Do we want to keep the America government secular?

I don't know if Rick Sanatorium actually does want to put the Christian church more in control of our government, or not. I'd like to hear some quotes from him and actual policies that he wants to follow to determine the truth of that allegation ... or for that matter any policies that Obama or Romney or Gingridge want to follow which redefines the line between church and state.

The specific question i have posed here is which candidates want to move the American government in the direction of favoring a specific religion ... and would that be a good thing?

Comments

Mark de LA says

So this is just bullshit - since you DON'T KNOW! Otoh, I bet you didn't know that the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution does permit the unfettered right to practice one's religion without restriction from the government. GO figure!

Mark de LA says

Which means you CAN'T PASS LAWS WHICH RESTRICT A PERSON'S RIGHT TO PRACTICE HIS RELIGION REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU DISAGREE WITH IT'S TENETS OR NOT.

Mark de LA says

Here's the thing for me - I don't like politicians pandering to anything, especially religion. Who's God ? My God? Your God? NO God? or the God of Science or the Cosmic Ooze or even Gaia. I think there are some exceptions even to that rule as I remember a legitimate religion couldn't just be homage to the .'. Holy Vagina & include prostitution. OTOH, if I were a politican I would of course guide my work through my faith but not impose it (cf. the first amendment of the Bill of Rights). I could not impose laws upon the people which directly affect the exercise nor conflict with people's faiths.

P.S. There is a lot more than a conflict of faith which prevents dictating people buy health insurance policies which contain specific coverage of any kind & I hope SCOTUS straightens that when Obamacare comes up before them.

Mark de LA says

Atheism IS a religion of NO GOD! I will not release that. The paradigms of Science border faith if not are faith watch Steven Hawkings if you cant figure that one out. Psychology is thin on proof otherwise there wouldn't be so many successions of theories bombarding the media each week.

Seth says

I think the question is not about passing laws against someone practicing their religion, rather it is should the government follow policies which favor the ceremonies and ethical prescriptions of the prevailing religion in the country.

Please, mark, this is a no RWG, no argue just to argue, and stay on topic item. Let us see if between the two of us we can be civil to each other and think clearly.

The question i have posed here is whether Santorum wants to move the American government in the direction of favoring the Christian religion ... and would that be a good thing?

Seth says

MR 2012-02-11 12:23:26 15808

Well we agree that we don't want our politicians "pandering to a religion".

I'm would not call science a religion ... it uses completely different methods ... it is based upon testable results, whereas religion is based upon faith. Also preservation of the Earth and our environment is a value, but it is not a value that is based upon faith ... there are completely rational and testable reasons to preserve the Earth and our living environment. If we are not just to argue about whether the government can favor anything whatsoever, i think it will be necessary to narrow the discussion to only considering values that require faith alone.

Mark de LA says

Just for amusement it would be interesting to find out if Islam favors contraception &/or abortion. I suspect it is not wholly congruent with the Obamaites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

Mark de LA says

I got my degree in mathematics with a minor in chemistry. I remember the time that a particular use of a reactive metal like magnesium was used in a mixture of something with ether was published in a professional journal. One of our TA's decided to reproduce the experiment because there was little substantive evidence of the results. He tried & found out why because the experiment blows up & he lost his arms & a leg I think. We heard the blast in my math class in another building. Such is science. Journals are full of stuff in the name of science which results are prejudiced by the need to publish to survive in academia or yet to protect commercial interests. Such is environmental science. Read some of the stuff on http://junkscience.com/ if you need further proof.

Mark de LA says

Thanks for the less prejudicial picture. It is not necessarily a Christian thingy. I know that M$M thinks it's open season on Christians, but expand your horizon to other religions. Should we outlaw turbans & specific dress like hijabs which can hide possible weapons or identity but are part of the practices of Islam? Why hasn't DHS written those rules yet?

Mark de LA says

You might pass your item through the spell checker for names less one is to conclude that you are going snarky.

Mark de LA says

While some want to polarize the Catholic Church or Religion against the power of Government, others consider this:

source: ...

However, as the piece highlights, there are even bigger problems here. The Journal writes, “There is simply no precedent for the government ordering private companies to offer a product for free, even if they do recoup the costs indirectly.”

In other words, even if the Obama administration’s fictional account of the economics involved would actually play out as the administration suggests—even if prices didn't really get passed along to everyone else but were instead simply covered by the insurer as a sort of philanthropic nod to the Obama administration—what would give the federal government the authority to order private companies to offer a products for free? Could such a mandate really be justified under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce? Is there really no difference between regulating commerce and mandating that it be free?

Moreover, of all the products or services that companies could feasibly be required to provide for free under such an extraordinary conception of federal power, why birth control and abortifacients? Why not bread, or books, or actual medical care for actual diseases?

