Just subscribing to this thread.  The two words that come mind in response to this question are, “Nehemiah Scudder”.  It seems to be what many prefer.

You’re right about your first point. Even in state schools, we have Christian assemblies - singing songs about God and discussing Christian themes - but then we still cover evolution in depth and there’s no mention of ‘intelligent design’ in science.

Without trying to start some kind of US vs UK rivalry, I think you’ll find that many British Christians accept the theory of evolution in some form or another, and believe that both theories are perhaps compatible in some way.

Without trying to start some kind of US vs UK rivalry

USA!!!  USA!!! We’re Number ONE!!!  USA!!! 

LH: But really will it turn out bad?

Yes.
One Nation under God is like any of the Middle-eastern countries where there is no freedom to be anything but a Moslem.
Right now the fundies aren’t quite powerful enough to kill non-believers at will but ...
The fundies, like moslems, believe we, and people like us, are satanists who shouldn’t have any rights.

DoF: Nehemiah Scudder

I wonder if the fundies could come together and compromise on what they believed.
Hope not.

The seperation of Church and State in the U.S. is not designed to protect the secular from the religious, but the religious from themselves. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Arguably, after a bit of gloating and sticking it to the seculars, there would soon be pitched battles between Christian denominations - in other words, a war for the state religion.

The religion aspect of British School life really shouldn’t be overstated.  I certainly never sang a hymn after the age of 13.

Also, whereas we have a Christian religious tradition here in the UK going back 17-18 centuries, the actual strength of religion is pitiful (thankfully) compared to the strength of religion in the US.

70% of Britons claim to not attend church, pray regularly or observe their faith in any meaningful fashion.  Over in your neck of the woods its only about 30% and the strength of your evenagelicals and fundies is vastly greater than over here.

To summarize, you need your seperation of church and state to protect you from your own religious clowns.  We don’t have the laws but due to a corresponding lack of fundies, we don’t really need them.  I personally would rather like us to have the same seperation enshrined in Law that you yanks do, after all, we never when them Christians might come back.

elwedriddsche there would soon be pitched battles between Christian denominations

That’s the ultimate result of the fundies’ wet dream to “remake America”—they fail to understand that when one’s beliefs are made up of whatever myths and fantasies one wants, there is always someone who believes something different—and who thinks his/her belief is just as (or more) valid.

The “ultra-fundies” will require even more 7th-century behavior (remember the Taliban in Afghanistan blowing up the historical rock carvings because they “were an affront to god”?) than the current fundies—and that will shock the hell out of the “good folks” who simply wanted to move America “closer to god.”

Ulta-fundies might actually enforce (by pain of death) the “no work on Sunday” rule. They could easily insist on writing moses’ laws into the state laws—garbage that no sane person would ever obey or enforce.

The seperation of Church and State in the U.S. is not designed to protect the secular from the religious, but the religious from themselves.

Elwed is generally correct when the shaded and jaded aspects are picked from the post.  The purpose of the clause was not to protect the secular from the religious, but rather, to protect the right to worship as one see’s fit.

The purpose of the clause was not to protect the secular from the religious, but rather, to protect the right to worship as one see’s fit.

And not to have to pay tribute (monetarily or otherwise) to a sect to which one did not belong.

The seperation of Church and State in the U.S. is not designed to protect the secular from the religious, but the religious from themselves. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

I have to agree.  If there was no seperation of church and state every religion would want their prayer in school, and their bible quotes in public buildings.  Hell let us not forget about the crazy bat-shits either.  Even they would have to have their input.  Could you imagine the input she would have!

1.  What happens to schooling?

The government forces Christians to buy a secular education for their children through taxes. That is not freedom of religion or separation of church and state. There is only one way to reconcile free education for all children with freedom of (and from) religion: vouchers and school choice. And as with all isues of rights and freedoms, the left is on the wrong side of the debate.

2. What happens to the rights of non-Christians?  A colleague in my office told me of her son, a merchant banker in Chicago.  At one multinational bank, a world player, it was made clear that promotion was hindered by his lack of faith.

My work has a code of conduct that limits the kinds of things I can say. Is this a violation of my freedom of speech? Of course not, the left has never quite been able to distinguish between government censorship and voluntary association. If I want to start a business that requires all employees to wear red shirts, I should be free to do so. The same principle applies to religion. Once again, the left wants the government to force people to behave the way they want.

4. What about Business? Will inward investment stop, especially in reaction to the previous three points?  Which will accommodate the other?  The Religious Right - when it’s a toss up are they Religious or are they Neo-Cons?

