?

*****especially since we have a good 180 years of national history that provides evidence that a significantly-religious society without undue religious influence on government is doable*****

You've confused society with government. In a significantly religious "society," every yard can have a nativity scene in it while the post office does not. No one has ever filed suit to require that a private citizen remove religious displays from their private property. Society is allowed as much religious expression as it likes. What you are arguing for, on the other hand, is religious displays on government property. It's not a half bad idea that everyone should be able to display their beliefs on public land, but it seems rather more sensible for people to express their private beliefs on private land. If people want to gather together to join in religious expression in public, they can do so as well, but they cannot do so with public money, or with public property, because that money + property belong to EVERYONE, including the atheists. That means that if the atheists and Christians cannot agree that the property should be put to X, Y, or Z use, the property is not used that way. Sometimes the atheists will lose out, sometimes the Christians will. That's the nature of sharing.

*****All this begs the question: what would you do if a group was trying to slippery-slope our society into not being able to express religion anywhere outside their own home?*****

That really depends on the specific circumstances. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Anyway, a different question:

You seem to believe that so long as the government doesn't put pen to paper and formally proclaim a particular religion that of the state, the intent of the founding fathers has been accomplished. This becomes obviously untrue if you think about the fact that written law is completely unnecessary to the establishment of a theocracy. If a simple majority of the Supreme Court and Congress were far right-wing Christians, and we had such a president as well, they could write all manner of laws outlawing birth-control, requiring that women live only in the houses of their fathers or husbands, making adultery punishable by death, etc., etc. without once writing a law proclaiming that Christianity is the religion of America.

I guess my point is that the slippery slope goes both ways, and the only way to prevent theocracy or enforced atheism is for the government to remain completely silent on religion.

Serial posting to add:

Oops! Forgot the referred to question, although it was implied.

Who draws the line for when religion has "undue influence?"

Wouldn't it be better for the government to remain completely uninfluenced by religion, and for religions to seek influence in society by virtue of their precepts?

Good points. I'll try to hit the main ones.

First, this one: but they cannot do so with public money, or with public
property, because that money + property belong to EVERYONE, including the
atheists.
That really gets problematic, because what you are saying here is that any group of people gets veto rights on what can be done with tax dollars. If atheists can veto tax dollars going to a religious program, then pro-life groups should be able to veto tax dollars going to abortion, doves can veto tax dollars for the military, conservatives can veto tax dollars going for welfare.
Look, govt does what the majority of people want, for the good of the people, and not even always the direct good.
The best example is Sports Stadiums. Lots of local and state govts use public funds and sometimes even public land to build football and baseballs stadiums. Not everyone goes to the games, in fact, the actual fans probably are a distinct minority. So why does it happen? Because the govt knows that having a sports team brings in all sorts of revenue, and also helps give a sense of pride and identity to a location. There are all sorts of tangible and intangible reasons to put money into a sports stadium rather than increasing welfare and other public programs.

In the same manner, there is nothing in the physical laws of the universe that make having a theocracy automatically bad. However, a cursory glance at history shows that the closer Church and State are entwined, the worse it is on people. On the other hand, a quick glance also shows that having a completely secular government is even worse.
Many atheists do understand mercy, altruism, the value of human life, kindness, etc. But there is nothing in a secular view that makes it necessary. Remove religion from govt, and you get inhumanity and atrocity.
But that's arguable. Not as much from my point of view, but that's okay.
The point is, there can be as much or as little connection between govt and religion as the people want and the people can handle.
I think we've gone too far toward secularism. You think we haven't gone far enough.

Um, I don't think I've so much confused govt with society as see them as inseparable halves of the same coin. Society determines the type of govt we have. The govt isn't on some pedestal somewhere else, it is made up of people who grew up in society, who have friends and relatives not in government, who watch TV and movies and read books and newspapers. If an attitude sweeps through society, govt will change. Likewise, if the people govt a certain mindset, laws will be passed/changed/overturned to reflect that mindset. Look at the anti-sodomy laws. For more than 100 years no one saw any reason to change them. Now the courts were overturning them left and right before the Supreme Court took care of the last of them. The courts are and always were a part of govt, so did the govt change, or society?
Both.
(I have no problems with the sodomy laws being overturned, btw)

the only way to prevent theocracy or enforced atheism is for the government to remain completely silent on religion.
This is the crux of what is either our disagreement or our misunderstanding...I'm still not sure which it is.
See, if the govt remains completely silent on religion, that sounds to me as if it has embraced atheism as default.

