Constitution Mandates a Wall Between Church And State - Right?
Another Charlie Kirk topic, but again, without the politics (and semantics).
It seems safe to say that a general understanding of the phrase "separation of church and state" is that the Constitution says the government should not be involved (or mixed) with any religion.
It seems equally safe to say that the Constitution does not say that; it only says the government can't promote or restrict any religion.
Meaning, the Left and the Right are arguing 'Yeah, buts ...' relative to what 'man' (aka the Courts), says about that separation. In short, not arguing about the same thing. In this case, the Right has factual support and the Left has fluid interpretive support ('yeah, buts' change with the times).
As Kirk asked a Hindu questioner: "Should government be divorced from morality? Kirk says no, the Hindu says no, and I say, no. A government must act morally.
Does the intent of the 'general understanding' expect the same wall of separation between morality and government?
Kirk offers a solid foundation for his reasoning on this. The Hindu student also agreed with it. So, where do/should the morals of government come from?
Charlie Kirk Exposes the Myth of Separation of Church and StateMorality is not the sole possession of the Judeo-Christian standard.
So, yes the government has to act morally.
Not promoting or restricting religion for the Government has to mean by its very definition: NO Establishment
As I said, judeo-Christianity does not have the market cornered in regard to morality. Morality can come from any number of sources.
There can be no predominant religion forced from government authority or those acting in its stead promoting the concept of establishment. I see the guardrails as to students behavior as prescribed within rules and regulations similar to our Constitution. Only the law can be prescribed to all people living in this society, not any one particular religion. As a result, I don’t buy his interpretation on this and say that Charlie is all wet.Note: Edit added
Yep, Christianity doesn't own morality. Different religions, different moralities. The differences don't negate your point, or Charlie's. Stay on track, I'm arguing that he is saying our design was influenced and founded oYep, Christianity doesn't own morality. Different religions, different moralities. The differences don't make your point, or negate Charlie's. Stay on track, I'm arguing that he is saying our design was influenced and founded on Christian principles, not that it is the only religion to have them. His only arrogance is to think his religion is the right one. But all religious believers think that, right?
Yep, only the law can prescribe. Who is the law? It's us through our representatives. On moral decisions, what is the predominant influence for each of us individually? It's probably going to be the morality of our faith, or the morality of our nurturing (in absence of religious faith). Either way, the morality comes from somewhere. And we'll predominantly vote for representatives that share our morals. Sound right?
So where would the morality that guided the Founders and delegates come from? The obvious answer is one you deny — from the culture of the time.
You're dancing to avoid agreement with a Rightie. No part of the discussion has been about forcing anything on anyone. Kirk has not promoted 'officializing' Christianity (in the context of this discussion). No part of the OP, or responses have promoted making Christianity an official or government-endorsed religion.
The whole thing is about what was before, before it's an argument about what should be. The contention is that our nation was founded on the influence of Christian principles, not whether our nation should be an official Christian nation.
Disagreeing with 'Christianizing' America is an extrapolation of the discussion, not the point of it.
GAn Christian principles, not that it is the only religion to have them. His only arrogance is to think his religion is the right one. All religious believers think the same thing, right?
Yep, only the law can prescribe. Who is the law? It's us through our representatives. On moral decisions, what is the predominant influence for each of us individually? It's probably going to be the morality of our faith, or the morality of their nurturing (in absence of religious faith). Either way, the morality comes from somewhere. Sound right?
So where would the morality that guided the Founders and delegates come from? The obvious answer is one you deny, from the culture of the time.
You're dancing to avoid agreement with a Rightie. No part of the discussion has been about forcing anything“His only arrogance is to think his religion is the right one. All religious believers think the same thing, right?”
That is the problem isn’t it?
Morality comes from a variety of sources, with Judeo=christianity being just one of many.
Yes, what morality these men actually possessed they claimed was Judeo-Christian based. I am just not interested in Christian nationalism as an excuse based on those ideas. So, there are no bread crumbs to follow here.
I simply say what they professed and what they practiced could well be two different things.
I don’t have to work hard to disagree with a Righty, as far as I am concerned, their logic is always flawed.Flawed? Maybe, but you haven't proven it here. You haven't addressed most of the claims, and the one you did — about the Founders' influence — you agreed with.
'Yeah, the Founders were influenced by their Christian religion, but ... they were probably two-faced about it.'
I say there are only two primary sources for morals: faith (religious/spiritual/atheist) and nurturing (formative life experiences). What others are dominant enough to influence the morals of a mass population?
Christian nationalism wasn't part of the discussion, or Kirk's video, until you introduced it as an extrapolation not relative to the topic.
You might have to work a little harder to prove this Rightie's logic is flawed. You've barely addressed one point of it, much less prove it wrong. You're still dancing.
GA ;-)So, what do you want me to acknowledge?
Yes, the founding fathers probably based much of their principles for government on Judeo-Christianity the only basis available to them at the time.
Yeah, and so what?The 'so what' is that we have a common understanding of a starting point, not just a partisan or ideological argument to flail at.
Kirk's first step was tying Christian principles to our formation. The next question is whether that was a good or bad thing.
Then, he tied the influences on our choice of legal system to British common law and the Christianity of its influencers: Blackstone, Locke, et al. Past recollections make that seem logical and right to me. That's my take from non-religious discussion encounters.
Hopefully that's reasonable and not biased spin. I see that as a good thing.
I better stop here. The rest of Kirk's steps in this discussion illustrate the same thing: valid support and linkage for the claims. No need to get you in trouble with your crew. You already agreed Christian principles were influential in our government's creation, and if you're not careful, you'll end up agreeing with this common law point being a fair one, and ... two agreements with a Rightie might get you some side glances, but three could get you demoted (or impeached). ;-)
GAYes, we do have a common understanding of a starting point. Nothing to gloat about because there is nothing beyond that point. So, the sun rises in the east and sets in the West, where do we go from here?
