NFL: Listen to Tim Tebow’s comeback against the Bears

[JDaveG]

(12-18-2011 06:00 PM)Radical Wrote:  And again, it says flat out that it is against the law to make laws respecting the establishment of religion. No one asked for them to be barred from being in the public, talking, or participating, but it is absolutely wrong for the government to make laws that force other people to respect the laws of their religion.

By changing the national motto, the Pledge of Allegiance, by our actions with Israel, and the various blue laws that we deal with, the religious are enforcing their views on others.

I'm pretty much a separationist, but I see a distinction between (for example) the Pledge or having "in God we trust" on a dollar bill and laws which serve to only promote a religious dogma. I understand both are religious in nature, but they don't really force anyone to adhere to religious dogma (one can refuse to say the Pledge and ignore the statement on the dollar bill), and both are widely pluralistic (i.e., they don't, for example, say "in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit we trust, both now and ever and unto the ages of ages, amen"). I'm NOT saying I think either is a particularly good idea (frankly, I think they're bad theologically speaking -- pluralism is rarely a good thing in theology). I'm just saying they don't strike the the same way that, for example, a law requiring all newborns to be baptized or all males to be circumcised on the 8th day would.

If the only basis for a law (i.e., blue laws) is to promote a narrow religious dogma, that law is a clear violation of the establishment clause. But if a law has a wider, shallower scope or has as strong a secular argument as it does a religious argument, then the fact that there is a religious group that supports the law should not invalidate it. I put abortion -- which can be argued pro or con without regard to religion at all -- in the latter category. Israel is another example -- I firmly believe that our foreign policy with regard to Israel is corrupted by a bad theological presupposition, and yet protection of Israel can be argued solely on geopolitical terms, so while I disagree with our foreign policy, I do think it is Constitutional.

Which is to say I mostly agree with the points you've made, but I wouldn't take it quite as far as you do. To me the question is whether the law can be fairly supported without regard to religious dogma, not whether there might be some religious group who wants to support the law for religious reasons. A law can only be an imposition of religious dogma if religious dogma is the only legitimate basis for the law to be in effect, IMHO.