• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Founders wanted a Christian America.

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I think that the modern debate is based on an assumption that wasn't really there in the original intent: that strong influence of churches on government implies strong churches, and that weakening this influence means weakening churches themselves.

I have no doubt that many (most?) of the Founding Fathers were religious... very deeply religious in many cases. However, I think that they were also cognizant of the recent history of Europe that demonstrated to them that when one denomination gains power in government, this is very bad news for all the other denominations.

I don't think they viewed "religion" as one monolithic thing that they were encouraging or not; I think they they approached the question of religion by deciding that to allow all denominations to flourish, they would keep all denominations out of government to make sure that no one denomination could use governmental power to oppress other denominations.

So really, I think the intended dynamic was that keeping religion out of government would be good for religion. I mean, take Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists (the one where the term "wall of separation between church and state" came from): in context, Jefferson coined the expression in a message meant to comfort the Danbury Baptists that because other denominations were barred from using the government as a club, they had a measure of security themselves.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So... as a short version: I wouldn't be surprised if the Founding Fathers did want a Christian *nation*, but I think that they thought that a strongly secular *government* was the best way to make that happen.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Is America A Christian Nation?

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

—The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution
WHAT ABOUT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?

We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

WHAT ABOUT THE PILGRIMS AND PURITANS?

The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?

Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.

DO THE WORDS "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION?

The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

WHAT DOES "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" MEAN?

Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

The Supreme Court has forged a three-part "Lemon test" (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.

A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.

WHAT ABOUT MAJORITY RULE?

America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.

ISN'T REMOVING RELIGION FROM PUBLIC PLACES HOSTILE TO RELIGION?

No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.

Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran ("one nation under God"), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course--neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT DEALS WITH "CONGRESS." CAN'T STATES MAKE THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS POLICIES?

Under the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.

WHAT ABOUT "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" AND "IN GOD WE TRUST?"

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

ISN'T AMERICAN LAW BASED ON THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.

Our secular laws, based on the human principle of "justice for all," provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.

WHY BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?

Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: "There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent."

Nontracts - FFRF Publications
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Just watch C-SPAN, Congress starts every session with a prayer. Allway has, most likely allways will. Open your eyes MM, your country has always been a theocracy.

It's your reading of pseudohistory federalist papers that delude you into believing otherwise.

While technically correct, we are not a theocracy, our country sure walks like a duck quacking the whole time.

Oh I get that the government has, is, and will be hypocritical to its own tenets on some small things (such as the aforementioned prayer, the currency and the pledge since the 50's, etc.) but our country is at least, and always has been, a de jure secular nation.

You're correct that in some small facets (usually without threatening major civil liberties -- usually) the nation isn't always de facto secular. I think this is a great disgrace and a terrible shame -- not because there's something inherently negative about religion, or in governmental figures believing in religion, but because there's something inherently negative, unjust, unfair, and entirely unnecessary about the government itself endorsing and participating in religious affairs.

It's the fact that it is oppressive to the minority and that it is completely unnecessary to do so that makes it negative and unjust.

It's extremely easy to just follow the de jure secular principles laid out in the Constitution -- it in fact takes more effort than not for the theocrats to shove their (IMO, ridiculous) taboos onto the minority and to contort this de jure secular nation into a de facto pseudotheocracy. It's supremely ridiculous (and in many respects -- outright callous), and it should stop.

Everybody wins in a secular nation -- only the selfish, small-minded zealots win in theocracies and pseudotheocracies. It's all the more a shame to look at the USA, to recognize that it's essentially the first truly de jure secular nation, and to know that continues to be stolen from us by selfish loafs around the country.

Edit: It really makes me wonder. It seems like some people aren't satisfied with "winning" (in the sense of having civil freedom and equality). It seems they are ONLY satisfied as long as everyone else loses. I can't think of anything more base and pathetic.
 
Last edited:

dust1n

Zindīq
If you look into American history you will find, and this is something Americans also believe, that the nation's founders held the core beliefs and wrote Christianity into the Constitution,

Could you point to the specific section in the Constitution?

and America was founded on Christian principals.

