1 - Mysterious Brony
- Member
Offline - Registered: 7/25/2015
- Posts: 172
Church, state and public religion
According to myth, the US constitution says that there needs to be a "separation between church and state." However, nowhere in the US constitution does it say such clause. Rather it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The first amendment prohibits the establishment of a national church a la Church of England or a theocratic fundamentalist/legalistic government. Nevertheless, the first amendment was never meant to establish a secular government or secular society. In fact, after the ratification of the US constitution several states established state churches. Now, I think that the influence of religion should be allowed in the public discourse and life. I think that religion can provide benefits to society as a whole and help people with disciplining their lifestyles. Of course, if people don't want to practice religion then they shouldn't be forced to do so. No doubt that this is a very basic outline when it comes to religion, state, public, etc. What do you guys think?
- Etzelnik
- Member
Offline
- From: New Jersey
- Registered: 6/28/2015
- Posts: 337
Re: Church, state and public religion
I think you're preaching to the choir. 
Personally, I would actually like to see an institutional state religion of civic virtue, a la Rousseau or Robespierre. Such a religion would not run contrary to anything but some sort of positivist nihilism and/or insubordination to the state, expression of which should be heavily limited regardless.
Noli turbare circulos meos.
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Church, state and public religion
It's hard for me to see how you can resist secularism without institutional support in a state like this- since it is money that rules in a state of this size and easily overpowers unprotected religious institutions. You add that to the religious tolerance and social pluralism that a state like this steadily accretes and religion's highest power is little more than what the NFL can manage- less, since it's not a business at its core.
So to tell me that the constitution merely prevents government involvement in religious matters is akin to me to saying that bars don't really cause drunk driving. I mean, sure, but they aren't exactly paying for cabs.
Also, the state churches that did exist, as far as I can tell, were essentially non-functional by the revolution and were disestablished not so long after, and today would never be permitted. Indeed, most of the constitutional Churches were the Church of England, which presents an obvious issue. The fact that there are none today, and, as far as I can tell, were none after something like 1850, speaks more to the secular trend of this state than any positive assertion of secularism does.
Last edited by iwpoe (4/06/2016 5:15 am)
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- ArmandoAlvarez
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/09/2015
- Posts: 48
Re: Church, state and public religion
Seems to me that no Christian or Jew would want anything resembling an established religion or even government encouraging religion-in-general, since having the force of government encouraging religious observance leads to things like people "honoring [God] with their lips, but their hearts are far from him." The kind of superficial going-through-the-motions that Jesus and the prophets spent the better part of their careers fighting.
I guess if you're a Muslim or a non-Abrahamic monotheist you might be interested in using government to encourage religiosity in general.
- Mysterious Brony
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/25/2015
- Posts: 172
Re: Church, state and public religion
@iwpoe
You do have a point, humans are notoriously known for changing matters for their own self-interests. I think the American forefathers would've thought about this, and I think their remedy was practicing virtues and moral principles to avoid such issues. However, there is always some one who will play around with the law or government. It seems to me that the current American civic public pushes for some sort of Rawlsian liberalism. Also, yes considering how the Supreme Court has banned various religious practices from the public, there is no way that a state church will be allowed. Nevertheless, I think their constitutional reasons are weak and are contrary to constitutional history.
@Etzelnik In some senses I do agree with that, at least it keeps aggressive militant secularism at bay and acknowledges that man is a spiritual animal.
- •
Thread Starter- Mysterious Brony
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/25/2015
- Posts: 172
Re: Church, state and public religion
@ ArmandoAlvarez True, but what if people don't want to follow religion? You can't force them.
- •
Thread Starter- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Church, state and public religion
ArmandoAlvarez wrote:
Seems to me that no Christian or Jew would want anything resembling an established religion or even government encouraging religion-in-general
What? The Jews have one presently. Etz lives there. The most successful and theologically deepest period of Christian history was the middle ages where the church was intimately woven into the state. Protestants clearly wanted to divorce the Church from the state because they were losing in that arena (and must since they can't confine themselves to one sect). Unfortunately, they couldn't unwind the challenge to authority that separation entails.
After all, explain it to me: you have a god who gives laws, the truth, and means to usher in his kingdom. Why would you think in these strictly modernist terms? The state is wandering in error if it isn't Christian.
since having the force of government encouraging religious observance leads to things like people "honoring [God] with their lips, but their hearts are far from him." The kind of superficial going-through-the-motions that Jesus and the prophets spent the better part of their careers fighting.
