What is it about the idea of secular govenment that frightens so many religious people?

[Humanist_Activist]

I don't understand it, just because the government fails to mention religion or a deity doesn't mean it officially endorses an atheist perspective.

There's also a distinct difference between government sanctioned activities and individual action.

We have a government that is officially secular, according to the Constitution, where the only mentions of religion are basically limitations on government sanctioning of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it. However, due to the religious nature of the government, its participants generally created officially sanctioned customs that are a violation of the Constitution itself.

Now, many of the more blatant ones have been ruled violations of the Constitution and are forbidden in theory, in practice this varies by area. The most obvious being staff led prayer in public schools. The other being compulsory participation in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Others have fallen by the wayside due to simply the increasingly diverse nature of the country, particularly when it comes to religion. Its hard to justify having a Bible study class, when less than half of the people in your area can't agree one what version or translation to use, add in other holy texts, and it becomes a nightmare in trying to keep everyone happy, when the easiest solution is to just not have it at all.

Of course, most of the above relates to education of children, and were the first dominoes to fall, so to speak, when it comes to increasing religious freedom for everyone. Forbidding these practices had none of the negative consequences that theocrats like to spout.

Other customs have yet to be touched, but they also have their own problems. The opening of a session of Congress in prayer, for example, is customary, and a violation of the Constitution, but without anyone who can demonstrate harm(a Representative or Senator, for example) taking action, such customs are bound to continue.

There's also things such as the national motto, the content of the Pledge itself, etc.

So while this country is secular in theory, in practice it is religious. And we aren't talking just culturally.

Of course, the argument against the push to make this government secular in practice seems to be asking what the harm is, and also not understanding the difference between individual rights to practice a religion of your choice, and official sanction of religion and belief.

Let's take the National Motto, "In God we trust" and the Pledge's "under God". Now, on a more obvious level, both of these sentiments actually contradict how the government is set up, our government never derived its authority from any deity, indeed it blatantly states that the people are where the authority belongs, not a god. Of course, in both cases, these were later insertions of religion, but I don't need to go into that, not on this board I hope.

So the next thing to tackle is, what's the harm in both? To be honest, its the same harm that occurs with officially sanctioned prayer in school. Its exclusionary and proclaims, rather obviously, that unless you believe in some deity(preferably the Christian one) you aren't considered a full fledged member of this society. The short of it is that neither belong where they are at, not as a National Motto, not in the Pledge, and certainly not in Government at all.

The issue isn't that a god or religion doesn't belong in the public square, but the context of it, how it is, becomes important. Its one thing to have bumper stickers and discussions, its quite another to have them become basis for law or custom.

Just like how no longer having staff lead prayer in school didn't lead to forbidding prayer in school, retracting such officially sanctioned invocations of deity and religion won't violate anyone's religious freedoms, it just means that a majority no longer has privilege over a minority. Why not adopt E Pluribus Unum as the motto rather than In God We Trust? Why not remove "under God" from the pledge? What's the harm in telling our elected politicians they are free to pray on their own time? Why should the people's business, the people's time, and the people's money be used to endorse these divisive practices?

This is the basic meaning of Freedom of Religion equaling Freedom from Religion. The fact is that, being as diverse as we are, such sanctions harm religious people as much as the non-religious.

[get the red out]

1. People fail to see that when you blend religion and state

the state picks a religion or sect at some point, leaving others out. What about the ones left out? No freedom of religion for them anymore!

Such a simple concept, I don't understand why it upsets religious people either, except that they are told to be upset about it by religious "authorities" who seek power and $$$$ above anything.

[jeff47]

4. Because they are sure their sect will be the one that is picked.

They're sure that their particular sect is the correct one. So they're also sure that their particular sect will be chosen as the official religion. So there's no danger of them losing their freedom of religion.

[roguevalley]

15. I see nothing wrong with it.

[Goblinmonger]

2. Let me cover it for you so the usual suspects don't have to

1. militant atheists.
2. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot
3. NEW ATHEISTS
4. League of Militant Athiests bent on destroying all that is good and right in the world
5. Hitchens, Dawkins, et al.
6. Atheists are just as bad as RW fundies.

