Posted on 06/08/2005 12:26:29 AM PDT by Liberty Wins
He did create free people. Their rights and freedoms flow from Him. Any putative right that is generated through the political process can be one of the two: it conforms with the Natural Law or it violates it. If it conforms, then it does not matter whether a king legislated it or the US Congress, it is a valid right. If it violates the Natural Law, then it is not a right, and again it does not matter if a king promulgates it or a democracy.
prior to the Geneva Convention of 1864, there were simply no rules of war or of handling POWs.
Medieval combat was closely tied to taking prisoners for ransom. Not unfrequently, the victor would end up befriending the captive, -- who was typically only bound by his honor to remain in captivity. Till very recently, a surrender by handing over one's sword was sufficient to protect the life of the prisoner. Another difference is that prior to the development of the nation-state wars were affairs between private individuals, not between nations. The modern thinking is statist: war is between, say, France and Germany, so any Frenchman considers himself a mortal enemy of every German. Medieval war was between those loyal to Duke of Burgundy and those loyal to the Duke of Normandy. It was not an evironment conducive to abuse. As my limerick clearly states
War was glorious in Medieval France
First you knock down the foe with a lance
Then to further prevail
Sink the mace in his mail
Then go home and enjoy wine and dance
We are in agreement as far as that goes. But that conflicts with your earlier statement that "we the people" conflicts with the teachings of the Church because it assumes rights flow from man to man. I disagree. Nowhere in the Preamble can one derive that conclusion if God created free people. Here is the text:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
These were deeply religious men, and I doubt that Madison intended for this to assume that the rights which came from God were somehow negated by this extraoardinary statement placing "the people" over any other natural rule.
If it violates the Natural Law, then it is not a right, and again it does not matter if a king promulgates it or a democracy.
First it requires that you define which natural laws we are talking about. The history of a belief in natural laws predates Christianity and has had many interpretations including those of Aquinas. So until a specific violation of a natural law on which we can agree is cited, then on principle, I will agree. To take it further, a simple statement of a right does not so make one. Declared rights can violate a lot more than natural law.
Till very recently, a surrender by handing over one's sword was sufficient to protect the life of the prisoner.
That frequently worked for the generals, but far less often for the privates. Nonetheless it did exist. Let me give you a few examples that show in general, Christian war has not been a particularly civilized series of events:
A letter dated Sept 12, 1794 described some executions in London: "Two unfortunate victims were condemned to suffer death, in the next month, as follows: 'To be hanged by their necks, but not till they are dead; then to be taken down, and their entrails cut out, their hearts to be burnt in their sight, and their bowels thrown in their faces; their bodies to be quartered, and to be at the disposal of his Majesty." They were Scots. Glad we don't have such horrors today.
Another difference is that prior to the development of the nation-state wars were affairs between private individuals, not between nations.
True, partially because of the huge parcels of land owned. But even in the age of nation states, the intermarrying between nations was supposed to ensure alliances and help prevent war. It didn't. As for the poor troops who had to fight whether it was the 100 Years War, the 30 Years War or all of the other European wars of the 16th through the 20th century, it likely didn't matter much to them to whom their loyalties were pledged.
BTW, off the subject, I saw some rather raw language from you a few days ago...Tsk, tsk...
Yes, I think I have let the subtext dominate the context. The understanding of the American founding fathers was that rights flow from God, and that is reflected in the Preamble, and in most other documents of the period. But the subtext is Europe and in particular your defense of democracy as being something that supercedes religion. While I have little objection against the spirit in which the American Constitution was written, I think that today's political thinking, especially in Europe, has moved away from constitutionalism of Lockean England and republican America, toward the unfortunate attitude that "if we vote for it, it's gotta be the law". That is no freedom.
Indeed it is not always self-evident what the natural law is, while it is always (well, leaving voting irregularities aside) evident what the people voted for. There is no substitute for discernment the will of God, no matter how tempting it is to simply put stuff to a vote.
