Yes I am a "Secularist"

This article about the 5 biggest misconceptions about secularism caught my eye, and reminded me of some of the "separation of church & state" discussions we have had on the board.

[URL="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/06/my-take-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-secularism/?hpt=hp_c1"]http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/06/my-take-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-secularism/[/URL]

I already knew that complete separation was impossible. But I've never seen the reasons phrased so eloquently before: "[I][URL="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=343&invol=306"]As Justice William Douglas - no foe of secularism - once remarked[/URL], total separation would mandate that, “Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups[/I].”" If you follow that link in the article, Justice Douglas's remarks are really the most common-sense words I've read in a long time on the subject. And this is from back in 1952:

[I]There is much talk of the separation of Church and State in the history of the Bill of Rights and in the decisions clustering around the First Amendment. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 ; McCollum v. Board of Education, supra. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the [/I][I]philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the "free exercise" of religion and an "establishment" of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other - hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals [343 U.S. 306, 313] to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths - these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."[/I]

I was particularly gratified to see the author debunking the notion that we secularists are anti-religious. Agnostic though I am, I hold a deep respect for the religious views of others. To me, the search for truth is the most important of all endeavors, and a person's beliefs in this area are not to be disrespected. And as the author says, "[I]Secularism, as noted above, was born of Christian thought. Historically, its greatest champions have been those opposed to state support of one church or religious institution, such as Baptists, Protestant dissenters, and minorities including Jews, Catholics, Sikhs and others.

Secularism’s mission is to maximize freedom of and freedom from religion[/I]"

Later, when a case about inserting "Under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance came to the Supreme Court, Douglas wrote how it was okay for government to promote a "religious state," just not a "state religion." So actions that promoted religion in general, as long as they didn't favor one religion over another, are okay. And I'm fine with that, too. Neither I, nor the ACLU, want religion "removed from American life," as some previous posts on the board have contended. We just want it out of government, as much as is practical anyway.

[QUOTE=RoadToad;499473]This article about the 5 biggest misconceptions about secularism caught my eye, and reminded me of some of the "separation of church & state" discussions we have had on the board.

[URL="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/06/my-take-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-secularism/?hpt=hp_c1"]http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/06/my-take-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-secularism/[/URL]

I already knew that complete separation was impossible. But I've never seen the reasons phrased so eloquently before: "[I][URL="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=343&invol=306"]As Justice William Douglas - no foe of secularism - once remarked[/URL], total separation would mandate that, “Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups[/I].”" If you follow that link in the article, Justice Douglas's remarks are really the most common-sense words I've read in a long time on the subject. And this is from back in 1952:

[I]There is much talk of the separation of Church and State in the history of the Bill of Rights and in the decisions clustering around the First Amendment. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 ; McCollum v. Board of Education, supra. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the [/I][I]philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the "free exercise" of religion and an "establishment" of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other - hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals [343 U.S. 306, 313] to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths - these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."[/I]

I was particularly gratified to see the author debunking the notion that we secularists are anti-religious. Agnostic though I am, I hold a deep respect for the religious views of others. To me, the search for truth is the most important of all endeavors, and a person's beliefs in this area are not to be disrespected. And as the author says, "[I]Secularism, as noted above, was born of Christian thought. Historically, its greatest champions have been those opposed to state support of one church or religious institution, such as Baptists, Protestant dissenters, and minorities including Jews, Catholics, Sikhs and others.

Secularism’s mission is to maximize freedom of and freedom from religion[/I]"

Later, when a case about inserting "Under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance came to the Supreme Court, Douglas wrote how it was okay for government to promote a "religious state," just not a "state religion." So actions that promoted religion in general, as long as they didn't favor one religion over another, are okay. And I'm fine with that, too. Neither I, nor the ACLU, want religion "removed from American life," as some previous posts on the board have contended. We just want it out of government, as much as is practical anyway.[/QUOTE]

I will paraphrase........

It is not an all or nothing proposition. I too agree that the founders wanted some separation, but the specifics of how to obtain that separation is what pisses me of with todays crop of secularists.

I don't want god and state to be one in the same, but at the same time, I also don't want everything godlike and MORAL removed from institutions that are the foundation of our country.

So where is the phrase "separation of church and state" found? I think people assume it is in the constitution(which they choose to ignore when it suits them). I'm pretty sure that what happened was our founders wrote letters to each other and the subject of the government establishing a religion was discussed. They did not want our new government to establish a religion just like what they had to endure in the country our founders came from. It seems to me that it has been taken to the extreme in the other direction. I don't think our founders had any idea that there would be those that would take that phrase and take it to mean we should deny any form of religion from our government. A politician recently refused to lead the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance because she said it was a prayer because it has the phrase "under God" in it. You've got to be kidding me. Our founders must be doing flips in their graves. I could be wrong on my history of were the phrase was originally mentioned, but I don't think I'm wrong in what their original intent was.

myself, I think God should be in everything we do. I wish we had leaders, that would pray over any decision being made. before making it. but unfortunately, I think they are more interested in making decisions for self profit. than pleasing God.

[QUOTE=Mean Morone;499484]So where is the phrase "separation of church and state" found? I think people assume it is in the constitution(which they choose to ignore when it suits them). I'm pretty sure that what happened was our founders wrote letters to each other and the subject of the government establishing a religion was discussed. They did not want our new government to establish a religion just like what they had to endure in the country our founders came from. It seems to me that it has been taken to the extreme in the other direction. I don't think our founders had any idea that there would be those that would take that phrase and take it to mean we should deny any form of religion from our government. A politician recently refused to lead the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance because she said it was a prayer because it has the phrase "under God" in it. You've got to be kidding me. Our founders must be doing flips in their graves. I could be wrong on my history of were the phrase was originally mentioned, but I don't think I'm wrong in what their original intent was.[/QUOTE]
Here's the link again:
[URL="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/06/my-take-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-secularism/?hpt=hp_c1"]http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/06/my-take-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-secularism/[/URL]

Please read #2.

Oh, and Babette Josephs, that woman who refused to say the Pledge because she says it's a prayer and "I don't pray in public." Yeah, she's an idiot. It's NOT a prayer, for crying out loud. If you don't want to say, "Under God," leave it out. Good news is, she's retiring in a few days.