I'm posting this not because I'm strongly opinionated about it, but because I'm expecting that others are and it would be interesting to see what those people have to say about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-dismiss...202953789.html

For me, I'll say that the idea that religious neutrality is a pointless pipe dream, much in the same way that being a colorblind society is a pointless pipe dream. We've had many discussions here about the separation of church and state, atheism as a religion, and other related topics that I think reveal how logistically and logically impossible it is to attain such forms of neutrality. And even if we achieve it, we don't resolve anything and it will likely perpetuate existing inequities. (Race-blind college admissions appears to have decreased diversity, for example.)

Let's just deal with the fact that some people have religious perspectives that influence how they think and act, and others have other non-religious perspectives that influence how they think and act, and exist in the tension that seeks for equity and fairness rather than chasing a faulty ideal that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

The state as a judicial person having to be religiously neutral is obviously not the same as the politician as a natural person having to be religiously neutral. This is, needless to say, something Scalia knows perfectly well.

Basically, in a typical "constitutionally secular representative democracy" politicians only have to be secular when they take on a role as part of that judicial person which is the state, which would primarily be when they make legislative or fiscal decisions.

If they want to mention some mystic entity in a speech that is an another issue entirely, and is in fact something that very state would have to afford them the right to do.

But moral grounding is part of the decision-making process (or at least should be). Questions about what is ethical or proper are fed by that moral grounding, and that moral grounding is religious for some people. So pretending as if religious perspective doesn't actually factor in (or can somehow be divorced from the process) is delusional. How does one enforce "secularity" on things that are grounded in "religiosity"?

This is disputing what must be a minuscule fringe position not endorsed by tame. Nobody is saying politicians can't use their religious views to ground their political ones morally. The restriction is on what types of laws politicians can pass that will be upheld as constitutional. So, for instance, a politician can think that gay marriage is wrong and can ground that morally in their religious views, but as per SCOTUS laws imposing this view are unconstitutional. Indeed, your commentary after quoting Scalia doesn't have much to do with scalias comments either. It's pretty sad that so many people believe religious nonsense, and it's pretty sad that believing religious nonsense can be so harmful, but nobody is proposing politicians can't still believe their religious nonsense, merely that there are constitutional limits on applying some of that religious nonsense as laws.

Right. I don't really have an opinion about Scalia's viewpoint. But I know that there are those who do, and am open to seeing what people have to say about it.

I don't quite know what you mean by applying those beliefs "as laws." Can you elaborate and cite examples?

For example, I can believe that murder is wrong for religious reasons, and propose various types of laws to restrict murder on that basis. Is that an application of a belief "as law"?

Edit: Also, a "constitutionally secular representative democracy" is not a thing, as far as I can tell. Google only reports back this thread as the only usage of it. So I will have to await clarification on what is meant by that. I'm not so quick to assume what t_d is or is not endorsing with his novel use of language, especially when he refers to this non-existent thing as "typical."

I already gave you an explicit example. Remember, I said SOME things are restricted, obviously murder is not one of the things that are restricted, but banning gay marriage is.

Then I'm still just waiting for clarification from t_d, as your comment doesn't seem to be particularly suited to his position regarding religious neutrality.

[Edit: @Uke] You're being explicitly NOT religiously neutral.

Neither Scalia nor tame deuces comments had anything to do with whether politicians could "morally ground" things in their religious views. The constitution puts restrictions on what types of laws can be passed, but it doesn't restrict - indeed, it defends! - people including politicians from believing whatever religious views they want. I have no idea why you are telling us the true point that politicians will be influenced by their religious views as if anyone is disagreeing with you. Who is claiming the ideal you are finding faulty, and what on earth does this have to do with scalias comment?

I'm not sure why you think I'm not being religiously neutral, but more importantly I'm not sure why I would care that I'm not being religious neutral.

Uke has commented on this well I think.

I'll just add that it is obvious that there exists many "moral groundings" (as you call them) that are constitutionally barred from being passed into legislative or fiscal measures. Lutheran politicians couldn't, for example, pass a bill that bans Catholicism - even if some of them should (hypothetically) happen to believe that Catholicism was blasphemous. They would still be free to hold that view.

Well stated.

But this still doesn't meaningfully address your claims about "constitutionally secular representative democracy" (or even its meaningful classification).

The state isn't religiously neutral, nor should it be. In fact, I believe that it necessarily CAN'T be religiously neutral, precisely because of the issues being raised. There are (and should be) religious viewpoints that are not allowed.

