Church and State help

[AENeuman]

So I'm teaching a government class this fall. I want to use this current San Diego cross thing as an example. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060724/.../cross_dispute

First, from what I can tell the Church and State issue has become one of negation. It is not that all religions are welcomed, it's that all religions are excluded. This then makes the non-religious group the most powerful. However, it is silly to say the non-religious are without beliefs, in fact they are united under a common belief.

Second, why are legislative and executive decisions clearly based on fundamental Christian values not attacked? Evolution, abortion, stem cell, death penalty decisions are the results one's religious beliefs. And wasn't that what the founding fathers were trying to avoid? I don't think Jefferson would give a hoot about a cross when the government is oppressing scientific teachings, for example.

[st.cronin]

I'm almost positive the ACLU is trying to get Las Cruces, NM to change it's name, which is Spanish for The Crosses.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

So I'm teaching a government class this fall. I want to use this current San Diego cross thing as an example. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060724/.../cross_dispute

First, from what I can tell the Church and State issue has become one of negation. It is not that all religions are welcomed, it's that all religions are excluded. This then makes the non-religious group the most powerful. However, it is silly to say the non-religious are without beliefs, in fact they are united under a common belief.

Second, why are legislative and executive decisions clearly based on fundamental Christian values not attacked? Evolution, abortion, stem cell, death penalty decisions are the results one's religious beliefs. And wasn't that what the founding fathers were trying to avoid? I don't think Jefferson would give a hoot about a cross when the government is oppressing scientific teachings, for example.

I think a lot of this is flawed.

The separation of church and state does mean the exclusion of religion (to a certain degree) from the government. Like that "10 Commandments" in the court house deal. I really don't think this empowers "non-religious" types what-so-ever. Also, a common belief in "nothing" really isn't all that uniting. I guess there are athiest groups out there (I know they have a large message board), but they are not (and likely never will be) a powerful or even empowered group. Believing that "There is no God" is not all that unifying.

Second, uh you don't think that "evolution, abortion, stem cell, death penalty decisions" are "attacked"? Seriously? Abortion is one of (if not) the most divisive political arguments in the U.S. Has been for years. The evolution "debate", stem cell research, and death penalty are easily in the top 10-15.

Given that the vast majority (if not all) of our politicians claim to be a member of one religion or another (mainly Christian or Jewish), it's impossible for them totally divorce their views from their beliefs, just as it would be for someone who is not religious. I really don't think it's a problem for people to base their morals, views, principles, or what have you on religion. It's near impossible not to.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Second, uh you don't think that "evolution, abortion, stem cell, death penalty decisions" are "attacked"? Seriously? Abortion is one of (if not) the most divisive political arguments in the U.S. Has been for years. The evolution "debate", stem cell research, and death penalty are easily in the top 10-15.

They're not attacked, except rarely, on grounds of separation of church and state.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Evolution, abortion, stem cell, death penalty decisions are the results one's religious beliefs. And wasn't that what the founding fathers were trying to avoid? I don't think Jefferson would give a hoot about a cross when the government is oppressing scientific teachings, for example.

no, they were trying to avoid the creation of a state sponsored religion, or an official national religion, whichever you prefer to call it. they were trying to ensure that the government would not be able to force their religious beliefs onto the populace...the reason that is different than what you are saying now about votes and vetoes being based on religion is that those choices are up to the individual...if we dont like them, we can elect someone of a different religion next chance we get. if we had a national religion, that possiblity would not exist for us.

[ISiddiqui]

Actually, it isn't clear WHAT the founders wanted. Jefferson sounds like he'd be very exclusionist of things that seemed to show favor for one religion over another (calling for a "wall of seperation"). Others simply wanted to prevent a federal government religion.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Actually, it isn't clear WHAT the founders wanted. Jefferson sounds like he'd be very exclusionist of things that seemed to show favor for one religion over another (calling for a "wall of seperation"). Others simply wanted to prevent a federal government religion.

On the contrary, I think it is clear. A simple reading of the Bill of Rights supports saldana's viewpoint stated above. The wording of the actual Constitution (not the Supreme Court's redefinition of it) supports the premise that the intent was to prevent government from 1. establishing a national religion, and 2. preventing people from exercising their own religions. As for Jefferson's over-used, often out-of-context statements ("separation of church and state" and "wall of separation"), those were in a letter to a group of Baptists who thought the language wasn't clear enough and feared their more minor denomination would be stamped out by the abundance of Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.

