OK, Be Honest … Does This Belong in Our Law Books?

Wow… that’s crazy to me. Do you know who submitted it and what other line items are in there?

Sorry for the double post… the guy’s from Iowa! My home state! I’m ashamed.

While I agree with the sentiment of the ‘resolution’, I don’t think Congress should be passing resolutions. And they aren’t the only ones. Almost every city council meeting, county commission meeting, is filled with a bunch of ‘do-good’ resolutions that waste time and money. Sometimes, they’ll even parade in a group (Girl Scouts, some students, senior citizens, whatever), to trumpet some cause… “The City of Melbourne hereby recognizes the good work of the Girl Scouts of America and presents this plaque”. Sometimes they name a week or month after some issue. It is truly pandering to people and all for the sake of not wanting to be insensitive.

You can get all huffy about the Christian statement if you want, and some people will, but the real problem is that our men in elected office refuse to BE men and step forward and stop supporting this. They are so cowardly and afraid that if they don’t join resolutions like this, that they will be viewed as brutes. Can you imagine the fury of some folks on the Christian right when they find out the guy they voted for refused to vote for this (on the basis that it was waste of time). The same would go for the left on a different resolution and on and on the game goes.

I’m all for opening up government meetings in prayer (no apologies to you atheists - just tough it out and try not to cry, you’ll be fine), but this pandering to groups is ridiculous. Of course, it continues because most people never regularly attend local gov’t meetings (until they have an issue or need) and they think watching C-Span is like watching paint dry. If we all started attending our local government meetings more often, acting like the watchdogs we should be, there would be less of these shenanigans, and more doing business “for the people”. Even better would be to run for local office yourself and make a stand by refusing to support any “non-binding resolution” (which is what they call these things, thus, differing greatly from binding resolutions like those the U.N. sanctioned Iraq with 23 times). So, wake up folks and start bringing on the heat.

Nathan– it’s definitely unfair to vote for a resolution supporting Islam and an Indian religion for their support of America and then not vote for one commending Christianity. The United States is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the First Amendment only says that the government cannot establish a federal religion, not that cannot show respect to a religion.

What do you think is the religion represented on our coins, in speeches, etc? To whom do we give thanks on Thanksgiving? Why is Christmas a federal holiday? Why did the first Presidents support money to establish catholic schools?

If anything, I do agree with others that Christianity is the predominate religion, and you could make the argument that we’re throwing the other religions a bone. Should the Christian one have made it– in my opinion, sure.

Nathan, what if’s aren’t particularly useful. If our coins said “in Allah we trust” we would not be allowed to practice Christianity in public, all our women would be in hijabs and burkas, and Al Queda would not be attacking us. :)

I can go along with Lawrence and say that non-binding resolutions are a waste of time, but I can’t say that you’re right about the resolutions being un-Constitutional because of their subject matter.

Again, the U.S. Congress opens with prayer, the U.S. Supreme Court starts sessions with “God save this court…”, Moses and the Ten Commandments are in the Supreme Court’s chambers, Christmas is a recognized Federal Holiday, the writers of the Constitution federally funded the building of Catholic Schools to minister to Indians, the Founders declared days of Thanksgiving unto Almighty God– the Christian God– as well as days of fasting, and none of this was considered un-Constitutional or an establishment of religion.

You have to look at the time and what the Founders were trying to do– trying to protect Baptists and other Protestants from the Anglican church– and then ask yourself what they would think about how far it’s gone. I’m sure they would not have a problem with free expression, but I’m also sure that what they were more afraid of was the government saying that any one sect of Christianity would get government sponsorship, would receive special treatment, etc.

They would not be afraid of a non-binding resolution that talked about the superior placement of Christianity as they based the Christian Creator in the Declaration of Independence as a basis for the political theory that this country originates from.

Let alone look at all the state Constitutional references to the Creator and God Almighty.

Back to the point– it’s not un-Constitutional, but it certainly can be unwise. It probably is folly, except when it’s placed up against other resolutions that state acceptance of other religions.

I am personally not sweating it. Unfortunately, true Christianity has always had to have persecution to flourish, and though I don’t think we currently have anything to complain about (or very little), I do not believe that we will be afforded the basic freedom of religion much longer in this country.

