The Separation of Church and State

[SkinWalker]

After looking over threads like The Pledge "Unconstitutional", I get the distinct feeling that most people simply don't know as much about the topic as they might think. Including myself.

 

I found this quiz to be fun but informative. I made a few assumptions that were simply wrong (I scored 15).

 

You can take the quiz if you like, but I thought a thread discussing the concept of Church and State Separation might be a productive one.

 

The Wikipedia Entry on The Separation of Church and State calls it "a principle which proposes that the institutions of the state or national government should be kept separate from those of religious institutions." But I think that it is far more than that. Much of the advancement of Church/State separation in the last few decades has been through the actions of theistic organizations who recognized that for their own faiths to have equal opportunity, the State must not favor or entangle itself with any one faith. Nor should the government be able to restrict a faith or set of faiths.

 

The majority faith would have others believe that the United States was founded with the idea that it would be a Christian nation, but this is complete BS. Its propaganda. The historical evidence suggests quite the opposite.

[TK-8252]

Interesting. I scored a 15 as well.

 

On question 5, where did the separation of church and state originate, I could have sworn it was France. During the French Revolution, France became increasingly secular. At least that's what they're teaching in history class. Eh...

[Samuel Dravis]

I got 16; I'm not really surprised we did better than average after reading the threads you mention.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

21.

 

@TK-8252

The French Revolution took place after the American Revolution. Click.

[TK-8252]

@TK-8252

The French Revolution took place after the American Revolution. Click.

 

I guess that's what happens when they teach the French Revolution before teaching the American Revolution. Oh well.

[toms]

In 1956, an Act of Congress adopted "In God We Trust" as a national motto. The original motto, "E Pluribus Unum" ("out of many, [come] one,") celebrating plurality, still appears on the Presidential Seal and on some paper currency.

 

That is a much cooler motto!

 

I got 13... but then i'm not american and sometime words confuse me...

[txa1265]

19 of 21.

 

Why is it that although most people agree that religious zealots do more harm than good to both religion and the state, that we still have so many religious zealots running around the world grabbing at power?

[toms]

Probably for the same reasons that those that flee to a new country for religious freedom don't give it to other religious beliefs once they get there.

[ShadowTemplar]

Interesting. I scored a 15 as well.

 

On question 5, where did the separation of church and state originate, I could have sworn it was France. During the French Revolution, France became increasingly secular. At least that's what they're teaching in history class. Eh...

 

The concept originated in French scholarly circles some time before the Colonies broke with Britain. Needless to say they were anything but popular in France at the time - in fact many of them fled to America to avoid persecution, and their ideas and writings are almost certainly the origin of many parts of the US constitution, including the establishment clause.

 

The wording of that question is ambiguous. Clearly the Enlightenment and the seperation of church and state originated in France. However, seperation of church and state was first implemented in the US.

 

I got 16/21 (seventeen if you count France as the right answer in #5). And if I'd given in to my usual prejudice against Puritans and Calvinists, I would have gotten 18 (or 19). Meh.

[rccar328]

I got 16 correct.

 

I had an interesting thought the other day, that I'm sure nobody around here will care for...but here it is, anyway (and it may just add a little spice to the debate):

 

In the US Supreme Court decision Torcaso v. Watkins, part of the opinion stated that "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." So, according to this decision, Secular Humanism is a recognized religion in the US. A large part of our public school system has been centered around the ideas of Secular Humanists, most notably John Dewey. Secular Humanist's beliefs on the origins of the world revolve exclusively around Darwinian evolution theory...

 

So, according to this, if even mentioning Creationism or Intelligent Design in a public school violates the Lemon Test (and, by extension, Amendment I), then so does the teaching of Evolution Theory, as it is a religious view held by the religion of Secular Humanism.

[toms]

Interesting circular logic. I think that trying to link a scientific theory like evolution to secular humanism (whatever the heck that is) as a religious belief is pretty tenuous though.

Evolution isn't something you believe in, its somethig that is. Just like we don't believe in gravity.

