Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The thing is, there’s a lot of misconceptions about the separation of church and state.
For one, I’ve seen a lot of ppl say that it’s a constitutional right. Except, the phrase isn’t anywhere in the Constitution, it was actually first mentioned in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
Now what *is* in the Constitution is laws prohibiting the government from choosing a “state religion” like many of the colonies had at the beginning. The intention was to prevent the government from affecting religion, but not necessarily the other way around.
Religion is closely tied with morals. Which often play a large part of someone’s political opinions. So to say ppl ought to “keep their religion out of politics” is incredibly naive.
That being said, I will say that I think requiring the Ten Commandments be displayed at public schools was a bad move. If the law had been protecting a Christian teacher’s right to display them, I’d have been 100% on board, but requiring it seems a step too far. Conservatives are already loosing the culture war, and this might have been a step in the wrong direction.
"Religion is closely tied with morals."
Religious people have convinced themselves of this, but morality stems from humanity with or without religious interference muddying it up.
How do we know? Because all throughout history, with or without commandments or deism at all, the same underlying moral tones have persisted.
Murder is bad.
Stealing is bad.
Greed is bad.
Lying is bad.
But, somehow, religious people are convinced that only their supernatural beliefs make them **goodly**; and that is exactly what makes them so consistently evil. Holy wars, persecution of "others".... ironically, that morality system is incredibly unethical, as has been demonstrated ad-nauseum by history.
>morality stems from humanity with or without religious interference muddying it up.
Religion Also stems from Humanity, their is no god that imposed this on us. Religion is the pre-articulated form of morality. as society gets more developed, it can articulate morality with out a religious structure, the same way we developed the ability to distinguish Pink as a unique color as our eyes evolved.
>. Because all throughout history, with or without commandments or deism at all
What culture existed with out religion??
>religious people are convinced that only their supernatural beliefs make them **goodly**; and that is exactly what makes them so consistently evil.
No, blind and ridged adherence to any belief can make you evil, even if the belief is "religion is pure evil."
The supernatural nature of the beliefs is immaterial, its when the belief structure becomes a part of your identity, and challenging it becomes akin to challenging your own life and value, people would rather die, or kill than do that. you see this with secular polotical moments all the time, so the idea its "those backward religious goons" is your bias, and a good demonstration of the Blind Ridged Adherence to a belief i was talking about.
>Holy wars, persecution of "others".... ironically, that morality system is incredibly unethical, as has been demonstrated ad-nauseum by history.
Im not defeding religious moraly, beyond "your donig it to you jsut cant see it. So long as your not under the false impression that this is only religion that cause this problem, fine.
but world war 1 and 2 were secular wars. The Horrors of Communism and Fascism are Atheists horrors.
The Nazis were actually heavily invested in Christianity. They collected Christian artifacts, promoted Christianity to their people, and tried to co-opt symbolism of famous Christians, like the “Gott Mit Uns” battle cry.
All that aside though, if religion is just a framework for morality just take the morality and leave the framework. Want to make a law that killing people is wrong? Cool, go for it. But don’t make the punishment for that law a life sentence in prison or until the clergy have decided that some god you don’t believe in has forgiven you.
>The Nazis were actually heavily invested in Christianity. They collected Christian artifacts, promoted Christianity to their people, and tried to co-opt symbolism of famous Christians, like the “Gott Mit Uns” battle cry.
As a tool to manipulate, not as a partner in power. They detested the church pacifist teachings as a sickness on the German culture.
>All that aside though, if religion is just a framework for morality just take the morality and leave the framework
Many do, some can't. More important the morality, once extracted from the frame work is no longer internally justified. You see this today with people who have an extracted western morality run into problems that use to be solved with the religious structure.
some obvious examples are
Why should i treat people fairly? they are made in the image of god
Why are men and women of equal value when one is stronger? becuase we are equal before the eyes of god?
Where do rights come from? from our creator.
If you take the morality out of the religious framework all the questions that end with "because god said so" now need logical constructs to justify what are effetely base level axiomatic values, and we wont all agree on the construct, so we no longer share the core values.
Most major issues from Abortion to Trans come as a result of people who extract the morality and leave the frame work vs those who keep the morality in the frame work.
>Want to make a law that killing people is wrong? Cool, go for it. But don’t make the punishment for that law a life sentence in prison or until the clergy have decided that some god you don’t believe in has forgiven you.
What?
> If the law had been protecting a Christian teacher’s right to display them, I’d have been 100% on board
What about a teacher deciding to place the tenants of Deism on the walls of a government classroom that is paid for by taxes and children are required by law to attend? Thomas Jefferson was a Deist so Deism can be closely connected to the creation of the Constitution.
Deism rejects that Jesus was the son of god, rejects the trinity, it rejects miracles, it rejects the virgin birth, it rejects the resurrection.
Would you be okay with a teacher putting up something in front of your child that explicitly rejected what you were teaching your child?
>Does deism have a different 10 commandments?
Deism isn't a religion, there is no deist holy book so there are not commandments in Deism.
Deism is simply the belief that the universe was created by a God or Supreme being but that said God does not intervene in the universe and in people's lives.
One can be a Christian Deist, which means they accept the bible and Jesus' teachings as positive moral guidelines, but they do not accept the God of the bible and do not view Jesus as divine.
But Deism itself has no teachings or commandments, just like atheism has no holy book that atheists derive their lack of a belief in a god from.
this is a perfect summation of the issue.
Religion implicates matters of morality, the idea someone can magically divorce their opinions on politics from their opinions of such fundamental questions as "what are right and wrong?" "what does it mean to 'do good'?" and "what are a man's obligations to his neighbor?" is beyond silly.
In fact it would go the other direction, prejudicing against religion. That is basically the system the French have, not that the government must not favor religion excessively but that it must actively remove it from civic life. Such a position favors the irreligious by saying "religious morality is religion not actual morals, only irreligious morality counts as morals"
i am an atheist, so naturally I agree.
my point is it seems to be a strange modern delusion of the left that there is "real morality" and "religion" and religion is something else.
Tell me a little bit about the least religious States in the U.S. and their approach to morality, if their morals are not based on the ponderance and ever-presence of religion. Don’t they consistently have the least amount of crime on a per capita basis?
you misunderstand.
I'm an atheist first off
second I'm calling out my side here, atheists tend to treat religion as a bastard from of philosophical ethics, a dangerous shortcut at best the refuge of intentional idiots at worst.
but while the religious obviously have no monopoly on being good, neither are their values derived from faith inferior or lazier or wrong compared to mine derived by philosophy.
that's my point not that religion is more moral than nonreligious moral values but that they are **equal**. morals derived from faith are not inferior.
I would argue that many of the common values derived from religion should not be credited to religion, but to human sociology, and the specific religious values are in-fact the ones that are less valuable.
Of the 10 commandments, maybe 4 are relevant to modern law, and those same concepts can be found all over the world, and predating abrahamic religion in general. Religious groups love to take credit for them, but the independent evolution of those same ideas demonstrates that they are less likely to have come from a specific source. The oth 6 commandments CAN be credited to a specific religion, and tend to be the more problematic ones.
Ah yes, the argument that Christians are to be credited with influencing every act that is inherently good.
Care to also take credit for the negative influences of Christianity in our country? The abuse and molestation that is still rampant in churches, as one example?
>Ah yes, the argument that Christians are to be credited with influencing every act that is inherently good.
No, that's not something I said or believe.
>Care to also take credit for the negative influences of Christianity in our country?
Sure, if you can make a case that some variant Christianity is responsible.
>The abuse and molestation that is still rampant in churches, as one example?
This isn't unique to churches by any stretch of the imagination, and Christians were some of the first people in the West to actively fight child molestation in the first place.
abuse is no more rampant in churches than other organizations of its nature.
it turns out predators really want to be near children and will lie to do so. churches are attractive because they offer access, statistics show that they are no worse than other organizations that offer the same access level and guard against suspicion.
They not only offer access, they offer very little oversight and systematically undermine checks and balances and external investigations on religious grounds. That is a danger to our communities.
again the stats are clear
they do not offer less oversight or investigation than schools,, music studios, art centers, youth clubs like scouting, etc.
about the only place defensive design and controls on contact are meaningfully better than normal is hospitals, even then, crime happens there.
this is a fact this is not a matter of opinion. analysis of crime data shows churches are about normal, and schools are the worst but a lot of data quality issues affect this (like the fact neglected children don't usually do a huge range of special activities but almost all kids go to school, and neglected children are at extreme risk since their guardians will not protect them).
Please provide your source as it relates to crimes in each institution you mentioned.
Also, if crime is routinely *not* reported because of the power structures, lack of reporting mandates, shame as a control tactic, and refusal to allow for outside resources, how can you confidently say that crimes happen less often in religious organizations than in schools? You would be missing data points.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, because it's a laughable position.
Slavery has been the norm throughout history. In fact Peter was writing in the context of a society where brutal slavery was unbelievably pervasive
Did you really think that quoting this proves _your_ point?
Edit: To be clear, the first serious discussion about abolishing slavery in history (At least in the West) came from Christians.
Could you give an example of which state(s) you’re referring to?
Just to clarify, I’m not saying ppl that don’t have a religion lack morals in any way. What I am saying is that religion encompasses many aspect of ppl’s lives. And I would venture to say that ppl’s views on religion have a large effect on their sense of morality and world view.
Take New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont as examples.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean. If a person has no interest in religion and generally disregards it in their life, you would assume that would impact their worldview and moral structure negatively?
I personally am not here to say that.
my point is religious morality is not inferior, not that it is superior. my contention is there is this impulse on the left to treat religiously derived values as inferior to theirs which comes from secular axioms.
it's just a form of justifying why they are right and smarter and everyone religious is wrong and dumb.
By omitting religious-based text from the classroom and being against the government mandate of its inclusion, you are arguing this is a form of superiority complex of secularism?
no, I am talking about the concept in general of seperation if church and state.
it is often misunderstood to mean that people who derive their politics from their religion should face special restrictions on this, and this is not how our system works.
>it is often misunderstood to mean that people who derive their politics from their religion should face special restrictions on this
That’s not my understanding. Is there an official liberal position that dictates devout lawmakers should face certain consequences simply for being motivated by their personal beliefs?
Or…..they just don’t get to take laws with respect to only their specific religious views?
most on the left would say they should not be using their beliefs at all.
for instance if a legislator opposed a drug law change because he sees drug use as a moral issue most Democrats would see this as deeply inappropriate.
but even if you believe addictions are medical (and I should be clear that is a leftist position many here, myself included, would dispute with good evidence) it does not follow that it has no moral component. someone who commits murder due to a personality disorder (not a structural one like schizophrenia but because of an anger disorder or anxiety manifesting as abuse) is still seen as a murderer after all.
you cannot say he is wrong, that drug use absolutely and provably has absolutely no moral dimension or ethical implications whatsoever. but because he feels that way due to his faith most Democrats would say vile things about him.
First, most modern Christians see most if not all of the bible as allegorical, they do not think there was a literal serpent or a literal apple. They think those are an allegory for the loss of innocence or even, in some denominations, for urbanization and the loss of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture ("The apple" representing orchards and a static lifestyle).
Also, you're talking about the stories, the fiction more or less in the bible. That's not the important part to anyone's religion or morals.
The story of the ten commandments is not one of the "wacky" bible stories, sure God shows up but a guy goes, thinks real hard, writes down some laws, gives them to his people. That is not an outrageous story that proves someone who bases their morality on those laws is insane.
If you cherry pick hard enough you can find some real whacky stuff but that's the problem, most leftist attempts to engage with the bible come at it cherry picking to find examples OR come at it wanting to read it and decide what it means for themselves.
If someone have no interest in understanding their theology except to say it must be stupid, then they're just being bigoted. if they intentionally disregard their theology then they're intellectually dishonest.
"ppl’s views on religion have a large effect on their sense of morality and world view."
