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?

 

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:

 

Also these two passages:

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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) 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!)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

First I want to say anyone who quotes Professor Hubert Farnsworth is cool by me. I also believe every religion should be accepted in America and everyone should be able to practice and worship without fear of the government. That being said what I was telling is what America's roots are and that is Christian. George Washington was a great man of Christian faith as were those who wrote and signed the constitution. I also honestly believe God has honored and blessed our country because of it's devotion to Him. But these days and ages God is being removed from everything while strange religions take it place and we are losing His favor. Why is it that every presidential election the candidates try and convince the public they are Christian? I personally feel we all have the freedom of religion, but not freedom from it. Thanks for the replies and take care.
Futurama rocks!!!!

 

It encompasses a simple and accurate ideal (as I listed in Posts 4 & 5): "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."

God is not a singular Religion. God, the word, the concept, the definition, the belief in, only offends those that claim to have place no meaning in the word, in the beleive. Again, its a small minority of Americans, and catering to the few, who claim to not place any value on the word, is backwards to the masses that do.

Even when the masses do not fully agree on their own definition, they still accept anyones definition, including Agnositics and Aethestist alike. Therefore, we accept you may not place value in the word, but there is no need to remove it, enough has been done already sadly, in that regards.

As far as what has caused many of the problems in this country....I wont even touch that one.

 

i agree with adamperez. money is nothing more than paper printed properly with the right people backing its value.

maybe it should say "put your trust in the lord. your *** belongs to us". that's a paraphrase from "shawshank redemption" (the movie) for those that were wondering.

 

It was actually changed to "one nation, under god." So you would really just be making it like it used to be.

 

Welfare, unemployment, social security, affirmative action; all these cater to (by definition) minorities.

The gov't caters to minorities all the time, why should this instance be any different?

 

catering to the few from a religious standpoint "who claim to not place any value on the word" is the key part.

And do not get me started on the mistakes of our Socialist pasts for programs like these being run by the Fed. Govt. They have a place and clearly benefit folks that need them, but our Fed. Govt should be removed from the equation.

 

I personally don't care if it is on the dollar or in the pledge of allegiance, it is just a word, I was just trying to show why some people might think it should be gone. I just don't say that part of the pledge is all.

 

ahh,,,the legal and logical fallacy of "a wall of seperation between church and state"

A clause that exists nowhere in the Constitution, and a Notion that the Founding Brothers would find...laughable at best, and scornful at worst.

Barry Lynn is a weak willed putz who did himself the favor of dropping the "Reverend" from his title as he persecutes fellow Christians via the courtroom.

America is indeed built upon the idea of worship of a Deity, or indeed rejecting such worship, however, ones rejections should never silence anothers acceptance...

 

The founders of our country had no problem with religion, specifically, God and the Bible, in schools. The earliest textbooks in our schools were the Blue-Backed Speller, and the Horn Book. Both prominently featured Bible stories and passages to teach the children. Funny, the founders didn't try to get that changed.

"Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well-worn Bible: “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.” He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. Jefferson also declared, “God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” Jefferson’s words thunder against today’s liberals who argue for the separation of religion and state. When President, he said, “No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I, as chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.”

George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796: “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

John Adams: “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He also said, “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. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.” Again, Adams said that this nation was founded on “the general principles of Christianity.”

Benjamin Franklin, “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘that God governs in the affairs of men.’ And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” In March, 1778, Franklin said, “A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district — all studied and appreciated as they merit — are the principle support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty.” Franklin said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

First Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay: He stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Benjamin Rush signer of the Declaration of Independence, “The only foundation for . . . a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence, “Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”

John Dickinson, signer of the Constitution and a member of the Continental Congress, said, “The rights essential to happiness. . . . We claim them from a higher source — from the King of kings and Lord of all the earth.”

In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”



You guys want any more of this? It's pretty evident that our FOUNDERS had zero problem with religion in our government.

 

Why do you guys want religion in schools and the government?

 

I'm not saying that I want it in schools. I'm merely pointing out, our country was founded on the belief that for our country to succeed, religion was going to have to be a part of it.

On the other hand, I do believe that the removal of religion, i.e., morals, from our schools has shown a marked degradation in the moral code of our society today.

The point of my post was to show the ridiculousness of the idea of separation of church and state, as currently defined by some people, when compared to the actual quotes and beliefs of the founders of our country.

 

The marked degradation in our moral code of our society today is something that frankly does not exist. The only difference is we actually call people on their **** and there wasn't cameras everywhere to show how immoral people were.

There have been cheating, beatings, rapings since the days the Puritans landed on this part of the world. Plus now beating children and wives is actually wrong.

 

Why Not ? Why do people want homosexuality taught in schools ? By the way relgion is taught in public schools as long as it isn't Christian. Since the Aclu has been fighting removing God from public schools our education system has been going down hill and shootings on school property have increased. Have you ever wonder why private school or home school kids have a better education, and tend to achieve more ?

 

because of religion?

Or because private schools have money and home school kids have constant attention from their parents?

 

I don't even know where to begin with this.

Religions are taught in schools as historical significance, not as how to be a practicing member. No one thinks that is wrong. The ACLU is fighting to remove any inclination that the government prefers one religion over another.

Claiming the problems that exist in school, to be because there's no Christianity in schools, is not only ridiculous but offensive. Especially considering the reason for school problems "increasing" is that the average sedan has shrunk. Look at the stats, as sedans got smaller, school violence went up. They are clearly related....