Question

[MKJ]

But it has allowed all religions to exist on equal terms. Even Canada can't really say that, so I think it has worked well until recently.

I dont know - in what way do you think other Western countries like Canada cant say that. The American approach seemed to work when the majority were some sort of Christians and those ideas were taken for granted, at least at a cultural level. So under those circumstances, could you really say all religions were existing on equal terms.

I guess the question I would put to you is why is that approach failing now if it has worked in the past.

Now, when there are many who have no religion, and secularism itself seems to be a philosophical position for many, more traditional religion is being suppressed in the name of supposedly neutral secularism.

I think in most other Western countries, freedom of religion has had a very similar path in the sense that it has become more and more a reality over the last centuries. But I think those that have approached religion as an important human expression that cannot be separated entirely from other human institutions have actually dealt better with increased diversity of views. So instead of schools where no mention of religion is even allowed so that by default they teach secular humanism or materialism, you actually have countries where there can be publicly funded religious schools of all types.

 

[ebia]

I dont know - in what way do you think other Western countries like Canada cant say that. The American approach seemed to work when the majority were some sort of Christians and those ideas were taken for granted, at least at a cultural level. So under those circumstances, could you really say all religions were existing on equal terms.

I guess the question I would put to you is why is that approach failing now if it has worked in the past.

Now, when there are many who have no religion, and secularism itself seems to be a philosophical position for many, more traditional religion is being suppressed in the name of supposedly neutral secularism.

I think in most other Western countries, freedom of religion has had a very similar path in the sense that it has become more and more a reality over the last centuries. But I think those that have approached religion as an important human expression that cannot be separated entirely from other human institutions have actually dealt better with increased diversity of views. So instead of schools where no mention of religion is even allowed so that by default they teach secular humanism or materialism, you actually have countries where there can be publicly funded religious schools of all types.

And of course England has RE as part of its government school curriculum, Australia has the (somewhat wierd) situation of RE being offered by churches within government schools to children who's families want it.

I'm inclined to agree that the more natural development is generally better than the US approach of trying to fix an ideology. That ideology seems to force religion into private spirituality that shouldn't affect anything else.

 

[Albion]

I dont know - in what way do you think other Western countries like Canada cant say that.

Provincial governments (and the national government [?]) have a lot more ability to regulate religion in your country than in ours. Here, any splinter group believing almost anything is as valid as the believers in it think it to be, and governments don't generally take sides unless there are property disputes or something like that. They certainly do not make clergy register with the government in order to marry people, act as chaplains to public entities, and etc.

The American approach seemed to work when the majority were some sort of Christians and those ideas were taken for granted, at least at a cultural level. So under those circumstances, could you really say all religions were existing on equal terms.

I guess the question I would put to you is why is that approach failing now if it has worked in the past.

Now, that's a toughie. I doesn't appear to be because there are more Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. than in earlier times. If some sort of diversity is the key, it would be the rise of a militant atheism that has in mind neutralizing religion through the courts. Almost everything around here is being settled more and more by litigation, and these folks seem to think that this is the way to success rather than just by use of the pen as was the case in earlier times.

Now, when there are many who have no religion, and secularism itself seems to be a philosophical position for many, more traditional religion is being suppressed in the name of supposedly neutral secularism.

Well, you see that if I'd read ahead instead of answering paragraph by paragraph, I'd have found that you and I are basically on the same page already.

But I think those that have approached religion as an important human expression that cannot be separated entirely from other human institutions have actually dealt better with increased diversity of views. So instead of schools where no mention of religion is even allowed so that by default they teach secular humanism or materialism, you actually have countries where there can be publicly funded religious schools of all types.

Alas, that is the way our county has historically approached it--and it's enshrined in our laws. However, the courts are disregarding the precedent and the written law now in favor of more and more exaggerated notions of "equality."

 

[mark46]

I understand that many think that religion is failing in the US and is in good shape in Europe and Canada. I disagree.

As Bishop Wright has said, the US is not a secular country. Over 95% believe in God and seek after him. Of course, God is sought in many appropriate and inappropriate places.