Regarding indisputable barbarity that occurred in the past as well as in the present. The argument is that Christianity provided a brake on it. Surely, it worked better among the aristocracy, but then that was the system, that the aristocracy was setting the standard of behavior for the common man.
Some of your examples are off-target. Napoleon had a very strained relationship with the Church, which never really recognized him as a valid monarch (The Pope that was present at his coronation was his prisoner). The use of gas against combatants is not inherently injust method of war; nor do I set up the First World War as any kind of standard by merely pointing out that remnants of civilized behavior were still apparent then.
Regarding the Cathars and other heretics, -- they were considered enemy of the state and were suppressed as such. Insurgencies of no religious significance were put down with equal brutality. The Church could not declare their heresies valid because they were not valid; yet nothing short of that would have spared those who chose not to recant. We've discussed that before. Parenthetically, if gnosticism, with its belief in hidden knowledge accessible to a caste of priests only, and evilhood of all human effort except extreme self-negation, were to gain the upper hand anywhere, men of secularist-humanitarian outlook would have much more than an occasional auto-da-fe to complain about.
Every heretic, burnt at a stake
Proves his theory, or learns his mistake
Consequences are major
Of a heretic's wager
New Jerusalem, or fiery lake
No intent was made nor implied that democracy supercedes religion. But you must agree, I'm sure, that throughout history, counties with the strongest religious influence within the government reflected the lowest levels of democracy. A pure democracy is worthless. But a republican form of government that provides democratic ideals for the majority but protects the rights of the minority should be the goal of every country on the globe. Does this mean that religion has no place? Of course not. Does this mean that specific religions have a greater role than any other? Only by the will of the people! Democracy must protect religion, but has no responsibility to preserve it. And more importantly, must not place itself in a position to sponsor or even favor one over the other. While the founding fathers were all religious men, and their religious suffusion most certainly played a role in the founding documents, nonetheless all were aware of the dangers of state sponsored religions and the resulting First Amendment was no accident.
While I have little objection against the spirit in which the American Constitution was written, I think that today's political thinking, especially in Europe, has moved away from constitutionalism of Lockean England and republican America, toward the unfortunate attitude that "if we vote for it, it's gotta be the law". That is no freedom.
Why is that not freedom? If it does not trample on the legitimate rights of others, then it is not unjust and most certainly must reflect freedom from any social definition. A Catholic does not condone birth control or gay union. But is it not freedom to permit those who do condone it to engage in it since it does not infringe on the rights of others?
Indeed it is not always self-evident what the natural law is, while it is always (well, leaving voting irregularities aside) evident what the people voted for. There is no substitute for discernment the will of God, no matter how tempting it is to simply put stuff to a vote.
I don't disagree in principle, but again even within the broad range of Christian sects there will be many differences of opinion of what specifically will constitute God's will. If you add in the other major religions of the world, you will have even greater distinctions. This is the very reason why republican government cannot be a theocracy. They are mutually exclusive.
Some of your examples are off-target. Napoleon had a very strained relationship with the Church, which never really recognized him as a valid monarch (The Pope that was present at his coronation was his prisoner)
But then which period did the Church more favorably recognize: the aristocracy of Louis XVI where people were starving to death, the Jacobin period where the guillotine and insane revolutionaries destroyed all, or the Napoleonic period where imperialism ruled?
The use of gas against combatants is not inherently injust method of war; nor do I set up the First World War as any kind of standard by merely pointing out that remnants of civilized behavior were still apparent then.
I don't know which gas you are referring to, blister agents that create huge blisters over your entire body until infection finally kills you, mustard gas where your lungs are burned beyond use, or nerve gas where death comes with difficulty but at least somewhat quicker than the first two. In WW I, mustard gas was the WMD of choice. When I was a young boy, I met a man who had been a victim of mustard gas in the civilized war. He was constantly drooling from both his nose and his mouth. He was hit with the gas 30 years earlier, and doctors then could do nothing for him.
