Secularism - US style

Pocono Joe

This election, and my experience on this board has indicated (from my viewpoint) that there seems to be a difference of opinion between the American definition of Secularism and the European definition. I also see this difference as a basis of much of the European disdain toward American views. I might be wrong but I think Europeans see Secularism as the right to be free from religious rule and teaching, and freedom from government imposition of religion upon its people. Historically, America's veiwpoint is that Secularism is served to a greater extent to protect religion from governmental interference - essentially baring the establishment of a national church (although there is a drive now towards the European way of thinking).

We are ruled by the Constitution. Below is THE passage in our constitution that began all the debate, and is the basis for the so-called "separation of church and state."

I ask you, based upon our Constitution, and trying to distance yourselves from European thinking, are the so-called "neo-cons" all that wrong in their viewpoints?

United States Constitution
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
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.

axer

Does it matter what the constitution says? Common sense would tell me that the government should never favour a particular religion since it is discrimminatory against other people's beliefs. It shouldn't have to be written in the constitution.

Ireland is a typical example of that kind of crap whereby it is next to impossible to get a child into a school that is not a brainwashing camp for the roman catholic church.

Hobbes

So your free to worship whatever you want as long as it is not imposed by the government to do so. Works great on paper.

If you read up on Neocons you will find they have more roots in Trotskyism and Marxism. Also they believe that religion is a means to teach morality.

Of course in the US it is more neocons + the fanatical religious right that are the problem.

Of course putting religion into government is bad. You only need to look at Iran for that.

But for actual examples as to why it is bad based on USA.

Creationism. A great disservice to what science is, and has already been renamed "intelligent design" because the first type got shot down.

Or one example I found (from watching "Gods Next Army" and researching the school mentioned). A law was enacted by Bush that stopped social workers from investigating allegations of child abuse. It was enacted to stop social workers checking up on home schoolers (which generally get schooled by a religious nut who has no other real skills in teaching). But had the add on effect of stopping real abuse.

Ireland is a typical example of that kind of crap whereby it is next to impossible to get a child into a school that is not a brainwashing camp for the roman catholic church.

It is not as bad as it once was but this still goes on.

MCMLXXXIII

First:
Yes, the government cannot claim one religion for the country, and a religion can't claim the government. I have spent most of my adult life in the US, but at the basic level I fail to see the difference in today's European countries vs. the US.

Second:

axer wrote: »

It shouldn't have to be written in the constitution.

When people came to the "New World," religion still ruled most governments at the time. Maybe it was less so in the 1700s, but it was still extremely prevalent, and it was important enough to be one of the first issues to be brought up when writing the Constitution of the US. Also, there’s no reason to take it out as it still may be true today.

Third:
The religious issue is usually used as a smoke-screen in politics. I think it’s important to be open to everyone’s beliefs, but one of the two major US political parties openly believe in creationism (and push the beliefs of intelligent design upon doctors and scientists). They say it’s their right as they are allowed to practice whatever they want. (IMHO, you can practice whatever you want, but if you make a law based on a religious belief, then you are indirectly declaring that religion “official” enough to base your own laws on that set of beliefs.)

They also tear-gassed and arrested protestors picketing outside the National Convention in Minneapolis/St Paul, which is another important issue covered in the First Amendment (right to peacefully assemble).

Just because it’s written down doesn’t mean that everyone follows it, but it’s good to talk about during an election so people may be guilt-tripped into voting one way or the other.

Sand

Id agree with your analysis and distinction. Most US religious groups would have migrated from Europe as a result of suffering at the hands of a State approved religious majority and their primary concern was ensuring there would be now similar state ordained religion quashing dissenting religions.

Europeans, who have a legacy of religious repression of free thought, dissent and a healthy dose of wanton slaughter of unbelievers in pogroms, religious wars and witch burnings, have a different set of priorities.

We [ individuals ] have just about got out from under the religious nutjobs and their invisible flying spaghetti monsters. And we need to keep them down, because if they ever get up, all the bull about interfaith dialogue, and the Bible as a metaphor will be put to one side as they roll out the Inquisition once more.

The interesting thing about US politics and the religious groups is that prior to the 60s and 70s, evangelist groups in the US were a "**** those guys, were going to heaven, let them burn" - which meant the evangelist groups effectively had a disinterest in politics. Believers like them would be saved, the rest could burn. Translated into a live and let live attitude. Ish.

