Making Sense of the Issue of the Day - RBG

a reply to: TheRedneck

Politicians talk and posture a lot.

How could one Senator impose anything? Unless they're the Majority Leader of course, an unconstitutional "office" that wields ludicrous power ... regardless of party.

You hate the phrase "move on"?

Move forward sounds dangerously progressive there, 'Neck.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

He was speaking of judicial rulings and the separation of church and state. If there is no separation of church and state, then there are religious tests. If the standard that applies is that justices can favor religious stances over secular stances, then religion is established as favorable over secular influence.

If there is separation of church and state, it follows that there is religious discrimination. I understand you do not understand religion, but trust me when I tell you that religious beliefs cannot be turned on and off like a light bulb. I am a Christian. I will still be a Christian whether I'm at home, at work, in my car, attending church, shopping for food, attending a political rally, voting, sleeping, whatever. Those who say they can "turn it off" are not religious to begin with; they only use religion for social acceptance.

So if there is a separation of church and state, my religious choice prohibits me from any involvement with state.

Now, does that apply to voting? Serving in the military? Getting a driver's license? Working for a government agency? How far do we take this separation? Until Christians have no say in the country whatsoever and become servents to atheists?

I'm not saying you believe this; I am just pointing out the lunacy of the very phrase "separation of church and state." It cannot make sense unless one either knows nothing about religion or believes in the inferiority of certain members of society.

On the other hand, we can implement restrictions on government officials that prohibit use of supporting religious documents to effect policy. That way everyone gets to participate in their government and everyone is still protected from government instituting religious values. I vastly prefer this option, and I think most contemplative people will as well.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Your religious faith informs who you are. It's absurd to suggest (and I've never seen anyone suggest it) that you should turn off your faith.

What you can do, if you choose to represent the People of the United States, is do your best for all of them, believers and non-believers.

Promoting a theocracy is not good for anyone, theist or atheist. THAT is what history clearly demonstrates.

You'll have to talk to the Founders about the separation of church and state: it seemed very important to them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Politicians talk and posture a lot.

That they do. On both sides.

How could one Senator impose anything?

Oh, tell me you are not suddenly becoming politically naive?

A Senator will have control over their time during the hearings and will be allowed to ask pretty much anything they want. Feinstein could easily use her time to promote a religious test, insinuating that the nominee's religion is somehow disqualifying. That would be a direct violation of the Constitution.

If she just badgers the nominee, well, that's her prerogative. I actually want someone strong enough to stand up to opposition.

Move forward sounds dangerously progressive there, 'Neck.

Well, we could always revert to "Git 'er done!"


TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not politically naive, no.

I do recognize an argument from experience though.

Is Diane Feinstein in any way going to stop the nomination and consent of Trump's nominee? Nope.

To believe otherwise would point to political naivete, honestly.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why would any good Christian "pledge allegiance" to a flag.

That's awfully close to worsipping a graven image ... ain't it?

I also recite the spirit of song ahm every time I get ready to practice at tae kwon do. I must be triply damned.

It's like UT's Hook 'em Horns hand sign. It's the intent that matters. Do I love the country or tae kwon do more than God? Only He knows that for sure.

a reply to: TheRedneck

If there is separation of church and state, it follows that there is religious discrimination. I understand you do not understand religion, but trust me when I tell you that religious beliefs cannot be turned on and off like a light bulb.

It's not about turning one's faith on and off. It's about favoring religious standards and views above secular standards and views, which is what Scalia was promoting, when he said the following:

“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.

So, according to Scalia, it's okay to favor a Christian over an atheist of equal qualifications. It's okay to make a religious statement a national motto. Because it's important to dissuade Americans against secular influence and for government to fight against secular ideology. There is no room for atheisms in Scalia's ideology. That is not separation of church and state, it's establishing religious favoritism.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The problem is that you seem to be setting atheism as the default which means you are setting it as the favored view. That is equally illegal because it discriminated against anyone of any faith.

You seem to be thinking of atheism as a kind of factory default setting no other human could possibly find offensive, and therein lies your mistake.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your religious faith informs who you are. It's absurd to suggest (and I've never seen anyone suggest it) that you should turn off your faith.

Oh, I have. "Being a Christian in office is fine if they're not a Christian during work hours."

(Hilarious side note: if one tries to type the word "Christian" too fast, it can come out as "Christina."

What you can do, if you choose to represent the People of the United States, is do your best for all of them, believers and non-believers.

On that I will agree completely!

A fine point about Christianity, especially Protestant ( non-Catholic) Christianity, is that even among believers there can be major differences. That's why we have so many denominations (and why I am not a member of any of them). My faith is from a simple belief: the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is true as written... interpretations, connotations, and translations may be true. If it says it in the Bible, the original Scriptures, that's how it is.

Because of that belief, and also because I do know my Bible well IMO, Jehovah's Witnesses do not visit our home. I have never turned one away; on the contrary, I invite them in, grab my Bible, and we have a good old-fashioned talk about Jesus! In the process, I have converted several to my way of thinking and thus, my home seems to be officially off-limits to them.

The point to that story is that I do not want someone from another denomination exercising power over my faith. Just because they call themselves "Christian" and I call myself "Christian," it does not follow that we believe alike. Chances are, we don't; there are few churches in this area where I am welcomed because I verify every word with the Scriptures. So I have as much concern over faith being pushed on me, even by other Christians, as any atheist.

You'll have to talk to the Founders about the separation of church and state: it seemed very important to them.

