Decius wrote:
] ] "There is something wrong with the principle of
] ] neutrality," said Scalia, considered among the court's
] ] staunchest conservatives. Neutrality as envisioned by the
] ] founding fathers, Scalia said, "is not neutrality between
] ] religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between
] ] denominations of religion."
]
] Our founding fathers and other great national leaders were
] brilliant men who developed powerful ideas about how to build
] a successful society. However, you have to put them in a
] context. Abraham Lincoln, for example, would be viewed as a
] contemptible bigot were he alive today, but that does not mean
] that we should not honor him and the value of his ideas. What
] Scalia misses is that the society which existed in 1776 is not
] the same society which exists today, and in fact it was a
] great deal less mature.

good point, and one that gets lost whenever a discussion turns to "the founding fathers". People forget that many of the things that make our society what it is today simply did not exist in those times. Even things that people think are 'traditional' or 'American values' - things like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Thanksgiving holiday, cowboys, and on and on and on. The world was a very different place and America itself was wretched and untamed and unrefined. Just ask any Native American.

] The valuable idea here is that the government should not get
] involved in the task of dictating religious beliefs or
] doctrine. However, in the context of the late 1700's all of
] the white people in America practiced some form of
] Christianity or Judaism. Other religions were certainly
] practiced by people who weren't white, but this mattered
] little in an institutionally racist society. So, in
] that context, references to God were not understood to fall
] into the scope of dictating religious doctrine. People were
] simply not aware of an example of a way of thinking which did
] not include God.

I see your point, but your foundation is incorrect. While many whites did practice some form of monotheism, that was not exclusive. You could even argue whether it was a majority or not. Some of the earliest pilgrims here were Druidic or other types of Pagans. That was the whole reason why they came here - to get away from the Church. That was in addition to people who were practicing Christianity from a more 'pure' perspective. Their beliefs were based upon Bible principals, and not in regard to the Church's laws and hierarchy. In effect, they were fundamentalists who were trying to escape from the corruption of the Church on government and society that was ubiquitous in Europe at the time. The other major demographic that early America drew (and still does) is opportunists - that is people who worship nothing but themselves and wealth. Free thinkers, radicals, and other 'rebels' were present, and even needed, to get the areas jump started. Any history of 'new land' is filled with these types of people, as they were usually the only ones brave (or foolish) enough to be there in the first place.

The reality is that the Christians weren't happy about the Pagans being here either, and if you read about the internal struggles of the founding fathers, you see that there was a lot of discussion and argument about this point. They were willing to put aside morality and think objectively about how best the government would function. That being a system which is agnostic in its moral interpretation, so that it cannot be used as a vehicle to dictate morality. Essentially they knew that the nature of man was to try and force this issue at some point, and that the best defense against this was to eliminate it. What if the Pagans were allowed to create a theocracy? For the conservatives of the bunch, the risk was great enough that the system was built so no one was allowed that option.

The fact that the word God might appear in texts from the time is simply indicative of the times and of the men's beliefs which participated in the process. It's the same as any other group documentation - you see manifestations of individual's within a group context. Whether it's a song, a project plan, programming code, whatever. It's going to contain a little bit of DNA from every participant. That's not to say that it was overriding. In fact, most texts from this era are fairly free of this verbage. It was only later in American history that things like "In God We Trust" and "One Nation, Under God" were introduced into the collective vernacular. Some of these things gave way to more "mature" thinking (like slavery), others morphed to be more politically appealing (like Temperance), and still others have taken on a bastardized grain in our society (like the things that most religious conservatives cite as 'facts' and 'history').

Part of the reason why America stayed segregated so long was because of this effect. The Judeo-Christian perspective became the majority and that was simply due to the Church trying to control a system of government that it was not intertwined with in the first place, like a virus trying to infiltrate a new host. The best way to accomplish this was to oppress other ideas, and so you saw things like the Salem Witch Trials, and the Temperence movement and other things. It squelched the fact that what makes America great is that it *IS* a melting pot of every creed, color, and race. That's *always* been a fact, but it's a fact that gets lost on rhetoric and propaganda. Now that information flows more freely than ever. That most creeds and colors have more freedom than ever. That we are a more global society than ever. Those are all points that make it much much harder to squelch those facts, and that is why the Church is fighting harder than ever to infect the government of the country before it's too late.

