Full Version: The separation of church and state.
The separation of church and state. Is it there to protect the church from the state, or the state from the church?
Both, which is just right. If you want to get into framers intention though, they had a bad experience with state in the church. So probably that one.
I think the idea of "separation of church and state" exists because the Supreme Court says it does. As far as I know, there are no actual laws written stating this.
The First Amendment to the Constitution only provides that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This indicates to me that Congress can not declare a national religion and they can't stop us from practicing whatever religion we chose.
The phrase, "separation of church and state" came into our syntax through the 1947 Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing; 330 U.S. 1
In this case, Justice Black, writing for the majority, quoted Thomas Jefferson as saying the intent of the amendment was to establish, "'a wall of separation between Church and State." My problem with Justice Black's usage of Jefferson's words is that he does not cite where he found those words, nor does he say in which context Jefferson made them.
The separation of church and state only exists because of the Supreme Court. My guess is that Jefferson & Co. would be laughing themselves silly over our Political Correctness when it comes to things like posting the Ten Commandments in public building and saying "under god" in the pledge.
The First Amendment to the Constitution only provides that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This indicates to me that Congress can not declare a national religion and they can't stop us from practicing whatever religion we chose.
The phrase, "separation of church and state" came into our syntax through the 1947 Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing; 330 U.S. 1
In this case, Justice Black, writing for the majority, quoted Thomas Jefferson as saying the intent of the amendment was to establish, "'a wall of separation between Church and State." My problem with Justice Black's usage of Jefferson's words is that he does not cite where he found those words, nor does he say in which context Jefferson made them.
The separation of church and state only exists because of the Supreme Court. My guess is that Jefferson & Co. would be laughing themselves silly over our Political Correctness when it comes to things like posting the Ten Commandments in public building and saying "under god" in the pledge.
Just a reminder. It is Freedom OF religion, not Freedom FROM it.
1. Atheists rights should also be protected.
2. Okay, here's the main problem with the establishment clause.
I understand "no law respecting an establishment of religion" as no law for or against a religious group.
Otherwise would not it be more clearly written "no law establishing a state religion"?
2. Okay, here's the main problem with the establishment clause.
I understand "no law respecting an establishment of religion" as no law for or against a religious group.
Otherwise would not it be more clearly written "no law establishing a state religion"?
Turnea, the only difference between what you wrote and what is in the Constitution is the word "state."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems really clear to me. I'm confused by your confusion
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems really clear to me. I'm confused by your confusion
I am confused as to whether this means not establishing religion or no laws concerning a religion.
QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 29 2002, 06:39 PM)
I am confused as to whether this means not establishing religion or no laws concerning a religion.
From the way I understand it, the founding fathers were concerned about a nation that was committed to “one” specific religion such as the “Anglican – State religion” that existed in England while we were under British rule. It seems to me that the founders wanted a nation where everyone was free to worship as they choose, free of influence from the state. Not vice-versa.
That was the way that I always interpreted the first amendment as well. It is now where we are starting to see some of those without religous beliefs starting to protect their rights, or infringe on others. By this I mean the instances where parents are challenging the Pledge of Allegiance in the public school systems. True, we are guarenteed the freedom to practice the religion of our choice, but were the founders concerned with those who did not believe in a god? If so, what is the deal with everyone saying America is a nation under God? Did the founders want to give rights to those who had different beliefs on the whole "divine being" concept, or were they guarenteeing rights to those who believed in a god, if not their God?
"Nation under God" had nothing to do with the founders. That was added by congress in 1954. I certainly feel that athiests right should be protected as much as any other Americans. Madison (father of the consitution) said as much (I'll post the quote later)
I was, however, not discussing founders intent in my last post. Rather I raised a question about the specific wording of the constitution.
I was, however, not discussing founders intent in my last post. Rather I raised a question about the specific wording of the constitution.
QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 29 2002, 01:39 PM)
I am confused as to whether this means not establishing religion or no laws concerning a religion.
I hate to fence-sit on you, turnea, but I think the amendment meant both.
