There is a recent ongoing debate going on the issue of the ACLU telling the city of Los Angeles that they need to remove a cross from their city seal. During the debate a couple of people brought up that people don't have the right to not be offended in this country, implying that people who thought that the cross should be removed are, in essence, offended.

I am always supportive of the removal of God and religion from anything that receive tax dollars or that deals with the State. I believe we need a secular State to ensure a true freedom of religion practices in America.

None of my reasoning has to do with me taking offense. I, myself am agnostic/atheist, but my wife is a Catholic, my father is a Hardcore Baptist, my mother, well my mother at least says she believes in God , Not one of my closest friends are anything but Christian, I'm surrounded by Christianity. I see "In God we trust" on the dollar bill and think it should be removed because it does not belong there, because all Americans do not believe in God, let alone trust in God. My guess is that there are many people like me, but I don't know.

My questions are:

If you are big on separation of Church and State what are your reasons?? How many ADers, who do believe in this separation, do so because they are "offended" by the site crosses or the word "God"?? Is the "we are offended" argument really a creation of people opposed to separation in order to confuse people without touching the real issues.

For those who feel there is political attack on Christianity from the secular left, what do you believe are the motives of people like me( I know you don't know, but what do you think) who support the separation of Church and State?

If you are big on separation of Church and State what are your reasons?? How many ADers, who do believe in this separation, do so because they are "offended" by the site crosses or the word "God"?? Is the "we are offended" argument really a creation of people opposed to separation in order to confuse people without touching the real issues.

I am for the Separation of Church and State as a core principle that lead to the birth of America. I believe that religion is something that one needs to keep to themselves, and no state of government entity shall promote one religion over another by use of scripture or religious symbols that are not generic enough in nature to be interpreted or accepted by the masses.

The 10 commandments are a Christian symbol.
The cross is a Christian symbol.

Angels appear across many religions and do not single out a religion.

God is a euphemism to imply a greater power, and is used in some form or another in all religions. So the uses of God and or angles do not promote one religion over another.

I feel that there is nothing wrong that our government acknowledges religion as a whole, as long as it doesn't point to a specific religion.

For those who feel there is political attack on Christianity from the secular left, what do you believe are the motives of people like me( I know you don't know, but what do you think) who support the separation of Church and State?

Political attacks on Christianity???????? That in itself violates the separation.

I practice my religion according to my own understanding of it. You can do the same, or not, it is up to you. The separation issue is important in historical perspective. The Catholic church spent way too much time trying to be a political powerhouse in Europe, and our founding fathers were going to have none of it.
I suspect that they had a clear understanding of the dangers involved.
It has pretty much been a recent thing that some people are seeing danger where little or none really exists. Sort of like Joseph McCarthy and the red scare. That certainly got blown out of proportion.
I forget who said this, but "When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy". By going to extremes on any issue, you undermine your own efforts. Your credibility is shot. You are telling me that you want your way just as much as everyone else does, even though you may be the smallest of minorites on the issue.
It also tells me that your perspective may be a bit warped. Progress does not often occur due to group effort, but when it does there is usually some compromise involved.

If you are big on separation of Church and State what are your reasons?? How many ADers, who do believe in this separation, do so because they are "offended" by the site crosses or the word "God"?? Is the "we are offended" argument really a creation of people opposed to separation in order to confuse people without touching the real issues.

It's just like those who disagree with Bush's strategy/tactics being painted into a corner as "hating Bush". By painting those in opposition to your beliefs, you make it easier to dismiss the logic of their arguments. A very unenlightened way to go about things.

As a member of a religious minority in this country, I strongly stand for all separation of church and government. Partially to protect those -- like me -- who are not in the majority and partially to protect ALL religions from government interference. Let the government promote your religion and soon there will be rules about when and how you can practice it in your church/temple/etc.

I also stand strongly in support of the ACLU to help defend not only keeping religion out of government, but also keeping government out of religion.

Offended when I see government-sponsored references to "God" (whoever she might be) or favoritism toward one particular relgious symbology (like Nativity scenes near the end of the year)? Not really. Instead, I'm annoyed that my tax dollars went toward something so completely unnecessary to the proper functioning of government and society.

