I've never heard any Libertarian talk about the party's stance on Church and State.....Are they more like the ACLU where they want to banish all forms or expression of god in the public domain, or do they have a more "Leave it to the states" philosophy?
Where does the Libertarian Party Stand on Church/State?
- Thread starter PeteyPete
- Start date
- Status
cuchulainn
Member
WvaBill
Member
Religion and LP
I disagree with the absolutist policy on this issue. I haven't seen "separpation of church and state" in my copy of Constitution, nor do I believe displays of religous objects in itself is the establisment of a religion.
I do believe that the LP stance on drugs would help 2A issues in the undecided portion of population.
Who can't love that RKBA plank?(gun related)
Other issues started me to ramble from thread
Had to cut some.
I disagree with the absolutist policy on this issue. I haven't seen "separpation of church and state" in my copy of Constitution, nor do I believe displays of religous objects in itself is the establisment of a religion.
I do believe that the LP stance on drugs would help 2A issues in the undecided portion of population.
Who can't love that RKBA plank?(gun related)
Other issues started me to ramble from thread
Had to cut some.WvaBill
Member
sorry for dup link
AZLibertarian
Member
I'll just add that I see far too often the term "Freedom of Religion" intrepeted as "Freedom from Religion"...especially when the religion is Christian.
I see that too, and happen to think it's fine. Freedom from a religion is just as important as freedom of.
I am not a christian, and resent being made to feel foreign, less than ordinary or strange because of my choice of worship. I'm not oppressed, but I don't like to swear on a bible in a court where laws are applied to me, when I don't happen to follow that particular text. You would feel just as strange having to swear on the Quran if it was the state's religion, would you not?
Govt. should be for defending borders and administering official state and federal business. Religion should have NOTHING to do with that, IMHO. I have a relationship with God, and it doesn't need the government's help, blessing, condemnation or support.
Illuminate
Member
Slavery was good enough for the founding fathers. They had the right ideas, but their ideas need to be carried out even further in some cases. They went just about as far as they could in their time, IMO.
DigitalWarrior
Member
Freedom of religion is not Freedom from religion
I look at it this way...
1. No public monies should be spent creating or maintaining religous icons.
2. One must be able to forgoe swearing alliegence to a diety, if the person so chooses.
If you don't pick my pocket, break my legs, or force me to injure my integrety, then I have no problems.
Solutions to common problems.
1. Form a private charity that collects funds for the maintance of the Christmas doll display (the name of that thing escapes me).
2. Don't make me say under god. And you didn't. No problem here.
3. Do not beat me for worshiping Eris.
4. Let me go back to high school so I can learn good grammer and spelling.
I look at it this way...
1. No public monies should be spent creating or maintaining religous icons.
2. One must be able to forgoe swearing alliegence to a diety, if the person so chooses.
If you don't pick my pocket, break my legs, or force me to injure my integrety, then I have no problems.
Solutions to common problems.
1. Form a private charity that collects funds for the maintance of the Christmas doll display (the name of that thing escapes me).
2. Don't make me say under god. And you didn't. No problem here.
3. Do not beat me for worshiping Eris.
4. Let me go back to high school so I can learn good grammer and spelling.
Seeker
Member
What Swingset said!
I am not a Christian, and I gotta admit I do get tired of hearing the Christian Right whine about people trying to throw Religion (by which they mean Christian religion) out of govt.
As a libertarian, my feeling on church v. state is the same as my feeling on many other things - Do what you want in the privacy of your own home, as long as you don't hurt any one else in the process. That is to say kee religion out of govt. the Ten Commandments may be good sense but shouldn't be promoted as the Word by govt in public places that others who don't share those convictions are compeled to pay for.
I am not a Christian, and I gotta admit I do get tired of hearing the Christian Right whine about people trying to throw Religion (by which they mean Christian religion) out of govt.
As a libertarian, my feeling on church v. state is the same as my feeling on many other things - Do what you want in the privacy of your own home, as long as you don't hurt any one else in the process. That is to say kee religion out of govt. the Ten Commandments may be good sense but shouldn't be promoted as the Word by govt in public places that others who don't share those convictions are compeled to pay for.
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
You know, I hear all the time that "it says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!"
Is that true? Do you not have a right to be free from your neighbor's religion? I think that the phrase is overused and seldom thought through.
Freedom of religion necessarily implies freedom from religion, namely the ones you don't wish to practice. If you are free to be a Christian, it follows that you are free to *not* be a Muslim, or Buddhist, or Jew. If all your neighbors in a 100-mile radius are Jewish, you still have the right to be "free from Judaism", since the First Amendment affords you the right to practice the religion of your choice. Even if all your Jewish neighbors wanted you to observe Judaism, you would still be free to practice (or not practice) any religion you want. Remember, the Bill of Rights is majority-proof.