What was the original intent really isn't the hotbed of debate on this issue. It's whether original intent is best to govern in 2006, or whether our society has evolved beyond that point. Does the Constitution need to "live, breathe, and adapt" to fit modern circumstances? The Supreme Court's rulings--especially those in the latter 1900's that have shaped our nation's vernacular on this subject--have clearly leaned away from original intent to "the best way to use these words in our modern society."

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by saldana

...the reason that is different than what you are saying now about votes and vetoes being based on religion is that those choices are up to the individual...if we dont like them, we can elect someone of a different religion next chance we get. if we had a national religion, that possiblity would not exist for us.

By that logic, anything can be done that favors any religion because if the voters don't like it they can just vote them out, which clearly isn't the case.

As to the original poster's question, all laws are based off of some form of morality. And I think that to function, that morality aspect has to be separated from the beliefs. For example, saying that 'life begins at conception' is a moral position that is not based only on the belief in some god, as opposed to 'you must go to church on Sunday' is based on the belief in some god. Similarly, 'you should not murder someone' is based on a morality that does not rely on a belief in god. You can be a complete strong atheist and still see why being able to kill anyone at will is a bad idea for a society.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm almost positive the ACLU is trying to get Las Cruces, NM to change it's name, which is Spanish for The Crosses.

Looks like your almost positively wrong. A search reveals a lawsuit about getting the city to remove three Christian-esque crosses from the city logo, but I see nothing about changing the city's name. I don't know that the ACLU is involved, but it certainly seems like something they would be up their alley.

To AE's question, I don't think discussing the cross issue would be appropriate for your class. There are plenty of topics you can cover in government that are more instructive. I also think you should avoid it because you seem to have some personal beliefs on the issue which would seem to impair your ability to discuss the issue in a historic context objectively. If you want to cover the topic from an historic and legal perspective, that's fine, but the way you've brought up the subject here would not be approrpriate for the classroom. Honestly, it seems like you're trying to start a fight.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

On the contrary, I think it is clear. A simple reading of the Bill of Rights supports saldana's viewpoint stated above. The wording of the actual Constitution (not the Supreme Court's redefinition of it) supports the premise that the intent was to prevent government from 1. establishing a national religion, and 2. preventing people from exercising their own religions. As for Jefferson's over-used, often out-of-context statements ("separation of church and state" and "wall of separation"), those were in a letter to a group of Baptists who thought the language wasn't clear enough and feared their more minor denomination would be stamped out by the abundance of Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.

On the actuality, the language and intent are NOT clear. Their vagueness is part of why the debate has occured. If it was clear, they wouldn't see such divergent views on what 'establishment' actually means. There is a very, very in depth discussion among legal scholars about not only what the Establishment Clause is after years of jurisprudence, but also what it was meant to be. After all, the 1st Amendment underwent something like 22 drafts. Which ones are most indicative of the intent? Or are none of them, since, in the end, the 1st Amendment was a compromise among competing interest.

As for Jefferson. It isn't simply his letter toward the Danbury Convention, but also other statements made and his acts as President (he never declared a day of Thanksgiving or prayer for one). His ideas of a 'wall of seperation' are in no way taken out of context when you look at his full body of work.

What was the original intent really isn't the hotbed of debate on this issue. It's whether original intent is best to govern in 2006, or whether our society has evolved beyond that point. Does the Constitution need to "live, breathe, and adapt" to fit modern circumstances? The Supreme Court's rulings--especially those in the latter 1900's that have shaped our nation's vernacular on this subject--have clearly leaned away from original intent to "the best way to use these words in our modern society."

That is true; however, there is a small, but determined, group that thinks original intent does matter greatly and the interesting thing about that viewpoint is that original intent is very hard to determine. Especially when you have a document rife with compromises and multiple drafts of documents.

I will say this, though, almost nothing is based on original intent anymore. A lot of it is based on a textual reading and some others say they are on the original intent, but really it is just cherry picking some people who voted for it who tend to support the position.

