tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8130179729765670263.post5469760417386576085..comments2010-12-28T09:17:41.975-08:00Comments on The Phantom Blogger: America: A Christian nation?The Phantom Bloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17301687130245098474noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8130179729765670263.post-6846039138791141042010-12-28T09:17:41.975-08:002010-12-28T09:17:41.975-08:00"Is this where someone enthuses "Wow! De..."<i>Is this where someone enthuses "Wow! Deep"?</i>"<br /><br />No, this is where someone suggests that someone else is conflating being "in over his head" for being "in deap."Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8130179729765670263.post-5303179452934626812010-10-04T04:21:29.708-07:002010-10-04T04:21:29.708-07:00Apologies for the late reply.
I should clarify my...Apologies for the late reply.<br /><br />I should clarify my point was about the Founding of the American government, not about now or any time after the passing of the 14th Amendment. <br /> <br />A lot of your points though, do seem to be based on misunderstandings of what I wrote. My main point was that, when the constitution was created, America was an overtly Christian country, with an overtly Christian people and culture, the founders new this, and believed it to be an important and necessary part of what America was, even if they did not explicitly mention it in the Founding documents and my other point was to show the separation between the federal government and the states in relation to how they can or at least could approach religion. The federal government couldn't get involved with religion or Christianity directly (though they did promote it as I pointed with there distribution of Bibles) because they feared that looking to support one denomination over the other would lead to civil unrest or sectarian violence, because of historical examples of this phenomenon, mixed in with there lockean sensibilities and philosophy.<br /><br />"That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government."<br /><br />My point wasn't that the constitution was in some way Christian (even though it was clearly influenced by Christian principles), my point was that the constitution wasn't supposed to represent all that is America, I was talking about the limits of the constitution in relation to religion. The Government acted in ways that overtly promoted Christianity even though they failed to mention it in the Founding documents, showing these limits.<br /><br />"Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office."<br /><br />The central Federal branch was designed to be secular, but the states were aloud to make decisions related to religion for themselves. As I pointed out in certain states there are religious tests for office and there were also state supported churches, proving this point.The Phantom Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17301687130245098474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8130179729765670263.post-16130255928222544382010-10-03T18:57:49.360-07:002010-10-03T18:57:49.360-07:00Is this where someone enthuses "Wow! Deep&quo...Is this where someone enthuses "Wow! Deep"?Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8130179729765670263.post-16203864466024432532010-10-03T18:38:46.562-07:002010-10-03T18:38:46.562-07:00One can't help but wonder what certain persons...One can't help but wonder what certain persons imagine they're doing, given that they haven't the foggiest understanding of what they like to imagine they are arguing against.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8130179729765670263.post-84859186188801162222010-10-02T15:01:58.262-07:002010-10-02T15:01:58.262-07:002.
James Madison, who had a central role in draft...2.<br /><br />James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these actions were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."<br /><br />That was the circumstance until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the Civil War. It guaranteed individual rights against infringement by states, including equal protection and due process of law and the rights and privileges of citizenship. In deciding what rights are encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the courts have looked to the Bill of Rights, reasoning that there are found the rights we hold most fundamental, and have ruled that at least some of those, including freedom of religion and freedom from government established religion, are protected from state infringement. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29 <br /><br />Consequently, today no government, federal or state, can promote or otherwise take steps to establish religion. That hardly means, though, that religion has been purged from the public square. Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state--as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnxDoug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8130179729765670263.post-14716699647174280192010-10-02T15:00:32.436-07:002010-10-02T15:00:32.436-07:001.
Given the republican nature of our government,...1.<br /><br />Given the republican nature of our government, I agree with you that it is only natural and expected that the laws enacted by our government--in both the founders' time and today--largely reflect Christianity's dominant influence in our society. That said, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity or theism is an inherent aspect of our constitutional government. Indeed, any such claim is antithetical to the constitutional principle against government establishment of religion. In assessing the nature of our government, the religiosity of the various founders, while informative, is largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office.<br /><br />You are quite right to note that the First Amendment constrains only the federal government and not the states and that, at the time of the founding, some states had established religions. The First Amendment reflects, at the federal level, a "disestablishment" political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the mid-1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term "antidisestablishmentarianism," which amused some of us as kids.)<br /><br />While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from favoring one Christian denomination over others as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision ("no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed") and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment's terms and legislative history, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally sponsoring a government church or religion, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by Congress and/or the Executive doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion--stopping just short of formally establishing a church.Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8130179729765670263.post-65502311127478931622010-10-01T08:24:54.470-07:002010-10-01T08:24:54.470-07:00You may be right. I've looked it up and its s...You may be right. I've looked it up and its says several in the articles I've seen, which implies more than two, but it isn't specific. <br /><br />There's direct mentions of two though. Connecticut which had a state reilgion until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833. The Massachusetts system required every man to belong to some church, and pay taxes towards it; while it was formally neutral between denominations, in practice the indifferent would be counted as belonging to the majority denomination.<br /><br />I found this though:<br /><br />"Religious beliefs or the lack of them have therefore not been permissible tests or qualifications with regard to federal employees since the ratification of the Constitution. Seven states, however, have language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that require state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs. These states are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee."<br /><br />Which is different from what were talking about but there is seven states where this applies.The Phantom Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17301687130245098474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8130179729765670263.post-65844997722360691652010-10-01T07:57:51.341-07:002010-10-01T07:57:51.341-07:00It has been my understanding that at the time of r...It has been my understanding that at the time of ratification six or seven (and merely two) States had established churches.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com