Regarding the Cathars and other heretics, -- they were considered enemy of the state and were suppressed as such. Insurgencies of no religious significance were put down with equal brutality. The Church could not declare their heresies valid because they were not valid; yet nothing short of that would have spared those who chose not to recant.
Is this any less valid than the persecution of Catholics and other Christians in Muslim countries today...for heresy? Any church of whatever sect or denomination that countenances such brutality for religious beliefs cannot in any way be linked with freedom. This simply points out that the link of the Church to the government destroys the concept of individual rights and freedoms. You defended the Spanish Inquisition by reflecting that it was the State, not the Church that carried out the punishment. You did the same here in this example. But the State would not have done such but for the direct influence of the Church. That history underscores the importance of church-state separation.
Insurgencies of no religious significance were put down with equal brutality.
The brutality notwithstanding, an insurgency against a valid established government must of course be put down, or the government has no legitimacy. Heresy does not qualify as an insurgency against a legitimate government, only against a religious philosophy.
Parenthetically, if gnosticism, with its belief in hidden knowledge accessible to a caste of priests only, and evilhood of all human effort except extreme self-negation, were to gain the upper hand anywhere, men of secularist-humanitarian outlook would have much more than an occasional auto-da-fe to complain about.
If strict separation of church and state is maintained, then gnosticism, paganism or any other religious or pseudo-religious belief is irrelevant. And then the occasional auto-da-fe will be found only in history texts.
1692 Salem....
Freedom and protection of individual rights are synonymous. So if a political process results in individual right violations, this process does not belong to a free society. If, for example, a society takes a vote on the proposition that every redhead should have his property confiscated, and the majority wins, that is no freedom even though the election was "free".
Exercise of religion is one such right. It includes public acts, -- such as prayers, pageants, and erection of monuments, as well as private acts. The government has an obligation to protect religion in both the public and private sphere, or this government oppresses freedom.
Moreover, religion is a public asset. Not just freedom of conscience, but the entire spiritual and cultural heritage is an asset. The government has an obligation to preserve this asset, just like it has an obligation to preserve mineral or esthetic assets of a country. If religion is impoverished through government decree, then that government committed a theft of public treasure and does not stand for freedom.
Some institutions of free society, -- primarily marriage and educational institutions, -- are built on top of religion and are likewise national assets. A government that drives religion out of the classroom, permits no-fault divorce on demand, or encourages destructive behavior by inventing constructs like gay "marriage", -- is a government guilty of theft.
I understand that minority religions, and irreligion, have rights as well. A healthy society finds ways for dominant culture to co-exist with minority culture, typically, through local self-government. Needless to say, the West has been moving in the exactly opposite direction, toward destruction of dominant religious and cultural heritage and toward centralization around the least common denominator principle.
Heresies of the early Church and of the Middle Ages were insurgencies that threatened the social fabric. They were a close equivalent of threats to secular order that we are familiar today, such as fascism or communism, and we did not hesitate to fight those. Recall that at that time the social fabric was the religious fabric. The anabaptists in Muenster (I think) murdered and drove out everyone who disagreed with them, and confiscated private property. The false converts to Christianity in Spain were a real threat to a country that just went though a religious civil war to drive the Muslim out. This is not to justify every prosecution of every heretic, -- some clearly were abuse of power, but one needs to see those things in their historical perspective.
Separation of church and state has become a code word for destruction of religion in the public space. But when one resists that, the argument immediately goes to the bogeyman of Islamic theocracy. In fact, Christianity in the West scarcely had a period even remotely resembling a monolythical theocracy. The Roman Empire following Constantine managed to peacefully accomodate a pagan majority. The early medieval kings were completely independent from the Church, even those that were Christian. When they insisted on appointing bishops, -- a clear power grab by the secular medieval state, -- the Investiture Controversy ensued and Gregory VII was able to restore balance. When Aquinas defined the separation of church and state by function, -- one cares for the souls, the other for the public good, -- he had nearly a millenium of tension and balance to look at in European historical experience. The Establishment clause in the US Constitution is a late comer to the controversy, did not draw on a comparable breadth of historical experience, and by now has been completely emasciated of all meaning.