So the protestants argued... and now Europe is sliding into atheism. Oopse.
Last edited by iwpoe (4/06/2016 3:32 pm)
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Church, state and public religion
@ ArmandoAlvarez True, but what if people don't want to follow religion? You can't force them.
Wanna bet?
Ecclesia non novit sanguinem, but the law does, if necessary.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Church, state and public religion
@ Nevertheless, I think their constitutional reasons are weak and are contrary to constitutional history.
Dewy-eyed and hopeful the religious conservative hangs on to the letter of the law when the praxis was never there for him. Our state churches, as far as I can tell, simply were not functional and were holdovers from pre-revolutionary times (ergo their being mostly Church of England).
I mean look:
There simply was no there there. Connecticut is the lone outlier, having held out until 1818. Indeed, it's the only one that made it past the ratification of the bill of rights, and as far as I can tell no other state attempted. If it was going to happen, it would have happened in Utah, for mormon-God's sake.
Since the Church of England in the US was a crippled entity without crown support after the revolution I suspect that the founders probably thought any kind of explicit ending of state religion was unnecessary. Other than that, their attitude is vague enlightenment half-protestant, and look how well that's worked out for England... umm the Germanic nations... umm... Scandinavia? 
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- DanielCC
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 765
Re: Church, state and public religion
According to myth, the US constitution says that there needs to be a "separation between church and state." However, nowhere in the US constitution does it say such clause. Rather it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The first amendment prohibits the establishment of a national church a la Church of England or a theocratic fundamentalist/legalistic government. Nevertheless, the first amendment was never meant to establish a secular government or secular society. In fact, after the ratification of the US constitution several states established state churches. Now, I think that the influence of religion should be allowed in the public discourse and life. I think that religion can provide benefits to society as a whole and help people with disciplining their lifestyles. Of course, if people don't want to practice religion then they shouldn't be forced to do so. No doubt that this is a very basic outline when it comes to religion, state, public, etc. What do you guys think?
May I add a qualification? One can have a secular state, that is one which does not uphold or endorse any given religion, without said state being an atheist or agnostic state. In fact I would argue that many of the Founding Fathers, like other men of the Enlightenment, wanted just that - a 'liberal' state backed up by reasoned principles i.e. Moral 'Deism'*. One thinks of the Lockean state for instance which is theistic but neutral towards specific religions (or should be - of course Locke himself hardly neutral towards Islam or, worse, Catholicism).
With some modification this is what I would suggest as a metaphysical background for governance. It would leave room for individual religious beliefs but would not base its policy on them. Neither (unlike with Locke) would atheists or agnostics suffer marked disadvantage in their public lives, although they might arguably be prohibited from certain govermental positions. On a practical basis a lot of them would reap a benifit in as far as their lives would be far more comfortable if the state acts 'as if' certain actions were objectively wrong.
*I'm using Deism here to refer to a non-doctrinal theism and not in the way Ed Feser employs it to define theistic position which deny Divine Conservation.
@ ArmandoAlvarez True, but what if people don't want to follow religion? You can't force them.
No, nor should one. On the other hand positive law is usually taken to follow from some basic ethical principles, that is if their is to be any rational justification to it, and if these principles by themselves or in context imply the existence of God then the state too must acknowledge this.
Seems to me that no Christian or Jew would want anything resembling an established religion or even government encouraging religion-in-general, since having the force of government encouraging religious observance leads to things like people "honoring [God] with their lips, but their hearts are far from him." The kind of superficial going-through-the-motions that Jesus and the prophets spent the better part of their careers fighting.
I guess if you're a Muslim or a non-Abrahamic monotheist you might be interested in using government to encourage religiosity in general.
If, as a philosopher one holds that the existence of God is both A, demonstrable and B, necessary for the existence of morality then one must conclude that any rationally justified state must acknowledge both these facts. I don't think this would have been surprising in the ancient world though - after all Paul and the early Fathers are not so concerned with atheism as a problem as they are false concepts of divinity (in the latter case those that can be known to be false via reason): this is not to establish any specific religion however.
Last edited by DanielCC (4/06/2016 4:25 pm)