President Carter -The Presidency And Faith

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20051212/religionlede10.art.htm

"All Christians will remember Jesus' admonition to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's,” and Thomas Jefferson advised us to build a wall between church and state. Commensurate with this historic restraint, most Americans have considered it proper for private citizens to influence public policy, but not for a religious group to align itself with a political party or attempt to control the processes of a democratic government. Neither has it been considered proper for public officials to interfere in religious affairs or to use public persuasion, laws or tax revenue to favor certain religious institutions.

While maintaining these barriers between religion and politics, America's political leaders can exemplify commitments to peace, economic and political justice, the alleviation of suffering and the enhancement of human rights."

 

[nbcrusader]

Why is it that most groups can align themselves with a political party or attempt to control the processes of a democratic government, but a religious group should not? (Aside from the desired result of some that religion never leave a church).

This is far from the establishment of a state religion, and impinges on the free speech of religious bodies.

 

[Irvine511]

Why is it that most groups can align themselves with a political party or attempt to control the processes of a democratic government, but a religious group should not? (Aside from the desired result of some that religion never leave a church).

This is far from the establishment of a state religion, and impinges on the free speech of religious bodies.

then churches should give up their tax-exempt status, for starters. churches can exercise all the free political free speech they want -- they will just cease to be churches as we currently understand them, and if you talk to people in southeastern Ohio which was just plagued by gay marriages in late 2004, then many of these churches have become PACs themselves.

but, really, just what are you talking about? churches and religious groups make political statements and wield political influence ALL THE TIME and they get government hand-outs in the form of "faith-based initiatives" that often become little more than hand-outs for prosthetyzing activities.

American Christians are, by far, the best protected, most well-cared for, most coddled members of any religion anywhere on earth.

 

[nathan1977]

The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Define "free exercise". If it means acting on the integrity of your belief system, which is what it means for many who follow their faith (no matter what religion), then there's a conflict here somewhere...

 

[Irvine511]

The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Define "free exercise". If it means acting on the integrity of your belief system, which is what it means for many who follow their faith (no matter what religion), then there's a conflict here somewhere...

how and where is the first amendment being violated?

please elucidate or give an example of this conflict, for i fail to see one at this point.

if churches want to give up their tax exempt status and function as political organizations, they are free to do so.

fortunately, many of them have found ways to do this through the creation of groups like Focus on the Family, the Concerned Women for America, and many other groups that use the "i am telling you to do something because God told me to tell you to do some thing" line of logic in order to get their followers to vote in a particular manner. this is, i think, what Carter was talking about. it's one thing for someone to examine their belief system every time they vote; it's quite another for pamphlets delinating where the candidates stand on issues and how one should vote if one is a member of a particular religion.

 

[Utoo]

The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Define "free exercise". If it means acting on the integrity of your belief system, which is what it means for many who follow their faith (no matter what religion), then there's a conflict here somewhere...

The problem in "acting on the integrity of your belief system" arises when one thinks that other people should (or must) subscribe to the same belief system. Unfortunately, many people who act out of a religioun-based belief system--and it seems like there are increasing numbers of such people gaining and using political power in the US today--appear to believe that their belief systems are "correct" and that other belief systems are not. (Of course, right? If you think that your beliefs are what "God" "wants," then surely your beliefs must be "right." (wrong.) ).

If you truly believe in and practice biblical principles (or principles of most religions, for that matter), then you would understand the importance and necessity of recognizing, accepting, and respecting (not simply "tolerating") the existence and exercise of other belief systems. If, instead, you choose to champion the portions of religious texts that promote the closed-minded ideals of political figures or societies from a few thousand years ago, then go ahead and live believing that your own ideas are the absolute truth, just as those other figures did.

Essentially, a free society must balance both the "Freedom To" and the "Freedom From"----your freedom to exercise your beliefs, and my freedom from being subjected to your beliefs. It is the safety of people's right to a "freedom from"---and, ultimately, the "freedom to"---that is preserved by keeping religion out of politics.

 

[nbcrusader]

then churches should give up their tax-exempt status, for starters. churches can exercise all the free political free speech they want -- they will just cease to be churches as we currently understand them, and if you talk to people in southeastern Ohio which was just plagued by gay marriages in late 2004, then many of these churches have become PACs themselves.

