Georgia Republican: State-sponsored religion will end big-government tyranny

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Let's see, what your promoting? "They want POWER"...GREED, AFRAID so on about "Christians". Your post...

That is my opinion. I'm not "promoting" anything any more than ANYONE who gives their opinions here.

We are a nation of secular laws?? Really? I beg to differ.

Our first amendment begs to differ with you:

A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion (established religion) or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not necessarily mean that a state is fully secular; however, a true secular state should steadfastly maintain national governance without influence from religious factions; i.e. Separation of church and state.[2]

Source

The secular humanists would like everyone to buy into that idea, but it's just not true. I believe you well know that.

We purport to be officially neutral in matters of religion. I won't repeat the whole above quote, but that describes the US.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, but I don't know where you're coming from. How can I disagree? That's why I've been asking to flesh out your thoughts. I'll leave it alone if you don't wish to discuss it further.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Sigh, the laws of the land are distinct from the first amendment. Surprise, surprise.

The laws were formed by the representatives of the people, yes? Do you really think those laws were outside the mores of those same people? By far a Christian majority? Hogwash. Our laws and the Judeo-Christian mores are inseparable, intertwined and fundamental. The people voted for those representatives that they considered would do the 'right thing' in their stead. That was based on the people's mores... which was completely based on the Judeo-Christian moral code.

This is surely obvious. So obvious that it was assumed and went unarticulated.

I suppose my bottom line is the Constitution is as about as useful a paper in a bathroom if there isn't an even more fundamental underscoring it. I.E. people of good will and moral background.

One can cite exceptions, flaws and 'what about' examples all day. The fact remains that's how this country evolved.

Secular humanism replaces it with nothing. Still, I'd let you have your way...as long as you show similar consideration for those that believe otherwise.

That's where I'm 'coming from'....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Occurs all administrations try to circumvent the constitution, we all know that they cater to their highest bidders within those that fill their pockets with money.

Their way of extremism is call over extension of their executive power, special when congress doesn't challenge at all.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


I suppose my bottom line is the Constitution is as about as useful a paper in a bathroom if there isn't an even more fundamental underscoring it. I.E. people of good will and moral background.

One can cite exceptions, flaws and 'what about' examples all day. The fact remains that's how this country evolved.

Bush? are you here with us today?, hell we got former president Bush in the house

a reply to: marg6043
A naïve man, but, I believe an honest one....

a reply to: olaru12

Will the state sponsored religion be Christian or will others be accepted or just tolerated as long as you stay in the government guidelines.

Fingers crossed for Bahá'í ...

:-)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry - honestly

I expect this response to receive no attention by page three but here goes...

While I am not in the guys head so I can't say for sure,I think we are working with little context and multiple definitions of various words and ideas from posters thus far.

If he uses the word 'biblical' he is referring to scripture, not an organized religion. To interchange the two is disingenuous.

Many biblical references (like the Koran) illustrate the need for personal responsibility to ones self, those near to him/her, and the community at large. If the peoples of a culture embrace those personal responsibilities it lessens the need for an external entity (the state) to intervene and serve as an external motivating mechanism.

Obviously it is not perfect because people are not perfect. There will always be a need of some form of state. However, when people in a culture reject those responsibilities to themselves and others, it only serves to vastly increase the scope and pervasiveness of that state.

IMHO, no state can save a society whose members are bent on having no personal responsibility to themselves and others around them.

Oh hell I say we need more of the fundamental crazyness. It is going to take something more than what is happening now for society to revolt. Let them take the reigns then we can get it over with sooner than later.

Understanding is hard, especially on inflammatory subjects. There's a lot of it here. First, Scalia's comments. They included:

"No principle of democracy is more fundamental than what has become known as the separation of church and state," Scalia said.

The conservative justice lamented about the need for a balance in the separation of church and state. But he also criticized what he said was a growing effort to quash religion in politics and stressed the importance of religious freedom.

"There are those who would have us believe that the separation of church and state must mean that God must be driven out of the public forum," Scalia said. "That is simply not what our Constitution has ever meant."

But Scalia also warned that a religious preoccupation with the government "will destroy the church."

And the Supreme Court agrees with him.