But this statement runs contrary to the core idea that there's something here about religious neutrality. It can and should be explicitly not religiously neutral, precisely because we need to exist in the tension between various viewpoints (religious and otherwise). This isn't a call to "explicit secularity" (that is, voiding religioisty). It's a challenge to talk about religion and religiosity openly, and to deal with it in a way that doesn't pretend like it doesn't exist.

You're being not religiously neutral because you're making specific judgments of religious viewpoints. This one is acceptable, this one is not. More importantly, this matters because it's a more truthful approach to religion and religious views and how they intersect and interact with each other and within the governmental structures.

There is no reason to pursue an ideal of religious neutrality. It makes no sense either logically or logistically. Yet it's something that t_d apparently embraces at least in word, though not in action. It just makes far more sense to me to be operating from the reality of the non-neutrality with regards to religion instead of pretending as though one is attaining this faulty ideal.

Skipped this one...

The idea of religious neutrality places non-religion over religion. The way people try to attain religious neutrality is by not allowing religion to speak.

This is truly bizarre. Freedom of speech and religion are absolutely core in the constitution. Nobody ITT (and I'd say very, very few outside it) are proposing not allowing speech! This seems like an absolutely ridiculous strawman that you have been yelling at. The constitution puts limits on what types of laws are constitutional, it has nothing to do with speaking. It has nothing to do with not allowing moral grounding in religion either. Admittedly you have used weird phraseology - the verb speech is attached to religion not people - so maybe there is some way you can interpret this weird phraseology so as to recover something? I doubt it. Even then, while it is true the constitution prevents, say, a theocratic state by one specific religion, it is hard to see how you can get to "non religion over religion".


And none of this nonsense about moral grounding etc has anything to do with scalias comments so I am still very confused as to why you have said your paragraphs in the OP.

i think we need an explicit example here to figure out what you are talking about. How are religious viewpoints not protected by the first amendment? The restriction is on some types of laws. You are really blurring these lines with phrases like "religions speak" and "religious viewpoints". Speaking and having viewpoints are things people do, but the only restrictions are on laws...

I suspected you would reply something like this, which is why I made my example about two different religions. When you dispute that example, you dispute Scalia who is an originalist, and therefore interprets the constitution (on this issue) to be about equality between religions.

Why do you think Scalia is wrong?

The US Constitution actually says very little about religion.

Article VI, paragraph 3 says: no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

Amendment I says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That's it. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" originates in Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist association, and it's intent was to assure the Baptists that the US government would never interfere with the free practice of religion.

To me, the "free exercise thereof" includes the freedom to NOT practice religion, but like the rest of the constitution, these constraints are constraints of government as a legal entity, not constraints on individuals or private entities.

The constitution says very little about most things.

As intended.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [my bold]


Note that the very phasing of the bolded portion contains an inherent tension, if by design would be an interesting debate. The founders thought much about the religious/political history of Europe (and that of the Roman world) and of America itself when framing the constitution and the adaptation of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) urge on by Jefferson himself (by letters, I believe he was in France at the time). We have Jefferson and the workmanship of Madison to thank for the initiation of the Bill of Rights.

If two religions call upon their believers to support two different positions, this does not negate the idea that one position can be favored over the other by the government. The government need not remain neutral on the matter if it intersects with other functions of the government. Indeed, it would literally be impossible to govern if this were the case.

Either your concept of originalism is deeply flawed or your understanding of this thing you've called a "constitutionally secular representative democracy" is deeply flawed. I suspect it's the latter. You invented this thing, and now you're not addressing it in any real way, but trying to get sidetracked on particular interpretations of the constitution that have nothing to in particular to do with the statements I'm making.

So I'll point back to "constitutionally secular representative democracy" and ask you again to tell me what you think this means.

There are lots of ways religion is not allowed to speak. If you can't think of a single place in which people are not allowed to speak openly about their religious beliefs, then maybe you're beyond help.

You seem to have forgotten what I've said when I said that I don't really much to say about Scalia's comment directly.

Can you please define precisely what you think "religious neutrality" means? This seems to be the core issue going on ITT. You seem to be fighting against people who claim you can't "morally ground" your political views in religious ones, that such "religious neutrality" is a pipe dream. But who? Who believes this? You tell us people try to attain religious neutrality by not allowing religions to speak. What people? Who is trying to do this? Can you give specific problematic example where religious people are not being allowed to speak (and yes, I know the 1st amendment isn't absolute, the "shout FIRE in a theater" religion might run into problems but for the most part religious speech is absolutely protected at the very core of the constitution) You tell us religious neutrality places non religion over religion. What does this even mean? Can you give specific examples?

