The Law vs. Separation of Church and State

The Michael Shermer Show # 372
Shermer and Tabash discuss: the history of the relationship between church and state • the founding framers of the U.S. Constitution and their arguments for separating church and state • Madison and Jefferson • how most of the 13 colonies had government-sanctioned religions and religious tests for office • the Constitutional Convention and the First Amendment • the push by some Republicans to hold a new Constitutional Convention and redesign the entire U.S. Constitution • the religious beliefs and attitudes of the current SCOTUS.
Eddie Tabash is a constitutional lawyer in Los Angeles. He graduated magna cum laude from UCLA in 1973. He graduated from Loyola Law School of Los Angeles in 1976. He is known for his expertise in demonstrating how the religion clauses of the First Amendment require the separation of church and state, which includes equality before the law for nonbelievers. He is an atheist who endeavors to secure a society in which no branch of government can treat people differently because of either accepting or rejecting any tenet of religious belief.
SUPPORT THE PODCAST
If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.
www.skeptic.com/donate/
#michaelshermer
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and TuneIn.
www.skeptic.com/michael-sherm...

[@debj1356]

We must have freedom from religion or we cannot call this a free country!

[@DanHowardMtl]

You can't avoid religion so it's best to use the good ones.

[@davenovak]

Its freedom of religion

[@billscannell93]

Best. Shermer episode. Ever. At least in a while. Well worth the two-hour investment.

[@crowesarethebest]

Very interesting conversation.

[@cloudrouju526]

John Oliver actually looked into the requirements to register as a religion. And he did register one.

[@robinhood20253]

If you need more info on the Federalist Society , I suggest Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and his speeches The Scheme. Also book titles Captured and The Scheme. Great guest.

[@lizgichora6472]

Equal under law: All are equal with equal rights without affiliation to a religion. Jefferson / Madison coined it under the constitution 1 st- Ammendment freedom of religion and expression. Law is independent of church therefore state is law irrespective of church affiliation. Thank you Eddie Tabash and Michael Shermer.

[@bobbethard]

​wish Michael Shermer would publically invite the SGU panelists (or at least Steve Novella) on for a discussion. I like the SGU podcast but they rarely if ever have guests. I'd like them to discuss the pros/cons of appearing on Rogan etc. which Shermer and Neil deGrasse Tyson will do - but some skeptics see it as counterproductive to advancing science understanding to the masses.

[@vanessa1569]

The guest speaks my language even though I I tend to elevate religious freedom as paramount simply because religious intolerance is a good indicator of where we are societally. Let’s face it, if more people had a very basic religious understanding most of those ridiculous cases being deliberated in the Supreme Court would never even get there. The employer not wanting to provide insurance for birth control? In what world did we give that rubbish o2? But yeah, this man’s radar isn’t tweaking without reason✌

[@user-my5jn8js4l]

Just remember, tribal warfare is not in anyone's best interest. It's destructive. Cooperation is in our best interest, and we can cooperate with differences of opinion especially on matters of spirituality.

[@bradleyadams9430]

What if business where allowed to discriminat but they had to post publicly in several ways (social media, obvious signs on site etc. There could even be a public government website that lists the hate business so that people could avoid them farther mitigating the chances of ham. To mitigate harm the government could provide tax incentives to businesses that provide compatible services, that don't discriminat, to open and operate in the same area. In that case the discriminating business would likely fail do to their own hatefulnes and the idea of discriminating based on hate (a person hate or hate on behalf of God) would pretty much disappear within the business world. Faith is the most dangerous concept ever invented by humans. Education Critical thinking Empathy

[@pbasch]

Excellent, though terrifying, podcast. I would like to see a discussion of "pious dissimulation", the act of lying for the greater glory of God. We know that there is a group of conservative Christians of all denominations, such as Dominionists, who abhor the Constitution precisely because it gives equal rights to nonbelievers. They will use it to strengthen the position of Believers, then when they can, ditch it for one more to their liking, without, for example, that pesky Establishment Clause. Just glad I have multiple passports.

[@jeffersonianideal]

A person should not be granted any special rights and privileges for choosing to believe in a supernatural dimension and mysticism. The moral conscious of a religious person is no more credible or important than the conscience of a secularist.

[@jeffersonianideal]

1:21:33 See Dr. Walter Block's moral theory known as, "Evictionism".

[@handyallen]

Already has become unseperated in Texas 😂 they have painted bible scripture on the halls of my grandkids schools🤪

[@enisten]

If there are any Muslim students in the school, request that the Bible scriptures be removed or that Quran scriptures be also added. 😉

[@science212]

Secular state is civilization.