The first part of the amendment obviously covers the fact that congress shall establish no national religion. The second part is where the laws come in. If Athiesm is considered a religion then they are protected to practice freely. I suppose if laws need to be made to protect their freedom so be it.
I would prefer that Congress adhere to the first part (establishing no religion) and hopefully no further laws would need to be enacted.
Nation under God" had nothing to do with the founders. That was added by congress in 1954
Congress may have made it official in 1954, but we said Nation Under God way before that. M.T.
Congress may have made it official in 1954, but we said Nation Under God way before that. M.T.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Oct 31 2002, 01:01 AM)
If Athiesm is considered a religion then they are protected to practice freely.
Atheism in and of itself is the lack of belief in a God, or someone or thing to worship. Therefore it can never be considered a religion. However, I do believe that Atheists should have the right to believe as they wish, as well as practice, and attempt to spread their personal beliefs. It is when the rights of people (in this case, Christians) to worship at will is infringed upon, that I have a difficult time with the separation clause.
QUOTE(mnikmm @ Oct 31 2002, 12:46 AM)
It is when the rights of people (in this case, Christians) to worship at will is infringed upon, that I have a difficult time with the separation clause.
How are Christian's rights being infringed upon?
Christian can worship anywhere they want, as long as the government doesn't get in on the act...
But the government has been called into action on the situation in the classroom dealing with the Plegde of Allegiance. Christians are allowed to worship wherever they want? Not anymore they aren't. They are forced to go elsewhere because prayer isn't even allowed in the public schools anymore. Kids who wish to pray at their schools have been asked to move outside of the school to have a group prayer. I heard of this just after the September 11th attacks. Those students have a right to deal with chaos with religion, and to put limits on where or when they can deal with it is nonsense. I guess I am personally interested with the way school administrators handle the situations that arise out of the seperation clause. Another quesion though, why is it that many public high schools have a religious service rights before their graduation ceremonies? Isn't that the same thing? Or is it because it isn't during school hours on a school day? When there are exceptions to this rule, someone's rights will be jeopardized.
Hi depriest - welcome to the forum.
I think, perhaps, that you're muddling some of the prayer in schools issues together.
First, the "under god" part in the Pledge of Alligience. This is not illegal. Anyone who recites the pledge may say under god. AND saying the Pledge is not illegal. The California decision that was going to suspend that portion of the pledge is on hold.
Second, children are allowed to pray in school. School officials are not allowed to lead children in prayer to any specific god. This also addresses the prayer ceremony at graduations. Most are non-denominational, no specific religion is being established.
Finally, could you provide any examples of students being barred from prayer in public schools after 9/11? This is the first I've heard of this. Thanks.
I think, perhaps, that you're muddling some of the prayer in schools issues together.
First, the "under god" part in the Pledge of Alligience. This is not illegal. Anyone who recites the pledge may say under god. AND saying the Pledge is not illegal. The California decision that was going to suspend that portion of the pledge is on hold.
Second, children are allowed to pray in school. School officials are not allowed to lead children in prayer to any specific god. This also addresses the prayer ceremony at graduations. Most are non-denominational, no specific religion is being established.
Finally, could you provide any examples of students being barred from prayer in public schools after 9/11? This is the first I've heard of this. Thanks.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Oct 31 2002, 08:50 PM)
Second, children are allowed to pray in school. School officials are not allowed to lead children in prayer to any specific god. This also addresses the prayer ceremony at graduations. Most are non-denominational, no specific religion is being established.
Finally, could you provide any examples of students being barred from prayer in public schools after 9/11? This is the first I've heard of this. Thanks.
Finally, could you provide any examples of students being barred from prayer in public schools after 9/11? This is the first I've heard of this. Thanks.
Being a certified teacher in both Illinois, and Iowa I can vouch to the fact that prayer (aloud) is completely restricted from any school activity. In fact, any teacher who condones it can be prosecuted under the law. Furthermore, in Hancock & Adams Counties, Illinois, you can be disciplined for wearing a crucifix in sight, or refusing to take it off upon request. However, other religious symbols such as the pentagram is allowed because it is considered cultural expression.
QUOTE(mnikmm @ Oct 31 2002, 11:29 PM)
.