I support the basis behind English Common Law as buttressed by John Locke and others of the 17th Century.
Yes, ok, it worked out well as the least troublesome alternative among all possible choices. But, it is not exactly ideal as it has the flaws and frailty of its drafters.
There is nothing righty in acknowledging history and these men brought Christians values (at least the ones they wanted, a smorgasbord perhaps)to their ideas around government, so what else am I to concede to the “mighty righty”? As I said, beyond that I have nothing to offer the right except my derision.Well, I'm gloating about it, but not from your perspective (ok, maybe a little bit, getting you to admit a reality you don't like is like pulling teeth).
Agreeing with something, even if you didn't before, isn't a concession if the change is your decision; it's progress.
As for what else, hells bells, with a few more steps we might find enough common understanding to get in sight of a biggie: Charlie's claim that Christianity and Christian principles were 'the lifeblood of our nation's development and its success in becoming a great nation.'
But you're not ready for that yet. Maybe a warm-up, something like: Why the message of the Ten Commandments should be in every classroom. Kirk has a clip on that too.
GAI cannot deny which is fact that these founding intellectuals claimed adherence to Christian principles as they understood them.
“As for what else, hells bells, with a few more steps we might find enough common understanding to get in sight of a biggie: Charlie's claim that Christianity and Christian principles were 'the lifeblood of our nation's development and its success in becoming a great nation.'”
Don’t hold your breath, that acknowledgment will remain “a bridge too far’ for the foreseeable future. That was Charlie’s outlook and I can’t subscribe to it.
Don’t tell me that you are more “righty” than I once believed? YOU subscribe to the idea of the Ten Commandments plastered in every classroom? You had just as well abandon the purple and embrace the red.
Any chance of my accepting such a thing is the equivalent of a leap across the Grand Canyon, no way…..It seems to me that what Charlie, and most other "Christians" today, forget (or ignore in order to make the claim that we are a Christian Nation, or at least had Christian roots) is that what we call Christianity today is not what was called Christianity 300 years ago.
Today's Christianity, with it's ever changing God, it's acceptance of gay marriage and women priests, it's church-led entertainment functions, it's acceptance that other religions might, just maybe, get people to heaven, would be grounds for burning to the Puritans that were the primary driving force in American religion in the 17 and 18 centuries. Even that old, old (from long before Christianity) moral basis, the Golden Rule, would not be recognized in any but words by the believers of long ago.
So yes, Christianity had a big part of developing our culture, even though it has changed into something unrecognizable. So did self reliance, duty and a work ethic. All have changed, but all had at least much influence as the religions of hundreds of years ago.So true! ... and yeah, I had to adlib that in... had to...
I of course, have a far more humane solution, bring back the Mental Institutions.Thank you, no. I once worked remodeling a "children's home" once. What was a "home" for mentally ill and retarded children became a facility for the deaf.
The old beds and other equipment were still there, upstairs in bunk rooms. It still gives me nightmares to think back to what we saw there.
Let's not bring back the Mental Institutions of the past.And the alternative is the mentally ill walking the streets doing harm to others...spreading their illness like a cancer...
How many women suffer an end like the poor girl who escaped Ukraine, only to be brutally murdered on train by a "Mentally Ill" person who had been arrested and released more than a dozen times... One a day in America? A dozen? How many stories like that get buried without ever seeing the light of day...
You can find hundreds of such assaults on X being exposed... If you look.
Happens every day, because we refuse to remove those who are a threat to all others from the streets...
Police are forced to deal with it every day.
Maybe the Chinese... The CCP... Has it right.
They don't let the Mentally Ill or the criminals walk the streets to prey on the innocent.
That said ... There is a distinct difference between handicapped children and violent or deranged adults. I know how poorly we do with children, the ones incapable of speaking for themselves and without advocates suffer tragedy ...inhumane and unmentionable ...one is not the other...My real problem is just who gets to determine who is "mentally ill" and needs to be locked away and who is not.
The ruling political party? Because that's who does everything else - they decide what vaccines we must (or cannot) take, where we get our energy, etc. etc. I'm not very sanguine with political flaks deciding whether I'm sane or not.We used to have a pretty good Justice system that handled who was "mentally ill" and who was a "threat to society"...
Whatever wrong existed, we have gone too far in the other direction... by a lot, not a little... that a violent man who had been arrested at least 14 times prior was on the streets free...
Well that's not the type of Nation... State... I want to live in, that is not Justice, that is not keeping the peace...
Today Charles Manson could get off for being considered "mentally ill" ... seems many of our Judges, AGs, DAs are the type that would release such a person... especially if they were an illegal migrant.
Wilderness, it has always been just a label and as a label, for what content?
Christianity and its definition has been changed so often over time, and its various interpretations today are without number. Who would want to go back over 300 years ago to when heretics were burned at the stake?
Defining one’s self as a Christian often times serves to cover a multitude of sins.
Christianity is more than just a slogan, it is to reflect an attitude and mode of behavior that I have not seen as a part of America, past or present. But, we have always had the “label”.
With a little clarification, I think I can get you to that "bridge too far." I'm not saying I could get you to cross it, but I bet I could at least get you to consider it.
As a starting clarification, I do not want the Christian 10 Commandments forced into every classroom. But I do think the points of morality of the Commandments should be in the classroom, and they should be promoted.
Another is that Kirk's position on this wasn't as absolute as portrayed by his adversaries. Yes, he would like the promotion of morals to be of his 10 Commandments, but the message didn't have to be promoted as Christian if a more 'commonly accepted' method can be found. In short, it's the moral message he wants, a 'return' to a foundationally moral family and society.
