Separation of Church and State

does it bother you that many, including out founding fathers have faith? Is this just a thread to bash those that do? what IS the purpose of this thread gish?

"cnc66 wrote:

does it bother you that many, including out founding fathers have faith? Is this just a thread to bash those that do? what IS the purpose of this thread gish?

I don't think its a problem that anyone has faith. I just don't want laws that I have to obey, to be faith-based. Which is the whole point of the separation between Church & State. Letting any government, even slightly, show a bias towards one religion or any religion, can and has, proven to be a dangerous thing.

Most importantly, though, this isn't an attack on religion. (I mean the whole issue, Gish, on the other hand, I don't know.) I'm an Atheist, but I don't hate people with faith nor their faith. However, it is a good question, that Gish asked. Agree or not, you have to admit, it is a touch hypocritical. Not too mention, of all things that could have a reference to God...money seems an odd choice. Maybe that's just me.

Here is what I will say on the topic....

Separation of Church FROM State was created and drafted solely so a Religious Agenda did not RULE how we governed. Our Government could not be viewed as having a Singular/Sole Federally supported Religion, the way the FRENCH and their CHURCH controlled them, same with England and the Church of...etc.

However, that does not, nor was it intended to, avoid any religious rights, references, or protections within the country of this same Government. We protect all religious principles from attack, we even allow for those of non-religious bent to be protected in their rights with their views and speech in opposition.

I find it frustrating, that the protection of having "In God we Trust" is viewed as immoral/unfair/hypocritical from Atheist/non-religious entities, etc. However, if we had no reference to religion, isn't the reverse true, wouldn't we be viewed as having an Aesthetic agenda? It cuts both ways. I also love when folks raise the "Separation of Church and State" and use it say no reference to religion or faith should be acceptable. That is not the point or the intention. Reference to religion vs. laws forcing the respecting of the establishment for religion are two different things.

This is a good read: Faith of Our Forefathers (May 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin this has lots and lots of good info, here is a snippet:

Religion and the Federal Government
In response to widespread sentiment that, to survive, the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on Sept. 17, 1787, adopted the Constitution of the United States. Aside from Article VI, which prohibited religious tests for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion. Its reserve troubled those Americans who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some Colonies, exerted so much pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress that they adopted in September 1789 the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion -- Washington was an Episcopal vestryman and Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address (September 1796) Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support. During his two administrations (1801-1809), Jefferson was a "most regular attendant" at church services in the House of Representatives at which, surviving records show, evangelical Christianity was forcefully preached. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who road on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Jefferson permitted church services to be conducted by various denominations in government buildings, such as the Treasury and the War Department. During his administration, the Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. It is, in fact, accurate to say that on Sundays in Washington during the Jefferson and Madison administrations the state became the church.

Recently, scholars have contended that Jefferson adopted a more positive view of Christianity in the 1790s as a result of reading Joseph Priestly's arguments that many of the miraculous features of Christianity to which Jefferson objected were not authentic, having been added at a later time by a self-interested priesthood. Whatever the reason, after becoming president in 1801, Jefferson began making statements about the social value of Christianity.

Also these two passages:

Religion and the Constitution

When the Constitution was submitted to the American public, "many pious people" complained that the document had slighted God, for it contained "no recognition of his mercies to us ... or even of his existence." The Constitution was reticent about religion for two reasons: many delegates were committed federalists who believed that the power to legislate on religion, if it existed at all, lay within the domain of the state, not the national, governments. Second, the delegates believed that it would be a tactical mistake to insert such a politically controversial issue as religion in the Constitution. The only "religious clause" in the document -- the proscription of religious tests as qualifications for federal office in Article Six -- was, in fact, intended to defuse controversy by disarming potential critics who might claim religious discrimination in eligibility for public office.

Religion and the Bill of Rights

Although there were proposals for making the ratification of the Constitution contingent on the prior adoption of a bill of rights, supporters of a bill of rights acquiesced with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add to it a bill of rights.

James Madison took the lead in steering a bill of rights through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom there were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. There was considerable opposition in Congress to a bill of rights of any sort on the grounds that it was "unnecessary and dangerous." The persistence of Madison and his allies nevertheless carried the day and on Sept. 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send 12 amendments to the states. Those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became in December 1791 the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In notes for his speech, June 8, 1789, introducing the bill of rights, Madison indicated that a "national" religion was what he wanted to prevent and it is clear that most Americans joined him in considering that the major goal was to forestall any possibility that the federal government could act as several Colonies had done by choosing one religion and making it an official "national" religion that enjoyed exclusive financial and legal support. The establishment clause of the First Amendment meant at least this: that no one religion would be officially preferred above its competitors. What ever else it may -- or may not -- have meant is obscured by a lack of documentary evidence and is still a matter of dispute.