Being a certified teacher in both Illinois, and Iowa I can vouch to the fact that prayer (aloud) is completely restricted from any school activity. In fact, any teacher who condones it can be prosecuted under the law. Furthermore, in Hancock & Adams Counties, Illinois, you can be disciplined for wearing a crucifix in sight, or refusing to take it off upon request. However, other religious symbols such as the pentagram is allowed because it is considered cultural expression.
Being a certified teacher in both Illinois, and Iowa I can vouch to the fact that prayer (aloud) is completely restricted from any school activity. In fact, any teacher who condones it can be prosecuted under the law. Furthermore, in Hancock & Adams Counties, Illinois, you can be disciplined for wearing a crucifix in sight, or refusing to take it off upon request. However, other religious symbols such as the pentagram is allowed because it is considered cultural expression.
I am against organized prayer in the public schools, but I think seperation of church and state is sometimes nitpicked to the point of being ridiculous. Not being allowed to wear a crucifix is also nutso.
M>T>
QUOTE(mnikmm @ Oct 31 2002, 11:29 PM)
Furthermore, in Hancock & Adams Counties, Illinois, you can be disciplined for wearing a crucifix in sight, or refusing to take it off upon request.
This is absolutely ridiculous that such a rule exists.
This is a good example of the government reaching too far into the expression of one's religion.
I'm sure it is not allowed to INTERUPT class by praying aloud. However, I'm have a hard time believing anyone would be penalized for praying, in a reasonable tone of voice, before or in between classes. This is not unreasonable, in school students don't speak out of turn. This is good.
Of course teachers should not lead school prayers before an entire class. They are there to teach. Students who are not christians should have to sacrifice part of the time they are entitled in school for something they do not participate in.
Finally I think putting "under God" in the pledge of allegiance in particularly silly. This connects belive in God with allegiance to one's country. That is not acceptable for America, a land where religious (and non-religious) diversity should be protected.
I am a christian who belives seperation of church and state is wonderful.
As for that last example, under the religion (I think that's a better name than establishment) clause, that law should be unconstitutional.
Of course teachers should not lead school prayers before an entire class. They are there to teach. Students who are not christians should have to sacrifice part of the time they are entitled in school for something they do not participate in.
Finally I think putting "under God" in the pledge of allegiance in particularly silly. This connects belive in God with allegiance to one's country. That is not acceptable for America, a land where religious (and non-religious) diversity should be protected.
I am a christian who belives seperation of church and state is wonderful.
As for that last example, under the religion (I think that's a better name than establishment) clause, that law should be unconstitutional.
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 1 2002, 01:55 PM)
.
I am a christian who belives seperation of church and state is wonderful.
.
I am a christian who belives seperation of church and state is wonderful.
.
Ditto, but I think the zero tolerance situation in some schools is silly and a waste of time. If a group of kids want to quietly prey, especially after 9/11, who is hurt by that?
It is required that Wis. public school students, each day must either recite the Pledge or sing or listen to the Nat'l Anthem. The Msn. Superintendent of Schools didn't think the Pledge of Alligance was appropriate because of the words "under God."He didn't approve of the words to the Nat'l Anthem, so he just had the music played over the sound system. The whole city got in an uproar and wanted to "throw the bum out." The newspapers were full of it. The whole thing was so time consuming and stupid.
MT
QUOTE(Madtown @ Nov 1 2002, 05:12 AM)
I think seperation of church and state is sometimes nitpicked to the point of being ridiculous. Not being allowed to wear a crucifix is also nutso.
M>T>
M>T>
Whoa, that twice in the same day we have agreed. Mark it down. I am sure it will not happen again anytime soon.
QUOTE(turnea @ Nov 1 2002, 06:55 PM)
Finally I think putting "under God" in the pledge of allegiance in particularly silly.
Have we gone so far as to separate God from the U.S? I find this difficult to accept. When you read the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, think about where the majority of those ideas and laws came from. If you are not a believer, don’t speak the words. Leave the pledge alone.
