In the comments of the last post, someone brought up the old line "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." I've heard this saying tons of time, particularly with regard to the issue of having the words "In God we trust" on our money. It always seems like the people using this line think they are being inordinately clever.
Well, it just seems inordinately stupid to me.
What do people even mean when they use the "freedom of, not freedom from" line? I suppose they occasionally mean that in America we have the right to choose our religion, but not the right to choose to have no religion. Does that make sense to anyone? Do they really think government should force us to pick a faith?
I suppose that line is more commonly used to express the idea that we should not remove religious symbolism from the public sphere, as doing so would somehow force us to be "free from religion". As if removing "In God we Trust" from our money would suddenly force religious people to abandon their faith.
Well, the actual guarantee in the constitution is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Does removing "In God we trust" from our money prohibit the free exercise of religion? I think not. The fact that it doesn't say "In LRH we trust" on money does not restrict the right Scientologists to practice religion, and removing "In God we trust" wouldn't force Christians to stop believing in God.
It seems to me that "In God we trust" is in fact an endorsement of religion, since there are people who do not believe in "God" (atheists, Buddhists, pagans etc.) . Imagine how a religious Jew would feel if he saw the words "In Jesus we trust" every time he looked at his money. Or how a Christian would feel if it said "In Allah we trust". Nobody should be made to feel like they are not a "true" American because they don't believe in the particular deity endorsed on their currency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When people make the from/of distinction there seem to be two separate intentions: One is people who mean "yes, you can pick any religion, but you better pick one." The problem is that the term is also sometimes used in a slightly more legitimate form by people saying that they don't want French style secularism. That isn't a serious worry in the US but it is an understandable response. Unfortunately, people using it in the second sense give unwarranted legitimacy to people using it in the first sense.
ReplyDelete>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
ReplyDeleteI am no constitutional scholar, but what I believe this means is something to the affect of a response to what England has. Which is, a Church of England. The US cannot have a "particular" religion that the state identifies with. I don't know if "In God we trust" is an "establishment" by the state of a particular religion.
HH,
ReplyDeleteI'm not a constitutional scholar either, but I think the establishment clause is generally considered to be more far-reaching than just preventing a state religion; so that any endorsement of religion by the state is disallowed (i.e. "seperation of church and state").
It's true that more than one religion believe in God, but by putting "In God we trust" on the currency the state is tacitly endorsing only those religions which are monotheistic, to the exclusion of nonbelievers and many eastern religions.
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteI guess you're right that the phrase can plausibly be used to mean that we shouldn't take "religion removal" too far (such as disallowing religious garb in public schools, although I would think that would be covered by "freedom of religion"), but I can't remember ever hearing it used that way. Usually I hear it from conservative "pundits" on cable news, who are using it in the first way you mention.
The Supreme Court in the past has been open to the idea that statements like that on the money constitute "ceremonial deism" and thus are Constitutional. The idea is roughly that statements which are used by rote eventually lose any actual religious meaning. I don't know if any controlling precedent actually uses that reasoning though.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's why most atheists don't really give a damn. There are more important issues (like creationism in schools) than removing a meaningless phrase from our money.
ReplyDeleteBut in principle I think it does violate the "spirit" of the constitution, even if legal arguments can be made to justify it (and why bother justifying it? do religious people really need the phrase? removing the phrase would be an act of inclusion, and nobody's ability to practice religion will be infringed.)
Apikores, agreed. Was it Ginsburg who said "stupidity is not unconstitutional?"
ReplyDeleteLOL, hadn't heard that one.
ReplyDeletePagans, contrary to your post, do believe in God; in a higher power who they identify through idols and made up characters/gods/heroes, which in their belief system is an expression of the divine. The vast majority of pagans are pantheists, and soft polytheists (people who acknowledge there is one God identify him through different characters). Perhaps what you implied was strong polytheism, which you will only find in some remote parts of India.
ReplyDeleteHave you considered becoming a Jewish pagan:
-http://www.lilitu.com/jap/
-http://d.webring.com/hub?ring=japring
As for buddhists, they believe in God as well, though perhaps not in the form you think of. Their view of God has more to do with the universe itself, and the power in the cycle of reincarnation which is their version of God. Kinda similar to the chinese concept of chi.
Btw the US constitution was made in the thought that the government would not endorse one baptist church over another, though the idea behind it was that different baptist denominations would be able to run themselves as they wish without government enforcing one over the other. However this whole notion of secular state, separation of church and state, freedom for non-christians from the christian majority is not at all what the founders and writers of the Constitution had in mind.
In truth what's written in a piece of paper makes no difference. In the Western world the US is the most religious country, yet it is the only country with an official constitutional separation between religion and state.
Regimes like the Scandinavian countries have FAR FAR greater populations of atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and so on. And they have far better separation between church and state mainly because the populations themselves are so secular.
If you don't like religion butting so much then why don't you move to those overt secular countries and enjoy the company of a majority secular population, as opposed to bitching so much about the religiosity of the US?
And personally I have no problem with what our money says, whether its "Jesus is great", "Atheism is true", "Maimonides was a lying cow", etc. Coz I only use it for transactions and I probably wouldn't even know that it has reference to God if atheists didn't make such a fuss about such a ludicrous issue. I care more about disarming Israeli nukes, and AIDS epidemic in Africa than I do about such trivial issues as what our money says.
Shalmo,
ReplyDeleteMy point was that there are many who would not feel that "In God we trust" represents their beliefs. You can go into logical contortions to try to make as many beliefs as possible fit into the "In God we trust" category, but the fact remains that there are people who don't agree with that statement of religious belief, and as such the govt. shouldn't endorse it.
As to your point about the founders, I'm not sure I agree with that, considering the positions of Jefferson and Paine. Anyway, it's not really relevant considering the way the establishment clause is generally interpreted today.
"If you don't like religion butting so much then why don't you move to those overt secular countries and enjoy the company of a majority secular population, as opposed to bitching so much about the religiosity of the US?"
Was that your Bill O'Reilly impression? Dumb.
"And personally I have no problem with what our money says... ."
I don't care very much either, it's definitely not high on my (or most atheist's) list of problems. But it probably is one of the easier problems to fix, considering that the mint changes their templates all the time. It's more an issue of principle than actual necessity.
Its not logical contortions. the word God does not mean Yahweh or have to be related to Judeo-Christian mush. God is an umbrella term for the higher power.
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly while I don't really care what our money says, I find it ludicrous that anybody would advocate removing God from money bills because 2% of the population of the world have "issues" over trivial things
I have seen videos on YT where atheists literally cut out the word God in their money. too much hate I'd say.
We know what happens to anti-theists who make their anti-theism the core of their existence:
-Dawkins: estranged from both his wife and daughter
-Hitchens: rabbid alcoholic, estranged from his child, and has a horrible relationship with his brother
-George Carlin: Even admitted he was hedonistic and didn't know the meaning of life
-Cathy Griffin: has been fired from every gig coz she can't stop the Jesus jokes
Oh and where the hell did you get the idea that I am impersonating O'Reilly. LOL. O'reilly is funny, ridiculous, but funny....because he's so ridiculous
and that advice was quite serious. why not move to a place where there are more secular people if religious people make you unhappy?
this dichotamy is interesting btw. In places like the US where religioun is so in your face
massive droves are becoming secular because they are fed up with theocracy
In contrast, in overt secular countries like sweden there is a massive (and I mean MASSIVE) growth of islam spreading amongst the populace.
It seems people just want change. If you are raised religious you seek secularism to get away from the responsibility, but even when you venture into the secular world you have the religious discipline to keep you grounded. Where as if you are raised secular, the need for meaning makes you pursue spirituality in order to find purpose. Its an interesting cycle of humanity.
Shalmo, there's no such thing as a small violation of my Constitutional rights. Moreover, part of the basic American ethos is that discrimination against small groups isn't ok simply because they are tiny minorities. Incidentally, a statement about religion on our money would bother me even if it were one that I agreed with and I suspect that I'm not unique in that regard.
