tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post1437713180771174073..comments2024-03-28T21:41:32.110-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: SeparationsGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-4609364525428686062015-03-18T11:23:16.982-04:002015-03-18T11:23:16.982-04:00Oh, I had forgotten about that, and I'm not su...Oh, I had forgotten about that, and I'm not sure when it ended either.<br /><br />I don't think that was the main idea behind it in the US, but still, good point. It very likely was a factor.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-51107051637408998312015-03-18T11:12:33.590-04:002015-03-18T11:12:33.590-04:00My pleasure--and of course I meant to say I was &q...My pleasure--and of course I meant to say I was "fond" of him, not "found."<br /><br />I think state-enforced tithing was a hot issue as well as religious tests for office, no? Or had that stopped by the late 18th century? Wasn't that what a lot of Dissenters were hot about? I'm vague on the timeline here.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-18845735845003038522015-03-18T08:24:28.044-04:002015-03-18T08:24:28.044-04:00Tex, thanks for the story. That's funny!Tex, thanks for the story. That's funny!Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-53101585520794959412015-03-18T08:20:09.881-04:002015-03-18T08:20:09.881-04:00Going back to Jefferson and Madison, the idea behi...<i>Going back to Jefferson and Madison, the idea behind separating church and state has been to prevent the state from forcing taxpayers to pay for other people’s religious practices.</i><br /><br />Really? Nothing I've read suggests it was about money. I always thought it was about not having a religious test for government employment or office, which most European governments at the time had.<br /><br />Until the USSC ruled that the bill of rights applied to the states (after the 14th Amendment was passed), it was perfectly Constitutional for a state to have an official religion. Several states did, but they had all voluntarily ended the practice before the Civil War.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-29932527383931586282015-03-17T17:57:55.644-04:002015-03-17T17:57:55.644-04:00I tend to think the objection is sincere....
I ha...<i>I tend to think the objection is sincere....</i><br /><br />I have a hard time buying that, given the intelligence and education of those who lead that position. Too, any exclusion of non-Christians is brought on by those non-Christians--Christians don't exclude much of anybody. In fact, much of the beef about religious things in government places is all about Christians forcing inclusion. These guys don't get to have it both ways.<br /><br />In my darker moments, I just think those who feel coerced into Christian celebrations they don't want are just weak of character and need to find some backbone. That, though, probably is unfair.<br /><br /><i>[W]e should amend the Constitution if necessary in order to enable laws based on nothing other than 'mere' Christian values.</i><br /><br />The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses already cover this. It's not necessary, though, to couch the laws in terms of Christian values explicitly; most of those values are good social policy in their own right. It's also far easier to do, and far easier to discriminate the truly abusive distortions when we go back to another set of founding principles: limited government that intervenes/interferes in domestic matters as a last resort; personal responsibility and local aid being the primary and secondary sources. In fine: very few actual laws on the books, especially at the Federal level.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-18025272257676960152015-03-17T16:44:19.340-04:002015-03-17T16:44:19.340-04:00It's true: Deus vult should only be used to j...It's true: <i>Deus vult</i> should only be used to justify good public policies.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-11072986565870110922015-03-17T16:39:17.823-04:002015-03-17T16:39:17.823-04:00And here I was thinking that the reason for the se...And here I was thinking that the reason for the separation of church and state was to force people to give up the reason "God wants it" as justification for bad public policy.<br /><br />ValerieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-76683783920079967772015-03-17T15:52:55.215-04:002015-03-17T15:52:55.215-04:00I tend to think the objection is sincere: that th...I tend to think the objection is sincere: that the frequency or regularity of Christian celebrations will tend to force non-Christians into exclusion. <br /><br />Were I to argue my own position, it would be stronger: that we should amend the Constitution if necessary in order to enable laws based on nothing other than 'mere' Christian values. While not establishing a sect as the official religion, I do think we ought to be able to ground moral laws in the religious tradition that was itself the ground from which the American project grew. <br /><br />But to do that requires, if it is to be legitimate, a lot of popular democratic support. Were the SCOTUS to hold tomorrow that this is what the First Amendment "really" means, it would be a deeply suspect ruling even though it attained my policy preferences. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-29469209660353021882015-03-17T15:09:01.006-04:002015-03-17T15:09:01.006-04:00So, grammercy for coming up with a viable compromi...<i>So, grammercy for coming up with a viable compromise. ... Take it to the legislatures....</i><br /><br />A major part of the Left's problem with this, though, is that they're arguing from a false premise (and as intelligent as most of them are, and as well educated, I have a hard time buying into the idea that they don't know they're arguing from a false premise): <i>...a compromise: Liberals would get a ban on state funding of religion, and conservatives would get state-sponsored religious recognition...</i>.<br /><br />Um, no. Conservatives get the right to <i>pray at town meetings, to place religious symbols in government buildings..., and, more generally, they want the state to acknowledge the importance—and perhaps also the truth—of their religious heritage.</i> There's nothing in there--these Liberals' own words, mind you--about religious recognition, much less anything coercive (as the linked-to author claimed later in the cite). A religious man praying at a government meeting in no way forces a non-religious man to do so (or a man of a differing faith to do so, or not, in a particular way), religious symbols in government buildings in no way espouse anything at all--unless we accept the truth of the flip side, too: the entire rest of the building is utterly devoid of religious symbology; how dare those atheists impose their atheism on everyone else in that government building? And recognizing our country's religious heritage is simply recognition of an historical fact: a significant fraction of our colonists were religious refugees.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-54745799493430034502015-03-17T14:45:52.515-04:002015-03-17T14:45:52.515-04:00A nutso bankruptcy judge I was found of--without e...A nutso bankruptcy judge I was found of--without ever wishing to tender any important decision to him--used to warn all the lawyers in the room to get out in the hall and cut a deal quick. "I'm a monkey with a pistol up here," he'd say.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.com