"cnc66 wrote:

does it bother you that many, including out founding fathers have faith? Is this just a thread to bash those that do? what IS the purpose of this thread gish?

Honestly I found this post to be a little confrontational and almost bullyish. Especially from someone who is a mod.

The thing about In GOD we trust that is really only 'offensive' to certain Athiests that to me are just as religious as people who believe in god. When really thinking about it to an Athiest putting, "In God We Trust" on the money is the same as putting, "In Yoda We Trust" or "In The Tooth Fairy We Trust". I do understand the idea that putting "In God We Trust" can be a precurser to religion putting more of its hold on the government and our lives. I also think this is an area where we have to pick our battles. Letting the little babies have their bottle if you will. Let them have the "In God We Trust" on the money and fight for not teaching their fantasy in schools.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

...and fight for not teaching their fantasy in schools.

:pity::cry:

Why does it say 'in god we trust' on our money?

That's what they have the machine set up to put on the money.

Isn't that a tad hypocritical? Isn't the government supposed to abstain from religious content?

The government is hypocritical. The least of my worries and what this government does is what is printed on our currency. Unless of course it has some kind of tracking device embedded in it. Or a small bomb. Or something equally ridiculous.

My only opinion on the slogan "One Nation Under God" is that this country was partially founded by those seeking "Freedom of Religion". So in that sense I understand it. Why its printed on our money is anyones guess, there are quite a few different theories.

However, I am also an atheist, and wonder if those same founding fathers would accept my beliefs (or non-beliefs). Maybe they would, maybe I would be viewed as a Heretic, I dont know.

Going back to Gish's original question, yes It is a tad hypocritical IMO. I dont concern myself with it too much though as I always remember this was a country founded by Puritans. To this day we are a nation run with those Puritan ideals.

"BigDogsHunt wrote:

Here is what I will say on the topic....

Separation of Church FROM State was created and drafted solely so a Religious Agenda did not RULE how we governed. Our Government could not be viewed as having a Singular/Sole Federally supported Religion, the way the FRENCH and their CHURCH controlled them, same with England and the Church of...etc.

And the only way to ensure that, is to make sure there aren't even the slightest of leanings, towards one religion or another. Which is the point.

"BigDogsHunt wrote:

However, that does not, nor was it intended to, avoid any religious rights, references, or protections within the country of this same Government. We protect all religious principles from attack, we even allow for those of non-religious bent to be protected in their rights with their views and speech in opposition.

As private citizens, you're right and that's the way it should be. But, money, schools, court houses, etc are public things, government things, and therefore, the rules are simply different.

"BigDogsHunt wrote:

I find it frustrating, that the protection of having "In God we Trust" is viewed as immoral/unfair/hypocritical from Atheist/non-religious entities, etc. However, if we had no reference to religion, isn't the reverse true, wouldn't we be viewed as having an Aesthetic agenda? It cuts both ways. I also love when folks raise the "Separation of Church and State" and use it say no reference to religion or faith should be acceptable. That is not the point or the intention. Reference to religion vs. laws forcing the respecting of the establishment for religion are two different things.

The thing you are missing, is that you don't have a right to have religion in your government. Our rights dictate that we DO NOT have a religion in our government, that way you can practice what ever religion you want on your own terms. It is the price we pay for that freedom.

I think its more of a money issue so to speak, I'm fairly sure it would cost alot to recall dollars and then print a new edition of it.
Plus I think you can look at the drawings on the dollar as art, in which case wouldn't it be in a different arena?

"Finascious D wrote:

And the only way to ensure that, is to make sure there aren't even the slightest of leanings, towards one religion or another. Which is the point.

As private citizens, you're right and that's the way it should be. But, money, schools, court houses, etc are public things, government things, and therefore, the rules are simply different.

The thing you are missing, is that you don't have a right to have religion in your government. Our rights dictate that we DO NOT have a religion in our government, that way you can practice what ever religion you want on your own terms. It is the price we pay for that freedom.

But outside of a Supreme Court ruling (which doesn't mean its correct) its interpretation is what matches yours. I read the opposite in what our Founding Fathers meant.

However, the constitution doesn't specifically say our Government should block the teachings of religion even in public houses - schools.

