RE: MD Church/state separation

From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2003 - 07:26:17 GMT

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD Church/state separation"

    >DMB says:
    >The idea is to stay out of the business of determining these values for
    >others.

    Right, and when public schools teach evolution as though it has supplanted
    archaic religion, they are determining theological values for others. We
    need government to stay out the values business, because there is no way it
    won't find itself butting up against other values.

    >DMB says:
    >John Locke pretty much invented liberalism. Jefferson was practically
    >impersonating him when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Good
    >choice, Sam. But I think its more accurate to say that religious beliefs
    >were fenced off rather than subordinated.

    Yes, it was the Congress that was subordinated by Jefferson. Locke did not
    intend to limit or fence off religious belief, and he certainly didn't
    believe it was possible to subordinate God.

    >DMB says:
    >I think religion is irrevocably tied in to the social level? No, not
    >really. Sorry if it comes across that way. I think religion is >PRIMARILY
    >social, but not exclusively. It can be raised to the intellectual level as
    >in philosophy of religion or comparative religious studies.

    Here again I can suggest that perhaps the theological principles were
    Intellectual ideas that a few people had, and the FOLLOWING of the religion
    by other people that the intellectual thinking led to is social. Jonathan
    Edwards is a good example of this. Certainly he was an Intellectual, his
    Philosophy is very similar to Locke's, and from that he derived his
    religious sermons. The practical application of his philosophy, besides his
    academic books, was to be a preacher and pastor and shepherd for his flock.
    He wrote his Hellfire and Brimstone sermons to influence his congregation in
    terms they would understand, he didn't try to get intellectual with them
    about the nature of being.

    >We can use the intellect to examine our assumptions about religion or just
    >about anything else. What I object to, and this is really what were talking
    >about, is when sectarian unexamined social level religion tries to usurp or
    >subordinate higher level values. The separation of church and state
    >prevents this by depriving theologians of the political authority they'd
    >need in order to do that.

    But it should also deprive athiests and post modern philosophers from doing
    the same thing. The government can't be in the position of ranking which
    values are "higher" than others. Reading, Riting and Rithmatic...

    >There are Universities in Kentucky where it is forbidden to use the word
    >"evolution". This is a case of social level religious values trying to
    >trump science, which the faithful creationists view as just another belief
    >system, as "just a theory".

    And you would have the government outlaw these universities from doing that?
      That would be getting involved in determine the values for others. I
    can't think of ONE THING that is useful or practical about learning or
    believing the theory of evolution. There is no point in insisting that all
    schools teach it.

    >The 9th circuit court recently ruled that the phrase "under god" in >the
    >pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because it violates the separation
    >of church and state.

    The whole point of saying "Under God" is to keep God and State separate! It
    is to keep people from thinking the dangerous thought that by pledging
    allegiance to the state, they have pledged to the highest authority there
    is. It says that there is a higher authority than state power. That is a
    fundemantal value of the US Constitution, the whole reason that the
    Constitution limits Government power. The idea of an "unalienable human
    right" implies that countries are under something that obligates them to
    respect people's rights. I'd be happy if the Pledge was changed to "One
    Nation, Separate from Religion", because that reminds people the same thing:
    that there is more, there are other allegiances that they can have regarding
    religion.

    >I think Pirsig is saying that this same struggle, between social and
    >intellectual values, is behind the horrors of the 20th century. Its no
    >small thing.

    Either that or it's the struggle between competing intellectual values. If
    we say that all ideas 'about' something are intellectual values, aren't most
    wars and horrors 'about' something?

    _________________________________________________________________
    MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 03 2003 - 07:26:34 GMT