Ok, return point by point:
1. the U.S. Congress opens with prayer
What was the very first thing that the House did after the Constitution was ratified? Set up the Government Chaplaincy program and fund it. Rather than being the worthless thing you think it to be, the Founders believed it to be critical.

2. Supreme Court starts sessions with “God save this court…”
Contrary to the idea that it’s meaningless, it does have meaning that is now watered down. Political theory at the time derived liberty from God… God is Creator, gives rights to the people who then entrust government with some rights in exchange for protection and justice. So, in that framework, knowing that God was the ultimate authority rather than government was important to the founders, and was part of the check on the government.

3. Moses and the Ten Commandments are in the Supreme Court’s chambers
Moses is part of a mosaic. The Ten Commandments would be harder to remove since every time it has been challenged the USSC has ruled that it’s ceremonial. It’s probably there to stay. I will give you that this is probably mostly ceremonial– but it is there with a purpose: to reflect where the law came from.

4. Gederally funded the building of Catholic Schools to minister to IndiansAccording to Robert L. Cord’s Separation of Church and State, one of the most thoroughly researched books on this issue, Jefferson would have been aghast if he had thought the First Amendment could be used to undermine the Christian faith, or even if the religion clause could be used to bar the federal government from favoring the Christian religion in a general way over, say, Mohammedanism, atheism, or some other creed completely at odds with America’s founding principles. In 1803, according to Cord, Jefferson asked the Senate to ratify a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians which stipulated the following: “And whereas, the greater part of the said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic Church to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for the said tribe the duties of his office and also to instruct as many of their children as possible in the rudiments of literature. And the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.”

5. Thanksgiving

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor — and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.” [George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789]

I can pretty much guarantee you that he wasn’t praising Allah, Bhudda, or one of the Hindu gods. But if that isn’t enough…
From my site…

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable support,” he said. “In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with pious men, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all the connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religions obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on the minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Washington knew well that a nation’s laws spring from its morals and that its morals spring from its religion. And the religion of which Washington spoke was clear to all who knew him: “It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible,” he said.

Do some research into why Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists– and who it was that wanted the Freedom of Religion and why. I believe that you will find that it was the Baptists and the Protestants that wanted security against the Anglican church (which was established in most of the states at the time of ratification) and they wanted protection against other religious sects. Nowhere do I believe that you’ll find any talk considering other religions entirely.

In fact, there was a Wall Street Journal article on a Civil War Era discussion between a pastor and the U.S. Treasury that stated, “We want ‘In God We Trust’ on the coins so that if this country ceases to exist people in the future will not think that we were a heathen nation, but a Christian one.”

A non-binding resolution cannot be construed as an establishment of religion by any stretch of the imagination. First, it’s non-binding– no teeth, no enforcement, no establishment. Second, it does not do anything other than to state the obvious– that this country was founded and believes that Christianity was/is the superior religion since it’s what we founded upon.

Did you look at the State Constitutions, specifically the thirteen colonies, or did you just say that they fit your paradigm? I believe that if you actually looked you’d find something quite different. You would find states that not only specify God, but also currently specify the Christian God, the Bible, and had established churches of the Anglican, Congregational, and Catholic variety after ratification, and this was acceptable under the Constitution.

Yes, there’s a difference between federal and state, but it goes to reasoning at the time. In an environment where the states actually had established Christian religions, they’re biggest worry was that Catholicism or Anglicanism would try to rule the U.S. like it did in England and Europe. The concept was that any brand of Christianity should be acceptable and that people should have freedom of conscience. Application to other faiths is in there, but it’s an afterthought.

It’s pretty easy to work around the 1st amendment, you’re doing it in some of this argument. By arguing that the government must be secular and show no preference you are putting into place a secular humanist religion. This religion will try to eliminate Christian morality, and it will also attempt to force Christians into practicing their faith in their churches, and start to prohibit witnessing, envangelization. You can see some of it now. The next step is telling churches who can be ministers and what they can say.

Look at Canada– where it’s becoming a crime to say that homosexuality is a sin. Or in the U.S. where the catholic charities are told to provide adoption services to gay people or don’t do it at all. The next step is to remove their tax exemption (which is funding of a kind) and then put some regulations on who can be pastors. All of this can be done under the first amendment, especially if people start saying that there are exceptions similar to the exceptions on freedom of speech.

I’m fine with getting the government out of religion, but not fine with the religion out of government. Like Washington and other said, if you divorce Christian morality from the U.S. government this experiment in freedom will fail.

