Should we live under religious laws?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Religion inspires the fear that helps motivate people to do good during their lives. Each religion has a different punishment for bad behavior so fear of these punishments keeps people in line. Its like how they tell you if your not good around christmas santa wont bring you gifts, the kid is either being good cause thats the way he is, or cause he wants presents. Either way its better than him being bad cause hes got nothing to lose
I think that God gave us a choice of weather to do good or bad. Nobody should be forced into religion, the choice should be theirs to make.
not literally. we have to remember that the people that wrote these rules were old men who were unaware of a lot of things. but the basic ideas about doing good should be respected and followed. behind pretty much every religion it just tells you to be a good person. look at the big picture...not specifics.
America is a free nation. If it were a Christian nation, it would not be free. Imagine: we'd still have slaves, atheists, homosexuals, and people not of the over-powering religion would be brutally murdered, people would stone each other, women wouldn't vote, and our government would be based on the sole opinion of a religious leader so that there'd be no voting, no freedom. It would be a scary place. Look at Muslim nations. There's no freedom. Any religion put in power of a country would destroy the nation.
@lolagirl2009 Religions don't have a monopoly on morality. It existed well before the ten commandments were given to Moses. Before religion, people seem to have gotten along quite well with each other. That morality should be ingrained in Religion speaks of a transcendent morality in all humans (non-spiritual). I think the problem with religious laws is that they very often are positive laws (have to do this or do that) as opposed to negative laws (don't do this, don't do that). Like laws prohibiting women from bearing skin or prohibiting christians from lending money and taxing jews (all of these were once law in theocratic countries). All laws should be moral, no law should be religious.
@braxtonrob thanks, but I just speak what I know. haha. as far as what @Kira was saying, I don't know if there are that many problems with religious laws. I'm speaking of th laws dealing with morality of course, not the laws on cultural issues. What I mean is, what is wrong with "do not steal, do not lie, and do not kill" ?
We already do, to a large extent.
You'll notice, upon further study, that many religions have 'laws' that coincide with many existing 'societal' laws.
That being said, I don't believe in mixing Church & State. Ever heard of the Holy Wars!?!?
am i the only one that follows anything within the science community, religion is a product of man. Laws are also products of man, so how are we not living under religious laws right now? We are is the answer laws came forth from the womb of religion.
@sister so "we" should live under religious laws only if "you" want to?
I take it you meant that every individual should be free to live under their own religious laws if they themselves choose to. Those are two very different ideas. Unfortunately many people in this country and around the world want to ensure that everyone lives under their personal religious laws.
My answer to this question is emphatically no. Everyone should be able to make religious choices. No one should live under religious laws.
Despite the separation of religion and state, dominant religions tend to be inextricable from cultural norms and therefore law (Aussies recall Keating's "L.A.W.") is also imbued with older unquestioned religious ideas - thats why we still discipline and punish rather than move towards restorative justice and reconciliation here in Australia.
If you want to live under religious laws, then you first have to determine which religious laws you want to follow. Since religious laws differ between religions, sects, and branches, the choice you make is subjective and the "religious" aspect of the laws is entirely irrelevant. It is no more rational to live according to Christian law than it is Islamic law than it is Hindu law. Religion can certainly be a model for law and behavior, but it can just as easily justify horrible oppression and genocide. An absolute morality does not exist. Laws must be agreed upon by the people living in a society together. Once the law no longer functions for the society, the society must change it.
Laws should not be derived from religious sources. Religion is a private matter that should in no way effect the laws or functions of government. If someone chooses to live their life according to the 'laws' commanded of them in their respective theological text then they should be able to do so, but it is not their right to inflict those laws upon people with other beliefs. The knowledge of right and wrong is not exclusive to religion and one persons 'wrong' may not be wrong for someone else.
Without religon, there would be no definite sense of right or wrong. It creates guidelines by which to live morally and ethically. I believe that everyone should live under some sort or religious law just to give them a sense of direction. But I do not believe that those laws should be imposed on others as a definite way of life.
No i think we should question these laws and find their imperfections, of which there are many, and abolish them like they are ant people to be squished by us giant philosophical geniouses
In a theocracy, yes.
Iran was a theocracy, and we all know how that's working for them right now (hint: it's not).
Law and morality are two different things. Our laws are primarily based on the Magna Carta. Religion may inform one's personal morality, but it should not influence the state directly.
