<p>You know what this discussion really reflects? It reflects the nervousness of many Americans (the majority really) of being sidelined, marginalized, alienated from their own government. It’s a sad statement about our country right now. Especially because we are supposedly fighting that very system in Iraq. </p>
<p>Make no mistake, many Americans (those who are paying attention anyway) feel threatened by the foolish religious fervor that has arisen in this country. It can simply come to no go at all. </p>
<p>Are we to believe that these radical fundamentalists want all the power so that we mortals can go happlily about our own business? So that our country can continue down the path of the founding fathers (that being no official god recognized)? I don’t think so. Anybody who believes that is nuts.</p>
<p>On the other hand, maybe driver is right with his implication that we have nothing to be concerned about. After all, what about this current “religious” administration is especially Christian in their behavior? Can they even be trusted to be kind, compassionate, caring, forgiving, HONEST?</p>
<p>“If Miers is confirmed hopefully she will act to reverse California judges who think the word “God” is a four letter word.”</p>
<p>If Miers is confirmed, hopefully she will affirm the original intent of the framers that, as regards governmental affairs, God is not a four-letter word, but a non-existent one.</p>
Couple of things wrong with this statement. First, although I’m not particularly religious, I think it’s awfully offensive to refer to the spiritual journeys of others as “foolish.” Think it if you want, but keep it to yourself…we’re all just trying to make our way through life and the world around us. Second, no religious “fervor” has arisen…it’s always been here. It’s just that religious folk, feeling the push of radical secularism in the political arena, are awakening to the need to involve themselves in politics if they want their rights under the law preserved. We saw something very interesting in PA last election…large numbers of Amish registering to vote for the first time. Unheard of–absolutely amazing. Believe me, there is no “fervor” for the Amish faith that has suddenly arisen. The fact that so many chose to join in our political process for the first time in history says a lot about who is feeling “threatened.”</p>
<p>Exactly what is is about “no law respecting an establishment of religion” that allows Congress to enact a law requiring schoolchildren to recite that the United States is a nation “under God” - a law enacted specifically to affirm that America is not an atheist country like those Godless Commies? </p>
<p>And why is a judge “activist” if he or she strictly construes that part of the Constitution?</p>
<p>Although the US Congress did add “under God” to the pledge in the 50s, there’s no federal law requiring any school to lead the recitation of the pledge that I’m aware of…those are state laws. And in the 40s there was a West Virginia case wherein the USSC held that no student could be required to recite the pledge–period.</p>
<p>“Think it if you want, but keep it to yourself…we’re all just trying to make our way through life and the world around us.”</p>
<p>This attitude is disturbing: why must those of us who are critical of religious excess keep our opinions to ourselves? I don’t find Weenie’s description of this behavior (“foolish”) to be nearly as offensive as that of evangelicals, who are quite open about condemning (to eternal hellfire, no less!) anyone who does not share their beliefs. </p>
<p>“It’s just that religious folk, feeling the push of radical secularism in the political arena, are awakening to the need to involve themselves in politics if they want their rights under the law preserved.”</p>
<p>I’m curious as to how religious people in this country are being deprived of their rights to attend services and otherwise practice their faith? Forgive me for sounding disingenuous, but are houses of worship being closed down in this country and individuals persecuted for actively worshiping their god(s)? Or could it be that evangelicals feel “threatened” because they can’t force school boards to discontinue the use of texts which don’t teach creationism or intelligent design? Or they feel “threatened” because they can’t force daily prayer in schools, “threatened” because they don’t get to use public property to display a cross or the ten commandments. </p>
<p>No one stops them from observing their beliefs privately, but that never satisfies them.</p>
<p>Just to clarify my statement:<br>
I am NOT referring to religion as “foolish.” I AM referring to religious fervor in the political context as foolish, as in, no good can come of it.</p>
<p>driver:
Not to change the subject, but some time can you talk a little about your views on conservatism and what makes it a good thing? Can you relate your thoughts specifically to the Bush admin? I’ve always wondered why conservatives think the way they do…So, if you feel like it, and maybe in a different post, I don’t know. Thanks.</p>
<p>Suzy,
