Church & State

[DoctorSurferDude]

Our founding fathers saw the crucial importance to keeping church and state seperate. It is one of the fundamental tennants that this country was founded on.

George Bush.....doesn't get it?

Homeland Security & Faith-Based Initiatives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060307-5.html)

May this never grow.

[David77]

May this never grow.
Amen brother, I hear ya!

[Michjoe]

Unfortunately a whole lot of other people don't get it either. They elected him. In January 2009 Bush will be gone, but what happens to those who agree with him?

[newton]

Even though Presidential Politics seem to be moving very fast, we will all have to wait until January 2009 for the change to take place.

[nacktman]

Point of order! He was never elected in the first place.

Our Founding Fathers are truly spinning in their graves.

[usmc1]

Whirrrrrr! Whirrrrr! Whirrrr! Except for maybe Madison. That boy had some dicey notions.

The answer my friends is written in the CONSTITUTION! Impeach him!

Yes. I know. There is no great appetite for that. Time is short. It would render us even further divided. But, here's the problem(s), and please excuse my paranoia, but on my behalf I must remind you, I live in the United States and here paranoia has become sign of wisdom and mental wellness and indicator of a firm grasp on reality!

1. Without impeachment, we have no real guarantee that elections will take place. These birds have already suspended many of our guaranteed rights without meaningful response from the press, congress, or the people.

2. Without impeachment, all that this administration of sociopaths, river trolls, death-eaters, dementors, deep-forest hobgoblins, and bat-eared gremlins have wrought will be in place for the next administration's use against us.

3. Once initiated, the impeachment process does not really take that long. All it would take is for enough people to demand that it happen.

4. Without impeachment all that we love about this unique country of ours; progressive, populist, liberal and conservative will be gone. Forever!

[Rabid_Clam]

We are at war on two fronts and facing war on three others but we worry about things of who can marry who or other such thngs?

Leave religion to those who adopt it and politics to all others. Keep YOUR religion out of political issues and do NOT make political issues of aspects of religious import.

[Evernude]

This is exactly why I'm a member of American Atheist, Freedom From Religion Foundation, TNS, AANR, INA and the ACLU. We have to fight this crap, or before we know it, we'll be living under a government run by a christian version of the taliban. (Kinda like Arkansas and possibly Kansas.)

www.ffrf.org (http://www.ffrf.org)

[SpiderThug]

I believe in seperation of the state, church, courts, police, etc. Something that is gone.

We also face a time where the accuser must prove themselves innocent, instead of the historic method of the accuser having to prove that the accused is guilty.

As for atheism, the atheist group in usa has gone as mental as certain religious organisations.

[nudebushwalker]

Along with 'NakedSpider' I, too, would be wary of any organised "atheist" or "agnostic" groups.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

When you see the propaganda from these groups, it often seems they are being organised by old style anarchists [which in itself is self-contradictory, as how can you have an "anarchist" organisation, as by definition, once they start organising themselves they stop being true "anarchists", don't they?], anti-religious nutters, and some former more-extreme-socialist outcasts..
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

Down here, there is one organiser for an "atheist" organisation, who is writing letters to newspapers claiming that atheists are in the majority in Oz, despite the fact they were actually less than 20% in the census - off the planet, out of touch with reality, and can't count...
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

To me, they just smell like one more variant of fascists - simply wanting to tell everyone else how to live their lives.
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smash.gif ( < stop fascism now..)

Like the great majority of people on here, I support the principle of the secular state - the clear separation of government, courts, police and churches..
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif

[jon71]

May I recommend Americans United for Seperation of Church and State. It for all Americans who believe in keeping church and state seperate. It's members are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddists, Hindus, etc. It avoids other issues and just stays focued on this.

[SpiderThug]

Originally posted by jon71:
May I recommend Americans United for Seperation of Church and State. It for all Americans who believe in keeping church and state seperate. It's members are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddists, Hindus, etc. It avoids other issues and just stays focued on this.

That's the way to go, Cobber.

[walter05]

Separation of religious identity from national identity is one of the concepts that America gave to the world. Prior to the U.S.A. the two were always intertwined. The separation is why Americans of various religious backgrounds can get along so well.

It is a shame that people want to run other peoples' lives for them. It is worse when they want to use the power of government to force this.

President Bush is undermining one of the fundamental reasons that the U.S.A. has been so special and wonderful.

[Baron Lake]

naked spider: ..."the atheist group..."

And that "group" would be?