ReplyDeleteAre you frum Joshua? Do you believe the torah and the Talmud both can be dated to Moses, to Sinai, to God?
ReplyDeletePerhaps if you are a secularist you think the word God shouldn't be shoved on you.
As a Canadian I don't like the fact that to become a citizen I have to swear allegiance to a queen who each day colorfully wears crown jewels that the Brits butchered my people to steal from us.
But I suck it up because I realize I am a minority in this country. If 98% of people on this planet believe in God, and while always fluctuating that figure will never change, then I say its ludicrous to demand that you remove something that unites all these countless people just because you are a hater (anti-theist) who doesn't like even mentioning of a creator.
When I go to Israel I am contemptuous of the figures I see on the currency, but you don't see me making a big deal on it. Every nation has a right to decide what they put on their own currency, and frankly majority wins out each time.
And as I have shown there are scenarios where even I am unhappy about who's on the bills, but you don't see me having a spaz attack on it. Its takes a very frail person to be bothered by something so trivial
And what do you mean American ethos? this land you call america was stolen from natives through mass extermination mind you, hence why when people bring up the the "founding fathers" I get a tingly feeling in my belly because I realize the 13 colonies didn't biuld this nation, they stole it through genocide.
If anything its the natives who deserve to have their beliefs printed on the bills.
Shalmo, my religious views bounce around a lot but I doubt that frum would ever be an accurate descriptor. In any event, I fail to see its relevance. Many people who believe in God aren't at all happy with the money and some frum people don't like it.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, being able to "suck it up" isn't an argument that one (or anyone else) should have to suck it up. Nor does labeling such people as "frail" people having a "spaz attacks." People have rights not to have religious views imposed on them. It wouldn't be any different if the population were 95% atheist. Having "God doesn't exist" on the money would present essentially identical problems.
I'm a bit annoyed that you jump from one second to wondering if I'm frum to the next assuming that I'm some sort of "anti-theist." One doesn't need to be an anti-theist to be annoyed by unecessary invocations of God. If PZ Myers took over the planet tomorrow and tried to outlaw religion (I doubt he'd try to do that if he did control the planet but you get the point) I'd resist that as well.
Incidentally your last remark is only tangentially related but in any event misguided.Who historically controlled what land when does not translate into who should control what land now. To use a blunt hypothetical that hopefully divorces the situation enough from modern political considerations, consider the hypothetical of it turning out that I'm the last descendant of a tribe of humans who 100,000 years ago controlled the entire Western Hemisphere until some pesky by the name of Conan or maybe Kull came along. That doesn't give me a legitimate say about what is done with that land now. (And apologies to Apikores if I'm taking this thread to far off topic)
Well said, Joshua. No need to apologize, I would have replied to Shalmo myself had I not been stuck in school all day.
ReplyDeleteShalmo:
"why not move to a place where there are more secular people if religious people make you unhappy?"
Are you kidding? Who said I was unhappy? All I did was describe one thing which I think can be improved in the U.S. and you twisted it in the same ridiculous way that O'Reilly would.
And what's the deal with bringing up the personal lives of a few atheists? Do you really think that reflects on all such people? I could find ten theist rapists, but that does not mean most theists are rapists. Do you really want to sink into this kind of broken logic?
To get back to the issue, I still don't see why you object to taking the phrase off the money. What are the downsides? Religious people's ability to practice religion won't be interrupted, we will no longer be making a minority feel like it is being excluded, and we will be fixing an apparent breach of the establishment clause. It doesn't seem like it should even cost taxpayers any extra money, since the mint changes what it says on money all the time (like when there is a new secretary of the treasury).
Joshua:
ReplyDelete"Shalmo, my religious views bounce around a lot but I doubt that frum would ever be an accurate descriptor. In any event, I fail to see its relevance. Many people who believe in God aren't at all happy with the money and some frum people don't like it."
I was only asking because I need to know what I am dealing with. If you are secular then I will discuss in a secular manner, if you are a theist then I will discuss basing the conversation on what your holy books say
"In any event, being able to "suck it up" isn't an argument that one (or anyone else) should have to suck it up. Nor does labeling such people as "frail" people having a "spaz attacks." People have rights not to have religious views imposed on them. It wouldn't be any different if the population were 95% atheist. Having "God doesn't exist" on the money would present essentially identical problems."
Yes but as John Stuart Mill notes the "tyranny of the majority" is not something everyone can immunize themselves from.
Well I don't know how much you are a Torah believer, but certainly you know you are betraying many Torah principles when you say people have rights not to have rights not to have religious views imposed on them. And as the West has repeatedly shown this framework is not possible to implement at all. Mainly because you can't have a majority religious population enjoy less freedom so minorities can enjoy more of it. I don't believe in Judaism/Christianity, but I certainly do see the argument that if I demand the 10 commandments removed from public squares then I am imposing secularism on the populace, since I am literally choosing one doctrine over another. Try Turkey for example, a country with 99% muslim population, yet with a radical secular government. They reduce the presence of religion in public so as to keep up with the western secular framework and we see its not working since people are rebelling, because its essentially forcing secularism on a vast majority (99%) religious population. And for what? Because a 1% doesn't believe the same as them?
"I'm a bit annoyed that you jump from one second to wondering if I'm frum to the next assuming that I'm some sort of "anti-theist." One doesn't need to be an anti-theist to be annoyed by unecessary invocations of God. If PZ Myers took over the planet tomorrow and tried to outlaw religion (I doubt he'd try to do that if he did control the planet but you get the point) I'd resist that as well."
I didn't call you an anti-theist (but I am deeply sorry if you got that from my post, it wasn't my intent). I was implying its anti-theists who tend to go to this argument about what our money says
"Incidentally your last remark is only tangentially related but in any event misguided.Who historically controlled what land when does not translate into who should control what land now. To use a blunt hypothetical that hopefully divorces the situation enough from modern political considerations, consider the hypothetical of it turning out that I'm the last descendant of a tribe of humans who 100,000 years ago controlled the entire Western Hemisphere until some pesky by the name of Conan or maybe Kull came along. That doesn't give me a legitimate say about what is done with that land now."
I agree. But we are not talking about 100,000 years we are talking about something that is very very recent. And unlike your hypothetical scenario, in reality we have natives who are still alive and still here.
Btw this whole native thing was brought up in response to the previous assertion that one should care what the "founding fathers" thought, because as I have just shown (though Apikores is in denial) what the "founding fathers" had in mind was a nation where different baptist churches could live side by side without one overpowering the other in politics. In that construct, what they still envisioned was a christian country, where different forms of protestanism prospered.They NEVER conceived of it as a country where minorities like muslims, atheists, hindus, etc have to be accommodated, because their ideas of secular was radically different than what we follow today. In the modern world, secular literally means removing religion from power in society, where as in previous eras secular meant not imposing religion because the assumption was that each church can handle matters on their own with each group. I hope you get the difference.
Though today it is irrelevant what a bunch of white guys 200 years ago felt, for that I agree.
Apikores:
"Are you kidding? Who said I was unhappy? All I did was describe one thing which I think can be improved in the U.S. and you twisted it in the same ridiculous way that O'Reilly would."
Not really. On this blog you ramble so much against religion in the US. Point being you don't have to be here. You can move to Israel, or the Scandinavian countries if you don't want religion imposed on you.
"And what's the deal with bringing up the personal lives of a few atheists? Do you really think that reflects on all such people? I could find ten theist rapists, but that does not mean most theists are rapists. Do you really want to sink into this kind of broken logic?"
Ah!!! I'm not sure where you are going with this.
I brought up the atheists who cut out the word God in their money to get a point across about how ludicrous this issue is. And people who do this suffer from aggressive anti-theism, which like most hate, wears down a person's soul.
"To get back to the issue, I still don't see why you object to taking the phrase off the money. What are the downsides? Religious people's ability to practice religion won't be interrupted, we will no longer be making a minority feel like it is being excluded, and we will be fixing an apparent breach of the establishment clause. It doesn't seem like it should even cost taxpayers any extra money, since the mint changes what it says on money all the time (like when there is a new secretary of the treasury)."