Given the chronic malaise of the European economy, it is extremely unlikely. Right now other nations are so eager to invest in the US that the price of capital is artificially low.

The government forces Christians to buy a secular education for their children through taxes.

Actually if you want to send your children to a non-secular school you and Christians alike can do so.  No one forces you to go to public schools.  That is freedom of choice.

The same principle applies to religion.

Huh, last I heard in my I/O Pychology class, that an employee under contract cannot be fired and it is also against the law to not give a promotion based off of religion.  Why, because that is discrimination.  But as a religious nut you probably don’t care about discrimination.

Once again, the left wants the government to force people to behave the way they want.

No we just think discrimination is wrong and should be illegal.

Actually if you want to send your children to a non-secular school you and Christians alike can do so.  No one forces you to go to public schools.  That is freedom of choice.

It is not freedom of choice when I am still forced to pay for them. Again, vouchers are the only way to reconcile choice with mandatory free education. And the left (as always) is on the wrong side.

Huh, last I heard in my I/O Pychology class, that an employee under contract cannot be fired and it is also against the law to not give a promotion based off of religion.  Why, because that is discrimination.  But as a religious nut you probably don’t care about discrimination.

How about we avoid the ad hominem attacks and have a pleasant debate?

1. Who said anything about breaking contract? If two people want to voluntarily enter into a contract that requires one person to wear a red shirt, then they should be free to do so. And if that person doesn’t, then he can be fired.
2. Positive law != natural law. It is against the law to discriminate based on a religion, but in a free society people should be allowed to voluntarily associate as they please.

Once again, the left wants the government to force people to behave the way they want.

No we just think discrimination is wrong and should be illegal.

1. Hate speech is also wrong. Will you make that illegal too?
2. Suppose you want to start a business with your atheist buddies. Would you want to be forced to hire a Christian? Should Prometheus Press be forced to hire Christians?
3. Hiring is a process of discrimination. You discriminate against people who are less skilled, less educated, less intelligent, less hard working.

I agree with you that school should be paid by the government since I am a socialist, but right now, you are not paying so that your child can go to school A instead of school B.  You are paying so that your child can go to school.  As long as there are multiple schools in your district you actually have a choice of where to send your child.  That sounds like freedom of choice.

You can associate if you want.  But association is different from saying, “Sorry Joe you are fired.  Why?  Because I hate atheists and I heard you are one.” That is downright discrimination.  I am all for freedoms and the right to not be persecuted by the government, but discrimination on any issue is just flat out wrong.

Hate speech is also wrong. Will you make that illegal too?
2. Suppose you want to start a business with your atheist buddies. Would you want to be forced to hire a Christian? Should Prometheus Press be forced to hire Christians?

Hate speech is wrong, but as Thomas Jefferson said (not sure on exact quote), “The freedom of speech allows for a marketplace of ideas, which gives people the opportunity to choose with which ideas to subscribe.” While hate speech is wrong, and you won’t hear any from my mouth, it is legitimate under the marketplace of ideas.  What I meant by discrimination is where you say, I will not hire you cause you are Christian.  That is illegal, and rightfully so.

3. Hiring is a process of discrimination. You discriminate against people who are less skilled, less educated, less intelligent, less hard working.

Yes it certainly is, but not hiring someone because you can show by calling previous employers, that they are not the best candidate, means you are going to hire someone that is more may not have problems, showing up late, no call no show, actually knows what they are doing, and will need less training and less coaching.  Not hiring someone because of their religion simply shows a bias to their beliefs, not character or work ethic.

Sorry for double dip and typo

means you are going to hire someone that is more may not have problems, showing up late, no call no show, actually knows what they are doing, and will need less training and less coaching.

Shold be:
means you are going to hire someone that may not have problems…

As long as there are multiple schools in your district you actually have a choice of where to send your child.  That sounds like freedom of choice.

Not if I have to pay for the secular school, then have the option of paying for a second education at a private school.

You can associate if you want.  But association is different from saying, “Sorry Joe you are fired.  Why?  Because I hate atheists and I heard you are one.�? That is downright discrimination.  I am all for freedoms and the right to not be persecuted by the government, but discrimination on any issue is just flat out wrong.

In that case, you’ve already entered into a contract and now you want to change the terms after the fact. But if I decided not to hire Christians because I’m starting an atheist bookstore, then I should be allowed. Or do you disagree? Prometheus Press should be forced to hire Christians? The Democratic National Comittee should be forced to hire Republicans? Women-only gyms should be forced to hire (and admit) men?

Not if I have to pay for the secular school, then have the option of paying for a second education at a private school.