Conversely, I have the freedom to *not* be a Christian, so the First Amendment indeed recognizes my right to be free *from* religion.
It's not a State issue. No state laws may contradict the Bill of Rights, a principle established by the "equal protection clause" in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court first ruled in Gitlow v. New York that the Bill of Rights applies to the States as well, so waving the "states rights" flag is a red herring. If states could ignore the Bill of Rights at will, any state could completely ban firearms at will, since they would have no inconvenient Second Amendment to at least pay lip service to.
So don't. Swearing on a Bible is completely optional for legal proceedings, even for the President's Oath of Office. You can choose to affirm instead.
Piece of trivia: the only President so far who chose to "affirm" the oath of office was Franklin Pierce, in 1853.
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
So did Virginia, and (probably) several other states as well. That was before the ratification of the Constitution and the BoR in 1791, however.
lee n. field
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 4,319
The problem, as I see it, is too much state.
cuchulainn
Member
What if you eat a hotdog bun on Friday. Kalisti.
Cellar Dweller
Member
The problem isn't prayers in schools or religious icons in courts, it is when religion shapes policy and/or law . No particular religion is singled out in my examples...
Ex: representatives of a democratically elected republic decide that 1. women should be covered head-to-toe in public, and 2. women should walk 3 feet behind their man.
Ex: representatives of a democratically elected republic decide that Religion X is the One True Way and all other religions are to be oppressed and/or abolished.
Ex: representatives of a democratically elected republic decide that cannibalism is the One True Path to Enlightenment. You are now food.
Ex: representatives of a democratically elected republic decide that certain "other" races, religions and sexual orientations are subhuman, and have no rights (not even to live).
Ex: representatives of a democratically elected republic decide to launch a Crusade to reclaim a relic or holy land or to smite the infidels.
Ex: representatives of a democratically elected republic decide that 1. women should be covered head-to-toe in public, and 2. women should walk 3 feet behind their man.
Ex: representatives of a democratically elected republic decide that Religion X is the One True Way and all other religions are to be oppressed and/or abolished.
Ex: representatives of a democratically elected republic decide that cannibalism is the One True Path to Enlightenment. You are now food.
Ex: representatives of a democratically elected republic decide that certain "other" races, religions and sexual orientations are subhuman, and have no rights (not even to live).
Ex: representatives of a democratically elected republic decide to launch a Crusade to reclaim a relic or holy land or to smite the infidels.
ojibweindian
Member
Religion shapes a person's perceptions of morality and ethics, which shapes interpretation, understanding, and application of law and policy.
There is no way to keep religion out of the government. One should keep government out of religion.
Last time I was in court (as a juror), the witnesses were asked to "swear or affirm". Didn't see a bible anywhere.
TV lies.
Cellar Dweller,
Judeo-Christian ethic shaped our nation. Just because other groups also consider "Do not murder", "Do not bear false witness" etc to be pretty good ideas doesn't change thier source, nor are they universal beliefs. Does that mean we shouldn't have such laws?
Religion is a touchy thing. Best left to individuals to practice on their own without government involvment where they aren't harming others.
Well said!
Dorrin79
Member
Markos:
Thanks, Markos. Every time a Constitutional rights question comes up I try to make that point, but it seems like no one ever listens.
State laws CANNOT violate any of the rights established in the BoR.
As for my personal opinion - I'm an athiest. I think most religions are kinda silly. But I really don't care if everyone else subscribes to one or more of them. I'm also not likely to get upset over city hall nativity scenes, "under god" in the Pledge, etc. Seems pretty harmless. So long as the government isn't ordering me to join a church, or telling other people they can't join one, I'm probably not going to get irritated about it.
Call it the "no harm, no foul" principle.
I do have a problem with churches being tax-exempt, though. If the gov't is going to charge me and various non-religious organizations taxes, they should charge churches too.
Thanks, Markos. Every time a Constitutional rights question comes up I try to make that point, but it seems like no one ever listens.
State laws CANNOT violate any of the rights established in the BoR.
As for my personal opinion - I'm an athiest. I think most religions are kinda silly. But I really don't care if everyone else subscribes to one or more of them. I'm also not likely to get upset over city hall nativity scenes, "under god" in the Pledge, etc. Seems pretty harmless. So long as the government isn't ordering me to join a church, or telling other people they can't join one, I'm probably not going to get irritated about it.
Call it the "no harm, no foul" principle.
I do have a problem with churches being tax-exempt, though. If the gov't is going to charge me and various non-religious organizations taxes, they should charge churches too.
AZLibertarian
Member
ojibweindian
Very well said, and what I meant earlier. I hope you won't mind if I keep this and quote it elsewhere.
Very well said, and what I meant earlier. I hope you won't mind if I keep this and quote it elsewhere.