I am only arguing on the side of teaching about RELIGIONS and don't prevent that education, from our young minds, in our public schools. One Nation under God, In God we Trust, Pledge of Alliance in no way shape or form forces those that have other beliefs to say or do anything they don't believe in. Its the omission of most of it, that I think we have succumb to for all the wrong reasons, and its made us worse, not better.

"cnc66 wrote:

does it bother you that many, including out founding fathers have faith? Is this just a thread to bash those that do? what IS the purpose of this thread gish?

completely off topic, but.... no it doesnt bother me that others have faith. I'm a strong advocate of the freedom of choice. Not so much an advocate of, 'believe what i think, or youre wrong'. I don't clasify myself as atheist. As their main goal is to disprove the existance of god. I have no such motive. I'm agnostic. Simply put, means that I acknowlegde that there could be a greater existance, yet do not believe that any one religion is even close to correctly identifying it, let alone worshiping it. I'm not going to bash anyone for their beliefs, as I would hope that no one would do the same to me.

What is the purpose of this thread? To discuss whether or not 'in god we trust' oversteps the boundaries established by our founders separating church and state. Which I believe it does. If you read the article in the link, it shows that the roots of that slogan are directly originated from religion. IMO, it should be changed. Why should citizens of this country who are non-god-believers be represented this way?

Say you live in Florida, and you're allergic to oranges. Then Florida decides to put a new slogan on all their license plate that says, 'mmm..i love oranges!!!'. How would you feel about that? Thats how i feel when i look at money.

I don't think its a thread starting any thing...its really a legitimate question that has been raised several times...and I can see the point of view of those who may question this.

Im a non Christian...but I do recognize that a tremendous number of people recognize some vision of a Christian god represents, and our founding fathers also recognized this..IMO.

Im becoming less and less conservative as I get older....and while I am an independent voter...I certainly disagree with alot on the far right.

But..I really have a strong distaste for a "PC" culture. Im not Christian...but I dont want to see Christmas trees kept out of schools, or christmas parties. Call them holiday parties..have a dradel...what ever...but taking away Christmas? And trying to get the pledge changed from one nation, under god? No thank you. There's a rich history of our country and god for our country....and I dont want that changed.

I dont want it shoved down my throat mind you...or some holier than tho bible beater telling me what kind of a sinner I am....but I think the words of God in our Government, 10 Commandments in Govt buildings....and Christmas dont worry me in the slightest.

"gi§h® wrote:

Why should citizens of this country who are non-god-believers be represented this way?

I think thats the rub....it cuts both ways. No mention of God is being unkind to those that have A faith. Any mention of God is viewed as unkind to those that do not profess A faith.

In my thinking, the resolution, and I am not saying this is the golden rule, (since Majorities as a way to decide something can be an overwhelmingly bad idea)....but a "benevolent God" being referenced and recognized by a larger majority of Americans is the lesser of two wrongs trying to make a right when we put in writing a core fundamental of this nation.

This country and its founding, was one of putting A faith - or more importantly multiple faiths; no one being more supported as "the faith" than another - into something bigger than itself. A belief that regardless of the obstacle or daunting task at hand or in the future, we can come through it as United - we can come through it by having A faith and believing we can accomplish anything.

So at the end of the day, if we split hairs, and said, our money should have "In Faith we Trust"; or if our Pledge said, "One Nation In Faith"...it is the PC equivalent of saying (IMVHO) "I will have convictions in my beliefs up until the time someone tells me its offensive to them". It makes it especially unique when from an Aesthetic or Agnostic point of view, the object in question, the word - GOD - has no meaning to them. If no meaning - then no relevance. If no relevance - then no acknowledgment. But by opposing it they are acknowledging it. We shouldn't cater to an acknowledgment of something not relevant or without meaning to the group fighting against it. Thats backward to me.

I have always thought that line of thinking was dangerous. Opinions and views are often in opposite to others...and when we water-down a given belief to simply appease those opposed - we lessen our rights, little by little.

I might be in the minority...but again...just my way of thinking.

"BigDogsHunt wrote:

I think thats the rub....it cuts both ways. No mention of God is being unkind to those that have A faith. Any mention of God is viewed as unkind to those that do not profess A faith.

In my thinking, the resolution, and I am not saying this is the golden rule, (since Majorities as a way to decide something can be an overwhelmingly bad idea)....but a "benevolent God" being referenced and recognized by a larger majority of Americans is the lesser of two wrongs trying to make a right when we put in writing a core fundamental of this nation.