US separation of the state from religion has resulted in freedom of religious expression. There are many, many different such expressions. The US protects the right of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, all manner of Christians and lots of other religious groups. Over the centuries, our religions have flourished.

And what is the result of the US system compared to that of Europe. We Americans tend to look at results as evidence of success. Are more folks going to church, synagogues and mosque in Europe or the US? Are there more choices of church in Europe or the US? Is there a higher percentage of atheist in the US or in Europe.

And yes, I understand that there are those who prefer the era of Ozzie and Harriet (the 50's) to the culture of today. I wouldn't want to trade. I think that folks simply don't remember how bad that culture was for how many of our people. The treatment of Catholics, Jews, and blacks was despicable. Church or faith wasn't mentioned much on TV, except for the occasional religious program.
In 2013, the country has changed. The majority of the Supreme Court is Catholic. On Ash Wednesday, members of congress wear ashes in public. Being a part of church or being in a choir is simply part of life, including life on television. We try to understand the faith walks of others, Christian and non-Christian.

We have many cultural and societal problems in the US. IMHO, none would be helped or solved by removing the special way in which we separate church and state.

I dont know - in what way do you think other Western countries like Canada cant say that. The American approach seemed to work when the majority were some sort of Christians and those ideas were taken for granted, at least at a cultural level. So under those circumstances, could you really say all religions were existing on equal terms.

I guess the question I would put to you is why is that approach failing now if it has worked in the past.

Now, when there are many who have no religion, and secularism itself seems to be a philosophical position for many, more traditional religion is being suppressed in the name of supposedly neutral secularism.

I think in most other Western countries, freedom of religion has had a very similar path in the sense that it has become more and more a reality over the last centuries. But I think those that have approached religion as an important human expression that cannot be separated entirely from other human institutions have actually dealt better with increased diversity of views. So instead of schools where no mention of religion is even allowed so that by default they teach secular humanism or materialism, you actually have countries where there can be publicly funded religious schools of all types.

 

[Albion]

I understand that many think that religion is failing in the US and is in good shape in Europe and Canada. I disagree.

Why would anyone think that religion is in good shape in Europe? Its place in Church history?

 

[ebia]

I understand that many think that religion is failing in the US and is in good shape in Europe and Canada. I disagree.

As Bishop Wright has said, the US is not a secular country. Over 95% believe in God and seek after him. Of course, God is sought in many appropriate and inappropriate places.

US separation of the state from religion has resulted in freedom of religious expression. There are many, many different such expressions. The US protects the right of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, all manner of Christians and lots of other religious groups. Over the centuries, our religions have flourished.

And what is the result of the US system compared to that of Europe. We Americans tend to look at results as evidence of success. Are more folks going to church, synagogues and mosque in Europe or the US? Are there more choices of church in Europe or the US? Is there a higher percentage of atheist in the US or in Europe.

And yes, I understand that there are those who prefer the era of Ozzie and Harriet (the 50's) to the culture of today. I wouldn't want to trade. I think that folks simply don't remember how bad that culture was for how many of our people. The treatment of Catholics, Jews, and blacks was despicable. Church or faith wasn't mentioned much on TV, except for the occasional religious program.
In 2013, the country has changed. The majority of the Supreme Court is Catholic. On Ash Wednesday, members of congress wear ashes in public. Being a part of church or being in a choir is simply part of life, including life on television. We try to understand the faith walks of others, Christian and non-Christian.

We have many cultural and societal problems in the US. IMHO, none would be helped or solved by removing the special way in which we separate church and state.

The US clearly has more bums on seats. The question is whether that's at the expense of something else.

 

[mark46]

What tradeoff did you have in mind?

The US clearly has more bums on seats. The question is whether that's at the expense of something else.

 

[ebia]

What tradeoff did you have in mind?

The idea that religion can be removed from aspects of public life, particularly education?
Whether the quality of religion has suffered?
That the US seems to produce more than its fair share of schisms and crackpots?
The privatisation and individualisation?
...

Those are questions rather than assertions, but bums on seats' only quality as a measure is that its easy to measure.

