<p>I think it is truly an astonishing fact that in the year 2005, our president would deem that the most important qualification to be a lifetime-appointed judge on the Supreme Court is one’s religion.</p>
<p>Given that our constitution, and in fact our entire existence as a nation, is built on the foundation of secularism it is truly frightening, especially since I can’t think of even one civilization that has prospered under the rule of a fundamental, minority religion - which “evangelical Christians” surely are in this country.</p>
<p>Oh well, maybe the grand experiment of our founding fathers is doomed to repeat history. But I hope not.</p>
Any basic course in American History would conclusively demonstrate the fallacy of this premise, and I say this as a not-particularly religious person. It’s just-flat out fantasy.</p>
<p>Driver:
Well you must have taken a different high school history course than me. Mine taught me that our founding fathers were escaping religious persecution. Hence the separation of church and state. </p>
<p>Driver, are you suggesting that a Christian country through and through would be preferable to a country where all religions are respected - even no religion?</p>
<p>No, Birder, I guess I’m just suggesting you look up the definition of secularism, read up on the several “great awakening” periods in our history, see who founded our oldest and most famous colleges (and why they founded them). That’s all. We can’t be called a secular society, by any stretch, whatever your personal ideal may be.</p>
<p>“Any basic course in American History would conclusively demonstrate the fallacy of this premise, and I say this as a not-particularly religious person. It’s just-flat out fantasy.”</p>
<p>Any basic course in American history would prove that the American Constitution was the first constitution in the history of the world to leave God out of it. Not religion - God. Every single American former colony up to that moment had had God in their confederate articles, every single one of those former colonies would send representatives knowledgeable about their own articles to the Constitutional Convention, and the Convention would decide (to Patrick Henry’s great chagrin) to leave God out entirely. (The founders of 1787 were not those of 1776, or of 1802, and their opinions would change - but in 1787, the separation of God and state was something they declared to the world.)</p>
<p>We don’t need to look to the treaties or the opinions of the great men (which changed over time); all we need to look at is the document itself.</p>
<p>There were two distinct aspects to Birder’s OP…“our [national] Constitution” and “our existence as a Nation.” Neither were “built on the foundation of secularism.”</p>
<p>The Constitution was built on more that a foundation of secularism, rather more upon an a clearly understood anathema for the inclusion of God in any of the operations of government as defined by the document. The explicit rejection of the inclusion of God was something of which authors were well aware when doing the crafting, and it was discussed at length, both within the Constitutional Convention proper, and in the assemblies of ratification, at which (in the one in Virginia) Patrick Henry railed against it.</p>
<p>My personal ideal is one that I suspect is shared by most Americans. It is a country where all religions (including no religion) are equally represented and respected by the government. With all three branches of our government in the hands of extreme fundamentalists, I think we are seriously heading down a scary path.</p>
<p>What do you think? Is it good for our country to be dominated in all branches of our government (which I thought were supposed to serve as “checks and balances” but I guess not) by a minority, fundamentalist religious crowd? Where has this worked well?</p>
<p>Yeah, you won’t find the fiction of the corporation as a legal person there, either. ;)</p>
<p>Godlessness, as regards governmental institutions and affairs, is at the core of what the authors had in mind. Which isn’t to say they were atheists, or weren’t religious themselves, just that God had no place in governmental matters, and they aimed to make that clear for all to see.</p>
<p>Sure. But the notion of a modern day “death of secularism” predicated on the “fact” that “our entire existence as a nation is built on the foundation of secularism” is just silly, and stands corrected by any basic understanding of U.S. History.</p>
<p>Taken from dictionary.com (quick & easy):
Definition #2 of secularism: The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education. </p>
<p>I haven’t had a standard US history course in a while (aside from economic history), but isn’t the above definition something like what the founding fathers had in mind?</p>
<p>“entire existence as a nation is built on the foundation of secularism” is just silly, and stands corrected by any basic understanding of U.S. History."</p>
<p>Perhaps. It would be more correct to say that our founding document the Constitution rests on a foundation of Godlessness, at least as regards governmental matters.</p>