What, like the school administrators?

So for the courts or the Legeslative branch or the Excutive Branch which is POTUS or President in this case Obama, try to say different or try to force you against your religious principles as they are trying with the abortion issue now is Un-American and against what the founding fathers envisioned.

How is legallizing abortion forcing you to act against your religious principles? How is it Unamerican. Where did the founding fathers speak about abortion with mentioning their envisionment of the future? Why do you just make stuff up?
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
If you look into American history you will find, and this is something Americans also believe, that the nation's founders held the core beliefs and wrote Christianity into the Constitution, and America was founded on Christian principals. So for the courts or the Legeslative branch or the Excutive Branch which is POTUS or President in this case Obama, try to say different or try to force you against your religious principles as they are trying with the abortion issue now is Un-American and against what the founding fathers envisioned.

if the founders wanted a christian america then it would be...but it ain't so they didn't :D
 

GreyGoose

New Member
Oh I get that the government has, is, and will be hypocritical to its own tenets on some small things (such as the aforementioned prayer, the currency and the pledge since the 50's, etc.) but our country is at least, and always has been, a de jure secular nation.

...and what would be the difference between a secular nation and a pluralistic nation?

You're correct that in some small facets (usually without threatening major civil liberties -- usually) the nation isn't always de facto secular. I think this is a great disgrace and a terrible shame -- not because there's something inherently negative about religion, or in governmental figures believing in religion, but because there's something inherently negative, unjust, unfair, and entirely unnecessary about the government itself endorsing and participating in religious affairs.

...for example:

It's the fact that it is oppressive to the minority and that it is completely unnecessary to do so that makes it negative and unjust.

What would be your just and positive alternative to the democratic process?

It's extremely easy to just follow the de jure secular principles laid out in the Constitution -- it in fact takes more effort than not for the theocrats to shove their (IMO, ridiculous) taboos onto the minority and to contort this de jure secular nation into a de facto pseudotheocracy. It's supremely ridiculous (and in many respects -- outright callous), and it should stop.

As the hub of power, all governments are primarily constituted for the express purpose of establishing law and order. All law is imposition and the political process involves the process for determining which philosophical and ideological views will be established by the state. What makes atheistic humanist philosophy superior to theistic philosophy? I fail to see how any amount of twisted nuanced redefining of functions ascribed to church and state in the founding documents (to include the Federalist Papers) can create a logically feasible separation of God and state.

Everybody wins in a secular nation -- only the selfish, small-minded zealots win in theocracies and pseudotheocracies. It's all the more a shame to look at the USA, to recognize that it's essentially the first truly de jure secular nation, and to know that continues to be stolen from us by selfish loafs around the country.

Everybody wins in a philosophically and religiously pluralistic society - such as the founders intended. The founders didn't seek to establish a "theocracy," it would have been completely unbiblical. The nations motto would seem to suggest that there might hopefully be a melding of the many philosophies and religions into a uniquely tolerant peaceful society where everyone is included in the political process.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
...and what would be the difference between a secular nation and a pluralistic nation?
Secularism has to do with religion, pluralism with culture and ethnic background.

What would be your just and positive alternative to the democratic process?
She wasn't calling for an alternative to the democratic process. In any case, our Constitution restricts the power of government to impose religious prescriptions on individuals. The complaint is that the government is violating its own constitution when it issues such prescriptions, whether it be religious slogans on money or in loyalty pledges.

As the hub of power, all governments are primarily constituted for the express purpose of establishing law and order. All law is imposition and the political process involves the process for determining which philosophical and ideological views will be established by the state...
Note that our government's charter--its "Constitution"--explicitly bans laws that promote religious ideology.

What makes atheistic humanist philosophy superior to theistic philosophy? I fail to see how any amount of twisted nuanced redefining of functions ascribed to church and state in the founding documents (to include the Federalist Papers) can create a logically feasible separation of God and state.
Your imagination fails you in this case, but it did not fail those who formulated and ratified the First Amendment, which forbids the government from promoting atheism or religion in any form. In practice, the government has not always followed its own charter, which imposes de jure religious neutrality on government.