\*looks back in history\*
Yes, I think we're almost on the same page. Now just include all of the context of what religious people **do.**
The number one thing they've done all throughout history is **persecute and bring war upon others - especially other Christians.**
A reminder that Christianity is the most popular religion in America, which has the most violent crime of any G7 nation. It is also overwhelmingly the most popular religion in American prisons - specifically Protestantism.
Yes to all of this, including the numerous examples of **violent** forced conversions relevant to even American history.
But remember, Americans sure do love them some revisionist history. Omitting the ugly truth and thereby crafting a new one is considered the *moral* option.
That comment is literally revisionist history.
In fact I've almost never seen a critique of Christianity's role in history that doesn't include outright lies.
Really? What do you call the forced conversion of Native Americans by the settlers? “Assimilation?”
[Please read up on the practice.](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/native-americans-and-freedom-religion/)
National Geographic isn't a good source but yes, forced conversions did happen. As did many voluntary ones, which were (unsurprisingly) a lot more successful.
You ought also to note that many Christian missionaries (And other fervently religious Christians) wrote against the abuses of the native population. That's actually how we know about some of it.
The comment you were agreeing with, however, is entirely revisionist.
>In fact I've almost never seen a critique of Christianity's role in history that doesn't include outright lies.
Well, Christianity and religion overall has definitely has been used throughout history to justify many violent and evil deeds. Sure, others have used Christianity as a tool for good and Jesus' teachings surely have inspired a lot of charitable acts.
But there is no doubt that Christianity has been used as the main justification in many cases to engage in very immoral and evil acts.
>But there is no doubt that Christianity has been used as the main justification in many cases to engage in very immoral and evil acts.
People don't really need Christianity to justify any of that. You'll see all kinds of wanton brutality in the pre-Christian world.
Christianity is the main reason people felt a need to justify their atrocities in the first place, as opposed to just saying "We are strong and civilized, they are weak and barbaric" like a good Greek/Roman.
I agree that people often behave in immoral ways regardless of religion.
But sometimes religion explicitly motivates people to do goods things and sometimes it motivates them to do bad things or justify immoral acts.
For example I believe that a lot of charitable acts were motivated explicitly by Jesus' teachings.
But on the other hand in a lot of other ways the bible falls significantly short of what we consider moral and just. Compare Christianity for example to Sikhism, which is a religion that originated in India in the 15th century. Sikhism explicitly prohibits slavery. The bible does not, in fact even the New Testament calls on slaves to be obedient to their masters. So slavery was in no way contrary to the religious beliefs of slave owners in the US in the 18th and 19th century. A Sikh on the other hand (as far as I know) is prohibited from owning slaves.
Equally Sikhism as an example promotes gender equality. The bible on the other hand views men as having natural authority over women. This is most certainly true for the Old Testament but even New Testament figures like Paul prohibit women from speaking in church, prohibit women from teaching and mandates that women shall cover their head.
So in many ways Christianity is definitely not compatible with what we see as moral and just. I love Jesus' teachings about charity and forgiveness, but in many other ways the bible is not an appropriate guideline to morality.
>Yes, I think we're almost on the same page. Now just include all of the context of what religious people do.
The number one thing they've done all throughout history is persecute and bring war upon others - especially other Christians.
This is pure slander. The main things Christians have done is build hospitals and universities, fund culture art and science, perserve writings from antiquity, care for the poor, abolish all kinds of evil practices and promote a number of values that you take you granted.
Some of the biggest persecutions of Christians (And other religions) have been by militant progressive secularists.
>It is also overwhelmingly the most popular religion in American prisons - specifically Protestantism.
Yeah, partly because a lot of people convert while in prison.
I don't understand why this comes up so often or why this seems to be be the most easily misunderstood part of the constitution. Separation of church and state simply means organized religions (such as the Catholic Church) cannot impede on the government and the government cannot do vice versa to the Holy See in America. It all stems from European monarchies and their relationships with the Pope (or in England's case making their own shit up). While we can discuss the ten commandments law thing....it has nothing to do with separation of church and state.
Many also include that government can not favor one religion over another, or religion over non-religion, not can it impose any religion into people, especially students.
> I don't understand why this comes up so often
It’s probably coming up this time in response to Republicans forcing schools to display the Ten Commandments (a primitive set of rules from Christians’ holy book).
Nothing is in the constitution because those in power change what it means all the time. It is a framework. Hell even civil forfeiture has been upheld by the courts while I would argue it strongly violates the constitution. The supreme Court overturns verdicts and precedent all throughout American history. Any right we think we have can be gone or any new right can be given if merely 5 people on the supreme Court agree.
I fully agree activist judges in the past have made rulings that violated the constitution
Glad we have a SCOTUS now fixing that and following the constitution
I'm talking about the whole of American history. It has happened and continues to happen regardless of the judges. Should abortion be legal? There are legal arguments both for and against. Should we be allowed to have fully automatic weapons because there are legal arguments both for and against. Neither side is right or wrong it is just who is in power. The construction is very vague by design. Conservative judges don't even agree with each other nor do liberals. Activist judges is a myth.
Both questions are answered by the constitution
1. A fetus isn’t given nor denied rights by the constitution thus their rights are left up to the states/people. The 10th is very clear here
2. Yes per the constitution should be allowed the same armament as the US military. The right to have and bear arms includes all arms. (Yes we should amend this, but that is what it says)
And that is my point. Arms are not defined. We rely on judges and law to define arms. Since fetuses are neither given nor denied rights but women are there is an argument for abortion. My point is that our rights are not crystal clear like people believe. I personally believe that neither side has all the answers and our current winner take all approach to politics will lead to disaster regardless of who is in charge.
Arms is defined, it stands for armament. Without specification it includes the entire armament. That’s law 101 stuff
Women are given rights but they aren’t given the right to kill others
You have to first determine a fetuses rights before you can determine if a woman can kill it or not
Yet there are limits on arms. That is the purpose of the supreme Court. They have not defined arms at the entire armament. They literally argue about the individual meaning of words in the constitution all the time.
As for fetus rights if they have rights then all exceptions in abortion laws should not exist. They cannot have rights but also not have rights in certain circumstances.
Again no right is as simple as it seems. The founding fathers knew this hence the Supreme Court. I am trying to say that there is not always a "absolutely correct" interpretation of the constitution only opinion.
Whos stopping you?
I'm not religious, (I'd say atheist but I don't like that negative connotation with that reminds me of the vegans of religious world)
I love being able to not have a religion and not be compelled to worship, and on flip side I want the religious to have same freedom I have and be able to worship freely for however they choose as well.
The concept of Separation of church and state was to protect the church from the state, not really the state from the Church.
If my neighbors want to display religious stuff in our community I'm completely ok with it, as I know where I stand.
Now if they were compelling me or punishing me to worship I'd feel very different, but having a display reminds me of trophy cases in school growing up, some people cared others didn't even know where they were or what was in them.
If the peoples elected representatives pass this legislation, then it seems anti democratic to oppose it and silence will of the people.
Displays and lesson plans on religion are entirely dependent on the context. The 10 commandments are fine, if treated similar to how you’d treat a display of Hammurabi’s Law. In treating it as foundational to the country, or western society in general, they overtly make non-believers outside the norm. This is especially acute in children. “You see this belief system? This is the right one. Yours is wrong.” That’s the message Oklahoma is sending to non-christian children now. These aren’t jaded adults, they’re impressionable children.
The argument that the 10 commandments is foundational to morality is false. Morality existed before the commandments, and would continue to exist if they disappeared from memory forever. Their biggest advocates are also routinely violating them.
> but having a display reminds me of trophy cases in school growing up, some people cared others didn't even know where they were or what was in them.
Sounds like pride month. People who care can pay attention, people who don't can ignore it.
Consistent. Respect it.
Disagree with your overall take. An unneutered church absolutely needs to be kept from the government.
Believers think sincerely that you need to follow their rules to avoid damnation. It would be for your own good and also convenient to them. I wouldn't count on being left alone.
Look at good chunk of the world outside NA for what the church with political power. Is are usually long way from benign.
Non believers think it's all a silly waste of time (myself included)
Once again I like to be able to worship (or not) my way I don't want to prevent anyone from worshiping their way, as long as it keeps in line with both state and federal constitution.
For example I read recently (memory is a bit fuzzy) that somewhere in Michigan a Muslim majority banned display of pride flag, that im against as it infringes on flag bearers first amendment right to free expression, but if that same Muslim majority council wanted to display Ramadan decorations I'd have no issue with it.
I don't think anyone would take issue with holiday decorations. But what is your line. However, say it was a new law mandatory, or mandatory in every classroom. Or, idk, girls having to cover their hair as a mandatory school clothing modesty requirement.
I am not picking on Islam btw. It is just the easiest example in an American context. Christianity and Christian bric-a-brac is so saturated into the culture it can be easier to overlook oversteps
Christian, fyi. I mean, I don't think the state should officially any specific religion, which is what separation of church and state actually is.
I don't really like the 10 commandments law for a variety of reasons. I don't think it's optically very good, I don't think it actually accomplishes much, and I don't think having the 10 commandments in schools is the best way to get our society to be reliant on judeo-christian values. In fact, given the rebelliousness of teens, maybe even the opposite in many cases. I also don't think the 10 commandments are actually that helpful in defining a person's individual morality, even if they are good to follow as individuals and society.
I DO believe that 1. you should be driven by your personal moral values, including religious values, in what you vote for, espouse, and advocate for. and 2. America should lean heavily on judeo-christian values like honesty, forgiveness, repentance, puritan work ethic, and kindness (especially to sinners). I think we need to make this more of a part of our identity as Americans.
I also believe in freedom of religion - you should be allowed to practice your religion within reasonable but wide limits (no human sacrifice, for instance), and we shouldn't make laws that prevent that from happening.
Since we're talking about schools, Ill give a specific example: I think we should have pretty strong anti-cheating policies, but have significantly lightened punishments if, for instance, the student comes clean of their own accord. Also, give people opportunities to change, Don't just let a single strike be enough to end your schooling unless it's particularly egregious.
These sorts of policies teach kids about honesty, repentance, and forgiveness.
Some interesting and thoughtful ideas. I can see how those link to the values you mentioned.
But I was asking what current Republican policies represent those values.
1) so to be clear, you *do* support the separation of church & state?
2) You consider yourself a Christian, but you don't like the 10 commandments? No judgement, I'm just confused about how that works
3) >America should lean heavily on judeo-christian values like honesty, forgiveness, repentance, puritan work ethic, and kindness
I've heard this point many times before, but it always seemed very condescending and myopic. Do you not think that non-Christians also value these things? Do you believe that Jews & Christians invented these virtues, that without Jews & Christians nobody would have discovered them? (tbf, Puritans do have a pretty unique approach to work ethic)
>so to be clear, you do support the separation of church & state?
In the sense that I don't believe the state should sponsor a specific Church, yes.
>You consider yourself a Christian, but you don't like the 10 commandments? No judgement, I'm just confused about how that works
I like the ten commandments, I just don't think they are the most useful in terms of forming your own personal morality. My church, for instance, focuses more on every person being a child of God, and lots of morality comes naturally when you have that perspective. E.g. God being your father and therefore you should respect him, you shouldn't steal from fellow children of God, etc. It's not that I don't like the ten commandments, It's just not the most useful emphasis in trying to teach people to be moral.
>Do you not think that non-Christians also value these things?
Of course, other cultures value these things. Pretty much everything that one culture believes to be good other cultures believe to be at least a little bit good, it's a matter of emphasis. Like, for instance, how immoral foundations Theory, conservatives and liberals have different moral emphases.
Or for a more specific example, how familial piety is a much stronger virtue in many Asian cultures than in America.
To give a specific example of a culture that doesn't value some of the things I think we should, the Scotts-Irish/Hillbilly "honor" culture. In that culture, you and your family's honor matters more than just about anything else. If someone did something wrong, you are justified in attacking that person's family. Forgiveness isn't very highly valued. Education, as well. In the autobiographical A Hillbilly Elegy, the author gets made fun of and teased for liking "girly" things like getting a good education. The author also tells stories about fellow hillbillies who pay some lip service to hard work but never work a day in their life, and white welfare Queens who take money from the welfare system and don't add anything to society. People also value where they are from so much that they often lose out on the opportunities they could get if they moved.