... the original WSJ editorial is here. (considers also organizations that self-insure) .... indeed free bread & circuses, eh?

Mark de LA says

NP if Obama = God, eh?

Mark de LA says

Here is a perspective from someone who is more facile in her self expression:

Jennifer Marshall: ...

Firefighters from Brooklyn’s Red Hook station arrived at the Twin Towers before the second plane hit on 9/11. All seven men of Ladder 101 lost their lives that day. This summer, the city renamed part of a neighborhood street in their honor.

But the new name, Seven in Heaven Way, isn’t to everyone’s liking.

Atheist groups have protested the public allusion to religion. “The attacks on 9/11 were an attack on America,” David Silverman, president of American Atheists, told the Brooklyn Paper. “They were an attack on our Constitution, and breaking that Constitution to honor these firefighters is the wrong thing to do.”

What’s wrong, actually, is this kind of sweeping intolerance toward Brooklyn residents expressing the sentiment that seven neighbors made the ultimate sacrifice on their behalf. This is no time for confusion over the meaning of religious freedom.

Freedom for religion

...

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-02-18 12:33:08 15808

MR 2012-02-18 07:23:26 15808

The question should be asked differently:

DO WE WANT TO MAKE AMERICA GODLESS?

Strange how people think and talk about God! I think that, were God all that people think and say he is, that question couldn't even be asked. But it is asked, and you asked it. Maybe you could ask a more honest question. Perchance, ask: "Do we want to make America less my God". If you ask it that, imho more honest way, then you should be able to answer your question yourself.

Nope! it's more about the movement to make the country Godless & install government as God just like in N. Korea (KimJIll), Soviet Union (Stalin & the Bolsheviks), China (Mao), Cambodia (PolPot), Adolf Hitler(3rd Reich) & the theocracy Achmadinejad & the Mullahs(Iran). Can't have independent thinking or any higher authority than the government to make a dictatorship - even a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Seth says

Interesting script you're tinkering with there ... you should try your hand at writing the book ... who knows, maybe enough people would get into an anti-Obama fantasy to make you the big bucks. Certainly Rush would love to do your advertising.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-02-19 00:16:28 15808

Sarcasm or wit? Prolly neither. More of the silly RWG.

Seth says

seth 2012-02-19 00:16:28 15808

An interesting point raised by an Slate article ... "Whoever paints the darker fantasy has the political advantage" .... bro mark seems to know that by instinct.

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-02-20 15:08:37 15808

M 2012-02-20 12:19:15 15808

seth 2012-02-20 12:01:56 15808

seth 2012-02-19 00:16:28 15808

An interesting point raised by an Slate article ... "Whoever paints the darker fantasy has the political advantage" .... bro mark seems to know that by instinct.

Apparently you can't get off your paranoia about your sweetheart Obama. Adolf Hitler was a huge believer in the BIG LIE ! (which is not a better truth by any stretch of the imagination). When will you address the issues instead of ad hominem bull pucky?

Just as soon as you agree to follow reasonable rules of dialogue.

Yep, seems like kissing the Obama ring would probably do the job. Otoh, I have pointed out the nature of Ethos, Pathos & Logos over the years & yet you spurn & fail to acknowledge it.
Snuck.... not today, eh?

Mark de LA says

Ronald Reagan's Evil Empire speech deals with abortion & other subjects in the context of religion: Address to the National Association of Evangelicals at Sheraton Twin Towers Hotel, Orlando, FL on 3/8/83. http://bit.ly/wZrznH

Mark de LA says

Ronald Reagan mentions morals & the decline in the first third but what's fascinating is the last part ~ 21:00 to the end he covers the golden rule, nuclear disarmament, godlessness of the Leninists etc. It is a classic so radically different from the current occupant & appeaser in the White House!

Seth says

MR 2012-02-22 00:18:02 15808

[...] We want to keep the government secular. America wants freedom of religion unimpeded by government [...]

I agree, thanks for answering the question.

source: MR "ands" in another twist
& having a government conflicting with no particular practices of any religion.

Which is almost impossible to do. Inevitably there will be some faith based practices of some religions which the government cannot but oppose and make illegal ... and there are some prohibitions on some practices of some religions which the government has an important interest to support. The devil is in the details. This cannot be a binary context free law or rule. I cannot usefully arrive at a better understanding of this without dealing with specific examples ... perhaps several ... ones that are obvious, and ones which are not so obvious.

Mark de LA says

The question is wrong! We want to keep the government secular. America wants freedom of religion unimpeeded by government & having a government conflicting with no particular practices of any religion. It's the government, stupid!

Mark de LA says

seth 2012-02-22 13:32:12 15808

MR 2012-02-22 00:18:02 15808

[...] We want to keep the government secular. America wants freedom of religion unimpeded by government [...]

