4
4
0
Sadly, these videos are limited to a few minutes and there some great leaps of logic that require more, much more discussion, and I'm sure that our resident antitheists will belabor those points. However, in main, I must agree with the fundamental concept that America and its Constitution were crafted for a moral people and is wholly unsuitable for any other. Furthermore, that "morality" is not relative, but rather specifically defined in the Judeo-Christian ethic wherein individual free will is limited only by individual conscience and individual responsibility, not by the dictates of tyrants, religious or secular. And I agree that inasmuch as we have replaced the plain words of the First Amendment with a "new interpretation", the nation has suffered.
What Does Separation of Church and State Mean?
Posted from prageru.comPosted in these groups: 
Religion
Religion
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
PragerU always gives me a laugh. If the argument for government not to promote one religion over the other and the Christian argument is to bring God back into schools then it should be done fairly to respect everyone’s belief. Thus, Muslims can do their form of prayer much like the Judeo-Christian can do theirs. And so on for any other faith. Meanwhile atheists could be excused from the classroom during prayer.
And of course, we can count on PragerU to suggest a prayer that begins with “In God...” and ends with “Amen” is a universal prayer accepted by all faiths. I’d like to hear the opinion of others on that.
And of course, associating lack of religious identity in school and government as a cause for increased crime and fatherless families is absurd. Faith along with values, morals, and ethics begin at home not in school, church or government. This issue isn’t black or white but layers of cultural grey influences.
And of course, we can count on PragerU to suggest a prayer that begins with “In God...” and ends with “Amen” is a universal prayer accepted by all faiths. I’d like to hear the opinion of others on that.
And of course, associating lack of religious identity in school and government as a cause for increased crime and fatherless families is absurd. Faith along with values, morals, and ethics begin at home not in school, church or government. This issue isn’t black or white but layers of cultural grey influences.
(1)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
CPT Jack Durish Clearly we disagree on the core principle(s) of the video. Especially when your premise is the Constitution was crafted for a moral people yet it’s arguable just how moral the Founding Fathers truly were as it took over a century to ensure the freedoms in the Constitution applied to all. It’s not me picking and choosing; PragerU is well known for their short videos that cherrypicks topics and issues with a Conservative not objective bias. Injecting the crime and fatherless family talking points at the end has zero relevance in a debate about religious morality in a nation of laws.
Was I wrong to suggest all faiths should be allowed to practice their faith or lack there of in public venues to include schools and government offices as opposed to the video’s claim of a universal prayer?
Was I wrong to suggest all faiths should be allowed to practice their faith or lack there of in public venues to include schools and government offices as opposed to the video’s claim of a universal prayer?
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
Cpl (Join to see) And to your point no one is advocating religion taught in public schools. I’m responding to the calls for prayer in school; thus, let each pray or not pray in their own way if it’s that what’s important to folks. Any official or teacher that takes away someone’s book of faith I agree that’s unacceptable. Unless the person is trying to indoctrinate others then that’s a different case.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
MAJ James Woods - The Constitution is a blueprint for a limited government, a most radical idea, especially in an age that had never seen the likes of it. Limiting government was based on the concept that the powers vested in the government were granted by the governed, again a most radical idea never before seen. Like any blueprint, it took time to bring into reality. Does the building exist when the blueprint is drawn? Of course, not. How then can you fault the morality of the Founders? Indeed, it is amazing that they were able to gain a consensus to proceed with the building of that government when it was clear that the culture would have to change to meet the expectations of the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution didn't create slavery. Slavery was already a well established cultural phenomenon. Yet, agreement of slave holding colonies was needed to ratify the Constitution, and there is genius in the fact that the Three-Fifths Clause prevented the slave holding states from having the necessary control to prevent the ultimate destruction of slavery when the culture was finally ready for it to end. No, when I speak of morality, it is in the fact that this government cannot succeed if people do not willingly abide by the rule of law and accept responsibility for their actions. There are other cultures in this world in which people are not expected to have that ability. They are considered slaves of their baser selves. In such places, women must not tempt men with the sight of their beauty and thus, women are punished for being victims while rapists are forgiven as being the victims of temptation. Such people could not live in our world. Free will and individual responsibility are the keystones of the Judeo-Christian ethos. It is that brand of morality that the Founders depended upon in crafting the Constitution. And interestingly, every atheist I have ever met and every atheist movement I have observed, at least those in America, embraces this same ethos even though they may claim otherwise. As to the "non-denominational school prayer", I think that bit of silliness was not offered in the video in the manner which you assume. Look back and you may find that it was mentioned to refute the argument that those arguing for "separation of state and religion" were not seriously defending their rights as much as attacking the free exercise of religion. No, religious education (including prayers, Bible/holy book readings, etc) have no place in public schools. But that's not the issue when antitheists (those opposed to the practice of religion) as opposed to atheists (those chosing for themselves to not practice religion) attack the free practice of religion, which is what has been going on since the 1947 landmark decision discussed in the video. As to the societal problems that have become endemic since that time, we may well argue if they are resulting from or coincidental to that battle.