Sure I missed some.

[Iggo]

10. What a humble kind of bummer you are!

:P

[GliderGuider]

3. IMO it comes from the general American belief that atheists have no morality

There was a study posted a few days ago that showed this effect quite clearly.

So people think, "If those people are immoral in their own lives, how can I trust them with running a country? Better to have someone who professes a belief in God so I know they're trustworthy."

How such people can live with that degree of cognitive dissonance and not have their craniums explode is completely beyond me.

[RC]

6. Atheist have only themselves to blame for their adverse words and actions.

Religious people have a deity or god to take the blame for their adverse words or actions.

Therefor atheists, as a rule are more moral than religious people because they are responsible for themselves.
The Religious push their personal responsibly onto some mythical other for their words and actions.
For high profile proof, just look at our current crop of politicians.

[GliderGuider]

7. Sure, WE know that.

THEY don't.
There's a whole lot more of THEM than there is of US.

This isn't a rational thing. It's as deeply irrational as anything else in mainstream American culture.

[jeepnstein]

5. They lack vision.

By "religious" I'm going to assume you actually mean "Christian" and were just trying to be nice.

Many Christians see their faith and Church as having an Earthly basis. They view their world in terms of being American first and then Christian. They cannot comprehend the simple fact that Christianity is supposed to rise above political squabbles and culture wars. They really think that passing laws will make everyone suddenly turn to the faith. That never has and never will work. There is a whole school of thought that somehow the Kingdom of God will be some kind of earthly government with men wielding power, and that it will be a uniquely American government. I'm thinking they're way off base on that one.

They somehow think that if a law is passed against prayer they will be forced to stop praying. They never consider going right ahead with their faith and accepting whatever consequences that arise from that.

They think that laws dictate the morality of a nation. They never consider that the laws reflect that morality. So they engage in a culture war to influence political thinking instead of trying to encourage more fundamental changes in the way people think. Besides, passing a law is easy.

Personally? I don't trust the government enough to let it dabble in my religion. It's off limits. And that is a two way street. If I don't want them messing with my faith I certainly can't go around messing with others by trying to have mine codified as law.

[Adsos Letter]

12. Very well said.

There is a whole school of thought that somehow the Kingdom of God will be some kind of earthly government with men wielding power, and that it will be a uniquely American government.

I would add to this the category of those who believe that God will withdraw protection/blessing from America if it refuses to acknowledge him through law. Many of the "KOG on earth" folks believe secular law impedes the earthly Millennium associated with their concept of the KOG, while many of the more apocalyptic types believe secular law and culture will hasten God's final judgment on America and usher in the End of Days.

I don't trust the government enough to let it dabble in my religion. It's off limits. And that is a two way street. If I don't want them messing with my faith I certainly can't go around messing with others by trying to have mine codified as law.

Very well said!

Most in this group are probably familiar with the large body of material published on this subject over the past decade or so; several older works are often overlooked, but still provide valuable insights:

Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America's Millennial Role by Ernest Lee Tuveson

Visionary Republic: Millennial Themes in American Thought, 1756-1800 by Ruth H. Bloch

World Without End: Mainstream American Protestant Visions of the Last Things, 1880-1925 by James H. Moorhead

A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities by Robert T. Handy

I have found these useful in understanding the history of American religious exceptionalism.

[jeepnstein]

13. Thank you for the reading list.

[rrneck]

8. Divided loyalties fueled by commerce.

Most religions today are just selling people something they've already got. It's brand loyalty as tribalism.

The biggest threat to religion isn't atheism, its professional sports. Everywhere you look some corporation is making money off the relationships between people. Religion just did it first, but its a tough market out there now. As the asset holdings of religion grows in inverse proportion to its dwindling cultural influence look for it to become increasingly political to compel people to support it.