Madtown: While I agree that the "separation" issue has been taken to ridiculous extremes (as in the sporting-of-a-crucifix example), I'm not sure where you come up with the notion that "we said Nation Under God way before [1954]". Who's this "we"? Where did we say "Nation Under God"? Certainly not in the Pledge of Allegiance (that "under God" was added as a result of lobbying by the Knights of Columbus, btw) and "We, the People of the United States" sure didn't when constituting our government.
mnikmm: "When you read the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, think about where the majority of those ideas and laws came from."
Good idea. Not many of "those ideas and laws" came from any organized religion. The only theological reference in either document is the assertion that "unalienable rights" are granted by a "Creator". No other references to a God-like entity, no mention of "religion" at all until the much debated First Amendment - and certainly no references whatsoever to Christanity - or Judaism or Shinto or Islam or Buddhism or Animism or Japanese Golf Religion (which would've been as anachronistic as most of the more fundamentalist latterday Christian denominations which are so desperate to merge church and state). It does have a rather humanist streak - which stands to reason as several of our Founders were Deists, all of them were informed by The Enlightment, and few of them were devout practitioners of any religion - though, granted, those few were Protestants. In any event, the "laws and ideas" expressed in those documents have much more to do with secular ethics, political economy, and the humanist spirit of the Philosophes than, say, the teachings of Christ.
mnikmm: "When you read the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, think about where the majority of those ideas and laws came from."
Good idea. Not many of "those ideas and laws" came from any organized religion. The only theological reference in either document is the assertion that "unalienable rights" are granted by a "Creator". No other references to a God-like entity, no mention of "religion" at all until the much debated First Amendment - and certainly no references whatsoever to Christanity - or Judaism or Shinto or Islam or Buddhism or Animism or Japanese Golf Religion (which would've been as anachronistic as most of the more fundamentalist latterday Christian denominations which are so desperate to merge church and state). It does have a rather humanist streak - which stands to reason as several of our Founders were Deists, all of them were informed by The Enlightment, and few of them were devout practitioners of any religion - though, granted, those few were Protestants. In any event, the "laws and ideas" expressed in those documents have much more to do with secular ethics, political economy, and the humanist spirit of the Philosophes than, say, the teachings of Christ.
Regarding the actual topic of this thread, the "separation of church and state", the First Amendment is clearly not the last word. According to the Constitution, at least, "The judicial Power [residing in, among other things, 'one supreme Court'] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." As has been pointed out here, the Supreme Court has ruled on First Amendment cases and those rulings are the law of the land.
The answer to mnikmm's question, therefore, can be found in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Twp. 330 U.S. 1 (1947). According to that decision's interpretation of the First Amendment:
"The word ['religion'] governs two prohibitions and governs them alike. It does not have two meanings, one narrow to forbid 'an establishment' and another, much broader, for securing 'the free exercise thereof.' 'Thereof' brings down 'religion' with its entire and exact content, no more and no less, from the first into the second guaranty, so that Congress and now the states are as broadly restricted concerning the one as they are regarding the other."
Whether we agree with the ruling or not, the way the law stands (and this case has been cited in over a hundred SCOTUS decisions since, without reinterpretation), it looks like "the separation of church and state" is to protect the state from the church - unless and until the Supreme Court alters or revises the 1947 decision.
The answer to mnikmm's question, therefore, can be found in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Twp. 330 U.S. 1 (1947). According to that decision's interpretation of the First Amendment:
"The word ['religion'] governs two prohibitions and governs them alike. It does not have two meanings, one narrow to forbid 'an establishment' and another, much broader, for securing 'the free exercise thereof.' 'Thereof' brings down 'religion' with its entire and exact content, no more and no less, from the first into the second guaranty, so that Congress and now the states are as broadly restricted concerning the one as they are regarding the other."
Whether we agree with the ruling or not, the way the law stands (and this case has been cited in over a hundred SCOTUS decisions since, without reinterpretation), it looks like "the separation of church and state" is to protect the state from the church - unless and until the Supreme Court alters or revises the 1947 decision.
Jaime: That Jefferson quote, btw, is from his letter to the Danbury Baptists, widely published at the time (1802) and much cited since. The Danbury Baptist Association wrote to President Jefferson (addressing him as the chief magistrate) regarding their persecution by the Congregationist establishment in Connecticut. They argued that "no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinion" and "wondered at... those who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion", asking him to express his opinion regarding "our constitution of government" on the First Amendment.
