The Downside of the State “Speaking” About Religion

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. As a lifelong student of religious worldviews, I largely agree (although I’ve not read the book) with this reply to Brettschneider.

    However, regarding “The Moral Majority is dead; so are the Black Panthers:”

    The Black Panthers are Dead. Long Live the Black Panthers!—Joshua Bloom and Waldo E. Martin, Jr., Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party (University of California Press, 2013)

  2. Jimbino says:

    No atheist could agree with this post.

    Atheists are hunted in Muslim countries and disparaged in Amerika. We scientists—almost all atheists===fortunately control the WMDs need to secure our futures, as did Nazi von Braun. But we are assailed on all fronts.

    Marriage is a religious exercise, even a sacrament among Roman Catholics. Scientists, humanists, rationalists and others do not care to participate in marriage and other silly religious rituals except to gain those immigration, inheritance and tax benefits conditioned upon such superstitious exercises.

    Moments of prayer are an abomination, being nothing more than religion by other means. Religion and superstition, whether in the form of RC ritual or yoga, needs to be identified and combated as the enemy of liberty that they are.

    Tax deductions and PPACA deference to religious superstition needs to be denounced as kowtowing to superstition. Better to eliminate PPACA, of course, as an affront to freedom of everyone, but in the meantime the RC church and others deserve no special deference.

  3. Joe says:

    I have read/heard from time to time that ‘marriage’ is some sort of ‘religious’ exercise.

    Marriage has various components, including those dear to the individual couples, and one does not need to believe in God to think so. It is not a “religious exercise.” It is something that some carry out in a religious way.

    Many a ‘humanist’ or ‘scientist’ have had marriage ceremonies, special events not inherently religious. I put aside the more open-ended meaning that is expressed by some, including Ronald Dworkin in a work that hopefully will be published posthumously.

  4. Nancy D. says:

    Professor Horwitz, I suppose if it was the intention of our Founding Fathers to establish a secular State, they would not have held that our inherent, unalienable Rights have been endowed to us from God, and thus desire to protect our Religious Liberty, for one cannot separate the spirit of the Law, from the body of the Law, without changing the very essence of the Law, to begin with.