[cleanhippie]

9. Great post. I whole heartedly agree. Lets see if we can get some reasonable, rational repsonses...

[LeftishBrit]

11. I think there are two basic reasons

One is that, as your post implies, some people confuse 'the state staying out of religion' with 'the state imposing atheism and forbidding religion'.

The other is that some people think that religion is essential to morality. This ranges from thinking that if not for religion, we'd all be killing each other; to a fanatical social conservativism, as expressed by Melanie Phillips (who is not a very religious individual herself: she is clearly a right-winger first who supports religion because she feels that it aids the Right, rather than suporting the Right, because she thinks that it is endorsed by religion):

'the terrible fact is that, until now, such a debate has been impossible because the Left-wing intelligentsia has ruthlessly shut it down. This is true of a wide range of issues — such as immigration, multiculturalism, man-made global warming, equality and anti-discrimination laws, overseas aid and many more — on which only one viewpoint is permitted. This has created a hidden iceberg of issues where the views of the people are not only ignored, but scorned as extreme or bigoted — and those who express them are accordingly deemed to be beyond the pale. The results have been chilling. The equality agenda has deprived people with traditionalist religious views of the freedom to live according to their precepts. Worse still, adherents of the ‘one view’ agenda lose their ability to tell right from wrong and truth from lies — and so end up justifying their own wrongdoing as a moral act.'

Or Andrea Minichiello Williams of Christian Concern:

'At Christian Concern we have a passion to see the United Kingdom return to the Christian faith. Our nation has been shaped and defined by this faith for hundreds of years. Yet in the last few decades the nation has largely turned her back on Jesus and embraced alternative ideas such as secular liberal humanism, moral relativism and sexual licence. The fruit of this is rotten, and can be seen in widespread family breakdown, immorality and social disintegration....Yet we believe that this nation has a hope, and that hope can be found in Jesus Christ. On this basis we seek to awaken the Church. We need to be passionate about our faith and became a light and a witness to the nation. Whilst engaging with the church we want to work to infuse a biblical worldview into every aspect of society. .. We engage on a broad large range of issues, including abortion, adoption and fostering, bioethics, marriage, education, employment, end of life, equality, family, free speech, Islamism, religious freedom, the sex trade, social issues and issues relating to sexual orientation.'


At the extreme, some people basically have an attitude of 'But if the government is too secular, it will stop us from kicking the GAYS!'

Also, let us not forget that many people in power use religion to keep themselves in power. In 17th century Britain, there was the explicit concept of the 'Divine Right of Kings'. On another forum, in 2004, I remember someone suggesting that Bush's election was clearly ordained by God, and that we should therefore 'embrace' him (not literally, I hope!) I doubt that she uses the same arguments about Obama's election. Religion has often been used to imply that people are 'called to their stations in life' and that social class is part of the divine order: this reaches its zenith in the Hindu caste system, but old-fashioned British Christians are often not that far off the same attitude. If the King, President or member of the 1% thinks that their version of religion will keep people from rebelling against them, they will use it enthusiastically. Just as ironically other leaders and elites may use their version of Communism for the same purpose.

[Deep13]

14. People are free to say, "You're wrong." nt

[MarkCharles]

16. Religious people have a fantasy that THEIR OWN religion is endorsed by

'In God we trust", "One nation under God" and "endowed by their creator".

All of those dog whistles give mental erections to Christians.

A government that is at cross purposes, (i.e. neutrality, equal treatment of opposing views about religion, etc.) with their religious agenda goads their sense of privilege and entitlement.

[NMMNG]

17. Good question

They seem to think that they're somehow being excluded if the government doesn't pander to/promote their religion. Conversely if the government does pander to/promote their religion, they cannot see how the millions of people who aren't members of that religion are being excluded. Strange disconnect.

[Nihil]

18. Excellent post.

> Why not adopt E Pluribus Unum as the motto rather than In God We Trust?

I've always thought that "E Pluribus Unum" was a superb motto for a nation
that - probably more than any other, even today - has grown out of so many
different origins & cultures. You really couldn't find a more succinct or
more appropriate motto for the USA. It's a real shame that it was subverted.