Paul's blog

Paul says:

Let me start with a response to Courtly.
What you ‘agree’ with, appears to be the notion that politicians can operate from their religious beliefs, represent voters from certain religious denominations and are inspired by their faith.
I have no issue with that. Coming from a country (the same one where SPF got married) where they have quite a few political parties founded on religious principles and denominations I’m quite used to it and have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact the largest party IS a Christian party (CDA) They don’t quote the bible, they say they only get their inspiration from it. In Germany, the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands) is the largest party. No problem.
That is not the issue!
The issue is whether you allow religious doctrine to dictate legislation, especially when it comes to favoring (if not outright mandating, like in some Muslim countries) certain religious views.
Here in the US, in principle, that issue is very simple: the constitution simply, and quite explicitly, forbids it.

Let me continue my argument by addressing Mr. SPF here too:

If you agree with Mrs. Harris, that the separation of church and state is a lie, and think it needs to be abolished (as they tried to do with the state constitution here in Florida and ALMOST got away with it), and at the same time argue that the establishment clause is there to protect religion from meddling in their affairs by the state, then, especially coming from a religious person, this logically inconsistent argument makes me suspect your motives and agenda.

You may argue that you want to abolish it (and give up that protection then too? hmmm), because it is abused by using it to keep religion out of the state’s affairs, while the intent was to keep the state out of religion’s affairs.
To that I have to say: No Sir.
When it comes to the intention of what Thomas Jefferson wrote about separation of church and state, I often wonder why we are having these debates!
What Mr. Jefferson intended to say, was exactly what he said (wrote). He was very good at that. There is not much, if any, room for interpretation.
If he had meant to suggest that the state should keep their hands off religion, but that religion could have their hands all over the state, he would have mentioned something about this one-way gate between church and state.
But he didn’t. He specifically called it a wall! Not a line, or a boundary, or something with one-way doors in it, but a wall!
State on one side, religion on the other. It doesn’t get any more clear than that.
If you read James Madison’s writings, talking about “total separation of the church from the state”, saying things like “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States” and “..practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States”, then how can you maintain that this was not what they meant?

It is an extremely wise construct, erected with great foresight, insight as well as historic perception.
It is a separation that is welcomed and defended, as it should, by religious and non-religious people alike.
If there is one thing that religious people and atheists can agree upon, then it is this separation of church and state.
I sometimes do get the impression in debates like this, that religious people argueing against this separation only do so because non-religious people are for it, thereby completely ignoring (or not realizing) the horrific consequences of giving up this wall of separation.

As for more details as to why separation is good for all of us, I could go on and on, but instead I will provide a link to a very informative website that explains all this. And yes, this is a website created by religious people, its main author, Tom Peters, even considers himself a born-again Christian. You can read all about it here (have a look at argument #3, the one you, Mr. SPF, brought up!)

Furthermore, I find your (Mr. SPF’s) twice repeated argument that “religeon” [sic] should play a roll in government, extremely weak: twice you don’t give any other justification for this viewpoint, other than ‘of course’. And what do you mean by “religeon [sic] by its very nature”? What is this nature, and more importantly which religion are you referring to? Surely you’re no suggesting that you would want to allow only your particular brand of faith and God into the state’s affairs: that would be asking for a very bloody civil war. No, you would have to allow all kinds of religious doctrines. Are you ready for a fair share of Sharia in our legislation?

Paul says:

@Rolf
Ha! My German name-clone (no relative). How are things at http://www.claessen.net? 😉

And yes .. MUCH better than Iran (and Iraq for that matter).