Separation of Church and State

[DougP]

Wanted to create this thread so that we can set aside the extra discussions that were going on in theAre Islamists too sensitive thread (http://japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=249)

For me I can see both sides of the argument. On one hand removing Christian phrases from federal money and prayers from schools and other government gatherings are viewed as an encroachment on American tradition. I can see that how one group has been comfortable with the way things have been going in this country because it coincides with their beliefs and traditions. I can also see how they can be up in arms when it is decided that such traditions need to be removed from certain aspects of business and the government.

I don't see this as a destruction of tradition. I think if you are going to do something like separate church and state you might as well do it right and go the distance. No half stepping about it. I feel as though religion, all religion is a personal thing and it has no place in the business world or government. Just as you wouldn't begin a class or a session of congress with a personal cell phone call with your loved ones why would you begin it with a prayer? A personal call to God. Why not just put it on vibrate and make the call later when business is concluded?

Religious writings on federal money: Does it really have a place there? If any religious writing has a place on federal documents and printed currency than should all religious sects be represented as well? I don't think its a matter of this country/ government being founded on Christian principles as much as it is a case of Christians were the dominant power back then. Not everyone living on the continental United States had a say in the matter.

Now that we have matured as a nation perhaps we can just set aside our differences and keep all religions out of the government. Why would that be such a bad thing? Why would removing "In God We Trust" harm our nation?

Obviously the Christians have a great foot hold in the American government today. But what if in the future it was a larger Islamic sect that controlled the government? Would it then be ok to print islamic sayings on our currency? Or would there be another calling to separated church and state because now some disagree with having an Islamic supported government.

I highly doubt that would happen but in that make believe world I just gave you all a glimpse of I think you can now see where I'm coming from. Any religion should have a place in around or near our government. Its a way of keeping us honest, objective and not so easily influenced by the religious clerics of our time. Or any other special interest groups who are on a one way agenda campaign.

I have quite a few more thoughts on this matter but I digress I must go out and celebrate my mother in law's birthday. Time for bowling and beer.

I look forward to everyones comments and hope we can move the side discussions from the other thread to here. Cheers!

[ryukyuboi]

Many of the first Europeans who left Europe for America did so for religious freedom. The marriage between government and religion in Europe at that time resulted in religious persecution for those whose religious beliefs differed from the government's official religion. Many of the religious groups who were persecuted and left Europe for America ended up being as intolerant as the government persecution they experienced in their native country.

While religious toleration has evolved greatly since the arrival of those early religious groups in America, religious toleration in Europe and the Middle East (other regions as well) remain problematic in modern times. The Nazi government of Germany succeeded in killing approximately 6 million Jews. Much of the turmoil in the Middle East today is partly based on religious intolerance, isn't it? Karl Marx's view that religion was the opium of the masses was sanctioned by the former Soviet Union.

The fact that John F. Kennedy was a Catholic candidate for the US presidency was an issue in 1960. He wasn't a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant). In 2007 the fact that presidential candidate Mitt Romney is Mormon has received some press coverage.

I think this kind of attention given to the religion of US politicians supports the traditional view that the religious views of a politician must be separated from the governmental office the politician may hold. Indeed, the separation of church and state is very much established in law and the American psyche, and for some very good reasons.

[atb35]

Seperation of church and state is a stupid concept. I understand why they do it, but seriously...think about it.

Damn near everything in law and our society is based off of the beliefs that stem from or came from beliefs of the church at one point.

Do I think congressman should preach? Hell no, but if a court wants to put a copy of the ten commandments in the courthouse...who gives a ****? That is just some people being anal. If you dont want to believe something, dont believe it, but having something on display is not forcing it down your throat. Whats next...Indians cant wear the jewel in their head because they are forcing their religion on everyone they walk by?

[Asshat]

Seperation of church and state is a stupid concept.

It is a perfect concept in a society who have different values of religion. It is a requirement for peace.

Damn near everything in law and our society is based off of the beliefs that stem from or came from beliefs of the church at one point.

That is not true. You can use the word "morality" or "comportment rules" but certainly not church.

Do I think congressman should preach? Hell no, but if a court wants to put a copy of the ten commandments in the courthouse...who gives a ****?

Me too. I don't care. And congressmen and women DO preach. :)

If you dont want to believe something, dont believe it, but having something on display is not forcing it down your throat.

Prayer in school certainly does force religion down our throats. Having the Ten Commandments on display in a courthouse definitely places any outcomes or rulings from that court as suspect- and in line with good old Christian values....thus forcing that religion down someone's throat.

[drinkandrun]

Hell no, but if a court wants to put a copy of the ten commandments in the courthouse...who gives a ****? That is just some people being anal. If you dont want to believe something, dont believe it, but having something on display is not forcing it down your throat.

Do you know what the ten commandments are? I don't think you do, because there are only three that are "universal" morals (6,8,9), the first four are completely geared to make a certain religion/god #1, and the other three (5,7,10) are nice but I would hardly call them universal beliefs. Why can't people just leave their religion at home and church? I never want to have jurists check with a mullah, rabbi, priest, shaman, or Reverend before rendering a verdict.
Check this out it poignant, funny, and on topic.
YouTube - Keep your jesus off my penis

GBR!