Headline: POWERFUL MAJORITY DECLARES “WE’RE AWESOME”

Trent wrote:

Headline: POWERFUL MAJORITY DECLARES “WE’RE AWESOME”

You absolutely just made my day.

I am 100% in agreement over the fact that an ecumenical prayer and reducing the Christianity of the Founders to mere Ceremonial Christianity has created a situation where we have hollow and empty ceremonies rather than anything of substance. Where we differ is in what should be done about it. Do we keep it as a reminder and reinforcer, or do we junk it because it’s irrelevant.

I would go with the former rather than the latter and use this very discussion as supporting my desire. If I were not able to point to these things, we would believe that we had a secular government because we don’t do a very good job of teaching U.S. History– particularly its Christian roots.

Oh, and Jefferson waffled throughout his lifetime between Deist and Anglican– just as so many people are unsure of their faith even now.

I think that you’d find Cord’s book very interesting. Jefferson and Madison both established mission schools with federal funds. And are you implying with this statement

Obviously, I’ll have to do some more research on this, but on the surface, regardless of what Jefferson DID, I don’t even believe the government should federally fund basic healthcare, much less the erection of a church. I think BOTH are gross examples of government overstepping it’s constitutionally granted powers.

That you know better what is and is not in the Constitution than the writers?

But it does indeed “respect the establishment of religion”, which is essentially the same thing.

And the text of the document, which you left out was “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Hence why it’s ok to have a non-binding resolution, but not a law. Again, there was no Constitutional issue here other than the waste of time and tax payer dollars specifically because there was no bill, no law, not signed by the President, etc.

I haven’t liked a lot of resolutions coming out of Congress, but I look at them as exercises in futility. And I would call the Congress unaware of it’s founding if it respected Mormonism, but I wouldn’t fret it.

My point with the states went to motive at the time and Christian foundation. I believe that I’ve proved this point. Your comment shows that you don’t have a rebuttal.

I was unaware that there was a Constitutionalist religion. I definitely support following the Constitution when it comes to what gov’t should do, but when going to it, you have to also take into account what the founders wrote– the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, etc. If it wasn’t for the DOI, we could still justify slavery under the Constitution. If we don’t have a moral guide, we can certainly decide if we can do something, but not if we should.

Both of which are terribly unconstitutional. They both interfere with the free practice of religion. The latter is even more disturbing, being that the government is both interfering in religion and business (something the federal government has no business meddling in at all!)

True, but we seldom get to set the “reset button” and force everything backward. My comment about where this country is going is irrespective of what the Constitution says because our current government doesn’t care what it says. Its judiciary creates laws out of thin air legislating from the bench. It’s congress spends like a drunken sailor and “finds it in the Constitution”, etc. Reality says that this course leads to real persecution for Christians.

I have to ask … do you think this country would be better off if we actually did require everyone to respect the sabbath, not take God’s name in vain, and prohibit adultery?

Christianity does not have a regulation against Sabbath work. Looking at our country, though, I believe that we were healthier when we took time off on Sunday (and other secular people agree).

As for adultery, I believe we were better off, had stronger marriages, etc when there were prohibitions on adultery. Children do better stable homes (even if the spouses are fighting) than they do in broken ones. Since it’s a civic good to encourage marriage and child bearing, society would do best to enforce marriage covenants (especially with the current system where marriage and states are tied). If it was any other contract (say a business contract) there would be enforcement.

Should lying be a capital offense?

I’m not sure where in the Bible that lying was a capital offense– though it sure might have change one politician’s view of what the word “is” meant. :)

Do you think those things would be wise? Do you think they would be constitutional?

Yes, I think that some of these would be wise. Are they constitutional? To the extent that the Federal Government can tell you that you have to pay taxes it is. I believe that, if we looked at these rules, we’d fine that there is a lot of positive benefit in a secular sense for some of these laws.

What restrain, if any, is the government required to maintain when it comes to religion?

The government is to stay out of telling the preacher what to preach or the parishioner how to practice. It’s to be neutral in the realm of doctrine. It is not to dictate that there is a specific religion its people must follow. (This is the whole point of the first two clauses: establishment and free exercise.)

What is not to happen is the opposite. The government should not be void of religion. It should not be against religious people serving or against morality from its people. Morality and ethics must come from a moral system, and this country chose Christianity as its moral system.