 

Frankly as a britisher i've never had a problem with teaching religion in schools... as long as it is kept as a general introduction to all religions, in a religious studies class. Infact that is what we do in this country. But i understand the reason why in the US they feel the need to be so strict on the seperation.. because the US is full of and controlled by evangalist nutters.

 

As with a lot of laws, it wouldn't need to exist if everyone just acted sensibly.

[TK-8252]

But the definition of secular is non-religious, so how could something secular be religious?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So, according to this, if even mentioning Creationism or Intelligent Design in a public school violates the Lemon Test (and, by extension, Amendment I), then so does the teaching of Evolution Theory, as it is a religious view held by the religion of Secular Humanism.

I have noticed that the misconception that atheism is a religion has become quite a well-used argument among certain religious people. However, religion is the belief in a spiritual being. Atheists inherently do not believe in spiritual beings, and thus are not religious.

 

But the definition of secular is non-religious (...)

Yesh.

 

Evolution isn't something you believe in, its somethig that is. Just like we don't believe in gravity.

I don't. Intelligent Falling for teh win:D!!1111

[edlib]

Secular Humanism defined.

 

I remember getting into this argument with someone who insisted that atheism was a religious belief. If non-belief in religion classifies as a religious belief, then there's no way to not be religious in this country... Not even for purposes of argument.

Since that path of debate leads inevitably down to a logical dead-end, we have to assume that every point-of-view has an opposite. You can't just say that the opposite of one type of religious faith is just a different type of religious faith. The opposite of religious faith has to be no religious faith at all.

 

Looking at the scientific method, and saying "This is probably how it happened, to the best of the knowledge and evidence we have available to us today" is a lot different than looking to chapter in a book written thousands of years ago and saying "I know that this is exactly the way it happened because my faith leads me to believe this is absolute truth."

 

The first one is subject to critical inquiry, examination, and ultimately change, if new facts and evidence is presented. It doesn't require faith, just an objective acceptance of the facts that the universe presents to us as the way things work.

 

The second one is unchanging and unfailing, no matter if no supporting evidence is ever found, or even if contrary facts and evidence might come to light. It requires faith to stick to the belief system, especially when all the available evidence seems to contradict the official record.

[SkinWalker]

What rccar is going on about is the thoroughly debunked assertion of the superstitious who wish to point the finger at those that don't accept their superstitions while saying, "see, you're a believer too!"

 

The primary difference is that the beliefs of the supernatural are grounded in mythology and legend (UFOs, esp, telekinesis, remote viewing, ghosts, tarot, religion, etc.). Some of those myths and legends are intricate and complex as well as long-standing (religion, ghosts, divination) and some are complex but haphazard and new (UFOs, ancient astronauts). Still others are detailed and specific but still relatively recent in human history (esp, remote viewing, the-kidney-theft-after-being-drugged-by-the-unbelievably-sexy-chick-picked-up-at-the-bar-and-taken-to-a-motel-legend).

 

Regardless, none have any basis in fact nor have they withstood testing as hypotheses, indeed, many are simply not testable. Thus they are superstitions: beliefs that aren't grounded in fact or experience but irrational fears, desires, and/or hopes.

 

The move to accuse those that consider themselves "secular," or outside the influence of religion, is a complete fallacy, and one that many religious fanatics will assert. They ignore, however, that one can be secular with regard to government or public policy and still have strong religious beliefs. There are many Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. who live secular lives in their workplaces, governments, etc and prefer to have religion be separated from the public sphere. Indeed, there are those that consider it blasphemous to allow government to exploit religion for gain as is seen in recent history (regardless of political zeaolotry for right vs left).

 

Secular doesn't equate to atheist or even agnostic. It simply means religion is separate from something else.

 

But this is very similar to the nonsense propogated some time back by those that Carl Sagan to be the "prophet" of "scientism." It was bunk then, and its bunk now. Science is not a religion, nor is atheism, secularism, or even humanism, though I will concede that there are some religious-like characteristics in the latter. But the core feature a true religion is absent: the irrational belief and devotion in and to a supernatural entity or entities.