Jefferson wrote back: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights."
By implication, at the very least, he was supporting the argument that no religious denomination had the right to impose their views on anyone else.
Jefferson wrote back: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights."
By implication, at the very least, he was supporting the argument that no religious denomination had the right to impose their views on anyone else.
QUOTE(mnikmm @ Nov 2 2002, 01:20 AM)
Have we gone so far as to separate God from the U.S? I find this difficult to accept. When you read the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, think about where the majority of those ideas and laws came from. If you are not a believer, don’t speak the words. Leave the pledge alone.
If you were to read the rest of my quote you'd see why I take this position but I'll say it again. Putting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance associates belief in God with Allegiance to America. That is wrong. Sure Judeo-Christian morality bleeds into the law. This is because it makes sense. This in no way justifies putting "under God" in the pledge.
Finally there have been extreme cases both ways on this issue. 49 of 50 states have what are called "Sunday Laws" on the books. These laws show an obvious link between the law of the land and the religious observance most christians participate in on Sunday. I believe the laws forbidding some states to sell alcohol on Sunday are the most infamous.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 2 2002, 04:47 AM)
Who's this "we"? Where did we say "Nation Under God"? Certainly not in the Pledge of Allegiance (that "under God" was added as a result of lobbying by the Knights of Columbus, btw) and "We, the People of the United States" sure didn't when constituting our government.
Wertz
Sorry,I should have explained better. I attended a Catholic school, 1st through 9th grade. When we said the Pledge of Allegiance we said "under God".
Our right had was placed over our hearts while we said "I pledge allegiance"...we extended our arm toward the flag while we recited the remainder of the Pledge. The extended arm version was discontinued, because it was too much like a Hitler salute.
MT
Madtown: Interesting. When was this? Presumably pre-1954, if it was pre-Hitler.
If so, considering that that this was at a parochial school and the addition of "under God" was primarily a Catholic effort, I'm not entirely surprised. I'd never heard of that before, though. Thanks.
If so, considering that that this was at a parochial school and the addition of "under God" was primarily a Catholic effort, I'm not entirely surprised. I'd never heard of that before, though. Thanks.
Wertz, counting back, I must have started first grade in 1938. Yup! Long time ago. Time flies when your're having fun!
Madtown
Madtown
I think that the sepearation of church and state is ridiculous. Whatever happened to freedom of speech and religion for that matter?
QUOTE(iwcbthomas2 @ Nov 6 2002, 06:21 PM)
I think that the sepearation of church and state is ridiculous. Whatever happened to freedom of speech and religion for that matter?
This is exactly what seperation of church and state is for. It (if it is not compromised) keeps one religion from controlling the government and hurting everyone elses freedom of religion.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Nov 2 2002, 03:47 AM)
Madtown: While I agree that the "separation" issue has been taken to ridiculous extremes (as in the sporting-of-a-crucifix example), but I'm not sure where you come up with the notion that "we said Nation Under God way before [1954]". Who's this "we"? Where did we say "Nation Under God"? Certainly not in the Pledge of Allegiance (that "under God" was added as a result of lobbying by the Knights of Columbus, btw) and "We, the People of the United States" sure didn't when constituting our government.
mnikmm: "When you read the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, think about where the majority of those ideas and laws came from."
Good idea. Not many of "those ideas and laws" came from any organized religion. The only theological reference in either document is the assertion that "unalienable rights" are granted by a "Creator". No other references to a God-like entity, no mention of "religion" at all until the much debated First Amendment - and certainly no references whatsoever to Christanity - or Judaism or Shinto or Islam or Buddhism or Animism or Japanese Golf Religion (which would've been as anachronistic as most of the more fundamentalist latterday Christian denominations which are so desperate to merge church and state). It does have a rather humanist streak - which stands to reason as several of our Founders were Deists, all of them were informed by The Enlightment, and few of them were devout practitioners of any religion - though, granted, those few were Protestants. In any event, the "laws and ideas" expressed in those documents have much more to do with secular ethics, political economy, and the humanist spirit of the Philosophes than, say, the teachings of Christ.
mnikmm: "When you read the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, think about where the majority of those ideas and laws came from."