I think the laws I'd like to have are based on the principle of not hurting each other (no killing, raping, etc)... i guess people could see this as religious based or not. I think most people are against laws stemming from one religion (unless its their own religion, perhaps)... seems like everybody has their own beliefs and what actually happens depends upon the loudest most active people (if they know something about making change, of course).
Seems like people are really getting into this. that's good, but remember, its not like our laws will change based on this discussion. If you want more or fewer laws do something about it. Be sure to vote, or even run for a political position. Let your voice known to your representatives.
Is it really fair to follow religious laws with so many atheists in the world? I have no right to tell somebody what to believe. Laws should preserve and protect us.
I think we should follow the religious laws which doesn't compromise the nature..
We have a culture, we follow that,and we will develop a personality based on the culture we have selected. So if culture is related to religion, then we must follow the religious laws.
I think we should have our own sense of individualism and all of that jazz but at the same time, i dont see us straying away from the method that we have been living by for years. this method is primarily based on religion.
... I can't be bothered to read through all these comments, so here's my two cents:
Morality differs from person to person; my morals are not the same as yours. What "feels wrong" to me may not necessarily to someone else. Morals are dictated by the environment/society in which we are raised. So, for example, a Christian-raised person may be disturbed without end about gay marriage because it goes against his/her moral code, yet an atheist-raised person may not have the same qualms because it was not part of their morals to believe homosexality as a sin.
Our laws today may be based on religious ones of the past, but to implement specific religious codes I don't believe is practical today given America's diversity of beliefs.
And zoeymag, I love your comment. Thank you for being Christ-like and not just Christian.
I'd like to redirect this discussion a bit. I think it's easiest to do that by looking at Lino_Sousa's point concerning "the factors we'd have to accept" under religious law. This point has some common problems that I'd like to mention, primarily a failure to provide context. Lino lists arbitrary punishments for even more arbitrary crimes. In exactly which system are soldiers punished for combat, or lazy church-goers given the chair? It's Lino's burden to tell us, not ours to infer. What Lino means to do here is provide examples of practical applications of religious law in a political setting. It's safe to say he fell a bit short on that count.
But the bigger problem with Lino's list--and this is where most everyone else comes into play--is that it tries to assign a single set of actions to a given idea. It's oversimplification at its worst. It reduces a complex idea to a single historical (or more likely, hypothetical) set of actions. It's like saying the Germans are racist or the Swiss cowardly. It's ignorant. Any given idea can be applied millions of different ways. Rome and America have both been called republics, but I defy any historian to call the same. In these cases, the idea of republican government was applied in two very different ways. We can't claim that the Roman system defines republic, nor the American. We have to evaluate an idea for it's specific philosophical implications, not it's varied applications. We have to use some good old Greek logic.
So let me spit some logic: I submit that a system of political law based upon religious tenets presents a logical fallacy.
In this context, we might say that the goal of Law is to achieve Justice (granted, this a bit of philosophical short-hand, but for the sake of efficiency I'll let it stand.) We can understand the relationship between Justice and Law with a few examples. A criterion of Justice is often said to be equality, so a just law might allow universal suffrage, to support that idea. Freedom of speech, too, has been called just. So a just law allows it. Point being, however we interpret Justice itself, Law as a philosophical tool aims to define and promote it. Many modern legal codes state this intention. For one example, the American Constitution aims to "to ensure justice." For another, the Indian Constitution aims to "secure to all its citizens: Justice." Of course, these laws read much differently. But their intention and function is essentially the same: to achieve Justice in a political context. The same is true of Law at large (I use these examples to validate the philosophical conception I mean to describe--that Justice is the Value of Law--, and not necessarily to approve their applications of that conception.)
The fallacy, then, is in applying religious tenets to something inherently based upon Justice. I'll paraphrase, of all codes, the Bible: a man cannot serve two masters. If the Value, or goal, of Law is Justice, a religion cannot be. The inverse is true as well. In a discussion based upon logic, this concept hardly requires elaboration.
Still some will say the aim of religion is Justice--after all, both Jesus and the Buddha preach equality. And I agree to some extent--religions often hold some of the same criteria as Justice. But at logical best, religion is a look-alike of Justice, not a substitute.
Simply put, Laws are for Justice, not religion.
A note:
The major assumption of my argument is, of course, that the "we" in the question refers to a collectively-interested whole (public), rather than an individually-interested one (private). This seems to me a fairly universal assumption here, so I figure what the hell.
