New Amendment to the Constitution

[Back]

The Constitution is the highest writ of society. No religious text, members of a religious body, or traditions from a religious origion can superceed the authority of the Constitution.

Yeah or nay?

[Gan]

I thought it was a given that nothing can superceed the constitution anyways, well except for an amendment...

[Back]

I thought it was a given that nothing can superceed the constitution anyways, well except for an amendment...

It may be assumed, but it is not in black and white, as many folks will be happy to mention for one reason or another.

I wonder what a strict Constitutionalist like Supreme Court Judge Joseph Scalia would think of this.

[Stanley Burrell]

Yeah, in the sense of being in our brains and part of our cognitive function.

Nay, in the sense that this would create a paradigm shift causing certain groups of people in the States to start wantonly killing each other?

[GuildRat]

The Constitution clearly states that there will be a separation of State and Church....

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.



As far as I'm concerned that holds true.

Otherwise the Catholics, Pagans, Baptist and any other type of worship would be in jeopardy.

Not to sleight any other religious beliefs....Budhist or what have you.

[Drew]

The Constitution clearly states that there will be a separation of State and Church....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;






Actually, when you read it, it just keeps congress from establishing religion or forbidding the establishment and practice thereof, it doesn't do anything to keep religion out of government.

[Jazuela]

It could be interpreted two ways, because of the poor wording. "Establishment of religion" could mean the act of establishing a religion. It could -also- mean the "place" of religion, just like a school is considered an establishment of learning.

The spirit of the law, historically, was only to prevent the government from dictating an official religion for the country. That was the whole reason this country was founded; to escape the official Church of England and ensure that -this- country would never have an official religious order. Unfortunately that doesn't preclude the possibility that the country's leaders dictate various types of christian morals to its people. As long as it isn't an official Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or Mormon or Baptist or Muslim or whatever else country, they can pick and choose all kinds of snippets from the different Christian sects and push for them to become law. The constitution does not prevent it, and there is no current law forbidding it. Christianity isn't *one* religion, it is a category of many many different religions, each with their own bible and methodology (though most of them are similar). If the powers that be want to turn the USA into a "Christian Nation" the constitution doesn't stop them. It only stops them (from a literal sense, not from the spirit of the law) from making it a specific sect of christianity.

[sst]

Backlash where did your crusade against all things religious stem from? Were you abused by a catholic priest as a kid or something?

[Back]

Backlash where did your crusade against all things religious stem from? Were you abused by a catholic priest as a kid or something?

Nope. I'm lucky to have had a very decent childhood. Its not religion I'm against, per say, its the practice of twisting and using it to claim a higher authority over people that I disagree with.

[Gan]

As even as anti-organized religon as I am, I have no issue with seeing a bible in a courthouse, or hearing prayer in schools, etc. Because I still have the free will either to look, avert my eyes, participate, or not perticipate.

I understand the historical significance of how Christian morals helped established peace and a moral baseline of what is right and wrong in America. I also understand that the idea at the time of the founding of our government was to seek relief from an established religous state.

What I do not appreciate are those who see only absolutes with regards to religous views and then seek to apply those absolutes against the free will of others. (Does that make me a religous apologist?)

With the evolution of the American society, and the introduction of more and more cultures into our community, I do see a need for our government to strive harder to remain a neutral standpoint with regards to religon and influenced politics/laws.

So I'm kind of torn on the idea of a religous neutrality clause in the constitution. Thus far, majestic vagueness has balanced the law with the religous movement in the courts. For the time being, I have 'faith' (ironic) in the courts to maintain that balance. When the courts fail to do so, then I would be encouraged to support such an amendment.

[Jazuela]

I kind of agree with Ganalon, though I am a little more wary of the current powers that be and their agendas. I get the feeling that they are more capable of corrupting their own religions, by thrusting them on the masses by force. Case in point, the abortion issue and (South? North?) Dakota's recently passed laws. It concerns me, but like Ganalon not enough to feel an amendment is needed quite yet. If trends continue as they have been I would probably lean more toward a course of action prohibiting by letter -and- spirit of the law any semblance of religion superceding the constitution. But if we're gonna go that far, we might as well get the "in god we trust" off our currency and remove the "under god" part from the Pledge, and return it back to what it was before the Knights of Columbus lobbied for its inclusion back in the 1950's.

Neither of these things offends me. But they do bring up questions on the intent of our country's government as it is involved in religion in general.