Good idea. Not many of "those ideas and laws" came from any organized religion. The only theological reference in either document is the assertion that "unalienable rights" are granted by a "Creator". No other references to a God-like entity, no mention of "religion" at all until the much debated First Amendment - and certainly no references whatsoever to Christanity - or Judaism or Shinto or Islam or Buddhism or Animism or Japanese Golf Religion (which would've been as anachronistic as most of the more fundamentalist latterday Christian denominations which are so desperate to merge church and state). It does have a rather humanist streak - which stands to reason as several of our Founders were Deists, all of them were informed by The Enlightment, and few of them were devout practitioners of any religion - though, granted, those few were Protestants. In any event, the "laws and ideas" expressed in those documents have much more to do with secular ethics, political economy, and the humanist spirit of the Philosophes than, say, the teachings of Christ.
The information about the POA was on another forum a while back. I think it has been removed now.
I also went to Catholic school and we did change before the 1954 date, but it was only us..not the country. The suggestion that we not put our hands out but cover our hearts was changed in 1945
I know this is a bit off target of the thread,but this is the info that was on the other forum. I thought you might find it interesting. My Webpage
If the state is supposed to be independent from the church, then why does all the legal tender in the United States have "in God we trust" on it? If i were an idiot who didn't know better, I might raise a fuss on the issue.
QUOTE(iwcbdepriest @ Nov 22 2002, 01:47 AM)
If the state is supposed to be independent from the church, then why does all the legal tender in the United States have "in God we trust" on it? If i were an idiot who didn't know better, I might raise a fuss on the issue.
Umm... I guess that means me
I think that "In God we trust" on our money is a problem too. Government should stay out of religion, period.
Why isn't it Freedom from Religion?
Should I be forced to believe in God. I have no problem with Religous ideas in our schools. My problems is with religous practices in our schools. religion should be talked about more in school. Does anyone think the Framers of the Constiution wanted the Christain States of America.
Should I be forced to believe in God. I have no problem with Religous ideas in our schools. My problems is with religous practices in our schools. religion should be talked about more in school. Does anyone think the Framers of the Constiution wanted the Christain States of America.
QUOTE(Ranciduncle @ Nov 22 2002, 06:58 PM)
Why isn't it Freedom from Religion?
Should I be forced to believe in God.
Should I be forced to believe in God.
Who is forcing you?
And the amendment does say "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." I think that covers everyone who does not believe in god.
I am new on this debate site and I am most likely going open up a can of worms but this a quote by Patrick Henry that might interest a few people
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religious, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of the Jesus Christ.” (Quote by Patrick Henry)
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religious, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of the Jesus Christ.” (Quote by Patrick Henry)
This whole thing has been carried beyond common sense boundaries. Anyone who has read any history at all knows this country was founded by people who believed in religious freedom. This means the right to believe or not to believe. Most, if not all of them were Christians. They could never have comprehended the state of "Political Correctness" that has swept this country. It is just plain ridiculous! It is part of our heritage now and iwcbdepriest I think it has already been brought up and squelched.
Heritage is all well and good but it should not be allowed to affect law unfairly. This country was founded on a heritage of slavery, but that had to go. This issue isn't as clear cut, but heritage should definitley not be the deciding factor.
The separation of church and state was NEVER meant to keep the church out of the state. Its intention was to stop the gov. from controlling the church. the gov. had no right to force religion onto people and tax people that go to church. BUT the state will no longer allow religiousness into its official meetings.
The 10 commandments should be laws.
The schools seem to teach islam, but no christianity. Why?
L. Zeved
The 10 commandments should be laws.
The schools seem to teach islam, but no christianity. Why?
L. Zeved
QUOTE(Lord Zeved @ Dec 26 2002, 12:29 PM)
The 10 commandments should be laws.
You're not really proposing people go to jail or be punished for coveting do you?