If that clarification helps, then maybe Kirk's idea can be considered more neutrally: Should the value of a common set of morals — a concept accepted to have been a good and important thing in our nation's founding, be promoted in the classrooms of its future citizens?
That bridge won't be too far if the connotations of personality or politics aren't used to define the concept.
Here's a little salve for those burns:
Charlie Kirk Gets outsmarted by a kid.
*You'll love it. Be sure to look at the comments under the video.
GAWould you consider the Golden Rule - "Do unto others as you would they do unto you", in all it's forms and language, the root of nearly all moral codes?
Because that rule is the closest thing we have to a "universal" moral. It is found in very nearly every culture, every language and every religion.
It also far predates Christianity, making it questionable to say that it is Christianity that gave us our moral codes and our culture. One could as easily say it was Islam, or Buddhism or any of dozens of philosophies as they all contain that near perfect Golden Rule.Yes, but no. Your point of origin is right. It sparked recollections of other Christian tenets that can also be traced to earlier sources.
The 'No' is that the discussion is framed around us, America, from the first colonies to an established nation. The other religions you mention may have been present, but nothing in our history shows any to be more predominantly influential than Christianity. In that context, I don't think attributing it to Christianity is questionable or arbitrary.
GA
GA, I can already see the bridge from here.
On Posting the 10 Commandments, Instead of this points of morality stuff, just post rules saying:
1. No fighting
2. Do not take your classmates property without permission
Etc.
We do not have to raise this to level of Moses parting the Red Sea. We can allow the moral implications of these secular rules to be discussed within a family setting at home or at a place of worship whatever and wherever that may be.
yes, Charlie got caught with his britches down, his positions place him against principles of contraception in addition to abortion. We all know that after Republicans restrain women from obtaining abortions, contraceptives are next.Nope, the point isn't about "rules," and it isn't about adult minds. It's about motivating and instilling a foundation of core moral values for the young.
Now wait a minute, don't jump, consider that just as a concept, without any details of who or what or how, no definition of the values (beyond core and commonly accepted), and no specific source. Surely you can agree that a society should want its future citizens to hold its common core moral values (emphasis on core, not all)?
Is that a safe assumption? Is it a fair description of the concept?
GAThat is the danger, proselytizing young minds.
Do your motivating and instilling a foundation of core moral values at home, because only the secular can truly be neutral in this regard in avoiding religious proselytizing. My values may not sync with your values, making secular rules is appropriate for children and adults in my opinion. Why complicate things?
The problem and danger is going beyond common held values as defined by secular law into a realm of approaching the extremes of an Islamic state. The Government surreptitiously directing all to acknowledge the hegemony of Judeo-Christian values preferring its religion. Are these religionists willing to accept Muslim or Shinto placards in school speaking of much of the same positive moral values? No, certainly not. When we are not all Judeo-Christians. Behavior rules are just simpler, it worked for me in my time and I don’t know why we have to introduce Moses into all of this? I don’t need an Elmer Gantry in everybody’s classroom trying to guide everyone’s thinking.Come on Cred. Stop jumping to where you want to end up. Stop criticising details that aren't yet part of the conversation; they can be argued later.
What about the concept, as described? Is that something you don't think a society should be concerned with? It's been accepted that the influence of core values were beneficial to our successful Founding, it shouldn't be hard to find out what part of that acceptance no longer holds with you.
If it's the details of the concept's parts: content (morals), the source, or the implementation (classroom), you're objecting to something that's not there—yet.
Your response was all about presumed details; the question only asked about the concept: should a society be concerned with the core morality of its future citizens?
There's no need to discuss the details if the concept has no value.
Whaddayathink? Would you prefer a society with a 'helter-skelter' smorgasbord of core ethics? A society that doesn't hold "Thou shalt not kill" (in whatever textual construction you want) as a common societal belief? ;-)
GADo you ever listen to what I am saying?
“What about the concept, as described? Is that something you don't think a society should be concerned with? It's been accepted that the influence of core values were beneficial to our successful Founding, it shouldn't be hard to find out what part of that acceptance no longer holds with you”
Answer: yes a society should be concerned about teaching core values to its younger citizens. YOU established that the influence of core values were beneficial to our successful founding, I don’t. It is not a matter of “no longer holds with me, but never really has.
Next question?A 'next question' wouldn't be any different. I had to backtrack to see if it was only me that agreed. Maybe. You didn't specifically say you agreed that the influence of Christian principles was good for our formation.
You agreed that the predominant morality of the times was Christian-influenced, as was that of the pertinent figures involved. You even said it worked out well.
But you were right, I was the one who made the leap to think that meant you thought that was a good thing.
The only way it needn't be seen as beneficial is if you think it wasn't needed to get the nation started, or its rules written. Meaning the first colonists, through to the last revolutionary war soldier, would have survived and succeeded without the influence of their faith. Or that our laws would be equally just when modeled after some system other than common law (no Christian influence).
I think historical accounts show that to be silly. History is full of accounts, from trivial to event-making, of dire straits where faith was the only thing that kept them going. The nation-forming effort wouldn't have succeeded with desperate 'last efforts' by folks calling on their faith.
Nope, I don't think those folks would have made it without their faith. I think the influence of Christian principles in our formation was a very good thing.
You're still dancing.
GaYou’re playing some verbal sleight of hand for a “got you”. Forget it, my values are as blue as they get 95 percent of the time.
That right, I did not say that I agreed with the idea of Christian concepts being the source of America’s relative success and prosperity. But, I will tell you what is though. Millions of acres of land absconded from indigenous people, how much would you have an advantage if you acquired land at no price?
