Separation between Church and State: Allows religion to flourish...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a priori @ Oct 12 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]524855[/snapback]</div>

Most of the founders were native born Americans, and not immigrants escaping from religious tyranny. The people who escaped from religious tyranny did so much earlier and came to set up communes where they imposed their own form of religious tyranny (the Pilgrims and the Puritans, for instance). It was the native born (or "colonial born") Americans who studied the enlightenment writings of men like John Locke, and borrowed the rights of the English from sources like Blackstone, who determined that men were born free ("all men are created equal") and had rights that were theirs intrinsically from their Creator including the right to life and liberty and freedom of religion (what Blackstone called man's attainment of true happiness, communion with God, that should be taken individually and not with coercion from the state).

By the mid-1700's, Americans had been under "self rule" for more than 100 years, and the concepts in the Declaration of Independence mirror other documents of the time (as Pauline Maier, Prof of American History at MIT notes in her book "American Scripture"). The concepts we look at as revolutionary were common beliefs in America ... it was the complaints about state religion, bunking soldiers, etc., that were considered revolutionary.

The founders did disestablish religion on the Federal level, but not immediately on the state level. But by the early 1800's, all the states had disestablished their official state churches. That freed people to seek their own religion (or not), and its significant that the very religious American people had two "Great Awakenings" that swept across the country in the early years after this. The statistics on church attendance don't really reflect the religious nature of the people of the country, as Maier notes in her book.

For those elsewhere in this thread who are saying we are more religious from a government level, I can only conclude that your grasp of American history is slight indeed. Religious speech and imagery is much more plentiful in the 1800 and early 1900's. All you have to do is walk around D.C. to see the inscriptions on almost every monument and building, to see the mural of Moses receiving the 10 Commandments in the Supreme Court, or read the inscription on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. Religious sentiment continued unabated in this country up to and including WWII and the generation after, as evidenced by President Roosevelt leading the nation in prayer on his radio broadcast announcing our entry into WWII:

This kind of public sentiment was even shared by John F. Kennedy in 1961 in his inaugural address:

The atheist's contention that expressions of religion in public is unusual or forbidden started in the 1960's, not in 1776.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 12 2007, 06:03 PM) [snapback]524860[/snapback]</div>

I think that is the most important thing, said the preacher. One should not be forced to do anything; one should be free to not have religion. In fact, it's against my religion to force another person into religion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 13 2007, 12:14 AM) [snapback]524988[/snapback]</div>

And I love freedom of thought. In fact, I would rather someone think about Christ, and reject Him, then not be able to think about Him at all.

 

You'll notice that FDR did not give a name to God...
That prayer was about as inclusive as you could get, and must be considered as part of the predominate american culture of the time.

Even the founding fathers mentioned God.. but their God was not named, either... that is, the closest thing to a name was "Nature's God"...

It's a Deist thing.

Burritos, this is a good thread, thanks.

 

We should never stop until we have achieved our objective, to quietly strive toward a world without religion. Only when we have achieved this goal will we live in a world at peace.
Pat Sparks 2007

Without religion there will be no tool to rally people in the name of god against another group with different beliefs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Oct 13 2007, 07:42 AM) [snapback]525061[/snapback]</div>

Who is we? Do you really believe you can stop people from believing something as basic to human nature as religous belief? And that religion is the cause of the world not being "at peace"? Sounds more like a fantasy than an objective.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 12 2007, 06:22 PM) [snapback]524872[/snapback]</div>

An interesting argument, but what country you are referring to that does not mention god in schools? Certainly not the US, where comparative religion studies in schools are deeply entrenched and strongly protected, as even Abington v. Schempp clearly defined the requirements to be simply that the school not be practicing or proselytizing a religion:

"t might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

And that's what the great big "anti god in school" Supreme Court ruling has to say on the subject. Texas has recently even passed a law explicitly encouraging high schools to offer an elective focusing exclusively on the bible. A "non-denominational, non-preaching course on the religions of the world" is a common elective in public high schools around the country. (I actually had such education in my public school 5th grade social studies segment, although in chats with my mom, who just retired from teaching elementary school, the recent move to "teaching for The Tests" in the past few years has resulted in less time for social studies in general.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 13 2007, 12:45 AM) [snapback]524999[/snapback]</div>

Interesting history, thank you for sharing that*.