Everybody wins in a philosophically and religiously pluralistic society - such as the founders intended. The founders didn't seek to establish a "theocracy," it would have been completely unbiblical. The nations motto would seem to suggest that there might hopefully be a melding of the many philosophies and religions into a uniquely tolerant peaceful society where everyone is included in the political process.
Pluralistic societies can still discriminate against minorities. The Founders included religious people who felt that the government ought to avoid meddling in religious conscience in order to promote a pluralistic society. You seem uncomfortable with that. What is wrong with a government that is strictly neutral on religious philosophy?
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
A) No, Americans do not by any means believe that the nation's founders held Christian beliefs. Some did, while others did not. That most did isn't the least bit odd since it was social and political suicide at the time of the drafting of the Constitution to make public that you weren't Christian. SOME Americans insist that the Founding Fathers were Christians who intended the country to run on Christian principles and values.

B) You're going to have to quote specifically where the Constitution says anything whatsoever that can be taken as Christian. Where exactly did they "write Christianity into the Constitution"? There isn't even any mention of Jesus in the Declaration of Independence, which I'm guessing you've confused with the Constitution since it does mention "[our] Creator" and "Nature's God," not that these terms necessarily mean the Christian God.

In fact, it's somewhat more likely that the FF's chose these two terms because they were thought ones that wouldn't contradict the beliefs of deists or Christians either one.
The only people who actually believe things like that are the same people who try to argue that the Ten Commandments is originally Christian because Christians believe in it. And you know, the Jews just copied their Christian neighbors.


The whole country is not there yet. You cannot even buy alcohol by the drink in my town and the next town down the road does not serve on Sunday.

By force or by choice? A group of people deciding not to do business on a day they hold religiously significant is a far cry from a theocracy or a religious government. A secular person could just as easily open a bar and run it on a Sunday could they not?

You're correct that in some small facets (usually without threatening major civil liberties -- usually) the nation isn't always de facto secular. I think this is a great disgrace and a terrible shame -- not because there's something inherently negative about religion, or in governmental figures believing in religion, but because there's something inherently negative, unjust, unfair, and entirely unnecessary about the government itself endorsing and participating in religious affairs.

What actually counts as "the government" when you're talking about involvement and ndorsement of religious affairs?

A government of the people is necessarily religious if the people that make it up are. What makes the government secular is how it as a government behaves in the form of legislation and policy. It is not religious because those who participate in it and make it up believe in religion or publicly endorse religion or attend religious activities, etc.

The federal government is generally pretty good at remaining secular in terms of policy and the like.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Really?
Based on what?
Based on the lack of federal religious legislation.

A state law, and also not religious. Maybe inspired by religion, but not religious. The breakdown was 52% to 48%....in California....that means 52% of the voting population of the 30+ million Californians voted against gay marriage.

Even if every person did so because of religious reasons, it hardly constitutes government endorsement or participation in religious affairs.



Even DOMA, while disappointing and potentially religious motivated, does not constitute government "endorsement and participation" in religious affairs.
 

GreyGoose

New Member
The federal government is generally pretty good at remaining secular in terms of policy and the like.

"Secular" being understood as separate from ideologies and philosophies informed by theism? The exclusion of principles that can be interpreted as being linked to theistic philosophy? In other words, separate from God?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Even DOMA, while disappointing and potentially religious motivated, does not constitute government "endorsement and participation" in religious affairs.
The how about:

- the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives
- tax exemptions for religious organizations
- tax credits for donations to religious organizations
- the clergy housing allowance
- exemption from licensing requirements for daycare centers in churches (though I know this is a state issue)
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
"Secular" being understood as separate from ideologies and philosophies informed by theism? The exclusion of principles that can be interpreted as being linked to theistic philosophy? In other words, separate from God?

What does that even mean? Are you implying that a secular government requires its members to be irreligious? What does it mean to be separate from ideologies and philosophies when you're a government?