Just curious.

It doesn’t appear that Jefferson ever really waffled in his lack of belief; statements by him that indicate a turn towards religion all result from the elections of 1796 and 1800, in which he was running against John Adams, whose platform included labeling himself as the Christian candidate as opposed to the deist Jefferson (Adams was a Unitarian himself and not, it is generally thought, very religious either in his private life).

Nathan, you too are a breath of fresh air when it comes to this debate. I’ve been having this debate this month (what is it about this time of year) over at some other blogs with atheists who want to make the issue me rather than the topic. Eventually it gets exhausting.

We agree on your second point– it’s a waste and just serves to agitate people on all sides.

Are you suggesting that we go back to only explicitly Christian prayers?

Good question. The Christian in me says that all prayers to anything else are worthless, so if we want our prayers to mean anything we should go back to only explicitly Christian prayers. :) I would think that this would be the authentic answer to the question, since it’s definitely what the founders believed.

Practically, I’d rather have no prayers than prayers to Allah, Bhudda, Mary, or whomever they wanted to pray to. Another options would be to allow prayers in multiple places, but have the formal one in the chambers be a Christian one. I hesitate to remove it entirely because of the historical significance, but it wouldn’t bother me.

True enough, but there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Jefferson’s doubts about Christianity were constant.

I will concede that point. Perhaps he had more of a Machiavellian approach to religion, and in that case we wouldn’t know unless we could actually talk to him.

Well, first of all, congress actually gets to appoint spending, not the President … so those mission schools must have been funded by congress first.

I’d have to go back and look at the paperwork. At the time, it may have been in the territories, and, as such, could have been under the President’s Treaty making abilities and therefore he would have had more control.

However, again, I would guess that this was a political move rather than a religious one.

Perhaps, but this was not my point. My point was that the the government and religion have not always been mutually exclusive. In this case, government money was spent to educate Indians and the vehicle used was a Catholic mission. That means that the Indians were also taught Catholicism. A lot of the early settlers purposes in the new world was to Christianize the natives.

Again, I’m making this point to say that the founders disagreed with having the “high wall” that current politics seem to triumph.

This really just goes to show us that government handouts have been a problem since the beginning :-)

You’re telling me!

OK, I get ya now. Be careful with declaratives though.
I will say this … the wording of the Federal constitution never mentions God, Jesus, or the Bible. The text is (I believe) deliberately neutral, unlike some of the state constitutions.

I will give you that the Federal Constitution never mentions God, Jesus or the Bible. The text is as skinny as it is because there were very few things that “the people” wanted to grant the government the right to do. I don’t think that the Founders envisioned the sprawling, out of control “thing” we have now. Plus, the context of the times did not require that you state it there.

You’re having to argue from nothing– and in order to do that you must take into account the society and the culture of the time and the supporting paperwork and speeches, and they all support a Christian based political theory.

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the text of the first amendment as such:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

Well, first, he wasn’t the author of the First Amendment– he wasn’t even in on the discussion. Second, this is a letter to the Danbury Baptists, whose complaint was that they were afraid that (being a minority religion at the time and living in states that had established religion) the federal government would soon establish Anglicism and they would be persecuted just like they were in England.

In that context, Jefferson assuring the Baptists that there was a high wall protecting them from government intrusion would have been a comfort to them. This is not a policy speech, but a private letter to a concerned party.

James Madison said:
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

Good quote. ‘Course, I’m not as familiar with the context of this one. I’ll have to read up on it.

I could go on, but there are plenty of statements that support the position that our American government should remain as religiously neutral as possible. It is just simply better for everyone if it does.

And here’s where I stray from founding theory to what’s going on now. Under the founders, I could agree here. The problem is, as we’ve addressed before, that government has wandered into areas that (I don’t believe) it has jurisdiction– areas of morality and ethics. Once it stops doing its basic functions and wanders into this area, it can no longer avoid the question of “whose morals?” and that’s when we go back to trying to answer the question of “what kind of country is this, anyway?”

If the government is going to be answering moral questions, it should do so in a consistent way to the founding principles. Personally, I’d prefer to go back to the simple, small federal government, but I’m sure (to borrow a phrase) we’ll be able to “unring that bell”.