This country and its founding, was one of putting A faith - or more importantly multiple faiths; no one being more supported as "the faith" than another - into something bigger than itself. A belief that regardless of the obstacle or daunting task at hand or in the future, we can come through it as United - we can come through it by having A faith and believing we can accomplish anything.

So at the end of the day, if we split hairs, and said, our money should have "In Faith we Trust"; or if our Pledge said, "One Nation In Faith"...it is the PC equivalent of saying (IMVHO) "I will have convictions in my beliefs up until the time someone tells me its offensive to them". It makes it especially unique when from an Aesthetic or Agnostic point of view, the object in question, the word - GOD - has no meaning to them. If no meaning - then no relevance. If no relevance - then no acknowledgment. But by opposing it they are acknowledging it. We shouldn't cater to an acknowledgment of something not relevant or without meaning to the group fighting against it. Thats backward to me.

I have always thought that line of thinking was dangerous. Opinions and views are often in opposite to others...and when we water-down a given belief to simply appease those opposed - we lessen our rights, little by little.

I might be in the minority...but again...just my way of thinking.

The original slogan of our country was "E Pluribus Unum", meaning 'one from many'. That motto embodies a country that comes together to fight as one. Our current motto implies the opposite, that our fate is out of our control, and must trust that god will guide us. Do you see where this could be a conflict for non-believers? If our trust is in god? And I don't believe in god, then who should I trust? The government that is asking me to trust god? It was religion that stepped in to change it, and the government that allowed it.

Your argument of choosing the lesser of two evils is very skewed IMO. Having no religous reference on money is not a slight towards religion. Are you offended that Microsoft doesnt put 'in god we trust' on every xbox? I dont see how 'not having' the slogan can be offensive.

"gi§h® wrote:

The original slogan of our country was "E Pluribus Unum", meaning 'one from many'. That motto embodies a country that comes together to fight as one. Our current motto implies the opposite, that our fate is out of our control, and must trust that god will guide us. Do you see where this could be a conflict for non-believers? If our trust is in god? And I don't believe in god, then who should I trust? The government that is asking me to trust god? It was religion that stepped in to change it, and the government that allowed it.

Your argument of choosing the lesser of two evils is very skewed IMO. Having no religous reference on money is not a slight towards religion. Are you offended that Microsoft doesnt put 'in god we trust' on every xbox? I dont see how 'not having' the slogan can be offensive.

Since you reference implications...I will say you are entitled to your interpretaton...but what you feel something implies isn't simply so. I never waste much time on "imply" type arguments.

Many simply say its more along the lines of "may our decisions be the right decisions - we don't know everything - but we hope we choose wisely." Having a trust that God is favoring your cause, is not the same as putting all trust that God will accomplish the task for you only. We have discussed this ideal in many threads over the recent campaign rhetoric.

If you don't believe in God, it shouldn't matter where others are putting their trust, anymore than I am concerned in where you put your trust or don't put your trust as a non-believer. What ever gets you through the day works for me.

Also, having a Government that states "In God we Trust" doesn't force you to believe likewise. Its the Govt's view, not the individual peoples view. The Government while made up of us, is bigger than us as individuals. It becomes what it is, a democracy of all people. Again, the rub is the "all" people issue.

If you are simply asking to have it removed on money, if thats your only point, I wouldn't lose sleep over defending its NEED to be there. In that I can agree. :up:

"BigDogsHunt wrote:

Since you reference implications...I will say you are entitled to your interpretaton...but what you feel something implies isn't simply so. I never waste much time on "imply" type arguments.

Many simply say its more along the lines of "may our decisions be the right decisions - we don't know everything - but we hope we choose wisely." Having a trust that God is favoring your cause, is not the same as putting all trust that God will accomplish the task for you only. We have discussed this ideal in many threads over the recent campaign rhetoric.

If you don't believe in God, it shouldn't matter where others are putting their trust, anymore than I am concerned in where you put your trust or don't put your trust as a non-believer. What ever gets you through the day works for me.

Also, having a Government that states "In God we Trust" doesn't force you to believe likewise. Its the Govt's view, not the individual peoples view. The Government while made up of us, is bigger than us as individuals. It becomes what it is, a democracy of all people. Again, the rub is the "all" people issue.

If you are simply asking to have it removed on money, if thats your only point, I wouldn't lose sleep over defending its NEED to be there. In that I can agree. :up:

Can you say that "E Pluribus Unum" is not a better way to state the unity you're describing?

"gi§h® wrote:

Can you say that "E Pluribus Unum" is not a better way to state the unity you're describing?

No issues...the whole RED SCARE crap twisted many of our Elected Leaders minds to change what didnt need changing.