[atb35]

Do you know what the ten commandments are? I don't think you do, because there are only three that are "universal" morals (6,8,9), the first four are completely geared to make a certain religion/god #1, and the other three (5,7,10) are nice but I would hardly call them universal beliefs. Why can't people just leave their religion at home and church? I never want to have jurists check with a mullah, rabbi, priest, shaman, or Reverend before rendering a verdict.
Check this out it poignant, funny, and on topic.
YouTube - Keep your jesus off my penis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5YrB7TpT1Y)

GBR!

Actually I do know what they are...but my point is who gives a shit. How is having them on display forcing you to believe them? Just like that post I started, people are too ******* sensitive these days. If you dont want to belive something, dont believe it. In San Diego they want to remove a cross on a mountain because it is not right...wtf isnt right about it? Having a cross on public display is wrong? Well hell, remove all the crosses off any church then too, but ****, why stop there...if you see someone wearing a cross...KILL THEM!

People in general need to take a ******* pill and stop worrying about shit that has nothing to do with them.

Schools that teach religous beliefs in school is wrong, I agree with that. Teaching ABOUT religion is perfectly acceptable.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Actually I do know what they are...but my point is who gives a shit.

Apparently quite a few people. That's who.

It's obvious many "give a shit" because it is a contentious issue amongst many.

[drinkandrun]

In San Diego they want to remove a cross on a mountain because it is not right...wtf isnt right about it?
The issue with the cross on Mt Soledad is that it's provided for by government money. My tax dollars go to support the symbol of someone else's religion. I'm not too sensitive by any means, but I do not agree that public money should go to fund programs or symbols based on which story book you believe in. I also live my life by a book that's over 1000 years old...The Odyssey. It rules.

"The phrase conspiracy is one that is constantly brought up to discourage institutional analysis" Noam Chomsky

[drinkandrun]

Apparently quite a few people. That's who.

It's obvious many "give a shit" because it is a contentious issue amongst many.

Oh and there's always that pesky constitution that never mentions god and only refers to religion in two places, both in the negative.

"but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" Article 6

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Amendment 1

[Fonze]

Do you know how many framers of the constitution were clergy men?
I'm with atb35 on this but understand there are over sensetive anal people out there.

[thistle]

Religion and Politics should DEFINATELY be separate.

Why do they have a cross at the top of a mountain in San Diego?
Is it a sacred mountain?

[DocTurtle]

In God We Trust. Not a harmful statement. It doesn't say in God we believe or even our God is the only God. So why is there people who want it off our currency? It doesn't even say in a christian God we trust. Just God. I think that is one of the silliest arguments that I know of when I think of Seperation of Church and State.
(on a side note, everytime I see this thread, I think of the NOFX song "Seperation of Church and Skate" and often read it as such :p)
Prayer in school is something I can understand no having. But when people complain about saying the pledge of alliegance in schools? Any school I went too, the only thing you had to do was stand, you weren't yelled at if you didn't say it. All they ask was that you stand. If you are in an American school, expect American culture. It's just the same as showing respect at an international event where they play multiple national anthems. You aren't expected to sing along or know the words, but you should at least have enough respect to stand up and shut your yap for the 1:26 min.

[atb35]

The issue with the cross on Mt Soledad is that it's provided for by government money. My tax dollars go to support the symbol of someone else's religion. I'm not too sensitive by any means, but I do not agree that public money should go to fund programs or symbols based on which story book you believe in.

The issue is over one moron who feels offended by a cross. He states the government is preferring one religion over another. Many attempts have been made to transfer the property and the cross to private owners, but they were denied. That alone shows it is not about a money issue. It is one guy who has nothing better to do with his life then cause trouble over something that is meaningless.

I personaly could give a rats ass less if a cross is there or not. It bothers me far more that this one guy is causing so much trouble. Another thing...the government is spending far more in litigation because of this guy then they do to maintain that property. Money issue...BS!

[Asshat]

I personaly could give a rats ass less if a cross is there or not. It bothers me far more that this one guy is causing so much trouble. Another thing...the government is spending far more in litigation because of this guy then they do to maintain that property. Money issue...BS!

The cross used to be a very bad symbol to early Christians. Interesting how it has become a symbol of Christianity...almost as if Christ dying was more important than what he taught while living. Things like forgiveness, and an absense of blame, love.

[atb35]

Do you know what the ten commandments are? I don't think you do, because there are only three that are "universal" morals (6,8,9), the first four are completely geared to make a certain religion/god #1, and the other three (5,7,10) are nice but I would hardly call them universal beliefs. Why can't people just leave their religion at home and church? I never want to have jurists check with a mullah, rabbi, priest, shaman, or Reverend before rendering a verdict.GBR!

So how exactly is displaying them forcing it down peoples throat? If that were true, why do we allow churches to exist as they do? Shouldnt they be covered in a veil so that nobody is forced to read the writing on the walls, boards, or whatever else they have written around the church? A courthouse is a public place, the same as Main Street is a public place. Just because a person has to walk by a statue or the ten commandments, there is NOTHING that pushes that persons head down to read them and make them believe it.

I cant stand abstract art, but I have to look at the dumb shit in front of office buildings...should I protest they are forcing me to be abstract?