Or, perhaps, billions of dollars worth of unrequited labor from black slaves, how many people North and South enriched themselves unjustly over this labor by others. With such advantages, how could you lose? What was it that they use to say to justify theft and enslavement? Oh, I remember now, Christianizing savages? It comes down to taking advantage of vulnerable populations with generous dollops of greed and self-interest mixed in and that is how America became wealthy and consequently, successful. All, using the oldest concept in the world; take from others to enrich yourself.
So, all this Christian nation stuff is just so much BS from my point of view. The Christian nation stuff is just a label, nothing more. America’s interpretation of Christian morality is nothing that I would boast about. I qualify the definition of “Christian morality” as it applies to any ethical superiority of this society and culture.This again?
Really... like that hasn't been going on EVERYWHERE with EVERY civilization throughout known human history?
Were the Aztecs just sitting around signing 'Kumbaya' with the Mayans?
Were the Mongols just visiting Eastern Europeans for a vacation?
Greeks, Persians, Romans, Chinese... oh yeah, the history of Japan, China and Korea is filled with niceties.
Look at what Russia is doing in Ukraine today...
That's the way of the world... it will always be the way of the world (for everyone alive today anyways)... because there will always be another nation looking to be more powerful, have more riches, and to expand their culture... their society... their beliefs.
What was so SPECIAL about "The West" ... it had the Industrial Revolution, it abolished Slavery, it continued to evolve... not just technologically and scientifically but in how it uplifted humanity and morality.
I suppose some would enjoy going back to a more primitive existence, like the Mayan empire, including widespread human sacrifice and the plunder of other tribes for slaves... or the Romans whom in many ways weren't much different from the Mayans...
But if you don't want to go back to those times... or see what it is like to live under a modern day Stalin or Pol Pot... you had better realize that America, its Constitution and its flawed Republic is the ONLY OTHER GAME in town... the Progressive... Leftist Ideology is nihilistic and self-centered, putting it kindly and aims at destroying America in pursuit of some type of detached from reality Utopia that can never exist.
And don't talk to me about current day Netherlands or Switzerland being better... as we touched on the other day... those two nations would not be like they are if it were not for the umbrella of America's protection that they have existed under for the last 75+ years.“Really... like that hasn't been going on EVERYWHERE with EVERY civilization throughout known human history?”
I am not denying that reality, Ken. My point is that it was done in regards to this continent and how this country obtained its wealth from it.
Regardless of your point of view, that does not make me automatically “bullish on America”. I consider the Right tyrannical and despotic. That is worse.
I am focused on the topic on the separation of church and state and we all have meandered a bit, but that is good. Lets get it all out into the open air, shall we?
If racism and intolerance is at a lower level in either Switzerland or Holland, it is preferable just on that basis. Do you really think that they would revert to savagery if they were not under America’s nuclear umbrella? From my brother’s reports, these are highly progressive accommodating societies, what is there not to like?Just to pipe in ...
We haven't really gone too far off the trail because the direction will bear directly on the 'separation' discussion.
Once the 'value of morals' question is answered, then the value of Christian morals will bear directly on the Founders' intentions behind the wording of the separation clause.
GAOk. let's see if we are where I think:
Yes, morals are beneficial. Yes, society does benefit from promoting commonly accepted morals. Yes, our morals during the formation of our nation were Christianty-based. Yes, the successful founding of our nation was a good thing. Yes, our choice of legal structure was a good thing.
Which one did I get wrong?
The point is to establish that the Founders and delegates weren't religious zealots, and the Christian tenets that influenced their decisions were guidance, not dictates, and that they were good influences.
If that works, it offers an understanding of what their words meant. I say they meant exactly what they say; the government cannot prohibit or restrict religious freedom. Not that it cannot touch any involvement with any religion.
The 10 Commandments thing was just to establish that common base understanding. It isn't logical to think a nation-forming influence deemed good is now bad because it's a religious thing.
GAYes, morals are beneficial. Yes, society does benefit from promoting commonly accepted morals. Yes, our morals during the formation of our nation were Christianty-based. Yes, the successful founding of our nation was a good thing. Yes, our choice of legal structure was a good thing.
So far, this is all correct from my view.
———
The point is to establish that the Founders and delegates weren't religious zealots, and the Christian tenets that influenced their decisions were guidance, not dictates, and that they were good influences.
YES
———-
If that works, it offers an understanding of what their words meant. I say they meant exactly what they say; the government cannot prohibit or restrict religious freedom.
Yes
———-
Not that it cannot touch any involvement with any religion.
I qualify this, it depends on what the nature of that involvement is. Where a religion as practiced is in conflict with applications of secular law there is a ground for interference, for example Sharia Law.
——-
The 10 Commandments thing was just to establish that common base understanding. It isn't logical to think a nation-forming influence deemed good is now bad because it's a religious thing.
There are many common bases of understanding among a religiously diverse people particularly on the most core principles. It was wrong to plaster and make compulsory a set of morals clearly representing one faith. Authorities establishing a religious doctrine for an audience who are compulsorily required to attend such as a public school is more than a “common bases of understanding” the nation forming influence deemed good is good, but bringing religion into the mix creates unnecessary problems. The “religious thing” is the entire problem.Damn Cred, we got to that bridge after all. The part about "involvement" was a bit of dancing on my part. I haven't figured it out yet.
I don't think the intention of the separation clause was as starkly black and white as the men of modern society have defined it. I think there is some gray 'let's-think-about-this' area. Maybe like, not viewing a courthouse creche as government promotion, but simply as an accommodation. But, is a governmental accommodation a promotion?
I haven't figured out how to define and support that thought yet. I think it's right, I don't think the intention was for religion to be a governmental 3rd-rail. It doesn't fit the reality of the times. Promotion or restriction, yes, touch and die. Allowing a creche or religious display, no, that's not logical, let's think about it first.
Relative to this issue, posting the 10 Commandments labeled as Christian commands would be a promotion and not right. But, in that gray 'let 's-think-about-it' area, posting them without promoting their origin may be, or should be, okay — the core message didn't change.
