God and Government (split from "Tie in with EP163: Revolution Time")

[stePH]

I was replied to before I had a chance to edit and clarify my post, so I repeat: what does the government "recognizing God's authority" mean to the citizenry?

It means that the government cannot override God. The Bible would be recognized as the Word of God and would be the final authority for all legislation, much like the Iraqi constitution recognizes the Qur'an as the final authority. For example, any law created by man that contradicts the law of God would be found by the courts to be no law (such as the alleged 'laws' created by Hitler's government for the use of committing genocide against the Jews). If anyone wishes to discuss 'God and government' further, I humbly suggest starting a new thread. I see that this topic could easily take over the thread.

And here we are ...

4.  It seems like most everyone respectfully disagrees with me on this one. A question for you: Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all? For example, the US Pledge of Allegiance has the words "Under God", ...

Only since June 1954, after the Knights of Columbus had been trying for a few years prior to get it added in there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22

...our fiat legal tender has the words "In God we trust",...

Only since 1864 when it first began to appear on a few coins, and didn't appear on every unit of currency until 1956.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust


... some quotes from the Founding Fathers:

"The United States is in no sense founded on Christian Doctrine." George Washington, 1st President of the U.S.

"As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, the United States is not a Christian Nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation." John Adams, 2nd president of the U.S.

"Christianity neither is nor ever was part of the Common Law." Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the U.S.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise and every expanded prospect." James Madison, Author of the Constitution and 4th President of the U.S.

[EDIT]
I am an atheist.  In the context of the other thread, "God" would have no place in my government.  Citizens of faith would be free to attend the worship services of their choice, read the "holy" texts of their choice, and conduct their own lives as they see fit in accordance with their own beliefs.  However, attempts to legislate their beliefs so that others would be required to live their way would not be permitted.

So how would I, as an atheist, be permitted to live under your proposed regime?

[Cognosco]

Hear Hear !!
What many 'citizens' of neo-Falwellian ilk conveniently fail to recall is that our founders valued separation of church and state NOT because they were afraid of government overstepping its bounds into religion, but the other way around.  The only way that could succeed is to make it a nation that favored no religion but all religions.

[CammoBlammo]

I don't live in the US, but I am aware of some of the church/state issues that have arisen over the years. How do those advocating a greater official role for religion in public life deal with non-Christian religions?

For example, I imagine Buddhist, Muslim and Mormon children cite the Pledge of Allegiance. Which God do the proponents of the current wording suggest the children refer to? Do they really want children pledging their allegiance to one nation under Allah?

I've also heard suggestion that the Scripture should be taught in school. Would the Christian majority be happy for the Utah school system to introduce mandatory Book of Mormon reading?

Speaking as someone who teaches church sponsored religious education in a public school I find this whole thing bizarre, to say the least.

[Holden]

Looks like you're going after the straw man on this one. I never said America was founded as a Christian nation, and the examples I gave were not supporting that notion. America was, for the most part, founded by Christians, but that is another matter.

What I said was if I was to found my own country and design its goverment (this was the subject of the original thread), it would be a government that recognizes God's existence and authority. The examples I cited were examples used as part of my open question, "Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all?"

Athiests such as yourself would be permitted in my country and allowed to believe/not believe whatever they like; however the scope of any government I design would include honoring God and making Him known. So would athiests be permitted? Yes. Would they be comfortable? Probably not.

Let me pause and try to look at it from your perspective. I conceed that if God is false, then your point of view regarding God and government may be best. If there is no God, then it would be foolish for any government to acknowledge Him, much less to create legislation based upon a false religion. But do you conceed that if the Bible is true, God is real, and Christ is His only Son, that if these things are absolutely true then it is folly for any man, woman, or government not to acknowlege Him?

[Russell Nash]

Looks like you're going after the straw man on this one. I never said America was founded as a Christian nation, and the examples I gave were not supporting that notion. America was, for the most part, founded by Christians, but that is another matter.

What I said was if I was to found my own country and design its goverment (this was the subject of the original thread), it would be a government that recognizes God's existence and authority. The examples I cited were examples used as part of my open question, "Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all?"

Athiests such as yourself would be permitted in my country and allowed to believe/not believe whatever they like; however the scope of any government I design would include honoring God and making Him known. So would athiests be permitted? Yes. Would they be comfortable? Probably not.