[Latrinsorm]

As I went into a little more in some other topic, the Constitution with very few exceptions dictates what the government can do to the people. For instance, the government can't restrict our freedom of speech, the government can't restrict our freedom of worship, the government has to let everyone of a certain age vote, and so on.

The way you used the word "society", Backlash, makes it sound like it's more a statement about interpersonal ethics in general; that is, no act that goes against the Constitution is permissible. The problem with this and all legalist ethics is that we know that the law (even the Constitution) isn't always morally correct (c.f. slavery, communally murdering adulteresses), so the equation you're implicitly making is that civil disobedience motivated by religion is morally wrong.

As that last motivation proviso indicates, the oddest part about this is you're only looking at one branch of ethics. If a person says "my dog told me that gays should all be put to death" or a person says "my God told me that gays should all be put to death", why would you be ok with the first person superseding the Constitution but not the second? If a person says "I have discovered through utilitarian calculus that the country as a whole will be happier if we brutally torture convicted murderers on national TV", why do you think that's acceptable but not a person who says "G-d demands an eye for an eye, therefore brutal murderers should be brutally murdered."?

[Back]

Ok, look, I'm no legal scholar, so my wording in the initial post, which I did on the fly, may not be worded properly to convey the intent.

The intent: Finally setting in stone, clearly, concisley and unequivicably the separation of church and state for the American government.

The ramifications of which I doubt would be anything more than just symbolic.

There is nothing stopping people from asking their dogs important moral questions and basing their decisions on it. Nor from consulting a holy scripture.

[TheEschaton]

As even as anti-organized religon as I am, I have no issue with seeing a bible in a courthouse, or hearing prayer in schools, etc. Because I still have the free will either to look, avert my eyes, participate, or not perticipate.

But you don't, when they ask you to take an oath on the Bible to swear to tell the truth. ;)


I understand the historical significance of how Christian morals helped established peace and a moral baseline of what is right and wrong in America. I also understand that the idea at the time of the founding of our government was to seek relief from an established religous state.

But Christian morals WEREN'T the baseline of what is right and wrong, as has been mentioned before, most of the founding fathers were Deists, and used humanism to set the "moral" baseline of what America is. If you want a logical argument, Christianity adopts humanist morality, and adapts it to its own agenda, which is why the two are similar, but the Christian one is more specific (IE, "You shouldn't kill people.....and if you do, you're going to hell!!!!!!!11")

-TheE-

[Artha]

But you don't, when they ask you to take an oath on the Bible to swear to tell the truth.
You can opt to swear on something else.

[Latrinsorm]

MAIN TOPIC

I'm not really sure if I follow you, Backlash. Let me ask you a few questions to try and nail this down, giving my best guess afterwards. Leaving aside the specific wording of any Amendment(s), in your proposed scenario what would happen if:
1) A Protestant minister runs for the House of Representatives.
2) A Protestant runs for the House of Representatives.
3) An atheist runs for the House of Representatives.
4) A guy who claims to be an atheist but is in actual fact a Reform Jew runs for the House of Representatives. I assume that he would be treated as (3) until his true persuasion was found out. Please examine both the possibility that he is discovered while campaigning and the possibility that he is discovered after being elected to office.
5) A scientist runs for the House of Representatives.

My best guess is both (1) and (2) have to forbidden from running. The reason I throw (5) in there is to illustrate just how pervasive "religiousness" really is. Are you only trying to get rid of the Church/Temple sort of religions? What about Dave the Satanist? Is not dogmatic faith in any principle equally as irrational?

RELIGIOUS TANGENT

This is going a bit afield, but I think if you really examine the Bible, tE, you'll see that it isn't really morality as we think of it today. The Ten Commandments are more of a contract (a dictated contract, but a contract nonetheless). It's not "do this or else", it's "this is what you will do". It's easy to draw the conclusion that punishment will follow given the OT tendency to burninate people, but if you just take the Ten Commandments it's an entirely different feel. As for Jesus, while he retains at least some of the Commandment feel I don't need to remind you of what he thought of letter-interpretation of the law. It's also very hard to say Jesus would be a proponent of willful punishment of wrongdoers. ("Father, forgive them", for instance.) It strikes me as more likely that Jesus would fall under the "estrangement from God"/"rehabilitation" understanding of Hell; by which I mean Hell would be self-created as opposed to divinely imposed. (This is partially why I find it so amusing when some folks go out of their way to tell me how great Hell is going to be because (in essence) "all the cool kids are going there".)

In short, I don't believe Christianity is essentially a condemnatory religion. Jesus simply said "love your neighbor/persecutor", did he not?