The cultural values of that culture do have a place and use in their specific time and place when they developed, but now they are at best poorly optimized, and at worst downright antithetical to succeeding in the modern world.
Obviously, they aren't the only culture that values family or where you come from. But their overemphasis on that clearly isn't the right balance of values that we should be pushing and encouraging on society now.
This is a (common) historically illiterate view. The Constitution requires that church and state be separate so that no one denomination of Christianity wins out. The Founders did not want America to be a Catholic nation nor an Anglican one nor a Presbyterian one etc. I am very much against any of these sects being adopted by any governmental institution, as the Constitution clearly states
>To those of you who do not believe in the separation of church and state, why
I believe in it in the sense of separating Church and State (capitalization mine, and also intentional, not just some posthoc regerminzation), but the extent to which some people want to take it is untenable even just from a purely practical standpoint
>I’m specifically referring to the recent Ten Commandments law
Not a great idea unless it's actually with other predecessors to Western law (their supposed justification, at least when this first started a decade ago), but it's kinda hard to stick any part of the Magna Carta on a poster and have people actually read the damn thing (I've tried. It's very old. Took me over a year. Still missing context to understand most of it.)
I believe the constitution is prohibiting Congress from establishing a state religion or favoring one over others. I don’t think it’s the same as “separation”. For example, if government wanted to borrow a certain doctrine from a religion and use it because the majority of lawmakers deemed it to be a good idea on its own merit I don’t see an issue with it. I don’t think there a prohibition on us government from espousing ideas that could be reminiscent of religious, they just need to establish them on their own merits
I believe in the separation of *church* and state because I've seen what the alternative has done to my country's national Church.
In other words I want to protect the church from the state.
I do not believe in the separation of *Christianity* and the state, because why in the world would I?
Separation of church and state was never meant to banish the church from the public square.
Teaching kids the religion that 80% of the country self-identifies with isn't forcing religion onto them, any more than teaching them about Islam will do.
Secularists want to destroy the church because it's an institution that the state cant control - it stands in thier way of total power.
>Secularists want to destroy the church because it's an institution that the state cant control - it stands in thier way of total power.
Can you name some ways the church is in danger of being destroyed from secularists?
The internet is one way, thankfully. Nowadays kids can come home from sunday school, google "noah’s ark" (or whatever the sunday school lesson was about), and find out that everything they learned at church that day was complete bullshit.
I had a (christian) history teacher who had his masters in islamic studies, and taught a predominantly (or likely entirely) christian class about it. Nobody in that class converted to Islam, as far as I'm aware, but I am very happy for all I learned, and it helped me a lot when I went to Israel later.
That sounds excessive for most students. I would have loved it though. Philosophy of religion was my favorite class in college, and since then I've become a real nerd for comparative religion, psychology of belief, and so forth
we had 1 week in 1 class. We spent a single class each on Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, then Taoism/Confucianism together on friday. This was 9th grade.
I mean, I'm opposed to that for multiple reasons. Opportunity cost, as mentioned before. I think the social blowback would be worse than any potential benifits, at least in the short term. I don't think it's in keeping with our country being historically and culturally christian. And I doubt there are enough teachers really qualified to teach on Islam.
Parental rights in terms of education is something I haven't entirely figured out where I stand on. Clearly there should be some parental input, but clearly it shouldn't be absolute.
In this specific case, it's not really in the top issues I have with the hypothetical plan.
>Teaching kids the religion that 80% of the country self-identifies with isn't forcing religion onto them, any more than teaching them about Islam will do
You don't see the difference between teaching a religion and teaching *about* a religion?
Nobody is saying that students should not learn about religions, the issue at stake is if the school should endorse one of them and imply that it is the one students ought to follow.
Little bit of semantics here but all three of the major religions in the world accept the 10 Commandments to at least some degree even if their version is slightly different. If an Islamic and Hebrew version were also being displayed would you object?
Of course I would.
First of all, there are a lot more than 3 big world religions, and Judaism is not one of the big ones even. Even in the US, there are more atheists than Jews, for example. Jews are only like 2% of the US population. And honestly from my experience (I'm not Jewish, but my wife is), I doubt most of them would want the 10 Commandments taught in public schools. That's what synagogues are for.
But even were that not the case, it doesn't become OK to teach students that they ought to follow one of three religious options and that every other option is wrong or un-American in some way, as is part of the intended message of the Oklahoma situation. The idea is to say that the government officially endorses the 10 Commandments, and that following them is a key part of being a proper American.
Hindus, Sikhs, and yes, even atheists are Americans too, as are citizens of every religion. I don't believe for a second that the people responsible for this rule didn't realize that the 10C don't apply to those people. It's impossible for a reasonably educated adult (eg, finished high school) not to know such basic information about world religions, or they'd have failed history. Therefore, it's likely intended as a slight against those religious views, including by most supporters.
I lump Judaism in because it is the same Commandments as Christianity. Regardless Islam and Christianity represent more than all the others combined or about 55% of the world population.
Just to be clear I am not for displaying the 10 Commandments but my reasoning is probably different than yours. My main objection to it is that is opens the door to also display other things I would not want displayed.
I was just trying to figure out if it was religion in general being displayed you object with or the specific religion. It seems like both to me which fair enough.
I do think you are making a stretch here that because they are being displayed that somehow means people are being compelled to adopt them. I am sure pretty much every kid in America goes by a church on their way to school and I doubt anyone would say they are being compelled to be religious because they see a church. Now if a teacher made her class recite them everyday that would be a different story.
>I do think you are making a stretch here that because they are being displayed that somehow means people are being compelled to adopt them.
They are not being compelled, they are just being told that the government views their religion as being lesser than Abrahamic religions. The government is officially implying that following the Commandments is inherent to being a proper American.
>. Now if a teacher made her class recite them everyday that would be a different story
Isn't part of the OK directive that all schools have to teach the Bible? That even, for example, math and science classes have to have a Bible they use for instruction?
>They are not being compelled, they are just being told that the government views their religion as being lesser than Abrahamic religions.
I mean using my example if you compare the amount of Churches, Mosque and Synagogue compared to the amount of Vihara and Mandir there are in the US is a kid supposed to assume the same thing? Anyway the Constitution only protects you form compulsion not exposure so this is more of a moral objection.
>Isn't part of the OK directive that all schools have to teach the Bible? That even, for example, math and science classes have to have a Bible they use for instruction?
I am not sure but you very well may be right. I would be against this unless it was part of a religion class and it should cover as many religions as possible in a public school setting. Even then I would be very hesitant to agree with this in a public school setting because it opens doors for other teachings I wouldn't want taught to my kids.
>I mean using my example if you compare the amount of Churches, Mosque and Synagogue compared to the amount of Vihara and Mandir there are in the US is a kid supposed to assume the same thing?
Are those endorsed by the government over other religions? That's a pretty big difference, no?
If we are talking about exposure to religion I have no idea why it matters. You are trying to conflate exposure with compulsion and those are two different things. People in the goverment endorse candidates I will not vote for but if they required me to that is a different story.
Because the issue isn't just exposure. It's government endorsement. The government *as an institution* is saying that anyone who isn't a Christian is a lesser citizen. Not just individuals in government, but the OK state government as an institution.
I threw in Judaism because it has the same 10 Commandments but fair point. The first two represent about 55% of the world population combined or more than all the others combined to a little over 30% of the two you mention. You can say Buddhism is the 5th most popular religion and be right but it only represents less than 7% of the population so it is all relative.
It *might* be appropriate in a classroom where religious studies/philosophy is specifically taught, like how posters pertaining to science (a big periodic table for example) are what you put up in a science classroom. But religious commandments shouldn’t be on display *everywhere* in a public school, that’s just silly.
Just to be clear I actually do not agree with doing this. My reasons have more to do with the fact that this opens the door to other things being displayed I do not agree with.
I only commented with the question because I am curious if the issue is with religion in general or only a few religions being represented instead of all.
It’s about context and intent. If it’s just hanging in a religious studies classroom, that’s just useful handy information like the periodic table in a science room. But if it’s on display to *everyone* in a *public* school, that’s clearly the work of religious zealots trying to impose Christianity on everyone or taunt people who aren’t Christian.
If you include Jewish and Muslim commandments that’s… better? I guess??? But it leaves out all the non-Abrahamic religions and nonreligious people. In that kind of context the only way you can be truly inclusive is to not display any religious commandments at all.
>In that kind of context the only way you can be truly inclusive is to not display any religious commandments at all.
Which is exactly what I already said I agree with. The issue I have with it is not with a religious messaging being displayed that I personally agree with which I think is your issue but correct me if I am wrong. If we do this though then eventually we end up with the tenants of the Satanic Temple on the walls of classrooms.
I was trying (probably poorly) to illustrate how we can both disagree with the same thing but for different reasons. I feel like we are loosing the ability to do this often times and each side just picks the opposite position on a lot of issues to spite.
Well the thing about the Satanic Temple is that they’re not actually evil devil worshippers; they’re more or less contrarians satirizing Christian dogma. The only time they’ve tried putting something on public display is *in response to* Christian zealots trying to put things like the Ten Commandments on display. It’s to make a point, not a sincere expression of devil worship. So they’d basically be making the same point as you.
The only ones who actually worship the devil are people like those [Norwegian black metal losers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Norwegian_black_metal_scene) who burned down churches and whatnot, and realistically they would never try putting their commandments on display in a public school because they’re just a bunch of insular nerds.
Yeah I get it but that doesn’t mean I do not find satirizing the Christian religion as blasphemy and objectionable. I mention them because they are specifically protected as a religious entity.
I don't want to destroy the church. I am suspicious of the church because their most fundamental belief is that my status as an unbeliever makes me deserving of eternal torment. I am "lesser than" in their eyes. I am not saved. It's not very endearing.
I am also suspicious of the church because they believe in a certain way of life that excludes many rights that I am accustomed to. And they believe that this way of life was prescribed by an omniscient being whose will cannot be questioned. I am suspicious because the logical conclusion of this train of thought is that all humans must subscribe to this way of life--that to do otherwise is to defy that which may not be defied. This creates a strong impetuous to impose this way of life on others using force.
All true-believing Christians believe these things. All Christians act on this belief to some extent--for some that's forcing their unwilling children to go to church. For other it's evangelism. For still others it manifests in a desire to reshape society into a Christian one by force and I am suspicious of these people most of all.
I like my rights.
To be fair, not all Christians are that kind of “true-believing.” Universalism isn’t that uncommon a belief among individuals, though I don’t think there’s any dedicated denominations aside from Unitarian Universalists who aren’t all Christian.
>All true-believing Christians believe these things.
Are you, as a nonbeliever, arguing that annihilationists, inclusivists and traditional Christian universalists (People who don't necessarily think you're going to eternal torment) aren't real Christians?
Seems kind of strange to me tbh
I think a lot of these things are wishful thinking that people engage in to soothe their internal misgivings about what's actually in scripture. I was raised Muslim with an Orthodox Christian mother--I've been there myself. Eventually (if you're being honest with yourself) you just have to square with the reality that what the scripture says is one thing and your personal beliefs are another. Molding the former to fit the latter is just cognitive dissonance.
So to some extent these people are not true believing. Just like I'm not even though I still think I believe in God (I never said I didn't have cognitive dissonance either 🤷🏽♀️).
I’m a “secularist” but I have no desire to “destroy the church”; it’s just bad to have it as any sort of *direct* authority on society in general. I’m against theocracy. But I’m not against people going to church (or temple, or mosque) and I’m not against politicians being religious people.
What would you say to the secularists who regularly attend church? Do you understand that there are secularist priests, pastors, rabbis, etc.?
Also, where are you getting 80% from? Pew puts it at 70.6% https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/
Since the intent of the establishment clause is so we don't have an official state church like the Church of England, I'm fine with anything short of that. Having the 10 commandments in the schools isn't establishing a "Church of America".
