Religion/faith may inform a legislatures argument but it may not form the basis of the law

This is the key thing to understand about our secular nation.

The first thing mentioned in the first amendment detailing our rights as citizens is the separation clause.

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

That right is above all other rights. The government cannot tell us what to believe nor can it restrict how we practice our beliefs.

This is not to say that religious people cannot take part in politics. It merely means that their particular religious views cannot be the sole reason behind legislation. They can posit their arguments for laws informed by their religious view. But they must back it up with reason that appeals to the common sense of all.

Because we are a Republic as well as a Democracy our rights are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Inalienable rights that cannot be taken away. Unfortunately guarantees are only as strong as the will of the government to recognize them. It takes wisdom of leaders to stand up to the will of a majority that does not see the sense of certain rights. Oppression follows the collapse of such rights.

In appealing to the religious right our progressive party sacrifices some of itself. By pandering to religion it closes its eyes to the first right and offers up the notion that our government can be directed by faith. It is an attempt to lure people that actively want government to legislate based on their beliefs. They are not satisfied with simple words and hand holding before the meetings. They actively want to have the government represent their particular religious beliefs.

This pandering to religion both alienates members of our party and drags the nation towards the loss of a primary right. It weakens the understanding that there is a necessity of keeping dogma and sovereignty separate.

Instead of pandering we should be trying to educate the people to the necessity of keeping church and state separate. We should be pointing out how religion becomes manipulated when it entangles itself with government. The religious right is learning this now. Instead of trying to lure them away with promises of faith and government we should be revealing to them how their faith is being compromised by politics.

A person's religion can inform their political ambitions. It can guide their decisions. But when the justification for a law is put before the people it must be parsed in the language of common sense. Our government is a creation of the enlightenment. It is a thing born of reason. And it is reason that must guide the laws of the land. Inspiration can come from anywhere. But legislation must come from reason.

Sid

:kick:

:kick:

But when, in the last 8 years has the Constitution stood in the way of these fundie nutbags??

It seems you wish to point to the 1stA as the written right of separation, and you even go so far as to call it the separation clause.

This is wrong and not fair, and only clouds any discussion to follow. Having spoken with you before, I know that you know where separation clause arises: from a letter describing what Jefferson would like to happen because of the effect of the 1stA. He did not want it to replace the 1stA.

His idea to build a wall of separation remains IN ALLOWING free exercise, whether in schools or public forum without respecting any one (an) establishment of religion there. It was not his idea to make the lack of belief the one established belief system allowed in schools and public forum. (There is one specific group who would like this, and the practice of establishing them to the exclusion of others should be stopped.)

My examples of use, on the spur of this moment, might include: 1) An artistic relief over SCOTUS entry..OK for it includes more than one religion. 2) Having a required class in one religion given to a student whose religious experience would conflict with that class..NOT OK since the two free-exercises would be in conflict and thus cancel each other. The person should hold rights over the institution. 3) Having a required class in one religion and excluding any other religion..NOT OK respecting a singular religion. 4) Having separate classes in different non-inter-offending religions..OK. 5) Having separate classes of religion that are chosen and not required of any student on school property..OK as it does not conflict with any other right.

The 1stA is not an inalienable right. We do not have to guarantee that some person can exercise their religion, only that they are free to try inasmuch as they do not in that practice deny others, others' rights. In working to achieve compromise and understanding people should understand each other better as well as understand themselves better. And, in freedom, allow for each other to live well even when those people practice greatly different things. (Disallowing this has lead to the opposite.)

It was Jefferson's hope, as it is mine, that allowing for ourselves free practice, with respect for each others religions, that in politics a wall of separation between what is religion and what is pragmatic politics would arise high and wide.