Like I have said: I think the govt shouldn't say anything if the Post Office manager wants to put up a nativity scene with his own money, nor should it restrict other religions from putting up their own display. It should step in to protect those displays from vandalism and resolve disputes over what might be considered disrespectful to another religion.
If that's what you mean by "remain silent", then we are largely suffereing under a misunderstanding.

I have a feeling, however, that you feel "remain silent" means something different.

Wouldn't it be better for the government to remain completely uninfluenced by religion, and for religions to seek influence in society by virtue of their precepts?
This I agree with, and that's what I'm trying to do right now. [grin]

Who draws the line for when religion has "undue influence?"
That is the trick, and I admit my answer is somewhat glib:
The people do. And the people do so exactly in these sort of arguments, but also in who they vote for in govt elections.
So, President Bush is open about how his faith is central to his life and thought process, and so is central to his performance of his duties.
51% of the voters, 60 million citizens, don't have a problem with that. And yet Democrats screamed about Bush violating Church and State separation (despite Clinton actually mentioning Jesus more times in official speeches, despite Kerry campaigning from pulpits several Sundays in a row, and Clinton seeking counseling from Rev Jesse Jackson for his sexual infidelity while on duty).
Other people (although probably not all of the 57 million who voted Democrat) didn't like it. Fine. They don't get a veto, but they remain able to try and convince people to see it their way.

So in our case: I have no problem with tax dollars going to faith-based charities that don't proselytize, I have no problem with govt officials saying Merry Christmas, I have no problem with prayers at public school football games, I have no problem with leaving "Under God" in the pledge, I have no problem with the Boy Scouts getting to meet on military bases, I have no problem with nativity displays on public property.
About the only thing I really want to change from what we have now (other than overturning a few recent ACLU victories, including the recent one keeping Boy Scouts off of military bases) is that I would like to see less restrictions on govt officials expressing their belief.

You are welcome to keep trying to convince me otherwise! [grin]

*****If atheists can veto tax dollars going to a religious program, then pro-life groups should be able to veto tax dollars going to abortion*****

Sounds good to me, although as an aside pro-life groups argue that abortion is not a religious issue.

*****doves can veto tax dollars for the military, conservatives can veto tax dollars going for welfare*****

The founding fathers specifically feared an intermingling of church and state. While it's arguable that war and welfare are religious issues, until religion is invoked in defense of, or in argument against them, I don't see how they trigger 1st amendment concerns.

*****Look, govt does what the majority of people want, for the good of the people, and not even always the direct good.*****

That may be the case now, but it shouldn't be. The government should doing things like maintaining armies, ensuring fluid and fair interstate commerce, building roads, managing our national parks, and keeping law and order. I don't know they're involved in social issues at all.

*****In the same manner, there is nothing in the physical laws of the universe that make having a theocracy automatically bad.*****

I'm not sure why you're referring to the laws of the universe when the only relevant law is the Constitution. We are debating the meaning of that law, and while examinations of the Constitution's legislative history may be useful in ascertaining the intent of the drafters, the laws of the universe are not.

*****On the other hand, a quick glance also shows that having a completely secular government is even worse.*****

So you are arguing that having a secular government is responsible for the coarsening of society? I have several problems with that argument:

1. The fabric of society is woven by the individuals of which that society is composed; so long as the individuals remain pious, planting a nativity scene in the post office's tree-lawn will be the least of their demonstrations of faith.

2. It presupposes that secularism has the power to rob people of their religious faith or their freedom to express their beliefs, neither of which is true. If the government made not one religious reference ever again, would it influence your belief in Christ? I hope not. Theocracies, on the other hand, oppress those whose consciences dictate something other than state doctrine. That is why they are unacceptable.