To Megsmelloyellow:
Publicly evaluating the private or personal merits of religiously-based Law opens up an ugly can of worms. Best steer clear.
To mightymushroom45:
Actually, it's separation OF church and state (and of course I use "it's" very loosely, as the phrase does not actually appear in US law.)
@thenephite when you said would jesus treat us fair and I responded with that i think that is an egocentric question I meant that our society is always so concerned about the question of whether or not "I" am being treated fairly when the reality is is that fairness is really just an individual's own interpretation of the situation. Fairness is a definition only an individual can define...what may be fair to one may not be fair to another.
Also, I dont see "loving thy neighbor" as a religious law. What was often defined in the scriptures as a law usually had a consequence defined with it, much like in our own legal system. However, a moral law doesn't have clearly defined consequences but rather natural consequences. For example, when I chose not to love my neighbor, there could potentially be a number of consequences - damaged relationships, loss of respect, loss of relationship, loss of respect, hatred, anger, etc. Those are natural consequences to my lack of loving my neighbor. But they also may not happen too. There is no one clear defined consequences, like there often was in the religious laws.
I think religion has met it's match. It's been around for so long yet people lose touch with it because they don't get what they want. For example, if I pray to the one or ones that I believe in for a new iPhone 3GS, we all know that it's not going to fall from a puffy cloud onto my gravel yard in front of my house.
With that said, the guy at :45 with the sidewards ball cap has a good point to an extent. Live your life to your own views, as long as they don't include rape, murder, stealing or mowing your lawn in your underwear (exception to this rule if I cannot see you). But really, come on people, we're adults and we should know when something is right and when it is wrong.
I like what one person in the video said, about religious laws being more guidelines than rules/laws. They are yours to interpret. Personally I don't go out of my way to follow any set of religious rules, it's in the way I was brought up.
That is an ambiguous question because not all religious law is uniquely so. Theft, for example, is prohibited by the majority of major religions but also by secularists. If you're asking should we live under any laws that are substantiated exclusively by religious belief...the answer is a deafening "no." There is more than enough historical evidence to the contrary that has occurred in the last two decades, not to mention the last two millennia.
Absolutely, positively not! As many have already asked, which religion would we select? There have been more wars in the name of religion than any other issue. I think most of us have an intuitive sense of right and wrong, and for those who don't, religion is not going to help.
Religion in general has crippled the human mind and is a bad combination with power . People follow their religion so blindly to the point where logic and hard evidence doesn't seem valid to them. Many of our problems, wouldn't be problems if religion wasn't thrown into the situation.
Gay rights shouldn't have even been an issue in America, as it was stated in by our fathers that we have a right to life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. If being gay makes you happy and you want to get married, then go head. But since it says, being gay is wrong in bible (which it really isn't, but its always said), there have been laws against this, meaning people spent time spending money, making bills, and overall wasting time passing these laws on gay marriages, rather than something more relevant and beneficial to Americans. Does this even sound right? My main problem with the government and religion is that we have the freedom of religion but the government upholds and standby christian values and people who want nothing to to with that religion are kind of forced to deal with it everyday, even if it conflicts with there own religion.
@melaniespancake totally agree. American was found on the basis of not mixing religion and politics.
p.s. sorry for typos- kiddo is sitting on my back as i type saying "giddy up momma horsey!"
hmmmmm.... i have an immediate gut reaction to say NO. though, it is an interesting thing to contemplate. but this would be impossible in a country that has stated a freedom of religion, unless we were to retract that freedom.
so who's religion would we make the law from? the majority? that doesn't sound right. imagine having to follow the "law" of someone's religion that you do not believe in... that would be bad.
government need not be based on religious laws, though many laws are consistent with the Christian religion (most of the founding fathers were Christian). like not murdering, and not stealing such. these things are basic ideals/values that most of us feel are *right* and *wrong* in our gut. right?
if we were, however, to institute religious laws about food or the sabbath or whatnot, that would be crossing a line with which i personally would not be happy. ESPECIALLY if we were to make laws about what you are and are not allowed to believe in spiritually. i think God wants us to come to an understanding of some things freely. especially regarding Him.
i do know in my heart, on a spiritual soul-pancake level, that we are saved by faith, not by keeping any "laws". so, regardless of laws, salvation comes from another place entirely.
just my opinion... i enjoy reading yours too. bless you :)
People always want to live under religious law if it's their own religion. But suddenly, they're opposed if another religion's laws are pressed down on them because they don't "believe in" them. I think that religious law comes from natural law--a universal spirit of wanting to curtail chaos, generally. And some people choose faiths that work against that spirit.