That part's still a work-in-progress. If I can figure it out, we'll tackle trying to cross that bridge.
GAIs it possible to post the 10 commandments, even in an elementary classroom, that everyone there won't know (either already or be told) where they came from?
Is it OK for government to post such a thing and keep it secret where it came from? Even if the effort is doomed to immediate failure?That thought has lingered behind most of my comments.
I decided it's not important that they (the people) know the morals have a religious origin. If the government doesn't promote them as such, it feels like a messenger vs message thing.
For instance: God said thou shalt not kill. Everyone knows God said it. Everyone also knows it's a good moral. Not because God says so, but because you can't have a society where life isn't respected. The reality that everyone will recognize it as a christian-formed moral shouldn't dilute the message. Nothing is being hidden or kept secret. Change the words; You cannot kill people. Same message, different messenger.
That's my reasoning. So far, it works for me. Hence my promotion of a common set of core values regardless of where they come from. If they don't work for a society, they won't be commonly accepted. If they are commonly accepted, it means society sees value and benefit, so the messenger shouldn't matter.
GA
I overlooked part of your previous comment and created an addendum to my original post.
So, who wants to cancel Christmas and all the Nativity displays? I think that it Is inappropriate for government to be funding such things with tax money. But, who ever wants to fund privately, may be permitted to put their symbols on public property. That right goes for Catholics, Jews, Muslims or what have you. I like the idea of “accommodation”, it takes the promotion and compulsory out of the conversation. You can accommodate as long as you are not partial regarding which religion’s paraphernalia is acceptable and which are not. So, I have no problem with crèche or religious display on public property as long as it is paid by private contributions and any faith has the opportunity to do the same. It now becomes a “notice board” instead.
GA, my only issue with the Ten Commandments is the compulsory nature of how this is being handled in public schools. The very approach of Red States regarding this matter has an Indoctrination ring to it, and is basically proselytizing. Those that want to place them on public property and pay for it, fine. As long as that right is made available for anyone else. Posting them without defining the direct origin will not do because we all know where they come from and what religious faith it represents.
Even the Founding Fathers recognized the danger of an official religion and that becomes possible if Government advances one faith over another. They made that clear during their time as it should be clear now.We both have a problem with our rationalization of "accommodation."
I agree with you all through your private funds part. But, reality sucks. Imagine a courthouse lawn with a manger scene, and a Satanic Rites scene, and a ... etc. It doesn't work. The town would be in an uproar, the lawn would look disorganized and terrible. It just doesn't work. We've seen occasions of this exact occurrence in the news. Our accommodation thought makes sense, but it isn't supportable.
Your 'ten Commandments' thought seems right. Which is why I have been stressing the bare concept: a society should promote good morals to their youth, and not the partisan (or Kirk's) religiosity. In this case, society means government. Without the religious reasoning, I think a government should proselytize to their youth. Indoctrinate the hell out of good moral values. The more a society lives by them, the more successful it will be.
Next? Imagine the fun in a discussion concerning effective sources for morals. Where do they come from? I'll take the view that there are only two sources: faith or nurture. Religion or upbringing, and that religion is the best source for morals because theirs are voluntarily believed to be true, not simply accepted as a rule or law. I don't think you can support your contention that good core morals can come from anywhere.
GA“I agree with you all through your private funds part. But, reality sucks. Imagine a courthouse lawn with a manger scene, and a Satanic Rites scene, and a ... etc. It doesn't work. The town would be in an uproar, the lawn would look disorganized and terrible. It just doesn't work. We've seen occasions of this exact occurrence in the news. Our accommodation thought makes sense, but it isn't supportable.’
I have heard of such a situation in actuality not to long ago. If we let people decide Satanism is unacceptable, next it will be Kwanza. there is a price we pay for allowing all to participate and a bigger price to pay if we don’t. I don’t see any reason why one display cannot be placed in another area on the same property without the problems of contradictions and conflicts.
Which is why I say teaching in basic core values excludes Satan and his values.
Let’s promote good morals, leave out the compulsory displays, have common secular rules to follow not based on any particular religion or sect and allow parents and places of worship to fill in the blanks consistent with their professed faith or lack of same that they subscribe to.
I leave the role of encouraging obedience to the law upon the government in the common secular fashion and leave other deeply moral concepts to families and churches. Let our leaders by their behavior set a good example as to what living by a moral code mean.
Most religions have positive moral codes that are to guide us. Why struggle over whose religion and codes takes hegemony over the others? As I don’t know anyone with a correct, indisputable answer to all of this. For children, the responsibiilty for proper upbringing lie with the parents. I don’t like the idea of Judeo Christians arranging things so that their beliefs are the only legitimate ones and forcing us all to adhere to that.
Good core morals often times come from recognition of a higher power laying down laws, but what do atheists believe? I believe ethics can be a competitive source for good moral behavior having nothing to do with religion.I warned you the "accommodation" stance wasn't supportable. You didn't listen.
How about Peoria? You're the mayor of Peoria, and your town square only has 200 sq. ft. of available open space. You have 20 'religions' asking to put scenes there. You know there isn't room for all, but you have to 'accommodate' them. What do you do? Size restrictions that would turn a manger scene into a poster on an easel or a Sukkah into a tabletop diorama or ... Would you set criteria to what qualifies as a religious display?
And what about other accommodations? How about a school class that wants to perform a Christian-themed play on the school stage, for school students? Your accommodation doesn't cost much, just a little more work for the janitor. Peoria is a majority Christian community, so you know the play would be appreciated. It's a win-win until the Satinist or Islamist or whoever asks to do the same thing. Nobody but the Satanists want it or would attend it. You need to hire security as a precaution, etc. etc. It's a lose-lose. What do you do?