Let me pause and try to look at it from your perspective. I conceed that if God is false, then your point of view regarding God and government may be best. If there is no God, then it would be foolish for any government to acknowledge Him, much less to create legislation based upon a false religion. But do you conceed that if the Bible is true, God is real, and Christ is His only Son, that if these things are absolutely true then it is folly for any man, woman, or government not to acknowlege Him?

False Dichotomy.  See thread on Pascal's wager.

[stePH]

Looks like you're going after the straw man on this one. I never said America was founded as a Christian nation, and the examples I gave were not supporting that notion. America was, for the most part, founded by Christians, but that is another matter.

You're the one pointing out the words "under God" in the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" on currency, and other examples of Judeo-Christian imagery in the US government.  My responses to those points make no claim as to whether the USA was founded on Christian principles.  I was just heading off any potential future claim to that effect before it got started.

Athiests such as yourself would be permitted in my country and allowed to believe/not believe whatever they like; however the scope of any government I design would include honoring God and making Him known. So would athiests be permitted? Yes. Would they be comfortable? Probably not.

What laws would be in place as a result of the government recognizing God's existence and authority?  What conduct would be required of the citizenry (believers and atheists alike) to this effect?

[eytanz]

What I said was if I was to found my own country and design its goverment (this was the subject of the original thread), it would be a government that recognizes God's existence and authority. The examples I cited were examples used as part of my open question, "Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all?"

You didn't respond to my answer in the other thread, so I'll paraphrase here. Acknowledging God is not something you can do inadvertently. I'm not saying that members of the parliament will not be allowed to say "God bless you" when someone sneezes. I'm saying that there will be no mention of God in the laws and constitution, just like there will be no mention of, say, the rings of Saturn. God is, simply, not relevant to the role of a government (though God may be very relevant to each and every member of the government).

[Corydon]

I don't live in the US, but I am aware of some of the church/state issues that have arisen over the years. How do those advocating a greater official role for religion in public life deal with non-Christian religions?

For example, I imagine Buddhist, Muslim and Mormon children cite the Pledge of Allegiance. Which God do the proponents of the current wording suggest the children refer to? Do they really want children pledging their allegiance to one nation under Allah?

The nice thing about the "under God" wording is that it's vague; you can slot in whichever version of the monotheistic deity you like.  So the only problem is for (some) polytheists... and of course, for atheists, or for those who are opposed to publicly-sponsored religion.

In fact, the "under God" wording probably is unconstitutional, and while the most recent challenge to it was rejected by the Supreme Court for technical reasons (in 2004), I imagine that a stronger challenge could get rid of it.  My own feeling is that while
I'm not crazy about "under God" in the Pledge or on coins, they're examples of things that are quite literally not worth making a federal case about.

I've also heard suggestion that the Scripture should be taught in school. Would the Christian majority be happy for the Utah school system to introduce mandatory Book of Mormon reading?

It's not as if all Christians have the same belief about politics, education or anything else-- including Christianity.  Which is why religious education in public schools is a bright-line example of unconstitutional activity.

[Listener]

Hear Hear !!
What many 'citizens' of neo-Falwellian ilk conveniently fail to recall is that our founders valued separation of church and state NOT because they were afraid of government overstepping its bounds into religion, but the other way around.  The only way that could succeed is to make it a nation that favored no religion but all religions.

I don't have the citation handy, but from what I've learned, the appropriate quote isn't separation of church and state but freedom of church from state.  IIRC, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a church that asked for his endorsement (when he was a lawmaker/public figure) and said he could not endorse the church because it would be an endorsement of a religion, which the government does not do.

If someone can find the citation, feel free to correct me.

Personally, if you want to make your country a devoutly Christian one, fine with me.  I'll choose not to live there.  You are free to make your decision as grand-high-poo-bah and I support your decision.

[Heradel]

The nice thing about the "under God" wording is that it's vague; you can slot in whichever version of the monotheistic deity you like.  So the only problem is for (some) polytheists... and of course, for atheists, or for those who are opposed to publicly-sponsored religion.

Also for Buddhists and other not-deity based religions.

/Not entering discussion but thought it should be noted.