I would support examination and revocation of any charitable organization that engages in impermissable political advocacy. For the most part, however, churches (and there are tens of thousands of them) do not engage in political advocacy.

 

[nbcrusader]

Essentially, a free society must balance both the "Freedom To" and the "Freedom From"----your freedom to exercise your beliefs, and my freedom from being subjected to your beliefs. It is the safety of people's right to a "freedom from"---and, ultimately, the "freedom to"---that is preserved by keeping religion out of politics.

Actually, you are dead wrong on this. If we engage this idea to be "free from" expressions of belief, we would completely erase the concept of free speech.

Beliefs influence politics from all angles. Parties are developed to express beliefs, whether on a broad basis, or to advance a very narrow set of beliefs.

 

[Irvine511]

I would support examination and revocation of any charitable organization that engages in impermissable political advocacy. For the most part, however, churches (and there are tens of thousands of them) do not engage in political advocacy.

so what's your question then?

in the past, the Catholic Church was aligned with the Democrats and Southern Baptists are aligned with the GOP, though that arises more from church culture than directives from the pulpit (with exceptions, i'm sure).

what is the violation of your freedom of expression of religion?

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess your question would be for Jimmy Carter.

 

[Irvine511]

I guess your question would be for Jimmy Carter.

i understand what Jimmy Carter is saying.

i don't understand where your question came from? how did Jimmy Carter prompt that?

nor do i understand what is upsetting Nathan1977.

 

[nbcrusader]

My question was posted as my initial reply. Carter is making a statement, but does not explain why religious beliefs should be singled out for exclusion from the political process.

 

[Utoo]

Actually, you are dead wrong on this. If we engage this idea to be "free from" expressions of belief, we would completely erase the concept of free speech.

Beliefs influence politics from all angles. Parties are developed to express beliefs, whether on a broad basis, or to advance a very narrow set of beliefs.

While I agree with your statement on parties, I disagree with your first statement. I don't see the world in such clear black and white. The principles behind a "freedom to" and a "freedom from" are interrelated. The right to express either, and perhaps the inherent principle behind the arguments of freedom and free speech, etc., is due to choice--perhaps one of the most discussed biblical dilemmas, if we want to speak in terms of religion here. One has the opportunity to choose to express his or her opinions publicly, and one has the opportunity to choose not to listen---the first person exercising "freedom to," and the second exercising "freedom from."

I absolutely agree that if the "freedom from" becomes "my freedom from you expressing yourself at all" instead of one's own freedom to not listen, then the "freedom from" has gone too far---it has quashed the "freedom to." This does not have to happen just to respect the "freedom from"---notice the distinction I have made-----the change goes from exercising the "freedom from" by one's own act (not listening) to silencing another's act (expressing oneself). If this leap is not made, then a "freedom from" can be safely respected and supported without harming the "freedom to"--free speech, etc.

The people who exercise "freedom to" can just as easily quash the "freedom from." This, unfortunately, is the very potential dilemma when religious groups & others who strongly believe that their one way is "right" have such enormous sway in politics, as we are seeing today. The "freedom to"---free speech, the right to practice one's beliefs, etc.---is fine & wonderful when it remains one's own "freedom to." However, when one's own expressed values become enacted into law, by which all must abide, then that person's "freedom to" has thus quashed others' "freedom from" practicing the first person's beliefs.

True, this happens all the time in politics & law. People are made to follow rules that they may not want to in order to make society function. This is fine & dandy when the rules are practical in nature. The problem arises when the rules become faith-based in nature or are based on one group's particular "moral values." This is when my right to a "freedom to" express my moral values----equal to my "freedom from" me expressing your moral values----becomes jeapordized, as you have made your moral values law.

As I said, a free society has the enormous burden of protecting both the freedom to & the freedom from. While difficult, the balance can and must be made.

You'll note that I say "unfortunately" in my 3rd paragraph because I do recognize that a good deal of values and moral beliefs that are based in faith or spirituality are pretty good, positive values. There are those, however, that are not (IMO, of course, as some believe in them). The problem comes when any of these beliefs are forced---especially by law---on those who may not want to subscribe to them.

 

[nathan1977]

i understand what Jimmy Carter is saying.

i don't understand where your question came from? how did Jimmy Carter prompt that?

nor do i understand what is upsetting Nathan1977.

