If there is no God, there is no absolute truth, therefore no clear definition of "morals."

To one person, good morals may mean having multiple wives, even marrying their own daughters; to another good morals might mean having only one wife; to another it might mean marrying a dog. Who's to say which person's morals are correct? And if the government chooses to base its laws on the morals of one, does it not risk infringing the rights of the others?

Well, Michael, all evidence is that Washington was a Deist at least in part, and a Mason, which is, generally, a non-sectarian group... at least till the highest degrees. Technically, Pagans can be Freemasons, (In fact, a few of their turns of phrase crept in to early Wicca, but that's another discussion.) So this was not about the government 'failing to recognize anyone's truth claims' by not *promoting* them.

Certainly, American government is supposed to be *friendly* to religion, (any religion, even if some like to define some of us out of that category whenever state promotion of Bible-religion lets them feel entitled to) ... but also to any other group, and most especially to *the rights and liberties of the individual.*

Unfortunately, some religions' 'truth claims' involve a notion that their members are 'more equal' than others, and this is profoundly Unamerican, and whenever there's doubt, it's best a nation of laws, not men or prophets or priests, give such 'claims of truth' a wide berth.

It's not 'hostility' to set limits.

"OK, it may be that European worship was not legitimate until Roman Catholic missionaries came, but a long view of the actual practices of peasant worship shows that aside from a few liturgical modifications, pagan worship and early northern European Christian worship looked very similar (for example)."

Well, that's cause *missionaries* and those sent to express Roman power had express orders to co-opt what they couldn't destroy, of European religion.

Not to make it sound totally nefarious, but it certainly left a lot of room open for corruption. Even from the Church's point of view, theologically.

"What struck me as a sometime student of religion and a sometime person of faith is the problem of treating religion like a public good."

Treating 'business' like a 'public good' doesn't always get you free enterprise and vibrant Mom and Pop or Apple computer small business. Sometimes you get Wal-Mart and Enron and Halliburton and Exxon. '

That's why the separation.

" Can we, as practitioners of religion, tolerate governors who ignore what maybe the essential claims of our religions?"

Yes. As long as there's a truly rational reason (not just a rationalized *excuse*) for everything they do. I may be a strong environmentalist, for instance, but I wouldn't *want* a candidate who was the same cause I could say 'Goddess commands.'

I want something environmental done, I go get the *facts* and talk to *people,* and use my *mind,* not some holy book or something. This is how we are supposed to do it, in America.

That's different from deciding 'Contraception is morally-equivalent to murder' and arguing religion when we need to be improving the United States of America. This system was *made* in hopes of things not having to get that muddy.

If I want to live by obeying a priest or a book, I can do that in America. I'm not allowed to impose that on others on a religious basis. No obfuscation or prevarication about it.

"In a pluralistic country like America, can we afford not to? I look forward to your thoughts."

In a pluralistic country like America, we *cannot* afford to abdicate our civic responsibilities and become a squabbling mass of rival religious authorities.

Even the *divisiveness* that comes of seeing our democracy through these religious *lenses* undermines the very principle of the demos and the Republic. It may be the convert-the-world religions that scream the most about being 'excluded,' but really they're screaming about not having exclusive access and *control.*

And that kind of thing never goes well.

The Founding Fathers knew better. Cause the Enlightenment came on the heels of the theocratic wars and battles of the Reformation and kings using religion to support their ambitions, at such horrible, horrible cost, the legacy of which you can still see in Northern Ireland in very recent history.

And today.

Yes, we can set 'religious truth claims' aside.

Or else it's not a Republic based on informed consent and the rule of law...

It's just a conversion contest dressed up in bunting and pie charts.

RELIGION 1-2 EXAM QUESTION:

"What struck me as a sometime student of religion and a sometime person of faith..."

As a person of faith, please list the seven most important things you believe without any evidence at all to support those beliefs.

Your first question resolves down to the question of what your essential claims are. Luckily, this can be generalized into the question of whether the essential claims revolve more around the concept of Right Action or Devotion.

In the case of Right Action, then even someone who is not devoted to your deity or holy writ can still be a good person by being a supporter of your ideas and concepts of Right Action. Any such good man should then be supported for by their merit they put themselves above even a believer who falls short of the ideal.

In the case of Devotion, where even one who acts in flawless accord with the rules of Right Action but fails to believe or devote themselves to your Holy Writ or your Deity will be a bad person - in which case one should by no means allow or tolerate the governance of such an individual, for they cannot be good and therefore not trusted to be in charge of important issues.

As for the latter question, yes. We can afford not to tolerate governers who would reject our view of good. The primary operation of Democracy (in general) is the allowance of a semi-continuous society that takes advantage of societal evolution (The anti-federalist approach is notably more nimble in this manner, allowing each state to experiment at will, whereas the federalist approach requires the nation to act more as a whole than a population). Rather than requiring assassinations or bloody civil war or simply the dragging weight of succession to make a change for the better, it can act quickly to implement such a change. The voice of one party who would refuse to accept anything less than their own view of right is simply an evolution, a mutation in the society that will either succeed and change the nation to their thinking because they can demonstrate that they are better - or prove themselves a dismal failure and fade away as that strategy proves unviable. If they are even so dominant that democracy fades before them, then democracy itself was a losing strategy. It is as if the Invisible Hand - or God's Hand, if you will - Adam Smith so well described in "On the Wealth of Nations" exists in the vote-marketplace of democracy as well.

Are you certain that religion does in fact make us more moral? Are you certain that government does, therefore, have something to gain by promoting religion?

Instead of worrying about the intractable problems generated by the assumption, maybe your time would be better spent questioning the assumption itself.