Actually, the 13th amendment took care of slavery. And the DOI didn’t do much to stave off slave ownership before the 13th amendment either.

But it was foundational in the Northern states and in the language of the time– how can all men be created more equal?

But that’s what I’m saying … it’s not the government’s job to tell us what we should or shouldn’t do. The government wasn’t set up to be our moral compass. The mission statement of the Constitution can be found in the first paragraph, and nowhere does it say it was meant to be our guiding light in times of questionable moral situations.

I wholeheartedly agree– but as I just mentioned previously, the government has assumed this role.

Actually, the federal government took care of the taxes thing with the 16th amendment, so they have less of a leg than the tax thing.

According to some the 16th Amendment is a fraud! :)

Sure there is positive benefit. There’s positive benefit in requiring that all people go to church on Sunday (assuming you’re a Christian and believe that church is beneficial) … there’s positive benefit to outlawing smoking or drinking. But there are some things that the government shouldn’t do, regardless of the benefit.

True. I don’t think this should be a federally mandated thing– I think I got caught up in your previous question defending the right to have a law rather than it’s placement federally, stately(?) or locally.

I’m not saying it should be. I’m just saying that the less they mix, the better.

The government should get out of moral decisions– no more legislation “for the children” or deciding what should be taught about the beginning of the world, comparative religions, etc. If they were to get out of the business of of making moral choices, than sure– I could get behind you. They won’t, though, so I’ll have to point out where they differ from their founders.

The vast majority of the people chose Christianity as their personal moral system, but if your statement was true, then every principle of [Christianity] should be present in the constitution.

I don’t think that it’s consistent to say that every principle of Christianity should be present in the Constitution if Christianity is the moral system of choice. To me, the only thing that would be necessary is that the government style that Christianity would support would have to be implemented. The founders, at the time, believed that Christianity supported freedom of conscience. This overriding principle (found in both the ideas of loving one another as yourself and “whosoever will”) dictated that the states would be allowed to have established churches and control could be at the lowest levels such that people would be truly free to do as you said earlier– if they disagree they could move to another community that agreed with them.

The leviathan we have now is trying to erase that by coming from the top down with a set of laws that everyone must follow– erasing individuality and replacing it with group think. That’s one of the reasons that a lot of what is going on would be repulsive to the founders. If a school board wanted Creation instead of Evolution– fine. If they want a ten commandments on the court house grounds– splendid. Want to call it Christmas instead of holidays– fine with us.

Now we have all sorts of non-binding resolutions, dictates from on high, and legislation doing all sorts of things that they don’t have rights to do.

“the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” (emphasis mine)
Treaty of Tripoli - Article 11
Signed by John Adams - 1787
Approved unanimously by the Senate

I love this– one treaty, one time (although I will give it to you it’s very convincing and was approved unanimously) and used for a purely political purpose: to get that treaty. Sure, there’s no “Christianity” in the Constitution– but it’s everywhere at the founding. It’s the principles that created the document. It’s the moral basis for the authority that the people had to give the government.

It’s like the stone table in The Lion, The Witch and Wardrobe. Sure, it’s there and it’s the law, but you have to go back to the root of the law, to the reason for the liberty– the mark of Christianity is imprinted all over these documents (to the very reason that the pilgrims came). You just have to look to see it.

“Well, first, he wasn’t the author of the First Amendment– he wasn’t even in on the discussion.”

To jump in a bit- no, Jefferson wasn’t the author of the amendment, but his friend and intellectual protege Madison was- and the amendment drew heavy inspiration from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, whose authors were Jefferson and Madison.

As for the point about states having the right to establish religion- the 14th amendment has long been interpreted in the courts as extending the Bill of Rights to the states. You may well disagree with that interpretation, but then you should disagree not only with extending the first amendment to the states, but, say, the second as well. Should states have the right to ban firearms? If not, why should they have any more right to establish religion than the federal government?

There is a lot of me that trends libertarian. I’m registered conservative, so I don’t vote in the republican primary of my state. That being said, I’m not sure who I will eventually support. Paul’s war stance has me concerned, and I’m not sure about the purist/realist war that goes on inside me.

Personally, I would like to see someone have some kind of transition from where we are to where we should be, but I’m not sure the realist in me thinks this is possible.

To make it more concrete– if Paul was elected President, and he refused to sign any unconstitutional law, where would we be? At an impass? And then what? Would nothing get funded or would Congress relent? Would the people revolt?