Stupid argument.
I can just rebut back at you and ask what the big deal is for atheists if we do have the word "God" on our money. Atheists and their ability to practise atheism is not being hampered. By removing God you essentially are shoving secularism on the majority population.
Frankly the world is becoming more religious, so you are likely to see more and more religion making its way to the public sphere, which case the word "God" being removed from our money is even less likely, and even if the founding fathers were exactly christian, they all still did believe in God.
Shalmo,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think that having God on the money from an atheist view is equivalent to having god off the money from a theist view. I don't see how this is so. A lack of endorsement of religion is not the same as an endorsement of atheism. Since we cannot include all beliefs we should endorse none. Government should be silent with regard to the theism/atheism debate; having God on the money endorses one side, not having God on the money is not an endorsement of anything.
"Ah!!! I'm not sure where you are going with this."
I was talking about your comments about Dawkins and Carlin, etc. Just because some atheists have failed personal lives does not imply that all or most do.
"On this blog you ramble so much against religion in the US. Point being you don't have to be here. You can move to Israel, or the Scandinavian countries if you don't want religion imposed on you."
This blog is just an outlet from me to ramble (see the tagline). I don't hate religious people, and I very much enjoy my life as it is here. To say that I'd be better off moving to another country is just silly, and smacks of O'Reillyesque hyper-patriotism. And the constitution of the U.S. assures that religion should not be imposed upon me, so I don't see why my only two choices are to lie down and accept it ore move to another country.
Shalmo, you seem to be missing a fundamental point: Whether I am a theist or an atheist (note not at all the same as being a "secularist") shouldn't change things at all. If an argument only works for one group of people that's going to be a problem for a society that is trying to build things around a consensus. Moreover, many theists such as most Modern Orthodox Jews, and Conservative Jews aren't going to be any happier than an atheist about this sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd as the West has repeatedly shown this framework is not possible to implement at all.
Really? For all its problems the US seems to do a pretty good job implementing a framework where no religious viewpoint gains priorities. Moreover, imperfect implementation does not mean that it hasn't been implemented at all.
"You can't have a majority religious population enjoy less freedom so minorities can enjoy more of it."You seem to be under three mistaken assumptions: 1) That this is a zero-sum game so that better for the majority necessarily means worse for a minority (it isn't). 2) That theists in general want more religion in the public sphere (not all do) 3) That having "In God We Trust" on the money is somehow giving religious individuals more freedom (it isn't). Everyone gets as much freedom as they want as long as it doesn't interfere with others.
I don't believe in Judaism/Christianity, but I certainly do see the argument that if I demand the 10 commandments removed from public squares then I am imposing secularism on the populace, since I am literally choosing one doctrine over another.No. You aren't. Or at least, you aren't by most understandings of what you've said. As you've stated it isn't clear what you mean. If we have a public forum that we allow all sorts of messages to be put up by private individuals then not letting someone put up the 10 Commandments would be discriminatory and would be unacceptable. Saying no to a taxpayer funded government monument in contrast isn't "imposing secularism" on the populace. It is saying that the government needs to be viewpoint neutral in regards to all religious views. We would by the same logic say no to a a monument with quotes from the Koran or a statement denying the existence of any deities. So no, we aren't choosing one doctrine over another but are rather choosing no doctrine.
Well I don't know how much you are a Torah believer, but certainly you know you are betraying many Torah principles when you say people have rights not to have rights not to have religious views imposed on them.
Again, if you need to appeal to specific religious assumptions then something is wrong. In any event, I could make a pretty good argument that if I were inclined to that without a Sanhedrin, there is zero authority to enforce religion on anyone who isn't Jewish. Furthermore, given that most Americans mean "Jesus" when they think of God, arguably having it on the money is encouraging mamish avodah zarah. So even if I were to grant you all sorts of standard Orthodox premises (which I'm not) you wouldn't have a convincing argument.
Try Turkey for example, a country with 99% muslim population, yet with a radical secular government. They reduce the presence of religion in public so as to keep up with the western secular framework and we see its not working since people are rebelling, because its essentially forcing secularism on a vast majority (99%) religious population. And for what? Because a 1% doesn't believe the same as them?
Bad example. Again French and Turkish style secularism is not at all what we are talking about. Not having a direct push for religious views on money is very different from forbidding religious activities or displays by private individuals. No one is saying that people shouldn't be able to wear a keepah or a cross or a headscarf into an American public school. And if anyone is saying that, then I strongly disagree with them (and for that matter, I suspect that Apikores also would heavily disagree with them). You seem to repeatedly have trouble understanding the distinction between saying "the government can't do X" and saying the "the private individual on his own time with his own resources can't do X."
I didn't call you an anti-theistAh, so the "you" in "its ludicrous to demand that you remove something that unites all these countless people just because you are a hater (anti-theist) who doesn't like even mentioning of a creator." was just the impersonal second person?
I was implying its anti-theists who tend to go to this argument about what our money saysWell, yes, if one is some form of anti-theist this is going to bother one more. But it bothers many people who are just atheists or agnostic or deist or theist or what have you. Moreover, what fraction of the population is bothered isn't what matters. That's why we have the First Amendment in the United States. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless that religion is a majority, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless that religion is a tiny minority." Doesn't work that way (Thank God).
I agree. But we are not talking about 100,000 years we are talking about something that is very very recent. And unlike your hypothetical scenario, in reality we have natives who are still alive and still here.
So when does the cut-off magically occur? 500 years? 1000 years? 20,000? Moreover, the existence of natives isn't any different. In my hypothetical I'm the last descendant of the relevant tribe. Furthermore, predicating it on the continued existence of natives seems to be a bad idea. Does that mean if all the Native Americans get wiped out it would then be ok to ignore their ethos? Historical justification is a bad ideology are bad; they lead to wars and pain and make no sense without appealing to some sort of vague notion that earlier status quos are somehow intrinsically better. There's no good justification for that.
this whole native thing was brought up in response to the previous assertion that one should care what the "founding fathers" thoughtUm, the first comment to bring up anything about the founders seems to have been your comment at April 29, 2009 5:39 PM. Or am I missing something? No one brought up the Founders as any sort of historical justification until you did. Incidentally you are wrong. See for example Benjamin Franklin who was pretty close to an atheist and Hamilton who was also close to an atheist. And if one looks at the signers of the Declaration or looks at the signers of the Constitution one gets even more.
This next comment was directed at Apikores but I'm going to respond to it:
Not really. On this blog you ramble so much against religion in the US. Point being you don't have to be here. You can move to Israel, or the Scandinavian countries if you don't want religion imposed on you.
People shouldn't be forced to move simply to get their basic rights. If someone has a life, friends a job in one country, moving can be incredibly disruptive. The fact that you need to pick areas where the most common language is different makes that all the more extreme. And the case of Israel is a really bad one given that it has more of an established religion than the US does.
Frankly the world is becoming more religious, so you are likely to see more and more religion making its way to the public sphereActually, in the US the fraction of the population that self-identifies as not religious has been growing steadily over the last 20 years. And even if the fraction that were religious were growing it wouldn't be an argument that having more religion in the public sphere would somehow be ok anymore than increasing levels of racism would make it ok to discriminate against specific races.
Screwed up some of the formatting so reposting:
ReplyDeleteShalmo, you seem to be missing a fundamental point: Whether I am a theist or an atheist (note not at all the same as being a "secularist") shouldn't change things at all. If an argument only works for one group of people that's going to be a problem for a society that is trying to build things around a consensus. Moreover, many theists such as most Modern Orthodox Jews, and Conservative Jews aren't going to be any happier than an atheist about this sort of thing.
And as the West has repeatedly shown this framework is not possible to implement at all.Really? For all its problems the US seems to do a pretty good job implementing a framework where no religious viewpoint gains priorities. Moreover, imperfect implementation does not mean that it hasn't been implemented at all.
