# Religion and governtment



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 12, 2007)

Big topic here. Weve seen big debates in the last couple of years over seperating the two. 

Why? Why seperate two ideas that America was founded for? Why are people fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)? Why arent kids aloud to say prayers at a public school? What harm can this actually cause? If people are so serious about this why not take it out of everything? Take it off the money as well. Hell, the government has the right to seize land, why not see the land churches and other religous buildings are on and tear them down? Will it go this far?  

Ideas...

Opinions....

Again big topic, lets keep it as civil as possible, i realize this could become heated

B


----------



## terryl965 (Oct 12, 2007)

I do not see any harm just people views and opinions. In school there are to many factors for a prayer except it is a general one that can cover all religions. Our government is not strong enough to take one side or the other and people will jump on one bandwagon and then switch.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 12, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> In school there are to many factors for a prayer except it is a general one that can cover all religions.


 
This isnt hard to do, as long as you dont use JC in the prayer it can cover all religions (for the most part). 



> Our government is not strong enough to take one side or the other and people will jump on one bandwagon and then switch.


 
This is sad. The government should stand up and say "look this is why we are here and it is going to stay that way". Another sad thing is, is that its going to get worse, a lot worse, before it gets better

B


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Big topic here. Weve seen big debates in the last couple of years over seperating the two.
> 
> Why? Why seperate two ideas that America was founded for? Why are people fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)? Why arent kids aloud to say prayers at a public school? What harm can this actually cause? If people are so serious about this why not take it out of everything? Take it off the money as well. Hell, the government has the right to seize land, why not see the land churches and other religous buildings are on and tear them down? Will it go this far?
> 
> ...


 
It seems to me that your understanding of the ideas involved with founding of the country are incomplete, or inaccurate. 

The country was founded by rich, white men, to protect the interestes of those rich, white men. And most of those rich, white men were agnostics, at best. They set up a country distinctly independent from religion.

As for the harm that can be caused by religion, I point you to the history of the world. You could perhaps start with a crucifixtion from about two thousand years ago. I'm not certain that since that time, harms caused by religion have gone away.


----------



## rustyself (Oct 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It seems to me that your understanding of the ideas involved with founding of the country are incomplete, or inaccurate.
> 
> The country was founded by rich, white men, to protect the interestes of those rich, white men. And most of those rich, white men were agnostics, at best. They set up a country distinctly independent from religion.
> 
> As for the harm that can be caused by religion, I point you to the history of the world. You could perhaps start with a crucifixtion from about two thousand years ago. I'm not certain that since that time, harms caused by religion have gone away.


 
MOST of the men that founded our country were christians, hence the reference to God in so many of their documents...  the seperation of state was meant to keep the state out of the church's business, not the church out of the state's business.  ask yourself how it could be any other way, when everything down to the Pledge of Alliegance references God.

also, it is interesting how you point toward the crucifixtion of Christ as to how the "harms" of religion were started.  how about the MILLIONS of people the socialist hitler killed, and the MILLIONS of people islam has killed?

so the question becomes, do you support socialism, or democracy?  you cant have it both ways.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It seems to me that your understanding of the ideas involved with founding of the country are incomplete, or inaccurate.
> 
> The country was founded by rich, white men, to protect the interestes of those rich, white men. And most of those rich, white men were agnostics, at best. They set up a country distinctly independent from religion.


 
As far as I understood it, people settled here to escape political and religous tyranny.



> As for the harm that can be caused by religion, I point you to the history of the world. You could perhaps start with a crucifixtion from about two thousand years ago. I'm not certain that since that time, harms caused by religion have gone away.


 
I know that harm can be caused obviously also you have to do is pick up a history book and see that the pages of history are splattered with the blood of people who fought for or against religion. 

No they havent gone away, obviously Sept 11 was cause by a group of religious fanaticals. There is no concection between this and prayers in school. I never talk about it again if a prayer in a school was the direct cause of the death of thousands of Americans 

But what harm can honestly come from keeping those words in the pledge, or allowing kids to say prayers in school? 

B


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2007)

You are aware that the Pledge of Allegiance was written *not *with the founding of our nation, but in 1892, for the celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of the Western Hemisphere. 

Upon its first publishing, the Pledge read



> I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
> and to the Republic for which it stands:
> one Nation indivisible,
> With Liberty and Justice for all.


 
The reference to a supreme being was added President Eisenhower in 1954.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 'founding' of our country, and the beliefs of those founders.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> But what harm can honestly come from keeping those words in the pledge, or allowing kids to say prayers in school?
> 
> B


 
Allow me to ask the question in another manner. What harm can come from making all students in a school to recite:



> I testify that there is no god, but Allah, and I testify that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah.