The Church had tepid support for the Bourbons as the only legitimate government France had at the time. It most certainly did not recognize the Jacobins that slaughtered clergy by the thousands. Napoleon probably got credit for getting rid of the Jacobins, but his reign was not viewed as legitimate except under duress.
I am sure poison gas can cause a terrible injury, and so can any other weapon. But as long as it is used against combatants, there is no moral reason to single it out for opprobium.
The execution of Salem witches, and generally witch hunts, are, of course, a horrible abuse. The Holy Inquisition came to the conclusion, by the way, that witchcraft is for the most part superstition and discouraged prosecution for that. The worst persecution of witches took place during the Reformation.
Here's another one for you:
Protocommunist Taborites
Make a mockery of our Christian rites
Vile arch-heretic Hus
Has let these demons loose
So his passion mixed feelings invites
You would have to clarify what you mean by "religion permeating government." To anyone who truly understands Christianity, our very form of government and our constitution are already, and were at their inception, permeated by Judeo-Christian values.
The very idea of freedom for the individual is predicated God's creation of each of us in His image, and endowed with free will. If God creates us free, then what warrant can there be for any of us to be enslaved by man?
Furthermore, our separation of the branches of government and the balance of powers between them is explicit recognition of the fallen nature of man, how each of us carries Adam's sin, and so all will sin. Consequently, none of us can be completely trusted with absolute power.
I could go on and on, but I think you might be getting the point. The very idea of this country, and every value it was founded on, is biblical. If you don't believe me, compare us to any Islamic country, any communist country, and any other non-Christian country that exists or ever existed. Not all are malignant, but none has ever valued the individual as ours does.
You're absolutely right. Context is everything and you may want to read on in this thread, because the question raised was not truly in context. It will take much more than a simple one line sentence to clarify the separation issue that we have been discussing in this thread.
The very idea of freedom for the individual is predicated God's creation of each of us in His image, and endowed with free will. If God creates us free, then what warrant can there be for any of us to be enslaved by man?
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the first part as none of us can be sure. But as for the last sentence, of course, I agree. But I'm sure you know that historically that's not always been the case, nor have Christians always looked on "freedom" in the same fashion.
Furthermore, our separation of the branches of government and the balance of powers between them is explicit recognition of the fallen nature of man, how each of us carries Adam's sin, and so all will sin. Consequently, none of us can be completely trusted with absolute power.
Well, we can at least agree that man is imperfect and as such created institutions to filter out our imperfections. Our particular governmental institutions were created to ensure justice, a prerequisite to society. As for absolute power, of course, it is antithetical to justice. But I doubt these very religious men created what they did from any thoughts of Adam and original sin; rather certainly it came from the fear of a theocracy, a knowledge of the weaknesses of a monarchy, a strong sense of justice, and a study of the political philosophies of the time, not the least of which were the writings of Montesquieu.
The very idea of this country, and every value it was founded on, is biblical. If you don't believe me, compare us to any Islamic country, any communist country, and any other non-Christian country that exists or ever existed. Not all are malignant, but none has ever valued the individual as ours does.
I don't disagree with you in general. I think you took one question I posed out of context and then presumed an entire political and religious philosophy around me. But again, while this country was founded by religious people, it was not founded as a religious government, but rather one that recognized the importance of religion (all) to society, that freedom means the freedom of choices, and understood that secular and religious principles are not mutually exclusive.
bump
bump for later
Given the two, it's feminism that's the culprit.
Abortion together with socialism work for me.
And, I have a sneaking suspicion that God does not look kindly on those who use His word to support their own will to power.
Not so. Anarchy represents absolute freedom from government, but in no way protects the rights of individuals.
So if a political process results in individual right violations, this process does not belong to a free society. If, for example, a society takes a vote on the proposition that every redhead should have his property confiscated, and the majority wins, that is no freedom even though the election was "free".
