How can I be sure

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Apart from separation of Church and State, Cali and others seem to believe there is a salutory effect to having a president's religious beliefs strongly influence his decision-making. But I've cited Truman's recognition of Israel as an example of a president making a momentous decision that still haunts us today for better or worse based almost exclusviely on his religious faith. No one has had much of an answer for that, even though I support Truman's decision (not the means to it).

Yup, you got us there. Religion clearly influenced a decision with which you do not disagree. Busted.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I've also noted that GWB is a horrible president, including multiple grievous transgressions against civil liberties, and he has had more religious rhetoric associated with his presiency than any in modern times.

Remember that bit about making up facts? Qualify for me, please. Show me something that says that he uses more religious rhetoric than any other president in modern times. Unless by "modern times" you mean "since 1992".

Then show me that his use of religious rhetoric is not merely coincidental. Perhaps the fact that he is a "horrible president" has more to do with run-of-the-mill ineptitude that may have nothing to do with religious furvor, as Archaea hypothesized?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by All-American

Perhaps the fact that he is a "horrible president" has more to do with run-of-the-mill ineptitude that may have nothing to do with religious furvor, as Archaea hypothesized?

Nah, that can't be it and we know it. It's all about his religiosity. Seattle said so.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Well, CaliCoug says theocracies are not inherantly evil citing nine of the original 13 colonies that were originally theocracies and the British government from whom the United States had to win its indepenendence. Certainly all the slave state were among those nine. They were indeed therefore inherently evil, and they actually cited their religous tradition, including the Old Testament, as justification for slavery. Looked at in the cold light of day the Civil War itself was a war between religion and secularism. The Southern Baptist Church grew out of the Civil War.

Apart from separation of Church and State, Cali and others seem to believe there is a salutory effect to having a president's religious beliefs strongly influence his decision-making. But I've cited Truman's recognition of Israel as an example of a president making a momentous decision that still haunts us today for better or worse based almost exclusviely on his religious faith. No one has had much of an answer for that, even though I support Truman's decision (not the means to it). Still recognition of Israel could be argued against to this day strongly based on the evidence and reason, as George Marshall did. I've also noted that GWB is a horrible president, including multiple grievous transgressions against civil liberties, and he has had more religious rhetoric associated with his presiency than any in modern times.

So Truman's decision, which you fully support as an atheist, is proof that we need an atheist making such decisions? Excellent point there.

SU, I would be blown away if you had a clue which 9 states had state religions, which is why it is so amusing that you automatically associate those states with slavery (not even knowing if you are right). And you aren't right- neither Virginia nor Georgia (a prison colony initially) did, though New Hampshire, Massachussets, and Pennsylvania all did.

[Cali Coug]

And, by the way SU, a STRONG argument could be made that the North was more religious than the south was prior to and during the Civil War!

I have already noted that Lincoln specifically cited a covenant he made with God for his reason in giving the Emancipation Proclamation.

You could also read here:

http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us/tserve/nine...fo/cwnorth.htm

[All-American]

Originally Posted by DarkBritches

All governments fail to serve the people in some critical ways, regardless the extent they are based on religious teachings. I think it is obscene the way some in this country have so much wealth while there are children who starve and live in the streets. That is a basic failing of our current system that is 100 percent evil. It wasn't the theocracy that was evil in any of those early colonies. It was the way that people twisted the underlying explanations to screw some people out of their lives and livliehood. Slaves. Today we have people talking about the virtue of the free market. And there is something there. But when you have kids living on the streets while fat men are sleeping with whores you have something evil going on too. And the free market makes that possible. You can't blame theocracy for those problems of slavery. It was greed, the same thing that corrupts our best intentions today.

I'll drink to that. Religion may be used as a cloak to mask ill intent, but that does not make it a driving force behind evil in every occasion. I will be so bold as to say that religion has a positive net effect on the world.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

I'll drink to that. Religion may be used as a cloak to mask ill intent, but that does not make it a driving force behind evil in every occasion. I will be so bold as to say that religion has a positive net effect on the world.

Yep. The Spanish conquistadors are a perfect example of people using religion as a motive when the actual motive was greed.

[Cali Coug]

Note: I really like you SU. In general, I think your comments are thoughtful and well-grounded. But for some reason, you have become particularly shrill on religious topics to the point that the debate doesn't even seem honest to me anymore. What is going on?

Best to you. I look forward to future discussions.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Note: I really like you SU. In general, I think your comments are thoughtful and well-grounded. But for some reason, you have become particularly shrill on religious topics to the point that the debate doesn't even seem honest to me anymore. What is going on?

Best to you. I look forward to future discussions.

The truth is you have been going for the capillary, pointing out arcane minutiea about what some of the founders (most of them still laboring under the dark vestiges of the past; for example, many were slave owners; this was the eighteenth century after all) may have really intended by the establishment clause, when the gravamen of the intent can really only be discerned truly from what the clause ultimately became in actual execution--a prophylactic, strictly applied measure in recognition of dangers to liberty inherent in any entanglement whatsoever between religion and secular government.

