U.S. 2012 Election

[vonGarvin]

I hadn't heard Mr. Obama suggest that every American go get some post-secondary.  I agree with Mr. Santorum in that it's not for everyone.  I don't know if I agree with the suggestion that it makes him a "snob", however. 

...he downright scares them with his call for a marriage of church and state.
“What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Mr. Santorum told ABC News on Sunday. “That makes me throw up.”

I don't see this as a call for marriage of church and state.  I see this rather as a call to not ignore those people "of faith". 

 

[a_majoor]

Separation of Church and State is being woefully misread. It does not exclude people of faith from partaking in public discourse, or making public displays of faith, rather it prevents the State from establishing a church or religion of its own (like the Church of England).

 

[Edward Campbell]

Separation of Church and State is being woefully misread. It does not exclude people of faith from partaking in public discourse, or making public displays of faith, rather it prevents the State from establishing a church or religion of its own (like the Church of England).

That's very true, Thucydides, but the "founding fathers," men of their times, were also concerned about the "power of the pulpit," which they knew could - recently had been, in America, and would be again - used for foul ends. They were "god fearing" men who fully expected to create a "godly," indeed Christian country, but they shared Elizabeth I's view, they wanted no "windows into men's souls." That is changing in 20th and 21st century America ~ some political leaders want to impose their spiritual beliefs, their "holy writ" onto society at large. Reasonable, thinking Americans will resist this, knowing that no religion has all the "answers" for all people and the societies they make for themselves.

 

[Redeye]

That's very true, Thucydides, but the "founding fathers," men of their times, were also concerned about the "power of the pulpit," which they knew could - recently had been, in America, and would be again - used for foul ends. They were "god fearing" men who fully expected to create a "godly," indeed Christian country, but they shared Elizabeth I's view, they wanted no "windows into men's souls." That is changing in 20th and 21st century America ~ some political leaders want to impose their spiritual beliefs, their "holy writ" onto society at large. Reasonable, thinking Americans will resist this, knowing that no religion has all the "answers" for all people and the societies they make for themselves.

That they were "god fearing" or intended to create a "Christian" country seems to be a bit of canard. Several founding fathers expressed dismissive views of religion, and the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." (Article 11 - and yes, there was a context for this being included in the treaty, but it still makes a fairly clear statement) Recall that those initial founders were fearing oppression by a state armed with religion.

I do agree though that the concept in the Establishment Clause is pushed to extremes that seem ridiculous. I don't care if people of faith express that in public. All that matters is that religion shouldn't steer politics.

 

[Jed]

That they were "god fearing" or intended to create a "Christian" country seems to be a bit of canard. Several founding fathers expressed dismissive views of religion, and the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." (Article 11 - and yes, there was a context for this being included in the treaty, but it still makes a fairly clear statement) Recall that those initial founders were fearing oppression by a state armed with religion.

I do agree though that the concept in the Establishment Clause is pushed to extremes that seem ridiculous. I don't care if people of faith express that in public. All that matters is that religion shouldn't steer politics.

I hilighted your above statements that I wish to take issue with. I believe you made an unsubstantiated jump in logic with respect to the importance of freedom of religion within the constitution.

Also, I don't care if you express your non belief in public either. In fact I insist you have the right to do so just as I insist others of faith also have that right.

 

[Redeye]

Did you have a point here?

 

[Edward Campbell]

That they were "god fearing" or intended to create a "Christian" country seems to be a bit of canard. Several founding fathers expressed dismissive views of religion, and the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." (Article 11 - and yes, there was a context for this being included in the treaty, but it still makes a fairly clear statement) Recall that those initial founders were fearing oppression by a state armed with religion.

I do agree though that the concept in the Establishment Clause is pushed to extremes that seem ridiculous. I don't care if people of faith express that in public. All that matters is that religion shouldn't steer politics.

Most of the founding fathers were Christians, mainly Protestant Christians; a few (notably Franklin, Jefferson and Paine) were deists ~ but of a sort that did not offend the beliefs of the majority; that they excluded religion generally, and Christianity specifically, from the Constitution is undeniable, but equally undeniable is the broad, general reverence for the idea of a universal creator who looks a lot like the Protestant Christian god. They were leading a believing Christian, broadly Protestant Christian, people to found a new nation based upon some "universal" ideas and ideals - but universality in their world meant 18th century Protestant Christian. History must be read in its context.