Keith
Member
When in doubt, read the damned document!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... "
That's what it says on the subject, and that's all it says. There's nothing here about a right not to be made to feel "foreign, or strange" when somebody else practices their religion. Just suck it up and be a man, fer crisakes - show a little tolerance!
I would certainly feel "foreign and strange" if I lived in Little Haiti and my neighbor waved dead chickens around and chanted late at night. But I know damned well that I don't have a "right" not to feel "uncomfortable" because he has a different lifestyle or practices a different religion. It's none of my business.
I have a right to practice or not practice religion. I don't have the right to tell someone else what, when or how they practice their religion.
Government is prohibited from both establishing a state religion, and from interfering in the free exercise of religion.
Beyond that, the founders had nothing to say about the subject, so suck it up!
Keith
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... "
That's what it says on the subject, and that's all it says. There's nothing here about a right not to be made to feel "foreign, or strange" when somebody else practices their religion. Just suck it up and be a man, fer crisakes - show a little tolerance!
I would certainly feel "foreign and strange" if I lived in Little Haiti and my neighbor waved dead chickens around and chanted late at night. But I know damned well that I don't have a "right" not to feel "uncomfortable" because he has a different lifestyle or practices a different religion. It's none of my business.
I have a right to practice or not practice religion. I don't have the right to tell someone else what, when or how they practice their religion.
Government is prohibited from both establishing a state religion, and from interfering in the free exercise of religion.
Beyond that, the founders had nothing to say about the subject, so suck it up!
Keith
ojibweindian
Member
AZL
Be my guest!
Be my guest!
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
I completely agree. However, I think that most, if not all of the "contentious" issues regarding church and state are about using public funds or resources to practice or promote a religion.
The question could be rephrased as follows: If you don't have the right to tell someone else what, when or how to practice their religion...do they have a right to use public monies or property to practice it? In other words, can you use my tax dollars to practice your religion, and vice versa?
I have no issue with anyone expressing or celebrating their religion, as long as they don't reach into the tax pot to do so. That includes using public property, if equal access is not granted to every other faith group as well.
What ojibweindian said!
I would sympathize with those currently on the "Separation of Church and State" bandwagon if it were being done from a Libertarian perspective, especially if government harassment of religious establishments in the other direction was similarly curtailed.
Unfortunately, those on such rampages are hardly doing so out of a concern for social or political liberty. They are merely fronts and masks for other agendas that are ultimately at cross-purposes with Libertarianism.
A libertarian would probably look a a town hall nativity scene, and as long as it wasn't paid for with his money, and wasn't being used to coerce him in any manner (simply being there, and visible, isn't enough), he probably wouldn't care very much one way or another.
Campaigning against public religious iconography is usually one of two things: Either a convenient front for the exercise of undue control over others, or a manifestation of deep-seated insecurity in one's own beliefs (or non-beliefs).
But that's true about lots of "campaigns" right now. The desire for control and the masking of insecurity are cornerstones of most.
I think that's why Libertarians seem to tick almost everyone else off on the poitical left and right, they desire to control as little as possible, and they're very secure with themselves to want it that way.
I would sympathize with those currently on the "Separation of Church and State" bandwagon if it were being done from a Libertarian perspective, especially if government harassment of religious establishments in the other direction was similarly curtailed.
Unfortunately, those on such rampages are hardly doing so out of a concern for social or political liberty. They are merely fronts and masks for other agendas that are ultimately at cross-purposes with Libertarianism.
A libertarian would probably look a a town hall nativity scene, and as long as it wasn't paid for with his money, and wasn't being used to coerce him in any manner (simply being there, and visible, isn't enough), he probably wouldn't care very much one way or another.
Campaigning against public religious iconography is usually one of two things: Either a convenient front for the exercise of undue control over others, or a manifestation of deep-seated insecurity in one's own beliefs (or non-beliefs).
But that's true about lots of "campaigns" right now. The desire for control and the masking of insecurity are cornerstones of most.
I think that's why Libertarians seem to tick almost everyone else off on the poitical left and right, they desire to control as little as possible, and they're very secure with themselves to want it that way.
Keith
Member
No, of course not. The federal government can provide for the common defense, establish post offices and post roads, etc; Article 1, Section 8.
Those powers not granted are reserved to the people and the states (10th Amendment).
A local or state government has wider discretion, but they still can not (in theory) violate civil rights identified in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution itself. Now, the 1st Amendment only says congress can not "establish" a religion.
Is a generic religious monument establishing a religion? I don't think so, in most cases. This brouhaha over the ten commandments is kind of silly - Moses Law is recognized by THREE major religions - Judaic, Christian and Moslem... It's hard to see how that "establishes" a particular religion.
Keith
- Status