When have you seen a jury consulting a priest when making a verdict? where is that argument coming from?

[Asshat]

abt, your question was already answered. Consider you are a judge on the planet Mars. You are a Plutarian, but you pretty much dig the scene with the Martians. You display one of their slogans in your courtroom because you ....well, you dig Martians.

Along comes a Neptunian charged with spitting on a Martian. The first thing he see's is your slogan. That slogan is the first thing your jury saw too.

[DocTurtle]

Please, the are Neptunian, they aren't worth a Martian trial.:argh14::argh3::argh14:

[themadscientist]

what if the courthouse wall had some statement from the Koran about converting or killing infidels? Still don't give a rats ass as you so eloquently put it? How about "god is dead"? Cool?
If I go into a courtroom to give testemony in a case what am I expected to do? swear on the bible. Now tell me how that looks neutral, how is that not endorsement of a specific religion?

You can't trust those neptunians, he's guilty!

[atb35]

I completely agree that you shouldnt have to swear on a bible. But IF there were writing on courtroom walls that denounced other religions, martians included, then sure, display god sucks, or allah is da man...I really dont care. Just because something is displayed, doesnt mean it is forcing it down your throat. Hell if that were the case, why arent we all supermodels and professional athletes? that is all that is on tv and billboards.

[themadscientist]

it's the context in which it is displayed that is the tipping point here. This is money, a tool everyone must use. This is a courtroom, a place where you are compelled to be and a place where your fate is decided by a judge.
Now, if the judge has a big quote from a religious book that you don't agree with don't you think that might be a little confidence-shaking?

[atb35]

Certain things people shouldnt argue about, politics and religion...i do regret even making any statement to begin with...it will just be a neverending argument. I believe what I do, you believe what you will. Its all good:)

[themadscientist]

it will just be a neverending argument. I believe what I do, you believe what you will. Its all good:)
I agree with you. It will never be truly settled. Let's just be glad we live in countries where we can debate such things. :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Certain things people shouldnt argue about, politics and religion...i do regret even making any statement to begin with...it will just be a neverending argument.

Politics and religion are just the things people should be arguing about! They have great ramifications for our society. People should be raised not to be too sensitive to talk about those things.

I believe what I do, you believe what you will. Its all good:)

No, it is not all good. Whenever theists or their beliefs of any faith step over the line into government it is bad, and what is good is the strong criticism directed at that and an effort to roll it back.

[atb35]

I know TP always has to have the last word, so Im going to respond up here to save him the trouble of posting again....

Your right, people should argue about those things. I forgot to spell it out for especially you since you are Mr Literal. It is a figure of speech that is used commonly "Two things you dont argue about is religion and politics'. Again, Im sorry not to have explained it exactly like that....

Politics and religion are just the things people should be arguing about! They have great ramifications for our society. People should be raised not to be too sensitive to talk about those things.


Yes, it is all good. I dont have to agree with you, you dont have to agree with me, and its is fine. The world is still going to revolve, people are still going to go about their business as usual. Not everyone needs to agree. If everyone agreed, we wouldnt need laws, or religion(s) because we would all agree to the same religion.

You are correct once again batman in that yes, strong criticism is needed when people impose their beliefs on others. Having a picture or a cross or anything else that doesnt MAKE people believe in it is not hurting a damn thing. Teaching religion in schools is wrong, that is being forced, having a picture of ANY religous symbol in a school is not wrong, nobody is being forced to look at it and believe in it. Spare your argument that yes, kids have to look at it, I know, I know...anal retentive idiots will believe that.

No, it is not all good. Whenever theists or their beliefs of any faith step over the line into government it is bad, and what is good is the strong criticism directed at that and an effort to roll it back.

[Fonze]

What about athiest beliefs being imposed on us and enviromental and animal rights I guess those are all legetimate issues if thats what you like right.

[drinkandrun]

What about atheist beliefs being imposed on us and environmental and animal rights I guess those are all legitimate issues if thats what you like right.

Is it possible to force people to not believe? I don't see atheism being imposed on anyone (despite all the War on Christmas BS on O'reily). I will not let Christians, Jews, or whatever force me to believe in, participate in or give approval or money to their faith system.
The difference between crappy art and the ten commandments is that the art is either on private land or does not violate the first amendment. Would people be all for public displays of religion if it involved the Virgin Mary in compromising positions with Mohammad?

Do you know how many framers of the constitution were clergy men?
I'm with atb35 on this but understand there are over sensitive anal people out there.

Irrelevant, because they saw the destruction and corruption that the Church of England caused in the government and did not want those influences in their new country. The same reasoning for not having a national Religion or language, they wanted America to be a country of laws and not a country of men. If you think this is a "Christian Country" take out the Constitution, read the first amendment, repeat these steps until you get it or use the Democratic process to have the US declare Christianity the official religion of the US.

But when people complain about saying the pledge of allegiance in schools?
The word God wasn't in the pledge until the 50's. Change it back the way it was and I won't have a problem with it or get rid of it all together. In my elementary school we had the national anthem and a moment of silence every morning. No praying, no god just unabashed patriotism and celebration of our shared identity as Americans the thing that unites us. Why do we have to continue a "tradition" that's been mucked with by people with an agenda (50's congress trying to set the US apart from the godless communist hoards)?