It is quite the small world. I had a nursing home extension in Anderson when I was at BJU!

MInTheGap- although I respect your beliefs, unfortunately you will be punished for eternity in the Hereafter for having them.

Allahu Akbar

~Trent

However, restrictions on the federal government in the constitution only limit the federal government (redundant, huh?) :-)

So, although it wouldn’t be smart, IMHO, for states to establish religions, I doubt it’s strictly unconstitutional. However, if a state tried to prohibit the free exercise, that would be unconstitutional.

How do you figure? The same part of the Constitution that requires free exercise also prohibits establishment. If the one applies to the states, doesn’t the other?

Incidentally, Paul’s position on this particular issue is closer to MinTheGap’s than yours. Not saying that means you have to agree with him on it, though.

Interesting debate guys, thought I’d add this.

From Jefferson’s biography:
“…an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ…the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

In a more insightful letter, Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush regarding their previous discusion about Jesus and Christianity, Jefferson wrote:
“To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other…And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God & himself.”
- edited for brevity, link to full text below…

“By arguing that the government must be secular and show no preference you are putting into place a secular humanist religion. This religion will try to eliminate Christian morality, and it will also attempt to force Christians into practicing their faith in their churches, and start to prohibit witnessing, envangelization. - MInTheGap”

Secular by definition means “separate from religion”, calling it a religion is absurd. The “humanist” part is simply an acknowledgement of a bias toward our species. In practice secular humanism is a means of addressing issue facing our species without resorting to the supernatural. It’s based on Naturalism, a philosophy, and endorses the use of the scientific method which requires skepticism. Faith is, of course, an antonym of skepticism. I consider myself fairly current on issues surrounding secular humanist issues and I’m aware of no movements toward “prohibiting witnessing, envangelization”, unless your talking about that which is directly funded by tax dollars. Would you want to pay for Muslims to go around spreading the word of Muhammad? If you do it on your own that fine, but I don’t want to foot the bill. Also, Christians already practice their faith in their churches, of their own free will… there is no reason to force them to. While true that I don’t support tax exemptions for religions, your calling “homosexuality is a sin”, is a right that I would vehemently protect. Free expression of thoughts and ideas is necessary for communication and the resolution of disagreements. Most atheists I know share this sentiment. The exception for many is the Westboro Baptist Church fiasco, on this I am mixed, it’s not as much what’s being said as where, the issue is the venue. I oppose blashemy laws, obscenity laws, and hate speech laws. The claim has been made that these types of speech are likely to incite violence, the culpability rests on those who become violent, thier suseptibility toward violence is a liability to society. The person who expresses heartfelt ideas, however objectionable, gets a free pass in my book.

My personal bias… I’m a Secular Humanist. Politically, I tend toward libertarian, hence my fondness of Jefferson. As far as the statues around Washington and other Christian symbolism, I have somewhat mixed feelings. Analogous to the demolition of the giant Buddhist statue in Iraq, the removal of these statues would be to remove something of genuine historical significance. The distiction between historical significance and governmental practice can be made. In so far as H.R. 847 was inherently partisan in it’s application it should be condemned, the fact that it’s inconsequential and irrelevant pushes it into the realm of the absurd. Two questions arise, is it the governments role to address the “greatness” of any religions? If a given religion is claimed to be “one of the great religions” what does that say about the others? I’d argue, and in my opinion Jefferson would aswell, that this is a personal matter and not an issue the government should be addressing.

This issue has waxed and waned from the beginning, as a result, from a historical perspective, a fairly compelling case can be made either way simply by cherry picking quotes. Even in context it’s a bit muddy, IMO. It really boils down to not what the US has done in the past but what you want the US to do now and in the future. More importantly, why? If the arguement is that an officially sanctioned religion or church will bolster the faithful cast your eyes over to England. They’re is a significantly higher percentage of nontheists there than here. If the reasoning is, for moral consensus in line with Biblical teachings, well there is none, the various denomination don’t agree on many things, even within a given denomination there are schisms, the Anglican Church has been ripped in half over the homosexuality issue for example. Point being is that it solves nothing, religion and politics will poison one another and all the while people will continue to believe what that which compels them.