Much religious law is so vastly open to interpretation that I think we'd live under the rule of chaos, anyway, in spite of good intentions.
People want to support religious law because that's what they're taught to do, but it's not necessarily best for the governing of masses of people.
If we're speaking strictly of Christian religion, you'll find that the New Testament provides very few punitive measures for law-breakers, often promising only spiritual punishment. If you believe that punishment is necessary for an organized society, that's dangerous territory. And the Old Testament's punishments and codes are often quite harsh.
And anyway. I like wearing two different kinds of fabric at once.
Separation of Church and State is what the founding fathers wanted. They fled their mother country to escape religious dogma and persecution. Why would we want to go back to that? See also @strangepeach's response. I wholly agree.
Religion gives too many reasons for doing things, or rather, an ultimate reason. If God commands you, then you can do anything. So...murder? Fine, as long as God says so. World wars? Fine, as long as God says so. Now, said "God" is defined by whoever is in control of the religion. That person gets to decide pretty much everything. Huh...That sounds "god-like". I also agree with Burch350, in that there are many religions, and most are just as likely as the others. Why live under Christian laws when Wiccan, Pagan, Muslim, or Buddhism is just as likely/good?
Not at all. Our government is secular for a reason. The founding fathers (mostly deists or VERY liberal christians) realized that mixing church and state only led to oppression.
And what religious laws should we live under? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Wiccan? Pagan? Buddhist (that might not be that bad)? No one would ever agree on which god or gods we should put in charge of running our country. Bush put the christian god in charge of the U.S. for 8 years and we saw how well that worked out for us, a crappy economy and 2 cluster fuck wars. We need to maintain our completely secular government so people are free to practice their religion, or, like me, non-relgion without being persecuted by any other faith or the government.
@Lino_Sousa Unless it's god sanctioned genocide. Then it's totally kosher to kill the entire inhabitants of a town including all the babies and pregnant mothers and their fetuses.
Denial of the concept of a higher power is dangerous. So, yes we should live under religious laws - but they should not be absolute or rigidly defined. There are basic tenets that should be followed. Any religion can be perverted to justify radical or fundamentalist evil. That should not be the issue.
Should we live in religious orthodoxy? Absolutely not.
Terrible idea.
Who would pick the religion that would shape these laws? Hmmm.
There goes that "All men are created equal" bit.
I have a feeling that my interpretation of pursuing happiness would no longer be lawful.
Apparently Jesus was not too keen on being heavy on people when it came to strict observance of religious laws. Most of the men of the cloth in his time as in our own were of a different persuasion and liked to flaunt the fact that they were expert on the laws of God and kept a close eye on the rest of us encouraging the "faithfull" not to sit in the company of sinners because they were defiled and punishable by law sometimes even to death...and just to make sure the people believed them liked to throw in the fact that these rejects were full of contagion !! It's a very old story really and sad that 2000 years later a lot of holy folk still miss the point and yet declare Jesus as their saviour. Baffling stuff really as Jesus himself hung out with sinners every day, drunkards, women of shocking repute,even folk of questionable beliefs who lived according to laws other than the orthodoxy of his own religion. When asked what was the meaning of the Law Jesus said that we should love God with every ounce of our being and our neighbour as ourselves. We will only know how to love our neighbour if we are actually able to love ourselves first and for me that necessarily means to be able to sit in the company of the sinner who is me as Jesus would have done and with the courage drawn from that look straight into the eyes of anyone who wants to condemn me and say "You might want to take another look." What I'm trying to say is that the law is secondary to love and if any of us find we are pointing the finger at anyone else we have missed the point and are onto plums and Jesus is a figment of our ego's lack of imagination not remotely our personal saviour...not yet at least, but there's always hope and if we drop our stones we're in with a shout.Religious law can be a dangerous thing in the hands of the human ego.
@CJ117 Great answer. :) I've always hated how religion has been transformed into another social divisor. I'm a little confused about what you mean when you say we should all live under the laws of God so I'd think it'd be neat if you clarified a little.
And to answer the question "Should we all live under religious laws?" Heck no. That's just as wrong as forcing people to abstain from engaging in their belief practices.
Just as God does not force us to live under his laws, neither should we to others.
God gave us laws to keep us safe, healthy and happy, not to restrict us in our daily lives. We have them for good reasons, not bad ones!