You do what the previous mayor did. You don't accommodate. You don't allow any displays, and you don't accommodate any street closings. The township (government) wins (they don't get sued) and everyone else loses. Even the Satanists.
Same thing for the 10 Commandments. How many other religions' moral edicts would you have to also display? That's a lose-lose too. The important and desirable promotion goals turn into a wall of multiple-choice pick-your-own morals menu selections. Surely you don't think that would serve the purpose of promoting good morals?
Nope, we can't defend the "accommodation" thought without some more work establishing a base to work from.
GANo, I don’t concede as there is always a work around, it may now be “first come, first serve” until space is exhausted. We need secular rules as to availability of space for any one display, no rocket science there. Restrictions if any are based on secular rules, not the nature of the displays.
As a majority Christian community, there may well not be enough students of other religions to put on or support a school play. No one is being denied access or accommodation. There is the tendency for 90 percent Christian population to have more resources to put a play together, and there is no compulsory obligation as students are not required to participate nor attend. again, not rocket science. Are there really enough Satanists children in Peoria to put on a school play? Are there enough parents and children that would want to attend the show? I should not need to hire security in a law abiding city like Peoria.
My point about the 10 commandments, the main issue that I continue to reiterate is “compulsory”. Why compulsory? There should be nothing on the wall except standard school rules and behavior codes and they may well undergirded with a religious code as a foundation, but that need not be a point of contention in a public school.And I don't "concede" the point either. Yet. You made me look. Surprise, surprise. It appears our modern courts have been inching toward some form of "accommodation."
It seems the law (the court's view of it) now allows some judgment flexibility in both composition and intent. An example offered was about a nativity scene that included a Santa. It was allowed because the intent was to celebrate the Christmas season, rather than promote Christianity — as illustrated by the inclusion of Santa. There were other examples, but the surprise to me was that I thought the trend was going in the opposite direction.
I'm not ready to abandon the accommodation thing yet (a nagging thought is that the same logic would also apply to the 10 Commandments: imagine a life-size jolly Santa with them in his hand as his Christmas gift list).
That was news to me, and it took a chunk out of my support for it. I told you I was still working on the it. ;-)Well, I did think some more, along with my morning coffee, and was left feeling kinda unsatisfied. It's those damn 'nagging thoughts.' The quip about "making it to the bridge" feels hollow.
The problem is a definition thing. I think we're defining morals differently. Cred keeps equating morals to rules and laws. That's not my definition. Rules and laws are about "can do" and morals are bout "how to." Morals are guides to living a good life as a good person — because you want to. Rules and laws are about "have to." They're not the same to me.
But, as I scanned the thread concerning that definition thing, I found some glimmers of a silver lining. Some headlines to highlight:
Breaking News:
Credence2 agrees with Charlie Kirk that morals are important to our society.
Credence2 agrees with Charlie Kirk that a government should make efforts to promote morality.
Credence2 agrees with Charlie Kirk that Christian principles were a driving force in our successful Founding.
Strike 3! You're outta the club.
GA ROFLMAO ;-oNow, after you received these minor concessions, what about the “wall between Church and State”? I still say that wall needs to be maintained and nurtured for the sake of retaining important freedoms and rights.
My beliefs are similar to Charlie Kirk’s only along the margins, we are not pals nor kindred in any other way.
Rules and laws have foundations generic enough that they can be accepted by all. Morals, having a religious foundations are not the sole property of any one single religion. That single religion cannot not be promoted, or better yet, put in a condition of compulsory observance or adherence in a society that vaunts freedom of religion.Hey, that morning "Breaking News" chuckle was friendly. Your agreement "along the margins" is reasonable. Coming from you, it's more than reasonable. (that poke snuck out)
Regarding the "separation" issue, considering your responses in the "accommodation" sections, we likely agree on this one.
Your response reinforces that definition difference thing. It'll have to come later; getting through this one was taxing. My brain needs a break.
But, rules and laws are nothing like morals, and for morals to make a difference, the source almost has to be religious.
GA
Agree again... dammit Cred... and I was ready to write you off completely.
I agree.
If you want your child educated in a Catholic School... that school whether it receives federal funding or not should be allowed to express its religion in whatever form is prudent for Catholics.
If you want your child educated in a school teaching Sharia Law or Judaism or whatever... and that school exists... they should be allowed to express similarly.
In public schools... not operated by a faith or geared toward a faith... there should be no mention of a particular faith.
And for that matter, it is no place to be having Pride Month celebration or discussions of sexual preference... especially pre-high school.See, Ken we are not so far apart on a few things…..
Probably not... we prioritize different things... and the reasons are understandable, different experiences, and not just the obvious and often discussed... but having family, children, puts a different spin on things... being detached from Main Stream Media, all of it, also widens the differences.
Often I see outrage on here from you or others... and I have no clue... I have to go find out what the hoopla is about... its been that way for a while... I mean, I was clueless about what was going on Jan 6th, I had no idea why the response was so severe... until I went and watched how it was being framed by the likes of CNN and MSNBC... "worse than Pearl Harbor"... "should be hung as traitors"... yeah, bit over the top...
That is the problem with today's American media... it is partisan, biased and hyperbolic... so I stay away from all of it.
As to Jan 6... some 'official' info:
There were 26 confidential human sources (informants) who were in Washington, D.C., on January 6 in the vicinity of the crowd at the Capitol.
These are not FBI employees they're private individuals paid or incentivized by the FBI.
4 entered the Capitol, and 13 more entered the restricted perimeter, but none were authorized to do so, break laws, or encourage violence. Most attended on their own initiative without notifying the FBI, according to 'official' reports.
These were most likely the ones who smashed the windows and instigated the initial push into the Capitol building. Make of this what you will.