And do you really believe in separating the police and courts from the State? Nudebushwalker's gonna think your one of them anarchists. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

b.l.

[David77]

<center>Separation of Church and State</center>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

[nudebushwalker]

Australia wrote it's constitution in the late 19th century, using the US and Swiss constitutions as models to help them along...
The USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have several things in common in our history - British colonisation, Parliamentary and court systems that have a common history going back to the Magna Carta, Judeo-Christian ethics and morals, and a shared widespread belief in principles like the secular state..
Here in Australia, our governments work on the idea that laws should be applied on three separate (and fairly "independent" though obviously inter-related..) levels -
* Parliament - creates laws;
* Police - apply and enforce these laws, and 'charge' the naughty people (the miscreants) and the very bad people (the felons..) who break these laws;
* The Courts - pass judgements on these laws, and how they are applied, and decide whether to
'convict' and 'sentence' these wrong-doers.

Keeping some independence between these three bodies means it should be easier to maintain certain principles that we expect in our countries' legal systems - e.g. that the law must not only be done, but "must be seen to be done"; that a person has the presumption of ".. innocent until proven guilty" (just think of Guantanamo Bay, as a way to side-step that one..); that the accused should have the right to face his accuser; and that everybody should have the right to a fair trial...

Combine Church and State? A couple of good examples of this could be Iran; and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This is what both the fundamentalist Muslims [with Sharia law], and Bush's fundi' friends, would like to apply..

Outlaw or tightly control Churches? Think communist governments in China; and Russia 1917-1990's.

Combine police (or military) and courts = 'kangaroo courts', martial law, North Korea, Burma..

[GAR]

The Church is the state hear in Utah

[OZJames]

A few years ago the current Prime Minister of Australia appointed Dr Peter Hollingworth (a retired Church of England Archbishop) as Governor General of Australia. A Governor General is a figurehead position with no power to make laws but the Governor General has the power to dismiss a Government in certain very rare circumstances as happened in 1975.

The appointment was a mammoth failure because the affairs of the Church became embroiled in his position as Governor General. He was forced to resign

I would be very surprised if a church official (retired or otherwise) is ever appointed to the position again.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Vin]

Originally posted by usmc1:
...4. Without impeachment all that we love about this unique country of ours; progressive, populist, liberal and conservative will be gone. Forever!

Madison wasn't the only one with some strange ideas. Admittedly it's been a while since I took civics, but wasn't it Hamilton who wanted basically to institute a new monarchy to replace George III?

And while I agree with all your arguments in favor of impeachment, there is one overriding factor that keeps me from wholeheartedly joining a call to begin proceedings: the specter of "President Cheney." I get shudders just thinking of it.

[Baron Lake]

Vin,
No reason we couldn't get two for the price of one. And with Pelosi next up...

b.l.
(shuddering with ya)

[codylechien]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
Our founding fathers saw the crucial importance to keeping church and state seperate. It is one of the fundamental tennants that this country was founded on.

George Bush.....doesn't get it?

Let's put the church-state separation thing in perspective.

Let's remember that the Pilgrims came to this country because they didn't want to be forced to be a part of the state sponsored and supported church, the Church of England, which was, historically established because a Catholic king (I forget which one) couldn't get a divorce from the Pope and decided, "If I don't get my way, I'll make my own church".

This country was founded on "freedom OF religion" which is a far different thing than interpreting freedom as being NO religion or faith. Let's remember that the Declaration of Independence advocated a state of being with people being "endowed by their Creator".

In effect, the Pilgrims coming to American, the creation of the declaration of Independence, the granting of tax-exempt status to relgious organizations because of their contribution to the good of the society are all a form of "faith based" initiatives.

[Naturist Mark]

Let's remember that the Pilgrims came to this country because they didn't want to be forced to be a part of the state sponsored and supported church, the Church of England,

The Pilgrims, although revered, were a warning to the Founding Fathers. The colony they established in Massachusetts was a Puritan theocracy. More than any other lesson THEY were the reason the founders insisted on a permanent separation of Church and State - they wanted no chance of a repeat of the experience of Theocratic tyranny in our new nation.

[namedun]

"Let's remember that the Pilgrims came to this country because they didn't want to be forced to be a part of the state sponsored and supported church, the Church of England, which was, historically established because a Catholic king (I forget which one) couldn't get a divorce from the Pope and decided, "If I don't get my way, I'll make my own church"."