You can't have a majority religious population enjoy less freedom so minorities can enjoy more of it.You seem to be under three mistaken assumptions: 1) That this is a zero-sum game so that better for the majority necessarily means worse for a minority (it isn't). 2) That theists in general want more religion in the public sphere (not all do) 3) That having "In God We Trust" on the money is somehow giving religious individuals more freedom (it isn't). Everyone gets as much freedom as they want as long as it doesn't interfere with others.
I don't believe in Judaism/Christianity, but I certainly do see the argument that if I demand the 10 commandments removed from public squares then I am imposing secularism on the populace, since I am literally choosing one doctrine over another.No. You aren't. Or at least, you aren't by most understandings of what you've said. As you've stated it isn't clear what you mean. If we have a public forum that we allow all sorts of messages to be put up by private individuals then not letting someone put up the 10 Commandments would be discriminatory and would be unacceptable. Saying no to a taxpayer funded government monument in contrast isn't "imposing secularism" on the populace. It is saying that the government needs to be viewpoint neutral in regards to all religious views. We would by the same logic say no to a a monument with quotes from the Koran or a statement denying the existence of any deities. So no, we aren't choosing one doctrine over another but are rather choosing no doctrine.
Well I don't know how much you are a Torah believer, but certainly you know you are betraying many Torah principles when you say people have rights not to have rights not to have religious views imposed on them.Again, if you need to appeal to specific religious assumptions then something is wrong. In any event, I could make a pretty good argument that if I were inclined to that without a Sanhedrin, there is zero authority to enforce religion on anyone who isn't Jewish. Furthermore, given that most Americans mean "Jesus" when they think of God, arguably having it on the money is encouraging mamish avodah zarah. So even if I were to grant you all sorts of standard Orthodox premises (which I'm not) you wouldn't have a convincing argument.
Try Turkey for example, a country with 99% muslim population, yet with a radical secular government. They reduce the presence of religion in public so as to keep up with the western secular framework and we see its not working since people are rebelling, because its essentially forcing secularism on a vast majority (99%) religious population. And for what? Because a 1% doesn't believe the same as them?Bad example. Again French and Turkish style secularism is not at all what we are talking about. Not having a direct push for religious views on money is very different from forbidding religious activities or displays by private individuals. No one is saying that people shouldn't be able to wear a keepah or a cross or a headscarf into an American public school. And if anyone is saying that, then I strongly disagree with them (and for that matter, I suspect that Apikores also would heavily disagree with them). You seem to repeatedly have trouble understanding the distinction between saying "the government can't do X" and saying the "the private individual on his own time with his own resources can't do X."
I didn't call you an anti-theistAh, so the "you" in "its ludicrous to demand that you remove something that unites all these countless people just because you are a hater (anti-theist) who doesn't like even mentioning of a creator." was just the impersonal second person?
I was implying its anti-theists who tend to go to this argument about what our money saysWell, yes, if one is some form of anti-theist this is going to bother one more. But it bothers many people who are just atheists or agnostic or deist or theist or what have you. Moreover, what fraction of the population is bothered isn't what matters. That's why we have the First Amendment in the United States. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless that religion is a majority, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless that religion is a tiny minority." Doesn't work that way (Thank God).
I agree. But we are not talking about 100,000 years we are talking about something that is very very recent. And unlike your hypothetical scenario, in reality we have natives who are still alive and still here.So when does the cut-off magically occur? 500 years? 1000 years? 20,000? Moreover, the existence of natives isn't any different. In my hypothetical I'm the last descendant of the relevant tribe. Furthermore, predicating it on the continued existence of natives seems to be a bad idea. Does that mean if all the Native Americans get wiped out it would then be ok to ignore their ethos? Historical justification is a bad ideology are bad; they lead to wars and pain and make no sense without appealing to some sort of vague notion that earlier status quos are somehow intrinsically better. There's no good justification for that.
this whole native thing was brought up in response to the previous assertion that one should care what the "founding fathers" thoughtUm, the first comment to bring up anything about the founders seems to have been your comment at April 29, 2009 5:39 PM. Or am I missing something? No one brought up the Founders as any sort of historical justification until you did. Incidentally you are wrong. See for example Benjamin Franklin who was pretty close to an atheist and Hamilton who was also close to an atheist. And if one looks at the signers of the Declaration or looks at the signers of the Constitution one gets even more.
This next comment was directed at Apikores but I'm going to respond to it:
Not really. On this blog you ramble so much against religion in the US. Point being you don't have to be here. You can move to Israel, or the Scandinavian countries if you don't want religion imposed on you.People shouldn't be forced to move simply to get their basic rights. If someone has a life, friends a job in one country, moving can be incredibly disruptive. The fact that you need to pick areas where the most common language is different makes that all the more extreme. And the case of Israel is a really bad one given that it has more of an established religion than the US does.
Frankly the world is becoming more religious, so you are likely to see more and more religion making its way to the public sphereActually, in the US the fraction of the population that self-identifies as not religious has been growing steadily over the last 20 years. And even if the fraction that were religious were growing it wouldn't be an argument that having more religion in the public sphere would somehow be ok anymore than increasing levels of racism would make it ok to discriminate against specific races.
Ok. I give up on that. Apparently I can't format worth crap...
ReplyDeleteJoshua,
ReplyDeleteGreat comment. I wonder if there is a way for me to make it easier for commenters to format text. I'll look into that.
Just for the record, you are correct that I am against any restrictions of personal religious freedoms (as long as those freedoms don't infringe upon someone else's, eg. honor killings etc.). While it's true that I would like to see people abandon their religion by choice (I think the world would be a nicer place if everyone was rational), I would never advocate forcing them to do so. And I would ask the same of religious people, that they don't force me to live by their beliefs (for example by telling me who I can marry, or putting God on my money, etc).
Apikores:
ReplyDelete"You seem to think that having God on the money from an atheist view is equivalent to having god off the money from a theist view. I don't see how this is so. A lack of endorsement of religion is not the same as an endorsement of atheism. Since we cannot include all beliefs we should endorse none. Government should be silent with regard to the theism/atheism debate; having God on the money endorses one side, not having God on the money is not an endorsement of anything."
Now you are contradicting the argumentative framework you built you case on.
If you invoke the founding fathers, then my beloved friend you need to deal with the fact that it was they who decided on the use of the word "God" in political documents. They may have been deists, but they all had strong christian leanings and they all believed in God. If you feel the founding fathers should no authority today on us, then that is another matter
And again, under what pretense do you get the right to enforce secularism on a majority religious population? By removing God, prayers in schools, and removing other christian symbolism, you are forcing secularism down the throats of a majority religious population.
If you don't wish to partake in prayers then don't, don't like the 10 commandments then don't look at them, but don't be so self-righteous and vindictive that just because you feel repulsed by these things that you force other people from not doing what they feel is important in their spiritual development.
The exact same idea exists in Iran for examples. If you are a newcomer then its expected that you dress modestly rather than bikinis and tank-tops, no one is saying you have to wear it all the time, but when you are among a majority religious population then you need to obey their laws if you are to be amongst them. Otherwise don't come into the country. The same applies in the US.
Ofcourse now you are then going to quote the founding fathers as an appeal to authority on that this country was founded on separation of church and state, to which I have already thoroughly dealt with how what the founding fathers imagined as America was not at all how present secularists use their words to define the First Ammendment today
"I was talking about your comments about Dawkins and Carlin, etc. Just because some atheists have failed personal lives does not imply that all or most do."
non-sequitar AGAIN
this was rebuttal against anti-theists who make their entire existence about bashing religion
"This blog is just an outlet from me to ramble (see the tagline). I don't hate religious people, and I very much enjoy my life as it is here. To say that I'd be better off moving to another country is just silly, and smacks of O'Reillyesque hyper-patriotism. And the constitution of the U.S. assures that religion should not be imposed upon me, so I don't see why my only two choices are to lie down and accept it ore move to another country."