*****Many atheists do understand mercy, altruism, the value of human life, kindness, etc. But there is nothing in a secular view that makes it necessary.*****

Actually, there is at least as much incentive for an atheist to behave properly as there is for a Christian. Christians rely on their belief that the fate of their very souls is at stake. But they also rely rather heavily on the redemptive power of God's grace to encourage them to continue to strive to avoid sin, despite their continuing inability to do so. Similarly, the atheists which I know who are good people are very much motivated by their belief that with every action they are creating the world in which they must live and die. They recognize that when they refuse to be merciful, they create people who will refuse them and others mercy; that when they think only of themselves, they encourage others to do so as well; that there are immediate and inescapable consequences to immorality. So while Christians and atheists may be motivated by different things, both attach moral significance to their behavior. They may, of course, differ on what qualifies as moral behavior, but I believe that most Christians such as yourself might very well be amazed at just how similar your response to any given moral dilemma would be to a principled atheist.

*****Remove religion from govt, and you get inhumanity and atrocity.*****

Again, you are presupposing that a people's morality stands or falls with the government. Does yours? Why do you imagine that anyone else's has? Why do you argue that a government which is silent on religious matters is to blame rather than a failure of the church to inspire and captivate the populace?

*****You think we haven't gone far enough.*****

Actually, I think we're fine, and that people arguing to remove God from money and the pledge are idiots and should learn to pick their friggin' battles, (pardon my french) but anyway.

*****Um, I don't think I've so much confused govt with society as see them as inseparable halves of the same coin.*****

Have you read Thomas Paine's common sense? He explains a vision of the role of government which I rather agree with. You can read about it here: http://www.bartleby.com/133/1.html
Particularly relevant is this: "[w]herefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

*****See, if the govt remains completely silent on religion, that sounds to me as if it has embraced atheism as default.*****

My position is that souls and consciences embrace or reject atheism. Governments should provide the security and freedom for each person to live according to the dictates of their own conscience. Beyond that, they should be silent on religion because it is not the government's job to encourage or discourage people one way or the other what to believe.

*****If that's what you mean by "remain silent", then we are largely suffereing under a misunderstanding.*****

If the government neither supported nor discouraged any religion, I would be happy. However, when a government official erects a display on public property that supports one religion and one religion only, the government is supporting that religion. Government officials, when acting in their capacity as government officials, (especially when on public property) *are* the government. In that capacity, they are being paid to serve, and are beholden to, every constituent, atheists included. THAT is why they cannot engage in overtly religious activities, OF ANY KIND.

If they want to go home and cover their lawn with religious displays, more power to them. If they want to go door to door and minister, more power to them. If they want to exude their Christian nature and the happiness that is brought about by living a life with Christ, more power to them. If the government tried to prevent them from doing so, then it would be embracing atheism and I would have as serious a problem with it as I would if it embraced Christianity.

*****This I agree with, and that's what I'm trying to do right now. [grin]*****

[frown] Then why are we talking about government instead of the wonder of walking a path with Jesus and how best that can be communicated?

*****So, President Bush is open about how his faith is central to his life and thought process, and so is central to his performance of his duties. 51% of the voters, 60 million citizens, don't have a problem with that.*****

I agree. But if the religious right makes the mistake of believing that this means that the American public wants more religious influence from their government, they are in for a rude awakening. The reason Bush won is precisely because Americans have no problem with other people *being* religious. They will not, however, stand for a government that meddles in religious matters. While I agree that most of what you support will be tolerated, not much beyond it will.

As for nativity scenes on public property, if those are tolerated, it is more a result of public apathy than support. I, for instance, find it troubling but would certainly not make an effort to have them removed.

You know, I don't think anything I've said or done deserves a fisking.

In any case, you apparently want your views to be accepted as the default. I don't agree, and talking about it on my blog is one part of the persuasion process. I've offered several different "looks like we'll have to agree to disagree" opportunities, but you don't seem to want to take them. I'm a little tired of arguing minor points since our views and assumptions on even the most basic aspects of this issue are incompatible. Both have valid antecedents, and both are well within tolerances for social norms.