Gov. Mule

I agree with most of what you say, but I do have a couple of issues.

First,



I heard Bill O'Reilly use this argument and it seems full of holes. Most religions have a god or gods to represent their "Higher Power", this much I agree with. However, most other people have different names for their gods. When the 'G' in god is capitalized it represents a name. God is the name of the Christian god(to most Christians).

An example would be

The planet Kligon has two suns.
The star in the middle of our solar system is called the Sun.

"In God we trust" is definitely an endorsement of the Christian religion. We know this through the way it is written, as well as, the history of the phrase.

Secondly,



I totally agree with this statement. But I wasn't insinuating that there were political attacks on Christianity. But I would be blind and deaf not to see and hear that there are people that believe that. I personally think there are political attacks on Christianity that finds itself intertwined with the State

First of all, what is wrong with the combination of church and state? The answer is the following: ideology is forced upon the people through the state even if they don't agree with it, and the people also have to fund this ideology (through taxes) even if they don't want to.

The hypocrisy lies in the ideologies already forced upon society by our current government and the doctrines of modern secularists. Here are just a few: forced attendance at government schools, all of the doctrines preached there including evolution, global warming, sex education, gender education, drug education, and the "benefits" of labor unions and big government.

So, why do some on the left love to preach the above ideology to America's children but despise ideologies associated with organized religion? Why do liberals love to tell other people how to live yet hate being told themselves how to live? I have a few hypotheses. One is that it's a natural byproduct of elitism. Elitism is the misplaced attitude of, "I'm smarter or better than most people." Elitism goes both ways, politically, but I'd have to say that the left wins hands down on who's got it worse.

If you are big on separation of Church and State what are your reasons?? How many ADers, who do believe in this separation, do so because they are "offended" by the site crosses or the word "God"?? Is the "we are offended" argument really a creation of people opposed to separation in order to confuse people without touching the real issues. I'm definitely not offended. I will admit to being frightened of the religious right using things like this as stepping stones along the way toward their goal of turning the United States into a Taliban-esque theocracy, but I am not offended by Christian parephernalia.
My Church has a long history of supporting the separation of Church and State. I don't really understand the impulse that leads the religious right to place religious iconography in the government like a puppy marking it's territory.

As for the second question: maybe if Christians would quit persecuting me I wouldn't find it so laughable when they claim they are being "persecuted".

I believe you'd like to erase the distinction between ideologies in general, and religious ideologies. I can appreciate this, if you opposed to evolution, global warming, sex education, etc.

However, the founders only singled out religious ideology for special treatment in the Constitution. You'd have to get an Amendment passed banning Evolution and everything else on your list to put them on the same plane of ideology as religious ideology. I don't think enough people share those views.


I'm neither conservative nor liberal, but I just have to point this one out (must be the mood I am in tonight). Isn't it really the case that liberals and conservatives like to tell other people how to live? Not all, but plenty of each, and plenty of examples can be provided for both sides. We must be careful when we make accusations of hypocrisy.

Forced attendance at government schools? Where? But to address your other comments one by one:

Evolution: Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a faith-based theory. Both are theories, and as such, many schools tend to teach both. However, evolution has far more substantial proof, which gives it an edge in terms of education. It is something that can be proven, whereas creationism could never be proven.

Global warming: Holy ozone layer Batman! Well, this has the Kyoto Protocol and many scientific backers. Again, it is taught both ways in school, although the pressure is placed on environmental concern. Better to be safe than sorry. Not much you can do once the ozone is depleted. I can already hear the industrialists saying, "It wasn't our fault!"

Sex education: A necessity, as students go through their maturation processes during these years. In my junior high, this was taught in collusion with our health classes. Since puberty has a direct impact on health, ignoring sex education would almost be deplorable. Would you teach math without discussing multiplication?

Gender education: I never had to take a course in reference to this subject. I don't know of one that exists. But I am probably wrong.

Drug education: Again, this was a health-related issue. Of course, the primary thing that prevented me from drug usage was good parenting.

Labor unions: Beneficial if you are a worker; not so much if you are a CEO.

