As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
[First Amendment] Separation of Church and State
Atomika
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother. There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit, but if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister.
- Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, Monday, January 18, 2011, on the day of his inauguration
The very first words that began the design of our nation spoke of religion. Congress shall make no law respecting or prohibiting the practice of religion. Inherently, this gives the freedom to all Americans, elected or otherwise, to have any relationship with any creator or creators they please, or like a growing number of Americans, no relationship at all. But when does an elected official's protected freedoms begin to encroach on his or her ethical obligation to their position?
America, since its inception, has been a nation of progressivism. We have not been perfect in any standard, but we have been constantly challenging ourselves to be better and extend protected freedoms to people of all walks of life, regardless of popular opinion, albeit often slowly coming to these obvious arguments legislatively. We're still not there yet, but we keep trying, and we won't stop until all illogical rhetoric is made to successfully defend itself or perish, taking its place among its fallen brethren like the anti-abolitionists and prohibitionists. Some very obvious rhetorical failures did not fall until very recently; there are many yet still to fall.
In the interest of impartiality, we have made it virtually illegal to use qualifiers as legislative classifiers in many aspects of life, from employment to private interests to approval for government entities. However, thanks to elected officials like Governor Bentley, we now find ourselves asking just how far we can expect protected practices and personal freedoms to not interfere with impartial judgments likewise affecting practices and personal freedoms not yet legal despite a deficit of reasonable opposition.
Gov. Bentley, and the many politicians like him, and the many constituents that support them all, support a worldview that separates the spiritual worth and civil worth of people into different values. In doing so, these politicians and their constituents have repeatedly attempted to write and pass into law sweeping legislation restricting the personal freedoms of people of all kinds into molds that only rhetorically support the ecumenical beliefs of their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs.
My personal view is that if a politician cannot defend a position or legislation or policy without deferring to a religious or existential personal philosophy for justification or delineation, their protected beliefs have now been employed in a method directly contraindicated by the First Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional. Congress shall make no law preventing the practice of religion, but neither shall Congress respect its establishment. That latter imperative logically dictates rhetorically-unsupportable appeals to ecclesiastical restriction or modification are indefensible by very statute of Constitutional definition; laws made in accordance with dogmatic belief inherently show a legislative preference, and that is irrefutably illegal, saying nothing of immoral, inhumane, and obviously illogical.
But what to do when this still happens despite incontestable Constitutional prohibition?
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
- Congressional Oath of Office, 1789
Repeated and admitted attempt to insinuate religion doctrine or appeal on religious grounds seems to me uncontrovertibly against the stated intent of the First Amendment. At what point is this considered to be dereliction of duty? US military code, title 10:892 - article 9, has specific instruction and definition for such an act, the result of guilt being court-martial. In civilian Congress, failure to uphold official duties can result in censure, or worse, impeachment. Several congressmen in history have gone to trial over ethics violations or tax evasion; do we as nation really feel that something as potentially fascistic as restriction of rights on religious grounds doesn't merit the same treatment?
Tolerance of these viewpoints can be argued as tantamount to complicity. Elected officials represent all of us, not just some of us, and admission of bias towards one group or another (especially on a basis as flimsy as religious instruction) is no less than an admission of inability to perform the duties of office. Democracy is not now, nor has it ever been in the United States, a resting of authority in plurality of unsupportable opinion.
Atomika on
0
Posts
The problem isn't in the system. As you stated, we're slowly grinding our way forward and that is thanks in no small part to the USSC. The problem is that to too many people, a religious justification is enough reason to cast a vote toward a particular candidate. There is no legislation you can pass that can stop Average Joe from making poor choices. Improve education and we improve our voters, that's where I'd rather focus.
As long as we can keep that up, then it isn't so bad that politicians like to be all religious-looking for their constituents, even if it does slow progress down considerably.
Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
Simple enough. Congress can't make a law on behalf of the Southern Baptist Convention, but Congress can make laws that affect all religious organizations as a blanket whole.
Anyone, even elected officials have the right to practice whatever religious belief they choose. However, an elected official ignoring the people and forcing the agenda of the church he attends is a big no-no.
Separation of Church and State is not synonymous with separation of religion and State.
That being said, I don't believe an inauguration speech is an appropriate time to deliver a religious devotional.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
And I think a great first step we can take when it comes to separating church & state a bit more in our public lives would be to strip religious groups of their 501(c)(3) status; as it stands now, they have all sorts of restrictions on the type of speech they're allowed to engage in that are basically ignored; I'd like to get the government out of the business of monitoring religious speech.
I don't think I am getting your point
You have heard the phrase "the power to tax is the power to destroy," correct?
We grant the tax exemption to religious groups because of the separation of church and state, not in spite of it. If the problem is in lax enforcement, then we need to improve enforcement.
Institutions of religion, e.g., groups of the theologically affiliated based around a hierarchy which may or may not involve monetary compensation, seem to me little different than social clubs or secular charitable organizations, and at the very least should be subject to similar laws and taxation structures.
Still, back to my greater point, I feel that politicians openly using religion as a basis of platform development and voting practices possibly should be held to punitive measures.
The extent of which, naturally, can be argued, and range from things like censure and admonishment to removal from office to outright criminal charges. My preference is probably more akin to scaled system of enforcement, based on seriousness of offense. For example, Gov. Bentley in the OP might only be censured or put on advisement for making needlessly divisive comments, whereas someone like Sally Kern should face a lifetime ban from public service.