I just reread the entire thread, and nowhere do I see anyone suggesting that the government of today is more religious that ever before in history. In fact, the opening post stated, "religion has significantly encroached back in to the realm of politics," with the "back in to(sic)" construction commonly defined as implying that something is returning to a place it had held before. I hate to be a stickler, but this is an interesting discussion and I would hate to have it derailed by introduction of a strawman that no one has shown the slightest support of.

I find it interesting that you place the rise of the 'expressions of religion in public is unusual or forbidden' contention as the 60's, as around the time that mention of god was added into the Pledge of Allegiance and onto paper money. In God We Trust started being added to notes around 1957, although I think it was on the coins for a while prior to that, and more or less in the national anthem. The modern accouterments of religion in government appear to have actually been introduced in the time period of the 60's, in response to the godless Communist menace.

*This is sincere, I am a big fan of introducing facts into debate and appreciate your contribution in that regard.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Oct 13 2007, 08:19 AM) [snapback]525107[/snapback]</div>

Not too long ago belief in the inferiority of "colored races" was "basic to human nature", as was belief in the inferiority of the female sex. These beliefs are still strongly held in pockets of the world, with the United States still a strong believer in the inferiority of "colored race" - yet they are being steadily exposed for what they are: corrosive and destructive mindsets that must change if society is to progress - and they ARE changing. To argue that it is hopeless to change an entrenched mindset solely because it is entrenched is to be blind to history - we ARE changing entrenched mindsets, mostly by the advance of knowledge and understanding about ourselves.

Religious belief is a catchall for deeper urges and fears of the human psyche: fear of death, fear of uncertainty and the need to feel "in control" of one's own destiny, fear of inadequacy and the desire to deny any personal blame for life's bad outcomes, fear of the unknown and different - how easy and simple it is to imagine a "god" upon which to unload all these unpleasant burdens of mind and heart. That the tendency is universal to human nature doesn't make such imaginings true (indeed, the infinite and contradicitory diversity of the specifics of such "gods" only proves that they are indeed imaginings, not founded on evidence).

As we continue to enlarge our understanding of our psyches, these fears and urges won't diminish, but we'll recognize effective ways to reckon with them, based on truth, that will stay our hand at lashing out at fellow human beings in ignorant futility, as can be seen in the fact that racism, sexism and slavery are today mindsets universally recognized as anti-human. They are still practised, but furtively, no longer by anyone in thoughtless confidence that they are "basic to human nature".

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 13 2007, 02:39 AM) [snapback]525028[/snapback]</div>

Yup. That is what I think. But I'm a radical preacher.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Oct 13 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]525144[/snapback]</div>

Agree with your summary of what role religious belief plays, but while recognizing that these fears and urges won't diminish, what evidence is there that people will abandon religious belief for some "truth" that will be as effective at satisfying these needs as religion has been? Surveys in the US put those that hold a belief in God at 90%, and they aren't all conservative republicans either. The fact that people across the globe hold similar basic views of religion is evidence that beilief in God is basic to human nature. Ideas such as racism and sexism can be shown to be wrong and harmful and there is benefit in abandoning them. I think it will be much more difficult to do the same of religous belief.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Oct 12 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]525013[/snapback]</div>

Ah, Deism. Did you know that in the 18th century a Christian could be a Deist? That Deists did not have churches and doctrinal statements?

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

So no, FDR and Kennedy were not Deists in the way that people trying to deny that America is a religious country mean. FDR was a member of some mainstream protestant church, and he was pretty religious in his public speeches. Kennedy was a practicing Catholic. Now, both could have been Deists in the same way many of the founders were Deists ... Christians who rejected certain doctrines in favor of other doctrines.

But you are right that it is not a specific, sectarian or denominational prayer. It is, as far as I know, a uniquely American phenomenon, what Newsweek's managing editor Jon Meacham calls America's "public religion" (his bestseller "American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation" is a wonderful resource for this). It is non-sectarian, appealing to everyone to seek God without forcing them to seek a particular God. For FDR, it was consistent with his denomination.

