"Freedom of Religion" or "Freedom FROM Religion"

[White Horseradish]

In that case I still don't understand. When was it the function of school to teach morals? I have always understood that to be the function of the parents. Some parents are crappy. What exactly should legislators do about that? Mandate the teaching of morals?

What really bugs me about the guy's speech is that he seems to imply that the murders were punishment for, or at least a consequence of "abandoning God". That is a distinctly fredphelpsian turn of thought.

[Srigs]

I'm sorry, the logic of this escapes me completely. Is he saying that having group prayers at school would prevent school shootings? ( I say "group" because there is no way to ban private prayer anywhere, school or not.)

He is saying (IMHO) that the lack of morals taught at home or via religion has caused this more than anything else. When it is OK to kill someone for no reason or for their fun/excitement, it is a moral laps that society has failed and the laws they have written contributed to the fall in right and wrong teaching.

[autobahn]

I don't have a spiritual side?

So I guess I don't understand what this guy is blathering about.

[autobahn]

I'm sorry, the logic of this escapes me completely. Is he saying that having group prayers at school would prevent school shootings? ( I say "group" because there is no way to ban private prayer anywhere, school or not.)

He is saying (IMHO) that the lack of morals taught at home or via religion has caused this more than anything else. When it is OK to kill someone for no reason or for their fun/excitement, it is a moral laps that society has failed and the laws they have written contributed to the fall in right and wrong teaching.

Where the argument fails is that somehow the sense of right and wrong has to come from religious or spiritual teachings.

I agree that there are some major parenting problems these days but it has nothing to do with lack of spirituality or religion.

[White Horseradish]

I agree that there are some major parenting problems these days but it has nothing to do with lack of spirituality or religion.

Or lack of legislative action.

[nyffman]

Where the argument fails is that somehow the sense of right and wrong has to come from religious or spiritual teachings.

Is there much doubt that our constitution was developed, based on the principles of the founders who were, for the most part, from somewhat religious backgrounds? I'm far from an expert on this, but I still think ones sense of fairness and right/wrong has a basis in religious teaching. Or is it the other way around? Does religion have a basis in fairness and right/wrong?

[autobahn]

Where the argument fails is that somehow the sense of right and wrong has to come from religious or spiritual teachings.

Is there much doubt that our constitution was developed, based on the principles of the founders who were, for the most part, from somewhat religious backgrounds? I'm far from an expert on this, but I still think ones sense of fairness and right/wrong has a basis in religious teaching. Or is it the other way around? Does religion have a basis in fairness and right/wrong?

This is an oft-repeated misconception. Of course there were founders who were indeed Christians, but many were Deists, and one could make an argument that placed in a modern context, many of these Deist forefathers may very well have been agnostics (or, atheists). In any case, the declaration or argument that the forefathers were "religious" in the sense of how they created our country or that our country was founded on "Christian values" (as some claim) doesn't hold water. Of course you could argue that ideas of Justice and "fairness" are colored by a religious tradition, and you would have a very strong argument, but that does not indicate a direct correlation between religion and our constitution.

Nobody can deny that our social laws can be derived from common morality which in some fashion can be derived from religion, but many of the concepts of the constitution itself seem to stem from natural law and well-formed reason rather than morality. If you'll notice, none of the original constitution and bill of rights really deals with social order or social law, I believe this was intentional as (from my interpretation) the founders of our country understood that social laws and mores would indeed change with time, but concepts of justice and freedom would not and should not.

Going on a tangent here, this is what pisses me off about the teabagging protests. Many of these people participating have no actual grasp of history, what was going on at the time, and really what the values of the forefathers actually were. Instead, they hijack the idea of being a "patriot" into being anti-tax, pro-jesus, and pro-small-government.

[nyffman]

OK, I didn't mean to imply that they were all church elders or something.And I did not say they were all Christians. Nice try. As far as people attending the teaparty, it's easy to take the soundbites from a media which is generally liberal and turn them into a negative caricature of the event. For me, and I believe many others who were there, it was about the excess and wasteful spending on dubious projects and downright political payback. Yes the Democrats won the election and yes, I know elections have consequences, but winning an election doesn't give the right to take our money, and redistribute it as favors for political support.

[princewally]

What pisses me off is people childishly referring to the protests as "teabagging", thinking that no one gets the reference.

For the record, the founders WERE, undeniably, undoubtedly "minimal tax" and "minimal government".

[autobahn]

OK, I didn't mean to imply that they were all church elders or something.And I did not say they were all Christians. Nice try. As far as people attending the teaparty, it's easy to take the soundbites from a media which is generally liberal and turn them into a negative caricature of the event. For me, and I believe many others who were there, it was about the excess and wasteful spending on dubious projects and downright political payback. Yes the Democrats won the election and yes, I know elections have consequences, but winning an election doesn't give the right to take our money, and redistribute it as favors for political support.

Oh, I'm not saying there's no reason to protest. Protesting is part of America!

What I'm saying is it looks silly when you try to co-opt the idea of the Boston Tea Party and the whole "colonial patriot" theme into something completely unrelated.

I wasn't speaking to you specifically regarding the status of the forefathers' religion. But it is important to understand the backgrounds of the people who shaped our constitution when speaking of morality, the constitution, and answering the questions of the basis of law in our country.

That being said, the idea that killing is wrong seems to be a more human one than necessarily a religious or spiritual one. But there have been entire college courses and books written about the subject in that context....

[selurcspi]

Just a thought on the religeosity of our founding fathers, here is a list of their affiliations

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian

This is the declaration of the individuals, not too many non-Christians among the bunch!

[White Horseradish]

Just a thought on the religeosity of our founding fathers, here is a list of their affiliations

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence<snip>
This is the declaration of the individuals, not too many non-Christians among the bunch!

That's great. However, that in no way proves or disproves the idea that the Constitution based on Christian principles. At work we have some Christians, some atheists, some agnostics, and some Hindus. They all write code. They don't write Christian code or Hindu code, they write code that works(well, most of the time). That said, I'm willing to admit I might be wrong on this, but then, I don't really understand the proliferation of clubs that are of the Christian + <name of hobby> kind where the hobby appears to be wholly unrelated to one's religious outlook, like Christian Bicycle Riders and Christian Knitters.

If you want to talk about Christian principles in the Constitution you have to name these principles first (if only because even amongst Christians there is some disagreement as to what they are) and then we can see how they are reflected there. If we name the 10 Commandments as the main Christian principles the argument flops right there. Out of the 10 only three coincide with our laws and the 1st Commandment would be extremely unconstitutional, were it to become a law.

[Pat Cannon]

Nobody can deny that our social laws can be derived from common morality which in some fashion can be derived from religion...

Actually I'll deny that one, or at least argue it. It makes more sense to me to imagine that, way back when, religions were founded, in part, on shared moral beliefs -- not the other way 'round.

[WWJD]

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

At least 5 references to a higher being, which to them would be God

[ex-LT]

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

At least 5 references to a higher being, which to them would be God

Not that I'm defending White Horseradish's stance, but you're referring to the Declaration of Independence. WH specifically asked about the Constitution.