[@homewall744]

Government power is the new religious authority. It tells you want to do, what not to do, which words are allowed and which are blasphemy (sedition, conspiracy...), and triple tithes us (taxes closer to 30% than a typical 10% tithe), all while building memorials and cathedrals for them to rule over us in their special robes.

[@JCResDoc94]

*43:00** just call ourselves deists of the no-Gxd.* i bet that would fly too. they jsut want you to believe in anything; even if it is a deified nothing. _JC

[@Seekthetruth3000]

Can Eddie Tabash define what his definition of a woman is?

[@TheeJosephSantos]

"...potential person, maybe doesn't carry rights at day one..." Before I go on, I'm not Christian. If this argument were used, it would be wrong. Rights of the people are based on the presumption that rights belong to people at birth or even sooner. They are not legally provided by government, and therefor government doesn't get to choose who gets these rights. That's also why the opponents of birthright citizenship are wrong. Government by law doesn't have a choice because, as written, the law RESTRICTS the government, disallowing them from deciding who is qualified for rights like life or liberty - liberty meaning the fact that you're not in prison. The constitution also says the rights belong to "all persons born." It does NOT say one becomes a person at birth. It only says a person becomes a citizen of the US when born here. If anything, personhood is presumed before birth based on the language used in the 14th amendment. Since no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process, this does suggest unborn persons would be protected at least by the 14th amendment because of language restricting the government. However, no one has made this argument that I've noticed. Overall, this guest struck me as a partisan alarmist. The freedom of religion ultimately protects the freedom of thought - this also includes SCIENCE. Behaviors have always been subject to regulation legally provided it does not interfere with constitutional rights like individual conclusions on prayer or science. Just because a belief has root in religion, that does not mean the belief is exclusive to the religion by law. Why? Same as above. The right is ultimately the freedom of thought, meaning government cannot legally decide who believes anything or legally reserve any thoughts as a property of a religion. That's also why an atheist like myself can be pro-life if desired, and cannot be prosecuted for supporting the growth of science. Both choices are protected by the freedom of religion/thought. No argument from me that the pro-life conclusions are typically religious, but that's beside the point. No statements legally belong to anyone regardless of their religion, including pro-life statements. No recent court determinations are threatening to anyone and are not specific evidence of theocracy at all.

[@wadetisthammer3612]

1:07:01 to 1:07:51 - I'm no Clarence Thomas fan but that's a gigantic leap in logic. 1:08:37 to 1:08:53 - WTF? It's a scientific fact that the zygote is a life form of the species homo sapiens. (Whether it's a _person_ is another matter.) 1:11:08 to 1:11:16 - Doesn't it pump the body's blood at this point, even if it's not fully formed? 1:34:24 - Ironic

[@robinhood20253]

Our founding fathers loved Locke, who said, " every man has a property in his own person. .this no one but himself has any right. No one has the right to use another person's body. Even if I grant you personhood for a undeveloped fetus, that person has no right to use the pregnant person's body against their will. After it is born , it will no longer be allowed that right and so you are now wanting to grant special rights to a fetus that no other person has. Equal under the law doesn't include special rights for anyone.

[@JCResDoc94]

*jeeZus o_0?!* _JC

[@homewall744]

The only theocracy we suffer is called "American-style illiberal non-constitutional democracy" where government is the church, with all the answers and forcefully taking a triple tithe.

[@user-my5jn8js4l]

No. There was a movement that started in the 1950's that attempted to push the USA towards theocracy. Dwight Eisenhower became friends with Billy Graham and added "In God We Trust" to the dollar and the Pledge of Allegiance. This was in part what the cultural woes of the late 1960's were about in addition to civil rights issues and the Vietnam war. The conservatives won that cultural war when Richard Nixon was elected and then Ronald Reagan in the 1980's. What is happening now is lot like the late 1960's except the woke/liberal group is much larger and religious nones are now 1/3 of the population. In a lot of ways, I think dogmatic Christians may have created the woke backlash by attempting to legislate their brand of morality. What we need to do is return back to our roots as Constitutional Republic with the values in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Let everyone believe what they want to believe. Christians can believe there's an invisible man in the sky and woke people can believe they're squirrels or whatever. It's fine to have personal beliefs no matter how wrong they are but when we're trying to force these views upon each other with legislative power that's exactly what the framers were trying to prevent regardless of the form of tribal dogma.