I don't recall saying I was upset.

Just posing another question.

 

[nbcrusader]

The people who exercise "freedom to" can just as easily quash the "freedom from." This, unfortunately, is the very potential dilemma when religious groups & others who strongly believe that their one way is "right" have such enormous sway in politics, as we are seeing today. The "freedom to"---free speech, the right to practice one's beliefs, etc.---is fine & wonderful when it remains one's own "freedom to." However, when one's own expressed values become enacted into law, by which all must abide, then that person's "freedom to" has thus quashed others' "freedom from" practicing the first person's beliefs.

I understand where you are going, but this may be as much, or more of a problem for the listener, than the speaker.

I would guess that every one of us believes that their way is the "right" way. If I believed someone else's way was the "right" way, would it not be the rational choice to adopt their way, instead of maintaining my own "not right" way?

As for enactment into law, I think we've created a false dilemma to suggest that if a law is enacted, and it mirrors the religious beliefs of a group, then the law must be religiously motivated. The "religious right" represents a minority in this country. Yet, many laws supported by the religious right also get support from other groups. It could be easily argued that the law enacted is not imposition of one person's religious belief, but the enactment of a general belief shared by a larger group of people. For example, the Bible says, "do not steal". We would not consider an anti-theft law a religious law. It has a far broader appeal. And we can incorporate moral values into our laws without creating a religious law.

To adopt a “freedom from” approach is a dangerous principle if you are willing to treat it as a guiding principle. Otherwise, it becomes a subjective tool to say, “keep your religion out of politics” which seems to be the Carter’s statement.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Otherwise, it becomes a subjective tool to say, “keep your religion out of politics” which seems to be the Carter’s statement.

My impression is that he's saying it's perfectly natural (and morally right in many cases) for one's religious beliefs to influence one's political decisions, but that a certain balance has to be maintained. You have to operate within certain constraints (and the law, the Supreme Court rulings, etc) while continuing to hold on to your personal beliefs. You are representing constituents and their views aren't always going to be yours. Of course individuals and individual politicians have varying ideas as to what a proper balance is.

I think he's also saying that it's important to look beyond your beliefs in some cases and find "creative" solutions to problems when the law conflicts w/ your beliefs-such as the adoption work he mentioned. You have to be flexible in that way or you'll get stuck so to speak. Some politicians can get so focused on their personal religious beliefs that they can't see the forest through the trees. I could say Rick Santorum is one example of that but I would never do that

 

[nbcrusader]

My impression is that he's saying it's perfectly natural (and morally right in many cases) for one's religious beliefs to influence one's political decisions, but that a certain balance has to be maintained. You have to operate within certain constraints (and the law, the Supreme Court rulings, etc) while continuing to hold on to your personal beliefs. You are representing constituents and their views aren't always going to be yours. Of course individuals and individual politicians have varying ideas as to what a proper balance is.

Well, I think this is the real issue involved. When we say a "certain balance must be maintained," there are those who would say there is too much religious influence and those who would say there is too little religious influence.

We are still far far away from a "Church of England" in the US, which was the target of the Establishment Clause.

 

[Irvine511]

My question was posted as my initial reply. Carter is making a statement, but does not explain why religious beliefs should be singled out for exclusion from the political process.

are they?

and do you not think that the secular state needs to defend itself from the undue influence of religion -- due to religion's thoroughly unique characteristics -- than it might from secular, distinctly political groups or affiliations?

 

[melon]

You know the rules. Muslim countries are supposed to be secular. Christian countries are supposed to be Christian. Don't rock the boat!

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

and do you not think that the secular state needs to defend itself from the undue influence of religion -- due to religion's thoroughly unique characteristics -- than it might from secular, distinctly political groups or affiliations?

I'm not sure the "thoroughly unique characteristics" to the extent they exist would justify disparate treatment. Your statement could easily be viewed, as "I want my agenda to be heard, and yours to be silenced."

Could you explain the thoroughly unique characteristics and why they would justify different treatment?