Whats changed is that the evangelist groups have now reversed positions and are on a mission to not only ensure they get to heaven, by living as the good book intended [apparently if a gang of randy locals want to gang rape your male guests, the appropriate course of action is to hand them your daughters instead...] but also ensuring everyone else has to live by the same religious laws, even if they dont believe by subverting the state to serve their churches agenda.

They might be successful in the short term, but Id imagine as their power becomes greater the more the US will tend to review who needs protection when it comes to seperation of church and state - might take several decades but the priority will switch to protecting the individual.

Manic Moran

Whilst not generally disagreeing with anything anyone above has posted (Though I would submit it is not the position of most card-carrying Republicans that evolution didn't happen), I think there's a little more to this bit.

Whats changed is that the evangelist groups have now reversed positions and are on a mission to not only ensure they get to heaven, by living as the good book intended [snip] but also ensuring everyone else has to live by the same religious laws

I think part of it is backlash against what they perceive as the anti-religion movement. Every time that someone files a lawsuit against having a team prayer at the beginning of an inter-school football game, or whatever, they view that as an intrusion into their own religion. If you don't want to partake in the prayer, fine. That's your choice. Don't stop the 95% of the rest of the team who want one. Look at the whole hassle of the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. If you don't want to say "under God", then just don't say it. I didn't take the US Government to court for the "So help me God" bit at the end of my Commissioning Oath, I just didn't say it. Simple as. Much as there are those who wish to not be forced to participate in anything religious (or of a particular religion they dislike), the religious right believe that they are being forced into non-expression of their own religion.

I think they do have a point.

NTM

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

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.

So that means that Christmas being a national holiday is unconstitutional?

axer

Overheal wrote: »

So that means that Christmas being a national holiday is unconstitutional?

The thing about christmas is it is gone beyond a religious holiday at this stage.

Manic Moran

So that means that Christmas being a national holiday is unconstitutional?

No.

See Ganulin v United States, 71 F Supp 2d 824, 836

Kindof a famous case, this is the text of the Court's order.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

THIS COURT WILL ADDRESS
PLAINTIFF'S SEASONAL CONFUSION
ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVING CHRISTMAS
MERELY A RELIGIOUS INTRUSION.

WHATEVER THE REASON
CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHER
CHRISTMAS IS NOT
AN ACT OF BIG BROTHER!

CHRISTMAS IS ABOUT JOY
AND GIVING AND SHARING
IT IS ABOUT THE CHILD WITHIN US
IT IS MOSTLY ABOUT CARING!

ONE IS NEVER JAILED
FOR NOT HAVING A TREE
FOR NOT GOING TO CHURCH
FOR NOT SPREADING GLEE!

THE COURT WILL UPHOLD
SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTORY CAUSES [*826]
DECREEING "THE ESTABLISHMENT" AND "SANTA"
BOTH WORTHWHILE "CLAUS(es)!"

WE ARE ALL BETTER [**2] FOR SANTA
THE EASTER BUNNY TOO
AND MAYBE THE GREAT PUMPKIN
TO NAME JUST A FEW!

AN EXTRA DAY OFF
IS HARDLY HIGH TREASON
IT MAY BE SPENT AS YOU WISH
REGARDLESS OF REASON.

THE COURT HAVING READ
THE LESSONS OF "LYNCH" n1
REFUSES TO PLAY
THE ROLE OF THE GRINCH! n2

THERE IS ROOM IN THIS COUNTRY
AND IN ALL OUR HEARTS TOO
FOR DIFFERENT CONVICTIONS
AND A DAY OFF TOO!

Of course, the Court did do a more professional analysis as well.
See http://members.tripod.com/~tytus/christmas.htm for full text.

NTM

Pocono Joe

I'm a bit confused, and have been finding it difficult to respond to some of the replies, because I've been seeing "neo-cons" described here as anything from being a simple republican, to right-wing bible thumpers, to the anti-christ. Here in the US, neo-cons (from the term newconservatives) are an intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that oppose the growth of liberalism in the US.

So, what is the overwhelming opinion of a "neo-con" here? Is it just conservatives, or evangelicals, any republicans, etc. And does it include conservative democrats (so-called Reagan or Blue-Dog democrats)?

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Here in the US, neo-cons (from the term newconservatives) are an intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that oppose the growth of liberalism in the US.

Actually most people get a clear understanding of what a Neocon is from this.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

And if you don't think that is bad just replace "America" with another country and ask yourself if it is a good plan if they did it.

I think part of it is backlash against what they perceive as the anti-religion movement. Every time that someone files a lawsuit against having a team prayer at the beginning of an inter-school football game, or whatever, they view that as an intrusion into their own religion.