Big government: Ideally I prefer limited government. But those running the "limited government" party are doing the opposite--trying to impose their moral beliefs in governmental stances. In particular, the gay marriage issue. Limited government would be great, but only works in theory.

Church and state should be separated. Here in Utah is a prime example of why church and state should remain so. The LDS Church is so involved in politics it is surprising that nobody has sued the entire state of Utah.

The Founding Fathers understood the importance of separation from their experiences in England. Many who would prefer governmentally-recognized religions seem to forget our own history. Not so patriotic, are they?

Actually, the rule is compulsory attendance of a school, which can be in the home, or run by a corporation, or of a religious nature. I believe the compulsory impulse can be traced to the need for voters to have some level of education for a republic to function.

Evolution is taught because there's widespread consensus in the scientific community that it's the best theory. Global warming, much less a debatable issue than it's causes, was never mentioned to me as anything more than a theory, as well. In my former public school, as in many others, "sex education" is now restricted to abstinence only, due to political pressure from religious groups, despite dubious social utility and general incompleteness of not informing students about their realistic options. Drug education consists of "don't do drugs, they're all very bad for you." And the praise of the New Deal is rooted in our past, as is the praise for free markets, capitalism, democracy, the Bill of Rights, and other parts of the American system and our heritage that have demonstrably worked well for the country. Acting like only liberal ideologies are taught in schools or that there's a practical reason to treat evolution as equivalent to Biblical allegory in a Bio classroom is ridiculous.

Anyway, we all really know that the separation of church and state arises not from any general "I don't want to hear your ideology" amendment but from the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". This has been interpreted to mean that organs of government cannot actively promote or restrict any given religion. It applies to the states through the 14th Amendment; and the intent was obviously not to allow other branches to legislate in place of Congress, so the ideal that religion and government are both better protected by separation is preserved by not allowing the gov't to fudge the rule through subtle funding, state officials leading prayers, symbolism, etc. I'll take the philosophy of Jefferson over that of Mullah Omar, thank you very much.

If this was liberals wanting to promote our side only, most of the Bible is great liberal propaganda, great soak-the-rich-love-the-poor-make-love-not-war-judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged stuff. Just as liberals often read more than just the purported "hate gays" passages of the Bible, we also tend to read more of the Constitution than just the Second Amendment. The civil libertarian movement is much closer to modern liberals than conservatives just as the "get the heck off my land before I shoot you" libertarians are generally conservatives who think the drug war is too expensive.

I'm friends with many atheists and agnostics, and everyone I can think of absent one all around liberal is socially liberal and economically conservative- like theoretical libertarians should be. They side with us because, well, we don't think they should have to live by anyone else's religious rules, whereas the Christian Right isn't as gracious. Similarly, some of my most all-around liberal friends are devout church-goers.

I don't pretend to understand why my irreligious friends get upset at the small, symbolic gestures toward religion. As a pragmatist, I'd rather let some quaint old religious sculpture up in a courtroom if it costs more to remove it than keep it. I just don't want the gov't funding religions or preaching. I don't think a Catholic Mary statue or Wiccan pentagram or Buddha is going to bother me if it doesn't cost me anything. But I also don't know anyone, even among my religious conservative friends, who honestly thinks that having the Ten Commandments on the wall will improve courts or that forced prayer improves schools. Wasn't it the Paducah shooting that was aimed at a prayer circle? And religion certainly held sway in colonial Salem courts. The push for such symbolic gestures at piety is more about saying "look at us, we're good, anyone not like us is bad".

So, to sum up, yes, some are generally offended by even minimal religious displays in public areas. A larger group of people who aren't offended have their backs, for various reasons. Sometimes, it's because they wouldn't want another religion's- or another Christian sect's- trappings pushed on them, using their tax dollars and public property. Some don't care about the principle, but see it as just a matter of law. And many just think it's a silly, pushy gesture that's divisive while providing no real benefit.

<div><table width='50%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' style='border: 1px solid black' align='center'><tr><td class='maintitle'> Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reason: Question to debate too vague or missing.<br /><br />Recommended action: If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.<br /><br />Helpful links:<br />- Starting New Topics<br />- Survival Guide<br />- The Rules<br />- Staff Directory</td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>