[ja_Patriot]

Is it possible to force people to not believe? I don't see atheism being imposed on anyone (despite all the War on Christmas BS on O'reily). I will not let Christians, Jews, or whatever force me to believe in, participate in or give approval or money to their faith system.

The difference between crappy art and the ten commandments is that the art is either on private land or does not violate the first amendment. Would people be all for public displays of religion if it involved the Virgin Mary in compromising positions with Mohammad?
Irrelevant, because they saw the destruction and corruption that the Church of England caused in the government and did not want those influences in their new country. The same reasoning for not having a national Religion or language, they wanted America to be a country of laws and not a country of men. If you think this is a "Christian Country" take out the Constitution, read the first amendment, repeat these steps until you get it or use the Democratic process to have the US declare Christianity the official religion of the US.

The word God wasn't in the pledge until the 50's. Change it back the way it was and I won't have a problem with it or get rid of it all together. In my elementary school we had the national anthem and a moment of silence every morning. No praying, no god just unabashed patriotism and celebration of our shared identity as Americans the thing that unites us. Why do we have to continue a "tradition" that's been mucked with by people with an agenda (50's congress trying to set the US apart from the godless communist hoards)?

An very interesting point of view delivered with so much passion, all bent out of shape.

Which is all the reason why I stay away from these unhealthy, unproductive exchange of points of view, and practice the tolerance of and respect for the opposing views of others - privately.

Discussions re religion, politics and sex, and try to get the other side to buy your firm convictions, - complete waste of time and energy.


#

[kombu_kid]

Consider you are a judge on the planet Mars.

Would that be Martial Law?

[Asshat]

Would that be Martial Law?

It would. And the good people of Venus don't touch Uranis!

[Muku]

In God We Trust. Not a harmful statement. It doesn't say in God we believe or even our God is the only God. So why is there people who want it off our currency? It doesn't even say in a christian God we trust. Just God. I think that is one of the silliest arguments that I know of when I think of Seperation of Church and State.

Then what about the people who dont believe in any God. Are not their rights being stepped on? They have the "right" as well not to have to see it.

Or how about the Wiccans, dont they have the right to see In God's We Trust?

In America it is never going to be possible to make a decision that everyone will be satisfied with.

It's the ones that bitch and moan and complain the loudest and longest that get heard the most, and get the most action. It also doesnt matter if they are a fringe nutcase element or not. Everyone has the right to believe in what they want now a days and who are we to tell them otherwise:rolleyes::p

[atb35]

Pehaps all government buildings, vehicles, everything related to 'The Public' that is paid for by the public should just be generic. We should have a square box built for courthouses and government buildings so that we dont force Greek Architecture upon people. They should make their own cars so that ford/chevy/whatever isnt forced upon people. This should happen all the way down to the underwear government employees wear....

Muku is right, people that bitch the most get what they want...unfortunately. Its a shame that people dont just mind their own damn business.

[drinkandrun]

Everyone has the right to believe in what they want now a days and who are we to tell them otherwise:rolleyes::p

Now a days? The first amendment has been the same the entire time. That's the point, it's not an opinion or a point of view it's the law. It's when people try to push their beliefs on other people that they are violating the rights guaranteed to the people of this republic. If they change the law, I'll change my tune. The worth of the argument is that maybe, just maybe someone (not necessarily the vocal opposition) will get interested enough by the debate to dust off a copy of the constitution and learn about why this country rules!

[Asshat]

Its a shame that people dont just mind their own damn business.

You are damn right. Especially in front of abortion clinics, and the hospital rooms of the terminally ill.

[P_chan]

You are damn right. Especially in front of abortion clinics, and the hospital rooms of the terminally ill.

Don't forget outside of places that sell animal products or fur, or a whaling boat, or anything else having to do with the 'suffering' of animals. I'd like to see some AR nut throw blood on me, or try to pie me. Let's just say they'd be covered in blood too, but it would be their own blood.

[Muku]

Now a days? The first amendment has been the same the entire time. That's the point, it's not an opinion or a point of view it's the law. It's when people try to push their beliefs on other people that they are violating the rights guaranteed to the people of this republic. If they change the law, I'll change my tune. The worth of the argument is that maybe, just maybe someone (not necessarily the vocal opposition) will get interested enough by the debate to dust off a copy of the constitution and learn about why this country rules!
However I think that things are getting out of hand when one small group can influence or change what has been accepted in the country for years. In that I am speaking in generalizations because right now I dont have the time to get into specifics.

Yes there are exceptions to the rule.

[atb35]

The US has just become overly PC. They allow these activists to get their way because they dont want to deal with the issues or be labeled as not caring.

What happened to the days when America was tough. When men were men and sheep were scared!

[Asshat]

The US has just become overly PC. They allow these activists to get their way because they don’t want to deal with the issues or be labeled as not caring.

abt35, I admit to not knowing much about you, and can only judge you based on what you write about. I mean no disrespect to you when I say that your views as you express them tend to be reminiscent of the views my father held.

Yet when we get right down to it, those "traditional American values" are harmful to the environment, prejudicial in nature, and archaic.