Government doesn't have ideologies and philosophies, people do. A government should be measured by what it does in the form of legislation and policy. After all, that is what the government's job is. To protect the freedom of the people who elect it and compose it in the form of legislation and policy.

Anything else that people do, whether they work for the government or not, has no bearing on whether or not you describe the government as secular.

The how about:

- the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives
I wouldn't say that this is any form of endorsement or participation that is unique to religion.

Also, the OFBCI is not a policy-making arm of the government.

- tax exemptions for religious organizations
- tax credits for donations to religious organizations
These exemptions can hardly be an endorsement of religion over anything else. We give tax exemptions and credits for a great many things (the tax code details them all).


I wasn't clear, my response about government not endorsing religion or participating in it is in regards to the only form of government action that matters, legislation. Government members will necessarily want to support organizations they favor, including religious ones. I don't think this is a bad thing. If you get elected and fight for federal funds for churches in your district/state, and the people still elect you then I am not against that.

As I said earlier, we have a secular government (federally speaking--I won't argue that State government is secular) in that our government does not legislate religion. It does not mandate, through policy and legislation, that people participate in religion, endorse religion, or behave in a manner favorable to religion.

That doesn't mean that all forms of relating to religion are absent from the goverment as an organization. But as a manner of policy, the federal government is not a religious organization, based on the policies it passes and the policies by which it governs itself.
 

GreyGoose

New Member
What does that even mean? Are you implying that a secular government requires its members to be irreligious? What does it mean to be separate from ideologies and philosophies when you're a government?

...you were the one using the term "secular." Within the context of your original "the government is generally pretty good at remaining secular" comment, what do YOU mean when YOU use the term "secular?"

I'm not implying anything. Just asking for clarification.

Government doesn't have ideologies and philosophies, people do. A government should be measured by what it does in the form of legislation and policy. After all, that is what the government's job is. To protect the freedom of the people who elect it and compose it in the form of legislation and policy.

A government is composed of people who quite logically bring their philosophies and ideologies with them when they serve. As well, they are elected by people who have philosophies and ideologies. You disagree?

Anything else that people do, whether they work for the government or not, has no bearing on whether or not you describe the government as secular.

Fascinating. Please lead on. Explain how the philosophical composition of the people in government have "no bearing" on any supposed secular composition of the government.
 

Jacksnyte

Reverend
If you look into American history you will find, and this is something Americans also believe, that the nation's founders held the core beliefs and wrote Christianity into the Constitution, and America was founded on Christian principals. So for the courts or the Legeslative branch or the Excutive Branch which is POTUS or President in this case Obama, try to say different or try to force you against your religious principles as they are trying with the abortion issue now is Un-American and against what the founding fathers envisioned.

This site has some good info pertaining to this:
Our Founding Fathers on Christianity
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
...and what would be the difference between a secular nation and a pluralistic nation?

They're not mutually exclusive. Secularism is about whether the government endorses or prohibits religious affairs whereas pluralism is about whether the government endorses or prohibits cultural affairs. Usually secular nations tend to be pluralistic, though that's not explicitely true because they're necessarily connected (strictly, it's imaginable to have one and not the other).

GreyGoose said:
What would be your just and positive alternative to the democratic process?

Alternative? I was only saying that it would be best for a democracy -- which I agree is the most just process -- to have inherent protections for the minority from tyranny of the majority, that's all. That necessarily includes secularism (else the religious tyranny of the minority will oppress the minority; whereas in a secular nation ALL people are free to practice their religion; and free from the strange taboos of other religions).

GreyGoose said:
As the hub of power, all governments are primarily constituted for the express purpose of establishing law and order. All law is imposition and the political process involves the process for determining which philosophical and ideological views will be established by the state. What makes atheistic humanist philosophy superior to theistic philosophy? I fail to see how any amount of twisted nuanced redefining of functions ascribed to church and state in the founding documents (to include the Federalist Papers) can create a logically feasible separation of God and state.