And as has been repeatedly shown, the Constitution was written from a very different perspective on church/state seperation than what you have in mind, since the founding fathers still envisioned a christian state
Why don't you move to Israel? They have more atheists there then in the US, and they are Jewish to boot, so you'd fit right in.
About my hyper-patriotism towards the US, you couldn't be more wrong. I loathe what the US is doing around the world, installing dictators, supporting the terrorist state of Israel, keeping the arabs under dictatorial rule, the slaughter/political unrest in the Latin country, the CIA's political assasinations, creation and support of the wahabi movement and the Taliban, not to mention ceaseless economic exploitation of the third world, and Regean-like policies of bloodshedding for natural resources, robbing natives of other countries on control of their own oil and gas, etc etc. The list goes on and on, but suffice to say the vast majority of bloodshedding the world over has US foreign policy behind it. I would never feel any patriotism to such a country.
I am simply playing devil's advocate :)
"Just for the record, you are correct that I am against any restrictions of personal religious freedoms (as long as those freedoms don't infringe upon someone else's, eg. honor killings etc.). While it's true that I would like to see people abandon their religion by choice (I think the world would be a nicer place if everyone was rational), I would never advocate forcing them to do so. And I would ask the same of religious people, that they don't force me to live by their beliefs (for example by telling me who I can marry, or putting God on my money, etc)."
One of the great many failures of modernists is that they try to accomodate everybody. What they don't realize is that for progress to be made, at the end of the day somebody has to enforce their values as superior to those under them. That is how progress works. By accomodating everyone, they have lost touch with who they themselves are supposed to be and what values they stand for. The US for the record does exactly this, it enforces its values (as degrading as they are) upon the rest of the world. The world is about the battle of ideas anyway, hence not everyone can be accommodated.
But let me make it clear I am against things like christian creationism being taught in schools. Subjects in study environments should all remain secular and free from political bias (even though they are not, they should be). However I also think children of all faiths in schools in the US should be allowed morning prayers for whatever creed they are. Atheist children can read their own liturgy from "The Origin of Species"
Joshua:
ReplyDelete"Shalmo, you seem to be missing a fundamental point: Whether I am a theist or an atheist (note not at all the same as being a "secularist") shouldn't change things at all. If an argument only works for one group of people that's going to be a problem for a society that is trying to build things around a consensus. Moreover, many theists such as most Modern Orthodox Jews, and Conservative Jews aren't going to be any happier than an atheist about this sort of thing."
Alright then you need to set a foundation on which you establish your argument
But you cannot use the founding fathers and the First Amendment because as discussed they wrote those clauses under the paradigm of a non-sectarian protestant country. Though as I have said to me its irrelevant what a bunch of men 200 years ago said, but if you are going to make the argument that this country was founded on church/state seperation then I will have to rebuttal that that assertion is false
"Really? For all its problems the US seems to do a pretty good job implementing a framework where no religious viewpoint gains priorities. Moreover, imperfect implementation does not mean that it hasn't been implemented at all."
I disagree. There are almost no countries on this planet where christianity has as much power, especially in the public sphere and political spheres, as the US. As I have said it is irrelevant what is written on a piece of paper, because as the examples of the Scandinavian countries vs the US illustrates, the former is far better at church/state separation than the latter since it has far more secular people
"You seem to be under three mistaken assumptions: 1) That this is a zero-sum game so that better for the majority necessarily means worse for a minority (it isn't). 2) That theists in general want more religion in the public sphere (not all do) 3) That having "In God We Trust" on the money is somehow giving religious individuals more freedom (it isn't). Everyone gets as much freedom as they want as long as it doesn't interfere with others."
What the money says, greatly impacts religious freedom because your bills represent what you stand for.
Taking away public prayers in schools for example (all because one atheist woman in the US didn't like it for her kids and got the court to remove it altogether) is removing religious freedom for the majority christian population of the US.
"No. You aren't. Or at least, you aren't by most understandings of what you've said. As you've stated it isn't clear what you mean. If we have a public forum that we allow all sorts of messages to be put up by private individuals then not letting someone put up the 10 Commandments would be discriminatory and would be unacceptable. Saying no to a taxpayer funded government monument in contrast isn't "imposing secularism" on the populace. It is saying that the government needs to be viewpoint neutral in regards to all religious views. We would by the same logic say no to a a monument with quotes from the Koran or a statement denying the existence of any deities. So no, we aren't choosing one doctrine over another but are rather choosing no doctrine."
Secularism (especially in the modern world) is a doctrine my friend, even if we think it is not.
For the record I agree with the 10 commandments not being posted in public, or being taught creationism in schools.
HOWEVER, things like prayers are another thing. I believe children of all faiths should be allowed if not encouraged to say their prayers in their individual creeds. This is where the church/state seperation fails
Now its interesting you mentioned tax-payers money. Here in Canada I don't believe in my taxes should be going to Arts programs (when 1,000,000 Canadian children are homeless), or being used to support programs for same-sex couples who brought misery upon themselves through AIDS and other STDS, or be used to support who in this country (I kid you not) willingly get pregnant so they can mouch of government single parent welfare which is quite high, or for that matter be used to support abortions for promiscuous women. My taxes (and Canada for the record has the highest taxes on the Earth) should be used for these sorts of things, yet they are. Why? Because majority decides how this stuff is done.
Do I have the right (according to you) to demand that my government not use my taxes for these ludicrous things, and instead use them to support those 1,000,000 children I just mentioned?
Because the argument for God on money, or 10 commandments in public, or prayers in schools work the same way. How do you balance between majority and minority rights?
The truth of the matter is that NOBODY properly follows minority welfare. Everybody works on what the majority wants, that's how all governments are designed (the US being an exception)
My issue is that if you are honestly going to demand that government not enforce certain ideas on the public, then be consistent. Demand that they do the same with how they use our taxes, and let the people decide what they want them used for. But ofcourse next you are going to argue that in case of taxes its not possible to accomodate everyone, which frankly I agree with, and which reinforces everything I have been saying to this point.
"Again, if you need to appeal to specific religious assumptions then something is wrong. In any event, I could make a pretty good argument that if I were inclined to that without a Sanhedrin, there is zero authority to enforce religion on anyone who isn't Jewish. "
This is untrue.
Judaism has numerous laws on how to treat gentiles
-A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 'Laws on Murderers' 2, 11; Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Goy'.)
-To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all (R. Yo'el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Beyt Josef, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The two rules just mentioned apply even if the Gentile victim is ger toshav, that is a 'resident alien' who has undertaken in front of three Jewish witnesses to keep the 'seven Noahide precepts' (seven biblical laws considered by the Talmud to be addressed to Gentiles).)
-A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished. (For example, R. Shabbtay Kohen (mid 17th century), Siftey Kohen on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah, 158: 'But in times of war it was the custom to kill them with one's own hands, for it is said, "The best of Gentiles -- kill him!"' Siftey Kohen and Turey Zahay (see note 3) are the two major classical commentaries on the Shulhan 'Arukh.)
There are countless other examples.
"Furthermore, given that most Americans mean "Jesus" when they think of God, arguably having it on the money is encouraging mamish avodah zarah. So even if I were to grant you all sorts of standard Orthodox premises (which I'm not) you wouldn't have a convincing argument."
Ironic because reform and other liberal Jews in appeasing christians will often say that they believe its ok for a non-jew to believe a man became God (which btw completely contradicts countless injuctions in the Talmud).
But you can easily see God as Hashem no? After all the founding fathers being deists, never envisioned God as someone who came to earth as a man. Jefferson was insistent that Jesus was man and separate from God
"Bad example. Again French and Turkish style secularism is not at all what we are talking about. Not having a direct push for religious views on money is very different from forbidding religious activities or displays by private individuals. No one is saying that people shouldn't be able to wear a keepah or a cross or a headscarf into an American public school. And if anyone is saying that, then I strongly disagree with them (and for that matter, I suspect that Apikores also would heavily disagree with them). You seem to repeatedly have trouble understanding the distinction between saying "the government can't do X" and saying the "the private individual on his own time with his own resources can't do X.""