[Drew]

But Christian morals WEREN'T the baseline of what is right and wrong, as has been mentioned before, most of the founding fathers were Deists



If by "most" you mean perhaps four out of fifty-five, then yes, most of them were.

[Jazuela]

I always considered the 10 commandments affirmations, not laws or even "commandments." That is to say:

IF you love God,
Then you will honor your mother and father. Not because God commands it, but because that's what people who love God do.

IF you love God,
You won't put any other god before this one. Not because God requires it, but because that's how you would naturally feel, if you truly loved this God.

And so on and so forth.

All that aside, it doesn't matter who is in office, the Protestant, the minister, the Jew, the Catholic. As long as they aren't picking pieces of their bible and trying to get those pieces passed as law as a result of their personal beliefs (or the personal beliefs of the lobbyists, or whoever is footing the bill that week), they could have a Satan-worshipping Muslim Anarchist for all I care. The point is, that it shouldn't be about anyone's personal religious beliefs. It should be about what works for the people as a whole. And the people as a whole aren't Baptist. They're not Protestant. They're not Catholic, and they're not Jews or Muslims or Satanists or Athiests. The people, as a whole, are "non-denominational" and it should remain that way, insofar as the government is involved. The moment someone says "This act should be illegal because according to my religion, it is a sin" is the moment you know the person saying it should step out of the decision-making process completely.

[Latrinsorm]

I suppose the answer to that is what sort of religious person (that believes in a God to begin with) considers God second to anything? If I believe God is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving, why would I ever second-guess Him or put someone else's ideas above His? I'm supposed to represent the people's best interests, not their passing fancies. Who better to ask what is in a people's best interests than a benevolent cloud-dude that knows everything? I recognize not everyone does believe in Him, that doesn't make Him stop existing for me any more than my believing in Him makes Him exist for them.

Further, why are we still confining this to religion?
it shouldn't be about anyone's personal religious beliefs.How is my believing that black people are animal abominations because my parents told me so any different from my believing that black people are animal abominations because the anti-Yachub I worship told me so?

Consider this!
Dave actually does believe black people are animal abominations because his parents told him so.
I believe black people are my brothers in the human family because Jesus told me so.
You're actually saying Dave should win that argument and make his belief law? It even follows your "It should be about what works for the people as a whole." clause, because Dave doesn't consider black people people at all and free labor works out pretty good for the nonlaborers.

In short, how is "this act should be illegal because of my religious ideology" distinct from "this act should be illegal because of my nonreligious ideology" in any meaningful sense?

[Jazuela]

Uh, it's distinct because the topic of this thread pertains specifically to the part of the constitution declaring religious freedom. If you wanted to get into all the other freedoms, perhaps a new topic is appropriate?

[Mr. Mustache]

Pseudo-intellectual hacks.

Kill selves now.

[ElanthianSiren]

The Constitution is the highest writ of society. No religious text, members of a religious body, or traditions from a religious origion can superceed the authority of the Constitution.

Yeah or nay?

Yay -- excluding amendments.

If you don't theoretically have rules that everyone adheres to, you have a country of elitists, exempt from said rules when it suits their fancy. In principle, it's a good idea. In practice, it still has loopholes.

-M

[HarmNone]

Pseudo-intellectual hacks.

Kill selves now.

Well, hello there! :howudoing:

[Latrinsorm]

the topic of this thread pertains specifically to the part of the constitution declaring religious freedom.I disagree wholeheartedly. Nobody's saying a certain religion should be made illegal or paramount; that's the whole point of the actual amendment. (Also, I don't think I brought up any other freedoms in my post, but that's an aside.)

What we're talking about is actually a REDUCTION of religious freedom; that is, people are allowed to be however religious they want except when they want to make laws or any other governmental function. A police officer wouldn't be able to help out an orphan because he (the police officer) felt Christian sympathy, for instance.

The reason I asked is because it puzzles me how one irrational ideology is more distasteful than another simply because of the label on it. Neo-nazis have a place in government, but Christians don't? That's what we want? People who support euthanizing people at age 50 in accordance with an episode of Star Trek are people we want in government over John McCain?

If we want to get ideologies out, ok. Why would we start with ones that are sometimes really really good to have? Were the Quakers not abolitionists well before anyone else was? By extension, wouldn't we have wanted a whole Congress full of Quakers in 1783 instead of having to endure another 80 years of brutal genocide?

[Mr. Mustache]

Well, hello there! :howudoing:

Yes, hello?

[Jazuela]

I disagree wholeheartedly. (yada yada yada)

What part of the original post in this thread are you not understanding?