Sadly, that includes our own constitution (or Canstitiution for the blues:wink2:) which has been abused and mangled to justify a cause or two as well. (Esp. from the Supreme Court intreptations of what a given bench felt was implied!:wink2:)

I think the problem is now that it is there, to take it off is a slight against those who believe in god. I don't know if there was a HUGE demand to put God on the money before the 50s when they did that to show up those godless commies.

It is like the whole christmas thing. If it was happy holidays before no one would care. Now that some people want to change christmas to happy holidays people who like to feel like they are under attack feel like they are under attack.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I think the problem is now that it is there, to take it off is a slight against those who believe in god. I don't know if there was a HUGE demand to put God on the money before the 50s when they did that to show up those godless commies.

It is like the whole christmas thing. If it was happy holidays before no one would care. Now that some people want to change christmas to happy holidays people who like to feel like they are under attack feel like they are under attack.

The Washington Bullets changed to the Wizards for PC reasons. It was to avoid offending people who were sensitive to the use of guns. I doubt many fans of bullets protested the change, as it didn't negatively effect them either way. Likewise, taking the religious phrase off of money is a victimless change. Leaving it there guarantees that plenty of Americans will be offended daily.

I'm waiting for the banks to start printing "Thank god for debit" on all debit cards. :lol:

Considering that we are off the gold standard and there is nothing backing the paper we call money other than the full faith and credit of our government I think the term "In God We Trust" is most appropriate.

Why does it say in God we trust on the dollar bill ? As some on here said many were escaping England and heading to the new land searching for the freedom of religion, but these were puritans who wanted to escape the catholic control of England. America was founded on Christian principles and at one time the supreme court even ruled America was a Christian nation. Now the separation of Church and State is no where in the constitution, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote a letter addressing this issue, But the main point that Thomas Jefferson was trying to get to is that he did not want the government controlling religion like back in Jolly England. The truth is Thomas Jefferson never wanted America to take religion out of the roots of our education or for the government to cease any affiliation with it. History can not be erased even though the education system likes changing the facts about our fore fathers and the purpose why they came to America.

"BigDogsHunt wrote:

But outside of a Supreme Court ruling (which doesn't mean its correct) its interpretation is what matches yours. I read the opposite in what our Founding Fathers meant.

However, the constitution doesn't specifically say our Government should block the teachings of religion even in public houses - schools.

I am only arguing on the side of teaching about RELIGIONS and don't prevent that education, from our young minds, in our public schools. One Nation under God, In God we Trust, Pledge of Alliance in no way shape or form forces those that have other beliefs to say or do anything they don't believe in. Its the omission of most of it, that I think we have succumb to for all the wrong reasons, and its made us worse, not better.

There is an obvious difference between "teaching about religions" and "teaching religion". No one is arguing about the first one.

The Constitution doesn't have to state that exactly. Separation between Church & State, encompasses that nicely.

But it does "force" them to say something they may not believe. It creates the air that you have to say those things in school, or at a ball game, or in court, etc. By having it, you're forcing people to either make a stand or say something they don't mean.

Of course you believe that, and that's fine. I happen to think, its this ferocious attachment to dogmatic beliefs that have caused many of the problems in this country. I think by sticking to it, we've neglected smarter answers to problems that come with an ever growing and socially evolving culture.

"bbqpitlover wrote:

Why does it say in God we trust on the dollar bill ? As some on here said many were escaping England and heading to the new land searching for the freedom of religion, but these were puritans who wanted to escape the catholic control of England. America was founded on Christian principles and at one time the supreme court even ruled America was a Christian nation. Now the separation of Church and State is no where in the constitution, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote a letter addressing this issue, But the main point that Thomas Jefferson was trying to get to is that he did not want the government controlling religion like back in Jolly England. The truth is Thomas Jefferson never wanted America to take religion out of the roots of our education or for the government to cease any affiliation with it. History can not be erased even though the education system likes changing the facts about our fore fathers and the purpose why they came to America.

No one is changing anything. They came here because they believed something different than those in power in England. Those in power, frowned upon what they believed. All any of us want, on my side of this issue, is to ensure that never has to happen again. You do that, by making sure, our government doesn't hold any religion to a higher regard than any other religion. Considering we are a melting pot, they only way to completely ensure that is by leaving religious dogma, faiths, and symbols out of the government. Plain and simple.

No one is telling you your religion is wrong or that you shouldn't believe it, in regards to this discussion. We're just saying that religion is not a matter for the government. The bigger question for you guys, is why do feel its necessary?