No I get what you are saying, but think back to my example with abortion and my taxes, and you'll get the jist of my argument
"I didn't call you an anti-theistAh, so the "you" in "its ludicrous to demand that you remove something that unites all these countless people just because you are a hater (anti-theist) who doesn't like even mentioning of a creator." was just the impersonal second person?"
You are not an english major are you lol
The word "you" in this context implied the anti-theists who fight over these trivial issues. Again I apologized for not being clear about this.
"So when does the cut-off magically occur? 500 years? 1000 years? 20,000? Moreover, the existence of natives isn't any different. In my hypothetical I'm the last descendant of the relevant tribe. Furthermore, predicating it on the continued existence of natives seems to be a bad idea. Does that mean if all the Native Americans get wiped out it would then be ok to ignore their ethos? Historical justification is a bad ideology are bad; they lead to wars and pain and make no sense without appealing to some sort of vague notion that earlier status quos are somehow intrinsically better. There's no good justification for that."
There is no cut-off PERIOD, because I for one refuse to ignore how that a people were wiped out to create the Americas.
"Um, the first comment to bring up anything about the founders seems to have been your comment at April 29, 2009 5:39 PM. Or am I missing something? No one brought up the Founders as any sort of historical justification until you did."
Nope.
I had a discussion on the founding fathers in previous threads with Apikores, and since my reply was relegated to him, you ought to get the picture
"Incidentally you are wrong. See for example Benjamin Franklin who was pretty close to an atheist and Hamilton who was also close to an atheist. And if one looks at the signers of the Declaration or looks at the signers of the Constitution one gets even more."
NO
You clearly missed previous discussion where I mentioned Bejamin Franklin's atheism and even corrected Apikores who though Jefferson was atheist (he was a deist)
And I have said previously most (NOT ALL) of the founding fathers were deists, which is true. But it would be foolish to ignore that each of them were extremely leaning towards a christian agenda, hence why Jefferson made his version of the Bible
"People shouldn't be forced to move simply to get their basic rights. If someone has a life, friends a job in one country, moving can be incredibly disruptive. The fact that you need to pick areas where the most common language is different makes that all the more extreme. And the case of Israel is a really bad one given that it has more of an established religion than the US does."
I agree, but then that also means having to suck it up and realize that the majority isn't going to so easily bend because you feel religion is outdated
"Actually, in the US the fraction of the population that self-identifies as not religious has been growing steadily over the last 20 years. And even if the fraction that were religious were growing it wouldn't be an argument that having more religion in the public sphere would somehow be ok anymore than increasing levels of racism would make it ok to discriminate against specific races."
Joshua you REALLY need to start reading what I write in context.
I said the world, not the US in referencing increased religiosity. But I agree with what you said in this paragraph
shalom!
Shalmo,
ReplyDeleteYou brought up the founding fathers, not me. My argument does not depend on them at all.
Your remark that I am trying to "enforce secularism" shows that you either did not read my previous comments, or you didn't understand them. Same for the stuff about Dawkins and Carlin [Do you really think that the following is a valid argument?: 4 people from group A (which contains much more than 4 people) have property B, therefore all people from group A have property B.]
I didn't bother reading any further in your comments. Please try to keep your comments a reasonable length in the future, and try to make an effort to engage my actual arguments instead of caricaturing them in the same way over and over.
That came out a little mean. Sorry about that, but I think my point stands. Be well.
ReplyDelete"And again, under what pretense do you get the right to enforce secularism on a majority religious population? By removing God, prayers in schools, and removing other christian symbolism, you are forcing secularism down the throats of a majority religious population."
ReplyDeleteLet's try this one more time: Saying that the government cannot take a stance either way is not "forcing secularism" on anyone. Do you see a difference between money saying "In God we Trust", saying "God doesn't exist. Stop whining" and not saying either?
"The exact same idea exists in Iran for examples. If you are a newcomer then its expected that you dress modestly rather than bikinis and tank-tops, "
Cultural standards of modesty are actually a really interesting issue from a philosophical perspective. If one is a libertarian one would presumably try to argue that almost any such restrictions are not ok.
"no one is saying you have to wear it all the time, but when you are among a majority religious population then you need to obey their laws if you are to be amongst them. Otherwise don't come into the country. The same applies in the US."
No. Awful analogy. First, there's a problem when fundamental rights are denied independent of where one is. Moreover, most people don't have a choice about not coming into a country. One is born where one is, grows there, surrounded by friends and family from that country. To be blunt, your analogy sucks. I live in the US as does Apikores(I think). We grew up here, and have jobs here. The notion that we can magically pick up and go somewhere else with no negative effects is absurd. And most of the populace would never be able to afford to move. That's aside from the fact that you have given zero actual argument why we should do so other than vague comments about the majority. Majorities do not magically make things ok. If 51% of the human population decided to exterminate (fill in some racial or religious group here) it wouldn't magically become acceptable. It isn't any different here.
"I am simply playing devil's advocate :)"
Simply repeating the same tired arguments and repeating the same fallacies isn't being an effective Devil's Advocate.
" This is untrue.
Judaism has numerous laws on how to treat gentiles
-A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 'Laws on Murderers' 2, 11; Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Goy'.)
-To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all (R. Yo'el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Beyt Josef, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The two rules just mentioned apply even if the Gentile victim is ger toshav, that is a 'resident alien' who has undertaken in front of three Jewish witnesses to keep the 'seven Noahide precepts' (seven biblical laws considered by the Talmud to be addressed to Gentiles).)
-A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished. (For example, R. Shabbtay Kohen (mid 17th century), Siftey Kohen on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah, 158: 'But in times of war it was the custom to kill them with one's own hands, for it is said, "The best of Gentiles -- kill him!"' Siftey Kohen and Turey Zahay (see note 3) are the two major classical commentaries on the Shulhan 'Arukh.)
"
Ok. First of all, I said I could make a halachic argument not that I would necessarily make a persuasive argument. But even in that context, you're rebuttal fails massively. First of all, most of what you are talking about applies only when there is a Sanhedrin since we can't execute or do almost anything else to non-Jews without a Sanhedrin active. So none of those rebut my point. Moreover, you might want to work on your reading comprehension if you are going to be making snide remarks about my command of English. Much of what you quote is completely irrelevant to the point at hand since no one claimed that there were no halachot concerning non-Jews. Nor did I claim that all the halachic opinions were sweetness and light (I can possibly find other sources that make these look pleasant in comparison). The quote from Rav Yo'el Sirkis and the quote from Maimonides are utterly irrelevant to the point at hand since neither is making any claim about the ability for a Beit Din to execute non-Jews or do much of anything to them.
"Ironic because reform and other liberal Jews in appeasing christians will often say that they believe its ok for a non-jew to believe a man became God (which btw completely contradicts countless injuctions in the Talmud).
"
I fail to see the irony. Such claims by Reform or Conservative Rabbis would be, as far as I am concerned, likely wrong. Moreover, they aren't at all relevant because my point again was that I could make an argument that under Orthodoxy the phrase on the money was problematic. What the Reform or Conservative movements have to say simply isn't relevant. "Ironic" does not mean "tangentially related remark." I may not be an English major but I know that much.
"But you can easily see God as Hashem no? After all the founding fathers being deists, never envisioned God as someone who came to earth as a man. Jefferson was insistent that Jesus was man and separate from God"
Misleading in that many of the founders were close to traditional Christians (Washington being the most obvious) and four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were actually professional clergy. Moreover, it is utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. It isn't relevant to halacha what Jefferson thought 200 years ago or what I think of as God. What matters is what the man on the street thinks when he sees that bill. (There's a technical issue here about whether lifnei' iver applies to non-Jews but that's not that important).
"There is no cut-off PERIOD, because I for one refuse to ignore how that a people were wiped out to create the Americas."