Regadless of original intent arcana, the wall our courts have erected between church and state over many years is universally recognized as a critical element of our civic culture and integral to our liberties. You say you agree with this separation. This is understandable given that primary among the liberties threatened by such entanglement is freedom of religion itself. Separation of Church and state was necessary for Mormonism's advent.

But what we are really arguing about here is what is the underlying policy and rationale for separation of church and state.

History shows anything we could indentify as indicia of liberty is imperiled by entanglement between religion and state. You say this is shrill? I say I am in the majority among educated folks. For example, this was written by a professed believing Christian and Catholic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/op...partner=rssnyt

And take a look at this creative and interesting take on the problem I identified:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/op...0d256a&ei=5070

I think this essay is sublime, and dead on.

Theocracy is indeed inherently evil, and that is where you part company with me and most people with an understanding of history and how it begat our country and its attendant liberties. There is no middle ground. Theocracy is inherently evil. Given that immutable fact, it is certainly appropriate for anyone to question the role that religion will play in any presidential candidate's policy- and decision-making and legislative and extra-governmental activities.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The truth is you have been going for the capillary, pointing out arcane minutiea about what some of the founders (most of them still laboring under the dark vestiges of the past; for example, many were slave owners; this was the eighteenth century after all) may have really intended by the establishment clause, when the gravamen of the intent can really only be discerned truly from what the clause ultimately became in actual execution--a prophylactic, strictly applied measure in recognition of dangers to liberty inherent in any entanglement whatsoever between religion and secular government.

Ironically, primary among the liberties threatened by such entanglement is freedom of religion itself. But that is by no means the only one; history shows anything we could indentify as indicia of liberty is imperiled by entanglement between religion and state. You say this is shrill? I say I am in the majority among educated folks. For example, this was written by a professed believing Christian and Catholic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/op...partner=rssnyt

And take a look at this creative and interesting take on the problem I identified:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/op...0d256a&ei=5070

I think this essay is sublime, and dead on.

Theocracy is indeed inherently evil, and that is where you part company with me and most people with an understanding of history and how it begat our country and its attendant liberties. There is no middle ground. Theocracy is inherently evil. Given that immutable fact, it is certainly appropriate for anyone to question the role that religion will play in any presidential candidate's policy- and decision-making and legislative and extra-governmental activities.

We are just talking past each other on this one. Your latest argument (that the founders intent can only be measured by later generations did with their words) is just plain silly and reflects a streak of revisionism that I wouldn't have expected with you.

If theocracies are INHERENTLY evil as you argue (again, using my broad definition of theocracy which would include England, Finland, and others and with which you have not taken issue), then all I have to do is find one example of a government that isn't evil (odd you would pick a word associated with religion to define such governments). You have ignored repeated questions about whether early state governments were evil. Simple answer: yes or no? Is Finland today? Is Norway today? Is England today (oh, wait- they are Anglican, that certainly can't count because it doesn't fit within your paradigm).

This conversation has become hopeless. Generally I leave a conversation feeling like I learned something. I wish that were the case here.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

We are just talking past each other on this one. Your latest argument (that the founders intent can only be measured by later generations did with their words) is just plain silly and reflects a streak of revisionism that I wouldn't have expected with you.

If theocracies are INHERENTLY evil as you argue (again, using my broad definition of theocracy which would include England, Finland, and others and with which you have not taken issue), then all I have to do is find one example of a government that isn't evil (odd you would pick a word associated with religion to define such governments). You have ignored repeated questions about whether early state governments were evil. Simple answer: yes or no? Is Finland today? Is Norway today? Is England today (oh, wait- they are Anglican, that certainly can't count because it doesn't fit within your paradigm).

This conversation has become hopeless. Generally I leave a conversation feeling like I learned something. I wish that were the case here.

What I am saying is that what you may infer as the founders' intent (which whether you recognize it or not is a debatable proposition, especially given the philosphical currents that gave rise to the Constition in the first place) is really irrelevant to what we are arguing about. Where you and I part company is the policy underlying and ratianale for the establishment clause as presently understood and applied. I clarified this in the revision to my post if you care to read it.

Finland, Norway and England are no more theocracies than England is a monarchy. The nominal lables of "state religion" are no more than old heirlooms; like the confederate flag flying over the state house in South Carolina. That you resort to them as examples of good theocracies is really funny. I question whether you are even being serious here. That you have to resort to these examples proves my point. Even in the private shpere religious ferver is at an alarmingly low ebb in the countries you cite.

I do think there was much evil going on the original colonies. Though they had the original constitution, and had come a long ways in comparison to their European forebears, there was much work to be done and blood to be shed before our country attained its current exalted status in terms of recognition of individual liberties. The Bill of Rights itself would not have been possible in a true theocracy. I am not only in the majority in making this point, most knowledgeable people would take it as a verity, hardly worth discussing.

The consensus among people in this country who are aware of and think about such issues is that theocracies are inherently evil, and it is in recognition of this that the establishment clause is what it has become today. You say I'm shrill, but you're on the fringes. That you would try to stigmatize my common sense argument by calling me an atheist says it all.