I could not agree more, which is what I said in my last post. But in protecting the rights of individuals and more importantly minority groups, the governmental authority will have to recognize that such groups likely see God in very different ways. That also is freedom...the freedom to think.
Exercise of religion is one such right. It includes public acts, -- such as prayers, pageants, and erection of monuments, as well as private acts. The government has an obligation to protect religion in both the public and private sphere, or this government oppresses freedom.
I agree. But that includes any and all religions that do not infringe on individual rights. But if you're going where I think you are, then you are suggesting the active participation of government in this "religious freedom". Here I draw the line. It is government's responsibility to create a climate not only of religious freedom, but of religious tolerance. It must protect these freedoms while not actively participating or encouraging their advancement.
Moreover, religion is a public asset. Not just freedom of conscience, but the entire spiritual and cultural heritage is an asset. The government has an obligation to preserve this asset, just like it has an obligation to preserve mineral or esthetic assets of a country. If religion is impoverished through government decree, then that government committed a theft of public treasure and does not stand for freedom.
Religious freedom is a public asset, but religion itself belongs to the individual and his own conscience. I agree that our culture has a strong Judeo-Christian base, and we have earlier discussed the founders' religious beliefs. But when you talk of government preserving religion as an asset, you are no doubt only considering Christianity I'm sure. If so, then you are espousing an active governmental participation in the advancement of Christianity. And if so, then that government is trampling on the individual rights of those who do not share that belief. Government has then recast the word "freedom" to mean something it was never intended to be.
Some institutions of free society, -- primarily marriage and educational institutions, -- are built on top of religion and are likewise national assets.
I agree that the concept of marriage was religiously based, but I do not understand the religious aspect of education. If you are saying that Christianity must be taught in public schools then of course I reject that in its entirety. If you are saying that schools should permit religious freedom, then I agree (guardedly).
A government that drives religion out of the classroom, permits no-fault divorce on demand, or encourages destructive behavior by inventing constructs like gay "marriage", -- is a government guilty of theft.
Permitting students to have time to pray or reflect is a good thing in a public school. Permitting a student to refer to God in a paper is a good thing. Teaching Christianity in a public school in any context other than as a survey of world religions is a bad thing. Unless of course you would also countenance the teaching of Islam. When a state government permits liberal divorces or gay marriage then it's because the people of that state permit it through their elected legislators. You or I don't have to like it, but clearly the word "theft" does not come to mind. If the people don't like such social goals as those, then use the constitutional processes they have in that state and change it. I think the word "freedom" means something quite different for you and I. You seem to countenance freedom only if an action meets your specific religious ethic, or an action that does not conflict with your view of our culture. Freedom to me means the ability to redefine culture. I may not like the change, and probably do not, but without that ability, freedom is simply a meaningless word.
I understand that minority religions, and irreligion, have rights as well. A healthy society finds ways for dominant culture to co-exist with minority culture, typically, through local self-government. Needless to say, the West has been moving in the exactly opposite direction, toward destruction of dominant religious and cultural heritage and toward centralization around the least common denominator principle.
If in a free society a religion can only exist with the active aid of the government, then what does that say about the religion? Perhaps the dominant religion needs to reconsider its position with respect to the people, not the government. If the people still want that dominant religion, then government's responsibility is to ensure only that no institution prevent the will of the people. Government has no responsibility or even right to actively assist the people. The government must protect those minority rights as well as those of the dominant religion. It can only accomplish that by remaining neutral and letting the people make the choices.
Heresies of the early Church and of the Middle Ages were insurgencies that threatened the social fabric. They were a close equivalent of threats to secular order that we are familiar today, such as fascism or communism, and we did not hesitate to fight those.
A heresy was a crime of thought. If you have no right to think what you will, then you have no freedom. Yes, religion was the social fabric, but no less a tyranny than any other in history. Did the people have the right to change the "government" by civil means? Did people have the right to think what they would without repercussions? The concept of justice was sorely lacking in these "societies" and without justice you have no true society. You have only groups of people controlled by institutions, not institutions controlled by the people.