[@robinhood20253]

Hyperbolic much?

[@JCResDoc94]

*56:00** CAKES ARE SPEECH!* [cit.Untd] _JC

[@hansmeiser32]

Tbh I didn't get if he (Eddie) believes the baker has to make the case or not. What I would argue is, that anyone (e.g. bakers) can reject to make a product with messages or symbols they don't like for any reason. E.g. I don't want a Jewish baker to be forced to make a cake with a swastika on it and I don't want to force a Christian baker to make a cake with a e.g. pentagram on it.

[@homewall744]

Being forced to sell/service another against the person's wishes is slavery. Free speech, freedom to contract, free association, freedom of religion/thought and free trade reject your notion that one person must serve/sell to another they don't want to trade with.

[@robinhood20253]

Obviously , you have never lived as a slave. You are not forced to provide services for anyone. The government does not choose professions and you are free to seek other employment interests.

[@JT-tl1we]

Dude.stop reading from your text books.

[@DeconvertedMan]

look at the way goverment handles things you really want them messing with religion? :D

[@mrpopo8298]

This podcast would make Ben Shapiro's head explode: "BuT mUh JuDeO cHrIsTiAn VaLuEs! AmErIcA wAs FoUnDeD oN tHeM!"

[@stormevans6897]

I don't think this Eddie guy gets it.

[@justincase4937]

Really? Please explain to me how you can accept hate speech against someone’s religion (blasphemy), but not against their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, age, size, and so forth and so on.

[@petegarvey9224]

Blasphemy is not hate speech. Who decides what blasphemy is? The 3 Abrahamic faiths are blasphemous in some degree to each other. Real hate speech, calling for violence against holders of a particular faith is as unacceptable as the characteristics you list.

[@justincase4937]

@@petegarvey9224 Yes, you are right that blasphemy is hard to define. The current Quran burnings in Denmark and Sweden is deliberate blasphemy, meant to "expose the preparedness of violence among Muslims" (quoting one of the burners), but the Mohammad carricatures were meant as satire. Both caused great anger among Muslims, who not only consider it blasphemy, but due to their identity as Muslims take it as a personal insult. More than a hundred persons were killed and many buildings destroyed as a result of the Muhammad carricatures alone. I'm from Denmark btw., and as an author very much for the freedom of speech (so much that I've ended up on a US No Fly list due to my writing, lol), but I can't support those who misuse it to stirr up division or strife.

[@robinhood20253]

First blasphemy isn't a thing outside your religions. Second the fact that I see Christianity and Islam as women hating death cults is not hate speech directed at you. Love the believer, hate the belief may be a useful analogy. Lol.

[@robinhood20253]

People deserve respect, beliefs dont.

[@justincase4937]

@@robinhood20253 I can’t completey agree to Christianity being a women hating death cult. We all know that Christianity since days of yore associated the female gender to temptation, did awful things to women (and African Christians still practice female genital mutilation) and was Patriarchal in general, but its history shows a lot more nuances. In former times for instance, before the womens' rights movement and when women didn’t have many education or job oppertunities, Christianity was ALONE considering it a sin if a man didn’t marry and supported the woman whom he made pregnant. But sitll, in a way I think you are right. I've always thought that respecting people includes disagreeing to and asking questions about their faith(s), also so they can defend their views through arguments (which is more or less what Skeptic Magazine and this channel do). Regrettably it’s not everyone who sticks to mere words when defending their conviction. Btw., just to let you know, I’m neither a Christian nor a Muslim - I was brought up as a recusant Protestant, was Atheist for half of my life, but ended up as a Bahá’í.

[@larrybedouin2921]

The law has been broken for years with the education of evolution.

[@albin2232]

Jesus says no.

[@sircharlesnot]

Wok ideology is a religion I don't hear his objection to that form of religious worship in schools

[@sircharlesnot]

His arguments about religion are idiotic, I'm an atheist and argue gay marriage by definition makes no sense, marriage is a religious invention.

[@hansmeiser32]

Marriage is a religious invention? That's something I find hard to believe. Don't you think something like marriage existed in ancient Rome or Greece or other ancient cultures which predate Christianity? Just asked ChatGPT and in Rome it was called Matrimonium.

[@sircharlesnot]

@@hansmeiser32 Paganisim is a religion

[@hansmeiser32]

@@sircharlesnot by that standard almost everything is a religious invention because every society had some kind of religion.

[@sircharlesnot]

@hansmeiser32 we aren't in disagreement, but doesn't change the reality of the institution.