Christian fundamentalists plot against the US Constitution

[Rev. Rye]

So, fundamentalist Christians are essentially plotting against the Constitution. So what else is new?

[robvalue]

This stuff is incredibly scary, and I agree it's not something to be taken lightly or ignored. Religion has no place in politics, and everyone should band together against this (including those religious people who are with this stance).

What I don't get is the contradiction between claiming to have an omnipotent God on your team, and whining that the laws of man have to be a certain way in order for God to be able to do what he wants to do. Surely if God wants something done, it happens. If he's instead leaving it up to us, then we should use our damn brains.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've asked for many years what use God has for mortal law.

[GoHalos1993]

I don't personally believe that Christians are specifically out to take down the Constitution, but I do think that many of them are uneducated on it.

[robvalue]

I think many are out to take out the constitution as it applies to Christianity, but would wildy fight against any such concessions to other religions. The hypocrisy is astounding.

[jenny1972]

I think many are out to take out the constitution as it applies to Christianity, but would wildy fight against any such concessions to other religions. The hypocrisy is astounding.

right christians are all for separation of church and state when it comes to other religions but when it comes to Christianity they dont believe there should be separation of church and state there was an article a while back about the 10 commandments being taken down from a public building and the satanic temple said well thats ok you can keep it as long as we can put up a statue of satan next to it , the christian group declined the offer lol so maybe they realized hey im not the only religion in this country maybe separation of church and state is a good thing hmmm . but with majority of extremist christians in power and extremist christian lawmakers i suppose they could exclude other religions from having equal rights as their religion which is basically what a theocracy is it has nothing to do with religious rights just rights for a certain religion .

[LostLocke]

I've seen the original handwritten US Constitution (copies, I mean) and it's so nearly illegible, I'm not sure anyone could 'plot against it', as no one knows what it says.  For example - as near as I can make out - the Second Amendment appears to be a recipe for apple crumble, and the President's only official duty is to 'blow the Horn Of Cheese', not further explained.

Boru

If the Constitution did have that recipe, and the Presidency did somehow involve 'Horns of Cheese', I think the US would be in a far better state today.

[robvalue]

It's a real shame that the phrase "separation of church and state" has caught on so much, because it heavily implies actual churches. What it really means is religion, not churches; any religion. Christianity, or any religion that happens to have churches, is not supposed to have any special treatment or endorsement over those that don't.

[jenny1972]

It's a real shame that the phrase "separation of church and state" has caught on so much, because it heavily implies actual churches. What it really means is religion, not churches; any religion. Christianity, or any religion that happens to have churches, is not supposed to have any special treatment or endorsement over those that don't.

yea hopefully the christians dont use their awesome power of interpretation to interpret the Constitution ( well technically you dont have a real church so its ok to discriminate against you as it is written ) please christians i we definately think it best that interpretation should be done by people who are not religious ...

[TheRocketSurgeon]

This is why to fear them:

Your response creates an interesting set of conundrums for atheists.

Firstly, your view that "If Christianity is true, then it still should not influence culture, as this is a secular nation." This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what secularism is, and its status in the light of the truth of Christianity. Secularism does not entail that religion should have no influence on culture. Rather, strictly speaking, secularism entails that religion should have no influence on the state. This means governance should not be influenced by religion. It says nothing of culture in general, and secularism of the state is perfectly compatible with a highly religious, and highly-religiously-expressive citizenry. So you're operating under an idiosyncratic definition of secularism.

Second, if Christianity is true, then it must be true that there is an afterlife, so to speak. And one's well-being in the afterlife and relationship with God is of utmost importance. Someone who concedes that Christianity is true (even for the sake of argument), will have to concede (once again, for the sake of argument) that the latter two theological notions follow. In fact, one might make the claim that it is an ethical obligation to care for one's afterlife and relationship with God. Thus for an atheist to hold that Christianity is true AND Christianity ought not to have any influence on society is unethical and irresponsible towards one's citizenry, to the same extent that preventing people from access to healthcare and freedom, and the pursuit of happiness would be unethical and irresponsible in our current system.

So there are two big problems for your view: Secularism doesn't entail what you believe it does, and you are endorsing an unethical and irresponsible position that harms the citizenry. What can you do to resolve these two problems? Here are what seems to be your two options:

1) You either affirm the view that religion should have no influence on culture (perhaps you can call this view hypersecularism, as it is much stronger than conventional secularism), or you can reject the view that religion should have no influence on culture, and endorse ordinary secularism.

2) You have to either reject ethics (in which case you are permitted to harm the citizenry by constraining Christian cultural influence even if it is true), or you can affirm ethics and allow a cultural place for Christianity, given its truth.

There are more questions to raise, obviously. One concerns the worth of secularism in a world where Christianity is true. Another is the question of the reason and evidence motivating secularism in the real world. Yet another is the question of what normative standards are being assumed without argument when one says Christianity ought not x, culture and society ought to y, etc. 

I replaced "Christianity" with "Islam" and "Christian" with "Muslim" in my reply to him, to show him why that statement is Not Okay™.