When religion breaches an important wall

[Thats my opinion]

The wall of separation between church and state is a vital part of the American ethos. When that wall is violated society becomes subject to sectarian-authorized law, and religion finds itself bought and paid for by the government. It is a lose-lose proposition. Government is captive to sectarian precepts, which deny the rights of religious and non-religious minorities, and religion becomes a pawn of political chicanery. Currently there are those political interests which believe they can use religion for their own purposes, and who therefore work hard at dismantling the dividing wall. The well-funded “Institute on Religion and Democracy” has long been active with many denominations in an attempt to lure them to the political right through significant financial contributions given to already right-wing entities within the church structures.

Part of the insidious aspect involving church-state relationships, uses religion as a vehicle for American super-nationalism. When any religious rally finds its platform decorated with American flags, the wall of separation has been successfully breeched. Churches should probably not even have national flags decorating their chancels. Throughout history examples of this religious sponsored nationalism have been all too numerous as ways to mobilize people against everything foreign. Our history has been replete, and still is, with religious hucksters who call America “God’s chosen nation,” and see all other nations as something else.
When religion is co-opted as a belligerent refusal to acknowledge that this is one world, and an excuse for super nationalism, it is a prostitution of the ethical vitality which lies behind both religion and patriotism.

[ZombieHorde]

1. I'm sure most of us here on DU also strongly support a separation of church and state. nt

[Sinistrous]

2. Well said. Than you.

[dmallind]

3. A religious body mirrors its congregation,

Denominations that preach jingoistic exclusion will attract jingoistic exclusionists, and applying that to national identity is a small step when you are used to applying it to salvation or religious worthiness. Ecumenicalists in faith are more likely to accept pluralism in nationality too, but the Jack Chicks of the world will always believe Cambodians are inferior just like Catholics (unless they are born-again Cambodians of course).

The US is in a paradoxical spot here. A country with one of the most overt distinctions between church and state in the democratic world, but one where faith and patriotism are inextricably linked and tightly entwined. There is a reason that godly slogans were added to both pledge and currency during the height of McCarthyite paranoia about losing out to another nation. The idea that God has a special mission and special fondness for the US predates the US as an independent nation, and has waxed and waned depending on how secure and unthreatened the country felt, with religion and religious nationalism growing in times of perceived danger or loss of status. It's for this reason, alone, that I am a bit concerned about the inevitable time when China is solidly ahead in manufacturing, GDP etc. Religious Americans have a tendency to confuse the two allegiances and see a "loss" for the country to be a loss for God, and therefore grounds to invite even more than ever his special intervention. When Russia was the threat we had our religiosity as a distinction to be blindly accepted and loudly trumpeted at every opportunity by both state and individuals, separation be damned. The more equal/superior China threatens to be, the more that's likely to happen again. Religious Americans somehow in large part think God is specifically on their side. Being born English, I am no stranger to jingoism, but at least there it is secular delusions. The most popular hymn and unofficial national anthem of England, as opposed to Britain, may very well ask "and did those feet....?" but almost always even the religious Briton answers "no" - seeing no special tie between the Almighty and the Empire.

I agree with anyone, religious or otherwise, who prefers separation, but doubt our collective ability to deter the great masses who forget that every time they feel challenged and want to wrap the flag around the cross.

[dtexdem]

4. Hey, it worked for the Spanish Inquisition -- so what could go wrong?

;-)

[trotsky]

5. We are in total agreement that religion should not be used to push/promote a conservative agenda.

What is your opinion on using religion to push/promote a liberal agenda?

[Adsos Letter]

7. Ah, there's the rub... .

Edited to add: I believe the Church/State separation applies equally all variants of religion, including the Liberal/Conservative divide within christianity.
Some on the religious left see it differently, however. The Religious Left and Church-State Relations by Steven H. Shiffrin (2009)

[rrneck]

10. Bullseye. nt

[skepticscott]

12. I think his opinion on that

is crystal clear. Pretty much every post he's made here lately has been about doing exactly that.

Well, other than the posts he's made in the Liberal Christians forum bashing the non-believers here.

[Thats my opinion]

14. Good question

Ed hopper has it right in #9

As a religious person I have every right to push whatever agenda I choose. My religion does not void my democratic rights. Now, as you point out, there is a fine line. Should my denomination push for equal marriage rights for Gays, or the end to these terrible wars? There are certain human values which are not the sole possession of any religion, and have nothing to do with religious doctrine, but may be inherent in all religions (see Karen Armstrong on this one) and in human nature far beyond any religion.

We are in a tough place. On one hand throughout the r/t there are devastating criticisms for the poor record religious people have in supporting these ethical issues. On the other hand there is a wall of separation. It is a quandary. I'll come out with ed hopper on this one. Thanks or raising the issue.

[darkstar3]

16. Again, it's possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Why should it take a person's religion to motivate them to social justice, morality, and ethical behavior toward themselves and others?

[Humanist_Activist]

18. That's something I never understood, I just assume they think they are immoral...

"sinners" whatever the hell that is.

[trotsky]

17. OK, I want you to read this post VERY carefully.

NO ONE has said you don't have a right to fight for an agenda. NO ONE has said ANYTHING about your religion "void"ing your "democratic rights." NOT ONCE. You do a great disservice to this forum, and ANNOY THE HELL OUT OF MANY PEOPLE, when you keep insisting that's what atheists are trying to do to you. That DOES NOT HAPPEN.

The problem comes in when you insist that everyone must respect your agenda BECAUSE it comes from your religion, or you cannot offer any reasoning behind your policy choices without appealing to your religion, you are behaving no differently than the religious right - and worse, you are validating their agenda as well.

Please tell me you understand, and that you'll stop accusing atheists of trying to exclude you from the democratic process.

We'll leave the discussion about Karen Armstrong for another thread.

[Adsos Letter]

6. A fundamental bedrock of individual liberty and freedom of conscience.

As well as a core of the First Amendment rights the government is sworn to protect. :thumbsup:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. The problem is that religious extremists tend to be well-connected.

[edhopper]

9. For me there is an important distinction

between someone saying "Because of my faith I believe I should do this."

And someone saying "Because of my faith I think we all should do this."

[Adsos Letter]

11. Exactly.

[skepticscott]

13. And between saying

"Because of my faith I think we all shouldn't do this" and saying "Because of my faith I'm going to take away people's freedom to do this".

[Thats my opinion]

15. agreed!!