So, in other words, we have to destroy the First Amendment to save it?
Also, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" from Article VI of the main body of the Big C.
Seems like a promise to uphold the values of secularism and/or atheism would fall afoul of that.
Are you saying that the values of secularism and/or atheism is of a religious nature or am I missing something?
So there we are.
Rigorous Scholarship
Removing elected representatives from office or preventing them from being sworn in due to their religious beliefs is just as much of a "religious test" as it would be to legally prevent atheists from holding elected office.
It's still a belief system, (or lack of). What he's saying is that believing or not believing in some higher deity will never impact whether or not you will be able to hold a position of political power.
Whether or not a politician is too religious or not religious enough is a question for the electorate. An atheist isn't going to get elected in rural Alabama, and a Christian fundamentalist isn't getting elected in Manhattan. But, in both cases, the Constitution does not have any real relevance.
They support them to the same extent as primarily white fundy mega-churches support the GOP. That is, they do everything they can without putting their tax-exempt status at-risk.
Rigorous Scholarship
First off, secularism has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is a positive assertion that there is no god. Secularism is just the practice of not bringing religion into the mix at all. If you're explicitly "upholding the virtues of atheism," you're specifically not upholding the virtues of secularism.
My view of the First is that it requires we basically not discriminate for or against any or all religions on the basis of the religion itself. It doesn't mean we can't make laws that disproportionately affect religion, as long as purpose of the law isn't based on religion. For example, if there was a religion that required its members to mug people, laws against mugging wouldn't become unconstitutional, since the point of the law is just to prevent theft. That it apparently unduly affects the mugging religion is secondary.
Similarly, the First doesn't mean we can't place taxpayer funds in church coffers, as long as we're not giving money to them because they are churches. The big thing here tends to be religious charities - I think refusing to give money to a church to perform secular acts of charity would violate the First, if the church has established that it can and will use the money for secular purposes. If they take the money and proselytize with it, then giving them the money would violate the SoCaS. If they can't or won't demonstrate that they won't use the money secularly, then fuck 'em, they don't need the cash that bad.
And lastly, I don't think the First prevents politicians from talking about God while serving in a public capacity. The governor quoted in the OP? No, not a violation. He's not doing anything that "respects an establishment of religion," and there's certainly not a congressional law being passed. He's just standing up there and talking about God for a minute. Was it kind of a douchey statement? Sure. But I don't see how it should be unconstitutional.
Well, the OP suggested that we make it so that a politician is punished for talking about religion in his official capacity, as that would be an endorsement of religion. Under the current interpretation of the Constitution, it isn't, and any laws restricting what a politician could do/say regarding his religious beliefs would be a violation of the 'free exercise' clause and the 'religious test' clause that I mentioned earlier.
I mean, fundamentally, there is a distinction between a politician and the abstract idea of 'the government'. Even if the governor gets up and says "Jesus is the only path to salvation" in a speech, it still doesn't mean that the 'government' is endorsing or establishing religion. That would only be implicated if the governor's office issued an executive order saying that, or the legislature passing a non-binding resolution to that effect would the establishment clause be violated.
All this being said and true, the guy was still kind of an asshole to say what he did.
Rigorous Scholarship
See, I like the theory behind this idea, but then I imagine someone trying to build a temple or a mosque or something in a fundie town and getting taxed into oblivion by a xenophobic government. That and a lot of small poor churches would have a hard time making ends meet.
I see zero problem with taxing churches bigger than x-number of people, though.
You could pass a law that treated churches the same as similar secular institutions, though.
Rigorous Scholarship
A lot of people are very willing to let their religious views control their governing and at the same time BALK at the idea that the government has anything to say about their religion.
America IS a Christian nation, but in the worst way possible.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Ok, but how about when you're in a situation where they are getting involved? Like, say, currently in the US.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
eliminating the exemption from paying property taxes would probably be constitutional, for example. Since it isn't targetting any one specific religion. Although smaller congregations would get screwed more since they have a smaller pool of resources upon which to draw.
What I meant in the worst way that is reasonably possible with it not being the middle ages (or the middle east).
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Well we would have to determine what the threshold is. At current its direct endorsement if I recall correctly. I think this is a reasonable threshold most of the time.
What I would think fair is if they do engage in this they are taxed like a political advocacy group or whatever the appropriate tax bracket may be. If they do not engage in political advocacy for 1 year they can regain their exempt status.
The reason its good Carrot is it keeps government from having all the influence that comes with writing tax policy over religious institutions, and it keeps mega churches and the like from having the sway that being such a large chunk of revenue for the government would give them.
I mean, if you're pro-life, anti-gay marriage and so on, what are the chances that an atheist politician is going to hold the same values?
Rigorous Scholarship
There does seem to be this sort of idea that non-religious people somehow lack values that appears a lot in the political spectrum. It's not EVERYWHERE, but it does exist and it blows.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
The thing is, they seperate the two. Being pro-life and being christian are two seperate things that a candidate must have.
Do you really think the right would support an openly atheist pro-lifer?
Your religion has nothing to do with your ability to operate in office, yet it sinks campaigns all the time.
there's no probably about it.