So why would there be a cut-off for my rights as the last descendant of my hypothetical tribe? Moreover, one can just as well not ignore something without using their ethos.
This seems similar to the general problem you have in regards to secularism in that you see things as an all or nothing. Either I'm ignoring the natives or I'm paying attention to their ethos. You aren't able to see someone as saying "yes. That was absolutely horrible." and then to use some other set of ethical and legal systems.
"You clearly missed previous discussion where I mentioned Bejamin Franklin's atheism and even corrected Apikores who though Jefferson was atheist (he was a deist)"
I don't have the time or inclination to read every single thread that you and Apikores have. (I don't know why you bring up Jefferson again. I didn't mention him in this context). Frankin's views of religion varied over time and determining them are made more complicated by his efforts to be extremely diplomatic to all. In any event, you neglected to respond at all to my point baout Hamilton who was until the end of his life almost a complete atheist.
"I said the world, not the US in referencing increased religiosity. "
Well, forgive me if when you said world I thought you were making a statement meant to include the US as part of that trend. After all, we are discussing the US, are we not?
"But I agree with what you said in this paragraph"
I'm now thoroughly confused. Do you mean you agree that levels of religiosity don't effect what levels of religious discrimination are ok? Then doesn't your entire argument break down?
"as the examples of the Scandinavian countries vs the US illustrates, the former is far better at church/state separation than the latter since it has far more secular people"
Um, you are aware that most Scandinavian countries have established religions, yes? A bit hard to claim they are somehow keeping church/state more separate than the US...
"But you cannot use the founding fathers and the First Amendment because as discussed they wrote those clauses under the paradigm of a non-sectarian protestant country. Though as I have said to me its irrelevant what a bunch of men 200 years ago said, but if you are going to make the argument that this country was founded on church/state seperation then I will have to rebuttal that that assertion is false"
First of all, what the First Amendment says and what the United States stands are not intrinsically connected to what the Founders thought. Second, you are wrong. Again, the example of Hamilton. And the fact that the founders were very ok with Catholics and Jews (indeed there is Washington's famous letter among other nice details). The notion that the United States was founded as a Protestant nation is false.
"What the money says, greatly impacts religious freedom because your bills represent what you stand for.
Taking away public prayers in schools for example (all because one atheist woman in the US didn't like it for her kids and got the court to remove it altogether) is removing religious freedom for the majority christian population of the US.
"
I don't want my money to stand for anything. I want my money to be reliable and used for economic transactions.
Your comment about public schools shows deep misunderstanding of the facts. First, prayer is not banned in public schools. Students are free to pray. Teachers are free to pray (I know one Orthodox teacher working in a New York public school who davens mincha everyday while at school). What is not allowed is organized prayer by teachers. That's not Constitutional. And it doesn't matter whether it was one person or a thousand. That's the idea of having rights. There's no such thing as a small violation of your rights.
"Now its interesting you mentioned tax-payers money. Here in Canada I don't believe in my taxes should be going to Arts programs (when 1,000,000 Canadian children are homeless), or being used to support programs for same-sex couples who brought misery upon themselves through AIDS and other STDS, or be used to support who in this country (I kid you not) willingly get pregnant so they can mouch of government single parent welfare which is quite high, or for that matter be used to support abortions for promiscuous women. My taxes (and Canada for the record has the highest taxes on the Earth) should be used for these sorts of things, yet they are. Why? Because majority decides how this stuff is done."
All of those are ok because they involve legitimate, secular purposes. Once there is a religious element to it, that situation goes out the window. (Please look up the Lemon Test or see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_Test#Lemon_test). There are issues that constituents can legitimately disagree about and still need to pay taxes. That's for essentially pragmatic reasons because otherwise one would run into a "tragedy of the commons" type problem (this is why for example even libertarians are generally ok with having taxes going to a standing army). That sort of logic does not apply to religious beliefs.
Shalmo, One further point: Multiple of the signers of the D of I and of the Consitution were Catholic. So regardless of how we get into the thornier issue of their attitude towards atheism (which for reasons already outlined you are wrong), it is clear that the notion they were thinking of a Protestant nation is simple false.
ReplyDeleteJoshua: You're more patient than I am. BTW, I do live in the U.S., as you surmised. (Also BTW, when I said Jefferson was an atheist, I think I was just trusting something that I heard from someone else which didn't turn out to be precisely true (oops), and it was in a context where I was lamenting the fact that a nonbeliever couldn't be elected president these days.)
ReplyDeleteShalmo: Ignoring all the side arguments, I think our main disagreement, as Joshua explained, in in that you somehow think that taking the words "In God we trust" off the money would be forcing secularism onto religious Americans. If you are planning to continue the discussion, can we agree to stick to that topic?
"Let's try this one more time: Saying that the government cannot take a stance either way is not "forcing secularism" on anyone. Do you see a difference between money saying "In God we Trust", saying "God doesn't exist. Stop whining" and not saying either?"
ReplyDeleteI get what you are saying.
However there is a majority christian population who (I think) want reference to what their values are in their money, since it is such an important sector of american symbolism.
Let's just say I am a buddhist, and have always grown up in a country of buddhists. Now there are minorites in my country making their voices heard. I would be happy to accomodate them, but I would not be happy with them removing my values on my on money just because they feel it somehow violates their rights. My first reply in such a situation would be "fuck you" because this is "our money" and we are the majority, so why should we have our views backlashed because you guys feel its unfair.
this is because he would feel that his money represents what his country stands for. Its one thing when you are forced to learn religious/cultural values that you do not wish to adhere to, but its another to take away national symbols that represent what a country stands for. The two scenarios are very different
"Cultural standards of modesty are actually a really interesting issue from a philosophical perspective. If one is a libertarian one would presumably try to argue that almost any such restrictions are not ok."
I disagree. I am an advocate of modest dressing (though not by force). But regardless the point of Iran having the right to demand foreigners to dress appropriately in their lands is legitimate.
The same is true in orthodox communities where they have rules on mixed gender engagement and so on
"No. Awful analogy. First, there's a problem when fundamental rights are denied independent of where one is. Moreover, most people don't have a choice about not coming into a country. One is born where one is, grows there, surrounded by friends and family from that country. To be blunt, your analogy sucks."
Define fundamental rights, because these are very subjective
Don't bother quoting me the International Declaration of Human Rights, because I don't recognize its legitamacy
"I live in the US as does Apikores(I think). We grew up here, and have jobs here. The notion that we can magically pick up and go somewhere else with no negative effects is absurd. And most of the populace would never be able to afford to move. That's aside from the fact that you have given zero actual argument why we should do so other than vague comments about the majority. Majorities do not magically make things ok. If 51% of the human population decided to exterminate (fill in some racial or religious group here) it wouldn't magically become acceptable. It isn't any different here."
your analogy is nonsensical because its not applicable since 51% of the human population ISN'T trying to exterminate anyone today
If you mean majorities are not always right, then I agree
"Simply repeating the same tired arguments and repeating the same fallacies isn't being an effective Devil's Advocate."
non-sequitar
I see repeated straw-man coming from you
Most of this reply is filled with ad hominems and base-rate fallacies
"Ok. First of all, I said I could make a halachic argument not that I would necessarily make a persuasive argument. But even in that context, you're rebuttal fails massively. First of all, most of what you are talking about applies only when there is a Sanhedrin since we can't execute or do almost anything else to non-Jews without a Sanhedrin active. So none of those rebut my point. Moreover, you might want to work on your reading comprehension if you are going to be making snide remarks about my command of English. Much of what you quote is completely irrelevant to the point at hand since no one claimed that there were no halachot concerning non-Jews. Nor did I claim that all the halachic opinions were sweetness and light (I can possibly find other sources that make these look pleasant in comparison). The quote from Rav Yo'el Sirkis and the quote from Maimonides are utterly irrelevant to the point at hand since neither is making any claim about the ability for a Beit Din to execute non-Jews or do much of anything to them."
?????