 

[MKJ]

Provincial governments (and the national government [?]) have a lot more ability to regulate religion in your country than in ours. Here, any splinter group believing almost anything is as valid as the believers in it think it to be, and governments don't generally take sides unless there are property disputes or something like that. They certainly do not make clergy register with the government in order to marry people, act as chaplains to public entities, and etc.

I still do not think I am understanding what you mean here - I do not see the government here having much ability at all to do what you are saying. Could you give an example.

Also, i know in at least some US states religious officials need to register or some such with government in order to perform legal marriages, and I am pretty sure public institutions like hospitals and universities have some way to assess and keep track of chaplains working in their facilities. All of which is pretty similar to what happens here. I cant go to the US and say I am a minister of religion and then perform marriages with legal standing without any sort of proof r documentation for the state.

Now, that's a toughie. I doesn't appear to be because there are more Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. than in earlier times. If some sort of diversity is the key, it would be the rise of a militant atheism that has in mind neutralizing religion through the courts. Almost everything around here is being settled more and more by litigation, and these folks seem to think that this is the way to success rather than just by use of the pen as was the case in earlier times.


Well, you see that if I'd read ahead instead of answering paragraph by paragraph, I'd have found that you and I are basically on the same page already.

Yes, I think it is not pluralism itself so much as non-religious philosophical positions being mistaken for neutral worldviews.

Alas, that is the way our county has historically approached it--and it's enshrined in our laws. However, the courts are disregarding the precedent and the written law now in favor of more and more exaggerated notions of "equality."

So would you say that the idea that the state cannot do things like fund anything tied to religion, like a religious school, is a really new thing. To me it seems more like the outgrowth of the principles as they were set out, though perhaps not the intention of those who framed them. So that may suggest a problem with the way the principles were expressed or the system for using them.

I have thought at times, not particularly in relation to this, that one real advantage of a common law approach to laws as opposed to a constitutional or first principles approach may be that it is less likely be understood in a way that they were not intended, and is more flexible to changing needs. Trying to write a constitution that will really be adequate without saying too much, for all time, may actually be beyond what is really possible for human beings.

I am not sure that I would use the word equality, though I understand what you are getting at. Why, after all, is it more equal if every public school is secular, rather than all religious schools having the option of public funding. You could equally say it is less equal.

So I tend to think the desire for equality is not really the issue - it is the idea that it is possible to have religion exist only at the level of the individual, while all institutions with a relation to the state can be truly secular and neutral without a worldview. I think the idea with this is that it would be the individuals who would serve as the link between public institutions and worldview - as members of the institution they would all bring their worldviews into the institution.

But it has not necesarily worked as one might hope. It seems like it is not enough to say that students or voters can bring their religious views into the instiution but the representatives like teachers or professors or lawmakers or civil servants may not bring theirs. It just is not possible to teach, or make curricula, or laws, etc. without reference to a worldview.

 

[MKJ]

I understand that many think that religion is failing in the US and is in good shape in Europe and Canada. I disagree.

As Bishop Wright has said, the US is not a secular country. Over 95% believe in God and seek after him. Of course, God is sought in many appropriate and inappropriate places.

US separation of the state from religion has resulted in freedom of religious expression. There are many, many different such expressions. The US protects the right of Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, all manner of Christians and lots of other religious groups. Over the centuries, our religions have flourished.

And what is the result of the US system compared to that of Europe. We Americans tend to look at results as evidence of success. Are more folks going to church, synagogues and mosque in Europe or the US? Are there more choices of church in Europe or the US? Is there a higher percentage of atheist in the US or in Europe.

And yes, I understand that there are those who prefer the era of Ozzie and Harriet (the 50's) to the culture of today. I wouldn't want to trade. I think that folks simply don't remember how bad that culture was for how many of our people. The treatment of Catholics, Jews, and blacks was despicable. Church or faith wasn't mentioned much on TV, except for the occasional religious program.
In 2013, the country has changed. The majority of the Supreme Court is Catholic. On Ash Wednesday, members of congress wear ashes in public. Being a part of church or being in a choir is simply part of life, including life on television. We try to understand the faith walks of others, Christian and non-Christian.