 

But as long as there are those that refute superstition with logic, there will always be those that try to modify the logic to suit their needs.

[lord ignarn]

The separation of Church and Throne was a need. This was the scheme of the stamental society, when the powerfull ones (Church and Throne) did what they wanted, they were alied to ensure theyr own power. In the pass to the class society (in witch we live) they were separed as the staments falled and the burgeoise reached to the highest of the social scale. In the industrial society the Church couldn´t be so powerfull, as the new rulers saw it as a menace and a power from the past.

 

This can be undestood when you realize how powerfull reached to be the Church in Europe. A change was needed here.

 

I don´t think how you see it, but I believe that now the Church must give his point of view, but allways respecting the popular wish (not pretending to have the truth, just his truth), after all that´s democracy, to let your adversary talk.

[Kurgan]

Scored 15 like many of you (and I skipped reading after the first few posts to try to avoid bias). Interesting...

 

Though I did start to assume cynicism on the part of the quiz creators so I could guess the "right" answer even if I didn't know it.

 

Ones I got wrong:

 

I put "all religions" instead of "all of the above" in question 4. I guess assuming that FFRF was upset because the Constitution was inadequate. Some social libertarians feel that the foundational documents are sacrosanct, others feel they are too limited, was my thinking.

 

I thought France originated Seperation of Church and State (I just assumed because France seems very non-religious and I recall the anti-clerical spirit of the Revolutionary times, etc).

 

In question 8 I guessed the colony in Virginia because I couldn't remember.

 

Question 10 I guessed Abraham Lincoln ("in no sense founded on the Christian religion") because Lincoln is so often cited by Atheists and Deists as one of their own due to his lack of connection in adult life with any denomination (he couldn't have very well been both of course). A Deist (I thought he was, but the quiz states he was actually Unitarian if we're talking about the same guy) like Adams would more likely have said such a thing though, so I should have known that one...

 

Question 15, my cynicism detector assumed option 1 (which was correct) but I thought for sure that I remembered this case (obviously not) as being an "atheist organization."

 

Question 20 my gut instinct told me was False (about swearing on the Bible) but after seeing the President do it on TV all my life, I sort of assumed it was required. After all, just because it exists doesn't mean it's "right" in the eyes of the FFRF, but oh well. Got it wrong!

 

 

 

Interesting quiz, though like the "world's smallest political quiz" it only tells you a little about yourself and a lot more about the agenda of the folks putting it out!

 

This is what happens when you stop reviewing American history after high school! *buys copy of "Don't Know Much About History"*

[Kurgan]

Btw, I figured the "secular humanism/atheism/agnosticism is a religion" thing was a legal fiction. Ie: We want to give equivalent rights to these folks as extended to religious folks, so on paper we'll call it "a religion" even though it isn't. Then somebody takes that and assumes it REALLY IS. Only if we define that as a religion where we also define things like football as a religion, which gets problematic (even if it can be true for some people).

 

A religion need not embrace a deity (some Buddhists come to mind). And atheists may be a member of a religious organization such as some members of the Unitarian Church. Some forms of humanism might even be considered a metaphysical philosophy similar to elements of other religious philosophies.

 

Another reason people might be getting confused is on surveys that say something like:

 

----------------------------------------

What is your Religion? (Please check one):

 

1.Christian ___

2.Jewish ___

3.Buddhist ___

4.Taoist ____

5.Shinto ____

6.Confucian ___

7.Native or Indigenous tradition _____

8.New Age ____

9.Wiccan/Neo-Pagan ____

9.Atheist/Agnostic ____

----------------------------------------

 

See? It asks you what your religion is and it's listed, so IT'S A RELIGION! Get it?

 

(sort of like how on my voter registration form in Iowa I'm legally a member of the "NO PARTY")

 

Also on polling data it does a similar thing. Some list "no religion" but often "no religion" is paired up with atheism, so again people could get confused. Don't laugh, I think it's true!

 

Now somebody please help me, I need to find the "any" key on my keyboard....