Example: The PNW salmon run is over. We are being told it is because the Japanese came and took all the fish. We are not being told the timber industry has destroyed most of the watershed in the PNW.

Example: In our father's and their father's generation, Jews were slaughtered, Blacks were hung, and women could not vote. "Activists" made noises, and sometime shed blood to change things.

We can all go "back home" and eat as much of Mom's good turkey on Thanksgiving as our bellies will hold. That's a traditional American value I hold dear. I certainly do not hold dear racial or gender prejudice, religious persecution, or the lies told by big business as "values" and wherever, and whenever I see my freedom being trampled upon, I will be "active" in letting the world know I value my freedom.

[Fonze]

And how is this religions fault and not bad humans? Do you also believe that all muslims are terrorist because thats what your saying.

[Asshat]

And how is this religions fault and not bad humans? Do you also believe that all muslims are terrorist because thats what your saying.

Because elsewhere in this thread and other threads those religious ideals were touted as "traditional American values" and they are touted as such right now on the various campaign trails. As if one who isn't a Christian, isn't a true American. That my friend is the message being sent out by the Christian coalition and their brand of politicians.

As far as Moslims go (note my spelling?) I have a whole bunch of them as close, personal friends from a couple of different countries.

Does that make me an activist too? Or merely a danger to those tradional American values?

[Muku]

Because elsewhere in this thread and other threads those religious ideals were touted as "traditional American values" and they are touted as such right now on the various campaign trails. As if one who isn't a Christian, isn't a true American. That my friend is the message being sent out by the Christian coalition and their brand of politicians.

As far as Moslims go (note my spelling?) I have a whole bunch of them as close, personal friends from a couple of different countries.

Does that make me an activist too? Or merely a danger to those tradional American values?
In my opinion the "idea" of traditional American values is something the main stream media came up with to describe something that is more of an ideal than an actual fact.

In my opinion as well it is very difficult to actually define what are traditional American values because there are so many different Americans and have been for over 2 centuries.

Just whose values am I supposed to believe are traditional?

[atb35]

abt35, I admit to not knowing much about you, and can only judge you based on what you write about. I mean no disrespect to you when I say that your views as you express them tend to be reminiscent of the views my father held.

Yet when we get right down to it, those "traditional American values" are harmful to the environment, prejudicial in nature, and archaic.

Example: The PNW salmon run is over. We are being told it is because the Japanese came and took all the fish. We are not being told the timber industry has destroyed most of the watershed in the PNW.

Example: In our father's and their father's generation, Jews were slaughtered, Blacks were hung, and women could not vote. "Activists" made noises, and sometime shed blood to change things.

We can all go "back home" and eat as much of Mom's good turkey on Thanksgiving as our bellies will hold. That's a traditional American value I hold dear. I certainly do not hold dear racial or gender prejudice, religious persecution, or the lies told by big business as "values" and wherever, and whenever I see my freedom being trampled upon, I will be "active" in letting the world know I value my freedom.

You really ought to pay attention to what I say when I post. I at no time condone one human being hurting, demoralizing, or imposing their views on another. What I do post is that everyone should mind their own f___ing business. I cant stand when people think that they have the right to tell others what they can and cannot believe.

Would I ever want to see slavery back? hell fuc_ing no, that is retarded. Do I want to see jewish (not JEWS..dont want PC folks getting all butthurt here) people slaughtered? again, hell no. Would I want to see people standing outside an abortion clinic telling a rape victim they should have the child of someone who traumatized them? again, NO. Should people picket in front of the places because they dont believe in something? Knock yourself out, but dont harass or bother people who do believe in that business or company.

I really dont care what people do or dont believe, it has no bearing whatsoever on my life. If someone wants to wear a shirt, post on a billboard or have a commercial that states...all hail Budah! I could give a fu_k less. It is not harming me or anyone else in the least. If you believe in something else, how is a sign going to make you change your mind?

Bottom line, I believe in treating everyone the way you would like to be treated...and that includes leaving me the hell alone with your(not you as in anyone here, just your in general) views!

[Muku]

Bottom line, I believe in treating everyone the way you would like to be treated...and that includes leaving me the hell alone with your(not you as in anyone here, just your in general) views!

Isnt that what a forum is partially about? :-|

[themadscientist]

Got to agree with Muku
You came into the discussion voluntarily, you thusly left the right not to be confronted with opposing viewpoints at the door.

[Fonze]

I don't think he was talking about people here. I believe he means all the pc pussy in america. Correct me if i'm wrong atb35

[Asshat]

You really ought to pay attention to what I say when I post.

I provided illustrations where "activists" made a positive difference in defense of your post against them.

You say separation of church and state isn't important. Then you say it's all no big deal. Interspersed is your tirade against political correctness.

What are you really trying to say? (Besides the fact that you don't give a fuch) What PC statements or comments are you refering to?

Perhaps your anger should be directed at litigation laws in the US that allow someone to sue over a cross or spilled coffee?

[atb35]

I provided illustrations where "activists" made a positive difference in defense of your post against them.

You say separation of church and state isn't important. Then you say it's all no big deal. Interspersed is your tirade against political correctness.

What are you really trying to say? (Besides the fact that you don't give a fuch) What PC statements or comments are you refering to?