 

[Irvine511]

i've said it before and i'll say it again -- there is something about the unique nature of religion that, to me, makes it far, far more suspect than ... i would say "it's equivalents" but there are no equivalents to religion. religion presents absolutes, right-and-wrong, death, god, life-after-death, and demands adherence to an authority that supercedes anything to be found on earth.

as such, it's influence must be kept in absolute check at all times. for it is the prevention of religion from taking over the state, or turing the state from a secular model occupied and organized by believers into a theocratic modeled occupied and organized by a particular brand of believers that maintains the richness and diversity of religious life in this country.

i will come out and say it: fewer things make me more nervous than religion, and the "full expression" of religion might, in some eyes, involve stoning me to death or chopping off my head (i.e., Iran).

and i don't think we're as far away as you think we might be from a theocracy, and i would argue that it would take the atheist or the agonstic or the religious minority to be the best judge of the theocratic impulses of any society rather than a member of the majority religion who sees so much in his belief system reflected so thoroughly in the everyday life of the country.

 

[Irvine511]

Could you explain the thoroughly unique characteristics and why they would justify different treatment?

i just did below.

and, as always, i'll pull out my favorite quote:



[q]From the first moment I looked into that horror on Sept. 11, into that fireball, into that explosion of horror, I knew it. I knew it before anything was said about those who did it or why. I recognized an old companion. I recognized religion. Look, I am a priest for over 30 years. Religion is my life, it's my vocation, it's my existence. I'd give my life for it; I hope to have the courage. Therefore, I know it.

And I know, and recognized that day, that the same force, energy, sense, instinct, whatever, passion -- because religion can be a passion -- the same passion that motivates religious people to do great things is the same one that that day brought all that destruction. When they said that the people who did it did it in the name of God, I wasn't the slightest bit surprised. It only confirmed what I knew. I recognized it.

I recognized this thirst, this demand for the absolute. Because if you don't hang on to the unchanging, to the absolute, to that which cannot disappear, you might disappear. I recognized that this thirst for the never-ending, the permanent, the wonders of all things, this intolerance or fear of diversity, that which is different -- these are characteristics of religion. And I knew that that force could take you to do great things. But I knew that there was no greater and more destructive force on the surface of this earth than the religious passion.

My friends in the business, religious leaders, we all took to the streets to try to salvage something of it. Funny, suddenly every government official became a religious leader, reassuring us that all religions are for peace. I understand. It was embarrassing. And now I think we have a religious duty to face this ambivalence about religion, and to do something about it. To promote that which makes it a constructive force and to protect us from that which makes it a destructive force. ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/faith/interviews/albacete.html

[/q]

 

[nbcrusader]

i've said it before and i'll say it again -- there is something about the unique nature of religion that, to me, makes it far, far more suspect than ... i would say "it's equivalents" but there are no equivalents to religion. religion presents absolutes, right-and-wrong, death, god, life-after-death, and demands adherence to an authority that supercedes anything to be found on earth.

as such, it's influence must be kept in absolute check at all times. for it is the prevention of religion from taking over the state, or turing the state from a secular model occupied and organized by believers into a theocratic modeled occupied and organized by a particular brand of believers that maintains the richness and diversity of religious life in this country.

i will come out and say it: fewer things make me more nervous than religion, and the "full expression" of religion might, in some eyes, involve stoning me to death or chopping off my head (i.e., Iran).

and i don't think we're as far away as you think we might be from a theocracy, and i would argue that it would take the atheist or the agonstic or the religious minority to be the best judge of the theocratic impulses of any society rather than a member of the majority religion who sees so much in his belief system reflected so thoroughly in the everyday life of the country.

I was hoping for a little more. The belief in absolutes crosses all groups, even those who declare that "all things are relative". Thus, it would not be appropriate to single out religion for the "must be kept in absolute check at all times". That sound like your own form of oppression. You would become what you are trying to prevent.

As for the best judge of a theocracy, I'm not sure an atheist or the agonstic or the religious minority would necessarily give the objective answer when they would have their own belief systems or political agendas to advance.

 

[Irvine511]

I was hoping for a little more. The belief in absolutes crosses all groups, even those who declare that "all things are relative". Thus, it would not be appropriate to single out religion for the "must be kept in absolute check at all times". That sound like your own form of oppression. You would become what you are trying to prevent.

As for the best judge of a theocracy, I'm not sure an atheist or the agonstic or the religious minority would necessarily give the objective answer when they would have their own belief systems or political agendas to advance.

no. you miss the main point if you compare an absolute belief with belief in the Absolute.

