|
I’m not sure that the “population” (white, male) was deeply devout. Look at Finke and Stark’s book on the Churching of America.
-----Original Message-----
In a message dated 1/30/2005 12:39:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Although perhaps difficult to draw, in every case, I think there's a distinction between establishing religion in the sense of recognizing only one official church and expressing that church's religious values into law and simply wanting to express that the new republic acknowledges its dependence (in several different senses of course) on God. In other words, three distinct proposals seem possible. First, the new republic will establish religion (and religious law) as the law of the republic. Second, the new republic recognizes the role of God in human morality and politics, especially, as the argument goes, democratic politics without requiring from the start the _expression_ of God's role into law. And finally, the new republic rejects any relation necessary (or formally required) relationship between religion and government. Of course, a fourth possibility exists, namely, the Constitution of the new republic is simply silent on the relationship between religion and government, neither embracing it or rejecting it. The Constitution's silence can be understood as embracing the fourth possibility, not the third. Nevertheless, it seems odd (that is, worthy of explanation if not necessary) that the Constitution of a deeply devout population would simply be silent on the issue of God. If so, some explanation seems desirable, if not absolutely necessary.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