Here it is again:

Backlash wrote:
The Constitution is the highest writ of society. No religious text, members of a religious body, or traditions from a religious origion can superceed the authority of the Constitution.

Yeah or nay?

Backlash proposes an amendment for the *exclusive* purpose to deal with religion in government. That is what this thread is about. It isn't about comparing religious morality with other morality, or neo-Nazi dictators doing who knows what with who knows whom. It is *specifically* about religion and government. I refer you back to the option of creating a new thread if you wish to discuss something else, or go off on a tangent about how different approaches to government are better/worse. I have opinions on what you present as well, but I won't be posting them in THIS thread, because they have nothing to do with THIS thread.

Kapish?

[Drew]

They do have to do with this thread, if you are going to make an amendment like this it means you should consider what other similar amendments might mean.

[Latrinsorm]

What part of the original post in this thread are you not understanding?Mainly the part where we (apparently) care more about getting John McCain out of government then an atheist neo-Nazi. It's sort of like making a law against jaywalking before making a law against torture.

Unless someone can tell me why (all) religion is more wrong for proper governance than violent racism, the point stands.

(I'd also like someone to address the Quaker point, but that's more to the truth of the premise that religion is inherently incompatible with proper government.)

[Jazuela]

Like I said, I don't care if it's a neo-Nazi Athiest dictating his religious beliefs, or John McCain dictating his religious beliefs. Religious beliefs don't belong as the criteria for passing laws.

Oh and someone saying they are Athiests -are- expressing their religious beliefs. That IS their religious belief. And that doesn't belong as a criteria for law either. As I said (again) this country is non-denominational and should remain that way. If it doesn't, then one religion or another will become the criteria necessary to dictate and pass law, and all people embracing other religions will either riot to change it back, or lose and become subject to a religion they don't embrace.

Also I didn't see anything in Backlash's very short initial post even mentioning McCain or the Nazi party, so I have no idea where you got that from. Unless you're just digging into your own drama <shrug>

[Daniel]

The difference is that religion will be interpreted as stemming from a religious being, whereas Atheistic Nazism stems from a personal believe that is whollely in a different realm. By explicity outling religion as a basis for moral selection then you tacitly give all other avenues of thought validity as opposed to religious.

I agree that religion is a dangerous thing, but in this context you really have to look at what would happen if this was passed.

[Jazuela]

Also it should be pointed out that Nazis are not an Atheist group and are primarily Christians. Even Hitler was a baptised Catholic and encouraged religious instruction in schools because he felt secular education didn't support good moral living. Of course, we all know that HIS idea of good moral living, according to his twisted RELIGIOUS beliefs, resulted in the deaths of millions. He did what he did because of HIS religious beliefs (and because he was a sick fuck but that has nothing to do with Nazism or religion).

Racism stems from the "moral" belief, based on illogical religious references, that white people are the blessed and the entitled of God's creation. Every white supremacist group I've ever read about, or witnessed first-hand, claimed they were entitled to their sense of superiority because God told them so in a book somewhere.

When you come down to it, it's ALL about the religion, and how people can/do twist the religion to fit their personal agenda. Ditch the religion from government and you lose the agenda and get back to serving the people as a whole.

[Artha]

Might as well not let religious people vote, own businesses or use the trams.

[Sean of the Thread]

Racism stems from the "moral" belief, based on illogical religious references,



Wrong but I forgive you for being stupid.

[Latrinsorm]

When you come down to it, it's ALL about the religionIf that's so, why were the Quakers the first abolitionists instead of those clever Deists we hear so much about? How can you not agree that a Congress of Quaker ministers would have resolved the slavery issue (legally speaking, anyhow) in the 18th century, greatly minimizing the American participation in the most terrible genocide of history? How can we say that would be bad?
Also I didn't see anything in Backlash's very short initial post even mentioning McCain or the Nazi party, so I have no idea where you got that from.John McCain belongs to a religion. An atheist neo-Nazi doesn't. I agree that atheism can be religious in some cases, but it's incorrect to say it's a religion. It's like saying outer space is filled with air because it's filled with the lack of air (that is, the void).

I also think it's very unlikely that racism stems from religion, as the pro-racism messages in religion are heavily outweighed by the anti-racism messages. It's rather more likely that racism emerges, then seeks to cloak and justify itself, seizing upon (among other things) out-of-context religious passages.

[Warriorbird]

He did say TEXT...not person. He's not the only one drawing silly conclusions from a lack of material.