Sorry but seperation of church and state keeps religious teachings out of secular schools.  If you want to teach my kid about the what’s in the bible, then you got to do it at a church or at a religious school.  If you were allowed to teach kids about the bible in public schools, then that means my tax dollars are paying for my son to learn about YOUR religion.  No longer is there a seperation of church and state.  Not only that, my son (depending on the age level of school we are talking about) would get the impression that what your teaching is in fact reality.  When in actuality it is part of YOUR belief structure, and you have no way of proving if it is in fact reality.

Or do you disagree? Prometheus Press should be forced to hire Christians? The Democratic National Comittee should be forced to hire Republicans? Women-only gyms should be forced to hire (and admit) men?

Again this issue also came up in my I/O Pyschology class and was answered this way.  If the organization, whatever it may be, decides to not hire someone on religion, then they have to prove that hiring that person would effect the function of their job.  So the examples of the orginizations that you mentioned, along with a few you didn’t, like Churches, and non-secular schools, have the right to descriminate on a specific topic because they can show that people need to be part of their belief to function on the job.  In other words a Catholic Church can show that the priests they hire need to be of Catholic faith to perform that job to the fullest of the applicants ability.  The DNC can show that they need to hire someone of the democratic belief structure to have proper job functioning.  And so on, and so on. 

And with the Women’s gym, I haven’t heard of an all male or all female gym not hiring the opposite sex for some specific job function, but again, they can show how hiring the opposite sex could have a hinderance on job function and/or performance.

Webs, you’re missing an obvious point or two.

The U.S. is a secular nation and none of the taxes paid are supposed to be used in direct support of one religious faith over the other (or any at all). What was that phrase again? Oh, yes. Love it or leave it.

Hiring is obviously a discriminatory process, but there is no problem as long as the discrimination is limited to professional qualifications. It’s only when hiring decisions are consistently driven by factors other than professional merits, like gender, race, age, nationality, or religion, that use of the label ‘discriminatory’ is justified.

Thanks for the points Elwed.  I am still practicing my debate skills.  What has really surpirsed me though is how being involved with blogging and other people’s blogs, has sharpened my skills in debate.

Having just skimmed through, a couple of my own comments.

1.  One of the reasons the church is so pervasive yet, fundamentally, non-influential in the UK (and in most of Europe) is precisely because it was set up as a state religion.  What the “let’s make this a Christian nation” crowd never realizes is that getting church in bed with government compromises *both* of them, associates both of them with the status quo.  It becomes all state-based rote and ritual, and a prayer meeting becomes no more meaningful or sacred than a daily rote Pledge of Allegiance.

2.  Bear in mind as well that, for all that we (mostly) love our faith-neutral/agnostic/separate state vs. church, that’s a relatively new phenomenon in this country.  While we haven’t had a state church since the 18th Century, the cultural and legal norms were mainstream Protestantism.

The results were not apocalyptic Gileads.  Yes, minority or dissenting religious groups faced social and legal hurdles and (relatively) mild discrimination and prejudice, explicit or implicit.  Jews and Catholics need not apply.  And family and social (and medical) law was more explicitly driven by religious-based laws ("sodomites" need not apply, either).  But it was *not* the “Handmaiden’s Tale” fundamentalist nightmare that so many freethinkers have today (nor the “New Jerusalem” fundamentalist dream that so many religious conservatives have, either). 

I would rather not go back to those days, because I think what we have today *is* a lot better.  But there’s no indication that a US with significantly weakened church/state boundaries would be a theocracy of mullahs.  It would be a less free land, without question, and some folks would suffer (some mightily), but it would be more like the 19th Century than the 15th.

I’m not sure about how schools are funded where you live, but I have to pay for schools (via taxes) though I do not have children of my own. I get no “childless exemption.”

We pay for the education of ALL children in our country/nation/region etc—it is our obligation to the children in our society and to the future of the country. It is impractical and entirely unreasonable to offer the practice/teaching of religious doctrine in the classroom—that’s what sunday school/catechism/church is for. Feel free to supplement your child’s education with the doctrine of your choice.

You can certainly hire someone of your own faith to work in your shop and there are lots of organizations that work that way—nepotism is alive and well everywhere in the world. However, you can’t just arbitrarily decide that since you found Jesus last week, you’re now going to fire your entire staff and hire from the flock. I can’t just fire my employees or force my religious ideas/practice on them by holding them ransom with a paycheck.

What I’ve never understood is why so many people fail to see that it is unhealthy when politicians glom onto religious ideology to promote their agenda. The whole “our god is bigger than your god” (or “god is on MY side and not yours") thing gets pretty tiring and leads to some horrendous political acts.