(0)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
CPT Jack Durish No argument that US government was initially about limited government to rule over the few states that existed. That has nothing to do with morality. As you implied, the culture of the colonies forming their own nation and government had no issue with slavery or that not all are created equal; thus, a poor man would have less rights than a man with resources. So yes I question the morality (right vs wrong) of 18th century America and how America it evolved over two centuries of cultural change. There’s religious morality that pro-life anti-abortion movements follow and there’s cultural morality where one accepts the laws of the land even if it conflicts with one’s religious morality. Polygamy was once accepted on religious grounds until it was prohibited under law. Bottomline: there is a separation of religious morality and cultural morality that defines separation of church and state.
Every religious group can claim there has been attack on their ability to practice their religion freely. Until you ask them how are they being prevented from practicing their faith in a private setting or a public setting as a private individual; then it turns out they still have that freedom.
Thanks, Jack. Good talk.
Every religious group can claim there has been attack on their ability to practice their religion freely. Until you ask them how are they being prevented from practicing their faith in a private setting or a public setting as a private individual; then it turns out they still have that freedom.
Thanks, Jack. Good talk.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There's a very old and rather dubious legend that states a mysterious figure was present at the Constitutional Convention. According to the story... the same was only heard once; during the debates surrounding what would become the First Amendment. Variations on this myth abound, but the "gist" of the tale is that this mysterious speaker advocated against the establishment of any "national religion"-against the previously established sentiments of many present. Similarly, it has been told that during the forming of the modern state of Israel, a nearly identical debate prevented Judaism from being recognized as the "official" religion.
I don't know if there's any truth behind either story; frankly-I doubt either unfolded as told. However, these tales do illustrate the feelings of many (myself included) regarding the relative futility of attempting to codify national law without either endorsing or rejecting divine law. In my opinion, such "compromise" only serves to convince the faithful (of any faith, that is) that their beliefs are subservient to legislation... while leaving those without faith believing they must always struggle against the presence and influence of faith within government.
That being said, I believe it has "worked" by and large, for more than two centuries in the United States, for the simple reason that throughout much of that history... the vast majority of Americans endorsed "Christian" values. This is always subject to "interpretation", and while these beliefs have sometimes been "twisted" from their original frames to defend everything from "Manifest Destiny" and slavery, to Segregation... so too have these same beliefs formed the basis of civil opposition to the very same evils. Many early American religious leaders (Juan de Escalona, John Eliot, and William Penn just to name a few) feared from the very beginning, the melding of human greed and power with the selflessness and brotherhood taught by Christ.
Ultimately, I believe the "high water mark" for the conflict between patriotism and theology occurred in the first half of the 20th Century... initiated by the excess of the "Roaring Twenties", hardened by the "Great Depression" and World War II, and burnished in the continuing moral debates begun during the "Cultural Revolution". We are now several generations into a post-patriarchy, post-monogamy, post-ecumenical society that can no more universally embrace the tenets of any one "religion"; especially not one that harkens back to these abandoned cultural principles...
... and yet, these principles remain, often protected by law.
This means that for those who regard certain faiths as being "counter-cultural", there is an uncomfortable reality that stands in the way of total ascendancy. I believe their current strategy is to wait for these theologies to "die a natural death", spurred along by unceasing conditioning of each subsequent generation through everything from media to academia. However, they seem to be having inconsistent success... as each generation brings forward its own crop of traditionalists, theologians, and true believers. Again, in my opinion, this will eventually compel the opposition to more direct, more substantial methods. We may, or may not, be seeing some of that unfold before us in the present day.
I don't know if there's any truth behind either story; frankly-I doubt either unfolded as told. However, these tales do illustrate the feelings of many (myself included) regarding the relative futility of attempting to codify national law without either endorsing or rejecting divine law. In my opinion, such "compromise" only serves to convince the faithful (of any faith, that is) that their beliefs are subservient to legislation... while leaving those without faith believing they must always struggle against the presence and influence of faith within government.
That being said, I believe it has "worked" by and large, for more than two centuries in the United States, for the simple reason that throughout much of that history... the vast majority of Americans endorsed "Christian" values. This is always subject to "interpretation", and while these beliefs have sometimes been "twisted" from their original frames to defend everything from "Manifest Destiny" and slavery, to Segregation... so too have these same beliefs formed the basis of civil opposition to the very same evils. Many early American religious leaders (Juan de Escalona, John Eliot, and William Penn just to name a few) feared from the very beginning, the melding of human greed and power with the selflessness and brotherhood taught by Christ.
Ultimately, I believe the "high water mark" for the conflict between patriotism and theology occurred in the first half of the 20th Century... initiated by the excess of the "Roaring Twenties", hardened by the "Great Depression" and World War II, and burnished in the continuing moral debates begun during the "Cultural Revolution". We are now several generations into a post-patriarchy, post-monogamy, post-ecumenical society that can no more universally embrace the tenets of any one "religion"; especially not one that harkens back to these abandoned cultural principles...
... and yet, these principles remain, often protected by law.
This means that for those who regard certain faiths as being "counter-cultural", there is an uncomfortable reality that stands in the way of total ascendancy. I believe their current strategy is to wait for these theologies to "die a natural death", spurred along by unceasing conditioning of each subsequent generation through everything from media to academia. However, they seem to be having inconsistent success... as each generation brings forward its own crop of traditionalists, theologians, and true believers. Again, in my opinion, this will eventually compel the opposition to more direct, more substantial methods. We may, or may not, be seeing some of that unfold before us in the present day.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google