Awesome article on separation of church and state

[wearestardust]

This article is so awesome I've got a reason-boner.

(GAC attendees may recall Ayan Hirsi Ali saying we need to develop a liberal narrative of secularism. I may have missed the point, but my thinking at the time was along the lines of 'we have the narrative, starting with Locke: we need to rediscover it. That's more or less what this article thinks. Except saying it a million per cent better than I could)

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opin...417-1x5j6.html

Preserving the division between church and state
Tim Verhoeven
April 18, 2012
OPINION

ATHEISTS have copped a lot of criticism recently. This week, columnist Chris Berg accused them of wanting to tear up the fabric of Western civilisation. Christianity, he suggests, has left secular society a rich legacy, from human rights to the separation of church and state.

This ''we owe a debt to Christianity'' argument can become a little silly. To begin with, it overlooks the contribution of the ancient Greeks, who weren't known for their monotheism. And very few atheists, it seems to me, want to erase the cultural contribution of Christians. I suspect Richard Dawkins enjoys listening to Bach as much as anyone else.

Berg makes a strong point, though, about the Christian origins of many modern ideas. Take, for example, the separation of church and state. The philosopher John Locke, whose doctrine of separation profoundly influenced the thinking of Thomas Jefferson, was a pious Christian. True Christianity, Locke argued, had no need of state enforcement and was better off without it. Disentangling religion from secular authority would benefit both. The problem is that the people who need to be reminded of this are not the atheists but religious activists. Christian groups eager to mix religion and politics have forgotten their own traditions.

Look, for example, at the Baptists in the United States. In the 18th century the Baptists were at the forefront of moves to separate church and state. One Baptist minister, John Leland, argued the belief in a Christian commonwealth ''should be exploded forever''. Any combination of ''rulers and priests'', he wrote, was a threat to both religion and government.

Where do the American Baptists stand today? Deep in the muck of electoral politics. The Southern Baptist Conference is now campaigning strongly against President Barack Obama's healthcare plan. Leading Baptist Richard Land recently stated Jesus would disapprove of the rationing panels that, under the plan, allocate medical resources most efficiently. He has also described the administration as ''radically secularist''.

Land has also attacked the administration for exploiting the controversy over the shooting of a young black man, Trayvon Martin.

Obama and civil rights activists, according to Land, were using the furore over Martin's death to ''gin up'' the black vote.

Just another example of publicity-seeking evangelicals engaged in what one historian calls ''sound-bite salvation''? No, in the name of religious freedom, all sorts of churches in America have been gearing up for political battle. In Seattle, Catholics attending Mass have been confronted with something not seen for decades: petitions. Priests are collecting signatures in support of a referendum to repeal Washington state's gay marriage law. To the amazement of many, contraception has become a political issue. A coalition of churches has denounced the so-called contraception mandate, a federal law stipulating that insurance policies cover birth control.

Never mind that churches themselves were granted an exemption, nor that the law would benefit the thousands of non-religious women who work for church-affiliated universities or hospitals. In fact, a range of polls have found 55-60 per cent of Catholics support the contraception mandate.

In an election year, the Republican candidates have been outdoing themselves to prove their evangelical credentials. Rick Santorum ran a decent campaign but is likely to be remembered for saying John F. Kennedy's speech in 1960 defending the separation of church and state made him want to ''throw up''. Newt Gingrich has denounced Obama's ''secular socialist machine''. Mitt Romney, who as a Mormon has struggled most to win over evangelicals, also got in on the act. Obama, he declared, was waging a ''war on religion''.

The sight of churches muscling into electoral politics with the connivance of leading Republicans worries American secularists.

But those who should be most concerned are the many thoughtful Christians anxious about their faith. The dirt of electoral politics tends to stick. What Leland understood was that maintaining a distance between church and state could actually benefit religion. Free from any entanglements with secular power, churches might actually thrive.

Indeed, the vitality of American religion over the past two centuries suggests he was right.

In charging into the public square, churches risk alienating their own constituents. There are already signs of a backlash.

In Seattle, groups of Catholic parishioners are uniting to oppose church-organised petitions. A Pew Forum poll in March found unease with religious talk by political leaders was at an all-time high.

No less than 38 per cent of respondents expressed this view. A clear majority of Americans (54 per cent) now believe churches should keep out of politics altogether, an increase from 46 per cent in 2006.

Rather than attacking the President and his policies, perhaps Land should go back and read his Baptist forebear Leland.

The ''genius'' of Christianity, Leland wrote in 1794, was its recognition of ''the proper distinction between religion and politics''. There's one radical idea you can't blame on the atheists.

Dr Tim Verhoeven is a lecturer in United States history at Monash University.

[Neil Sinn]

"Leading Baptist Richard Land" haha!

[AisforAtheist]

Am I a Marxist if I suggest that it's all about the struggle for power? And when their traditional power to compel through fear is slipping through their fingers, expect the theocrats to grasp ever harder at the reins of government.

[Loki]

This is an argument I expect to see a lot more of. Separation wasn't foisted on a naive populace by unbelievers, it was championed by the religious as a way of providing a (more) level playing field for all. In many ways it was religion that pushed for a system which did not privilege groups simply on the numbers they could muster. History shows it works.

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by Loki

This is an argument I expect to see a lot more of. Separation wasn't foisted on a naive populace by unbelievers, it was championed by the religious as a way of providing a (more) level playing field for all. In many ways it was religion that pushed for a system which did not privilege groups simply on the numbers they could muster. History shows it works.

It's kind of funny in a way, that this sort of thing shows up often enough to recognise it. I remember back a few years ago when some numpties were working their arses off trying to get 'Intelligent Design' accepted into the national curriculum, and when it was pointed out that it was just religious bullshit, they cried, "But children should learn religion!" The same thing has happened over the ethics vs scripture lessons kerfuffle...

...and yet it was religious folk who made them take religion out of schools in the first fucking place. Catholics got all up in arms because their kids were being taught Anglican religion in schools, and that was a violation of their rights. And you couldn't teach Catholicism, because of various reasons, and so it all got pulled out at the behest of the religiots.

And then later on they cry foul, not remembering it was them who fucking organised it that way in the first place.

[Aldaron]

For crying out loud, even their religion's namesake said "Render unto Caesar" and all that! Then again, he also told them not to get divorced, but Protestant Christians have the highest divorce rates in the world...*sigh*

[TASIN]

A clear majority of Americans (54 per cent) now believe churches should keep out of politics altogether, an increase from 46 per cent in 2006.

I was surprised at this figure. Just didn't think it would be this high, so did a few quick searches.
In another poll taken by the Public Religion Research Institute in 2011 the figure was actually 66%
Not sure what the explanation is for this huge difference but if 66% is for real, then it tells a very different story different story to news and current affairs reports we are exposed to.

[Praxis]

For anyone interested, here is a link to Leslie Cannold's site with a downloadable .pdf of her galvanising talk at the GAC on just this topic (written in conjunction with Max Wallace).

It was actually embarrassing to have quite a few of the international speakers express their utter amazement at the incursion our government allows religious organisations into our schools, at taxpayers' expense, and I found myself actually squirming when it was pointed out that it was 1948 when the McCollum v. Board of Education case was won in the US, yet here in Australia in 2012, we have FIRIS parents battling in VCAT to get the repulsive Access Ministries out of our state schools.

Leslie was right, I believe. Anyone who thinks Australia has a separation of church and state is deluding themselves.