Henry the Eighth

[WNYjoe17]

Originally posted by codylechien:
[QUOTE]

This country was founded on "freedom OF religion" which is a far different thing than interpreting freedom as being NO religion or faith. Let's remember that the Declaration of Independence advocated a state of being with people being "endowed by their Creator".



But the reason that so many people rebel against any religious activity is because it needs to be a 2-way street, and is not. So, why is it fair to have your nativity scene; but I can not have my Beltane festival.

"Freedom OF religion means ALL religions."

Joe

[tinhfwv]

The word "church" never appears in the US Constitution (so, by definition, neither does the phrase "separation of church and state"). The word "religion" appears only once. Here it is, in the first clause of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

From my perspective, Congress appears to have always abided by this clause. I'm not specifically aware of any laws being passed to either establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. On the other hand (and this is ironic), the courts, who are entrusted to be the ultimate referees about adhering to the Constitution, have issued numerous decisions over the years "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

[meredith2kp4]

The word "church" never appears in the US Constitution (so, by definition, neither does the phrase "separation of church and state"). The word "religion" appears only once. Here it is, in the first clause of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

From my perspective, Congress appears to have always abided by this clause. I'm not specifically aware of any laws being passed to either establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. On the other hand (and this is ironic), the courts, who are entrusted to be the ultimate referees about adhering to the Constitution, have issued numerous decisions over the years "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I don't know what you are referring to when you say that the courts "have issued numerous decisions over the years 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'" The courts have issued many decisions against state-sponsored religion, and rightfully so. If the state prefers Christians over Jews or Muslims, or any of the above over atheists, America will not be the country of all Americans, but will be telling some of us that we are not truly American.

[tinhfwv]

I don't know what you are referring to when you say that the courts "have issued numerous decisions over the years 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'" The courts have issued many decisions against state-sponsored religion, and rightfully so. If the state prefers Christians over Jews or Muslims, or any of the above over atheists, America will not be the country of all Americans, but will be telling some of us that we are not truly American.

And I don't know what you're referring to when you say the courts have "issued many decisions against state-sponsored religion". I honestly can't think of one example of a state sponsored religion that has been tried anywhere in this country (and that's a good thing - I'd be manning the barricades myself). The free exercise thereof that I'm thinking of is where courts have forbidden people from praying at public events or have prohibited a student religious club from meeting after hours on public property. If these examples are not protected by the first amendment, then what could "the free exercise thereof" possibly mean? If you're suggesting that allowing these things would be an example of a "state sponsored religion", I think you're stretching the language to the breaking point. As for "preferring" one religion over another: if I allow you to eat an apple in public, it doesn't mean I prefer apples.

[BinCo]

OK. As an aethist, which is a term that Christians use to define me and put me into a box, I have been on the wrong end of a lot of "Freedom of Religion" crap from all sides. Here is the deal. If you think anyone who is a student at a public school should be forced to bow their head and pray, listen to a prayer, take part in group prayer or any other form of worship than the state is sponsering that religion. Usually Christianity. Public schools are best and most inclusive when they are secular. If they allow a student to perform an open prayer before a football game than they will also HAVE to allow a Muslim student to lead a prayer, and then a Pagan can bring down the Goddess and then a Jew can read a few lines from the Torah. This gets insane when the majority feels obligated to do whatever they feel like doing with NO regards for anyone else.

I saw a listing of the Preambles for the state constitutions and 100% of them gave homage to God. Not my lack of a God, not my wife's God Kali, not Mohammed, but the Christian God.:mad:

Notice how this is a state respecting an establishment of religion. If you don't think that the US government does it too, go to court and refuse to swear on the Bible. Take a look at our Money. "In God We Trust". This was done in 1954 during the commie scare Congress that looked at the Soviets as the Godless Nation. And don't forget the Pledge of Allegiance. God was added to it in 1954 too.

I have been told by numerous "God Fearing Christians" that I do not belong in the US, that it is a Christian nation established by Christians, for Christians. This is the kind of BS that organized religion is pounding into people heads. The heck with tolerance and loving your fellow man if they are not Christian. Feel free to oppress and work to remove them from society.

Want more? I can't run for any public office in this country and expect to win. I even think I could run against Tim McVey and lose because at least he was a Christian. Even though he is dead, I would still lose because so many ignorant fools listen to the church on sunday mornings telling them that I am not a good person because I am not a Christain. I could promise to eliminate taxes, give new cars away, and have gold flow from the faucet and I would still lose. A Wiccan here in Colorado lost a county clerk fight to an incumbent that was under investigation for fraud, adultery, and stealing. The con man won and was then removed from office. WHY? Because the idiots who see only what the church tells them too saw that she was a Wiccan and therefore was a bad person. Only 30+ years of accounting and she lost to a criminal!!