Well it can be offensive if your not Christian. I am pretty sure those same people would be complaining if they were being forced to cite the Koran or a Wiccan prayer. In fact I vaguely recall a court case where some county board in US invited people to pray before meetings but then banned a Wiccan from doing so.

Also some of the evangelical stuff is taken to extremes. For example being allowed into bless chairs with holy water during the SCOJ hearing. If they had been Muslims they would of been shipped to gitmo and the chairs would of been burned.

Pocono Joe

Hobbes wrote: »

Actually most people get a clear understanding of what a Neocon is from this.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Bill Kristol is the czar of the neo-con movement... when did this happen... and why wasn't I told LOL?

Try this link. I think it gives a better understanding of what we feel.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_vision_of_the_left.html

Kama

+1 on the PNAC as being the neocon definition, being later nuanced with me finding out about their Straussian genealogy. Very peculiar ideological journey.

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Bill Kristol is the czar of the neo-con movement... when did this happen... and why wasn't I told LOL?

Regardless of what you feel, the PNAC is what most see as the definition of what a neocon currently is. I mean if you want to nitpick neocons initially started out as Liberals.

To quote wiki.

The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership." Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

Pocono Joe

Hobbes wrote: »

Regardless of what you feel, the PNAC is what most see as the definition of what a neocon currently is.

I concede to your point above, and give you that. It's hard to change people's misguided perceptions of others they do not know, and damn near impossible when it comes to politics. And if those people were American citizens, I would defend their right to be wrong with my dying breath.

Kama

I'm curious in what way the PNAC was a misrepresentation of neo-conservatism? While in the States, I found people there to use the same term for the same people...

European antipathy to the movement imo has less to do with anything to do with respective definitions of secularism, and a lot more to do with the muscular foreign policy part...

Pocono Joe

I guess it's a matter of semantics. I have been called a "neo-con" for many years - usually by liberals. But I don't agree with some significant sections of the statements by the PNAC - does that make me a non-neo-con? Personally, I've always considered myself a conservative republican. And if you need to follow the PNAC's philosophy to be a neo-con, then the percentage of population would be so insignificant that it would be meaningless. And would you consider the link I noted to be neo-con thinking?

So I guess this all lends itself back to the second half of my other question regarding who are neo-cons: "Is it just conservatives, or evangelicals, any republicans, etc. And does it include conservative democrats (so-called Reagan or Blue-Dog democrats)?"

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

So I guess this all lends itself back to the second half of my other question regarding who are neo-cons: "Is it just conservatives, or evangelicals, any republicans, etc. And does it include conservative democrats (so-called Reagan or Blue-Dog democrats)?"

You are right the term is bandied about a bit; however I think it is generally meant to be understood as American conservatives of recent times who espouse the political philosophy as laid out by the PNAC.

In more general political terms this could also be called Authoritarian Nationalism and its ascendancy in the US is not unique from a global viewpoint. Groups in society espousing unilateral nationalistic militarism are as old as the hills and civilization itself.

BenjAii

As a side note to this debate about the role of religion in American political life, does anyone else feel concerned about the role it plays in American foreign policy ?

In particular in the event an elected McCain died in office, leaving Sarah Palin as Commander in chief.

I was struck in the recent video of Mrs Palin addressing The Wasilla Church of God new crop of "Joels Army" that she exhorted the audience to believe that the war in Iraq was "Gods work".

To quote this article Sarah Palins Churchs belief system;

It is based on the idea that in the end times there will be an outpouring of supernatural powers on a group of Christians that will take authority over the existing church and the world. The believing Christians of the world will be reorganized under the Fivefold Ministry and the church restructured under the authority of Prophets and Apostles and others anointed by God. The young generation will form "Joel's Army" to rise up and battle evil and retake the earth for God.


As her Church believes in the "end times" and the group she was addressing was part of a movement in training a young "Joel's Army" to take dominion over the United States and the world. And also that, Wasilla Assembly of God's Head Pastor Ed Kalnins whose sermons espouse such theological concepts as the possession of geographic territories by demonic spirits.

As she may one day be in a position to lead the US army in its various Middle East conflicts - should she not be required to be honest about exactly what effect her religious convictions would have on US foreign policy if it was in her control ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

Separation (to my mind) works in both directions, ideally. Insulates religon from politics, and vice versa. Religion sems a stronger force in America than Europe, and a possible reading of separation here would be that because of the strength of religion it is necessary to prevent capture of government, with oppressive results. Non-establishment of religion and established secularism seem distinct.