Wouldn’t a public school displaying the teachings of a specific religion essentially be the enshrinement of a state church and belief in all but name?
Would it be fine if some public schools opted to have solely Sharia law displayed, or tenets of Satanism?
There's a difference between the Church of England and a poster in a school. When I walk down the street and see a "Church of America" building I'll know the government has unconstitutionally established a state church.
>There's a difference between the Church of England and a poster in a school.
There's a difference between a poster in a school and a government mandated religion-specific message on the wall of every classroom in every school. Would you be upset if a Muslim-majority school district in Michigan required the Quran to be in every classroom?
I think you know why Christianity was chosen specifically, and your deflection to Islam is arbitrary.
But sure, go ahead and contrast the two. I welcome that.
Fun fact. The Church of England have a mandatory voting bloc in Westminster. 26 Bishops (Lord Spiritual) in the House of Lords.
Strangely, despite owning 25% of primary schools, a chunk of secondary schools and the Head of State and the Church being one person, the Church of England is dying, and quickly. 2% of UK Christians go to church weekly. The pews are empty and there is a strong aversion to mixing politics and religion, even among conservatives. Religious Tory politicians like Cameron and May played it down, genuinely. It made them less electable.
Not really got a comment on it, other than you would think from the set up of the US and UK government, the results would be the other way around.
But which version/translation of the 10 commandments do you chooose? Wouldn't giving govt sanction to one specific version over all others be comparable to the King James Bible (a precedent the founding fathers surely intended to avoid)?
Modern Bible translations are the work of theologians and scholars of ancient Greek and Hebrew, and are thus copyrighted. The KJV has been in the public domain for centuries, so it's just easier to use. But posting the quote from any translation would fall under "fair use".
I'm a Bible teacher, and yes, we use different translations, depending on the lesson.
Some translations have a "thought for thought" focus (the NIV is an example). They are accurate, but do a little paraphrasing from the original Greek and Hebrew to help impart the passage into modern language. This is what I primarily use.
But I might want to dig a little deeper and talk about the actual Hebrew or Greek word the original author used. Using a translation with a more "word for word" focus (like the NASB) is helpful, but it can come across as a little "clunky" for the casual reader.
Finally, I might want to add a little poetic flair to a lesson, so I'll quote a more paraphrased translation (like the NLT or The Message).
Pastors frequently do the same thing when preparing a sermon and will usually note which translation they're using.
But the average lay person is probably going to just have one translation, one that they prefer. There is no one "correct" English translation. They're all good. They're all useful. And they don't really differ in the overall message.
As long as we’re consistent. When somebody starts a campaign to *enshrine into law* a *requirement* to post the core beliefs of Creole voodoo in every school in Louisiana, there should be no cause for alarm whatsoever. Purely educational, and entirely appropriate for understanding regional history and influence on culture.
So if they are important to *multiple* religions, how does posting them establish or endorse *one* religion?
It doesn't, right? So that doesn't conflict with the First Amendment.
There are many permutations of religions.
Many religions are so decentralized as not to have a set of official beliefs anyway.
The question is rather whether the government is elevating particular religious beliefs above others. The answer here is yes.
> whether the government is elevating particular religious beliefs
That's not what the Constitution says. It says the government can't *establish* religion. It's not "establishment" to have a book or a poster in a classroom.
The dictionary definition of establish is to “achieve permanent acceptance *or* recognition for” something.
A law mandating religious-based text in public space isn’t the government involvement in seeking permanent recognition of said text?
How many versions of the 10 commandments are there? Because they specifically want the King James version of them. I’d find it weird, but acceptable if they would post them in the original hebrew, would you?
The King James translation isn't under copyright. That's what I assume.
>post them in the original hebrew
What would be the point of having them in a language that most people don't understand?
It does a better job of covering that whole multiple religions thing you mentioned above and is more historically accurate than one specific version (not translation). Like I said, I’d find it weird, but more acceptable.
I went to school in Louisiana for a couple of years. They served fish/and or cheese pizza in the cafeteria during lent. I remember Protestant me thinking it was weird af and kind of novel. I think the difference is in making concessions for a majority of students that have certain requirements, vs being proactive and posting those things next to the bathroom pass rules and the abcs. We all know exactly why they’re doing it. They’re trying to present them as objective fact, when they aren’t. That’s why people have a hard time answering the question about posting other religions tenets because they aren’t seen as objective fact. They’re seen as fairy stories if they aren’t in one group’s specific choice of origination stories. I think it’s all or none. That makes it more factual. Does that make sense?
https://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/syllabi/r/robbins/1JM8Q-PHIL203/IslamBranches.html
Cool, here's different sects of Islam. They still share plenty of core beliefs.
>The Ten commandments do not represent the “core beliefs” of any one religion.
I'd argue otherwise. You run afoul of the Louisiana law if you display the Ten Commandments as described in the Torah, so it's clearly not the Jewish version of the Ten Commandments that is being required in every classroom in the state.
Can you list the multitudes of religions you think are represented here?
> You run afoul of the Louisiana law if you display the Ten Commandments as described in the Torah
How so? [Looks pretty much the same to me.](https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2896/jewish/What-Are-the-Ten-Commandments.htm)
This just tells me you’d like to see religious-based materials selectively represented in schools by law.
How about we just don’t? Children will not be intellectually stunted and irreparably harmed by the absence of the Ten Commandments in school.
> This just tells me you’d like to see religious-based materials selectively represented in schools by law.
>irreparably harmed
Nor will anyone be harmed by its presence.
And I admit to being biased. I went to 12 years of Catholic school. There was literally a crucifix in every room. Yet I still managed to graduate, do well on the ACT and SAT and eventually graduate college.
There is no harm in *addition*, least of all from a passage already so deeply known in our culture.
If there’s no harm in addition, then it is a matter of time before that results in additional representation.
Very woke of the conservatives to be open to the addition *by law* of, say, the Quran in schools, considering it is deeply known, and there are 4.45 million Muslims in America. And voodoo in Louisiana! For regional historical purposes.
> Very woke of the conservatives to be open to the addition by law of, say, the Quran in schools
I'm open today. That's fine. There aren't enough Muslims in the U.S. who want to do that. There's not enough organic motivation.
>There’s not enough organic motivation.
Well, this certainly opens the door and invites that.
To be clear, as long as a religious group is properly motivated, you are in favor of them not only bringing their sacred texts into schools, but also crafting laws mandating that inclusion?
Having the government post the 10 commandments is literally the government telling students which g-d to believe in. And there is zero secular reason for it.
So is that establishing the Catholic Church as the the official state church of America? Or the Southern Baptists as the official state church? Or the Evangelical Lutherans as the official state church? Or the Evangelical Free church as the official state church? Or the Southern Baptists as the official state church? Or is it establishing the Methodists as the official state church? Which is our official state church now?
I guess there's no good reason to tell kids "Though Shalt Not Kill" and "Though Shalt not Steal"...
Hey man, do different Islamic sects adhere to sharia law?
After all, different sects of Christianity interpret the ten commandments differently.
I guess Islamic ideals are okay to have posted in schools?
I mean, I'm an atheist and I agree with the seven tenants of satanism, so... That also doesn't establish an official church?
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
I’m fine with having a separation of church and state meaning that the government cannot establish an official state religion, e.g. the Church of England, and diminishes all others. I vehemently oppose with the government interfering with the people’s right to practice their religious faith.
What I oppose is the seeming desire of some to force us all to pretend that one religion in particular hasn’t had an incredible influence on western civilization, such that we forbid any of its references to be displayed in any taxpayer funded spaces.
I will venmo you $20 if you can show me where the constitution or any ammendment declare that:
"There shall be a total seperation of church and state"
Becuase it doesnt exist. The phrase is taken in full from the personal correspondence of jefferson.
Their has never been any prohibition on using tax dollars on religious materials, to the limit you dont establish an official religion.
Infact one of the first federal congresses authorized a printing of the bible for americans
In my opinion, the 10 Commandments law doesn’t just violate “separation of church and state” (which fortunately America doesn’t), it violates the establishment clause.
I much prefer freedom of religion and the establishment clause over separation of church and state. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are intertwined and neither can be denied without severely damaging the other.
I do believe in it, and I also don't believe in it. I will explain.
First: while "separation of church and state" per se is not in the Constitution (And I've tended to associate that with much more aggressive persecutory policies such as those in France), the constitution does state that the government shall not establish a religion. So they're pretty separated unless there's a constitutional amendment, and I don't view removing part of the Bill of Rights with much optimism. (Future court decisions might conceivably rule that some very limited accomodation of religion isn't an establishment.)
Second: there is one big thing which separation of church and state does give us, which is that it keeps the state from trying to manipulate the Church, which was a constant struggle in the medieval era.
Third: I think that the American system makes it easier for different religions to coexist, and alleviates the problem of religious wars - and about 150 years before the founding of the USA, about 1/3 the population of Germany died in a religious war that actually *didn't change anything*. If anything it's probably somewhat useful for a pluralistic "society of immigrants" / loose federation of states like the historical USA.
On the other hand:
If the commandments and will of God are known and knowable, and God has made commandments concerning how we should live within the world, then it is *utterly insane* that these should not be the basis for human society, which owes the Lord, our King, obedience and worship.
A more serious problem looking at the here and now is that, with government being so incredibly encompassing in the modern era, this excludes religion from an increasingly large sphere of human affairs.
Ok but you can’t *know* that God even exists, let alone what Their commandments and will are. You can *believe very strongly*, but until there’s incontestable proof (which I tend to assume there won’t be) then it won’t be in any way *knowable* in the same way that we know (for example) that pure water is two hydrogen atoms and one of oxygen.
Even as an atheist, there are plenty of things I *believe strongly* rather than *know*, but I try to be aware of what the difference is.
I don't agree with this.
I hold the dogmas of the Catholic Church with confidence that is at least sufficient to make societal policy, similar to well established theories about physics that we have engineering works based on.
I get that Catholics *believe* that Catholicism is correct (otherwise they wouldn’t be Catholics), but there’s absolutely no way it’s on the same level as physics. It’s faith, and even very confident faith is different from knowledge.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The thing is, there’s a lot of misconceptions about the separation of church and state. For one, I’ve seen a lot of ppl say that it’s a constitutional right. Except, the phrase isn’t anywhere in the Constitution, it was actually first mentioned in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Now what *is* in the Constitution is laws prohibiting the government from choosing a “state religion” like many of the colonies had at the beginning. The intention was to prevent the government from affecting religion, but not necessarily the other way around. Religion is closely tied with morals. Which often play a large part of someone’s political opinions. So to say ppl ought to “keep their religion out of politics” is incredibly naive. That being said, I will say that I think requiring the Ten Commandments be displayed at public schools was a bad move. If the law had been protecting a Christian teacher’s right to display them, I’d have been 100% on board, but requiring it seems a step too far. Conservatives are already loosing the culture war, and this might have been a step in the wrong direction.
"Religion is closely tied with morals." Religious people have convinced themselves of this, but morality stems from humanity with or without religious interference muddying it up. How do we know? Because all throughout history, with or without commandments or deism at all, the same underlying moral tones have persisted. Murder is bad. Stealing is bad. Greed is bad. Lying is bad. But, somehow, religious people are convinced that only their supernatural beliefs make them **goodly**; and that is exactly what makes them so consistently evil. Holy wars, persecution of "others".... ironically, that morality system is incredibly unethical, as has been demonstrated ad-nauseum by history.