If you base all your viewpoints on what the church and a book tell you, then you are a sad little sheep and one of the reasons that Jefferson pushed to get any religion out of the constitution.

Tinhfwv said: "As for "preferring" one religion over another: if I allow you to eat an apple in public, it doesn't mean I prefer apples. "

If the state gives me a tax break as an apple eater and you get nothing, I would consider that a preference. Now if the state adds into the preamble how apples are the most chosen fruit and the only ones mentioned, I would also consider that a preference. Wouldn't you?

[jon71]

I am one of many Christians who do believe in seperation of church and state. In fact I have been a card carrying member of Americans united for seperation of church and state, the head of which is also an ordained minister. The group includes, Christians, Jews, Muslums, atheists, agnostics, pagans, etc. I'm only not a member now due to money being tight, I still consider myself a moral supported of their goals. I say this in large part to point out that many Christians do not support the goal of fundies to attack the wall of seperation. Binco you made some excellent points and it's wrong that you sometimes catch flak for trying to live your life. Btw the number of elected officials who are atheist, agnostic or from a minority religion is slowly growing (including the first Muslim elected to congress last year). Your chances would be about nil in the rural south but in a more progressive district, yes you could win.

[Skinview]

The Pilgrims, although revered, were a warning to the Founding Fathers. The colony they established in Massachusetts was a Puritan theocracy.The Pilgrims and the Puritans were two entirely different groups in colonial Massachusetts. The Pilgrims were not so bad, but you are right, the Puritans were a christian Taliban:

"Particularly obnoxious to the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay were the Quakers, who persisted to coming to Boston even in the face of death. In 1658 two ministers of Boston, the Reverend John Norton and the Reverend Charles Chauncy, persuaded the General Court that it was imperative to make death the penalty for Quakers who insisted upon returning after banishment. Otherwise, they pointed out, Boston would be forever plagued by the pests. Two years before, in 1656, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin, Quakeresses from Barbados, had suffered for five weeks in a cell without light after being stripped naked and searched for signs that might identify them as witches and provide a legal reason for hanging them. At the time, the authorities had just hanged a witch by the name of Ann Hibben.
"The two parsons assured the General Court that the laws against Quakers were too lenient, for they permitted only torture, imprisonment, mutilation, and banishment. For example, the authorities had been obliged to let off an old man named William Brend with only torture: he had his heals and his neck locked together for sixteen hours and was then beaten into unconciousnesness by one hundred and seventeen lashes applied with a tarred rope that cut the flesh from his back. The populace of Boston had not seen the justice of this punishment and had made made a disturbance, but Parson Norton set them straight with a sermon defending the sentence and the jailer who carried it out.
"After 1658 the law was clear. Quakers could be legally hanged for returning after banishment, and in October, 1659, John Endecott and his fellow judges sent to the gallows William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson. A third member of the group, Mary Dyer, was also sentenced to hang but was reprieved at the place of execution and banished. When she insisted upon returning the next year, she was immediately hanged."

- The American Heritage History of the Thirteen Colonies, Richard M. Ketchum, editorial director, c 1967 American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc., p. 160

Such is our vaunted colonial tradition of "religious freedom".

[BinCo]

Looks like I would have been hung as an infant. Regardless of my Aethist ways, being born on 6/6 would have been cause enough.

Nice guys those devout jerks. And people wonder how I could possibly survive a day without God. ;)

[tinhfwv]

Looks like I would have been hung as an infant. Regardless of my Aethist ways, being born on 6/6 would have been cause enough.

Nice guys those devout jerks. And people wonder how I could possibly survive a day without God. ;)

Those "devout jerks" were cruel and sadistic people doing what cruel and sadistic people do. Your last sentence seems to blame God for their behavior, which is a train of thought I'm not following. If I use your name as an excuse for killing someone, it doesn't mean you did it.

[BinCo]

tinhfwv: The blame is actually the other way around. People kill each other in the name of God. I don't blame God, as I don't belive in one. What I find disgusting is the cruelty inflicted on other human beings in the name of God. In other words, convert or die in the name of God. Quit allowing women choice, or I will kill you in the name of God. etc. etc. etc.