Keep in mind that the Church is not the same as a Christian. That is to say that being a Christian doesn't make you a part of the Church, just like being an American doesn't make you a part of the State Department.

] Today we are much more mature. There are a far wider array of
] religions acknowledged and practiced in our society, including
] a growing minority of the population that does not practice
] any religion at all. In that context the fundamental
] philosophy of the founders must be applied differently then it
] would have been applied 200+ years ago. That means building a
] society which respects religious beliefs but doesn't require
] them.

I think that was always the philosophy. Here's where the founding fathers always get tripped up. It's not that their thinking needs to be tampered with. It's correct. What they couldn't have anticipated was the changes in society and the scalability factors. I always compare it to the designers of Unix. They built a tremendous foundation that was incredibly forethought and 'correct' in its ability to accomodate any situation with the right solution approach. However, they couldn't have possibly foreseen the different WAYS that people use the tools today, and they couldn't have seen the SCALE at which the system needs to function within. Same with the US government. The founding fathers couldn't have seen that baseline assumptions would have changed (all men are created equal, except slaves, because they weren't considered men), the ways in which the system would get used (the rise of PACs and lobbying as a science, so that laws are constructed by a wealthy class of corporations, not people), and the scale of the system (the US government is the world's largest employer). And so certain philosophies break down when stretched in these ways. The philosophies are correct, but the method which was chosen to maintain them doesn't pass the mustard against current scale and circumvention. That's why they built in the amendment function. The only problem with that is that it needs to be exercised before these problems get too powerful on their own. I think we're at a point where that's the case with a lot of this stuff. It'll be nearly impossible to rid the system of these errors because too many people rely on the errors for their livlihood.

] Of course, the cynical thought here is that Scalia is far too
] intelligent to have missed this distinction, or to be unaware
] of the context in which he lives. Its clear in the quotes
] taken in this article that he promotes a religious
] government, and opposes secularism. In doing so, he in fact
] advocates the establishment of religion, and stands opposed to
] the fundamental constitutional law that he is tasked with
] defending.

This might be the case, and the Bush administration quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, and walks like a duck. So it may be that America is heading for a heavily influenced Judeo-Christian administration. However, this is unsustainable in today's global context and I think it will be undone and quite quickly. But that's a topic for another thread.

] There is another argument in there, which Scalia does not
] make, but which must be asked...
]
] Insofaras we can see that philosophically the values inherent
] in our system of government require protecting rights that the
] populace, on the whole, doesn't respect, how should we
] respond? One might argue that the democratic government ought
] to drive these changes, as if the court out steps the
] democracy too far its legitimacy is threatened. On the other
] hand, we don't need to defend popular rights. The whole
] purpose of limited government is to protect unpopular
] minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution,
] and the court, mean nothing, if we are simply operating on
] majority rule. How do you strike that balance?
]
] To be honest, the impeachment mechanism provides a safety
] value through which a court that went too far could be reigned
] in by the democracy without violence and without threatening
] the basic institution.
]
] So my answer is, Insofaras we can see that philosophically the
] values inherent in our system of government require protecting
] rights that the populace, on the whole, doesn't respect, we
] should respond by protecting those rights unless we would be
] impeached for doing so.

I don't think that impeachment will be used or even necessary for this to run its course. I continue to be impressed with how America has 'sucked it up' and gotten on with itself in light of the election. Look at the Ukraine?! It's tetering on civil war over there. This could've been here! But either we're too apathetic or the system is balanced better than we think. For one thing, the current administration has exactly 4 years to prove to everyone (the world included) that what it has attempted over the last 4 years is the course to stick with. Four years might not be enough to really prove that theory out. And so we've given them another 4 to show us the money. Eight should be enough, and I think that it will give us enough data to objectively evaluate if this is the proper course. I'm hoping that it is not too late, and that there's not a tipping point of death, destruction, and economic mayhem that cannot be reversed. I don't think it will be. But if the proof is not there, then things will change and quite quickly.

Personally, I think that it will become clear that our path is unsustainable, that it is melting our economic and intellectual power globally, and that it is a disruptor to global peace and security rather than a catalyst. Once people can clearly see that (ie it's hitting their pocket books and affecting their daily lives in a material way), then they will move to change. Time will tell.

RE: Scalia opposed to separation of church and state