[Corydon]

The nice thing about the "under God" wording is that it's vague; you can slot in whichever version of the monotheistic deity you like.  So the only problem is for (some) polytheists... and of course, for atheists, or for those who are opposed to publicly-sponsored religion.

Also for Buddhists and other not-deity based religions.

Sure, some Buddhists; though there are monotheistic versions of Buddhism, too.  It's a crazy, complicated world out there; internet discussions of religion almost always ignore that complexity...

[Heradel]

The nice thing about the "under God" wording is that it's vague; you can slot in whichever version of the monotheistic deity you like.  So the only problem is for (some) polytheists... and of course, for atheists, or for those who are opposed to publicly-sponsored religion.

Also for Buddhists and other not-deity based religions.

Sure, some Buddhists; though there are monotheistic versions of Buddhism, too.  It's a crazy, complicated world out there; internet discussions of religion almost always ignore that complexity...

Yes-ish, but not in the way that the Abrahamic religions think of a God. Some of the traditions elevate the Buddha, some don't, and there's not the same kind of "I pray for X so I will get X via divine intervention" that happens in the Abrahamic and other religions. In it's pure form, Buddhism doesn't really care about how the world came to be or why it came to be or who if anyone made it, it just concerns itself with humanity and humanity's suffering. Wikipedia has an entry on it.

[Cognosco]

I don't have the citation handy, but from what I've learned, the appropriate quote isn't separation of church and state but freedom of church from state.  IIRC, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a church that asked for his endorsement (when he was a lawmaker/public figure) and said he could not endorse the church because it would be an endorsement of a religion, which the government does not do.

If someone can find the citation, feel free to correct me.

Of course if this were as black and white an issue as most people think it is, we wouldn't be having thi s discussion now as it would have all been decided long ago.  I concede that we are both partially correct.  Check out this web site "http://members.tripod.com/candst/toc.htm" for your reference to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.  But also read James Madison's June 3, 1811 reply to some Baptist Churches in North Carolina, in which he says, "Having always regarded tile practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both..."  It is clear to me that Madison understood the pressures religious institutions will always try to bring upon the government to grant a 'favor'.  Indeed, since those early days of Jefferson and Madison, try to count on your fingers how many times the government has been guilty of 'establishment' over a religious institution.  Then consider how many religious groups are trying to impose their wills on our government (prayer in schools, 10 commandments in courts, no gay marriages, and so on).  Separation of church and state may appear to be for the 'protection' of the church, but any politician can tell you clearly it is the other way around.

Sorry for the long post.  To bring this back into the context of Escape Pod, why doesn't anyone write more speculative fiction on what might have been or what could be the result of a lack of separation of church and state in the US?  Would we be like a gigantic antithesis to the Moslem world?  Or would we be a fractious collection of border clashing religious states always at war with each other?

[stePH]

Sorry for the long post.  To bring this back into the context of Escape Pod, why doesn't anyone write more speculative fiction on what might have been or what could be the result of a lack of separation of church and state in the US?  Would we be like a gigantic antithesis to the Moslem world?  Or would we be a fractious collection of border clashing religious states always at war with each other?

I personally haven't seen such a story since Heinlein's "If This Goes On ...."  I wouldn't mind seeing (or hearing) another, if it's a good story.

[CammoBlammo]

Sorry for the long post.  To bring this back into the context of Escape Pod, why doesn't anyone write more speculative fiction on what might have been or what could be the result of a lack of separation of church and state in the US?  Would we be like a gigantic antithesis to the Moslem world?  Or would we be a fractious collection of border clashing religious states always at war with each other?

Well, there was Ep 148, Homecoming at the Borderlands Cafe.

[wintermute]

Looks like you're going after the straw man on this one. I never said America was founded as a Christian nation, and the examples I gave were not supporting that notion. America was, for the most part, founded by Christians, but that is another matter.

What I said was if I was to found my own country and design its goverment (this was the subject of the original thread), it would be a government that recognizes God's existence and authority. The examples I cited were examples used as part of my open question, "Would your government take care not to acknowledge God at all?"

Athiests such as yourself would be permitted in my country and allowed to believe/not believe whatever they like; however the scope of any government I design would include honoring God and making Him known. So would athiests be permitted? Yes. Would they be comfortable? Probably not.