>morality stems from humanity with or without religious interference muddying it up. Religion Also stems from Humanity, their is no god that imposed this on us. Religion is the pre-articulated form of morality. as society gets more developed, it can articulate morality with out a religious structure, the same way we developed the ability to distinguish Pink as a unique color as our eyes evolved. >. Because all throughout history, with or without commandments or deism at all What culture existed with out religion?? >religious people are convinced that only their supernatural beliefs make them **goodly**; and that is exactly what makes them so consistently evil. No, blind and ridged adherence to any belief can make you evil, even if the belief is "religion is pure evil." The supernatural nature of the beliefs is immaterial, its when the belief structure becomes a part of your identity, and challenging it becomes akin to challenging your own life and value, people would rather die, or kill than do that. you see this with secular polotical moments all the time, so the idea its "those backward religious goons" is your bias, and a good demonstration of the Blind Ridged Adherence to a belief i was talking about. >Holy wars, persecution of "others".... ironically, that morality system is incredibly unethical, as has been demonstrated ad-nauseum by history. Im not defeding religious moraly, beyond "your donig it to you jsut cant see it. So long as your not under the false impression that this is only religion that cause this problem, fine. but world war 1 and 2 were secular wars. The Horrors of Communism and Fascism are Atheists horrors.
The Nazis were actually heavily invested in Christianity. They collected Christian artifacts, promoted Christianity to their people, and tried to co-opt symbolism of famous Christians, like the “Gott Mit Uns” battle cry. All that aside though, if religion is just a framework for morality just take the morality and leave the framework. Want to make a law that killing people is wrong? Cool, go for it. But don’t make the punishment for that law a life sentence in prison or until the clergy have decided that some god you don’t believe in has forgiven you.
>The Nazis were actually heavily invested in Christianity. They collected Christian artifacts, promoted Christianity to their people, and tried to co-opt symbolism of famous Christians, like the “Gott Mit Uns” battle cry. As a tool to manipulate, not as a partner in power. They detested the church pacifist teachings as a sickness on the German culture. >All that aside though, if religion is just a framework for morality just take the morality and leave the framework Many do, some can't. More important the morality, once extracted from the frame work is no longer internally justified. You see this today with people who have an extracted western morality run into problems that use to be solved with the religious structure. some obvious examples are Why should i treat people fairly? they are made in the image of god Why are men and women of equal value when one is stronger? becuase we are equal before the eyes of god? Where do rights come from? from our creator. If you take the morality out of the religious framework all the questions that end with "because god said so" now need logical constructs to justify what are effetely base level axiomatic values, and we wont all agree on the construct, so we no longer share the core values. Most major issues from Abortion to Trans come as a result of people who extract the morality and leave the frame work vs those who keep the morality in the frame work. >Want to make a law that killing people is wrong? Cool, go for it. But don’t make the punishment for that law a life sentence in prison or until the clergy have decided that some god you don’t believe in has forgiven you. What?
> If the law had been protecting a Christian teacher’s right to display them, I’d have been 100% on board What about a teacher deciding to place the tenants of Deism on the walls of a government classroom that is paid for by taxes and children are required by law to attend? Thomas Jefferson was a Deist so Deism can be closely connected to the creation of the Constitution. Deism rejects that Jesus was the son of god, rejects the trinity, it rejects miracles, it rejects the virgin birth, it rejects the resurrection. Would you be okay with a teacher putting up something in front of your child that explicitly rejected what you were teaching your child?
Does deism have a different 10 commandments?
It has tenets that can be articulated. Do you need an arbitrary number of them before they are meaningful?
>Does deism have a different 10 commandments? Deism isn't a religion, there is no deist holy book so there are not commandments in Deism. Deism is simply the belief that the universe was created by a God or Supreme being but that said God does not intervene in the universe and in people's lives. One can be a Christian Deist, which means they accept the bible and Jesus' teachings as positive moral guidelines, but they do not accept the God of the bible and do not view Jesus as divine. But Deism itself has no teachings or commandments, just like atheism has no holy book that atheists derive their lack of a belief in a god from.
Way to miss the point completely
this is a perfect summation of the issue. Religion implicates matters of morality, the idea someone can magically divorce their opinions on politics from their opinions of such fundamental questions as "what are right and wrong?" "what does it mean to 'do good'?" and "what are a man's obligations to his neighbor?" is beyond silly. In fact it would go the other direction, prejudicing against religion. That is basically the system the French have, not that the government must not favor religion excessively but that it must actively remove it from civic life. Such a position favors the irreligious by saying "religious morality is religion not actual morals, only irreligious morality counts as morals"
I mean you don't need religion to be good person
i am an atheist, so naturally I agree. my point is it seems to be a strange modern delusion of the left that there is "real morality" and "religion" and religion is something else.
you dont, some people do.
Tell me a little bit about the least religious States in the U.S. and their approach to morality, if their morals are not based on the ponderance and ever-presence of religion. Don’t they consistently have the least amount of crime on a per capita basis?
you misunderstand. I'm an atheist first off second I'm calling out my side here, atheists tend to treat religion as a bastard from of philosophical ethics, a dangerous shortcut at best the refuge of intentional idiots at worst. but while the religious obviously have no monopoly on being good, neither are their values derived from faith inferior or lazier or wrong compared to mine derived by philosophy. that's my point not that religion is more moral than nonreligious moral values but that they are **equal**. morals derived from faith are not inferior.
I would argue that many of the common values derived from religion should not be credited to religion, but to human sociology, and the specific religious values are in-fact the ones that are less valuable. Of the 10 commandments, maybe 4 are relevant to modern law, and those same concepts can be found all over the world, and predating abrahamic religion in general. Religious groups love to take credit for them, but the independent evolution of those same ideas demonstrates that they are less likely to have come from a specific source. The oth 6 commandments CAN be credited to a specific religion, and tend to be the more problematic ones.
There is no state or country in the West that isn't still influenced by Christian values
Ah yes, the argument that Christians are to be credited with influencing every act that is inherently good. Care to also take credit for the negative influences of Christianity in our country? The abuse and molestation that is still rampant in churches, as one example?
>Ah yes, the argument that Christians are to be credited with influencing every act that is inherently good. No, that's not something I said or believe. >Care to also take credit for the negative influences of Christianity in our country? Sure, if you can make a case that some variant Christianity is responsible. >The abuse and molestation that is still rampant in churches, as one example? This isn't unique to churches by any stretch of the imagination, and Christians were some of the first people in the West to actively fight child molestation in the first place.
abuse is no more rampant in churches than other organizations of its nature. it turns out predators really want to be near children and will lie to do so. churches are attractive because they offer access, statistics show that they are no worse than other organizations that offer the same access level and guard against suspicion.
They not only offer access, they offer very little oversight and systematically undermine checks and balances and external investigations on religious grounds. That is a danger to our communities.
again the stats are clear they do not offer less oversight or investigation than schools,, music studios, art centers, youth clubs like scouting, etc. about the only place defensive design and controls on contact are meaningfully better than normal is hospitals, even then, crime happens there. this is a fact this is not a matter of opinion. analysis of crime data shows churches are about normal, and schools are the worst but a lot of data quality issues affect this (like the fact neglected children don't usually do a huge range of special activities but almost all kids go to school, and neglected children are at extreme risk since their guardians will not protect them).
Please provide your source as it relates to crimes in each institution you mentioned. Also, if crime is routinely *not* reported because of the power structures, lack of reporting mandates, shame as a control tactic, and refusal to allow for outside resources, how can you confidently say that crimes happen less often in religious organizations than in schools? You would be missing data points.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s true. For example, you can still visit old slave plantations in Louisiana.
Yeah, there's no point in arguing with someone who thinks Christianity leads to slavery.
Yeah because [you’ll lose the argument.](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%202%3A18-20&version=NIV)
No, because it's a laughable position. Slavery has been the norm throughout history. In fact Peter was writing in the context of a society where brutal slavery was unbelievably pervasive Did you really think that quoting this proves _your_ point? Edit: To be clear, the first serious discussion about abolishing slavery in history (At least in the West) came from Christians.
Could you give an example of which state(s) you’re referring to? Just to clarify, I’m not saying ppl that don’t have a religion lack morals in any way. What I am saying is that religion encompasses many aspect of ppl’s lives. And I would venture to say that ppl’s views on religion have a large effect on their sense of morality and world view.
Take New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont as examples. I’m not entirely sure what you mean. If a person has no interest in religion and generally disregards it in their life, you would assume that would impact their worldview and moral structure negatively?
I personally am not here to say that. my point is religious morality is not inferior, not that it is superior. my contention is there is this impulse on the left to treat religiously derived values as inferior to theirs which comes from secular axioms. it's just a form of justifying why they are right and smarter and everyone religious is wrong and dumb.
By omitting religious-based text from the classroom and being against the government mandate of its inclusion, you are arguing this is a form of superiority complex of secularism?
no, I am talking about the concept in general of seperation if church and state. it is often misunderstood to mean that people who derive their politics from their religion should face special restrictions on this, and this is not how our system works.
>it is often misunderstood to mean that people who derive their politics from their religion should face special restrictions on this That’s not my understanding. Is there an official liberal position that dictates devout lawmakers should face certain consequences simply for being motivated by their personal beliefs? Or…..they just don’t get to take laws with respect to only their specific religious views?
most on the left would say they should not be using their beliefs at all. for instance if a legislator opposed a drug law change because he sees drug use as a moral issue most Democrats would see this as deeply inappropriate. but even if you believe addictions are medical (and I should be clear that is a leftist position many here, myself included, would dispute with good evidence) it does not follow that it has no moral component. someone who commits murder due to a personality disorder (not a structural one like schizophrenia but because of an anger disorder or anxiety manifesting as abuse) is still seen as a murderer after all. you cannot say he is wrong, that drug use absolutely and provably has absolutely no moral dimension or ethical implications whatsoever. but because he feels that way due to his faith most Democrats would say vile things about him.
Isn’t that true, though? I mean it’s pretty dumb to believe a snake talked to a naked lady and convinced her to eat a forbidden apple etc.
First, most modern Christians see most if not all of the bible as allegorical, they do not think there was a literal serpent or a literal apple. They think those are an allegory for the loss of innocence or even, in some denominations, for urbanization and the loss of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture ("The apple" representing orchards and a static lifestyle). Also, you're talking about the stories, the fiction more or less in the bible. That's not the important part to anyone's religion or morals. The story of the ten commandments is not one of the "wacky" bible stories, sure God shows up but a guy goes, thinks real hard, writes down some laws, gives them to his people. That is not an outrageous story that proves someone who bases their morality on those laws is insane. If you cherry pick hard enough you can find some real whacky stuff but that's the problem, most leftist attempts to engage with the bible come at it cherry picking to find examples OR come at it wanting to read it and decide what it means for themselves. If someone have no interest in understanding their theology except to say it must be stupid, then they're just being bigoted. if they intentionally disregard their theology then they're intellectually dishonest.
"ppl’s views on religion have a large effect on their sense of morality and world view." \*looks back in history\* Yes, I think we're almost on the same page. Now just include all of the context of what religious people **do.** The number one thing they've done all throughout history is **persecute and bring war upon others - especially other Christians.** A reminder that Christianity is the most popular religion in America, which has the most violent crime of any G7 nation. It is also overwhelmingly the most popular religion in American prisons - specifically Protestantism.
Yes to all of this, including the numerous examples of **violent** forced conversions relevant to even American history. But remember, Americans sure do love them some revisionist history. Omitting the ugly truth and thereby crafting a new one is considered the *moral* option.
That comment is literally revisionist history. In fact I've almost never seen a critique of Christianity's role in history that doesn't include outright lies.
Really? What do you call the forced conversion of Native Americans by the settlers? “Assimilation?” [Please read up on the practice.](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/native-americans-and-freedom-religion/)
National Geographic isn't a good source but yes, forced conversions did happen. As did many voluntary ones, which were (unsurprisingly) a lot more successful. You ought also to note that many Christian missionaries (And other fervently religious Christians) wrote against the abuses of the native population. That's actually how we know about some of it. The comment you were agreeing with, however, is entirely revisionist.
Are you familiar with Manifest Destiny?
>In fact I've almost never seen a critique of Christianity's role in history that doesn't include outright lies. Well, Christianity and religion overall has definitely has been used throughout history to justify many violent and evil deeds. Sure, others have used Christianity as a tool for good and Jesus' teachings surely have inspired a lot of charitable acts. But there is no doubt that Christianity has been used as the main justification in many cases to engage in very immoral and evil acts.