 

[melon]

I also don't think that the Religious Right has particularly thought about the consequences if they get the "Christian country" that they desire. In every instance in Western society, a theocratic government inevitably gives way to an outright hatred of religion in a generation or two.

Why do you think Roman Catholicism is in a sharp decline in all of its traditional haunts? Because every government that shoved Catholicism down its throat has now created the most liberal and secular populations ever. The French have wanted absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism since the French Revolution. Quebec, as recently as the 1940s-1960s, was virtually controlled by the Catholic Church, and now the province is staunchly anti-religious. Spain, after Franco, has also rapidly retreated from Catholicism.

So, sure, groups like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition might be enjoying their grab at nationwide domination, but if history is any guide, this nation will become completely disgusted with Christianity and drop it completely. America certainly has done it before: following the fall of Puritanism and the aftermath of the American Revolution (with the disassembly of the Church of England), America was very hostile to conservative interpretations of Christianity. Maybe too much time has passed and too many lessons lost for us to prevent history from repeating itself. The allure of short-term gain always outweighs the wisdom of long-term stability.

Melon

 

[Utoo]

Nbcrusader, You make some very good points. I still disagree, however, with your thoughts on the "freedom from." Who knows--perhaps it's just semantics. See, I would say not that it's a dangerous principle if it's a guiding principle---rather, it's dangerous if it's theguiding principle. To be kept in check, the "freedom to" principle must be kept at an equal weight. The same is true the other way around. It can be just as dangerous to use "freedom to" as the guiding principle, rather than a guiding principle.

"Freedom from" is extremely important-----a "freedom from" persecution, bigotry, slavery, violence, etc., is imperative.

The example that you provided---"Do not steal"---is essentially rooted in a "freedom from." My freedom from losing my property overrides your freedom to take it. That is an example of a from/to imbalance that is necessary for practical reasons.

I think what may not have been made clear in my argument before is that both the from & the to are two sides of the same coin. My freedom to keep all my property = my freedom from you stealing my property. I'm not saying my freedom to practice my beliefs = my freedom from having to tolerate yours. Instead, I'm saying that my freedom to practice my beliefs = my freedom from having to practice yours.

It is that latter principle that is jeopardized with religion-swayed politics. Let's face it---the religious right isn't weighing in on issues like "do not steal." Things like that are practical issues, upon which, like you said, we can all agree. The religious right is weighing in on "moral" issues. Take, for instance, the issue of gay marriage. There is honestly no practical reason why two women or two men cannot have a piece of paper that says "marriage" on it. It's barely even a moral issue-----it's really a religious issue, painted as a moral issue by religious groups. In this case, a gay couple's "freedom to" get married has been quashed by religious groups' "freedom from" having to tolerate it. Ultimately, you could say the gay couple's "freedom from" having to practice someone else's beliefs---or their right to exercise their own "freedom to" practice their own beliefs and values---has been silenced.

This is what the religious right and other politically-oriented religious groups are doing. They're not weighing in on obvious, practical issues. Instead, they're greatly swaying choice issues---affecting people's "freedom to" do something, which is essentially their "freedom from" being forced to practice what the right believes.

Carter makes his statement because the United States was founded with the goal of preventing this very thing from happening. The founders, having been persecuted in Europe, wanted to be able to practice their own religion, their own beliefs. They wanted to exercise both their "freedom to" practice their own value system, as well as their "freedom from" being forced to practice others' value systems---a "freedom from" being persecuted. True, a politician as a person may act from his or her own religious viewpoint. But to have organized religious groups officially weigh in on "moral" politics, officially campaign for or against politicians (by sermons, money or othewise), and weigh in on laws that affect the moral values by which other people choose to live their lives----it is this that both Carter and the original founders of the US have worked to avoid.

 

[nathan1977]

A fascinating discussion.

Irvine, it seems that the post you quoted (I'm not sure of the source) referred to both the positive and negative aspects of religion, insofar as religious passion can drive some to fly planes into buildings (or, to be fair, bomb abortion clinics), it can also drive others to feed the poor, rescue women from abusive relationships (my father, a pastor, used to help smuggle abused women out of the state)...or try to aid the continent of Africa. Bono for example cites a variety of reasons for helping Africa, but his Biblical one can't be ignored either -- and for many, the Biblical one has been the most profound.