Bill Clinton had similar language, as did Jimmy Carter. As Baptists, their language was a bit different than FDRs. But they also framed it in a way that it appealed to all religious Americans.









<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 12 2007, 11:39 PM) [snapback]525028[/snapback]</div>

I didn't mention the Nazis. While they didn't kill in the name of religion, they were endeavoring to "restore" paganism, and therefore had a form of religion. But it wasn't the driving force behind their actions.

Your point about mustaches is precisely the point I was making, in direct response to a person who said religion was responsible for more killing ... it is simply not true, as a matter of fact. So if religion is shown, statistically, to not fit, what about the opposite of religion? A better case can be made that absence of religion leads to mass killings, but both concepts are wrong. It is universal, a part of the human condition, and attributing it to religion in general, or atheism in general, prevents us from discovering the true cause and preventing it in the future.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jweale @ Oct 13 2007, 09:24 AM) [snapback]525135[/snapback]</div>

Where did I characterize people as saying we were more religious than anytime in our past? What I said was "For those elsewhere in this thread who are saying we are more religious from a government level ..." which was explicitly said by the OP. I did not include his specific cite to the last 8 years, so perhaps that has confused you. The reason I did not include his 8-year limitation is that it is unnecessarily narrow and partisan; I have heard this complaint since the rise of the born again Jimmy Carter, our first Evangelical President (and only Evangelical until Bill Clinton and Bush W. came on the scene).

George Bush has not been more religious in his public pronouncements than FDR. Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the most prolific of the Presidents in terms of public expression of religious ideals, gave money to the Catholic Church to restore some of the California missions (it was a scandal, because the church retained the missions as churches). Yet he also repelled efforts for a constitutional amendment naming the nation as a "Christian Nation".

The addition of "under God" to the pledge, and the "in God we trust" on the money, are relatively recent additions, but they are not revolutionary or unexpected in a society as religious as this one. They fit with the generic, universal nature of our appeal to our citizens to turn to God for guidance. While in no way a "Christian Nation" in the sense of official state ties, it is undeniable that, for both good and bad, America was founded by people from Christian cultures, steeped in Christian philosophy and education. Its always amusing to me that the people most intent on saying the founders were "Deists" are usually also the ones that slam our treatment of the Native Americans as emblemic of our "Christian hubris". (Never mind that they don't understand that a "Deist" could also be a Christian as many of the founders were, and that no Deist would have objected to prayers in school, public Bible readings or state sponsored religious holidays).

The miracle of America is that we disestablished religion without defaming it and we freed our citizens from religious tyranny without having to implement purges or the guillotine.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Oct 13 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]525335[/snapback]</div>

I think you raise an interesting question here -- or an interesting series of questions, I suppose. It doesn't take too long for any of us to see we are considerably smaller and more vulnerable that the whole of the world around us -- much less the universe as we can see it. With the faintest of understanding, we also can see we haven't created ourselves. Either some other being did this work, or we were randomly evolved over eons of time. In either course, a belief is involved. In the former, there is a belief in a god with power beyond all comprehension. In the latter, there is a belief in chance beyond all comprehension. Whether you believe that there is a God who, by definition, must be great enough to create all from nothing, or you believe that our very existence is enough proof to show that eventually the correct conditions existed to create life from the energy and matter extent at that appropriate time, you are a believer. As you have noted, this belief does fill a very basic human need.

So, I wonder . . . Your question follows: "What evidence is there that people will abandon religious belief for some 'truth' that will be as effective at satisfying these needs as religion has been?"