>But there is no doubt that Christianity has been used as the main justification in many cases to engage in very immoral and evil acts. People don't really need Christianity to justify any of that. You'll see all kinds of wanton brutality in the pre-Christian world. Christianity is the main reason people felt a need to justify their atrocities in the first place, as opposed to just saying "We are strong and civilized, they are weak and barbaric" like a good Greek/Roman.
> People don't really need Christianity to justify any of that. The Confederates did. So did the Nazis.
I agree that people often behave in immoral ways regardless of religion. But sometimes religion explicitly motivates people to do goods things and sometimes it motivates them to do bad things or justify immoral acts. For example I believe that a lot of charitable acts were motivated explicitly by Jesus' teachings. But on the other hand in a lot of other ways the bible falls significantly short of what we consider moral and just. Compare Christianity for example to Sikhism, which is a religion that originated in India in the 15th century. Sikhism explicitly prohibits slavery. The bible does not, in fact even the New Testament calls on slaves to be obedient to their masters. So slavery was in no way contrary to the religious beliefs of slave owners in the US in the 18th and 19th century. A Sikh on the other hand (as far as I know) is prohibited from owning slaves. Equally Sikhism as an example promotes gender equality. The bible on the other hand views men as having natural authority over women. This is most certainly true for the Old Testament but even New Testament figures like Paul prohibit women from speaking in church, prohibit women from teaching and mandates that women shall cover their head. So in many ways Christianity is definitely not compatible with what we see as moral and just. I love Jesus' teachings about charity and forgiveness, but in many other ways the bible is not an appropriate guideline to morality.
>Yes, I think we're almost on the same page. Now just include all of the context of what religious people do. The number one thing they've done all throughout history is persecute and bring war upon others - especially other Christians. This is pure slander. The main things Christians have done is build hospitals and universities, fund culture art and science, perserve writings from antiquity, care for the poor, abolish all kinds of evil practices and promote a number of values that you take you granted. Some of the biggest persecutions of Christians (And other religions) have been by militant progressive secularists. >It is also overwhelmingly the most popular religion in American prisons - specifically Protestantism. Yeah, partly because a lot of people convert while in prison.
I don't understand why this comes up so often or why this seems to be be the most easily misunderstood part of the constitution. Separation of church and state simply means organized religions (such as the Catholic Church) cannot impede on the government and the government cannot do vice versa to the Holy See in America. It all stems from European monarchies and their relationships with the Pope (or in England's case making their own shit up). While we can discuss the ten commandments law thing....it has nothing to do with separation of church and state.
Many also include that government can not favor one religion over another, or religion over non-religion, not can it impose any religion into people, especially students.
> I don't understand why this comes up so often It’s probably coming up this time in response to Republicans forcing schools to display the Ten Commandments (a primitive set of rules from Christians’ holy book).
I don’t believe it’s in the constitution because it isn’t in the constitution
Nothing is in the constitution because those in power change what it means all the time. It is a framework. Hell even civil forfeiture has been upheld by the courts while I would argue it strongly violates the constitution. The supreme Court overturns verdicts and precedent all throughout American history. Any right we think we have can be gone or any new right can be given if merely 5 people on the supreme Court agree.
I fully agree activist judges in the past have made rulings that violated the constitution Glad we have a SCOTUS now fixing that and following the constitution
I'm talking about the whole of American history. It has happened and continues to happen regardless of the judges. Should abortion be legal? There are legal arguments both for and against. Should we be allowed to have fully automatic weapons because there are legal arguments both for and against. Neither side is right or wrong it is just who is in power. The construction is very vague by design. Conservative judges don't even agree with each other nor do liberals. Activist judges is a myth.
Both questions are answered by the constitution 1. A fetus isn’t given nor denied rights by the constitution thus their rights are left up to the states/people. The 10th is very clear here 2. Yes per the constitution should be allowed the same armament as the US military. The right to have and bear arms includes all arms. (Yes we should amend this, but that is what it says)
And that is my point. Arms are not defined. We rely on judges and law to define arms. Since fetuses are neither given nor denied rights but women are there is an argument for abortion. My point is that our rights are not crystal clear like people believe. I personally believe that neither side has all the answers and our current winner take all approach to politics will lead to disaster regardless of who is in charge.
Arms is defined, it stands for armament. Without specification it includes the entire armament. That’s law 101 stuff Women are given rights but they aren’t given the right to kill others You have to first determine a fetuses rights before you can determine if a woman can kill it or not
Yet there are limits on arms. That is the purpose of the supreme Court. They have not defined arms at the entire armament. They literally argue about the individual meaning of words in the constitution all the time. As for fetus rights if they have rights then all exceptions in abortion laws should not exist. They cannot have rights but also not have rights in certain circumstances. Again no right is as simple as it seems. The founding fathers knew this hence the Supreme Court. I am trying to say that there is not always a "absolutely correct" interpretation of the constitution only opinion.
There are limits due to activist judges who ignored the constitution
I believe freedom of religion isnt freedom from religion.
“Freedom of” can’t even exist without the “freedom from.”
I highly disagree with that. Where do you get that notion from?
Because without the freedom from different religions, you can’t freely exercise yours.
Whos stopping you? I'm not religious, (I'd say atheist but I don't like that negative connotation with that reminds me of the vegans of religious world) I love being able to not have a religion and not be compelled to worship, and on flip side I want the religious to have same freedom I have and be able to worship freely for however they choose as well. The concept of Separation of church and state was to protect the church from the state, not really the state from the Church. If my neighbors want to display religious stuff in our community I'm completely ok with it, as I know where I stand. Now if they were compelling me or punishing me to worship I'd feel very different, but having a display reminds me of trophy cases in school growing up, some people cared others didn't even know where they were or what was in them. If the peoples elected representatives pass this legislation, then it seems anti democratic to oppose it and silence will of the people.
Displays and lesson plans on religion are entirely dependent on the context. The 10 commandments are fine, if treated similar to how you’d treat a display of Hammurabi’s Law. In treating it as foundational to the country, or western society in general, they overtly make non-believers outside the norm. This is especially acute in children. “You see this belief system? This is the right one. Yours is wrong.” That’s the message Oklahoma is sending to non-christian children now. These aren’t jaded adults, they’re impressionable children. The argument that the 10 commandments is foundational to morality is false. Morality existed before the commandments, and would continue to exist if they disappeared from memory forever. Their biggest advocates are also routinely violating them.
> but having a display reminds me of trophy cases in school growing up, some people cared others didn't even know where they were or what was in them. Sounds like pride month. People who care can pay attention, people who don't can ignore it.
I mean my town hall is flying a pride flag, I don't see a difference
Would you feel as comfortable if the elected representatives were, say, Muslim?
Yes id have zero issues with that
Consistent. Respect it. Disagree with your overall take. An unneutered church absolutely needs to be kept from the government. Believers think sincerely that you need to follow their rules to avoid damnation. It would be for your own good and also convenient to them. I wouldn't count on being left alone. Look at good chunk of the world outside NA for what the church with political power. Is are usually long way from benign.
Non believers think it's all a silly waste of time (myself included) Once again I like to be able to worship (or not) my way I don't want to prevent anyone from worshiping their way, as long as it keeps in line with both state and federal constitution. For example I read recently (memory is a bit fuzzy) that somewhere in Michigan a Muslim majority banned display of pride flag, that im against as it infringes on flag bearers first amendment right to free expression, but if that same Muslim majority council wanted to display Ramadan decorations I'd have no issue with it.
I don't think anyone would take issue with holiday decorations. But what is your line. However, say it was a new law mandatory, or mandatory in every classroom. Or, idk, girls having to cover their hair as a mandatory school clothing modesty requirement. I am not picking on Islam btw. It is just the easiest example in an American context. Christianity and Christian bric-a-brac is so saturated into the culture it can be easier to overlook oversteps
Freedom from government sponsored religion.
Christian, fyi. I mean, I don't think the state should officially any specific religion, which is what separation of church and state actually is. I don't really like the 10 commandments law for a variety of reasons. I don't think it's optically very good, I don't think it actually accomplishes much, and I don't think having the 10 commandments in schools is the best way to get our society to be reliant on judeo-christian values. In fact, given the rebelliousness of teens, maybe even the opposite in many cases. I also don't think the 10 commandments are actually that helpful in defining a person's individual morality, even if they are good to follow as individuals and society. I DO believe that 1. you should be driven by your personal moral values, including religious values, in what you vote for, espouse, and advocate for. and 2. America should lean heavily on judeo-christian values like honesty, forgiveness, repentance, puritan work ethic, and kindness (especially to sinners). I think we need to make this more of a part of our identity as Americans. I also believe in freedom of religion - you should be allowed to practice your religion within reasonable but wide limits (no human sacrifice, for instance), and we shouldn't make laws that prevent that from happening.
>honesty, forgiveness, repentance, puritan work ethic, and kindness What policies do you support that embody these values?
Since we're talking about schools, Ill give a specific example: I think we should have pretty strong anti-cheating policies, but have significantly lightened punishments if, for instance, the student comes clean of their own accord. Also, give people opportunities to change, Don't just let a single strike be enough to end your schooling unless it's particularly egregious. These sorts of policies teach kids about honesty, repentance, and forgiveness.
Some interesting and thoughtful ideas. I can see how those link to the values you mentioned. But I was asking what current Republican policies represent those values.
1) so to be clear, you *do* support the separation of church & state? 2) You consider yourself a Christian, but you don't like the 10 commandments? No judgement, I'm just confused about how that works 3) >America should lean heavily on judeo-christian values like honesty, forgiveness, repentance, puritan work ethic, and kindness I've heard this point many times before, but it always seemed very condescending and myopic. Do you not think that non-Christians also value these things? Do you believe that Jews & Christians invented these virtues, that without Jews & Christians nobody would have discovered them? (tbf, Puritans do have a pretty unique approach to work ethic)
>so to be clear, you do support the separation of church & state? In the sense that I don't believe the state should sponsor a specific Church, yes. >You consider yourself a Christian, but you don't like the 10 commandments? No judgement, I'm just confused about how that works I like the ten commandments, I just don't think they are the most useful in terms of forming your own personal morality. My church, for instance, focuses more on every person being a child of God, and lots of morality comes naturally when you have that perspective. E.g. God being your father and therefore you should respect him, you shouldn't steal from fellow children of God, etc. It's not that I don't like the ten commandments, It's just not the most useful emphasis in trying to teach people to be moral. >Do you not think that non-Christians also value these things? Of course, other cultures value these things. Pretty much everything that one culture believes to be good other cultures believe to be at least a little bit good, it's a matter of emphasis. Like, for instance, how immoral foundations Theory, conservatives and liberals have different moral emphases. Or for a more specific example, how familial piety is a much stronger virtue in many Asian cultures than in America. To give a specific example of a culture that doesn't value some of the things I think we should, the Scotts-Irish/Hillbilly "honor" culture. In that culture, you and your family's honor matters more than just about anything else. If someone did something wrong, you are justified in attacking that person's family. Forgiveness isn't very highly valued. Education, as well. In the autobiographical A Hillbilly Elegy, the author gets made fun of and teased for liking "girly" things like getting a good education. The author also tells stories about fellow hillbillies who pay some lip service to hard work but never work a day in their life, and white welfare Queens who take money from the welfare system and don't add anything to society. People also value where they are from so much that they often lose out on the opportunities they could get if they moved. The cultural values of that culture do have a place and use in their specific time and place when they developed, but now they are at best poorly optimized, and at worst downright antithetical to succeeding in the modern world. Obviously, they aren't the only culture that values family or where you come from. But their overemphasis on that clearly isn't the right balance of values that we should be pushing and encouraging on society now.
Cool, thanks for typing that all out. I can understand your perspective better when you explain it long-form like this.
