Is the US a secular state? Or a Christian republic?

[DuctapeFatwa]

The First Amendment says "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."

So how much does that separate religion and the state?

And if it does not separate them, but merely forbid the establishment of a state religion, to which religion is the nation joined?

I asked a question earlier, why none of the candidates were calling for the abolition to state-sanctioned marriage for heterosexuals, since there is so much enthusiasm for creating a second tier of legal protection for homosexuals. The idea of a two-tiered provision of equal protection under the law is not a logical possibility.

My question upset some people. They seemed to feel that the state must exclusively endorse heterosexual marriage on religious grounds. They preferred not to present extensive arguments for this view, but I believe it is a valid question.

If the United States is a secular nation, with religious institutions existing separately and independently of the state, then how can one justify two categories of state-sanctioned union between two individuals, one called marriage for straights, and one called civil union for gays?

On the other hand, if the United States is indeed based on religion, on which religion is it based? Different religions have differing doctrines and beliefs regarding marriage. Some faiths teach that marriage cannot be dissolved except under certain very specific circumstances.

Some teach that marriage must be monogamous, others permit polygamy.

Is marriage a religious institution, or a social contract?

Besides homosexuals, what other groups should have a separate category of equal protection under the law on religious grounds?

Where does your candidate stand on these questions?

Disclaimer: I do not support any of the candidates.

[4StarWes]

1. "In God We Trust" is on our money

There are pictures of Jesus in the Supreme Court. The President takes the oath on a Bible / a CHRISTIAN bible

There's your answer in a nutshell.

[markus]

2. All of that is a late addition to our Republic

Even adding Under God to the Pledge is a 20th century phenomena.

None of this stuff predates the 20th century, and some is as little as 50 years old (In God We Trust).

It's an abomination and an afront to everything our nation stands for.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. Swearing on the Bible is optional

To the best of my knowledge, all US Presidents have claimed to be Christians, and none has exercised their right to swear without a Bible.

It is reasonable to assume that if a Sikh were elected, he would have the right to swear on a Granth if he wished.

Offering a holy book on which to swear is more an example of the state's acknowledgement that INDIVIDUALS may have a religious faith, not a statement that the state is religious.

[OhioStateProgressive]

5. I believe Martin Van Buren took an "affirmation" instead of an oath

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. Thanks OSP! I'm impressed! and educated now :) (nt)

[OhioStateProgressive]

14. heres a great website with all kinds of neat info about this subject

it was Franklin Pierce and not Van Buren, so i was wrong:)

http://helios.insnet.com/~tjl1886/presidx.htm

[Walt Starr]

13. Jefferson never swore on a Bible, not even his own version!

He affirmed his oath.

[OhioStateProgressive]

15. nope, only Pierce "affirmed" his oath

http://helios.insnet.com/~tjl1886/presidx.htm

check this site out, its pretty cool

on edit: corrected factual error

[poskonig]

4. Read the Treaty of Tripoli (1797)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Well the second part of that is no longer true. So does that smush

the first part? And what arguments can be presented that this treaty has been superceded by any subsequent legislation or Supreme Court decision?

[poskonig]

16. Perhaps I misunderstood your question.

If you are talking about what kind of legislation that can be passed, I suppose we could become a theocracy at will if we packed the courts and Congress with enough fundamentalists.

If your inquiry is about the spirit in which the United States was created, our founding fathers were clearly the dream team and constructed the government with a secular, classical emphasis.

[mmonk]

6. If you go back

to the framers of the constitution, I would say secular. I guess I would say secular with some Christian fundamentalist citizens always trying to change it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. Well, the marriage vs civil unions thing has me wondering if maybe

they succeeded ;)

[mmonk]

11. they seem to have their victories

in every generation. But the overall framework was to produce a wall so that what happened in Europe wouldn't here.

[mmonk]

12. and I believe marriage

was originally a pagan rite.

[PassingFair]

21. Damn!

I'm in complete agreement with a Clark supporter!
And their still trying to change it!

[arewethereyet]

8. European culture was solidly Christian

Too much so which is why the founders specifically demanded that there be no state religeon.

But I also believe, and there is ample research on the subject to suggest its true (but I'm too lazy to look it up so I'll just say its me) that they did not see society changing to where these sorts of questions would ever come up.

