American democracy's real doctrine: religious neutrality

[cbayer]

Republicans who cast the constitutional debate on church-state separation as a 'war on religion' endanger the freedom of all

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/02/american-democracy-real-doctrine?newsfeed=true

Jane Eisner for the Forward
guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 March 2012 15.39 ES

The "war on religion" is back, making its quadrennial appearance on the American political stage. The actors are different this time – or, in the case of Mitt Romney, same man, new script. Rick Santorum's rhetoric may be more strident than is customary, and Newt Gingrich has lifted the level of disconnect between word and past deeds to dazzling heights. Still, this "war" is a revival of sorts, a recurring theme brought to life by Republicans in national elections for the past 50 years or so, a convenient tool to separate the party faithful from the Godless secularists who have so heedlessly damaged religiosity in America.

Ironically, the trends toward tolerance and inclusion that are reviled by these candidates are the very reason two Catholics and a Mormon can run for the highest office in the land without their respective faiths presenting much of a political impediment. Either the candidates are all wilfully ignorant of American history (even the historian!) or they believe the rest of us are.

So let's review.

In his 2005 book, It Takes a Family, then Senator Santorum nicely spelled out the conservative rendition of what went wrong with America. It starts with the 1947 US supreme court decision that first introduced into law Thomas Jefferson's idea of a "wall of separation between church and state", and turned government neutrality on religion into a constitutional principle. Ever since, Santorum wrote:

"The overarching impulse of the court's position has been to drive religion from the public square, to secularize our society from the roots up, all in the name of the constitutional principle of 'neutrality' – both among religions and between religion and irreligion. Of course, the term 'neutrality' does not appear in the US constitution."

more at link

[Jim__]

1. It's always worthwhile to ask the advocates of intolerant policies to consider how those same ...

... policies may affect them just a little farther down the road.

[Adsos Letter]

2. Amen.

[cleanhippie]

4. That is because they see those policies not as "intolerant" but as "religious freedom".

It's a black-is-white, up-is-down world for them.

[skepticscott]

3. This is a very old principle

Why is it being dredged up again and again? Why do you feel the need to constantly emphasize the negative side of religion instead of all the good it does?

[pinto]

5. Note to Santorum - This seems pretty neutral to me :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Neutrality in regards to Church and State - simple and straightforward.