We have many cultural and societal problems in the US. IMHO, none would be helped or solved by removing the special way in which we separate church and state.

I am with ebia here - bums in seats does not mean much if the religious expression is unhealthy. It may be that one of the reasons that individualistic, fundamentalist Christianity has such a strong hold in the US is the way you express the separation of Church and state. It is also interesting to note that it is in the US where these extreme feelings of aggression between the two are found - the idea that the state is trying to impose anti-Christian views on children through teaching science in schools, for example, is a very American thing. Even the idea that Christianity and science are somehow deeply opposed, or that there are government conspiracies against religious institutions, is particularly American. And it tends to be among Americans who think that form of Christianity is the norm where you get the greatest backlash about individuals expressing their religious views in public institutions.

The US also has a very unusual degree of politicization of religion - attempts of political parties to claim sectors of religious belief for themselves, or to make moral and legal debates like abortion into partisan tools.

I tend to think these things are related to the question of how politics and religion interact in the public sphere.

Of course other countries have their issues on this as well, and particular aspects of their systems have been unsuccessful.

 

[Albion]

i know in at least some US states religious officials need to register or some such with government in order to perform legal marriages

That is true, BUT they do not say, "Oh, you're a minister of the United Lutheran Church of Ontario. That's not on our list approved by the Province. The Lutheran Church in Northern America is, but not yours." In addition, independent clergy, affiliated with no denomination, are common in the US.

and I am pretty sure public institutions like hospitals and universities have some way to assess and keep track of chaplains working in their facilities.

Well of course, but that's a different matter.

I cant go to the US and say I am a minister of religion and then perform marriages with legal standing without any sort of proof or documentation for the state.

Oh yes you can! There's the example you asked for.

Yes, I think it is not pluralism itself so much as non-religious philosophical positions being mistaken for neutral worldviews.

So would you say that the idea that the state cannot do things like fund anything tied to religion, like a religious school, is a really new thing.

Well, they do fund them in various ways, so I can't say that. But there are now many government bodies that do not or can no longer have a prayer before the meeting begins, even if its non-denominational. And you may have read on another thread that federal chaplains are being separated from military service for bringing Jesus into their sermons. Apparently they're supposed just to be counselors and speak generally of morality or vice.

I have thought at times, not particularly in relation to this, that one real advantage of a common law approach to laws as opposed to a constitutional or first principles approach may be that it is less likely be understood in a way that they were not intended, and is more flexible to changing needs. Trying to write a constitution that will really be adequate without saying too much, for all time, may actually be beyond what is really possible for human beings.

It's a point worth pondering, all right.

I am not sure that I would use the word equality, though I understand what you are getting at. Why, after all, is it more equal if every public school is secular, rather than all religious schools having the option of public funding. You could equally say it is less equal.

That's the problem. Equality is an ideal and it appears in the Constitution, so courts and judges are applying it in whatever way they like, often very illogically, in the opinion of most people.

 

[rhartsc]

I don't think our problem here in the US is that we have to little religion. It is that we have a group of people that constantly say their freedom of religion is being violated because our society will not allow their personal beliefs to dictate public policy. Everyone must obey the laws of the land even if they don't agree with them. The separation of Church and state has been a great blessing on our nation.
Court says speeding ticket didn't violate religion

 

[PaladinValer]

The Church has blessed same-sex unions before, in the East they had the rite of Adelphopoesis (blood brotherhood).

Forgive me, but I actually have the late Prof. Boswell's book, and I have done my own research on the manner of his research and found it lacking.

First off, adelphopoiesis is not "blood brotherhood" but in Greek means "making brothers". There's no "blood" about it or included in it. It is a blessing rite in which the Church sanctifies and recognizes a fraternal bond between two individuals whose love for each other is as siblings, who think of each other as a sibling and as part of each others' family. By the rite, the two enter into a sacred relationship that canonically considers them true siblings, which means they cannot marry the actual blood relatives within three degrees of the other. Obviously, this means they cannot marry each other!