[Drew]

Also it should be pointed out that Nazis are not an Atheist group and are primarily Christians.


"Hitler and other Nazi leaders clearly made use of both Christian and Pagan symbolism and emotion in propagandizing the Germanic public, and it remains a matter of controversy whether Hitler believed himself a Christian, a heathen, or something else entirely. Some historians have typified Hitler as a neo-Pagan, whereas other writers have referred to Nazism's occasional outward use of Christian doctrine, regardless of what its inner-party mythology may have been. Many Nazi leaders subscribed either to a mixture of modern (pseudo-)scientific theories, as Hitler himself did, or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion#Nazism_and_Christianity

[Latrinsorm]

He did say TEXT...not person.What does "members of a religious body" mean to you?

[Jazuela]

Yes, he also said "no (members etc.) can supercede the authority of the constitution." Here it is again, since you missed it again:


The Constitution is the highest writ of society. No religious text, members of a religious body, or traditions from a religious origion can superceed the authority of the Constitution.

In other words, Backlash doesn't believe that a Catholic in the Cabinet should be allowed to influence the Laws *IF* *IF* *IF* his ideas of what should/should not occur are based on his religion and not on the authority of the constitution. IF ONE'S RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION THEN THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD ALWAYS TRUMP.

That's what he's saying, and I think Latrin and a few others are just adding more and more and more "stuff" into it to muddy the waters and derail and add their own agenda to the mix.

I also noted that I don't think it is necessary to make such an amendment at this time, but that the Government should be watched cautiously for trends indicating such a necessity.

[Latrinsorm]

That's what he's saying, and I think Latrin and a few others are just adding more and more and more "stuff" into it to muddy the waters and derail and add their own agenda to the mix.I don't know what exactly you think I missed. I specifically addressed the incoherence of believing in an omniscient, all-loving God but putting his command(ment)s aside. I'm also wondering how you can reconcile "IF ONE'S RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION THEN THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD ALWAYS TRUMP." with the Quaker/slavery example. How is it derailment to point out that religiousness really beats the snot out of secularness sometimes, morally speaking?

Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way, though. What, to you, is the purpose of making a law? Why do we make laws at all? That established, how do you suggest we are to make laws?

[ElanthianSiren]

I'm going to take a stab: laws are made to keep society orderly. In many ways, this point underscores the meat of the issue, as historically, it was the church that made and/or highly-influenced laws. It's a power struggle.

I think there has always been a fear in this country of religion "taking over," because we are so unique with regard to the amount of blend we ALLOW. When you look at other nations, you often see something that is all or nothing. For example, France, which is considered completely secular (no religion outside of privacy) or a non-secular nation like Afghanistan.

What we're arguing is that having morals doesn't make a person non-secular, and that's true IMO. I have morals, but I've yet to find a religion that satisfies me, for example. The crux with this argument is that either side is fought in the most extreme circumstance. Do I believe judges should legislate their religion? -No, and we have a Constitution that notes that they can't. Do I accept that judges are influenced by their religion in interperiting said Constitution, in as much as a scientist is influenced by Newtonian ideas or Einstein when looking at a new problem? -Absolutely. The key is balance IMO.

By the by, it was ironically Republicans who swore when JFK was elected that he would legislate morality from the Vatican. -Just a tidbit that I find amusing, personally.

-M

[Jazuela]

YAY Elanthian Siren, excellent post and you said what I was trying to say much better than I did. And obviously - I agree. It's a precarious balance, but balance is absolutely the key to legislation and for every "religiously-imposed" legal matter there needs to be a "non-religiously-imposed" side to make sure everything works out for the good of the people as a whole - not the majority - but as a complete unit of one: The People.

[Latrinsorm]

What we're arguing is that having morals doesn't make a person non-secularI don't think anyone was arguing that. I think what we're saying is that being non-secular doesn't make a person's morals any better or worse than a secular set when it comes to governance, either a priori or a posteriori. If we're going to let people use morals when they're making laws (and we really have to if we're going to have any sensible sort of lawmaking process), why do we care which sort of irrational basis they have if we're going to let some irrational bases in?
laws are made to keep society orderly.What do you think about laws that are largely unpopular in the short term but (we hope) become more popular as more people realize the law is Right? An example of what I mean: Did racial tensions begin to ease once the 12th Amendment was ratified, or did they begin to crescendo for the next 100 years? If the latter, was it therefore wrong to pass the 12th Amendment?

[Warriorbird]

I interpreted it that he was just saying the Pope or some religious official couldn't order people to do things that were against the law...which is just silly, but hey.