Let me pause and try to look at it from your perspective. I conceed that if God is false, then your point of view regarding God and government may be best. If there is no God, then it would be foolish for any government to acknowledge Him, much less to create legislation based upon a false religion. But do you conceed that if the Bible is true, God is real, and Christ is His only Son, that if these things are absolutely true then it is folly for any man, woman, or government not to acknowlege Him?

False Dichotomy.  See thread on Pascal's wager.

Not an example of Pacscal's Wager. That requires that, if God doesn't exist, your choice has zero effect; and if he does exist, your choice has infinite value (either positive or negative, depending on what you choose).

Holden admits that, if God doesn't exist then then it would be best to accept that and get on with non-religious government. Which implies that there's a cost to acknowledging God; something that Pascal's Wager absolutely requires there not be.

In addition, as governments can't go to Heaven (or can they?), any gains from acknowledging an extant God can only be finite, which again breaks Pascals Wager.

It does sound like a false dichotomy, though.

And I'd like to add my voice to those asking what it means for a government to "acknowledge God"; There's a whole range of possibilities, from issuing a resolution saying that God exists and then never thinking about it again, all the way to making "picking up sticks on a Sunday" a crime punishable by death.

[Russell Nash]

Let me pause and try to look at it from your perspective. I conceed that if God is false, then your point of view regarding God and government may be best. If there is no God, then it would be foolish for any government to acknowledge Him, much less to create legislation based upon a false religion. But do you conceed that if the Bible is true, God is real, and Christ is His only Son, that if these things are absolutely true then it is folly for any man, woman, or government not to acknowlege Him?

False Dichotomy.  See thread on Pascal's wager.

Not an example of Pacscal's Wager. That requires that, if God doesn't exist, your choice has zero effect; and if he does exist, your choice has infinite value (either positive or negative, depending on what you choose).

Holden admits that, if God doesn't exist then then it would be best to accept that and get on with non-religious government. Which implies that there's a cost to acknowledging God; something that Pascal's Wager absolutely requires there not be.

In addition, as governments can't go to Heaven (or can they?), any gains from acknowledging an extant God can only be finite, which again breaks Pascals Wager.

It does sound like a false dichotomy, though.

And I'd like to add my voice to those asking what it means for a government to "acknowledge God"; There's a whole range of possibilities, from issuing a resolution saying that God exists and then never thinking about it again, all the way to making "picking up sticks on a Sunday" a crime punishable by death.

I was pointing out the false dichotomy and showing our most recent example of it.  Where Holden's argument isn't exactly like Pascal's wager he is saying that since there is god how could we not recognize him.  My best response to him is that when he can analytically prove there is a god and prove which denomination is closest in its belief, we will recognize god.  Since that is impossible, a government has no business getting anywhere near religion.  Conversely religion has no place trying to change government.

[Chodon]

It seems like those most strongly opposed to intertwining religion and government are those who are generally against religion, or do not consider themselves a member of the faith.  I suppose that makes sense.  What interests me more is if there are Christians who believe the government has no place in religion (the category I fall into).

I think religion and government should be separate for two reasons.  First, government (in the form of representative democracy) has a tendancy to eventually shape the views of the minority more toward those of the majority.  Government policies based on religion would have a similar effect, and I believe eventually relgion would become legislated.  Anyone (especially Christians) can see the issues that would bring about.  Those going to church would merely be going through the motions, not truly Christians.

Second, Theocracies of all religions have had a bad run.  Middle age Europe?  Afghanistan?  Iran?  Iraq?  Saudi Arabia?  Tibet?  Not the best places to live, and all theocracies (Tibet more from outside influence than internal).  I think the purpose of government should be to provide services to the population they could not get by other means.  Religion doesn't fall into this area.

[stePH]

It seems like those most strongly opposed to intertwining religion and government are those who are generally against religion, or do not consider themselves a member of the faith.  I suppose that makes sense.  What interests me more is if there are Christians who believe the government has no place in religion (the category I fall into).

There are quite a number of them, actually.  I've been listening to back episodes of "The Atheist Experience" podcast (linked to in the Pascal's Wager thread) and have just finished the one about attempts by fundamentalists to co-opt the US military for their own ends. 

