<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>I hate to disagree with the hero of some
of this lists members but, this is ass backwards. I seem to recall that
early on in the little experiment that is this country the thinking was that God
grants us certain unalienable rights and that governments are instituted among
men to help secure these rights. When the government becomes destructive to
these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. The principle
that secures American religious freedom is that it's Divinely bestowed. Placing
God and religion subordinate to country is akin to making the master subordinate
to the servant. As an atheist, is the theory that all our rights are
bestowed on us by the benign benevolence of the blessed
government?</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=starbliss@gmail.com href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">Ted Moffett</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, September 07, 2008 12:32
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Daniel C. Dennett
On Separation of Church And State</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/daniel_c_dennett/2006/12/a_pledge_of_allegiance.html">http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/daniel_c_dennett/2006/12/a_pledge_of_allegiance.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Daniel C. Dennett</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Co-Director, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Daniel C. Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and
Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, at Tufts University. His most
recent book was <EM>Breaking the Spell</EM> (2006). </DIV>
<DIV>
<H2 id=archive-title>Protecting Democracy Comes Before Promoting Faith</H2>
<DIV class=entry id=entry-28384>
<DIV class=entry-content>
<DIV class=entry-body>
<P>This week's question could not be more important. Events around the world
in recent years amply demonstrate that the religious freedom we enjoy in the
United States is one of the essential building blocks of our democracy.
</P></DIV>
<DIV class=entry-more id=more>
<P>What we tend to lose sight of, however, is the price we must pay for this
religious freedom: we must commit ourselves to the First Amendment principle
of separation of church and state <EM>even when the principle works against
the interests of our particular religion.</EM></P>
<P>"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This wise maxim, applied to the First
Amendment principle of the separation of church and state, has permitted the
principle to drift into disrepair. People are encouraged to think that while
there may be all sorts of borderline cases and vexing conundrums about just
where to draw the line, examining them will only arouse anxiety and
discord--so let's just cover everything with a fine fog of pious, presumed
consensus. We all honor the First Amendment and that's that, and that's fine.
So it would be, if it weren't for the steady pressure of those who would
exploit our benign neglect, encroaching gradually on what makes the principle
work–to the extent that it does. <BR><BR>For instance, the Christian
conservatives in the country who wish to declare that this is a Christian
nation are becoming bolder and bolder in their willingness to impose their own
viewpoint on those who disagree. Fortunately, there are the beginnings of an
organized resistence to this takeover, such as the <A
href="http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/pp.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=447561"><FONT
color=#0e7890>Interfaith Alliance</FONT></A>, chaired by Walter Cronkite. I
enthusiastically support this effort, even though I am myself an atheist.
Atheism is one of the live rails of American politics-touch it and you're
toast. Fair enough. Those are the current facts of life. Not so long ago, you
couldn't be elected if you were Catholic, or Jewish, or African-American. But
shouldn't we install another live rail, on the opposite side of the religious
spectrum? </P>
<P>It ought to be just as much a fact of life that anybody who declares that
their allegiance to their religion comes before their allegiance to democracy
is simply unelectable. Fifty years ago President Eisenhower nominated Charles
E. Wilson, then president of General Motors, as his Secretary of Defense. At
the nomination hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Wilson was
asked to sell his shares in General Motors, but he objected. When asked if his
continued stake in General Motors mightn't unduly sway his judgment, he
replied: "For years, I thought what was good for the country was good for
General Motors and vice versa." Some in the press, unsatisfied with this
response, stressed only the second half of his response--"What's good for
General Motors is good for the country"-and in response to the ensuing furor,
Wilson was forced to sell his stock in order to win the nomination. </P>
<P>Substitute "The American Baptist Church" or "The Roman Catholic Church" for
"General Motors" and ask yourself whether you want candidates who waffle on
this score to lead the nation. Even if it is true, as Wilson opined, that
other things being equal, what's good for GM is good for the country, people
wanted to know which way he'd lean in the perhaps rare cases where he had to
choose between what was good for the country and what was good for his
corporation. They wanted him to put General Motors firmly in second place, and
we want our politicians to put the welfare of the nation ahead of the welfare
of their religion as well. If they won't make a solemn pledge about this, we
should worry.</P>
<P>Consider the situation in Turkey. There are radical Islamic groups intent
on using the democratic process to vote in an Islamic state that would then
throw away the ladder and abolish democracy, replacing it with theocracy. What
should be done about this is not at all obvious. If the people democratically
vote to demolish democracy, isn't this just like a club voting itself out of
existence? It would be the will of the majority, after all. In Algeria, harsh
measures were taken in 1992 to avoid just such a democratic self-annihilation,
with a vicious civil war resulting. In Turkey, such a calamity has been
averted, or at least postponed. In 1996, an Islamic party won control, but the
vigorous secularist reaction soon led to the resignation of the prime
minister. A moderate Islamic party is now in power, and it has wisely
restrained itself from any attempt to impose Islam on the nation, committing
itself to preserving the secularism of the state.</P>
<P>In the United States, the problem is no less real for being less dramatic:
There are many deeply religious people who believe that they may
democratically impose more and more of their creed on the nation, by simply
exercising their First Amendment rights to free expression and creating
thereby a climate of opinion that renders opposition by secularists
politically ineffective. This is a grave danger to democracy, more subversive,
in fact, than anything Al Qaeda threatens.</P>
<P>Many of us believe that American democracy is the best hope of the world,
that it provides the most secure and reliable–though hardly foolproof–platform
on the planet for improving human welfare. If it tumbles, the whole world is
in deep trouble. We therefore put the securing of American democracy–America's
secular democracy, with separation of church and state–at the very top of our
list of priorities.</P>
<P>That is something worth giving our lives for, if it comes to that, but only
because, and so long as, we continue to believe that America plays this role
of political lifeboat for Planet Earth. Isn't this what America asks of all of
us? If so, then we must each ask ourselves: do we put the welfare of the
nation above the welfare of our particular religion? If you cannot answer Yes
to that question, you should consider that you are not a good American, but a
part of the problem: you are taking advantage of American religious freedom
without being prepared to pledge your support to the principle that secures
it. </P>
<P>We are currently asking the Shiites and Sunnis of Iraq to put their
allegiance to their nation ahead of their allegiance to their religion. We
must surely ask ourselves, and especially our political leaders, to make the
same solemn commitment.</P>
<P>-----------------------------------------</P>
<P>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>