Perhaps your anger should be directed at litigation laws in the US that allow someone to sue over a cross or spilled coffee?

I dont have any anger..trust me when I say, I really dont give a shit. It is fun to talk about, fun to have friendly banter, but I know nothing I say, and nothing anyone in this forum says will mean anything. It is just a fun way to vent...doesnt mean I am mad.

I guess Im not saying it clearly....I am all for activists who are active against something that is wrong. Cutting down the rainforest would be a good example...Im all for activists against that. The activists who I think should mind their own damn business are ones that dont mean shit....like complaining about a cross on the top of a mountain in San Diego. That is not hurting a damn person. If your worried about your taxes going to waste, well consider your tax return your portion of that money back and STFU! If people want to do something that makes sense in that particular example...ask to erect a statue of whatever religion you believe in addition to the cross.

Activists against abortion...who the hell are they to tell someone what they can and cant do with their bodies? I could go on another whole subject about abortion alone, but it will be pointless. Nothing anyone will say will ever change my mind about abortion.

MY POINT IS: even though I cant stand activists against abortion, I wont go bother them about it. It is none of my business. If they want to protest, go for it, do what you want...I cant stand them, but I will leave them alone.

And no, Im not talking about people on here that they are forcing their views. This is friendly banter between friends on this board. Im referring to people in society coming up to me and forcing their views upon me.

[Asshat]

I know nothing I say, and nothing anyone in this forum says will mean anything.

I know you said more than that in your last post. But as an activist, I feel your statement is incorrect. It takes all of us to make this thing spin. I am no more or no less important than you, but together we are more powerful than those old dudes with a lot of money pulling the strings.

That is why I chafe at being called an activist or hearing that someone doesn't care. Sheet, if you are a gunjin (or were) you already care. Not only that, we earned the right to work for change. Even if it is rallying against being politically correct.

[atb35]

I know you said more than that in your last post. But as an activist, I feel your statement is incorrect. It takes all of us to make this thing spin. I am no more or no less important than you, but together we are more powerful than those old dudes with a lot of money pulling the strings.

That is why I chafe at being called an activist or hearing that someone doesn't care. Sheet, if you are a gunjin (or were) you already care. Not only that, we earned the right to work for change. Even if it is rallying against being politically correct.

Your assuming by activist Im saying your bad. I have nothing against anyone, activist or not, unless they force their beliefs upon someone else. I hate to go back to it again, but the abortion is a great example. If people wanted to stand outside an abortion clinic and hold signs, maybe even chanting or just saying generalized statements...great. When they start saying hateful things (any word with hateful intent) then there is a problem.

Im not sure what you mean by me being a gunjin so I automatically care. I really dont. If someone were to call me a american gunjin pig F_cker, i would just laugh. Words dont bother me in the least. Now if people started infringing upon my life, then I would get involved, but until then, I dont care...people can write, say, chant, whatever they want as long as they let me be, I will let them be.

[Asshat]

american gunjin pig F_cker,

Gunjin: Generic term for "military."

[atb35]

Gunjin: Generic term for "military."

Like I said, I would just laugh. They are words, they cant hurt me.

[Muku]

And no, Im not talking about people on here that they are forcing their views. This is friendly banter between friends on this board. Im referring to people in society coming up to me and forcing their views upon me.

First off thanks for clarifying that.....:D

Next do you really have people come up to you and talk about stuff like this? I mean I cant remember the last time anyone came up to me, outside of some idiot Japanese tourists, and tried forcing their views upon me.

Are you a politician in disguise?:eek:

[ja_Patriot]

I read this article today about the mind set of the so-called Founding Fathers on their views on religion and the separation of church and state.

You may be surprised. Have a look at the quiz below and see how much you really know.

I'll post the answers tomorrow.

Q1. The phrase "separation of church and state" state appears in:
1. The original Constitution
2. The Bill of Rights
3. The Declaration of Independence
4. None of the above

Q2. To thank Thomas Jefferson for promoting religious freedom the Baptists of Cheshire, Massachusetts gave him:
1. A 422-pound trophy shaped like a liberty bell
2. A thank-you letter with 946 signatures
3. 412 quarts of "freedom ale"
4. A 1,235-pound cheese

Q3. Which Founding Father at one point believed there was one major god and a group of smaller gods attending to each solar system?
1. Benjamin Franklin
2. Tom Paine
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Alexander Hamilton

Q4. Which Founding Father banned the burning of effigies of the Pope?
1. George Washington
2. James Madison
3. Patrick Henry
4. Roger Sherman

Q5. Which Founding Father referred to the Catholic Church as "the whore of Babylon" and "the Monster"?
1. Alexander Hamilton
2. John Dickenson
3. John Adams
4. Patrick Henry

Q7. Which group supported separation of church and state most?
1. Evangelical Christians
2. Puritans
3. Anglicans
4. Quakers

Q8. Which Founding Father attended church but refused to take communion?
1. Thomas Jefferson
2. John Adams
3. James Madison
4. George Washington

Q9. Which Founding Father went through the Bible, removed the miracles, and made a book consisting only of Jesus' ethical teachings?
1. Tom Paine
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Benjamin Franklin
4. Betsy Ross

Q10. Which Founding Father defended his state having an official state religion?
1. George Washington
2. John Adams
3. Ben Franklin
4. James Madison

Interesting, eh. Wait till you see the answers.