----------



## rustyself (Oct 12, 2007)

By The Honorable Judge Robert Ulrich
Chief Justice, Missouri Court Of Appeals, Western District


> We as Christian Americans are confronted with many issues reflecting that Christian principles are not standard in America today. Violent crime has risen 560% since 1960. Less than 1% of all Americans had used illegal drugs before 1960. By 1967, that number had risen to 17%. Today, 5000 Americans will use an illegal drug for the first time. As a Judge, I'm alarmed at the number of cases involving children who are sexually abused. I read recently that one in three girls and one in five boys are sexually assaulted before their 18th birthday. The teen suicide rate has tripled since 1960. Nationally, numerous allegations are asserted that the Chief Executive has engaged in a pattern of illicit sexual conduct, and what is particularly disturbing is that many pundits claim that, if it's true, it doesn't matter because the economy is doing well and it's a personal matter.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Allow me to ask the question in another manner. What harm can come from making all students in a school to recite:


Aboslutely nothing. Christianity does not recognize any other God but its own. Are you saying that believing there is only one God is the problem. 

if the kids are not taught that Americans are inferior and should be slaughtered in the name of Allah then it becomes a problem and can cause harm. 

Religion in gerneral is not the problem, it is when you introduce fanatical ideas that it creates a problem.

Also on a side note, your comment came across as borderline prejudice. I believe that you dont not feel this way but I just wanted to tell you. It appears that you are saying by you believe in Allah you will cause harm to other people. I understand the basis of the comment given the recent events in the past couple years but to say that all the people who believe in Allah are going to cause harm to other people is a prejudicial remark. agian that is the way your comment appears

B


----------



## rustyself (Oct 12, 2007)

ahh, but that is the crux of the problem:  that IS what they teach.  openly.

www.thereligionofpeace.com


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Aboslutely nothing. if the kids are not taught that Americans are inferior and should be slaughtered in the name of Allah then it becomes a problem and can cause harm.
> 
> Religion in gerneral is not the problem, it is when you introduce fanatical ideas that it creates a problem.
> 
> B


 
I suggest you approach acquaintances of the Christain faith, and ask them what they would think if their children were required to recite the First Pillar of Islam in their school classroom.

I think you may find a conflict with the First of their Ten Commandments.


----------



## rustyself (Oct 12, 2007)

*Question:* Is Islam compatible with democracy?

*
Summary Answer:* Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy.  It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head.  Allah's law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics.  There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.

*
The Qur'an:* 
Sura (45:21) - _"What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make."_  Unbelievers are not equal to Muslims.  This is dutifully reflected in Islamic law. 
Sura (4:141) - _"...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers."_  This is at odds with democracy, which allows anyone to serve in a position of power over others regardless of religious belief. 
Sura (63:8) - _"...might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers;"_  ie. not to anyone else. 
Sura (33:36) - _"It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision."_ 
Sura (5:49) - _"So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee"_  Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people.  A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty.  It's clear from this verse which side he must choose. 
Sura (4:123) - _"Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper."_ Sura (4:59) - _"O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..."  _Obedience is strictly limited to the government drawn only from the pool of believers, not from the broader community.  
*
From the Hadith:*

Muslim (19:4294) - _"When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"  _Non-Muslims are intended to be subordinate to Muslims.

Bukhari (88:219) - _"Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." _

Bukhari (89:251) - _Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me."_  The ruler referred to here is the Caliph, who is appointed by Allah, not by popular election.  Democratic rule has no legitimacy against the will of the Caliph who, as we see by chain of reference, has the authority of Allah.

*
Additional Notes: *
To quote the 20th century cleric, Sayyid Qutb, "It is Allah and not man who rules.  Allah is the source of all authority, including legitimate political authority.  Virtue, not freedom, is the highest value.  Therefore, Allah's law, not man's, should govern the society."
Islamic law is based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which are set and fixed.  There is no need for addition or correction.  Neither is there any room for the law of fallible man (particularly non-Muslims).  Nor should it take the place of Allah's perfect law, which tells a man everything he needs to know about daily life (down to which hand he should "hold it in" while urinating).
The law of one man, one vote is heretical to Islam.  The testimony of a Muslim woman is worth only half that of a man.  Jews and Christians are never to have equal standing with Muslims under the law (and certainly never in a position of authority over Muslims), and atheists are to be killed outright.
Reform-minded Muslims (who prefer to ignore all of this) instead point to Sura (42:38), where the phrase _"[Muslims] who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation"_ is used as evidence that Islam is compatible with democracy.  Also recruited to this end is an oft-repeated hadith that has Muhammad saying, "My community will never agree on an error."  On this is based the much ballyhooed concept of "_ijma_" or consensus among Muslims for determining matters of Islamic law.
But _ijma_, has always been controversial and rarely practiced within Islam.  Some interpret it to mean "consensus of the scholars" - having nothing to do with the opinion of the community at large.  Even when its legitimacy is recognized, _ijma_ is accepted only as a secondary (or tertiary) form of authority, behind the fiqh councils.  Also, it bears pointing out that _ijma_ and consultation are applicable only within the Muslim community (and probably limited to the "consensus" of males).
Muhammad ruled on Allah's authority and did not submit his decisions to the will of the people.  Even if the entire world became Muslim overnight, it is highly doubtful that democracy would last, since it would be applicable only to the most mundane of matters not already decided by Islamic law.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 12, 2007)

I guess the question is why Christian prayer and belief?

Why not pray in Hebrew?  Why not to Allah? Why not include scientology lessons? Wiccan?  Buhhdist? Sikhism?