I agree, thanks for answering the question.

source: MR "ands" in another twist
& having a government conflicting with no particular practices of any religion.

Notice I am focusing on the government & NOT the United States of America. When I use the word America I am talking about the whole country whose founding document is the Constitution of the United States with it's Bill of Rights. The two are congruent and equivalent. Notice that the President when he takes the oath of office affirms or swears to preserve, defend & protect the constitution of the United States of America.

Wikipedia: ... I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

... the military also swears the bolded statements upon induction.

Seth says

MR 2012-02-22 14:10:42 15808

The Government is the thingy that must remain secular completely as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights - no wiggle room.

Yes, of course ... that was just an oversight, nothing more than a typo. I fixed it.

Mark de LA says

This is a fascinating turn of the screw (pun intended): http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/california-asks-judges-gay-or-straight_631857.html

Now we have to have equal representation on the bench for a minority?

Only gays can judge gays fairly. Will Obama be required to appoint a gay to the supreme court or better still a lesbian-transgendered-hermaphroditic-chinese thingy?

This relates to having secularity enforcement in the judicial system.

Seth says

For the record, here is JFK's famous address stating his intentions for the separation of Church and State ... and a portion of the transcript

source: John F. Kennedy's Separation of Church and State Speech.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

    I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source–where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

    For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew–or a Quaker–or a Unitarian–or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim- -but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

    Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end–where all men and all churches are treated as equal–where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice–where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind–and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

Yet Santorum rejects these principals ... read how here.

Seth says

source: Rick Santourm speaking today to Stephanopoulos bold emphasis mine

"Earlier in my political career I had the opportunity to read the [JFK's ] speech and i almost threw up. You should read the speech.

... because the first substantive line of the speech says I believe I don’t believe in an America where the separation between church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and visions of our country.

This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, ‘faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was foreign at the time of 1960,”"

Well, yeah, i did read it, and i lightened to the whole speech again. At no place in his speech did Kennedy say or imply that "faith is not allowed in the public square".

Rather what he did say was ...

source: full text of JFK's speech
...

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace
...
I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion.

So to make his point he had to misrepresent Kennedy's words. What i would like some journalist to do is to take Kennedy's actual words and ask Santorum what he would do in those situations. For example:

Would Santorum either request or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope? Note the word "instruction" is vitally critical here and is not the word "consult".
Would Santorum allow a religious body to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace?

My point here is Kennedy's speech was NOT against consulting Christian values or following Christian Faith in conducting public affairs. That would have been nauseous. On the other hand, allowing prelates of any church to dictate policy is just as naucious ... because that is the definition of a theocracy.

Mark de LA says

I've already said what needs to be said about this item. You can keep preaching to the choir or yourself as makes you feel good.

Mark de LA says

I'll let DRUDGE say one more thingy:

Obama Plays Race Card, Calls on Churches to Support Campaign...

Launches 'African Americans for Obama'...'

Mark de LA says

Politico: ... Quiet fade-out for Obama’s faith council

His faith under attack, his contraception decision savaged on all sides, President Barack Obama could use backup in the religious community right now.

But three years into his presidency, Obama’s marquee council of faith advisers has gone dark — a little-noticed postscript for a panel that he rolled out with fanfare and high expectations during his first weeks in office but ended up playing only a limited role in West Wing deliberations.

announced at the 2009 National Prayer Breakfast, Obama’s decision not only to preserve former President George W. Bush’s faith-based office but also to expand the mission with a new council appeared aimed at dispelling the notion, once and for all, that Democrats are more comfortable turning away from faith than embracing it.

Obama envisioned the council as the conduit for bringing a broader spectrum of ideological and religious voices into an overhauled Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which had been criticized in the Bush administration as too focused on directing money to conservative groups that could turn out voters. Obama’s initial appointees — a former Southern Baptist Convention leader, a Hindu, an Indian-American Muslim, progressive Jewish leaders and an openly gay nonprofit head, among others — gave it the feel of an unusual Washington experiment worth watching

... mostly positive for Obama

Mark de LA says

It was all a ploy by White House Shills to bring religion into the conversation (IMHO):

source: ... But Fluke's testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.'s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills--the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen--for $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

... Students that go to Georgetown (a Catholic University) for ~$50,000 per year are not poor people & they can't afford their own birth control? Let them go fuck themselves instead!

Mark de LA says

Apparently not (answering the question title): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293068/pray-mandate-yuval-levin

York Times today reports:

On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.

Looking over the constitutional arguments offered by the administration’s lawyers in defense of the individual mandate, it is perhaps not too difficult to see why the White House deemed itself in need of prayer. But the irony is pretty stunning nonetheless.

(Yep we pray ... (or is it prey) - but only when he needs US ...

(Obama we're talking about, eh?)

Do we want to keep the America government secular?

Tags

Comments

See Also