While I'm at it, I don't like the blatant disregard for the enviroment with the attitude that it is all in God's plan. I knew a guy who did not recycle because God said that the world was ours to dominate.

[meredith2kp4]

And I don't know what you're referring to when you say the courts have "issued many decisions against state-sponsored religion". I honestly can't think of one example of a state sponsored religion that has been tried anywhere in this country (and that's a good thing - I'd be manning the barricades myself). The free exercise thereof that I'm thinking of is where courts have forbidden people from praying at public events or have prohibited a student religious club from meeting after hours on public property. If these examples are not protected by the first amendment, then what could "the free exercise thereof" possibly mean? If you're suggesting that allowing these things would be an example of a "state sponsored religion", I think you're stretching the language to the breaking point. As for "preferring" one religion over another: if I allow you to eat an apple in public, it doesn't mean I prefer apples.

State-sponsored religion consists of such things as school prayer conducted by the school or by students as part of official school functions, Roy Moore's insisting on putting the Ten Commandments in his court houses (at least half of the Commandments are explicitly religious injunctions, such as "Thou shalt not have any God before me."), requiring a belief in God to be a Notary Public, requiring students to attend a baccalaureate service in order to be present at their graduation, etc. ad nauseum. If you think this stuff doesn't amount to state sponsorship of religion, I can give you a list of predominantly Muslim countries where the shoe is on the other foot and you see how you, as a member of a religious minority, would feel about the country. A current example of state sponsorship of religion, which I don't think courts have directly addressed, is the requirement in a number of states that the motto: "In God we trust" be posted in classrooms and other places in public buildings. If this is OK, why not post "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet?"

[meredith2kp4]

I largely agree with BinCo's long post. However, I will say that I have consistently refused to take an oath, on a Bible or otherwise, and have always been accommodated. The only problem usually has been for the court clerk to locate the apppropriate text for me to affirm.

[tinhfwv]

State-sponsored religion consists of such things as school prayer conducted by the school or by students as part of official school functions, Roy Moore's insisting on putting the Ten Commandments in his court houses (at least half of the Commandments are explicitly religious injunctions, such as "Thou shalt not have any God before me."), requiring a belief in God to be a Notary Public, requiring students to attend a baccalaureate service in order to be present at their graduation, etc. ad nauseum. If you think this stuff doesn't amount to state sponsorship of religion, I can give you a list of predominantly Muslim countries where the shoe is on the other foot and you see how you, as a member of a religious minority, would feel about the country. A current example of state sponsorship of religion, which I don't think courts have directly addressed, is the requirement in a number of states that the motto: "In God we trust" be posted in classrooms and other places in public buildings. If this is OK, why not post "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet?"


I guess we're disagreeing based on our personal semantics. I don't consider belief in God to be a "religion" anymore than non-belief in God (atheism) is a religion. To me, a religion is a structured set of theological beliefs adhered to and promoted by an organization. Webster says religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects". I certainly think you can believe in God without being involved in any religion. To me, God does not equal religion; the two words have entirely different meanings. Given the liberal use of the word "God" in our founding documents, and the prohibition against the state establishing a religion in those same documents, I think the founders saw the same distinction.

[tinhfwv]

tinhfwv: The blame is actually the other way around. People kill each other in the name of God. I don't blame God, as I don't belive in one. What I find disgusting is the cruelty inflicted on other human beings in the name of God. In other words, convert or die in the name of God. Quit allowing women choice, or I will kill you in the name of God. etc. etc. etc.


While I'm at it, I don't like the blatant disregard for the enviroment with the attitude that it is all in God's plan. I knew a guy who did not recycle because God said that the world was ours to dominate.

I agree with you. So many evil things are done in the name of God and it is disgusting. But human behavior is just that: human behavior. Humans can be very creative in rationalizing their bad behavior, and God has always been one of the more popular rationalizations.

[Skinview]

Humans can be very creative in rationalizing their bad behavior, and God has always been one of the more popular rationalizations.
It goes beyond that. Sometimes religion is just another layer over ethnic violence, but when Puritans hang Quakers its not just an excuse. Those innocent people wouldn't have died if it wasn't for religion. When thousands of women are executed for witchcraft, Biblical commandments like "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) are not just excuses to kill innocent women. Religion kills. Its not just an excuse to kill. The history of Europe is painted red with the blood of religious wars. Most of the time no one would know who to kill if it wasn't for religion. Irish kill Irish, English kill English, Germans kill Germans. When you believe that someone spreading false religion will condemn souls to an eternity in hell, killing them becomes a moral imperative in the mind of the true believer. Most pagan religions may not be so problematic, but the abrahamic religions are dangerous.