Separation of church and state has become a code word for destruction of religion in the public space. But when one resists that, the argument immediately goes to the bogeyman of Islamic theocracy. In fact, Christianity in the West scarcely had a period even remotely resembling a monolythical theocracy.
A couple of points. You told me yourself that you preferred a Catholic theocratic government over the one we currently have. Why would that be any different? Separation of church and state is so important to us here because of the history we have discussed. Yes we have gone overboard, but it's people like judge Moore who force these issues. Government should not exclude religion but should not promote it either. Simple but certainly not settled.
The Establishment clause in the US Constitution is a late comer to the controversy, did not draw on a comparable breadth of historical experience, and by now has been completely emasciated of all meaning.
True, the clause came from the 17th and 18th century English experience, which was enough for the founders. As to the meaning, we have discussed this also before and one must look to the Federalist Papers to see much more on religion, including if you recall the concept of religious tests for government officers.
I am sure poison gas can cause a terrible injury, and so can any other weapon. But as long as it is used against combatants, there is no moral reason to single it out for opprobium.
Your footing here seems to be less sure than on religious ground. You may want to look at the history of chemical warfare and the reasons for the conventions outlawing its use.
Agree. And He has plenty of folks to be angry at. You will find a number of them right here on FR.
It is occuring to me that since we strarted this conversation on another thread, we have transitioned to a different America. A marijuana patch in the backyard became an instance of interstate commerce; private property was essentially abolished and replaced by a plutocracy; and the same monument to the Ten Commandments is or is not "legal" depending on whether allusions to religion were made during its dedication.
The latter, of course, fully obliterates the First Amendment. Religion on the public square is allowed only if it can be excused on historical grounds. This ranks somewhere with the Soviet Union if not (yet) in practice, then in legal theory.
No, I am not limiting my understanding of freedom of speech, including freedom to educate, to Christianity. We have a pluralistic society and all the rabbis and mullahs should be equally protected. The only thing that protects them now is political correctness.
Religion, of course, becomes stronger when persecuted. We are, quite possibly, living through a third Great Awakening thanks to the robbers in the Supreme Court. The point is not whether Christianity is seriously endangered by these shenanigans, but whether we have anything remotely resembling a civli society at this point. In my opinion, we do not.
Can't argue that. It is amazing how the USSC arrived at some of that. Of course, the private property decision was, for most of us the most serious. Yet that can simply be negated by the actions of each state legislature. As for the 10 Commandments, it does seem that the court recognized its place in our history and culture at least to some degree. But all of this simply points to the importance of the President's nominee, as several of those were I believe 5-4 decisions.
The latter, of course, fully obliterates the First Amendment. Religion on the public square is allowed only if it can be excused on historical grounds. This ranks somewhere with the Soviet Union if not (yet) in practice, then in legal theory.
Still there is another view. Should it be permissable to place the 10 Commandments within a courthouse for nothing more than religious observation, where do you stop? Would it be lawful for a chief judge who was a Muslim to place the Koran or some other Islamic item on display in his courthouse? Should the judge in the first example be permitted to take it further, for example, to place copies of the 10 Commandments inside the courtroom for each observer to see? Or in an extreme case, add some reading of the 10 Commandments to the jury instructions? Where do you stop?
No, I am not limiting my understanding of freedom of speech, including freedom to educate, to Christianity. We have a pluralistic society and all the rabbis and mullahs should be equally protected. The only thing that protects them now is political correctness.
What about the freedom to educate to Islam? I don't understand your last statement concerning political correctness though. Aren't they protected by the First Amendment?
Religion, of course, becomes stronger when persecuted. We are, quite possibly, living through a third Great Awakening thanks to the robbers in the Supreme Court. The point is not whether Christianity is seriously endangered by these shenanigans, but whether we have anything remotely resembling a civli society at this point. In my opinion, we do not.