Who said anything about atheistic humanism? Secularism isn't the imposition of atheism or humanism onto society -- it's merely a word for the religious neutrality of the state. The government wouldn't be able to endorse or prohibit strong atheism any more than it would be able to endorse or prohibit theisms.

GreyGoose said:
Everybody wins in a philosophically and religiously pluralistic society - such as the founders intended. The founders didn't seek to establish a "theocracy," it would have been completely unbiblical. The nations motto would seem to suggest that there might hopefully be a melding of the many philosophies and religions into a uniquely tolerant peaceful society where everyone is included in the political process.

Er, "religiously pluralistic" seems to be another word for secularism, no?

The nation's motto unconstitutionally endorses monotheism over polytheism, and theism over non-theism. It's unjust, unconstitutional, in-your-face and entirely unnecessary other than to be in-your-face to all those [ostensibly presumed un-American] polytheists and non-theists.

For instance -- who is excluded if the money doesn't say anything about religious belief at all? No one. What reason is there for making excluding remarks on our money in the first place again? I can't think of any!

I mean, imagine if our money said something totally unnecessary and that excluded some people for no reason like, "In Not Playing The Lottery We Trust." Okay why do that? Even if most of the nation doesn't play the lottery, why alienate those that do -- how does that in any way help our currency to stick an extraneous, jerky remark on there?!

How is it tolerant to completely unnecessarily imply someone isn't part of a nation because they differ on some silly belief that's non-essential for being a citizen or for supporting that government?

The answer: it's not. Not at all. It's silly. It's not *that* big of a deal, sure, but it's ultimately just nonsense that flies in the face of the de jure secular spirit of this [potentially] great nation.
 
Last edited:

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
What actually counts as "the government" when you're talking about involvement and ndorsement of religious affairs?

A government of the people is necessarily religious if the people that make it up are. What makes the government secular is how it as a government behaves in the form of legislation and policy. It is not religious because those who participate in it and make it up believe in religion or publicly endorse religion or attend religious activities, etc.

The federal government is generally pretty good at remaining secular in terms of policy and the like.

In a secular nation, government officials have every right to be religious. They have every right to announce so publicly (when speaking as a personal individual), to say they believe their religion is great, to attend religious activities, and so on. Government officials have rights too, and they deserve those.

What they don't have the right to do is to involve the government in their religious activities, or to imply the government endorses their religion or prohibits others.

Think of this like a school teacher. Teachers have every right to believe anything they want, to attend any service they want, to make public declarations (when speaking as a personal individual), etc. as long as they're making a distinction between their school and their lesson plans at that school from their personal views.

It seems to me that the distinction is sensible here in both cases, do you disagree?
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Based on the lack of federal religious legislation.


A state law, and also not religious. Maybe inspired by religion, but not religious. The breakdown was 52% to 48%....in California....that means 52% of the voting population of the 30+ million Californians voted against gay marriage.

Even if every person did so because of religious reasons, it hardly constitutes government endorsement or participation in religious affairs.




Even DOMA, while disappointing and potentially religious motivated, does not constitute government "endorsement and participation" in religious affairs.

I wonder if a Muslim-majority or Judaism-majority country could get away with saying that legislation geared toward outlawing the right to consume pork products could pretend it wasn't religious legislation either?

In any case, it's clearly a violation of the intent of civil equality to take some characteristic of people and to say some people with one version of that characteristic are entitled to certain rights and that people with another version are not; when all other things are equal.

Whether there were religious motivatiosn behind DOMA and Prop 8 or not, they are still as unconstitutional as miscegenation laws.
 
Last edited:

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
A state law, and also not religious. Maybe inspired by religion, but not religious. The breakdown was 52% to 48%....in California....that means 52% of the voting population of the 30+ million Californians voted against gay marriage.

Yes -- a very good example of what Benjamin Franklin was saying about Constitutional protections for the minority against the majority when he said,

Ben Franklin said:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

In a truly just democracy (or democratic-republic), it should never be to a popular vote to take away someone's equal civil liberties when all things but some variable are equal.
 
Top