"anyone who blasphemes the name of the lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death."

-Leviticus 24:16

[usmc1]

for the vexations which befall us as individuals and collections of people is about the same as blaming the Brownies for broken plates and run away pets, and, the elves for not coming to repair our shoes overnight.

All are myths conjured up by humans to explain forces, events and feelings which otherwise have no obvious explanation. Throughout history and each given day in America, that which we call God has been expropriated by politicians and various religious dogmas, sects and groups in order to maximize power, gather wealth and keep people at bay and from realizing the paucity of their lives and from taking control of their destinies.

Most of the men who we today call the Founding Fathers realized this and constructed a Constitution which gave us some measure of protection against the religionists. Those "Founders" were men of reason and The Enlightenment, and most were Deists, believing in a God of Nature from whom certain inalienable human rights flowed and that it was humanity's responsibility to claim those rights.

The problem is that all too many people who read or hear the word "God" conjure up their own image or belief of what that word entails based on what they have been taught. Thus when reading "God" in the founding documents they never conjure up an image of a deistic God of Nature, but rather a theistic God of rules, punishment and mysteries and project that image on the founders thereby claiming that the founders believed in Christianity, the Ten Commandments, and full-immersion baptism, no card-playing, no drinking, women ten paces behind the man and whatever other warped and depraved followings, rules, and standards of behavior their particular sect holds to. From that, they claim intent for such to apply to all of us.

The founders knew this. They wrote of it. The so-called "founding" process was filled with emotional and intellectual debates, arguments and compromises around the issue of what, if any, role religion was to play in our national policies and laws and at a much deeper level, what role would religion and the state play in the daily lives of individuals. They wrote masterful documents, with very carefully chosen words of deep depth and wide breadth of meaning for those of us of following generations to use as standards and guidelines.

They knew the debate would not go away and that it would never be fully settled. That is why we must look to the words of the Constitution for our answer:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .".

"NO LAW!" Thus, state entities and special interest groups who wish to inflect their narrow, rigid and theistic authoritarian God-views on citizens, children at public tax-supported schools, and public gatherings, government buildings, to name just a few examples, through the force of law, violate the First Amendment.

Anyone wishing to dispute the (Founders') intent with this amendment should avail themselves of the opportunity to read Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" letter to the Danbury ministers. Quickly, they will disabuse themselves of their absurd notions that somehow or another governance should derive from religious thoughts, beliefs, or philosophies.

Semantics, interpretations and intellectually scholarly and/or fervently emotional debate avail us nothing in this regard. It was the intent of the "Founders" to erect a barrier between secular governance, laws and policies and the rules, interpretations, dogmas, rituals, practices, and enforcements of "God", "Christ", "Allah", "Yahweh", worshipers and to protect us from the imposition of those religions on the whole by law, edict or state sponsorship or support.

There is a flip-side to this issue. Since the power to tax is the power to destroy, religions enjoy very many tax breaks and exclusions as the direct result of the first Amendment. All too often, religionists want to have it both ways---to get the tax breaks, and to inflict their narrow, authoritarian and intellectually limited God/Christ based world view on the entire body politic.

Thus the debate continues through our history, ebbing and flowing with the different generations. We have spent several decades of the religionists in ascendancy following a couple of decades of humanism in the driver's seat. We're now seeing early signs of the pendulum swinging back toward rationality.

Thank God for that!:laugh:

[walter05]

The issue with the witches points out a simple fact. For thousands of years, people have mis-quoted and mis-understood the Bible and used it to justify many things that are evil. Their actions, could not be correctly justified by their mis-quoted verses. However, since they had the police power of the state, their mis-understandings enabled them to commit murder and think they were doing good.

If we were all of the same religion, and the government were to promote religion, it would be logical for the government to buy holy texts and prayer books.

If the government was to buy holy texts and prayer books, the government would set standards and edit them. The texts would reflect the views of those in government.

Depending on the last election, the holy texts would state that Republicans or Democrats were doomed to Hell. The prayer books would be for the success of Republicans or Democrats.

I state this to make a point. The founders understood that when the state had an official religion, that religion would get corrupted. The separation clause permits religious institutions to excel by focusing on developing character and self-discipline.