It seems the people trying to theocratize the government are a minority (but very vocal and persistent) sect of Christians called Dominionists, and a good portion of their opposition are Christians who understand that any state-sponsored religion is unlikely to be the one that they themselves hold to, and that the best way to protect their own religious freedoms is to protect everybody's.

[EDIT]
Furthermore, I'm sure the handful of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Druids and whatever would be less than thrilled by state-sponsored Christianity.

[Chodon]

It seems like those most strongly opposed to intertwining religion and government are those who are generally against religion, or do not consider themselves a member of the faith.  I suppose that makes sense.  What interests me more is if there are Christians who believe the government has no place in religion (the category I fall into).

There are quite a number of them, actually.  I've been listening to back episodes of "The Atheist Experience" podcast (linked to in the Pascal's Wager thread) and have just finished the one about attempts by fundamentalists to co-opt the US military for their own ends. 

It seems the people trying to theocratize the government are a minority (but very vocal and persistent) sect of Christians called Dominionists, and a good portion of their opposition are Christians who understand that any state-sponsored religion is unlikely to be the one that they themselves hold to, and that the best way to protect their own religious freedoms is to protect everybody's.

[EDIT]
Furthermore, I'm sure the handful of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Druids and whatever would be less than thrilled by state-sponsored Christianity.

Maybe "state sponsored Christianity" isn't the phrase I was looking for.  More like "Christian inspired laws".  For example, a town very near to the town in which I live just recently lifted their ban on alcohol.  Just a few months ago it was a totally dry county.  This is a religious inspired law.  Same thing with abortion laws (and I do NOT want to turn this into a debate on abortion...I am just using this as a reference for laws based on religious belief).  Same with state-mandated dress code in Iran. 

I think that legislated religion is what I really have a problem with.  Is someone really doing the right thing if they are afraid of going to jail instead of because of their own moral compass.

There are a lot of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc who would be against a Christian government, but would be all for a government of their own beliefs.  I think any of the above are just as wrong as a Christian government, because of the religious legislation.

[wintermute]

What interests me more is if there are Christians who believe the government has no place in religion (the category I fall into).

Theodore Roosevelt would be one example. He famously argued against putting "In God we trust" on coins in 1907 by saying:

My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege... it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.

This actually sums up his opinion on the matter pretty well: He doesn't seem to have known (or maybe: cared) if mixing religion and politics would have been bad for government, but he was adamant that it would be bad for Christianity.

The obvious question that any pro-theocracy Christian ought to ask themselves is: If Muslims (or Wiccans or Scientologists or Mormons or Catholics or Episcopalians) became a majority and took control of the government tomorrow, how much lattitude would you like them to have, when it comes to codifying their religion into law?

[stePH]

There are a lot of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc who would be against a Christian government, but would be all for a government of their own beliefs.  I think any of the above are just as wrong as a Christian government, because of the religious legislation.

Which is exactly why anybody with any sense, regardless of their own beliefs, should oppose any government endorsement of religion.  The state religion will not be your religion.

[Corydon]

It seems like those most strongly opposed to intertwining religion and government are those who are generally against religion, or do not consider themselves a member of the faith.  I suppose that makes sense.  What interests me more is if there are Christians who believe the government has no place in religion (the category I fall into).

Lots and lots and lots.  That category includes many of the Founding Fathers (who were a diverse lot who believed lots of different things).  Many of the most devout among them were the most ardent supporters of the First Amendment; by keeping religion and government separate, they wanted to protect the former from intrusions by the latter.  You might find this New Yorker review article interesting.

[DKT]

I think that legislated religion is what I really have a problem with.  Is someone really doing the right thing if they are afraid of going to jail instead of because of their own moral compass.

As another Christian, this is one of my biggest beef's with the idea of state-sponsored religion.  Trying to force somebody into religion seems to pretty much fly in the face of the idea of belief.  The idea of people being forced into some kind of religious discipline makes me a little sick to my stomach.  It doesn't inspire faith.  In fact, I'd argue that it's the polar opposite of faith, working against it in every way. 

[Chodon]

Jeez, it seems like almost everyone here agrees on something for once.

I'm a little weirded out...