The dead sleep; they do not answer the living.

However, seeing as the phrase "separation of church and state" was never included in the Constitution, I see no reason to think it was intended. The Founding Fathers were quite capable of expressing thought through the written word.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Gryphon66

Is Diane Feinstein in any way going to stop the nomination and consent of Trump's nominee? Nope.

A likely true statement. Any other election year, I would say definitely true, but in 2020... eh, still expecting the asteroid.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Can you post that link again? I'd like to give it a closer read and it's on the other computer.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

thehumanist.com...

originally posted by: ketsuko
But regardless, the idea of Trump making his appointment should not in any way be controversial.

Nor should the Senate confirming.

It is quite simple. The President has the power - and the obligation and the duty under the constitution - to nominate someone... immediately.

It is also strictly up to the Senate as to how they handle it. If the Senate is controlled by the opposition party, then don't be surprised if they don't consent.

Thems the rules, like it or not.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Thanks, but I was looking for the link to Justice Scalia's remarks at the Colorado Christian University.

Anyway, in the absence of such a simple thing, I looked it up myself, coming to rely on the Denver Post as I believe there is a better chance of getting the full story from a local newspaper than from a national one.

I agree with this remark he made:

“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.”

This goes back to my earlier comment about the separation of church and state being inherently unfair to those of faith by removing them from their own government. All voices should be present in deciding issues, and that includes all religious values. As an example, let me point out the old argument over gay marriage: while it is true enough that who someone chooses to marry does not affect me or my faith, my largest concern over legalization was that churches could then be forced to marry gay couples in a ceremony they considered abhorrent to their religious values. So far as I know, that has not happened (although I seem to remember a couple of people who tried unsuccessfully to sue a church for refusing to hold their ceremony). The religious values of all religions should be considered when drafting legislation, else we run the risk of inadvertently (or perhaps intentionaly, depending on one's level of conspiracy belief) alienating said religion and forcing those who adhere to it into the role of second-class citizens.

Another statement also rings true:

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

I second that. I have actually seen churches become so political that they fell apart. Christianity is all about how we live our lives; politics is about how others live their lives. I believe any religion that spends too much time worrying about how others live their lives is asking for failure and violating God's Word in the process.

Let me expound on that a moment: According to the Abrahamic religions, God created man with free will. This was emphasized by the fact he was placed in a garden that supplied all his needs, but was warned not to eat of a particular tree. That warning and the opportunity to disobey showed the establishment of free will. God could just as easily put the tree out of man's reach, or He could have simply not made that tree, but that would have meant that man was controlled by God and did not have free will.

Also, when God created man, Genesis records Him granting man dominion over the earth, over the animals, the fish, the birds, the insects, the plant life... everything! Except one thing: each other. We were never granted dominion over other humans, so any time someone tries to force someone else to live a certain way, they are taking that which God refused to give by force of will, and subjugating others' free will that was given them by God.

And that is the very role of government: to oppose God. Without religious influence from members of that government itself, not through official action but through insistence of their beliefs, all government will oppose religion in any form.

It has been stated, I assume from other links, that Justice Scalia supported the government favoring religious over nonreligious views. If that is true, I would disagree strongly with the statement. Government must in no way officially favor religious over non-religious views, nor non-religious over religious views. As I have stated, there will be favoritism; it is just human nature. But in no way should that individual favoritism be officially accepted in any way, shape, form or fashion. It must never be encouraged.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

The problem is that you seem to be setting atheism as the default which means you are setting it as the favored view.

Secular means non religious. "Secular" and non-religion" is the term Justice Scalia used when contrasting religion as being favorable.

“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”
Justice Scalia

You seem to be thinking of atheism as a kind of factory default setting no other human could possibly find offensive, and therein lies your mistake.

Obviously Scalia thought it was offensive, enough so that he believed the public needed to be dissuaded away from it and the government should fight against it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's splitting hairs and you know it since atheist preference and secular are very often one and the same.

a reply to: ketsuko

atheist preference and secular are very often one and the same.

Exactly. No hair splitting needed. It's clear as a bell what Scalia meant by secular and non-religious ideas need to be fought against by government, and the people dissuaded from such ideology, and religion favored.

Obviously, I disagree with Scalia and his disciples.

When it comes to atheists' preference, I can assure you that they prefer not to be stereotyped as all having the same preferences.

A high school graduation is secular and non-religious. A soccer game is non-religious and secular. Night clubs and bars are secular and non-religious. Yet Trump and his religious right toadies argued that churches should be allowed to operate as "business as usual" during the Covid19 shut downs, because the government should treat religious gatherings different, with more favor than secular, non-religious gatherings.

Freedom of religion is a more favorable right than non-religious, secular, freedom to assemble is.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A high school graduation is secular and non-religious. A soccer game is non-religious and secular. Night clubs and bars are secular and non-religious. Yet Trump and his religious right toadies argued that churches should be allowed to operate as "business as usual" during the Covid19 shut downs, because the government should treat religious gatherings different, with more favor than secular, non-religious gatherings.

Show me where there is an enumerated right to graduate high school, play soccer, or get drunk in a bar.

TheRedneck

Rights that are specifically mentioned are enumerated rights, but other rights not specifically mentioned but which are considered fundamental to the operation of the nation and liberties enjoyed by the people are also protected. These are known as implied or unenumerated rights.

a reply to: Annee

So you have an implied right to get drunk in a bar?

TheRedneck