Regarding Ron Paul, a significant grievance of mine is that he voted for H.R. 2679 “Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act”, 2006. Part of the effect of this bill was that even if you have a clear case of constitutional violation regarding the Establishment Clause, and you prove it to the court, landslide victory etc. etc. None of your attorneys fees will be awarded. These cases typically take years, and cost 6-7 figures. Few attorneys will take a case that they’re not going to get paid on, and few people have that kind of money. This effectively neuters the Establishment Clause given that in violation cases one’s only recourse is litigation, cops don’t handle this stuff. Ron Paul claims to be an advocate of the Constitution, it seems to me though that that’s only the case when the constitution is in line with his politics. It’s an underhanded way of ensuring that few violations ever see the inside of a courtroom.

The American Theory of Church and State, By Loren P. Beth (Free read!)
http://books.google.com/books?id=gM1CT4yk4mkC&printsec=frontcover#PPA62,M1

THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 1803

What Is Secular Humanism?
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what

I don’t have a lot of time to comment right now (as you’ve provided a lot of food for thought, Clayton). I would like to reference

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm

in regards to whether Secular Humanism is a religion. It seems that for over 100 years that everyone agreed that it was and it wasn’t until the Supreme Court agreed and Christians started to protest that religion being taught that there was a change in course.

In fact, I believe the Humanist Manifesto and other original Humanists would agree that it fits the definition of a religion.

In light of recent events, and in the context of discussions dealing with religion atheists and agnostics are frequently asked “in lieu of moral guidance from __________ scripture, how do you derive your morality?” The term Secular Humanism, for me, provides a concise answer without my having to go into great detail about philosophy, ethics of reciprocity, etc. It’s a bit of a cop out I suppose, but hey, the question gets old after a while. The answer as provided by the link I gave suffices for most, and I tend to assume, wrongly perhaps, that most don’t view secular humanism as a religion.

I suspect, based on the criticisms cited in your reference, that you and I share some level of distain for the position the courts have taken on this issue.

Specifically, “Secular Humanism is a religion “for free exercise clause purposes,” and it is not a religion “for establishment clause purposes.”

The discrepancy between the Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda [1957] ruling and the Peloza v. Capistrano School District [1994] ruling and the subsequent failure of the Supreme court to resolve the isssue, has left the question half in, half out.

The Fellowship of Humanity case itself referred to humanism but did not mention the term secular humanism. More to the point they claimed their property was “used solely and exclusively for religious worship”. I’m confident that you’d be hard pressed to find any contemporary secular humanist that make any assertions of “religious worship”, hence the appended term “secular”, specifically to provide a distinction from the humanists like those of Fellowship of Humanity. In TORCASO v. WATKINS [1961] Secular Humanisms inclusion was based on a footnote [11] which failed to recognise this distinction. More over it cited the 1957 Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia case as support, but cases only criterion was that if the facilities function like a chuch we will recognise it as a church… “The question before us now is not broadly whether petitioner is in an ecclesiastical sense a religious society or a church, but narrowly whether under this particular statute it is qualified for tax exemption.”

I don’t worhip anyone, or anything. I don’t pray or meditate. There is no appeal to the supernatural and everything is necessarily subject to some degree of skepticism. Some, I suppose, congregate with others who approach contemporary problems from within the same frame work, but I’m not among them. “Faith”, in so far as trusting something to be true absent of evidence, isn’t something to be held in high regard. If this to you indicates religion then fair enough, call it religion if you like. I suspect that you recognise that too loose a definition of religion creates all sorts of problems for both clauses.

From Wikipedia
“By the 1970s the term [secular] was embraced by some humanists who, although critical of religion in its various guises, were deliberately non-religious, as opposed to anti-religious, which means that their humanism has nothing to do with spiritual, religious, or ecclesiastical doctrines, beliefs, or power structures. This is how “secular humanism” is most commonly understood by humanists today.”

The following is an interesting read on the failure of both the constitution and the supreme court to define religion:
DEFINING RELIGION: AN IMMODEST PROPOSAL
http://www.rutherford.org/Resources/WhitePapers/FREE_EXERCISE_C.PDF
“The impetus for this Article was the famous (and most troubling to an atheist and theist
alike) dictum in Torcaso v. Watkins, which equated “secular humanism” with religion.
At a minimum, this seemed to necessitate a query into whether anything “secular” could
ever be “religious,” and what makes religion constitutionally different from any other
philosophical or moral system.”