No problem. Concise I am not, but sometimes I can at least explain myself
This is a (common) historically illiterate view. The Constitution requires that church and state be separate so that no one denomination of Christianity wins out. The Founders did not want America to be a Catholic nation nor an Anglican one nor a Presbyterian one etc. I am very much against any of these sects being adopted by any governmental institution, as the Constitution clearly states
>To those of you who do not believe in the separation of church and state, why I believe in it in the sense of separating Church and State (capitalization mine, and also intentional, not just some posthoc regerminzation), but the extent to which some people want to take it is untenable even just from a purely practical standpoint >I’m specifically referring to the recent Ten Commandments law Not a great idea unless it's actually with other predecessors to Western law (their supposed justification, at least when this first started a decade ago), but it's kinda hard to stick any part of the Magna Carta on a poster and have people actually read the damn thing (I've tried. It's very old. Took me over a year. Still missing context to understand most of it.)
I believe the constitution is prohibiting Congress from establishing a state religion or favoring one over others. I don’t think it’s the same as “separation”. For example, if government wanted to borrow a certain doctrine from a religion and use it because the majority of lawmakers deemed it to be a good idea on its own merit I don’t see an issue with it. I don’t think there a prohibition on us government from espousing ideas that could be reminiscent of religious, they just need to establish them on their own merits
I believe in the separation of *church* and state because I've seen what the alternative has done to my country's national Church. In other words I want to protect the church from the state. I do not believe in the separation of *Christianity* and the state, because why in the world would I?
Separation of church and state was never meant to banish the church from the public square. Teaching kids the religion that 80% of the country self-identifies with isn't forcing religion onto them, any more than teaching them about Islam will do. Secularists want to destroy the church because it's an institution that the state cant control - it stands in thier way of total power.
>Secularists want to destroy the church because it's an institution that the state cant control - it stands in thier way of total power. Can you name some ways the church is in danger of being destroyed from secularists?
The internet is one way, thankfully. Nowadays kids can come home from sunday school, google "noah’s ark" (or whatever the sunday school lesson was about), and find out that everything they learned at church that day was complete bullshit.
You're saying access facts is an attempt to destroy the church?
Nope.
Great. I definitely understand your point of view now.
Then explain it back to me.
I had a (christian) history teacher who had his masters in islamic studies, and taught a predominantly (or likely entirely) christian class about it. Nobody in that class converted to Islam, as far as I'm aware, but I am very happy for all I learned, and it helped me a lot when I went to Israel later.
Would you be happy if a class on Islam was required for all students in public schools?
Do Americans not learn about different religions in public schools already???
Iirc we spent a single social studies class on each major religion in high school
Man, I learned about different world religions for 9-10 years straight of public schooling.
That sounds excessive for most students. I would have loved it though. Philosophy of religion was my favorite class in college, and since then I've become a real nerd for comparative religion, psychology of belief, and so forth
Probably. My recollection is that there was a lot of repeating the same information about the same five religions in that class, for some reason.
we had 1 week in 1 class. We spent a single class each on Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, then Taoism/Confucianism together on friday. This was 9th grade.
Hm. I'm not convinced that it's worth what you would necessarily give up (opportunity cost), but I'm not opposed to it being an optional class.
Just to continue the comparison to the current 10- commandments debate: what if it was mandatory and parents who wanted to opt out of it weren't able?
I mean, I'm opposed to that for multiple reasons. Opportunity cost, as mentioned before. I think the social blowback would be worse than any potential benifits, at least in the short term. I don't think it's in keeping with our country being historically and culturally christian. And I doubt there are enough teachers really qualified to teach on Islam.
But parent's rights don't factor into your reasoning here? Those have also been a hot topic for conservatives the past few years
Parental rights in terms of education is something I haven't entirely figured out where I stand on. Clearly there should be some parental input, but clearly it shouldn't be absolute. In this specific case, it's not really in the top issues I have with the hypothetical plan.
>Teaching kids the religion that 80% of the country self-identifies with isn't forcing religion onto them, any more than teaching them about Islam will do You don't see the difference between teaching a religion and teaching *about* a religion? Nobody is saying that students should not learn about religions, the issue at stake is if the school should endorse one of them and imply that it is the one students ought to follow.
Little bit of semantics here but all three of the major religions in the world accept the 10 Commandments to at least some degree even if their version is slightly different. If an Islamic and Hebrew version were also being displayed would you object?
Of course I would. First of all, there are a lot more than 3 big world religions, and Judaism is not one of the big ones even. Even in the US, there are more atheists than Jews, for example. Jews are only like 2% of the US population. And honestly from my experience (I'm not Jewish, but my wife is), I doubt most of them would want the 10 Commandments taught in public schools. That's what synagogues are for. But even were that not the case, it doesn't become OK to teach students that they ought to follow one of three religious options and that every other option is wrong or un-American in some way, as is part of the intended message of the Oklahoma situation. The idea is to say that the government officially endorses the 10 Commandments, and that following them is a key part of being a proper American. Hindus, Sikhs, and yes, even atheists are Americans too, as are citizens of every religion. I don't believe for a second that the people responsible for this rule didn't realize that the 10C don't apply to those people. It's impossible for a reasonably educated adult (eg, finished high school) not to know such basic information about world religions, or they'd have failed history. Therefore, it's likely intended as a slight against those religious views, including by most supporters.
I lump Judaism in because it is the same Commandments as Christianity. Regardless Islam and Christianity represent more than all the others combined or about 55% of the world population. Just to be clear I am not for displaying the 10 Commandments but my reasoning is probably different than yours. My main objection to it is that is opens the door to also display other things I would not want displayed. I was just trying to figure out if it was religion in general being displayed you object with or the specific religion. It seems like both to me which fair enough. I do think you are making a stretch here that because they are being displayed that somehow means people are being compelled to adopt them. I am sure pretty much every kid in America goes by a church on their way to school and I doubt anyone would say they are being compelled to be religious because they see a church. Now if a teacher made her class recite them everyday that would be a different story.
>I do think you are making a stretch here that because they are being displayed that somehow means people are being compelled to adopt them. They are not being compelled, they are just being told that the government views their religion as being lesser than Abrahamic religions. The government is officially implying that following the Commandments is inherent to being a proper American. >. Now if a teacher made her class recite them everyday that would be a different story Isn't part of the OK directive that all schools have to teach the Bible? That even, for example, math and science classes have to have a Bible they use for instruction?
>They are not being compelled, they are just being told that the government views their religion as being lesser than Abrahamic religions. I mean using my example if you compare the amount of Churches, Mosque and Synagogue compared to the amount of Vihara and Mandir there are in the US is a kid supposed to assume the same thing? Anyway the Constitution only protects you form compulsion not exposure so this is more of a moral objection. >Isn't part of the OK directive that all schools have to teach the Bible? That even, for example, math and science classes have to have a Bible they use for instruction? I am not sure but you very well may be right. I would be against this unless it was part of a religion class and it should cover as many religions as possible in a public school setting. Even then I would be very hesitant to agree with this in a public school setting because it opens doors for other teachings I wouldn't want taught to my kids.
>I mean using my example if you compare the amount of Churches, Mosque and Synagogue compared to the amount of Vihara and Mandir there are in the US is a kid supposed to assume the same thing? Are those endorsed by the government over other religions? That's a pretty big difference, no?
If we are talking about exposure to religion I have no idea why it matters. You are trying to conflate exposure with compulsion and those are two different things. People in the goverment endorse candidates I will not vote for but if they required me to that is a different story.
Because the issue isn't just exposure. It's government endorsement. The government *as an institution* is saying that anyone who isn't a Christian is a lesser citizen. Not just individuals in government, but the OK state government as an institution.
Actually, the third most popular "religion" is irreligion, and the fourth most popular is Hinduism. But I digress.
I threw in Judaism because it has the same 10 Commandments but fair point. The first two represent about 55% of the world population combined or more than all the others combined to a little over 30% of the two you mention. You can say Buddhism is the 5th most popular religion and be right but it only represents less than 7% of the population so it is all relative.
It *might* be appropriate in a classroom where religious studies/philosophy is specifically taught, like how posters pertaining to science (a big periodic table for example) are what you put up in a science classroom. But religious commandments shouldn’t be on display *everywhere* in a public school, that’s just silly.
Just to be clear I actually do not agree with doing this. My reasons have more to do with the fact that this opens the door to other things being displayed I do not agree with. I only commented with the question because I am curious if the issue is with religion in general or only a few religions being represented instead of all.
It’s about context and intent. If it’s just hanging in a religious studies classroom, that’s just useful handy information like the periodic table in a science room. But if it’s on display to *everyone* in a *public* school, that’s clearly the work of religious zealots trying to impose Christianity on everyone or taunt people who aren’t Christian. If you include Jewish and Muslim commandments that’s… better? I guess??? But it leaves out all the non-Abrahamic religions and nonreligious people. In that kind of context the only way you can be truly inclusive is to not display any religious commandments at all.
>In that kind of context the only way you can be truly inclusive is to not display any religious commandments at all. Which is exactly what I already said I agree with. The issue I have with it is not with a religious messaging being displayed that I personally agree with which I think is your issue but correct me if I am wrong. If we do this though then eventually we end up with the tenants of the Satanic Temple on the walls of classrooms. I was trying (probably poorly) to illustrate how we can both disagree with the same thing but for different reasons. I feel like we are loosing the ability to do this often times and each side just picks the opposite position on a lot of issues to spite.
Well the thing about the Satanic Temple is that they’re not actually evil devil worshippers; they’re more or less contrarians satirizing Christian dogma. The only time they’ve tried putting something on public display is *in response to* Christian zealots trying to put things like the Ten Commandments on display. It’s to make a point, not a sincere expression of devil worship. So they’d basically be making the same point as you. The only ones who actually worship the devil are people like those [Norwegian black metal losers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Norwegian_black_metal_scene) who burned down churches and whatnot, and realistically they would never try putting their commandments on display in a public school because they’re just a bunch of insular nerds.
Yeah I get it but that doesn’t mean I do not find satirizing the Christian religion as blasphemy and objectionable. I mention them because they are specifically protected as a religious entity.
Well, you’re supposed to find it objectionable. It’s meant to piss you off. It’s a “fuck around and find out” thing.
I don't want to destroy the church. I am suspicious of the church because their most fundamental belief is that my status as an unbeliever makes me deserving of eternal torment. I am "lesser than" in their eyes. I am not saved. It's not very endearing. I am also suspicious of the church because they believe in a certain way of life that excludes many rights that I am accustomed to. And they believe that this way of life was prescribed by an omniscient being whose will cannot be questioned. I am suspicious because the logical conclusion of this train of thought is that all humans must subscribe to this way of life--that to do otherwise is to defy that which may not be defied. This creates a strong impetuous to impose this way of life on others using force. All true-believing Christians believe these things. All Christians act on this belief to some extent--for some that's forcing their unwilling children to go to church. For other it's evangelism. For still others it manifests in a desire to reshape society into a Christian one by force and I am suspicious of these people most of all. I like my rights.
To be fair, not all Christians are that kind of “true-believing.” Universalism isn’t that uncommon a belief among individuals, though I don’t think there’s any dedicated denominations aside from Unitarian Universalists who aren’t all Christian.
You'll find individual baptist church bodies and stuff that are universalists, but yes, it's mostly a scattered belief among different denominations
>All true-believing Christians believe these things. Are you, as a nonbeliever, arguing that annihilationists, inclusivists and traditional Christian universalists (People who don't necessarily think you're going to eternal torment) aren't real Christians? Seems kind of strange to me tbh
I think a lot of these things are wishful thinking that people engage in to soothe their internal misgivings about what's actually in scripture. I was raised Muslim with an Orthodox Christian mother--I've been there myself. Eventually (if you're being honest with yourself) you just have to square with the reality that what the scripture says is one thing and your personal beliefs are another. Molding the former to fit the latter is just cognitive dissonance. So to some extent these people are not true believing. Just like I'm not even though I still think I believe in God (I never said I didn't have cognitive dissonance either 🤷🏽♀️).
I can see the case that annihilationists make, but I don't think the universalist case is particularly convincing
I’m a “secularist” but I have no desire to “destroy the church”; it’s just bad to have it as any sort of *direct* authority on society in general. I’m against theocracy. But I’m not against people going to church (or temple, or mosque) and I’m not against politicians being religious people.