With all due respect to god (or whatever controlling entity that may exist) he is not my respresentative in Congress. Those are the only laws I am required to follow. Following God's law is a choice and it should be kept that way. No one should be forced to live under laws they had no control in making.
Im a newbie... this is my first post ever at "America's Debate".
Politics and Philosophy are inextricably linked and ambiguously synonymous. Freedom of religion effectively becomes freedom from religion. You can't have laws without a system of belief etc.. America is first and foremost a composite structure, and as such it should have a re-inforcement of its disparate factions' tolerance for one-another. ELSE we need to create a state for the Bhuddists, a state for the Muslims, a state for the Wiccans, a state for the Atheists... the list HAS NO END and gets longer every day.
Religion is not even arguably defineable as any specific school of thought, so as a result, Separation of church and state either applies only to "church going christians" or has nearly no meaning whatever.
As soon as we assume religion means "the bible" or any group affiliated thereto, we fall WAAAY short of the definition of "religious". Tolerance of all other "systems" of belief equally, even if personally morally offensive is in the end-game, and over time, the only laws that will be respected are those which are not unilaterally associated with the "far right" of any particular "religion", but which are designed for the purpose of peace-able co-existence of all people of the world and not just Americans, and those laws will invariably have the concept of "Tolerance of all others" built into them. Anything else is purely divisive and is not a very "American" thing.
Give kids ALL religions if you are going to give them any. This is not a "Christian" country, this is not a "Shamanic" country, this is not a "Tao'ist" country, this is not a "Muslim" country. Let's get the reality check rolling and act like it and work WITH each other instead of AGAINST "the other people".
Politics and Philosophy are inextricably linked and ambiguously synonymous. Freedom of religion effectively becomes freedom from religion. You can't have laws without a system of belief etc.. America is first and foremost a composite structure, and as such it should have a re-inforcement of its disparate factions' tolerance for one-another. ELSE we need to create a state for the Bhuddists, a state for the Muslims, a state for the Wiccans, a state for the Atheists... the list HAS NO END and gets longer every day.
Religion is not even arguably defineable as any specific school of thought, so as a result, Separation of church and state either applies only to "church going christians" or has nearly no meaning whatever.
As soon as we assume religion means "the bible" or any group affiliated thereto, we fall WAAAY short of the definition of "religious". Tolerance of all other "systems" of belief equally, even if personally morally offensive is in the end-game, and over time, the only laws that will be respected are those which are not unilaterally associated with the "far right" of any particular "religion", but which are designed for the purpose of peace-able co-existence of all people of the world and not just Americans, and those laws will invariably have the concept of "Tolerance of all others" built into them. Anything else is purely divisive and is not a very "American" thing.
Give kids ALL religions if you are going to give them any. This is not a "Christian" country, this is not a "Shamanic" country, this is not a "Tao'ist" country, this is not a "Muslim" country. Let's get the reality check rolling and act like it and work WITH each other instead of AGAINST "the other people".
QUOTE
The 10 commandments should be laws.
Would not coveting your neighbor's goods be a law? It is impossible to separate religion from American culture. The government just shouldn't try to force religion on anyone. The principals of the United States aren't that contradictory to the bible and such.
I have only had time to skim read parts of this thread, and I apologise if this has been mentioned before, but what about the phrase 'in one nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? How can Church and State ever be seperate whilst the ceremony necessary to become a citizen, or proclaim you citizenship, also necessitates a pledge of allegiance to the Christian deity?
QUOTE(JonBon @ Feb 5 2003, 04:22 PM)
I have only had time to skim read parts of this thread, and I apologise if this has been mentioned before, but what about the phrase 'in one nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? How can Church and State ever be seperate whilst the ceremony necessary to become a citizen, or proclaim you citizenship, also necessitates a pledge of allegiance to the Christian deity?
Christian or Christianity refers to the belief of Jesus as the son of God.
Jewish people believe in God but are not Christians. They believe Jesus was a holy man or a prophet, but not the savior or son of God.