The broad neocon agenda, which as Pocono rightly says is a minority position (though an influential one in policy formation) seems to have extensively utilized the Dominionist trend in American politics for popular support, aka the Bible-thumping types. Its helpful when mobilising to have a victimised self-perception; the wedge issues like Christmas/Happy Holidays work well for this.

Several conservative Republicans talked to in the States weren't comfortable with this alliance, for very similar reasons to me, a European-secular 'lefty'. Biblical end-days types (or just those who have to justify themselves to them) with their finger anywhere near the proverbial button, or mediating the Arab-Israeli issue, scare me sh1tless tbh.

Read the link, it doesn't seem necessarily neocon to me; it seems pretty straight Realist foreign policy, while bemoaning liberal utopianism as a developmental immaturity, which has a longer history than the neocons. Neocon became a convenient slur, I guess, and thrown at anyone on the political right. The PNAC/Neocon stuff, while seeming to share the Realist assumptions, has a lot more utopianism in foreign policy in terms of US hegemony and reconstructing the world in a more agreeable 'Pax Americana' image through military means, as a morally necessary project.

The worry here is the Straussian heritage of the school, with the emphasis on 'Noble Lies' for the masses to believe, while the elite know better, and his direct intellectual advocation of militarist imperialism. Whether this was implemented by his followers I can't say, but it fits the picture quite neatly.

Pocono Joe

I see more and more comments about Palin's religious beliefs as it relates to governing. Read here to see some real independent, nonpartisan fact checks regarding the political talking point issues that have caused much of the perception problems.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

axer

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I see more and more comments about Palin's religious beliefs as it relates to governing. Read here to see some real independent, nonpartisan fact checks regarding the political talking point issues that have caused much of the perception problems.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

It does look dodgy that palin was feeling out the idea of removing books that she didnt like from the library. She might have gone ahead with it only for the librarian and it does look like palin did fire her partly as a result of it but back tracked when most took the librarians side.

Asking all the department heads along with the librarian to resign? That sounds a bit heavy handed to me. Whipping into submission it sounds like. She has the makings of a dictator in her me thinks.

BenjAii

axer wrote: »

It does look dodgy that palin was feeling out the idea of removing books that she didnt like from the library. She might have gone ahead with it only for the librarian and it does look like palin did fire her partly as a result of it but back tracked when most took the librarians side.

Asking all the department heads along with the librarian to resign? That sounds a bit heavy handed to me. Whipping into submission it sounds like. She has the makings of a dictator in her me thinks.

She is certainly politically ruthless (not necessarily a bad thing) whilst being great at putting over the Miss Congeniality front. Firing anyone who doesn't agree with her, does seem to be a repeated theme in her political career.

Another thing i'm noting in her character is her ability to brazenly lie outrighty for short-term gain, even if its obvious she is going to be caught out.

Examples of this is her repeating, over and over, the story about selling the Governors jet on ebay, and her opposition to he bridge to nowhere, both 100% documented falsehoods. Presumably she thinks she can just brazen this out, and the people that matter won't care ?

If she does make it to Washington, she'll be a natural !!

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

You know you can bypass factcheck and go straight to her churches website to get her religous views.

I thought Obamas pastor was nuts. These take the cake.

Pocono Joe

Hobbes wrote: »

You know you can bypass factcheck and go straight to her churches website to get her religous views.

So by that argument and implication, you are saying Rev. Wright’s views are Obama’s views, right?

BenjAii

Pocono Joe wrote: »

So by that argument and implication, you are saying Rev. Wright’s views are Obama’s views, right?

There is a distinction Joe.

Rev Wrights views are his own, not that of his church. Therefore we can't automatically assume they are Obama personal views.

Mrs Palin has made it very clear her beliefs are in accordance with the church in question, the video from this summer could not make that clearer.

As these views seemingly include, Iraq being "Gods war". And that this speech was made to a self-styled "Joels Army" that is preparing for the "end times" by diving demonic forces out of American cites, and that indeed these demonic forces occupy whole countries.

It does beg the question. If she became Commander in Chief of the US army in its various middle east conflicts, in her head will she view herself as some sort of person anointed from God to face down demonic forces prior to the end times ?

BTW, I'm not trying to score cheap political points here, I think this question is 100% for real. The evidence is that she does; she could be the person who has last say if nuclear weapons are to be launched.

Makes you think, doesn't it ?