dagblog - Comments for "Religious Freedom vs, Religious Privilege (or, Franklin vs. Penn)"

The article misstates the

Arty — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 19:46:15 +0000

In reply to Religious Freedom vs, Religious Privilege (or, Franklin vs. Penn)

The article misstates the real legacy of the historical case of PA in relation to religious liberty. While it is true that Quaker values came under occasional pressure in the legislature in the pre and post independence era, it is also true that PA did not embrace "secularism"--what was embraced, and what should serve as our model in debates about religious liberty, was the principle that religious convictions and religious communities were welcome in the colony, and were in fact considered to be essential to the building up of strong shared communities, and that civil society had to find ways to maximize religious freedom in order to benefit from the advantages of having community-oriented citizens. There is a reason why PA was known as the "best poor man's country" in the colonial era, and why so many religious minorities with strong convictions elected to emigrate to PA (persecuted Moravians and Scotch Irish Presbyterians, who overwhelmingly started there in the 1730s and 40s, Anabaptisist of all stripes, Mennonites, Amish, and German Lutherans) It was because the colony's laws and leaders generally respected religious conscience, went out of their way to encourage religious communities to practice their faiths as freely as possible, and built a very faith-positive environment that looked like a kind of paradise after the practices even of the few rather tolerant corners of Europe. While tensions existed on some questions (the militia and Native American relations was one example; many Scoth-irish Presbytrians in particular found the Quaker proprietors to be "soft" on Native peoples, leading to the famous Paxton Rebellion in the 1760s) the balance struck was a very healthy--respect for religious tradition, organization and conscience, and efforts to maximize the space within civil society for a wide range of religious practices. Over the long run, the colony was strongly pro-religion (and, of course, especially pro-Quaker), but very anti any official established religion. That's the model.

One of the hurdles JFK had to

AmiBlue — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 22:34:45 +0000

In reply to Religious Freedom vs, Religious Privilege (or, Franklin vs. Penn)

One of the hurdles JFK had to overcome in his election to the presidency was his Catholic faith. Back then, people were concerned that the Vatican would be calling the shots a bit like people fear Sharia law today. Ironically, 50 years later, we have 5 Catholic SC justices doing that very thing.

Second

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 06 Jul 2014 21:53:53 +0000

In reply to This was beautiful, Doc.

Second

This was beautiful, Doc.

Verified Atheist — Sat, 05 Jul 2014 19:55:57 +0000

In reply to Religious Freedom vs, Religious Privilege (or, Franklin vs. Penn)

This was beautiful, Doc.

"What would really make sense

EmmaZahn — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 20:13:35 +0000

In reply to Well, Emma, you've hit the

"What would really make sense would be for the justices to be chosen by LOTTERY with a 10 year limit. They might actually take the responsibility seriously."

Funny you should say that, I just suggested that on Trope's thread.

DON'T REFORM THE SUPREME COURT

Well, Emma, you've hit the

CVille Dem — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 19:10:10 +0000

In reply to "Franklin, who belonged to no

Well, Emma, you've hit the nail on the head. How do we get out of this mess? I would be OK if no Catholic was ever allowed on the Supreme Court ever again based on their abuse of power. I would be happier if ANY churchgoer were prohibited.

What would really make sense would be for the justices to be chosen by LOTTERY with a 10 year limit. They might actually take the responsibility seriously.

"Franklin, who belonged to no

EmmaZahn — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 17:58:18 +0000

In reply to Religious Freedom vs, Religious Privilege (or, Franklin vs. Penn)

"Franklin, who belonged to no organized church and swore to no particular creed, advocated a "secular" public sphere, the true religious equality where all believers (and unbelievers) are accepted by the commonwealth and all accept the same obligations to the commonwealth. "

Yes, but that was before secular became an -ism with its own dogma as well as fanatical adherents.

Secularism

A term used for the first time about 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake to denote "a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life" (English Secularism, 60). More explicitly, "Secularism is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life — which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible — which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service" (Principles of Secularism, 17). And again, "Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three:

The improvement of this life by material means.

That science is the available Providence of man.

That it is good to do good. "Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good" (English Secularism, 35).

That is from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. The article ends its criticism of secularism with this:

the Catholic Church does not admit that religion is simply a private affair. God is the author and ruler not only of individuals, but also of societies. Hence the State should not be indifferent to religious matters (see ETHICS). How far in practice Church and State should go together depends on a number of circumstances and cannot be determined by any general rule, but the principle remains true that religion is a social as well as an individual duty.

In practice again, owing to special circumstances, a secular education in the public schools may be the only possible one. At the same time, this is a serious defect which must be supplied otherwise. It is not enough for the child to be taught the various human sciences, he must also be given the knowledge of the necessary means of salvation. The Church cannot renounce her mission to teach the truths she has received from her Divine Founder. Not only as individuals, but also as citizens, all men have the right to perform the religious duties which their conscience dictates. The complete secularization of all public institutions in a Christian nation is therefore inadmissible. Man must not only be learned in human science; his whole life must be directed to the higher and nobler pursuits of morality and religion, to God Himself. While fully recognizing the value of the present life, the Church cannot look upon it as an end in itself, but only as a movement toward a future life for which preparation must be made by compliance with the laws of nature and the laws of God. Hence there is no possible compromise between the Church and Secularism, since Secularism would stifle in man that which, for the Church, constitutes the highest and truest motives of action, and the noblest human aspirations.

Six of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic.

Remember it was a Protestant nation that enshrined the separation of church and state into law. It was consistent with the Protestant principle of the priesthood of all believers that led to the development of Secularism. What are Secularists after all if not the ultimate Protestants?

Happy 4th.