I think most people are happy that we don't stick to original intent anymore. It would be severely limiting for one (what do about a proposal to build interstate highways for one).

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I will say this, though, almost nothing is based on original intent anymore. A lot of it is based on a textual reading and some others say they are on the original intent, but really it is just cherry picking some people who voted for it who tend to support the position.

I think most people are happy that we don't stick to original intent anymore. It would be severely limiting for one (what do about a proposal to build interstate highways for one).

Would you please let Justice Scalia in on this?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Would you please let Justice Scalia in on this?

The really amusing thing on this is that Justice Scalia is NOT an original intent-ist. I was about to say that the Scalia revolution has made original intent passe . Scalia is actually one of the big guys in the textualist movement. However, he does tend to use the meaning of words as they were at the time the law/Constitution was written. It is in no way an original intent view... maybe more of an original textualist (I believe it is called 'originalism' to distinguish from original intent - and it isn't in the province of solely conservatives, but liberals like Hugo Black were originalist textualists as well).

The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words

- Justice Antonin Scalia, 10/18/1996

[revrew]

Just for the record, I am a hard-core, original intent constitutionalist (not the party per se, but the philosophy). I would love to see our fat, bloated federal government put back in the box the founders created to limit it. I wonder sometimes if the Southern States didn't have the right to secede, and--slavery aside--wonder if I would have lobbied to join them. I think the Department of Education, the Federal Income Tax, and several other "accepted" parts of the federal government need to be done away with. And I wonder sometimes, if Libertarians--who hate government intrustion and value individual liberty--might not consider joining constitutionalists in a third party committed to States' and Individual rights. But then, I'm a bit of a political idealist who feels both political parties have coveted the expansion of federal government to suit their own lust for power and have therefore thrown out any objective standard for interpreting the Constitution. "Just make it say whatever we want so we get more kudos from our constituencies". Blech. This is why I don't get into too many political threads and just stay with stuff I'm more cool-headed about...like religion

[Riggins44]

Originally Posted by revrew

Just for the record, I am a hard-core, original intent constitutionalist (not the party per se, but the philosophy). I would love to see our fat, bloated federal government put back in the box the founders created to limit it. I wonder sometimes if the Southern States didn't have the right to secede, and--slavery aside--wonder if I would have lobbied to join them. I think the Department of Education, the Federal Income Tax, and several other "accepted" parts of the federal government need to be done away with. And I wonder sometimes, if Libertarians--who hate government intrustion and value individual liberty--might not consider joining constitutionalists in a third party committed to States' and Individual rights. But then, I'm a bit of a political idealist who feels both political parties have coveted the expansion of federal government to suit their own lust for power and have therefore thrown out any objective standard for interpreting the Constitution. "Just make it say whatever we want so we get more kudos from our constituencies". Blech. This is why I don't get into too many political threads and just stay with stuff I'm more cool-headed about...like religion

I agree 100%. I typically bow out of any political discussion because I feel like it's a lost cause.




"Stop rolling down hill like a snowball headed for hell" - Merle Haggard

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by revrew

...the Federal Income Tax...

Just curious, but where would you want to get revenue from then?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Just curious, but where would you want to get revenue from then?

I would prefer a national sales tax that excluded essential goods and services, such as food, clothing, utilities, etc. I think this kind of plan would actually accomplish a fairer system--allowing the poor to escape tax burden, while preventing the wealthy from doing the same. It would imitate the benefits of the "flat tax," while also encouraging investment vs. reckless spending. That's my theory, anyways. And I'm an even bigger advocate of reducing the federal revenue requirement by slashing spending to a level considered beyond painful by the average American.

[ISiddiqui]

Ugh... the Fair Tax. Even with the exclusions, it is a still a horrid idea IMO, because of how it hits the poor so much harder (for example, the tax on a car will screw over the poor much more than wealthier folks than a progressive income tax would).

And how easy it would be to get around it if you lived on the border with Canada or Mexico? Just buy all your stuff there. Unless there is a proposal to have individuals calculate how much they spent overseas and how much (and what) would be taxed?

Though, just my opinion, of course.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think a VAT could be a good idea in theory, if made appropriately progressive, but I don't think it would work in practice because the tax would be too high, and thus there would be too much cheating. The VAT would have to be somewhere in the order of thirty or forty percent.