This premise is false. President Bush has selected Miers because he believes she will not try to re-write the Constitution the way the last year’s court did in cases such as the New London Conn. case where the court destroyed private property rights. Her religious beliefs are proof she will not try to re-write the Constitution to DEGRADE religion in American. President Bush is not putting her on the bench to EXPAND religion in American. If she follows the originalist philosophy, then re-writing the Constitution to expand religion in American would be contrary to that philosophy.</p>
<p>Secular country? Hardly, especially if you look back at the times of the founding fathers.</p>
<p>I think the problem arises from confusing secularism with not favoring any one religion. A society can be highly religious and still not favor any one religion.</p>
<p>The fact that the constitution and the founding fathers viewed religion and religious belief as a private matter, one where the state should not get involved, is not the same as secular.</p>
<p>Now look at recent controversies.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Judge Moore and the ten commandments? Nothing wrong, EXCEPT that putting them in the court house provides a state endorsement of ONE religion. Bong.</p></li>
<li><p>Prayer before classes in school? Whose prayer? “nondemoninational”? No such thing - what about those that view ANY prayer as a private thing. Bong.</p></li>
<li><p>Prayer at home? OK. </p></li>
<li><p>Prayer at work? touchy, but OK.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>It’s funny how even conservative courts have been able to easily make these distinctions. Too bad it gets in the way of evangelicals evangelizing.</p>
<p>"Secular country? Hardly, especially if you look back at the times of the founding fathers.</p>
<p>I think the problem arises from confusing secularism with not favoring any one religion. A society can be highly religious and still not favor any one religion."</p>
<p>You have to be very, very careful with this argument. The beliefs and practices of the so-called founding fathers were different in 1775-1777 from what they would be in the Constitutional period 1787-1791, and again different from what they would be in the period following the religious revivals of 1802. </p>
<p>In the Constitutional period, the problem confronted by the writers was not the favoring of one sect over another, but keeping God - not religion, but God - out of governmental affairs. This was the period that led up and culminated in Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason” (and the Treaty of Tripoli), and the thoughts and appeals to divinity that one would find in the Declaration of Independence would not find a home among the Constitutional authors of 1787 (which is among the factors that made Patrick Henry vehemently oppose the Constitution’s adoption.)</p>
<p>It is not a matter of “expanding the role of religion in government.” In the Constitution, it (and God) have none - nada - zero. As regards the Constitution, they were more than “secular” - it invokes the “people of the United States” rather than God as the proper and sovereign basis of Constitutional government. The authors debated this issue for 3 1/2 months before coming to this conclusion, which was then ratified by the states, all of which had God in their own state articles. They knew exactly what they were doing when they left God out.</p>
<p>The only reference to religion (there is none to God) in the Constitution is Article 6, paragraph 3, forbidding the use of religious tests for the holding of office. The implied argument about Harriet Miers (which I think is a wrong one, but which was invited by the President’s comments) is that if religion wasn’t a “test” in her case, it surely was a deep consideration.</p>
<p>Of course, there are activist judges that would like to rewrite the history.</p>
A preference is not a test. President Bush has been authorized by the American people to excercise discretion in his selection of Supreme Court nominees. The actual language says:
The First Amendment provides:
Nothing in this language says religion cannot play any role in Federal, State, or local government yet that is precisely how activist judges (mostly in California) have interpreted it. If Miers is confirmed hopefully she will act to reverse California judges who think the word “God” is a four letter word.</p>
<p>“Nothing in this language says religion cannot play any role in Federal, State, or local government.”</p>
<p>…so if a local county in the US with a large Muslim majority passes a vote and decides to govern itself by sharia law, complete with stoning women to death for adultery, this should be just fine by you. After all, “Allah” isn’t a four-letter word.</p>
<p>It’s remarkable how judges who happen to interpret constitutional law not to your liking are labelled as the anti-Christ. When do you plan to drag these heretics out and burn them at the stake? It’s happened before…</p>