[Kurgan]

Also, the idea that "American was founded on the Christian religion" could be read in a metaphorical or symbolic sense. One could say that the European explorers and conquerers had (among other goals) the goal of "converting" the native inhabitants to Christianity, and happened to be (mostly) Christian themselves. Likewise those who started up colonies in order to practice their (Christian) religions in peace could also be said to have laid a "foundation."

 

Now I'm well aware that the so-called "Founding Fathers" are largely incorrectly thought to have all been practicing Christians, when the most famous ones we all think of were Deists (who accept the idea of a creator God, but reject revelations apart from the "miracle" of nature itself and human reason, thus disqualifying Christianity from being worthy of their devotion) and that the seperation of church and state ideas necessarily setup a secular state, despite a majority Christian population. But still, that is not to say that there is no possible way to interpret the statement. Obviously Skin worded it in such a way as for it to be necessarily incorrect, that the United States did not intend to found itself as a 'Christian' state. Obviously to me, it didn't.

[lord ignarn]

Kurgan, I don´t think being atheist is a religion, it´s just a choice made onece you think you have reached to the conclusion that there is no god or other form of higer power. But also you can deny being any god just because you don´t like it (there might be reasons to hate a god not belonging to other religion).

 

The thing is that being atheist is given as a choice because is a way to confront the idea of the existence of a god. It´s more a choice than other thing.

 

About the USA as a christian state I don´t think so, the "founding fathers" took the moral from the christians, the "real" christian states are just utopias from writers of the XIXth century, and they are quite autoritarist, they aren´t like the USA at all. If you want to know more just look for christian utopia on a web brownser.

[SkinWalker]

I don´t think being atheist is a religion, it´s just a choice made onece you think you have reached to the conclusion that there is no god or other form of higer power. But also you can deny being any god just because you don´t like it (there might be reasons to hate a god not belonging to other religion).

 

Or you can simply not know that others engage in the superstitious belief of gods. My four-year old daughter is a perfect atheist. She knows nothing of religion or religious superstitions. One day she will, but if I'm any kind of decent parent, she'll learn from the point of view of critical objectivity and skepticism and will be able to make her own informed decision about whether or not to accept a god or gods.

 

As far as atheists "confronting the existance of god," some do. I frequently do by questioning and being skeptical. But most atheists simply don't subscribe to the superstitions of religion and give it little added thought. Most atheists aren't activist or open about their atheism (they live, after all, in a society of believers that would likely have a bigoted opinion about the "atheist").

[rccar328]

Whether atheism is a religion really depends on how you define religion. Nowhere is it written down definitively that a religious person has to believe in the supernatural - that's really just a connotation. In fact, the dictionary definition of religion includes the entry, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." This definition includes atheism, because atheism includes faith in the belief that there is no god.

 

I think the misconception of religion solely as a belief in the supernatural really stems from the prevalence of 'organized' religion - it's harder to recognize atheism as a religion when everyone else has meetings in large buildings every week...and atheists really have no reason to meet in that manner.

[TK-8252]

Whether atheism is a religion really depends on how you define religion. Nowhere is it written down definitively that a religious person has to believe in the supernatural - that's really just a connotation. In fact, the dictionary definition of religion includes the entry, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

 

That is a fairly broad definition. The problem with calling "atheism" a religion is that it would be like calling "monotheism" and "polytheism" religions. Christianity would be an example of a religion that is monotheistic. But what would be an example of a religion that is atheistic?

[lord ignarn]

Well it can´t be an atheist religion, because an atheist doesn´t believe in gods, so it won´t make a religion, because the objetive of a religion is to praise a god and control some believers.

 

Other thing is that the atheism it´s being badly used as a religion. From my point of view, being atheist it´s very personal. You don´t belong to a known community for being atheist (the believers belong to a known community).

[TK-8252]

Well it can´t be an atheist religion, because an atheist doesn´t believe in gods, so it won´t make a religion, because the objetive of a religion is to praise a god and control some believers.

 

The point rccar made was that the definition of athiesm could fit into a more broad definition of religion. Although I don't agree, it is an interpretation some might make.