Sleeper
[quote=Sleeper,Feb 5 2003, 09:25 AM] - m??onBon,Feb 5 2003, 04:22 PM] I have only had time to skim read parts of this thread, and I apologise if this has been mentioned before, but what about the phrase 'in one nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? How can Church and State ever be seperate whilst the ceremony necessary to become a citizen, or proclaim you citizenship, also necessitates a pledge of allegiance to the Christian deity? [/QUOTE]
Christian or Christianity refers to the belief of Jesus as the son of God.
Jewish people believe in God but are not Christians. They believe Jesus was a holy man or a prophet, but not the savior or son of God.
Sleeper [/quote]
Muslims also believe in God, with Jesus as a prophet.
You're splitting hairs. Perhaps JonBon should have said Judeo-Christian theology instead. Or Islamo-Judeo-Christian. It still amounts to the same thing.
Christian or Christianity refers to the belief of Jesus as the son of God.
Jewish people believe in God but are not Christians. They believe Jesus was a holy man or a prophet, but not the savior or son of God.
Sleeper [/quote]
Muslims also believe in God, with Jesus as a prophet.
You're splitting hairs. Perhaps JonBon should have said Judeo-Christian theology instead. Or Islamo-Judeo-Christian. It still amounts to the same thing.
[quote=quarkhead,Feb 5 2003, 05:41 PM] [QUOTE=Sleeper,Feb 5 2003, 09:25 AM] - m??onBon,Feb 5 2003, 04:22 PM] I have only had time to skim read parts of this thread, and I apologise if this has been mentioned before, but what about the phrase 'in one nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? How can Church and State ever be seperate whilst the ceremony necessary to become a citizen, or proclaim you citizenship, also necessitates a pledge of allegiance to the Christian deity? [/QUOTE]
Christian or Christianity refers to the belief of Jesus as the son of God.
Jewish people believe in God but are not Christians. They believe Jesus was a holy man or a prophet, but not the savior or son of God.
Sleeper [/QUOTE]
Muslims also believe in God, with Jesus as a prophet.
You're splitting hairs. Perhaps JonBon should have said Judeo-Christian theology instead. Or Islamo-Judeo-Christian. It still amounts to the same thing. [/quote]
This was taken from Dictionary.com
Christian
adj.
Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
I see nothing about God anywhere in those passages. I was not splitting hairs, merely stating fact.
This is no different than Wertz admonishing a few of us for the term Democrat as an adjective, when it should have been Democratic. In which I conceded he was correct, as you should do the same.
Christian or Christianity refers to the belief of Jesus as the son of God.
Jewish people believe in God but are not Christians. They believe Jesus was a holy man or a prophet, but not the savior or son of God.
Sleeper [/QUOTE]
Muslims also believe in God, with Jesus as a prophet.
You're splitting hairs. Perhaps JonBon should have said Judeo-Christian theology instead. Or Islamo-Judeo-Christian. It still amounts to the same thing. [/quote]
This was taken from Dictionary.com
Christian
adj.
Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
I see nothing about God anywhere in those passages. I was not splitting hairs, merely stating fact.
This is no different than Wertz admonishing a few of us for the term Democrat as an adjective, when it should have been Democratic. In which I conceded he was correct, as you should do the same.
In your last post, you are indeed correct, Sleeper. And I agree with the definition. One can be a Christian and actually be a total atheist, something I have long held to be true.
That said, you actually said first that Christians believe Jesus is the "son of God," which DID imply belief in God. I felt you were splitting hairs because it wasn't really answering JonBon's post. I was trying to demonstrate that. Even if you include Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the "under God," it's still beside the point of separation of church and state.
If I had responded to JonBon with, "Hindus believe in the Trimurti - Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Siva the destroyer," it would be a fact, but have no bearing on the issue he brought up, which is, having a national pledge which acknowledges "God" at all.
That said, you actually said first that Christians believe Jesus is the "son of God," which DID imply belief in God. I felt you were splitting hairs because it wasn't really answering JonBon's post. I was trying to demonstrate that. Even if you include Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the "under God," it's still beside the point of separation of church and state.
If I had responded to JonBon with, "Hindus believe in the Trimurti - Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Siva the destroyer," it would be a fact, but have no bearing on the issue he brought up, which is, having a national pledge which acknowledges "God" at all.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.