Unfortunately in this day and age, and in many of the past, people USE religion sort of as a weapon of oppression. That's not what it's for!
Ideally everyone would live under the laws of God (which are manifested in many different cultures in different ways as exactly the same stuff) and at one point we all will, but to force it on others is not God's way. It's choice.
In utopia, there are no laws, because there is no injustice.
Religion is, and should remain, a private practice.
One who wants to rule, en masse, strictly by any religious law should have their sanity questioned.
Well, lets see the factors we'd have to accept if we did.
1. We would have to go to church EVERY Sunday. No Exceptions, or it'll be the chair for you.
2. If any of us kill someone for ANY reason (soldiers count too) Then we would be punished!
3. Nobody could be gay (at least openly where the cops could see ya)
4. Eating any kind of Beef is against the law! (Burger King would put ajax in their burgers to weed out the lawbreakers)
5. If a friend of yours says something, you cannot say that they are wrong (Scientology... Nuff said)
6. Any women out there cannot drive a car alone, and must always wear enough clothes to keep them warm in Antarctic conditions, all day, EVERY DAY.
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on...
Saudi Arabia already has religious laws and look how backwards they are.
like @mightymushroom45 said, "seperation from church and state"
And I couldn't agree with you more compadre.
i think that people can live under laws that are not attached to any religion. after all, it is "separation from church and state."
. . . . And it's becoming clearer that "moral codes" were not invented by religions. Social rules and punishment for breaking them can be found in other primates besides humans. Religion is a many tentacled beast which serves many purposes, but one is a means of formalizing said rules. Those rules existed before Moses supposedly brought the ten commandments down from the mountain.
Humanism, humanism, humanism. Of the secular sort. Religion should be a private practice.
@thenephite I agree, the phrase 'restrictions of religious law' is very loaded. If we phrased it 'the freedom of a moral code' it would get a much different response. But make no mistake, most of the founders of America's system of justice had a strong religious frame of reference. That they did not want a particular church established as the state church does not mean they felt that they were creating a 'faith-based' judicial system.
I'm not a Christian, but I respect the fact that they saw themselves as inculcating religious values into the law. Most of them equated religious law WITH ethical/moral guidelines.
That said, there is a world of difference between that concept and, say, implementing sharia law. Forcing a system of justice that has been so corrupted with man's interference is pretty repulsive. Instead of a foundation of principles and moral 'oughts', this religious practice has devolved from the original divine inspiration to tribal edicts.
no. I feel that people can be just under laws that aren't one sided. People can be just and not believe in a religion.
@jleigh355 I'm curious why you would say the question of fairness is an egocentric one, please explain.
if you dont mind me being a little nitpicky. Jesus didn't live by the social customs that had grown up around the law; customs which were stifling and unnecessary. And if I may co-opt your words, your use of ethical/moral guidelines is how i would define religious laws designed to be lived by choice and humble submission. Any Christian will tell you that "Love thy neighbor" is a law of God.
@thenephite What do you mean by trusting Jesus to be fair? The question of fairness is such a egocentric one...just another reflection of our "me" society, a reflection of our "i'm ok, you're ok, everyone's ok" society.
Religious law is such an "old school" perspective. Jesus himself didn't even live by the religious law (ex. working on the sabbath). Jesus taught a new way of life....one with ethical/moral guidelines to help GUIDE us in living but with much more gracious, forgiving consequences than the religious laws of the Old Testament. I have to say I will happily live by the guidance of Christ.
I think the real question is should we live under religious law or ethical/moral guidelines. They are definitely not the same.
i noticed in the video it referred to the restrictions of religious law. That's what we call a negative perspective. It's like saying jim is shorter than bob, it views jim as short and bob as normal. So the question arises, what then is an unrestrictive set of laws? secular laws also place restrictions on our behavior.
That said: if we could have perfect leaders to execute religious laws, then it could work. As has been mentioned before, the basis for religious laws is a moral code, and we can agree that a moral code is a good thing. The problem arises in imperfect people carrying out and enforcing these laws. Corruptions pop up, just look at any church/religion today. I guarantee there are people within Christianity (my own faith) who do not live it, and leaders within Christian churches who do not perform their functions as befits a servant of Christ.
With this in mind, i too would say no we should not live under a religious legal system. Not because the system could not function, but because the people executing it would prove corruptible (as we get in our current secular systems). Furthermore, it would diminish the purpose of religious laws: they are meant to be lived by choice and humble submission, not by external force.
