Jeepers, huh? I guess Jeepers! Leaping Lizards! too. And, there’s the catch; what trips up the insincere, if nothing else gets them first - terminology (choice of words).
In a circumstance where the United States were still a federation of republics, governed by a still respected constitution, it is true that religious conscience itself would remain superior to the laws of the state. But we have chosen to abandon (informally, if not formally) that respectable constitutional state in exchange for the questionable privilege of being ruled by the fancy of a national legislature, the whim of a president, and the caprice of a majority of nine black robes.
Being in the ignominious state we find ourselves, we certainly can expect nothing better from society’s secularists than what we’ve been getting the past forty years. While ignoring The Constitution at every turn where expedient, the Secularists have made it clear that their intention, nevertheless, is to use the First Amendment to drive Christian thought and activity from every public venue. Since such an ambitious project cannot be accomplished in one swell foop, the infamous Liberal practice of incrementalism can be expected, as it has in the past, to be continually in play.
Given that society has decided that government must be the ruling voice in everything we think and do, and given that religion must not become entwined with government (everything we think and do), we may soon be expecting to hear such phrases as ‘legal religions’ with increasing frequency, as we witness the irony of government dictating to religion what it may or may not do, or even if it may exist, all in the sacred name of keeping religion from becoming entangled in government. (This from the people who railed at the apocryphal Vietnam phrase, “we had to destroy the village to save it.”)
And to BroJoe. Since you have already vouchsafed that your views on religious issues very closely follow, nay even are guided by, the views of the Founding Fathers (and Mothers), perhaps you can give us your considered opinion on how the Founders would have viewed the five following propositions:
a) An association of Christian students holds regular club meetings after school, and is permitted to use school facilities for these meetings. Improper favoritism, or a practice of which our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) would approve?
b) Four separate Christian congregations have no place to hold their Sunday services, so county government permits them the use of its court house for a joint service, each denomination taking a week to lead the service. Improper favoritism, or a practice the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) would approve?
c) The Federal government permits church services to be held in some of its buildings, including the state department and in the capitol itself. Improper favoritism, or a practice in which the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) engaged?
d) The governing body of a state university decides that it will permit its students to hold morning devotionals before class, and to provide meeting places in the university’s lecture halls. Furthermore, the governing body also decides to permit any divinity schools located in the vicinity to use the same halls for Sunday services. Improper favoritism, or a practice in which the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) would engage?
Finally, in the context of the 1st Amendment, what, specifically, does the term establishment mean?
I’ve asked these questions before, or similar, but each time those asked ran away, presumably having suddenly remembered pressing business left undone. I know that you will not do that, so I look forward to your reply.
Thanks boop, for writing.
First of all, I much appreciate your civil tone. Of course, I noticed the sharpness of your questions, but that's just fine, no problems with that...
Second, you hugely misunderstand me if you imagine I'm going to argue against you on these particular points. Of course I agree with you, and I recognize some (all?) of these items as being events which happened during the time our our Founders, indeed, some of them sanctioned by none other than MR. WALL OF SEPARATION himself, President Jefferson!
Of course I totally agree with the absolute absurdity of the current situation. Our Founders' views on these matters are clearly seen, as early as the Constitutional Convention itself (1787), when MR. DEISTIC SCIENTIST himself, old Ben Franklin proposed that perhaps it would help overcome the rancor of disagreement amongst the various delegates, if they would begin each session with a prayer? As usual, old Franklin was right, so they did and it did.
So the very idea that our Founders would condone scouring the government to make sure no vestiges of Christianity were hiding ANYWHERE is far too ridiculous to even contemplate.
I’ve asked these questions before, or similar, but each time those asked ran away, presumably having suddenly remembered pressing business left undone. I know that you will not do that, so I look forward to your reply."
"Establishment" means just what it sounds like -- an official government religion, such as they had (have?) in most European countries.
In recent decades this term has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to cover ANY suggestion of religious content in any government activity -- to the extent of allowing Frosty the Snow Man but not the baby Jesus in government Christmas decorations!
So what does any of this have to do with evolution versus ID-Creationism? Well, the same law which wants to take Jesus out of government Christmas decorations also prevents Creationism being taught in government science classes.
Of course, I mock the former, but defend the latter -- and no doubt you will mock me for that, but here's the reason:
Christmas is Christmas (not "winter break") a holiday (holy day) to celebrate the birth of our Lord. To suggest otherwise is an unacceptable mockery of Christianity.
Science is science (not metaphysics or theology) a study of the natural processes in the natural realms. To suggest otherwise -- to insert religion as if it were science into government science classes -- is an unacceptable mockery of science.
Of course, for someone like you YHAOS, who lives to mock and mocks to live, that may not be such a problem. But I want to see science in science classes just as much as I want Christ in Christmas. ;-)
By the way, for what it's worth: I'd have no problem whatever with possibly explaining ID-Creationism in a government science class, so long as it is properly labeled as being theology or metaphysics and not science.
Indeed, why not begin science classes by explaining to the little Johnnys & Marys that there are whole realms of reality beyond science, which cannot be taught in government classes, but which can be learned at their family's church!
YHAOS:"Jeepers, huh? I guess Jeepers! Leaping Lizards! too. And, there’s the catch; what trips up the insincere, if nothing else gets them first - terminology (choice of words)."
The correct term here is "legal religions," and it refers to the fact that at no time in American history have illegal activities in the name of some religion or other ever been condoned. I've already mentioned, for example, hideous ancient religions, but a much more recent example (not to be compared with those others in any way) was the polygamy of the Mormons.
Regardless of the Constitution's guarantee of "free exercise" of religion, the Mormons were required to outlaw their biblically based polygamy. Indeed, splinter groups from the Mormons are even today sometimes prosecuted for the "free exercise" of their religion.
Does anyone disagree with me on this?
Still waiting for an answer?
I saw lots of replies, but couldn’t find much that qualified as a direct answer.