"I fail to see the irony. Such claims by Reform or Conservative Rabbis would be, as far as I am concerned, likely wrong. Moreover, they aren't at all relevant because my point again was that I could make an argument that under Orthodoxy the phrase on the money was problematic. What the Reform or Conservative movements have to say simply isn't relevant. "Ironic" does not mean "tangentially related remark." I may not be an English major but I know that much."
heh
All of sudden we are only talking about Orthodox, where did you previously elaborate on that?
"Misleading in that many of the founders were close to traditional Christians (Washington being the most obvious) and four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were actually professional clergy."
WHAT THE HELL?
When did I even remotely imply that they weren't, if anything I have repeatedly pointed out their christian leanings in my rebuttals
Guess its my turn to use the ad-hominems:
sir you are talking out of your ass!
"Moreover, it is utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. It isn't relevant to halacha what Jefferson thought 200 years ago or what I think of as God."
Then why bring it up? I think you are confused
"What matters is what the man on the street thinks when he sees that bill. (There's a technical issue here about whether lifnei' iver applies to non-Jews but that's not that important)."
I agree with this
"So why would there be a cut-off for my rights as the last descendant of my hypothetical tribe? Moreover, one can just as well not ignore something without using their ethos."
We cannot accomodate them forever, but we cannot forget how the US was made either
"This seems similar to the general problem you have in regards to secularism in that you see things as an all or nothing. Either I'm ignoring the natives or I'm paying attention to their ethos. You aren't able to see someone as saying "yes. That was absolutely horrible." and then to use some other set of ethical and legal systems."
Oh I get what you are saying perfectly
"I don't have the time or inclination to read every single thread that you and Apikores have. (I don't know why you bring up Jefferson again. I didn't mention him in this context)."
You are sounding very arrogant
I don't care whether you read the previous discussions or not, but then if you are lost as to what I am replying to then don't blame me.
That post was a reply to your previous falsehood about me not knowing what Benjamin Franklin believed. I never said he wasn't an atheist, you made a foolish assumption
"Frankin's views of religion varied over time and determining them are made more complicated by his efforts to be extremely diplomatic to all. In any event, you neglected to respond at all to my point baout Hamilton who was until the end of his life almost a complete atheist."
I didn't neglect it, because I never said otherwise. I never said either Franklin or Hamilton were not atheists. Its just another ludicrous assumption you made, without an indication on my part. LEARN HOW TO READ BEFORE RESPONDING
"Well, forgive me if when you said world I thought you were making a statement meant to include the US as part of that trend. After all, we are discussing the US, are we not?"
AGAIN, making false assumption about me are not making you look very bright.
Please go back and read what I wrote in CONTEXT
"I'm now thoroughly confused. Do you mean you agree that levels of religiosity don't effect what levels of religious discrimination are ok? Then doesn't your entire argument break down?"
NO because once again I never said any of this
"Um, you are aware that most Scandinavian countries have established religions, yes? A bit hard to claim they are somehow keeping church/state more separate than the US..."
You are wrong. They are far more secular than the US, because as I have repeatedly stated what a piece of paper states makes little difference in practise of policy.
They have established religions, but the churches mostly do work like marriage licenses and so forth, they have no real power
And in terms of practise they are FAR more secular than the US, mainly do to having a majority population of skeptics and non-religious people.
"First of all, what the First Amendment says and what the United States stands are not intrinsically connected to what the Founders thought. Second, you are wrong. Again, the example of Hamilton. And the fact that the founders were very ok with Catholics and Jews (indeed there is Washington's famous letter among other nice details). The notion that the United States was founded as a Protestant nation is false."
Ah no. I feel you don't have much knowledge about what these men had in mind. Do you have any political science credentials on this matter?
The founding fathers mainly had different baptist churches in mind, and wanted a state where each of them could live side by side without overpowering each other, hence the seperation of christianity and state. If you don't know this much, then I don't see the point of continuing the discussion
"I don't want my money to stand for anything. I want my money to be reliable and used for economic transactions."
Ok. I respect that
"Your comment about public schools shows deep misunderstanding of the facts. First, prayer is not banned in public schools. Students are free to pray. Teachers are free to pray (I know one Orthodox teacher working in a New York public school who davens mincha everyday while at school). What is not allowed is organized prayer by teachers. That's not Constitutional. And it doesn't matter whether it was one person or a thousand. That's the idea of having rights. There's no such thing as a small violation of your rights."
And how is that different from what I said. I never said the US should have forced christian prayers each day now did I
"All of those are ok because they involve legitimate, secular purposes. Once there is a religious element to it, that situation goes out the window. (Please look up the Lemon Test or see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_Test#Lemon_test). There are issues that constituents can legitimately disagree about and still need to pay taxes. That's for essentially pragmatic reasons because otherwise one would run into a "tragedy of the commons" type problem (this is why for example even libertarians are generally ok with having taxes going to a standing army). That sort of logic does not apply to religious beliefs."
DUDE I do not what else to say
You totally did not address the issue at all
I asked since you believe government should not take sides in issues (as in not having God on our money), what do you feel about the government taking sides in things like pro-choice/pro-life. Because when they start having tax-payer funded abortion, I call that TAKING A SIDE.
What about the president? Does he get to invoke God when making speeches tin general?
"Shalmo, One further point: Multiple of the signers of the D of I and of the Consitution were Catholic. So regardless of how we get into the thornier issue of their attitude towards atheism (which for reasons already outlined you are wrong), it is clear that the notion they were thinking of a Protestant nation is simple false."
Perhaps I should have said Christian country in general, but it doesn't change the fact on what the founding fathers had in mind. A christian nation where different christian sects can live in harmony (yes its true they accepted minorities like Jews, but it doesn't change what they had in mind when drafting the Constitution) Seriously the fact that you are even arguing this, shows you are sadly very uninformed about how this nation started, in which case I suggest you take a few courses that outline the creation of the Constitution of your country.
Apikores:
ReplyDelete"You brought up the founding fathers, not me. My argument does not depend on them at all."
No we were talking about them in the previous threads, but this issue is so umimportant that I am not going to deal with it anymore
"Your remark that I am trying to "enforce secularism" shows that you either did not read my previous comments, or you didn't understand them."
Right back at ya!
"Same for the stuff about Dawkins and Carlin [Do you really think that the following is a valid argument?: 4 people from group A (which contains much more than 4 people) have property B, therefore all people from group A have property B.]"
I have no idea how this is even remotely related, nor do I understand the analogy
"Ignoring all the side arguments, I think our main disagreement, as Joshua explained, in in that you somehow think that taking the words "In God we trust" off the money would be forcing secularism onto religious Americans. If you are planning to continue the discussion, can we agree to stick to that topic?"
That's ok.
This discussion has spiraled out of control with all the ad-hominems. There is too much ego going into the replies being posted for this issue, so I am going to drop out because its just not worth it
Peace!
Ok. I've got my last week of school before summer starts so this isn't a great time to post another long response. But it is so hard to resist the temptation to get the last word in that I'll just pull and Oscar Wilde and give in.
ReplyDeleteI'll only focus on a single issue since it seems to be a good example of a general theme with Salmo's comments. That theme is an apparent inability to keep track of context for sections of an argument.
The most glaring example concerns where I wrote "Moreover, it is utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. It isn't relevant to halacha what Jefferson thought 200 years ago or what I think of as God."
Salmo responded to that remark by asking
"Then why bring it up? I think you are confused."
This missed the apparent context that I was discussing in that section purely the question of whether one could frame a halachic argument against having "In God We Trust" on the money. Indeed, the matter of Jefferson was brought up by Salmo in an earlier post where he said "Jefferson was insistent that Jesus was man and separate from God" In the context of the halachic argument, Salmo made brought up Jefferson first (as in fact he seems to have done throughout this thread).
Salmo, you do raise some issues that are worth discussing but until you are able to keep track of what points are about what segments of the conversation and are replying to what, having a discussion with you isn't going to go very far or be very productive.
maskim
ReplyDelete