BTW, the Thomas Jefferson speech with the words "...separation of church and state..." was a political statement given to solicit the support and votes of evangelical Christians, led by the Rev. John Leland—a Baptist and, therefore, most ironically a theological forefather of the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham.

Even though Jefferson was labeled anti-religion by some, he had become a hero to evangelicals—not in spite of his views on separation of church and state, but because of them.

"Because Baptists and other evangelicals had been persecuted and harassed by the majority faiths—Anglicans in the South and Puritan-influenced Congregationalists in the North—these religious minorities had concluded that their freedom would only be guaranteed when majority faiths could not use the power of the state to promote their theology and institutions."

Draw you own conclusions.


#

[DougP]

I'll also draw upon the fact that there were still several other religions back then on what is now known as the continental United States. The people that were in power and forged the American government and established the nation we know today did not do it in the name of religion. Although many of them may have belonged to the same faith. That at least we can be certain of.

[Asshat]

I'll also draw upon the fact that there were still several other religions back then on what is now known as the continental United States. The people that were in power and forged the American government and established the nation we know today did not do it in the name of religion. Although many of them may have belonged to the same faith. That at least we can be certain of.

The obvious conclusion then is that some religions want to be involved with the state to foment their belief systems.

One need not look very far to see theocratic governments at work. And if theocracy is allowed to rear it's ugly head, which religions get to make the laws?

Give me sharia or give me death!

[ja_Patriot]

I'll also draw upon the fact that there were still several other religions back then on what is now known as the continental United States. The people that were in power and forged the American government and established the nation we know today did not do it in the name of religion. Although many of them may have belonged to the same faith. That at least we can be certain of.

With the expressed intention of not having a state religion established, particularly since the Anglican Christians (Church of England) and Puritan-Congregationalist Christians were dominant religions at that time. The Baptists and Evangelical Christians supported Jefferson in his platform not to have the Church of England or any other church as a state religion.

Except for one or two, the Founding Fathers were fervent Christians and very clear minded people. Had they wanted the complete absence or a ban of religion in government or in the public lives of citizens, they would have explicitly written so in the Constitution or its amendments.

Citizens have freedom of religion, but a state religion cannot be established.

This is where "Originalist" jurors such as Roberts, Alito, Thomas & Scalia can provide some sense.

I'll agree with you that hysterical fears of a so-called sharia type theocracy is far from the essence of this discussion.


#

[atb35]

I wasnt trying to imply that our government was founded on religion, but when drafting the constitution religious beliefs were definately a factor. Regardles if you want them to or not, your beliefs effect the way you respond and make decisions.

[Tony Stacks]

Well technically you are 100% correct.

However the reason the references to God were made in the pledge and printed on our money were a statement against communism in the 50's and were meant not to push any belief on anybody but were to preserve our freedom of religon.

The government was showing the world that we trust in God. Now for those that are not Christian that would mean whatever they're God is. Or for an Athiest maybe they believe their relatives that passed away are watching them or maybe just their morals and science.

The fact is references to God are not meant to make people feel oppressed and uncomfortable but are meant to ensure freedom and make people feel better about America no matter what your belief is.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Fact Sheets: Currency & Coins

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of 'In God We Trust'
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861.

For more, see http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

[Asshat]

Obviously the Christians have a great foot hold in the American government today.

Any religion should have a place in around or near our government. Its a way of keeping us honest, objective and not so easily influenced by the religious clerics of our time. Or any other special interest groups who are on a one way agenda campaign.

Doug, I hope you don't mind me quoting only a part of your OP. The other day I saw a TV show where radical Christianity was being discussed. There are a few of those groups out there right now, and apparently they have some real clout with our government.

I can not see the difference between them and any other special interest groups. The Christian Zionists for example demand the US attack Iran to help fulfill parts of the apocolypse. Newt Gingrich even told an assembly of these people "if US President Bush really wanted to get a message across to Hamas, he should move the US Embassy to Jerusalem "tomorrow morning".

Then we have the Christian Coalition whose stated objectives are:
1. Protect Religious Television Programming
2. Passing 'Net Neutrality' to ensure fairness for all on the Internet
3. Confirming as many conservative judges as possible
4. Keeping votes for human embryonic stem cell destruction research bill to a minimum
5. Support Legislation Stopping Religious Discrimination Against Evangelical Christians in the Military
6. Ensuring all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted into law and due to expire in 2010 are protected
7. Attempting to get a vote on a Federal Marriage Amendment

Weather or not I agree or disagree with these groups, they are way too close to the government for my comfort level, and the fact that they are Christians is not enough to convince me they are not evil.

[Go-Shay]

Weather or not I agree or disagree with these groups, they are way too close to the government for my comfort level, and he fact that they are Christians is not enough to convince me they are not evil.
The Christians will always have the power to push they're version of what we should or should not do or how we should live as they have almost unlimited tax free funds to use.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Doug, I hope you don't mind me quoting only a part of your OP. The other day I saw a TV show where radical Christianity was being discussed. There are a few of those groups out there right now, and apparently they have some real clout with our government.