Sure there were other religeons and they are welcome. Sure there are people who don't believe and thats fine too. But these groups are small in number and the majority DID rule if tacitly.

One could argue that the growth of the COnstitution that the founders planned for is for this very sort of thing. Noone back then could have predicted this specifically but it sure as heck was going to happen some how and some way.

So to earlier Americans this was certainly a nation of Christians (mostly) if not explicitly a Christian nation.

As any of this relates to marriage, it got mixed up with social convention as a means of managing the passing of assets and since you really didn't have a choice in the old old days as to faith, the two melded together.

Is it time to unscrew this ? Maybe so, maybe soon. Perhaps the state should start issuing Civil Union licenses to whomever and let the church's do their thing seperately. In real terms it happens that way now. I have a document from the state for business purposes and another from the church for other purposes. They are both referred to in some fashion as marriage documents. Maybe a sort of global "change all" on the documents of state is the answer.

Will it happen this election ? Doubt it, there is not sufficient interest to move polititians. Hey, the majority still rules.

Disclaimer I support Edwards.

[auburnblu]

22. Isn't Latin America culture solidly Christian

I continue to wonder what impact the tremendous growth of the Hispanic popultaion will have on religion in America.

[Bridget Burke]

28. First--most of the Hispanic population is Roman Catholic

So the religious right really don't consider them "Christians".

Interestingly, in Mexico, civil marriage is separate from the religious rite. Since the end of the 1910 Revolution/Civil War, the government has been officially anti-clerical; the Cristero Rebellion that followed led to a slight easing of sanctions against the Church. However, I doubt that Mexicans would have a problem with civil marriage followed by the sacrament (for the faithful).

I'm not sure about marriage laws in the other Latin American countries, but the civil/religious marriage separation does exist elsewhere. France is an example.

Marriage is a social contract. Separating the civil union from the religious part might be the way to go--for hets & gays. Already, some churches bless gay unions, even though the ceremonies have no legal standing.

[SangamonTaylor]

17. Interesting question

For those who are in the Houston area, my law school (www.law.uh.edu)is holding a debate between two very knowlegable individuals entitled "Considering God in Government". It is held on January 28th at 1 pm.

The framers of the Constitution went to great lengths to include the Establishment clause. However, at the time the founders never envisioned a completely secular nation with no reference to religion.

New England, Pennsylvania, etc. were settled by those who were fleeing a land where the establishment of a national religion was the cause of political upheaval for hundreds of years.

I refer to the Baroque period of England with Cromwell (Roundheads v. Cavaliers) chopping off the head of Charles I (after he had seized upon the assets of the merchant (middle) class).

Cromwell came in and dressed everyone up funny (see Bo Pilgrim) in Black and White and then a few years later a guy named Charles II came in with his forces from France to restore the throne (see Restoration). Further, during this time the Anglican church then became the 'established' church (however, everyone knew that Charles II was a crypto-catholic).

Charles II died, and his catholic brother James II took the throne and threw a bunch of Nonconformers (after the Restoration the nonconformers--several sects consisting of Quakers, Presbyterians, Calvinists etc--became known as 'Puritans' by the hoity-toity upper class,who were mostly Anglican/Catholic) into the Tower of London, causing serious upheaval (see Monmouth Rebellion).

So you can see, the framers knew that establishing a religion was cause for political upheaval. Many believe that the Establishement clause was included to protect the states from the Federal Government establishing a religion that applied to all states, yet the states maintained the power and right to include God in their government.

The Massachusetts constitution originally included many religious elements and they were a Christian state.

see: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/cnst_ma.htm
for further reference.

The original Massachusetts constitution had religious requirements for taking any public office and only dropped those requirements in 1822 when all requirements for a religious oath to hold office was dropped from the constitution.

Massachusetts disestablished religion in 1833.

So you can see that for many years the states had established religions. I wish I knew more about the subject, but I haven't had the opportunity to take a real good 1st Amendment class.

Disclaimer: I support John Edwards.

[DuctapeFatwa]

19. Well Cotton my Mather and put my baby in the warming pan! You're good!

So we see that we can be said to be in something of a transition.

From union of tacitly Christian states, to, if we are lucky, and I am afraid very, very brave, a secular republic.

Progress, however, has been somewhat slow, as it is not even a century and a half since men could own other men and less time than that has passed since they could hunt them.