[usuallylurk]

A current example of state sponsorship of religion, which I don't think courts have directly addressed, is the requirement in a number of states that the motto: "In God we trust" be posted in classrooms and other places in public buildings. If this is OK, why not post "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet?"


Because "In God We Trust" acknowledges the existence of a supreme being -- which does not establish or respect or force a particular religious belief upon people -- it only states that In God We Trust. The statement "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet" is a specific Islamic declaration and would be considered (as the recitation of the Lord's Prayer is) to cross the constitutional line.

[usmc1]

Because "In God We Trust" acknowledges the existence of a supreme being -- which does not establish or respect or force a particular religious belief upon people -- it only states that In God We Trust. The statement "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet" is a specific Islamic declaration and would be considered (as the recitation of the Lord's Prayer is) to cross the constitutional line.

Doesn't putting the full weight of the government behind that assertion (of the existence of a supreme being) establish the state support of the religious belief in that unprovable notion of a Judeo/Christian God?

I think it does cross that line. In practical terms, it would take a much friendlier Supreme Court than we now have to go after that. So we're left fighting battles against some of the more egregious and outrageous examples of state sponsored and supported religious displays.

[tinhfwv]

Neither a belief in God nor a non-belief in God constitutes a "religion". Therefore, neither is a "religious belief".

[usmc1]

Neither a belief in God nor a non-belief in God constitutes a "religion". Therefore, neither is a "religious belief".

In its simplest definition religion is characterized by belief in the sacred or holy. And semantic gymnastics aside, I suggest the use of the term "Supreme Being" meets the criteria of the definition of religion. Thus invoking protection, or good feelings or prayer to that Supreme Being is a religious display and has no place in secular governance or gathering.

Particularly when that display involves the coercion of cultural or social expectation through peer pressure or the leadership of people in position of authority.

Since belief in the sacred or holy is the basic building block of the definition of religion, I think that the absence of such a belief would certainly not meet that definition. Thus, atheism is not a religion. It is, however, the rational alternative to religion.

[Skinview]

Neither a belief in God nor a non-belief in God constitutes a "religion". Therefore, neither is a "religious belief".

Riiiiiiight. It must be a sports belief.

[Bob S.]

This thread was moved as it has nothing to do with nudism. But please, carry on.

Bob S.
Moderator

[missouriboy]

...atheism is not a religion. It is, however, the rational alternative to religion.Atheism is the positive belief that there is NO GOD. How is that any more rational than the positive belief that there IS A GOD?

Perhaps you meant agnosticism: the rational approach that claims no belief either way.

[tinhfwv]

Riiiiiiight. It must be a sports belief.

Per Webster: Religion - A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

[usmc1]

Atheism is the positive belief that there is NO GOD. How is that any more rational than the positive belief that there IS A GOD?

Perhaps you meant agnosticism: the rational approach that claims no belief either way.

and one, I suppose, may legitimately opt for the one which works best for one's argument at the time. The one I posted earlier, works best for me in the context of what is being written in this thread. Paraphrased; it says, a religion is demonstrated by a collective belief in the sacred or holy.

From that, I affirmed that the use of the term Supreme Being in the context of governance is indeed a religious demonstration and we ought to be shielded from the practice by the first amendment.

No, I did not mean agnosticism, where one dithers between the rocks and shoals of various dilemmas.

Distilled down to its simplest, atheism is the rational alternative to religion wherein one merely says; there is no evidence, and no successful argument, model, or logical syllogism which leads one to that which is called God.

Religions, virtually all of them, rely on a patriarchal interpretation of mysteries, scriptures, "revealed truths", "personal experience", and prayer and intercessionary miracles among other things. Such things are not provable and are not rational.

That which is called God is not scientifically provable. Nor, is the concept 100% scientifically disprovable. But, one will find that it is not a 50-50 sort of bargain---it is just very difficult to prove non-existence in a rational, scientific way. I could assert that when one lives in the countryside there are forces at work, which we will call fairies, which determine why our cattle thrive or fail. Now, scientifically and rationally disprove fairies!

I happen to think we ought not conduct our public affairs, governance or have our personal behavior dictated by irrational belief systems.

[Zevei]

Let's put the church-state separation thing in perspective.

