Posted by Ethereal Zephyr at 11:58am Sep 20 '05Alright, here goes my nod to the debate. I'll even try to be nice for Round 1 here =D
A speaker from Texas A&M University came by the school yesterday in honor of "Constituion Day" (this is the first year we've had it, apparently--yay Feds!). He spoke on the Establishment clases, however, rather than the Constituion as a whole. Some good points were raised! But I get ahead of myself.
Doctor Aune pointed out that there are three basic "camps" regarding the issue of church and state. Two of the three have historical bases and are valid points, and the third is not valid on any rational grounds wahtsoever.
1. Nonpreferentialism. This basically states that the government is free to promote religion in all its various forms, but no denomination (or "flavor" as it were) is to get preference over another. Sort of boils down to "Yay religion! Go! Go believe in SOMETHING, my friend! Anything! Just do it!"
2. Separationism. This is the belief that the church and state are completely autonomous entities. One must NEVER have ANYTHING to do with the other. This can be based on secular reasons ("Keep my government religion-free, dammit! Religion only cuases problems") or religious ones ("The state cannot help the church, it can only corrupt such a holy instituion"). In either case, it boils down to preservation by differentiation.
3. "Majority Rule" Accomodationism. This is pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT. "Well, 85% (or whatever) of the country is Christian, so Christian principles should runt he government." BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, and, I repeat, BULLSHIT!!! The United States of America was framed SPECIFICALLY "to protect from the tyranny of the majority." Well, that shoots your "Founding Fathers" argument to hell. And what happens when Christians are the minority again? Will you tolerate your children saying Islamic prayers? Memorizing all 613 (or 627? I forget) Commandments during third period? What about having laws or a Constitution referring to our undying devotion to Buddha as our leader?
(NOTE! I bring up this last as a countermeasure to the whole "rewrite the preamble so it includes a reference to God and/or Jesus thing that surfaces every few decades.)
So, yeah. I can go on and on (and planned to) but it seems it's time for class, heh heh heh. Anyone care to defend (or debunk) one of these positions? Fight me, darn it! I'm raring for a good squabble! Just...have solid reasons - .-; "Bible says so," "my parents say so," or "my preacher syas so" WILL be laughed at and summarily dismissed as fools.
A speaker from Texas A&M University came by the school yesterday in honor of "Constituion Day" (this is the first year we've had it, apparently--yay Feds!). He spoke on the Establishment clases, however, rather than the Constituion as a whole. Some good points were raised! But I get ahead of myself.
Doctor Aune pointed out that there are three basic "camps" regarding the issue of church and state. Two of the three have historical bases and are valid points, and the third is not valid on any rational grounds wahtsoever.
1. Nonpreferentialism. This basically states that the government is free to promote religion in all its various forms, but no denomination (or "flavor" as it were) is to get preference over another. Sort of boils down to "Yay religion! Go! Go believe in SOMETHING, my friend! Anything! Just do it!"
2. Separationism. This is the belief that the church and state are completely autonomous entities. One must NEVER have ANYTHING to do with the other. This can be based on secular reasons ("Keep my government religion-free, dammit! Religion only cuases problems") or religious ones ("The state cannot help the church, it can only corrupt such a holy instituion"). In either case, it boils down to preservation by differentiation.
3. "Majority Rule" Accomodationism. This is pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT. "Well, 85% (or whatever) of the country is Christian, so Christian principles should runt he government." BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, and, I repeat, BULLSHIT!!! The United States of America was framed SPECIFICALLY "to protect from the tyranny of the majority." Well, that shoots your "Founding Fathers" argument to hell. And what happens when Christians are the minority again? Will you tolerate your children saying Islamic prayers? Memorizing all 613 (or 627? I forget) Commandments during third period? What about having laws or a Constitution referring to our undying devotion to Buddha as our leader?
(NOTE! I bring up this last as a countermeasure to the whole "rewrite the preamble so it includes a reference to God and/or Jesus thing that surfaces every few decades.)
So, yeah. I can go on and on (and planned to) but it seems it's time for class, heh heh heh. Anyone care to defend (or debunk) one of these positions? Fight me, darn it! I'm raring for a good squabble! Just...have solid reasons - .-; "Bible says so," "my parents say so," or "my preacher syas so" WILL be laughed at and summarily dismissed as fools.