Holos
Senior Member
There is general agreement that according to the Constitution the U.S.A. is a secular State.
As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof;"
By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.
It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.
Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.
Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".
If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".
It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.
What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?
As far as I am aware, it is really only in the First Amendment that religion is mentioned (correct me if I am wrong).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof;"
By this very statement my first impression is that the First Amendment is really making religion to be both possibly beneficial and detrimental to the general State of affairs.
It does not suggest in anyway that there ought to be a separation, measured or not, of Church and State.
Now, considering then the Constitution as the primary reference point, it would seem the standard dictionary definition of "secular" as "nonreligious" cannot really be applicable to Statal improvement.
Then, of course, tracing and reevaluating the foundations of the word "secular" back to Latin, what we find is "sec" as a reference to "sequence".
If we do the same process with the word "religion" what we find is a Latin reference to "connection", more precisely "reconnection".
It makes sense to me then why Republicans would be more greatly involved with religion and at the same time why Conservatives would find problems with it, since the proposed ideal progress of Conservatism is connectivity with no disconnection and no reconnection, and the proposed ideal of Republicanism is a civil balance between the private and the public spheres of engagement.
What would be then the positions of Democrats and Liberals towards the first sentence of the First Amendment? How do you think, given my brief analysis, Liberals and Democrats might engage and find problems with religion, considering both its possible beneficial and detrimental impacts on the general State of affairs?