{ Yes lets do. The perspective of the "church-state separation" thing has been discussed and ruled on quite a few times by the United States Supreme court. I was looking for my copy of the Constitution, but as I recall from memory there is to be no establishment of religion. That is to say that there shall be no established "church" in this country as there is in some democratic states where this is true - UK (Church of England), Israel - (Orthodox Judaism). The latter two states do NOT have written constitutions.
At earlier times in our country, there were religious tests for those who wished to be elected to government positions. These laws in certain states were ruled unconstitutional.
Because one's religion is held to be a private matter here, one need not declare any religion or indeed, profess to have any religion at all in order to run for office.
Of course that is quite different from being elected. In practice, many people will vote for a co-religionist, or even vote against someone based on their religion. In fact, in the US, which is the most religiously observant of all the Western democracies, a professed athiest will have a hard time getting elected. (Only One of all the 435 congressional reps, so far has been).
Yet, consistently in the 20th and 21st centuries, the courts as well as the Supreme Court have ruled consistently for the "wall of separation between church and state".
This issue comes up every Christmas season, and courts have consistently sided with lawsuits brought by atheists and non-Christians when it came to displaying patently religious symbols (eg. the Cross ) on public (i.e, state-owned ) property. }

Let's remember that the Pilgrims came to this country because they didn't want to be forced to be a part of the state sponsored and supported church, the Church of England, which was, historically established because a Catholic king (I forget which one) couldn't get a divorce from the Pope and decided, "If I don't get my way, I'll make my own church".

{ That was Henry VIII, for whom on these boards there happens to be an Avatar available.
Now, I am not christian, but as I recall from my history, the group known as pilgrims were a branch of Protestants known as "Puritans", which I believe was evolved from Calvanism which is a very rigid branch and conservative branch of Protestant Christianity. Their views were not consistent with the Anglican Church in many aspects, they were persecuted for their views and so sought out greener pastures where they could practice THEIR religion without being persecuted.
However, that didn't mean they were not adverse to persecuting others who held views different from there own. That they did this was the reason for the founding of the colony of Rhode Island, where folks went to escape from the Puritans.
One last thing about Henry. His justification for separating from the Catholic church was based on the commonly held premise at the time of the "divine right of Kings", which was a royalist and absolutist philosophy when it came to all monarchies. }

This country was founded on "freedom OF religion" which is a far different thing than interpreting freedom as being NO religion or faith. Let's remember that the Declaration of Independence advocated a state of being with people being "endowed by their Creator".

{ The Supreme Court has ruled consistently on the fact that the separation of Church and State (see above) also means freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion - i.e, one has a perfect legal right to be a non-believer in the U.S. There are of course countries in the world where one would be putting their life in jeopardy if they professed no religion publicly, such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and other such "sterling" non-democratic states.
The declaration of Independence is not a document which is referred to when ruling on matters of law. It is The Constitution of the United States which is the basis for all laws in this country. After the Declaration of Independence, the United States (which were not THAT united) was governed under Articles of Confederation. After a bit more than a decade, it was decided that this system was not working out very well. That was the basis for the need to hold a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia which lasted for months - it was necessary because as it states in the Preamble, it was "in order to form A MORE PERFECT UNION" .
Understand also with regard to the more florid language of the period, that although Jefferson referred to "the creator", Jefferson and many of the other founding fathers were deists and held fairly radical religious views for that period. Many historians feel that Benjamin Franklin was a "closet atheist". There are still many closet atheists in this day and age. Many of them are even ministers, priests and rabbis. }

In effect, the Pilgrims coming to American, the creation of the declaration of Independence, the granting of tax-exempt status to relgious organizations because of their contribution to the good of the society are all a form of "faith based" initiatives.

The history of the Pilgrims is prior to the establishment of the United States under the Constitution. So is the creation of the Declaration of Independence which is NEVER cited on matters of constitutional law. As for religious organizations being tax exempt, you are absolutely correct - that can be viewed as a faith based initiative on the part of law makers, and has been challenged on many occasions in the courts because of that. Who knows, someday the tax exempt status may be revoked. }

Please look at my entire response to the quote which is in {brackets} above. I simply found it easier to answer this way.

Zevei

[Zevei]

I largely agree with BinCo's long post. However, I will say that I have consistently refused to take an oath, on a Bible or otherwise, and have always been accommodated. The only problem usually has been for the court clerk to locate the apppropriate text for me to affirm.

I know that in NY, at least in civil courts one simply "affirms that they will tell the truth".
I look forward to the day when the President of the United States does not feel compelled to place his hand on a bible when taking the oath of office. Personally the text I would use would be Darwin's Origin of Species and the Descent of Man.

Oh, and contrary to popular "wisdom" there are indeed atheists in foxholes.

Zevei