Another question is: could you trust God to fairly execute a religious set of laws? A huge part of the Christian worldview is that Christ will return to usher in the Millennium; a time when He will rule the earth. Would you trust Jesus to be fair?
No. In a world of such diversity, secularity is the only possible answer when it comes to government.
Absolutely not - while most religions are based on essentially the same story and are variations of one another, most religious disagreement has a great deal to do with how one practices, how one interprets a given text, and how one chooses to dedicate themselves to God.
I don't pretend to be an expert on constitutional law, but as far as I know (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the US was founded on the desire both to be free from religious persecution, and to create an environment of equality. Choosing one religion to reign over us is to completely ignore the Separation of Church and State - a derivation of our first amendment laws.
I agree that we already are, to some degree. I think we assume that judges in particular have some superhuman ability to rid themselves of biases when they enter the courtroom--and they might even be convinced of it themselves. But it seems inevitable that our spiritual beliefs will infiltrate not just our personal but our professional lives as well. So we don't live under religious law, but we definitely are influenced by the beliefs of people that we trust to leave their beliefs at the door.
So to me, the question isn't SHOULD we live under religious law, but is it even possible to live in a society where important decisions are not affected by religion?
No. How would we abide by religious laws if each person has a different opinion about religion? Especially since much of religion is irrational and the only moral way to live is by thinking and reasoning.
unfortunately this world is not united religiously. therefore, to live under religious law would persecute those who do not follow the the religion of the law. and persecution is not the aim of many religions. it would be really ironic to live under religious law.
NO! Like, with my luck, the taliban would run my laws or something.
I mean NO!
NO! NO!! I don't even like the "In God we Trust" on our money!!
Whether we think we should or not, we do live under religious laws. In some cases, there is no hiding the fact; state religous officials make it known that the religion is behind the running of the state's affairs. In other cases, individuals have come together to create institutions, relying on their collective ideas to establish the rules of the land and of the institutions that function within it. But those rules and institutions are conceived through the moral and spiritual intuition of those who are present at the meeting. So, if you want to live under APPROPRIATE religious laws, perhaps its time to gather together and consult about which laws will allow humanity to bind together and achieve goals common to the many different Faith groups of the world.
A little less religion and a little more study of ethics could take us a long damned way.
I'm thinking "not on my life."
Gonna go with "No".
First off, interjecting some of my personal opinions, I view God (any and all deities worshipped by the human race, past and present, are included in the word "God" for me) as a human construct, as in completely in man-made. Therefore, our own morals as a species, at least those we see as constants in many religions, (Specifically in the "Big Three") are really just projected upon the template of a divine being to give them more worth.
So if you consider that there is really very little difference between the law codes in the holy books and secular societies (omitting, for obvious reasons, antiquated laws such as punishment for those working on sundays), the real contrast that gets highlighted are the obscure laws which are only followed by the most traditional followers among any given religion.
And so no, I do not believe that it should be made illegal to eat pork, be a woman in a public place without your hair covered, or what have you.
The last woman pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. In fact, if you're truly aligned with Source, you don't need any laws.
DISCUSSION TOOLSET
Since I started meditating on this question, I've learned a lot about "the wall of separation of church and state" that people so often quote. I did not realize that this statement was never a part of the Constitution, but rather a statement made by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to Danbury Baptist Church in 1802. Here is an excerpt of that letter:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Judge Hugo Black was the first to add the phrase "separation of church and state" to the First Amendment in 1947, at the conclusion of Everson v. Board of Education. It is referred to as the "Establishment of Religion Clause."
According to a "wiki" search on the first amendment:
"It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century... Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that 'government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion'."
A definition of irreligion from wiki is as follows:
"'Irreligion' is an absence of religion, indifference to religion, and/or hostility to religion. Depending on the context, it may be understood as referring to atheism, deism, nontheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, antireligion, skepticism, freethought, or secular humanism. Irreligious people may have convictions equal in depth to those of religious adherents. For instance, followers of the life stance of Humanism may regard themselves as just as deeply believing in their life stance as corresponding to any religious belief."
Secular Humanism, while popular with intellectuals, is also a doctrine that falls under this definition. To replace all religious thought with secular humanistic ideas and doctrine is the same as insisting that all people believe and study only Christian, Muslim, or Jewish ideology.
So there is a pancake for thought. I learned a lot today. Thanks for the inspiration to do my homework, fellow travelers. ;)
love to all,
z