"If that works, it offers an understanding of what their words meant. I say they meant exactly what they say; the government cannot prohibit or restrict religious freedom. Not that it cannot touch any involvement with any religion."
I think you're right in that we need to understand what the founders were saying. They said what they said because some of them were known to demand obeisance from others to their specific god (or at least the people claiming to speak for their god). Others recognized this, including some of those making such demands, and refused to be a part of a nation where government could choose a religion.
So, to placate everyone, it was decided that government could not dictate a religion. It could not force Puritanism onto everyone. It could not force the country to Islam. And it could not force others into Christianity, regardless of what sect government chose for everyone.
This seems pretty plain to me; government cannot promote, force or dictate any religion over any other. That includes Christianity, and it most definitely means that the tenets of Christianity cannot be forced onto a nation of people that may or may not accept it willingly.
There is another problem as well. God's demands, His requests and his desire for worship is given to us through men. That invisible ET in the sky never communicates to the man-in-the-street; always to a priesthood that then tells us what ET told them how we should behave. There is no recourse, there is no questioning, for it comes from God. And THAT is a major, major problem. Few indeed are the numbers of shamans, priests, ministers or pastors that has been removed by their own people. By others, yes. But very very seldom by their own set of believers that find that shaman to be the voice of God. We do not need an uncontrolled and uncontrollable man (or woman, gotta be PC here) telling us that whatever comes from their mouth is actually from an invisible, undetectable extra terrestrial creature in the sky that we can neither question or ignore. You would set it up that these priests, claiming the Voice of God, should dictate to the rest of us the very structure and roots of our culture, our society, our world and life.I was cruising along nodding yep, yep, yep, and "That's a good point; my explanations should have included 'over others'."
And then came the 'God's demands' part. It might be right (makes sense to me), but I've worked hard to keep religious 'God's edicts' out. None of the value I attribute to Christianity's influence, in this discussion, has anything to do with because God said so.
If I'm wrong, and the authors did intend for the clause to be strictly black and white, for the reasons you mention, I think there would have been more wording. Or maybe not, maybe that's the reason for the wording chosen. I'm gonna have to 'think on it' some more.
GA
To the last Paragraph... I do not think they would "revert"... I think some other nation would have come along and forced them to be a bit more militant and "conservative"... or they would have been overwhelmed by a superior nation.
For all the flaws of America... and the UK before it... they transformed this continent and this world to the level of civilization and humanity that we have today.
They ultimately evolved to abolish slavery... something that does exist in too many places still... they evolved to give all people equal opportunity regardless of race... something that does not exist in too many places (Japan, China, North Korea, South Africa to name a few).
When America falters... becoming some fascist or socialist/communist state... that all goes away.
I believe you are too far down a dark rabbit hole... and I think you recognize it... you have chosen "a side" and by doing so, you are one of the many trying to bring about America's demise.
When you choose to accept what your side does... right or wrong... be it Trans (men) competing against women in sports... or children being mutilated (sex change)... or not saying 'why was a person arrested 14 times sill on the streets!!!' and instead saying 'you are only targeting him because he is black!!!' after you watch a video of said person brutally and mercilessly murdering a poor girl minding her own business...
There is no place to go with you... it is sad... but you are exactly what you think you are fighting...you have become the evil you hope to defeat.
IMO... I do not mean to offend... I am saddened by it and have been for some time. As I have often said, you helped make me aware of my own biases, which I fight against... you no longer seem to fight against yours.Well, Ken
Also, not offense intended.
Does “conservative” to mean racist or intolerant? Are the terms and meanings synonymous?
I choose the only side that promotes my values and ensures my continued survival in dignity and equality and that is not represented by the current administration and the conservatives. Rather than live in a fascist dictatorial regime, I would see it all crumble first, but again, that is just my opinion. I can longer consider America the same as it once was.
I know what I am fighting and what we have been fighting for for a long time. So, What have you learned? You are one of the most stone cold righties in the forum.
You focus on one crime, while thousands like them occur daily? Nowhere to go with me, perhaps, but I remain a staunch Democrat and progressive type liberal and my best interests have always advised me to remain so.Neither. It means in that particular... more strict... less liberal... less of a welfare state... less socialist... when you are worried about defending the nation and protecting your borders and not being absorbed by another nation (IE - Ukraine - Russia) you have to be a bit more 'conservative'.
This is where we see things differently.
This is where I believe the Main Stream Media has created an image of what Trump and his Administration is... and you have bought it hook, line and sinker.
This is where you are lost... IMO... because you don't challenge what they tell you... you accept it.
There are two people who I believed in... who I listened to, who I watched to see what they fought for... they both started out disliking Trump.
They both started out as Liberal Democrats...
They both raised alarm... risked EVERYTHING they had... Life... Careers... and still do... one of them risked an unimaginable (to me) fortune 45 billion dollars... to secure one platform for We the People to have 'Free Speech'.
Tulsi Gabbard
Elon Musk
There are many other Democrats that crossed the line and now serve the Trump Administration today.
That is not because they love fascism or racism or sexism or would support those things...
It is because Leftists... the Progressive Woke... are that dangerous to our nation and the world.
I pondered on this all night, and for a bit this morning.`
Just a few points of 'clarity,' before we let this one go.
My enthusiasm carried me away. I thought you could discuss the concept without the details, but you can't. You have a position (your 'values are as blue as they get') that it doesn't matter if an issue is right or wrong, it only matters whether it agrees with your partisan ideology.
So far, in every question about the concept, your response is to argue the details of it, rather than the concept itself. The last offer was simply about the basic concept—without any details, yet look at your response: you start with claiming how Blue you are, and then you fill a page with grievances about details that have no relevance to the question.
I'm not looking for a 'gotcha.' There's no trickery. Just a push to look at the foundations of your argument. I was enjoying the discussion, not fighting for a partisan victory.