In May of this year, the Court decided Town of Greece v. Galloway. In that case it was claimed to be unconstitutional for the City to be opening every public meeting with prayer. The Supremes said "Nope, no problem in this case, it's fine with us."

www.supremecourt.gov...

The Court favored religion over non-religion, Scalia's comments were in the mainstream of current thinking.

If you claim that he is leading us to a Christian government with his remarks, you're just wrong. He's only saying that the Constitution can't be used to force all religion out of government. The First Congress didn't believe it, they provided for Chaplains for the House and Senate only a few days after they approved the language of the First Amendment.

In The Town of Greece it was noted that they also allowed prayers from a member of Baha'i, a Jew, and a Wiccan priestess. That brings up the second misunderstanding.

As Scalia was saying, the establishment of a particular religion is unconstitutional, but he support of religion in general is not. He is correct when he says that it is a lie that non-religion has to have the power to drive out all religion in government.

a reply to: charles1952

As Scalia was saying, the establishment of a particular religion is unconstitutional, but he support of religion in general is not. He is correct when he says that it is a lie that non-religion has to have the power to drive out all religion in government.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” the Reagan-appointed jurist told the crowd of about 400 people.

“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” the conservative Catholic justice continued. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

If we are to be dissuaded from insisting that there be no religion in government, and instead encouraged to favor religion in government, I wonder - who's at bat?

Majority rules? Established Christian government anyone?

Weasels

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Dear Spiramirabilis (I really enjoy your name by the way.),

I still haven't learned to write clearly.

Scalia's remarks simply repeated what the Supreme Court held back in May. They said, (condensing and paraphrasing) that the claim of "No religion in government" isn't strong enough to eliminate all religious practices from government. That's been the case from the first days of the country, and still exists.

Which religion? The choice of one religion is what Scalia (and everybody else) said could never be Constitutional. It's a difficult distinction to draw, which is probably why it keeps getting argued about, but the distinction is there.

If I'm not clear, please ask again. I'd hate to leave you with a false impression.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Just don't you worry your pretty little head over it Charles :-)

I think Scalia makes himself perfectly clear - clear enough for me at least. If you could forget that decision in May for half a second and focus on what he just said

That's been the case from the first days of the country, and still exists.

Tradition is not much of a reason for anything

Secularism isn't a win for the irreligious - it's not a plot and this isn't a game - it's meant to work for all of us

It's a difficult distinction to draw, which is probably why it keeps getting argued about, but the distinction is there.

The distinction is there - for now. But there's something in the wind these days, and I think it's very amusing that you think you can apologize your way around the obvious

Justice Scalia wants god in government. You want to pretend that I see something you don't?

:-)

Night Charles...

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Dear Spiramirabilis,

I hope you rest long and well. In case you'd like to continue the discussion, I'd like to respond to you.

The reason I keep mentioning the May decision is because that is, currently, the final word on the Constitutionality of having prayer to start public meetings. There are decisions which I think are wrong, just as you think there are wrong decisions.

But the Court has said that prayer at government meetings, at least, is not unconstitutional. People may or may not like it, but it's as final as an election result. The Court has also said that establishing a religion is unconstitutional.

You say that there is "something in the wind." Well, the idea that "something in the wind" is going to overturn well established court precedents, seems like fearing the Kraken may work it's way up the Mississippi.

Scalia is only saying that the idea of Secularism cannot drive out all religious practices in government. He's objecting to that extreme view of Separation which some believe mandates the removal of any thing resembling religion from government. He really didn't express any position on what he, personally, wants, he simply is repeating the Court's rulings on the question.

Really, this is not a cause for fear.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Hmm, I wonder who the weasel really is?

Let's see, school prayer has been around for quite a while. Yes? 10 commandments posted all over the place for as long a time.

National holidays, Christmas, Easter, Christian based and also around for a good period.

In short, a thoroughly entrenched specific faith for the majority of this nation's life.

So where's the 'established Christian Government'? It never happened even when the Christian held all the cards, so to speak.

So now, all of a sudden, this 'fear' argument that we will end up with a "Christian gov't" is bought into.

The truth is, under a relatively mellow, benign faith-spare me the "middle ages" and European crap, the discussion is the American version of Christianity-the Christians have been and are losing their perceived rights on an almost daily basis.