There have been some steps toward granting women the status of standalone human being, also, but that, too, appears to be a longer road than many had realized.

John Calvin was a disturbed man, and I imagine the Hereafter Legal Department is working three shifts just to process the class action suits.

How many centuries will it take before his poor tired spirit is allowed to rest, and we can get about that living out the creed business a very wise man suggested we look into?

[PassingFair]

23. I beg to differ, here...

"However, at the time the founders never envisioned a completely secular nation with no reference to religion"

Thomas Jefferson certainly did. He made frequent reference to his disbelief in the supernatural, up to and including excising all supernatural references from a bible (and the constitution). Thomas Paine also envisioned a completely secular nation.

[corporatewhore]

18. AreYou talking about the Holy American EmpireTM

which god smiles upon?

[Astarho]

20. It depends

When it comes to homosexual marriage (or any homosexual lifestyle choice), woman's right to choose, other people's lifestyle choices or people choosing to follow other religions, and what is taught in schools, we're a Christian nation.

When it comes to taking care of the least among us, "blessed are the peacemakers", "to those whom much is given, much is expected" loving thy neighbor (in a non-homosexual way)and so forth, we're a secular nation.

[auburnblu]

24. Should be secular based on the 1st ammendment

I think a question that is ignored a lot is what does "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" really mean. I truly believe those are the six most ignored words in the Constitution.

I view the first ammendment as meaning that the U.S. government should not actively promote or restrict religious expression in this country. An example I like to use is if a student is the valedictorian of her high school class and wants to have part of her speech focus on how her belief in the goodness of the Muslim faith helped her acheive superior marks she should be allowed to, if she is the one that drafts the speech. I don't think she should be allowed to if the school requires her to include the comments in her speech, that would be the government actively promoting religion. However, if she's earned the right to give a speech and she wants to praise the Muslim faith, I think prohibiting this would be a 1st ammendment violation.

I think there has been a tilting towards restricting promotion of religion and that more of a balance between not promoting or restricting religion is needed.

[Kenneth ken]

25. Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

emphasis, mine. The bolded part says to me that the founders wanted the Constitution to trump any other laws in the US. That would clearly include biblical law. Therefore, the US should be considered a secular nation.

I believe the state has an interest in promoting marriage, and that is why there are certain laws that provide benefits to married couples, but not unmarried couples or singles. Religions have their own reasons for promoting marriage, but can not confer upon married couples the rights and priveleges conferred by the state. Add that various amendments make all adults equal under the laws of the nation, and it follows that the state must recognize homosexual civil marriage between adults.

The church can fume all it wants, but has no legal standing relative to what the state does. I do not see any reason for candidates to call for the abolition of state-sanctioned marriage between heterosexuals. I do see numerous reasons for candidates to call for supporting of state-sanctioned civil marriages for hetero, homo, bi and/or transgendered consenting adults who are not already enjoined by prior marriage contract to another.

[DuctapeFatwa]

26. kick for west coast wakeup, east coast lunch

[jpgray]

27. Same sex marriage debate is a way to air bigoted feelings on gays

Not unlike what "benign" segregation did for racists. Separate but equal always means the same thing--separating a group because they don't "deserve" what the majority has for whatever excuse, and calling it equal.

As to whether this is a Christian Republic, it wasn't founded that way, but it can easily become one. Currently, if you aren't Christian, you aren't likely to be in high office.

[DuctapeFatwa]

29. That is one of the reasons I chose King's birthday for the other thread

It seems like a lot of the arguments, or more accurately, lack of arguments, in favor of a two-tiered system could be taken verbatim from comments of white people discussing racial segregation in the early 1960s.

No one seems able or willing to present a credible argument for the two-tiered system, or even justify it in a constitutional framework, yet a surprising number of people appear to be very upset by the idea that homosexuals have the same rights that they do.

Especially in light of such a large majority of voters having no objection to other populations being excepted from constitutional protections, it seems to be an interesting trend: backward, in a way, but I assume the proponents would think of it as forward, toward a society where no one has any guarantee of protection under the law. It might not be my definition of "progress," but it is clear that many who consider themselves "progressives" believe that it is the way to go.

As the trend continues, it will be interesting to see if their views change as the scope of the "unprotected" widens to include them.