GAI enjoyed the discussion, the blue comment was unfortunate. But my position stands, why not take the time and effort to properly refute it, if you dare. Perhaps then, you can see that you are the one dancing and I wait for you to get off from the dance floor.
What do you want, your inquiries continue to be cryptic in their very nature. What answer are you looking for?I'd jump on a chance to 'refute' (or agree with) your 'Blue' positions, but we have to at least agree on what is being argued. I can only guess my responses seem cryptic because you know where you want to go and my answers keep harping on where we are (or were) before moving on to where you want to be. *shrug*
For illustration, not as questions or challenges:
You don't want the Christian 10 commandments forced into classrooms. To you, that's a Blue principle. I also don't want that, so it's not a point of contention. Why discuss it?
What I do want is the beneficial values that come to a society with agreed common morals. The question then is, do you see that as a benefit too? Do you see morals as a value — not anyone's particular values — just the value of a moral society?
For me, that seems so basic that I couldn't imagine you disagreeing. And if you did, then that's not a common-ground point, and my direction is blocked. If the value of morals isn't commonly held, there's no need to argue which ones.
If you didn't disagree, then a start would be whether society should be concerned with promoting those values? Again, that was so basic for me, it's like asking if a society should promote math education. Of course, a society benefits from an educated populace.
If that works for you, and you did agree that morals are a value beneficial to society, then the math reasoning applies just as logically to morals. That was where things broke down. We never got there. You skipped that step and jumped right to the specifics of Christianity.
Or, my responses could seem cryptic because I'm just talking in circles. ;-)
GAOk
“You don't want the Christian 10 commandments forced into classrooms. To you, that's a Blue principle. I also don't want that, so it's not a point of contention. Why discuss it?”
Why does adherence to the idea that establishment of any religious sect is a blue idea? I think that from the Constitution, the concept of neither opposing nor advancing religion, establishment by its very definition must be prohibited. But, again, we should not be discussing that, right?
————-
“What I do want is the beneficial values that come to a society with agreed common morals. The question then is, do you see that as a benefit too? Do you see morals as a value — not anyone's particular values — just the value of a moral society?”
YES, it is of benefit, otherwise what is left is pure mayhem. And, YES, morals have value.
————-
“If you didn't disagree, then a start would be whether society should be concerned with promoting those values? Again, that was so basic for me, it's like asking if a society should promote math education. Of course, a society benefits from an educated populace.”
YES, I agree, society should be concerned about promoting those values.
So, what’s next?
"our design was influenced and founded on Christian principles, not that it is the only religion to have them. His only arrogance is to think his religion is the right one. All religious believers think the same thing, right?
Yep, only the law can prescribe. Who is the law? It's us through our representatives. On moral decisions, what is the predominant influence for each of us individually? It's probably going to be the morality of our faith, or the morality of their nurturing (in absence of religious faith). Either way, the morality comes from somewhere. Sound right?
So where would the morality that guided the Founders and delegates come from? The obvious answer is one you deny, from the culture of the time." - Gus (the Aristotle of our times)
It has not... and never will be said in a more concise and easily understandable way.What a wonderful surprise I came across this morning, a video that covered the wide spectrum of this thread and many like it that have recently been had...
It acts as a great overview of issues such as how religion and family were perceived not so long ago in politics (harkening back to the dark ages of the Clinton Administration)... and much further back... the Founding Fathers... the impact the French Revolution had on them and the founding of America... the Left and Right that existed even then.
I time stamped it to the most relevant part for a quick view, but recommend the whole video:
https://youtu.be/b1YbQ0LNWxQ?t=466Helluva way to start the day. That was a homerun link Ken, all 40 minutes of it.
I think he makes a lot of sense. The origin story of "The Left and Right was like a Duh! moment. His reasoning is right up my alley.
GAI thought so... glad you liked it.
I think it warrants further consideration... the whole part where he noted people who want Children and Families are Conservative and care about tomorrow...
While people that don't want children are wanting to tear the whole system down and are much more likely to condone violence to do so...
If you don't care about family, children, and the future... perhaps it would be a good thing that your voice is muted in the town-square and in politics.
Psychopaths and nihilists and anarchists... not really needed to help develop a better tomorrow or a safer society IMO.
Related Discussions
- 140
Show me where does the Constitution mention Christ?
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
Since when is America a "Christian" country? I challenge anyone to find a single mention of Jesus Christ in any of our founding documents."God" does not equal "Christ." I swear to God, yes. I swear to Jesus His son? No.One nation under God, ok. One nation under the...
- 25
The Truth about The Separation of Church and State
by Mick Menous 10 years ago
As far as this whole Separation of Church and State thing in the United States is concerned, I personally believe that it is necessary. For example, the words “Separation of Church and State” are not physically found in the US Constitution. Yet it does say that, quote:“No law shall be passed...
- 30
Why did the 'founding fathers' separate church and state?
by TessSchlesinger 5 years ago
They didn't believe in separation of church and state, which is why it's not in the constitution. There was a big debate about it. Jefferson did but he was out voted. Also most of them were Christians. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2546951/posts
- 17
Was The United States Founded As A Christian Nation?
by PhoenixV 10 years ago
Was The United States Founded As A Christian Nation?
- 80
"Separation of Church and State" doesn't seem to apply to Islam here.
by Brenda Durham 15 years ago
This is so much hogwash that's going on in America, perpetuated by the Leftist idealogues who want to shove the Bible into a mudhole along with the Christians.They say Christianity (they label it "religion") is "separate" from State policies, yet they allow a Muslim Imam to have...
- 7
Do you believe in "separation of church and state"?
by Art Summers 12 years ago
Do you believe in "separation of church and state"?JFK put forth this policy. In recent days GOP candidate Rick Santurom has challenged this by stating"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George...