Roger Scruton on Religious Freedom, Islam & Atheism (1 of 4)

Vanderbilt Lecture Series on Democracy & Moral Conviction, April 18, 2007 Roger Scruton on the classical origins of religious freedom and the threat facing the West from Islam and atheism. (1 of 4)

Category:

Education

Tags:

• roger
• scruton
• religious
• freedom
• christianity
• islam
• atheism
• vanderbilt

[aperisions]

Thanks for the post-Dr.Scroton is spot on.

[mavaddat]

"No body was forcing anyone to pray in schools..." Oh really? The whole point of the prayer in school controversy was that it was BEING MANDATED by the schools, rather than being freely chosen by the children, for example, during recess (which is still perfectly legal).

Roger Scruton is correct that religion is being pushed to be privatized, which is wrong; but he appears to be severely confused about the purpose of the No Establishment clause.

[Vot63]

@mavaddat I said "replete with theistic validation". You deny the validity of the Declaration of Independence, and you call me "ignorant"? That's a misquote, an absurd denial of verifiable fact, and a concluding ad hominem attack. Glad you checked out on a high, moron.

[mavaddat]

@Vot63 Sorry, this conversation was over when you claimed that every legally foundational document in American governance was "replete" with references to God. Your ignorance is too overwhelming for me. I'm out.

[Vot63]

@mavaddat So you are claiming that, apart from the single most important foundation document in the history of the USA, there is no reference to God. Your claim is basically that if you exclude any evidence that contradicts your claim, all of the evidence supports your claim. Are you serious? LOL!

[mavaddat]

@Vot63 That is so funny that you'd make such a radically ignorant statement. There isn't a single reference to any deity in any American document except the Declaration of Independence, which isn't considered a legally founding document.

Cool. You totally proved yourself to be brazenly, unambiguously ignorant. Bye!

[Vot63]

@mavaddat "No precedent"? Are you crazy? Every founding document of the USA is replete with theistic validation. The courts are wrong.

[mavaddat]

@Vot63 You are correct that protecting minority Christian groups was how the separation of Church and state arose. It has been interpreted by the federal courts of the United States as a statute protecting the conscience of all Americans (Christian or Muslim or Jewish or non-religious) from compulsion.

Look, no federal court accepts your interpretation of the establishment clause. Freedom of conscience is freedom for everyone, not just for Christians. It's extremely clear. You have no precedent.

[Vot63]

@mavaddat The seperation of church and state was established as a priciple in order to protect CHRISTIAN dissenters. Your view is based upon a radical reinterpretation of the founding principles of the USA and is against the spirit of the constitution. The state does not endorse baseball, does that mean that baseball in schools should be banned?

[MarcusCMarcellus]

@mavaddat You are not worth my time...it's like arguing with a 1970's Soviet apparatchik...

[mavaddat]

@Vot63 Ironic, then, that no federal American court of law has ever agreed with your idiosyncratic interpretation of the legal requirement of separation of church and state.

A school that institutes any prayer is simply against the law. Period.

You are conflating religion having "a role in public life" and the government specifically endorsing religion. Our "disagreement" is a consequence of this confusion, fuzziness in your mind. Think more clearly and you will have fewer arguments.

[Vot63]

@mavaddat Simply making the false assertion that, "Mandate does not require obligation" doesn't change the actual definition of the word. I'm not interested in your unique interpretation, mandate means mandate. Separation of church and state means that the will of the church is subservient to the will of the people, through the agent of democracy. It does not mean that the Church can have no role in public life. You are rather dim.