Religious Right Wants Separation of Church and State -- in Egypt
O.K., it took the fear of an unlikely Islamic regime in Egypt to get conservatives (and especially religious conservatives) to care about the intermingling of religion and the government.
The same people who state we are a "Christian nation" and that the walls of school classrooms should be lined with copies of the 10 Commandments, and that teachers should be leading children in prayers and reciting biblical verses, now have found religion, so to speak.
Well, of course, they say religion in government is not so good -- when it is not their religion. When it is their religion, than it's different. Then non-believers in any religion, such as me, are told to be O.K. with bans on gays being able to marry who they love, because of the religious beliefs of the far right. I am told I shouldn't have a right to die if I am in great pain, because of the religious beliefs of the right-wing.
Magazines such as Playboy, or even books such as Tropic of Cancer, risk being censored and their creators put in jail because of the religious beliefs of people like Pat Robertson. We have blue laws that ban things like the selling of alcohol in numerous states on Sundays and even the selling of cars on Sundays in Wisconsin because of, yes, the religious beliefs of the same people who now say we should be concerned about a religious state in Egypt.
I clearly do not want an Islamic government in Egypt, but I want no religious governments at all. The simple fact is that Christian conservatives wouldn't be opposed to greater restrictions on the rights of gays in Egypt, but they would rather not have it done in the name of an Islamic state.
The most frustrating thing is, they seem to totally be unaware of this hypocrisy on their part. If pointed out to them, they would probably vehemently deny it. They would believe that their religious beliefs deserve to be privileged, but the religious beliefs of Muslims in Egypt doesn't.
They might even say it's because their religion is true when Islam is not. Muslims, of course, would say the exact same thing. We have a secular state that is a direct product of the Enlightenment and we keep that while we suffer from attacks by the Christian right to turn us back to the Middle Ages.
Mr. Madison, Mr. Paine, Mr. Jefferson and others gave us a heritage of reason and liberty that is necessary to defend or we really will be the Christian version of Iran. Christian conservatives, like all groups, have the right to worship or not to worship, as they please. They do not have the right to force all other Americans to live under their religious laws and dictates.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
I am a strong supporter of church state separation
and while I agree with much of what is said in this article, I do take issue with the lack of references given in this article.
If you are telling us that the Christian right are saying something like this, why not give us a link to an article where one of them is saying this.
Of course I find it quite believable that one might say some of the things you associate with the Christian right, but evidence is important, and considering how often I criticize religious people for making claims without supporting evidence I would be remiss by not pointing it out with people I would generally agree with do it too.
To those who believe that separation is a myth, well I am not going to spend paragraphs refuting it here, but I have written my thoughts about it on my blog.
http://skeptimusprime.blogspot.com/2011/02/thomas-jefferson-vs-clebe-mcclary-who.html
Jerome is right. The difference between islam and Catholicism is doctrinal, not in life style. The Catholic Church only very recently 'modernized' to renounce the confessional state in favor of the secular state, at Vatican II. That change is now under discussion as error (along with others), and a restoration may be in the works. But Jerome is totally right, there is a huge disconnect. But we're working on it. The time is right for a Catholic Brotherhood. It's possible we could split the world with islam, at least long enough to get us out of our self-induced population decline and headed back out to the stars. The late-hour revocation of DADT, without a peep from the conservative branch of liberalism known as the Republican party, was the last straw. When you can't go to your own 4th of July parade from the filth openly displayed, it's time for some changes.
Only the elimination of all conservative Christians will allow all Americans to be free and the world to no longer have to live in fear of the U.S.A.'s imperialist, terrorist holy war. The conservative ideology has never helped mankind in any way, it has not only never helped mankind in anyway, it has oppressed, murdered, raped and killed all those in it's way to gain power. History shows us this. Fact shows us this. James Madison, the "Father of the U.S. Constitution", along with many founders of this country, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations, knew keeping politics and religion separate not only preserves each, but helps them flourish: "The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State."
A good place to start to realize the depth to which fundamentalist Christian religion is rooted in the American political system is to read a book titled........
American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips......great ...but scary read.
Americans abhor the thought of Islam in Egypt ....but they would role out the red carpet if it was fundamentalist Christianity.
How about the theists arrive a minute EARLY and have their little Jeebus-grope BEFORE the beginning of official business? Once the meeting has begun, there should be no religion involved, as it has nothing at all to do with the official business of running a government body. They can have their pretend time before the meeting is called to order, unless their deliberate goal is to force those in attendance to endure it (of course that's what they want).
"Religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." You must have missed that truth.
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Jefferson was a theist ...and most likely would have been a non believer, as would countless others, had their education been influenced by Darwin and Wallace.
Your choice of practicing a religion shouldn't interfere with my choice of NOT practicing one.
Believers' actions often do just that. Government meetings aren't church services, yet believers turn them into such. Why can't they just gather elsewhere before the meeting to pray? Because they feel they MUST impose it on everyone. Why do they make laws prohibiting business activity or sales of certain items on Sunday? Again, because they feel they MUST impose it on everyone.
FYI, here's what Madison had to say. Like eating crow?
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. " (Detached Memoranda)
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)
The First Amendment does NOT say "freedom of religion". If you're going to attack someone for perceived lack of knowledge, you need to make sure you know what you're talking about. It's quite clear you don't. The First Amendment clearly states "free exercise". That means an individual has the right to freely exercise HIS choice of religion (or lack thereof), and is free to refuse to exercise any religion someone else wishes to impose upon him, hence, freedom FROM religion. It's not "freedom for me, but not for thee". If we do not have freedom FROM religion, then we do not have the free exercise the First Amendment guarantees.