As someone who does advocate the reintroduction of this rite into the Church, I feel compelled to correct those who advocate it as something it is absolutely not. That said, I think it would be an extremely useful alternative for homosexuals and certain bisexuals to enter into a truly sacred and church-recognized relationship that confirms and confers canonical familiarity that avoids marriage and sexual intimacy. It would be a blessing for heterosexuals and asexuals as well for those who have special relationships with a person of the same sex that are, while obviously non-sexual, are of such potency that the two think of each other like family.

 

[mark46]

1) I believe religious expression is "healthier" than it is in Europe and Canada. There are a higher percentage attending all kinds of churches, not just the fundamentalistic churches.

2) Yes, religious beliefs are an important part of politics. That is because religious faith is an important part of the character of our leaders. Religion is indeed in the public sphere. What we constantly fight against is one religious group or another wanting to impose its views on everyone else (like Catholics did for years with the issue of contraception). I agree that the type of political pandering that goes on today is unseemly. However, this is just one aspect of a seriously flawed congress.

3) The US forcing anti-Christian views in Science class? You mean ideas like creationism and that the world is 8000 years old. You mean like making the teaching of evolution illegal? Yes, those are governments trying to instill anti-Christian views. However, it is all in the name of Christianity and trying to instill their views of Christianity. This type of nonsense is quite successful is some of our move Republican states.
============
So, I choose to celebrate the American system where we fight to protect those who disagree with us and especially those who disagree with our religious beliefs. And, we fight to make sure that all have a right to express their religion. Yes, individualism and the competition of religious and other ideas in the marketplace is an American idea.

I celebrate the results, especially with regard to spirituality. In the US, we are post-materialism. ALmost all of of our people believe in God or in a spiritual world or force. We flirted with materialism and rejected it.

And yes, fundamentalism is still around, with its anti-intellectualism. Some see that there is a need for such extremism as long as there are Bishop Spong's out there. But that idea is misplaced. The original fundamentalism is a good idea, stating the fundamentals of Christianity. Unfortunately, then and now, the movement has become anti-intellectual or severely extreme in its social ethos and politics.

I am with ebia here - bums in seats does not mean much if the religious expression is unhealthy. It may be that one of the reasons that individualistic, fundamentalist Christianity has such a strong hold in the US is the way you express the separation of Church and state. It is also interesting to note that it is in the US where these extreme feelings of aggression between the two are found - the idea that the state is trying to impose anti-Christian views on children through teaching science in schools, for example, is a very American thing. Even the idea that Christianity and science are somehow deeply opposed, or that there are government conspiracies against religious institutions, is particularly American. And it tends to be among Americans who think that form of Christianity is the norm where you get the greatest backlash about individuals expressing their religious views in public institutions.

The US also has a very unusual degree of politicization of religion - attempts of political parties to claim sectors of religious belief for themselves, or to make moral and legal debates like abortion into partisan tools.

I tend to think these things are related to the question of how politics and religion interact in the public sphere.

Of course other countries have their issues on this as well, and particular aspects of their systems have been unsuccessful.

 

[mark46]

Not "most" people. You are certainly free to have your own views of the meaning of equality as expressed in our founding documents, Constitution, amendments and subsequent court decisions. You seem to want "equality" to mean what you want it to mean, not as it has been interpreted by the 5th and 14th Amendments and subsequent decisions. You are free to believe that civil marriage is only a right for heterosexual couples. MOST of the people disagree with you. However, our Supreme Court will only mandate change when there is a more broad consensus.

It is curious. You really think that without constitutional impediments that the country's laws would be more to you liking? The courts would have accepted/mandated SSM years ago when they decided that marriage was a right for inter-racial couples.

The common law is much more flexible, exactly why we have a constitutional approach.

It's a point worth pondering, all right.


That's the problem. Equality is an ideal and it appears in the Constitution, so courts and judges are applying it in whatever way they like, often very illogically, in the opinion of most people.

 

[MKJ]

1) I believe religious expression is "healthier" than it is in Europe and Canada. There are a higher percentage attending all kinds of churches, not just the fundamentalistic churches.