 

[Redeye]

Most of the founding fathers were Christians, mainly Protestant Christians; a few (notably Franklin, Jefferson and Paine) were deists ~ but of a sort that did not offend the beliefs of the majority; that they excluded religion generally, and Christianity specifically, from the Constitution is undeniable, but equally undeniable is the broad, general reverence for the idea of a universal creator who looks a lot like the Protestant Christian god. They were leading a believing Christian, broadly Protestant Christian, people to found a new nation based upon some "universal" ideas and ideals - but universality in their world meant 18th century Protestant Christian. History must be read in its context.

Agreed. The general theme was to keep that separation of the church's ideas (and power) from those of the state.

I don't think anyone denies the idea that Judeo-Christian religion influenced Western society in general, but it has it's place and political processes have theirs.

What I did want to make clear is that I find the extreme positions taken to try to force religion out of "public" as repugnant as the religious extremism that's also emerging - the Christian Dominionist movement frankly scares the s**t out of me, and needs to be called on the carpet. But so to are those who'd like to ban people from praying in schools as long as no one's forced to participate. Both are just silly.

 

[Kirkhill]

Argyll has it right.

The Americans, even the deists, generally were "God-Fearing".  But they felt that each person ("man" in their terms) had a right to fear his own god in his own way - or even to believe in the absence of gods.  This is what set them apart from all of the Europeans that believed in Church and State being one and the same (Aaron and Moses).  As ERC says, that association had been abused by the State in the Pulpit and the Confessional. 

The Americans were not opposed to God.  They were opposed to the State telling them what God to have......And I believe they would argue that the State telling they should have NO God was just as much anathema as the State telling them to kneel before the Cross.

A popular contemporary institution of the times, in my view, highlights this: the Masons.  I don't know the origins or purposes of the Masons.  I am not one.  But I know Masons, one of them my Grandfather.  He was brought up in the "secretive" craft of Protestant Scotland.  An elder of the Kirk.  His lodge was the lodge of Robert Burns.
An Old Testament Protestant.  The one thing that relatives that are still in the Masons have told me, that rings true, is that it was not important what god you believed in when you joined the Masons. A Kipling poem describes an Indian lodge meeting of Scot and English, Hindu and Muslim. Even Catholics were apparently allowed to join the Masons but their Church wouldn't permit it because of the freedom of discourse it encouraged. 

But my grandfathers Masons were not the continental Masons.  One of the key distinctions, dating back to the time of Freemason Benjamin Franklin, was that the continental Masons progressed......and accepted Atheists in their midsts.  The British Masons, to my understanding, still require their members to believe in a higher power.

Some Americans, like some Brits, Canadians, Jews and Iranians may believe they or the world would be better served if everybody were forced to act according their god's rules,  thus removing temptation.  But most don't.

America, like reformed Hanoverian Britain, was and is a place where everyman has a right to go to h**l in whatever manner he chooses and the State will stay out of it.

It is not that founding fathers feared the Church explicitly, though many did.  It is not that they feared the State explicitly, though many did.  They feared the conjunction of Church and State.  They would equally have feared the conjunction of Masons and State. 

Their greatest fear was of the concentration of power and everything they ever did demonstrates that they accepted institutions for their necessary roles but did everything within their power to ensure that all institutions were counter-balanced.  The infamous checks and balances. 

America is supposed to be grid-locked.  America was never intended to be marching in lock-step behind one Great Leader.  That was the ultimate nightmare.

Edit: In looking at this again it dawns on me that America needs a third party to function correctly.  The rest of America's institutions are based on the geometry of the eternal triangle.  Best two out of three wins.

 

[Redeye]

Great post, Kirkhill. Couple things: to the best of my knowledge, Masons have never accepted anyone who specifically claims to be an atheist. My understanding is that you have to believe in some concept of a "Great Architect". My father's a Mason, and tempers his atheism by accepting a sort of pantheistic view. He figures if nature has organized itself the way it has, that's essentially enough to make it "the Great Architect". But my knowledge of Freemasonry isn't such that I can really make much more statement.