If you wanted to start a thread about scalia despite not having anything to say about scalia that is a bit weird but okay that is hardly the weirdest thing you do. But I have no idea why instead you are launching into this bit attacking this sense of "religious neutrality" that seems to be, given how you are describing it, to be an incredibly fringe view not advocated by anyone quoted or in the thread at best.

What a mess of a thread.

Sure. One would think that a phrasing that has been used by the New York Times editorial board would be sufficiently common and easy to understand, but I suppose that might be too large of an assumption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/op...eutrality.html

Basically, the idea here is that the government should be neutral with regards to religion, so that there can be no sense in which one religion (or non-religion) may be favored over another. My statement is that religion has a strong influence over how people act, and the idea that the government must be neutral in every aspect when it comes to religion doesn't work logically or practically. Even the ideal that government should be that way is a fundamentally broken perspective.

Part of the confusion is coming from my challenging of tame_deuces' perspective, which had very little to do with my original statements.

The underlying claim I'm making is that statements of "religious neutrality" that demand a separation of an individual from his religious beliefs is an intellectually untenable position to hold precisely because religion serves as a moral grounding for many people.

To quote tame_deuces:

Ignoring the nonsense label that he apparently pulled out of his rear end, the bolded is a statement of mandatory secularism. Mandatory secularism is impossible. It's not even clear what it would mean to act "secularly" if one's actions are religiously grounded. For example, if I give a poor person food because my religion instructs me to care for the poor, is that a secular act or a religious one?

The "speak" part is the idea that somehow religion should be muted in situations, such as tame's description of forced secularity. That somehow, people are supposed to separate themselves from their religions when engaging in certain types of behavior within the government. Specifically, tame says when making "legislative or fiscal decisions."

And that brings me back up to the point about caring for the poor. Let's say that as a legislator, I'm asked to vote on a bill to provide shelter for the homeless and my religion instructs me to care for the poor. This is both a legislative decision (creation of law) and a fiscal decision (it costs money). Is my decision a religious one or a secular one?

The obvious is still obvious, but apparently you're not seeing it. What people purport as religious neutrality is a faulty ideal. Religious neutrality doesn't actually exist. That the government should be neutral with regards to religion, that it should not support one over the other in any situation, or tame's suggestion that non-religion should be imposed in some way or another upon those in government, makes no sense. Indeed, forced secularity is an explicit favoritism of non-religion over religion, which *still* doesn't fit the description of religious neutrality.

Rather, it makes a lot more sense to throw that concept away, and accept that not all religions are all the same, not all religious thoughts are equally valid, and that trying to make people "secular" in certain situations isn't a useful way of looking at things.

I never intended it to be pretty.

We certainly agree that the phrase is common which is why I am rather shocked you seem to think it means something so very non standard. Now your NYTs quote didn't define religious neutrality and your circular "it means being neutral with regard to religion" isn't helpful. But nonetheless you seem to think it implies that
a) a politician can't "morally ground" their political activities in their religious views
b) demands a separation of an individual from his religious beliefs
c) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: "The way people try to attain religious neutrality is by not allowing religion to speak."

I've never heard "religious neutrality" used anywhere like this. Can you quote someone ITT or scalia or even a standard definition where these are implications? The government can't pass a law to, say, just tax mormons or to just reward presbyterians. But nobody is saying religious people are not allowed to speak about their religion! Nobody is saying their political views can't be influenced by their religious beliefs! Even your own example - motivating charity to the poor - is one politicians commonly use (including Obama) religious motivations for! Who is opposing this?

Note that I'm not disagreeing on substance here. IF someone believed that politicians couldn't morally ground their beliefs in their religious views, if someone said they couldn't ever speak about their religious views, I would say that was a ridiculous notion as well. Thankfully, this is at best an incredibly fringe position and presented ITT is nothing but an empty strawman.

The 3 terms (constitutional, secular, representative democracy) are not controversial, and it should be no more difficult for you to understand this than to understand "flat green disc". If not, you can't bring anything worthwhile to the table in this discussion.

"Constitutionally secular representative democracy" denotes a system of power where people by vote elect representatives to govern a state where the constitution (or reigning interpretation thereof) demands the separation of religion and state. If we ignore non-democracies, typical examples of such countries would be for example Turkey or the United States. Counter-examples would be the United Kingdom (it does not have a codified constitution) or Denmark (it has a state church).

US vs European usage of "democracy" for those interested and who are potentially confused:


Your first argument and conclusion is deeply flawed, as you introduce the caveat "if it intersects with other functions of the government". If you want to discuss special cases, I suggest you bring examples of what these are and explain why they are not unconstitutional (hint: They must be vested in the constitution).