2) Yes, religious beliefs are an important part of politics. That is because religious faith is an important part of the character of our leaders. Religion is indeed in the public sphere. What we constantly fight against is one religious group or another wanting to impose its views on everyone else (like Catholics did for years with the issue of contraception). I agree that the type of political pandering that goes on today is unseemly. However, this is just one aspect of a seriously flawed congress.

3) The US forcing anti-Christian views in Science class? You mean ideas like creationism and that the world is 8000 years old. You mean like making the teaching of evolution illegal? Yes, those are governments trying to instill anti-Christian views. However, it is all in the name of Christianity and trying to instill their views of Christianity. This type of nonsense is quite successful is some of our move Republican states.
============
So, I choose to celebrate the American system where we fight to protect those who disagree with us and especially those who disagree with our religious beliefs. And, we fight to make sure that all have a right to express their religion. Yes, individualism and the competition of religious and other ideas in the marketplace is an American idea.

I celebrate the results, especially with regard to spirituality. In the US, we are post-materialism. ALmost all of of our people believe in God or in a spiritual world or force. We flirted with materialism and rejected it.

And yes, fundamentalism is still around, with its anti-intellectualism. Some see that there is a need for such extremism as long as there are Bishop Spong's out there. But that idea is misplaced. The original fundamentalism is a good idea, stating the fundamentals of Christianity. Unfortunately, then and now, the movement has become anti-intellectual or severely extreme in its social ethos and politics.

I am not sure you have understood everything I have said.

Yes, when I was speaking about science I was thinking of creationists. I was not suggesting that I support their position, either politically or even theologically. I was suggesting that the dichotomy they see between religious reason and secular reason is related to the idea that they are separate spheres as laid out in your constitution. That this anti-intellectualism exists in part as a response to the attempt to have such a sharp divide between church and state.

Religion and anti-religion have, like your political discourse, become extremely partisan. I think this too has a relation to attempts to separate the two too much.

It is true that at some times it has been difficult to see to what extent it is right for ideas that have religious ideas attached to them should be allowed to inform law. That works the other way as well. It is always a struggle to find the balance. But the idea that there is a neutral, secular worldview that institutions of the state can adopt that will avoid these problems is just completely false.

And what effectively happens in education with this idea that the state can only provide a secular education, is that religious education then is only available to those who can afford it. So there is bogus equality of religion produced, and clearly allowed inequality based on income.

There seems something a little bit weird about that.

 

[MKJ]

That is true, BUT they do not say, "Oh, you're a minister of the United Lutheran Church of Ontario. That's not on our list approved by the Province. The Lutheran Church in Northern America is, but not yours." In addition, independent clergy, affiliated with no denomination, are common in the US.

Well, you can do that here as well. In fact my husbands friend started his own relgion in order to be able to marry a couple of friends of thirs. He just had to fill out some paperwork to make it a real church body of some kind, and that was it. It was of course pretty much bogus a church of one with no actual beliefs attached to it.

Well of course, but that's a different matter.

Well, you mentioned chaplaincies. If they receive funding from the state, they count as bodies representing the state.

Oh yes you can! There's the example you asked for.

They could submit documents saying I married them without me having to any status at all with the state, or having to submit anything - I know in some places that is not true. Even if it were, I do not think it ends up being much different than what we have here.

Well, they do fund them in various ways, so I can't say that. But there are now many government bodies that do not or can no longer have a prayer before the meeting begins, even if its non-denominational. And you may have read on another thread that federal chaplains are being separated from military service for bringing Jesus into their sermons. Apparently they're supposed just to be counselors and speak generally of morality or vice.

I didn't see the thread you are thinking of - the only thing I had heard of like that involved funerals and that they were not supposed to mention specific religious teachings in military funerals if the family did not want it. I am not sure if that is the same instance, but that itself seems fairly reasonable to me. But the idea that they could not in any setting seems rather bizarre. Military chaplains have of course always had to be sensitive about the fact that many of the people they are responsible for may not be of their religion.

