Post #143,507
2/26/04 2:51:11 PM
|
The Constitution has been written when
religion (Christianity) was an extremely stong force and needed to be limited. As the time passes, it seems that religion becomes weaker and weaker, and one day it will need the same kind of protection that once was needed against it. I wonder if our constitutional process will notice that change. I suspect that it will not.
--
The number of the beast - vi vi vi --[link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QuotesOnComputers|Delexa Jones]
|
Post #143,530
2/26/04 5:13:05 PM
|
Not exactly
When the Constitution was written, many countries had state religions, and many Americans were afraid that the USA would create a state religion as well, causing troubles for (insert faith of your choice). Furthermore mixing religion and politics made for a volatile mix.
Hence the Constitutional guarantee.
Over time, countries with state religions have become effectively countries of atheists, while the USA has become, if anything, even more devout. (It is estimated that a higher fraction of Americans go to Church weekly today than did 200 years ago.) So worldwide the power of religion has fallen. Domestically, it hasn't.
Even if long-term trends managed to reverse, why should the Constitution change? If not "enough" people believe faith X, why should the State decide to encourage belief in it? Conversely if lots of people believe a specific faith, then you get all of the threats that lead to that being in the Constitution in the first place.
Therefore the rule at worst could become irrelevant (something that it is showing no signs of doing), and at best provides us with a vital protection. Either way there is no reason to lose it.
Cheers, Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #143,671
2/27/04 1:22:25 PM
|
Rleigion weaker than before,
although still quite strong. I am talking about time when we're threatened with the establishment of State Atheism. Not there yet, but we're going there, fast.
--
The number of the beast - vi vi vi --[link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QuotesOnComputers|Delexa Jones]
|
Post #143,691
2/27/04 2:14:03 PM
|
Huh?
We have a President who is the de facto leader of the Religious Right, whose appointments top to bottom show this.
We have a two party system, with the one that has managed to capture 2/3 of the last 6 Presidential elections having a platform that caters heavily towards the Religious Right. That party now has a majority in Congress, and is on the edge of winning the Senate as well. By all accounts, despite a thin margin in the Congress, the actual level of party control is probably higher than at any time in the last hundred years.
I'm not sure how much stronger religion could get before you would stop worrying about State Atheism. I'm also not sure which "before" you are talking about. It isn't the before of the 70's since religion today is much stronger than it was then. In fact one of the major goals that has so far eluded the Religious Right is to overturn Roe vs Wade, the high-water mark of judicial liberalism.
Is religion today stronger than religion was a century ago? I'd guess not. A century ago the threat of organized religious power was enough to motivate several states to amend their Constitutions to protect themselves further against it. It was one such measure that lay behind the lawsuit that started this thread.
Is religion today stronger than religion at the founding of the USA? Based on a number of things that I have read, I suspect so. But I am not historian enough to say for sure one way or the other.
Is religion today stronger than religion in the time of the Pilgrims? Certainly not. And I'm not ashamed to be glad about that.
Does the strength of religion vary depending on where you are? Certainly. I choose to live in a less religious area. I categorically refuse to live in the area known as "The Bible Belt" because my interactions with people from there have left me with the impression that I, as an atheist, would be made uncomfortable. I get along with most people of most beliefs perfectly well. But having people target me for conversion gets old, fast.
I'm guessing from your comments that you are religious and you might feel persecuted for it. If so, then I'd suggest that the martyrdom is more perceived than real. Objectively there is little reason to fear for the strength of religion today. And history suggests that the First Amendment has strengthened, rather than weakened, religion in this country.
Cheers, Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #143,700
2/27/04 2:43:49 PM
|
I was referring to a centiry (centuries) back.
I am indeed religious and I, personally do not feel prosecuted at all. Quite the opposite. And I agree with you that First Amendment served religion well.
I am very happy to see religion divested of state power. Power can only corrupt any religion. Does atheism have state power yet? No. At least, not in an active way. But, as state power and influence grows, this power squeezes religion out of the areas where it used to be permitted. State used to be not involved in education, social security, medical services. Now that it's there (and it's a good thing it's there, don't get me wrong), religion has been pushed out.