The balance is gone.

For most of my 64 years, I would have considered a Religious gov't in the same area code as a case of hemorrhoids.

Now? With what's been going on in this country, our Constitution, the ethics level of this gov't and it's elected officials as well as the public sector employees...on and on?

I can see why some might begin to think that it's the only way left to protect themselves, their culture and traditions. NOT to dominate the "non-religious", but for self-preservation.

So, 'weasel', nice try....

a reply to: charles1952

You say that there is "something in the wind." Well, the idea that "something in the wind" is going to overturn well established court precedents, seems like fearing the Kraken may work it's way up the Mississippi.

:-)

Thanks for the laugh Charles

Erosion is almost an invisible process. Before Hobby Lobby (in addition to a few others) that might have been my take on things too

Seems there have been a few Kraken sightings in New Orleans - are we supposed to wait 'til it's in St. Louis?

Really, this is not a cause for fear.

When it comes to assuaging legislative related fear Charles - at least here at ATS - you're definitely my favorite Anti-Chicken Little

Wish I could give you points for trying to keep that frog in the pot

Happy Sunday to you Charles

:-)

a reply to: nwtrucker

So where's the 'established Christian Government'? It never happened even when the Christian held all the cards, so to speak.

There was a time when even deeply and dedicated religious men and women both saw and worked to preserve secularism in government. Most people understand the value. Many understood (and still do) that it allows all people to partivcipate fully and equally in their own government

Religion is protected and people are free to worship as they choose. Win win

So now, all of a sudden, this 'fear' argument that we will end up with a "Christian gov't" is bought into.

All of a sudden? This sort of thing has been in the courts - since always

Since - always. You have to wonder why that is

:-)

Religion and money get to vote now - or hadn't you heard? The definition of a person seems to mean different things to different people

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Yes, there are many religious people who believe in separation of church and state.

What you seem to ignore, or at least marginalize, is the growing perception within the Christian community, rightly or wrongly, that separation of church and state has been redefined and is being used unfairly against them.

The 'something in the wind' you refer to is exactly that. Simple really.

Where that goes, to what degree, is the question.

Debating the minutia of Scalia's comments is all well and good. It may even be comforting. Yet, ignoring the empirical, the consequences of those decisions, the state and local gov't rulings that now impinge on the average citizen on a daily basis...

That 'wind' could easily become a storm that blows the pedantic out of their ivory towers.

If you think this is some hyperbole, you'd be mistaken.

I'm more than a little surprised that there hasn't been far more extreme responses. It speaks well of the American people.

a reply to: nwtrucker

What you seem to ignore, or at least marginalize, is the growing perception within the Christian community, rightly or wrongly, that separation of church and state has been redefined and is being used unfairly against them.

Cut to the chase then - shall we?

Do you see this desire to keep religion and government separate as some form of persecution?

Why?

And - against who?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Cut to the chase then - shall we?
Do you see this desire to keep religion and government separate as some form of persecution?
Why?
And - against who?

Does anyone really understand what our forefathers were thinking about when they said separation of church and state. If we look back, England had a state religion and that is what our forefathers did not want to see happen in America.

The big difference is that this separation is not to keep religion out of the Government but to keep the Government out of religion. Religious representatives can be guided by their faith as they fulfill their rolls they been elected to. What we do not want to see is Government dictating what faith that should be or even dictating that you must have faith in the first place.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Cut to the chase? OK. I see persecution as almost inevitable. From both camps.

In general, I see a federal gov't that has become nothing more than a conduit for agendas no matter who is in power. That includes the courts in the form of judicial activism.

I believe that this issue of separation of church and state, at least in the framework of the Constitution, is impossible to sort out to the satisfaction of both sides. (not any different than most of the other issues that gridlock this nation)

If my views are correct-not really sure they are-that the federal gov't has become nothing more than an enforcement mechanism under the guise of protecting rights, then the solution is outside your frame of reference.

Nullify/by-pass/ignore/dissolve the federal gov't. let each state based on their collective cultures, do as they desire.

Let the secular live as such. Likewise, the "faithful".

This but a single issue. I am not 'driven' by it. A symptom, nothing more.