How about this ‘discrimination’: Letter to Arby’s?

Hank was turned off by the dude with all the piercings, and elected not to buy a sandwich the fellow had handled.  Piercings are voluntary behavior, and from the business owner’s perspective, that is good reason to march ‘Pierce’ right out the door, because he was losing customers.  It isn’t the business’ role to judge or educate their customers in tolerance.

Now suppose the employee was black, or in some settings, white.  Not voluntary, like piercings, so not discriminatable.  Under the law, both customer and business owner just have to suck it up.

Now suppose the employee was Christian, or in some settings, atheist.  If atheism is voluntary, then so is religion.  How does it differ from the piercings?

On a related matter, anyone who wants to answer, why should anyone be allowed to let non-evidentary cosmologies take the place of their kids’ science education?  How would that be different from ‘math is the work of the devil’?  Should exceptions be made for people who find science offensive?  Why?

Other comments came in while I was typing…

One of the reasons the church is so pervasive yet, fundamentally, non-influential in the UK (and in most of Europe) is precisely because it was set up as a state religion.

Yeah, in my sneakier moments, I’ve toyed with the idea of saying ‘sure, let’s have a state church - it won’t be worth a damn’.  But you are right, that compromises government too.

Feel free to supplement your child’s education with the doctrine of your choice.

Well said.  Can i swipe that?

Sorry but seperation of church and state keeps religious teachings out of secular schools. If you want to teach my kid about the what’s in the bible, then you got to do it at a church or at a religious school. 

School choice will not force atheists to get a religious education. But the lack of school choice forces people who are religious to pay for a secular education (regardless of whether or not they use it). Clearly this dilemma is a non-issue for atheists, but I would hope that I can appeal to their fairmindedness to see that this situation is wrong.

Again this issue also came up in my I/O Pyschology class and was answered this way.  If the organization, whatever it may be, decides to not hire someone on religion, then they have to prove that hiring that person would effect the function of their job.

That is a reasonable enough position but I disagree for several reasons.
(1) I think that feminists should be able to start, say, a real estate business and enjoy the company of likeminded feminist coworkers. This should not be limited to the employees at the feminist bookstore next door. I think that the freedom to do this is an inherently good thing under any circumstances

(2) Even if it is a bad thing, granting the government the power to force our behavior to conform to certain standards is a dangerous thing

(3) there are positive externalities for hiring from one group. For exmaple, the boss/overseer comes from that group and knows the individual character cues much better. Early Italian immigrants were discriminated against so they started their own businesses managed by Italian immigrants who knew the cultural cue of their employees. Bank of America was originally the Bank of Italy.

(4) like it or not, in the real world some cultural groups outperform others. The marketplace of ideas should be applied here as well. I wouldn’t want to hire early 20th century Irish workers because you can’t tell if they are alcoholics in a job interview. And you can’t rely on references because of issues of libel. In today’s times, many businesses have shifted from hiring blacks to latinos. They have found out the hard way that latinos are a safer bet to find a good employee. I’m not going to tell a struggling business owner to hire people who are less likely to do a good job.

School choice will not force atheists to get a religious education. But the lack of school choice forces people who are religious to pay for a secular education

Yep that’s exactly right.  Reason being, our founding fathers thought that Church should be seperate from state so that issues of there being one true religion, or so people do not have to go through the persecution that the Puritans went through.

That is a reasonable enough position but I disagree for several reasons.

Disagree all you want, it won’t change the way the law is written, and it won’t change how people view descrimination and how they feel about the issue.

Even if it is a bad thing, granting the government the power to force our behavior to conform to certain standards is a dangerous thing

As is discrimination on any level… say like not hiring or promoting someone based on their religious teachings.

Early Italian immigrants were discriminated against so they started their own businesses managed by Italian immigrants who knew the cultural cue of their employees.

Not only was this before our current laws on descrimination in the work place which came about in the mid 1900’s to the 70’s, but again this brings up the issue of the law.  If they can show that the descrimination is required for job functionality, then they are allowed to descriminate.

I wouldn’t want to hire early 20th century Irish workers because you can’t tell if they are alcoholics in a job interview. And you can’t rely on references because of issues of libel. In today’s times, many businesses have shifted from hiring blacks to latinos. They have found out the hard way that latinos are a safer bet to find a good employee. I’m not going to tell a struggling business owner to hire people who are less likely to do a good job.

You not only failed to provide any fact to prove your position on any of these points, or further help your postion in this statement.  But actually showed that you are a biased, racists, and arrogant (insert your favorite curse word) individual.