I would say that Islam is being persecuted far more here in this country than is Christianity, certainly since 9/11. And I don't believe Christianity is at all endangered by the actions of the USSC. It has been hurt far more by the actions of priests who have for years preyed on children and then condemned those who would practice birth control. Christianity hurts itself far more than any outside attacks can ever do. The infighting concerning gay and lesbian unions and even leadership is far more serious than any distinction pertaining to the siting of the 10 Commandments on government property.
No big disagreements here. A few minor (but persistent) ones and a few clarifications.
The eminent domain decision is huge. Even if the states create a statewise framework that protects the property owners, we have moved from property rights being a natural right recognized by the Constitution to property rights that are the outcome of the political process. As with any decentraliziong trend, this cloud has some silver linings, but the property rights has been dealt an irreparable blow. Similarly, the federal jurusdiction has been extended to people's backyards by the marijuana growers decision, another irreparable injury, this time to federalism.
Sure, Bush can appoint a conservative judge or two, and even get them confirmed. But first, this predicament exposes the juducial branch as an extension of the other two, not as an independent purely intellectual law-interpretive body. And, of course, we have a pattern of judges that were perceived conservative at the time of the nomination promptly drifting leftward once on the bench. The chances of either of these three disastrous decisions to be overturned are virtually nil.
Yes, it would be lawful for a judge to display any symbol, religious or otherwise, from which he draws inspiration, and it would be lawful to have opening prayers of any religion during the court sessions. Likewise he should be able to explicitly use religion in his reasoning. I don't know if the instructions of the jury are matter of procedural law, so I don't know if personal opinion may be injected in those; but if a personal opinion (e.g., "follow your heart") is allowed, then a religiously-based personal opinion (e.g. "be merciful as your Father in heaven is merciful") should also be allowed. Religion is an intrinsic part of what a human being is; it should be an important factor in considering the qualifications of the judge, and it should be his right to exercise his religion or irreligion once he is installed in office. It would be wrong for the judge to arrive to sectarian decisions outside of the law of the land, that is all. For example, a judge may not attach civil guilt to things his religion considers wrong. A judge violates the separation clause when he hands down sentences for violating the Sabbath. He does not break the separation clause when he himself publicly observes the Sabbath.
Stephen Breyer's opinion on the Texas Ten Commandment case is interesting, all the more so because it was the swing opinion that enabled Texas to display its Ten Commandment monument. He reasoned that the monument is OK because there is no evidence that the Eagles (which donated the monument) used any religious language to describe its purpose. Note that he thinks that Ten Commandments is apriori wrong, but if the culprit is discreet enough not to leave any evidence of religious conviction, there is not enough in the law to stop them. It is to him a case of a teller in a bank suddenly buying luxurious houses cars and yachts, -- obviously guuilty of embezzlement, -- who still needs to be caught with his hand in the coffers before he can be jailed. Also note that it is the speech that is sanctioned. If a clergyman spoke at the dedication then that speech would be enough to ban the monument. Conversely, we have to presume that if a school principal posts the Ten Commandments on the wall and slyly explains that the display is there to teach about Roman numerals, then such display would pass the Breyer's test. This is the connection to the freedom of speech, as well as freedom of conscience, being violated by the Supreme Court.
So, the Jews and the Muslim, and of course the Christians, are no longer protected by the First Amendment. The minority religions are protected by the fungible code of political correctness that teaches us to be nice and non-judgemental to one another. This is a weak, and ultimately incorrect principle, and so the protection is illusory. It holds well for the Jews, the pagan, and the atheists. It is breaking down for the Muslim, and it offers no protection to the Catholics or Evangelical Protestants.
One important distinction is between hurting Christianity and hurting the civil society. The article is about the civil society in Europe being on the verge of death, not Christianity. Indeed, the pederast priests did more to hurt Christianity than anty Supreme Court decisions; but it is Supreme Court decisions like these that injure our civil society.
Ask it to Oriana Fallaci...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.