So far, it has all been in moderation. I can still send my kids to religious schools, or ask my community for help with medical bills. But, if certain forces have their way, I can see religious education abolished as harmful to children. I can see "single payer" medical system that will make privately (iow, religiously) funded medical help unavailable. And so on. This is so far back in the future, I can't see it clearly from here. I am comfortable with where we are now, and a bit more of state-church separation may actually be healthy (such as removal of the word "marriage" from the law of the land). But, if the trend continues, it _may_ lead too far.
--
The number of the beast - vi vi vi --[link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QuotesOnComputers|Delexa Jones]
|
Post #143,842
2/28/04 4:36:31 PM
|
Interesting point
You are correct that long-term trends are for an ever-expanding government, that results in an expanding impact from The First Amendment.
I think that you are incorrect in some of your specific worries though. For instance if there is an effective single-payer program in place, I suspect that it would provide more affordable and better care than a private religious equivalent.
I also disagree that the impact on religion is a particularly worrisome aspect of this trend. Far more worrying to me is that the long-term growth of government is signficantly faster than the growth of GNP. I'm aware of some of the reasons why this is so, and don't see how they can easily be reversed. (Certainly nobody has been successful in reversing them...)
What happens when those two curves intersect? Well somewhere before then, the trend has to break. And if there is no easy way to break the trend, then there has to be a painful break. I don't remember exactly when that projected intersection is, but I am pretty sure that it is in this centry, and suspect that it is in my lifetime.
Personally I am far more worried about what kind of pain will be involved in that change, and what will happen afterwards, than I am in secondary impacts from having that much government involvement.
Cheers, Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #143,776
2/27/04 10:22:13 PM
|
Recently saw some statistics...
...pulled from an article in an academic missionary journal. It suggested that the ratio of "evangelical" Christians to the rest of the world has been steadily increasing since 33 A.D. I'm going to totally make up numbers now to give you the feel, and try to look up the actual ones later--something like:
A.D. 40 - 1 in so many millions A.D. 100 - 1 in thousands A.D. 1000 - 1 in hundreds A.D. 1800 - 1 in 50 1900 - 1 in 25 1950 - 1 in 15 1970 - 1 in 12 1976 - 1 in 9
I'm most sure about the last figure. Can't speak for methodological details at the moment--I'll try to find the source.
I was one of the original authors of VB, and *I* wouldn't use VB for a text processing program. :-) Michael Geary, on comp.lang.python
|
Post #143,533
2/26/04 5:19:58 PM
|
Religion weaker? Really?
The religious Right has been destroying freedom more now than anytime I can personally recall. Religious whackadoos are sniping abortionists and blowing up clinics. Others are blowing up anything the can get near in the mid-East. The fuckwits are going to get Bush elected only because "He's a Christian". Religion doesn't need protection. Its victims do.
|
Post #143,668
2/27/04 1:20:35 PM
|
I guess you haven't been around long enough to remember
the time when the fuckwits did not need to blow up abortion clinics because police did that for them.
--
The number of the beast - vi vi vi --[link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QuotesOnComputers|Delexa Jones]
|
Post #143,717
2/27/04 5:02:19 PM
|
Guess not...
Didn't happen that I know of. The cops did arrest abortionists when it was illegal. Once it became legal, it was the vigilantes that caused the damage. I can't speak to what "Police" do outside the US, being sort of a provincial lout... Sorry about that.
|
Post #143,719
2/27/04 5:27:37 PM
|
Fine, substitute "close down and throw in jail" for "blow up
Point concided.
--
The number of the beast - vi vi vi --[link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QuotesOnComputers|Delexa Jones]
|
Post #143,724
2/27/04 5:44:07 PM
|
Um, It was illegal at the time.
They are supposed to arrest people breaking the law. It's kinda sorta their job. Once it was legalized, they were supposed to stand down. Which they mainly did. Guess the motivation of those who didn't...
|
Post #143,915
2/29/04 11:35:52 AM
|
Police used to enforce
something that a religion considered bad. Relifion still considers it bad, but it's now legal. In fact, police now enforces the opposite - court orders that demostrators should not interfere with the work of clinics, and religious nuts have to resort to illegal tactics. I think that's an illustration of religion's influence weakening, not getting stronger.
--
The number of the beast - vi vi vi --[link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QuotesOnComputers|Delexa Jones]
|
Post #143,762
2/27/04 9:37:41 PM
|
When was that time?
----------------------------------------- "If you don't vote, it's your fault!" -jb4
George W. "I cannot tell a lie" George W. B. "I cannot tell a lie from lie related program activities"
|