I was under the impression that it was not possible to have government funded relgious schools in the US.

It's a point worth pondering, all right.

That's the problem. Equality is an ideal and it appears in the Constitution, so courts and judges are applying it in whatever way they like, often very illogically, in the opinion of most people.

So what I am wondering is, what if a secular worldview was considered to be one that also had to be treated equally, rather than assumed as a neutral position. In things like education, I think it might really change the way it had to be looked at. Education is really one of the most sensitive tests, because it really is impossible to actually have a secular education with no worldview attached to it.

Equality is a very tricky ideas, that is for certain.

 

[mark46]

State funded religious education makes no sense from an American perspective. The closest we might come is a voucher system where the state gives each parent a school voucher. This has been proposed but is not acceptable to the vast majority because of its obvious negative effect on public schools.

Should the state really provide for Muslim education in Detriot schools? Which imams should be teaching?

We could have courses on religion as we often do in colleges. I was required to take a course on the bible as a freshman in college. This could easily have been done in high school. But the reality is that this is NOT religious education.

Comparative religion should be taught in high school. But this isn't done because most would disagree with who is teaching the course and how it is taught.

I am not sure you have understood everything I have said.

Yes, when I was speaking about science I was thinking of creationists. I was not suggesting that I support their position, either politically or even theologically. I was suggesting that the dichotomy they see between religious reason and secular reason is related to the idea that they are separate spheres as laid out in your constitution. That this anti-intellectualism exists in part as a response to the attempt to have such a sharp divide between church and state.

Religion and anti-religion have, like your political discourse, become extremely partisan. I think this too has a relation to attempts to separate the two too much.

It is true that at some times it has been difficult to see to what extent it is right for ideas that have religious ideas attached to them should be allowed to inform law. That works the other way as well. It is always a struggle to find the balance. But the idea that there is a neutral, secular worldview that institutions of the state can adopt that will avoid these problems is just completely false.

And what effectively happens in education with this idea that the state can only provide a secular education, is that religious education then is only available to those who can afford it. So there is bogus equality of religion produced, and clearly allowed inequality based on income.

There seems something a little bit weird about that.

 

[MKJ]

It is curious. You really think that without constitutional impediments that the country's laws would be more to you liking? The courts would have accepted/mandated SSM years ago when they decided that marriage was a right for inter-racial couples.

The common law is much more flexible, exactly why we have a constitutional approach.

Wow, that seems quite a leap from what he said.

The point is that to create a document that would be up to the task of doing what a constitution, with the lack of flexibility that a constitution has, does might be a task that requires a kind of infallibility we do not have. Public institutions that evolve seem in many cases to be more robust than those that are created whole.

 

[MKJ]

State funded religious education makes no sense from an American perspective. The closest we might come is a voucher system where the state gives each parent a school voucher. This has been proposed but is not acceptable to the vast majority because of its obvious negative effect on public schools.

Should the state really provide for Muslim education in Detriot schools? Which imams should be teaching?

We could have courses on religion as we often do in colleges. I was required to take a course on the bible as a freshman in college. This could easily have been done in high school. But the reality is that this is NOT religious education.

Comparative religion should be taught in high school. But this isn't done because most would disagree with who is teaching the course and how it is taught.

To say that state funded religious schools make no sense in an American perspective is begging the question, when what we are discussing are the problems of trying to have a really secular education system. The problem is that the goal of a secular education makes no sense for anyone - it is impossible. You cannot educate without a worldview. So what happens is that you get an education that depends on secular humanism or materialism to hold it together, or one that just makes no sense. And worse, these things go unmentioned and unreflected, because people do not realize or supress that they are using these philosophies to organize education, which is probably about the worst insult to being really educated one could make.

If there is a Muslim population in Detroit than why not a Muslim school. Other nations do just that kind of thing. Go to Ontario, you have a Catholic school board that runs the Catholic schools. In England, similar bodies run religious schools of various types. CofE schools are the most common, but Catholic schools are widespread, and yes, there are Muslim schools too. There is no reason that the Muslims of Detroit could not form a school board to run their publicly funded school or group of schools.