I cannot see the difference between them and any other special interest groups. The Christian Zionists for example demand the US attack Iran to help fulfill parts of the apocolypse. Newt Gingrich even told an assembly of these people "if US President Bush really wanted to get a message across to Hamas, he should move the US Embassy to Jerusalem "tomorrow morning".

Then we have the Christian Coalition whose stated objectives are:
1. Protect Religious Television Programming
2. Passing 'Net Neutrality' to ensure fairness for all on the Internet
3. Confirming as many conservative judges as possible
4. Keeping votes for human embryonic stem cell destruction research bill to a minimum
5. Support Legislation Stopping Religious Discrimination Against Evangelical Christians in the Military
6. Ensuring all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted into law and due to expire in 2010 are protected
7. Attempting to get a vote on a Federal Marriage Amendment

Weather or not I agree or disagree with these groups, they are way too close to the government for my comfort level, and the fact that they are Christians is not enough to convince me they are not evil.

Sorry to lift a quote from Uminchu quoting DougP, here, but I agree totally with your points. These folks who claim to be Christians are representing the Word in a bad way. When I think of radical Christians, I imagine folks running around in togas trying to love you to death.

Their close ties to national politics and their belicose calls for war are, to say the very least, bizarre - utterly bizarre - the perfect antithesis to the message.

They're wolves wearing the fleece of sheep, and they should be watched. More widespread public attention should be given to these groups to expose them for the hypocrites they are. Just a thought.

[OkiMike]

Getting back to the OP, I think the point is that the call for Separation of Church and State is a call that protects both the religious and the non-religious equally. Back when I was a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, we had parts of our church organization dedicated to the maintenance of this clause because it is the only clause that protects our freedom to worship without government intervention.

And government intervention was not always in the "government might force us to deny God" sort of way. To the contrary, it preserves the publics' right to have no religion as the religion de jeur and to choose for themselves to worship or to not worship.

Some on this forum seem to be of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" sort of mind without realizing that there are plenty of groups in America who are trying to fix it because "broke" is a matter of their interpretation. Some view separation as a good thing and others as a bad thing and each is trying to heave the pen of law toward their own direction.

You may be fair and impartial, but there are very forward, unabashed people in our country who are powerful and have not made it a secret that they wish to turn our nation into a theocracy. And whether or not we will go that route entirely, it is certain that we are already on a steep decline into faschism due to citizens who just don't care enough either way to take part in the debate.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Couldn't agree any more than I do. Very well put.

I think Bush's myopic moronic so-called "faith-based initiative" currently illustrates the point.

[OkiMike]

I think Bush's myopic moronic so-called "faith-based initiative" currently illustrates the point.

True. I only wish that more people who currently call themselves Christians would stand up and let their religious leaders know that they are against such initiatives.

As Harris has so eloquently stated in so many words, "Religious moderates pave the way for religious extremists to exist openly in our society."

[DougP]

True. I only wish that more people who currently call themselves Christians would stand up and let their religious leaders know that they are against such initiatives.

As Harris has so eloquently stated in so many words, "Religious moderates pave the way for religious extremists to exist openly in our society."

That would imply that they are truly not sheep being lead on a path of righteousness by their clerical shepherds.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Having a picture or a cross or anything else that doesnt MAKE people believe in it is not hurting a damn thing. Teaching religion in schools is wrong, that is being forced, having a picture of ANY religous symbol in a school is not wrong, nobody is being forced to look at it and believe in it. Spare your argument that yes, kids have to look at it, I know, I know...anal retentive idiots will believe that.


Well, I am glad the government has yet to agree with you on this point and that parents or even students cannot insist that a cross be hung in the entranceway or above the whiteboards at public schools and get it done.

If they feel there is no harm to it like you believe, why do you think it is not permitted? What arguments have the state used to keep that from happening, and what wrote decisions by judges support that?

[OkiMike]

I re-read the thread and saw this post and wanted to comment.

However the reason the references to God were made in the pledge and printed on our money were a statement against communism in the 50's and were meant not to push any belief on anybody but were to preserve our freedom of religon.

While you are correct about the Communism portion, the latter half doesn't follow. It is precisely because America reacted to "godless" communism that the words were added. The statement tried to, in effect, say that America "has" a God. This kind of statement is, of course, antithetical to church/state separation because America DOES NOT have a God. Certain Americans do. But their beliefs do not get to define the laws in the nation.


The government was showing the world that we trust in God.

Which is the problem. We DON'T trust in God, not officially at least.

Now for those that are not Christian that would mean whatever they're God is.

This is, of course, silly since it was precisely "godlessness" that was trying to be purged from the Union. This, is, of course an affront to atheists who are godless not to mention those who do not have "a God" but many Gods/gods.

The best solution would have been to make a statement that America is a place where all are free to worship or not worship as they please. Officially, America has no position on God/gods or anything supernatural.

The fact is references to God are not meant to make people feel oppressed and uncomfortable but are meant to ensure freedom and make people feel better about America no matter what your belief is.

Yeah, that'd be about as effective as writing "One nation under slavery" and being surprised when those who were anti-slavery came to protest.

[Oki0619]

Paul Kimeade strikes again