You’ve perfectly encapsulated so much of the anti-religious bigotry that passes for liberalism in our current political environment. The Constitution enjoins the government from establishing a religion. Period. Somehow, that has been turned on its head such that now government is to be used to deem religion “foolish” and to banish it from the public space–one reason I found the OP’s “death of secularism” comment so far off the mark. No, churches are not being closed, but religious people are being told that their views are unwelcome in polite secular society—something that is a very new development in our history. The secularist ayatollahs are able to impose their social mores on the population at large by the very amendment that was intended to preclude such an eventuality–because they are secular. The sad irony is that they are afforded this status by virtue of a world-view that acknowledges nothing greater than themselves.</p>
<p>The Constitution banished God from governmental affairs. The framers were very conscious of what they are doing. God is unwelcome in governmental matters, and rested sovereignty in the people. No separation of church and state - separation of God and state.</p>
<p>I just don’t see evidence that religious people are being silenced in this country, in polite company or otherwise. In contrast, anyone who voices skepticism in the matter of religion is accused of being a bigot. And I don’t think that the “secularist ayatollahs” have been very successful in imposing themselves on our society since every poll indicates that 90% and up of the population believes in God. </p>
<p>Who is saying that government is to be used to deem religion “foolish?” That’s a bit confusing…</p>
<p>Hmmm, this discussion is further proof that the framers had it right to make God unwelcome in government affairs (as Mini states it), because the whole business is messy enough in private affairs. ;)</p>
<p>Weenie,
I don’t really think of myself as a “conservative.” I think about things, reach my own conclusions, and most of those conclusions tend to be labeled “conservative” in today’s parlance. But it’s not about any over-arching ideology. I vote for Republicans because they generally agree with the conclusions I’ve reached, although they don’t always act in ways that I would like, politics being politics.</p>
<p>Why do I think the way I do? I believe in the power of individuals to change their own lives and the world around them, and I believe we have that power in the US in a unique way, as long as we resist the impulse toward government-enforced collectivism that has done so poorly in Europe. And I see all the “living, breathing constitution” crap as an attempt to move the US in the European direction by misguided, if well-meaning people. I take Scalia’s view of the Constitution. It says what it says, no more, no less. If it’s not there, don’t pretend it is, and then impose imagined rights and restrictions by fiat. Don’t circumscribe our birthright as Americans–democratic process–by declaring that which some judge feels is wrong–to be unconstitutional, and therefore no longer a subject for democratic debate. Unfair isn’t synonymous with “unconstitutional.” If you want to change our laws, we have a democratic process, and we should use it. If the Constitution prevents the law we want, we have the power to amend it. To do otherwise is to surrender and admit we’re not a democratic society.</p>
<p>“I take Scalia’s view of the Constitution. It says what it says, no more, no less.”</p>
<p>Scalia’s view is to look at what it says (like all other laws), and the “legislative intent”. In the case of God and state, it’s not even a gray area. No “living, breathing constitution crap”. There is no role for God. It’s not about expansion or restriction. For Constitutional purposes, S/HE doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>As Patrick Henry noted, the Constitution is an apostate document, and proclaimed a revolution (freedom from God in governmental affairs) every bit as great as the revolution that freed the colonies from Britain.</p>
<p>I hope the confirmation hearings center on Mier’s qualifications and judicial experience. Does she have the weight to sit on the highest court in a lifetime appointment? This is what I would be wanting to know if I were to confirm, or not. We know she’s an evangelical, a close Bush friend and his personal lawyer, a corporate attorney, and a woman, but that’s about all. Not enough to make a sound judgement, so I hope those whose task it is to confirm will learn more before they are asked to vote. So far we’ve been distracted by the religious angle- I’m more concerned about whether or not she is in the pocket of big corporations, and whether she has the knowledge of constitutional law. I hope people are asking the right questions.</p>
<p>“now government is to be used to deem religion “foolish” and to banish it from the public space” ???</p>
<p>If you had said ban from “governmental space” then I would agree. If your definition of public space is governmentally controlled space, then, yes, what else makes sense?</p>
<p>Driver, please tell me how the government can permit religious expression in a public school without sanctioning it? How a governmental body can permit the display of the ten commandments without sanctioning them?</p>
<p>NMD, I see a difference between “permitting” religious expression on public property and endorsing–much less “establishing” it. The converse–forbidding it–seems to me to send a much stronger message, i.e., condemnation. I’m sure you’re aware of these recent convoluted SCOTUS decisions, but they’re worth another look as we consider–and reconsider–the role of our courts in interfering with local affairs. Maybe the courts should just back off and let the folks figure it out for themselves.