So I'm not sure that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater in this case. You quite candidly say that "fewer things make me more nervous than religion," and I can understand your personal reasons for saying so. All I'm saying is, religion has also been a powerful force for good, and we can't ignore that either.

 

[Irvine511]

A fascinating discussion.

Irvine, it seems that the post you quoted (I'm not sure of the source) referred to both the positive and negative aspects of religion, insofar as religious passion can drive some to fly planes into buildings (or, to be fair, bomb abortion clinics), it can also drive others to feed the poor, rescue women from abusive relationships (my father, a pastor, used to help smuggle abused women out of the state)...or try to aid the continent of Africa. Bono for example cites a variety of reasons for helping Africa, but his Biblical one can't be ignored either -- and for many, the Biblical one has been the most profound.

So I'm not sure that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater in this case. You quite candidly say that "fewer things make me more nervous than religion," and I can understand your personal reasons for saying so. All I'm saying is, religion has also been a powerful force for good, and we can't ignore that either.

i absolutely agree. what the quote is about is the unique power of religion -- because *only* religion posits connection to God, the Absolute, the Infinite, etc. -- it can move men to do great things, and abominable things.

essentially, religion and faith is the opposite of reason and rationality. which, i think, makes religion and faith part of being human. we are emotional beings as well, and i embrace that.

however, if we are to speak about how humans are to govern themselves, the mechanisms by which we do so must be created by reason -- after all, many will say that the ultimate achievement of the Englightenment was the US Constitution and it's separation of church and state containing the radical idea that men, themselves, were capable of governing themselves.

and they were capable of governing themsleves precisely because they came from a divine place of origin, a common Creator who had endowed them with these capacities, which is to say reason.

i am not for the removal of religion in public or cultural life. quite the opposite. but i am for the eternal vigilance of the encroaching of religious belief into the wheels of the political system and the decision making processes of government.

and on a side note, i find "God bless America" to be really distasteful coming out of the mouth of the president.

as if this country isn't blessed enough while 40,000 Pakistanis are freezing in refugee camps in the mountains ...

 

[nbcrusader]

It is that latter principle that is jeopardized with religion-swayed politics. Let's face it---the religious right isn't weighing in on issues like "do not steal." Things like that are practical issues, upon which, like you said, we can all agree. The religious right is weighing in on "moral" issues. Take, for instance, the issue of gay marriage. There is honestly no practical reason why two women or two men cannot have a piece of paper that says "marriage" on it. It's barely even a moral issue-----it's really a religious issue, painted as a moral issue by religious groups. In this case, a gay couple's "freedom to" get married has been quashed by religious groups' "freedom from" having to tolerate it. Ultimately, you could say the gay couple's "freedom from" having to practice someone else's beliefs---or their right to exercise their own "freedom to" practice their own beliefs and values---has been silenced.

This is what the religious right and other politically-oriented religious groups are doing. They're not weighing in on obvious, practical issues. Instead, they're greatly swaying choice issues---affecting people's "freedom to" do something, which is essentially their "freedom from" being forced to practice what the right believes.

You've made some excellent arguments here, Utoo. I'm not sure, however, that the gay marriage example supports the argument. I am well aware of the opinions on this subject and the Religious Right's championing of various legislative efforts (efforts I personally oppose and will block any effort to champion the issue through our church). But the support for these legistlative efforts goes far beyond the Religious Right. While it may make full sense to you that there is "no practical reason why two women or two men cannot have a piece of paper that says "marriage" on it," a contrary belief is held by a broader group for reasons not rooted in conservative Biblical theology. If the majority disagrees with beliefs held by the "Religious Right" - it is reflected in the law (such as abortion).

The best approach to counter a vocal or influencial minority is to have a better argument - not to stiffle one side's argument.

 

[Utoo]

for it is the prevention of religion from taking over ...... modeled occupied and organized by a particular brand of believers

This is a key point. I was raised christian/catholic. But, having gone through years of exploration of other religions & personal reflection, I am not in any way the same brand of christian as the religious right.

Groups like the religious right have taken faith and spirituality and created "religion"---the human, social, political mutation of faith and spirituality. Such groups take their religious---political and social---views, and push to enact them into public practice/mandate under the guise of faith and spirituality. Morals and values---personal, spiritual issues---become marketed as social issues, even though not all members of society may subscribe to them.