Do you think there is a "truth" out there that will satisfy? If so, how will it be seen, understood and acknowledged? Perhaps a more difficult question: How will we know truth and recognize it? It seems to me that, by definition, there may be only one "truth" -- but what if our eyes and our minds are not big enough to take it in? Won't this result in endless arguing about who has the better grasp or view of "truth" as opposed to any general agreement about the existence of an underlying "truth"? (Much as the blind men who all have touched the elephant but can't seem to agree on a definition of that same animal.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Oct 13 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]525335[/snapback]</div>

I think you raise an interesting question here -- or an interesting series of questions, I suppose. It doesn't take too long for any of us to see we are considerably smaller and more vulnerable that the whole of the world around us -- much less the universe as we can see it. With the faintest of understanding, we also can see we haven't created ourselves. Either some other being did this work, or we were randomly evolved over eons of time. In either course, a belief is involved. In the former, there is a belief in a god with power beyond all comprehension. In the latter, there is a belief in chance beyond all comprehension. Whether you believe that there is a God who, by definition, must be great enough to create all from nothing, or you believe that our very existence is enough proof to show that eventually the correct conditions existed to create life from the energy and matter extent at that appropriate time, you are a believer. As you have noted, this belief does fill a very basic human need.

So, I wonder . . . Your question follows: "What evidence is there that people will abandon religious belief for some 'truth' that will be as effective at satisfying these needs as religion has been?"

Do you think there is a "truth" out there that will satisfy? If so, how will it be seen, understood and acknowledged? Perhaps a more difficult question: How will we know truth and recognize it? It seems to me that, by definition, there may be only one "truth" -- but what if our eyes and our minds are not big enough to take it in? Won't this result in endless arguing about who has the better grasp or view of "truth" as opposed to any general agreement about the existence of an underlying "truth"? (Much as the blind men who all have touched the elephant but can't seem to agree on a definition of that same animal.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a priori @ 2007 10 14 19:24) [snapback]525655[/snapback]</div>

The quest for knowledge, the scientific method, and education have brought humanity a very long way. Reality is not always easy to understand or accept, but it's much more satisfying than the alternative.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Oct 14 2007, 10:51 PM) [snapback]525695[/snapback]</div>

What are you saying?

Reproduction and boats also have brought us along quite well. I've even participated in these, but I still can't explain how, and much less why, sperm and egg join and create life, or what force exists that prevents water from compressing so that ships may float. I'm sure there is someone out there who believes these things can be understood and explained, but I would challenge any one of them to understand it to the degree it could be duplicated.

Of course reality is not always easy to understand or accept. Denial is often easier.

Still, can you tell me how you will know truth when you see it? If you are accepting something as truth, and yet you can't really understand it or explain it, then aren't you acting on belief? Isn't there a place out there that cannot be fully reached by the scientific method or empirical observation?

(And why is this thread part of PriusChat?)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a priori @ Oct 15 2007, 12:16 AM) [snapback]525718[/snapback]</div>

Fred's House, man. It's where anything goes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a priori @ 2007 10 14 21:16) [snapback]525718[/snapback]</div>

Boats float because they're lighter than the water they push out of the way. Airplanes fly because faster moving air has less pressure. The sky is blue because that's the wavelength of sunlight refracted through oxygen. Reality is the stuff that isn't affected by what we think it is.

Ah, but which is the reality, and which is the denial? I think everybody dies, and heaven is the denial.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a priori @ Oct 15 2007, 12:16 AM) [snapback]525718[/snapback]</div>

the randomness of the two subjects you picked caught my attention somehow.

i believe they can be understood and explained, because i have seen it done! but the non-mechanistic "why" goes more into philosophical territory, which we know deviates from strict facts. you can ask why i will get up for work tomorrow and it's completely subjective! maybe i had a fantastic, inspiring weekend. maybe i feel compelled to tinker with my study. maybe i don't really want to but i know i have to. the factual end result is the same, i show up at work in the morning and get stuff done.

science isn't here to give us the Ultimate Answer to Everything, final version. there is nothing that can or will give you that. we're all on our own to interpret the world based on our previous experience and what we know, or rather what we think we know. how boring would life be if there was a big Handbook of Truth anyway? i am one of those people who is compelled to figure out how things work!

personally, i prefer to take things based on proven fact rather than assumption, though logical speculation has plenty of uses for the unknowable-at-present stuff. because like i said, we can't know everything for a fact. the subjective, the philosophical "why"... well, that's anyone's guess. some prefer to use religion to guide them, and that's cool by me. i've got my own ideas and i hope that's cool with everyone else.

i hope that was relevant to your point.