It's interesting that the "third party" concept is rejected as unworkable in the USA by some - as though their current system is to be perceived as "working", when it clearly isn't.

 

[vonGarvin]

Agreed. The general theme was to keep that separation of the church's ideas (and power) from those of the state.

[tangent, albeit slight]
Looking at the context of the late 18th Century, throughout Europe in General and England in particular, the power of The Church was ubiquitous.  Fleeing such long reaching fingers of ANY Church was what, in many cases, drove people to leave Europe and go to the New World.  There were other reasons, of course, economic being probably the greatest of any, but given the Protestant view (and I don't mean Anglican) that it's "One Man, One Bible, One God", it makes perfect sense that the rebels revolutionaries of the 13 colonies would frame their constitution as they did.
[/tangent]

 

[Kirkhill]

[tangent, albeit slight]
Looking at the context of the late 18th Century, throughout Europe in General and England in particular, the power of The Church was ubiquitous.  Fleeing such long reaching fingers of ANY Church was what, in many cases, drove people to leave Europe and go to the New World.  There were other reasons, of course, economic being probably the greatest of any, but given the Protestant view (and I don't mean Anglican) that it's "One Man, One Bible, One God", it makes perfect sense that the rebels revolutionaries of the 13 colonies would frame their constitution as they did.
[/tangent]

Absolutely agreed -  Most of the struggles for power have been triangular, usually Money, Military and Missionary.

For the kings of Europe the catholic (universal) church served their needs exactly so long as it told the peasantry the kings wanted said.  When Rome started saying different things after the Belgian Charlie Hapsburg took over the Vatican then the Teutonic Knights and the Hanseatic League created the Lutheran Church, Henry created the Anglican Church and Francis created the Gallican Church.  Francis and his heirs played their hand more deftly and held on the Catholic brand even when they were at loggerheads with Hapsburg Popes.  The Medici influence no doubt.

One thing all of them could agree on.... Calvinists (Huguenot or Covenanters) needed to be exterminated for their ridiculous notions on people power.

Centuries later the same power structures are in play..... but as you said.  It is to digress.

 

[Jed]

I sometimes envy all you well versed historians out there.  I sometimes get by with relatively accurate fictional works.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I sometimes envy all you well versed historians out there.  I sometimes get by with relatively accurate fictional works.

:sarcasm:
Like the Bible? 

Oh wait, you said accurate 8)

 

[Kirkhill]

:sarcasm:
Like the Bible? 

Oh wait, you said accurate 8)

You are a brave bugger aren't you?    Or is just that with all that time "turret down" you have forgotten what slings and arrows feel like?  >

 

[ballz]

In looking at this again it dawns on me that America needs a third party to function correctly.

IMO, if a socially progressive, fiscally conservative party in the US emerges, it would absolutely dominate... we would not see another party in office for close to 2 decades.

 

[Jed]

I said, relatively accurate.  ;D

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I said, relatively accurate.  ;D

I think my point stands >

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just when one thinks things cannot get any worse for the GOP, Reuters reports that U.S. fourth-quarter growth revised to 3%, Reuters, Published Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012:

"The U.S. economy grew a bit faster than initially thought in the fourth quarter on slightly firmer consumer and business spending, which could help to allay fears of a sharp slowdown in growth in early 2012.

Gross domestic product expanded at a 3-per-cent annual rate, the quickest pace since the second quarter of 2010, the Commerce Department said in its second estimate. That was a step up from the 2.8 per cent pace it reported in January.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected fourth-quarter GDP would be unrevised at a 2.8 per cent pace. The economy grew at a 1.8-per-cent pace in the third quarter."

More on link


Maybe Obama is just stumbling along the right path or, at least, not the most wrong path, despite his political ideology. Maybe the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don't know.

 

[Rifleman62]

I would not put it past the current administration to manipulate the info, any info.

How many times have we heard from opposition politicians from every party state "We have to see the books", not believing the reports/fiscal info/statistics release by a government?