Quote:
Originally Posted by FredFlashInTexas
By the term "Separation of Church and State", I meant civil authority over religion. The Baptists created the concept. Why do you believe they were uncomfortable with religion?
|
I don't believe the state has ANY role or authority over religion. If and when church and state associate, it is a one way arrangement where the church affects the state. It should never be the other way around. The Constitution prohibits influence of the state. It also forbids the establishment of a state religion. There is a middle ground there that provides for some influence of the state by the church without it rising the level of the establishment. The history of America, up until the 1960's, is replete with this level of influence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredFlashInTexas
How do you decide how much authority government should have over religion??
|
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredFlashInTexas
I see. Do you believe the primary principle of separation is that the church should have no influence on the state??
|
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredFlashInTexas
Does the right of private choice in matters of religion include the right to be free from all attempts by civil authority to influence religion??
|
I'm not sure I understand this question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredFlashInTexas
What principle determines what is extreme as regards civil authority over religion? ?
|
As I said above, I do not recognize any civil authority over religious expression. This is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredFlashInTexas
What if the imagery erected is an attempt by civil government to influence religion??
|
I have never witnessed such, so this would have to be purely hypothetical. The erection of religious imagery, to my knowledge and experience, has always been mainly one of the expression of a given community's religious heritage in public environs. I have never seen the state attempt to erect imagery in an attempt to control or influence the religious groups in a given area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredFlashInTexas
Does the minority have the right not to have civil authority try to influence its religious conscience? ?
|
No, I don't believe the minority has such a right. As long as it is passive, I see nothing wrong with it. As I stated in my first post, there is no freedom from religion in the Constitution. Somewhere along the way, the idea developed that people should never have to see anything religious in public. The Constitution provides no such protection. I find it to be a matter of simple respect. "When in Rome..." as they say. When you choose to live as a minority in a given area, then I think you should afford some simple respect to the majority in that area to publicly express their collective religious convictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredFlashInTexas
I thought one of the grand objects of the Godless Constitution was to prevent the federal government from offending the rights of conscience. I thought that's why the federal government was granted no power over religion. At least, that's the way it was sold by its supporters.
|
The government offends my right of conscience every day. Nearly every act of a government has, at its basis, a morality. My government offends my religious convictions at times. At other times, it supports it. As for the Godless Constitution, I don't get it. While the Declaration of Independence is not a binding instruction on the manner of authority of the federal government, it is a revealing statement about the convictions of the men who later wrote the Constitution. And if so much credence is to be placed on the extra-Constitutional writings of Thomas Jefferson (where the separation doctrine really has its origin), then what of the profligate extra-Constitutional writings of other founding fathers which gush with expressions of thanks and credit to Providence, God, or whatever other name given to the Divine in that period?