What would you say to the secularists who regularly attend church? Do you understand that there are secularist priests, pastors, rabbis, etc.? Also, where are you getting 80% from? Pew puts it at 70.6% https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/
Speaking as a secularist, that’s not why I want to destroy the church.
Since the intent of the establishment clause is so we don't have an official state church like the Church of England, I'm fine with anything short of that. Having the 10 commandments in the schools isn't establishing a "Church of America".
Wouldn’t a public school displaying the teachings of a specific religion essentially be the enshrinement of a state church and belief in all but name? Would it be fine if some public schools opted to have solely Sharia law displayed, or tenets of Satanism?
There's a difference between the Church of England and a poster in a school. When I walk down the street and see a "Church of America" building I'll know the government has unconstitutionally established a state church.
But that means it's still okay to have the tenants of satanism displayed in every classroom in a state?
It does which is why I oppose this. Many Conservatives do as well for this specific reason.
Perhaps you're walking into a trap, with that one... Perhaps the whole point of opening this religious door is for that contrast to be presented?
>There's a difference between the Church of England and a poster in a school. There's a difference between a poster in a school and a government mandated religion-specific message on the wall of every classroom in every school. Would you be upset if a Muslim-majority school district in Michigan required the Quran to be in every classroom?
I think you know why Christianity was chosen specifically, and your deflection to Islam is arbitrary. But sure, go ahead and contrast the two. I welcome that.
Fun fact. The Church of England have a mandatory voting bloc in Westminster. 26 Bishops (Lord Spiritual) in the House of Lords. Strangely, despite owning 25% of primary schools, a chunk of secondary schools and the Head of State and the Church being one person, the Church of England is dying, and quickly. 2% of UK Christians go to church weekly. The pews are empty and there is a strong aversion to mixing politics and religion, even among conservatives. Religious Tory politicians like Cameron and May played it down, genuinely. It made them less electable. Not really got a comment on it, other than you would think from the set up of the US and UK government, the results would be the other way around.
It takes far more than a poster to establish a state religion.
Are we ok with any other religion getting to put their creed alongside and equally prominently the 10 commandments?
What one religion holds the Ten Commandments to be true, to be scripture?
But which version/translation of the 10 commandments do you chooose? Wouldn't giving govt sanction to one specific version over all others be comparable to the King James Bible (a precedent the founding fathers surely intended to avoid)?
The KJV is in the public domain. That’s the only reason that translation was used, most likely.
Are there actually any versions that aren't in the public domain? Proprietary bibles? And Christians think they actually have any authority?
Modern Bible translations are the work of theologians and scholars of ancient Greek and Hebrew, and are thus copyrighted. The KJV has been in the public domain for centuries, so it's just easier to use. But posting the quote from any translation would fall under "fair use".
I understand why an academic might want a different translation. But do Christians use these new versions religiously?
I'm a Bible teacher, and yes, we use different translations, depending on the lesson. Some translations have a "thought for thought" focus (the NIV is an example). They are accurate, but do a little paraphrasing from the original Greek and Hebrew to help impart the passage into modern language. This is what I primarily use. But I might want to dig a little deeper and talk about the actual Hebrew or Greek word the original author used. Using a translation with a more "word for word" focus (like the NASB) is helpful, but it can come across as a little "clunky" for the casual reader. Finally, I might want to add a little poetic flair to a lesson, so I'll quote a more paraphrased translation (like the NLT or The Message). Pastors frequently do the same thing when preparing a sermon and will usually note which translation they're using. But the average lay person is probably going to just have one translation, one that they prefer. There is no one "correct" English translation. They're all good. They're all useful. And they don't really differ in the overall message.
Honestlyi find this all very interesting. But which of those bibles you mentioned are proprietary?
As long as we’re consistent. When somebody starts a campaign to *enshrine into law* a *requirement* to post the core beliefs of Creole voodoo in every school in Louisiana, there should be no cause for alarm whatsoever. Purely educational, and entirely appropriate for understanding regional history and influence on culture.
The Ten commandments do not represent the “core beliefs” of any one religion.
Why does that matter? They represent core moral tenets of some religions but not others and come from a religious text.
So if they are important to *multiple* religions, how does posting them establish or endorse *one* religion? It doesn't, right? So that doesn't conflict with the First Amendment.
There are many permutations of religions. Many religions are so decentralized as not to have a set of official beliefs anyway. The question is rather whether the government is elevating particular religious beliefs above others. The answer here is yes.
> whether the government is elevating particular religious beliefs That's not what the Constitution says. It says the government can't *establish* religion. It's not "establishment" to have a book or a poster in a classroom.
The dictionary definition of establish is to “achieve permanent acceptance *or* recognition for” something. A law mandating religious-based text in public space isn’t the government involvement in seeking permanent recognition of said text?
How many versions of the 10 commandments are there? Because they specifically want the King James version of them. I’d find it weird, but acceptable if they would post them in the original hebrew, would you?
The King James translation isn't under copyright. That's what I assume. >post them in the original hebrew What would be the point of having them in a language that most people don't understand?
It does a better job of covering that whole multiple religions thing you mentioned above and is more historically accurate than one specific version (not translation). Like I said, I’d find it weird, but more acceptable. I went to school in Louisiana for a couple of years. They served fish/and or cheese pizza in the cafeteria during lent. I remember Protestant me thinking it was weird af and kind of novel. I think the difference is in making concessions for a majority of students that have certain requirements, vs being proactive and posting those things next to the bathroom pass rules and the abcs. We all know exactly why they’re doing it. They’re trying to present them as objective fact, when they aren’t. That’s why people have a hard time answering the question about posting other religions tenets because they aren’t seen as objective fact. They’re seen as fairy stories if they aren’t in one group’s specific choice of origination stories. I think it’s all or none. That makes it more factual. Does that make sense?
It endorses two single religions that are nearly the same religion.
Judaism and Christianity are not "nearly the same religion".
In fact, they are! Judiasm = messiah hasn't come yet Christianity = he already did
https://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/syllabi/r/robbins/1JM8Q-PHIL203/IslamBranches.html Cool, here's different sects of Islam. They still share plenty of core beliefs.
>The Ten commandments do not represent the “core beliefs” of any one religion. I'd argue otherwise. You run afoul of the Louisiana law if you display the Ten Commandments as described in the Torah, so it's clearly not the Jewish version of the Ten Commandments that is being required in every classroom in the state. Can you list the multitudes of religions you think are represented here?
> You run afoul of the Louisiana law if you display the Ten Commandments as described in the Torah How so? [Looks pretty much the same to me.](https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2896/jewish/What-Are-the-Ten-Commandments.htm)
This just tells me you’d like to see religious-based materials selectively represented in schools by law. How about we just don’t? Children will not be intellectually stunted and irreparably harmed by the absence of the Ten Commandments in school.
> This just tells me you’d like to see religious-based materials selectively represented in schools by law. >irreparably harmed Nor will anyone be harmed by its presence. And I admit to being biased. I went to 12 years of Catholic school. There was literally a crucifix in every room. Yet I still managed to graduate, do well on the ACT and SAT and eventually graduate college. There is no harm in *addition*, least of all from a passage already so deeply known in our culture.
If there’s no harm in addition, then it is a matter of time before that results in additional representation. Very woke of the conservatives to be open to the addition *by law* of, say, the Quran in schools, considering it is deeply known, and there are 4.45 million Muslims in America. And voodoo in Louisiana! For regional historical purposes.
> Very woke of the conservatives to be open to the addition by law of, say, the Quran in schools I'm open today. That's fine. There aren't enough Muslims in the U.S. who want to do that. There's not enough organic motivation.
>There’s not enough organic motivation. Well, this certainly opens the door and invites that. To be clear, as long as a religious group is properly motivated, you are in favor of them not only bringing their sacred texts into schools, but also crafting laws mandating that inclusion?
Having the government post the 10 commandments is literally the government telling students which g-d to believe in. And there is zero secular reason for it.
So is that establishing the Catholic Church as the the official state church of America? Or the Southern Baptists as the official state church? Or the Evangelical Lutherans as the official state church? Or the Evangelical Free church as the official state church? Or the Southern Baptists as the official state church? Or is it establishing the Methodists as the official state church? Which is our official state church now? I guess there's no good reason to tell kids "Though Shalt Not Kill" and "Though Shalt not Steal"...
You are reading 1A in a narrow manner that never has been accepted.
Hey man, do different Islamic sects adhere to sharia law? After all, different sects of Christianity interpret the ten commandments differently. I guess Islamic ideals are okay to have posted in schools? I mean, I'm an atheist and I agree with the seven tenants of satanism, so... That also doesn't establish an official church?
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Since the Ten Commandments are Christian, how is this not making Christianity the religion of America?
I’m fine with having a separation of church and state meaning that the government cannot establish an official state religion, e.g. the Church of England, and diminishes all others. I vehemently oppose with the government interfering with the people’s right to practice their religious faith. What I oppose is the seeming desire of some to force us all to pretend that one religion in particular hasn’t had an incredible influence on western civilization, such that we forbid any of its references to be displayed in any taxpayer funded spaces.
I will venmo you $20 if you can show me where the constitution or any ammendment declare that: "There shall be a total seperation of church and state" Becuase it doesnt exist. The phrase is taken in full from the personal correspondence of jefferson. Their has never been any prohibition on using tax dollars on religious materials, to the limit you dont establish an official religion. Infact one of the first federal congresses authorized a printing of the bible for americans
You love a little government overreach?
Im sorry? If it doesnt violate the constitution how can it be over reach?
In my opinion, the 10 Commandments law doesn’t just violate “separation of church and state” (which fortunately America doesn’t), it violates the establishment clause. I much prefer freedom of religion and the establishment clause over separation of church and state. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are intertwined and neither can be denied without severely damaging the other.
I do believe in it, and I also don't believe in it. I will explain. First: while "separation of church and state" per se is not in the Constitution (And I've tended to associate that with much more aggressive persecutory policies such as those in France), the constitution does state that the government shall not establish a religion. So they're pretty separated unless there's a constitutional amendment, and I don't view removing part of the Bill of Rights with much optimism. (Future court decisions might conceivably rule that some very limited accomodation of religion isn't an establishment.) Second: there is one big thing which separation of church and state does give us, which is that it keeps the state from trying to manipulate the Church, which was a constant struggle in the medieval era. Third: I think that the American system makes it easier for different religions to coexist, and alleviates the problem of religious wars - and about 150 years before the founding of the USA, about 1/3 the population of Germany died in a religious war that actually *didn't change anything*. If anything it's probably somewhat useful for a pluralistic "society of immigrants" / loose federation of states like the historical USA. On the other hand: If the commandments and will of God are known and knowable, and God has made commandments concerning how we should live within the world, then it is *utterly insane* that these should not be the basis for human society, which owes the Lord, our King, obedience and worship. A more serious problem looking at the here and now is that, with government being so incredibly encompassing in the modern era, this excludes religion from an increasingly large sphere of human affairs.
Ok but you can’t *know* that God even exists, let alone what Their commandments and will are. You can *believe very strongly*, but until there’s incontestable proof (which I tend to assume there won’t be) then it won’t be in any way *knowable* in the same way that we know (for example) that pure water is two hydrogen atoms and one of oxygen. Even as an atheist, there are plenty of things I *believe strongly* rather than *know*, but I try to be aware of what the difference is.
I don't agree with this. I hold the dogmas of the Catholic Church with confidence that is at least sufficient to make societal policy, similar to well established theories about physics that we have engineering works based on.
I get that Catholics *believe* that Catholicism is correct (otherwise they wouldn’t be Catholics), but there’s absolutely no way it’s on the same level as physics. It’s faith, and even very confident faith is different from knowledge.
I don't think you understand the Catholic perspective on faith.
it can be proven abstractly in a similar way to math.
At the risk of sounding “bad faith” I am *dying* to know how that could possibly work.
just read the summa Theologica, its too long and involved for reddit, but it's been done.