Maybe in a month or so I'll be in a mood to pick this up again, but I'm just about talked out. I think I've made my position clear, and you certainly have, so that's about it.

Stop by often and leave comments on anything that strikes your fancy. You are always welcome here.

*****You know, I don't think anything I've said or done deserves a fisking.*****

I don't know what that is, but I'm sorry if I've done it to you.

*****I've offered several different "looks like we'll have to agree to disagree" opportunities, but you don't seem to want to take them.*****

I must have missed them. I thought you were happy discussing this. Sorry for dragging it out when you didn't want to talk about it anymore. I agree to disagree.

*****You are always welcome here.*****

Thank you. Happy Holidays.

Yeah, I figured I was probably getting overly sensitive. My apologies.

"Fisking" is when you take someone's entire written text and break it up, responding point by point. The advantage is that you make sure you address every point. The bad part of it is that it often results in statements being taken out of context, and it allows the fisker the chance to consciously or unconsciously do zingers that make the original writer look bad. It gives the appearance of a conversation with the best lines going to the person doing the fisking.
When done deliberately, it is a very unfair way to continue a discussion.
If you've never heard of that method, then there's no way you could have been doing it deliberately, so I was overreacting. Again, my apologies.

One of the things I try to keep in mind is that so much is lost in "typed-only" conversations. If you don't know someone well, you don't recognize the turns of phrases intended to soften statements, and you definitely can't see body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc. A phrase said with a grin means something totally different than the same phrase said with a scowl.

But sometimes I forget that.

The other thing that was frustrating me is in my personality, I like to just talk about broad topics, giving a few specific examples for support, but I really hate discussing finer and finer points, especially if we haven't resolved the overarching dispute. I think the term for that is "chasing down rabbit holes", because in trying to nail down a minor point, the major point gets totally lost. I felt like that's what was happening. But if you took the time to read, consider, and write, I wanted to acknowledge that effort by reading, considering, and responding.
But with so many people writing so much, I couldn't keep up. That was what was making me tired, and that's no one's fault but my own, and no one could have known. I probably phrased that complaint badly. The dangers of blogging include getting burned out, I've seen.

The thing is, this is just one topic among many I can discuss. If you look through my archives, you won't see many articles regarding Separation of Church and State, because I'm not a one-trick pony. I hope you still feel comfortable in discussing any of the issues I post. I think I'll be posting some stuff about China soon, so that will provide another opportunity for a good gab-fest.

-Nathan

Man, I am gonna hit this thread when I get home. (bleary-eyed as we speak)

I have a few thoughts, but want to read through all the comments before I do so...

Wow! Nathan, great amout of discussion :D

Rae,
Your entry into the fray would be most appreciated.

Fisking, huh? Well you learn something new everyday. Do you know why "fisk" was chosen as a way to describe this process? It seems to have no relationship to the thing which it describes. Weird.

Anyway, I promise not to do that again. It should be easy enough and will save a lot of time.

:)

Fisking isn't so much derived from the proper word "fisk" as defined by Websters: To run about; to frisk; to whisk.; its more of a counter-culture jargon adopted by the internet/hacker community:

This is one of the better definitions I've seen:

verb. To deconstruct an article on a point by point basis in a highly critical manner. Derived from the name of journalist Robert Fisk, a frequent target of such critical articles in the blogosphere (qv).

Jeremy is 100% correct.
I should also add that most people don't have a problem with "fisking". I hate it, and refuse to use it. It seems to me to be more of a rhetorical device that artificially gives an appearance of superiority. It's like being able to stop time and think of the perfect comeback and then deliver it as a zinger with the appearance of being more clever...
Or maybe I just have an inferiority complex! [grin]
I do freely admit that the difference between responding to all points and fisking is very fine indeed. That's why I try to use direct quotes at a minimum and respond to the gist. It also gives me a chance to restate what I understood in my own words, which most experts say is a good way of increasing the success of your communication. I know that there is little more frustrating than seeing someone quote you verbatim...but totally misunderstand what you meant by it. :)