If any of those seem harmful, that is why other people find the idea of teaching Christian practices in school harmful.

It's also my understanding that many of the references to God in things like the pledge, money and other national symbols where added in the 1950's, essentially as propaganda to turn public opinion against the evil communists.


----------



## rustyself (Oct 12, 2007)

michael, i know you are a commited liberal, but here is one you didnt know from their hadith:

Bukhari (88:219) - _"Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." _

_now, that kind of ruins it for the left's obvious choice, dont you think?_


----------



## rustyself (Oct 12, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I guess the question is why Christian prayer and belief?
> 
> Why not pray in Hebrew? Why not to Allah? Why not include scientology lessons? Wiccan? Buhhdist? Sikhism?
> 
> ...


 
read my post above about the founder's beliefs.  kinda long, but very informative about the christian beginnings of our nation.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I suggest you approach acquaintances of the Christain faith, and ask them what they would think if their children were required to recite the First Pillar of Islam in their school classroom.
> 
> I think you may find a conflict with the First of their Ten Commandments.


They would have a problem and rightfully so if their kids were *required* to recite it, but if they were only given the opportunity to say a prayer aloud or to themselves then the parents would have no argument. 

The answer is there is no harm cause by having "one nation under God" in the pledge and there is now harm in allowing kids to pray in school. People think that introducing kids to other religions is bad and its not. The reason people have problems with religion is because they dont understand it well enough.

B


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 12, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I guess the question is why Christian prayer and belief?
> 
> Why not pray in Hebrew?  Why not to Allah? Why not include scientology lessons? Wiccan?  Buhhdist? Sikhism?
> 
> ...


Thats a good point. Im not saying that it should only be the Christian religion. Include other religions. Information is always good.

B


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 12, 2007)

There is no prohibition against a student saying a prayer in school. 


I am the reason our forefathers founded the nation as they did. I am an athiest. I wonder why a "pledge of allegiance" to my nation (something I do believe in), would require me to also recite an acceptance of subservience to a supreme being (something I do not believe in). 

Is it possible to show fidelity to the State and its principles and ideals, without requiring a demonstration of fealty and subordination to a god?


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 12, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> They would have a problem and rightfully so if their kids were *required* to recite it, but if they were only given the opportunity to say a prayer aloud or to themselves then the parents would have no argument.



I'm not sure about that.  I think a lot of parents would object if during this time some prayed to a Christian God, some prayed to the Jewish version, others to the Islamic, some did some Wiccan rituals, others some scientology ones, and a few passed on the opportunity saying that there is no God and just for fun, some dressed up as pirates and prayed to the flying spaghetti monster.




> The answer is there is no harm cause by having "one nation under God" in the pledge and there is now harm in allowing kids to pray in school. People think that introducing kids to other religions is bad and its not. The reason people have problems with religion is because they dont understand it well enough.
> 
> B



_I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

__I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Yahweh, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

__I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under Waheguru indivisible, with liberty and justice for all._


Anything seem wrong with that?  "god" may be a generic term, but "God" is pretty much a Christian way of referring to there god


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 12, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I'm not sure about that.  I think a lot of parents would object if during this time some prayed to a Christian God, some prayed to the Jewish version, others to the Islamic, some did some Wiccan rituals, others some scientology ones, and a few passed on the opportunity saying that there is no God and just for fun, some dressed up as pirates and prayed to the flying spaghetti monster.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


flying spaghetti monster. thats just funny. LOL!!!

I see what you mean. I meant it as god in general not the Christian God. That is a good point though


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> There is no prohibition against a student saying a prayer in school.


 
I thought there was. I though the Supreme Court ruled that prayers were to be taken out of public schools. Am I wrong or have I miss read something? Please someone set me straight 

B


----------



## rustyself (Oct 12, 2007)

some people DO understand other religions... and still fear them.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm
its so funny, to me at least, how liberals will defend islam to the death, but slander christians in the same breath.


----------



## Blindside (Oct 12, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> flying spaghetti monster. thats just funny. LOL!!!


 
If you are not familiar with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster you should start here:
http://www.venganza.org/

Followers are known as Pastafarians.


----------



## Andrew Green (Oct 12, 2007)

rustyself said:


> some people DO understand other religions... and still fear them.
> http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/WWMD.htm
> its so funny, to me at least, how liberals will defend islam to the death, but slander christians in the same breath.



I think you'll find that most Atheists put both in about the same place.  What gets defended is not the religion, but the freedom to choose Islam over Christianity, and the freedom to not be persecuted for that belief.

This site of yours amounts to basically hate speech, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but the Christian bible contains some pretty nasty things too.


----------



## tellner (Oct 12, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Big topic here. Weve seen big debates in the last couple of years over seperating the two.



What we've seen since the Reagan years has been an attempt to fuse the two together to satisfy the theocratic half of the Republican base. Seriously. The Big Guy in the Sky isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation. If you look at the debates that the authors of those documents had it's absolutely clear that they didn't want religion of any sort to be part of the governance of the country. The discussion cited the evils that had come from Europe's experience with State religions. The only two times it's mentioned at all in the Constitution are in Article VI and Ammendment I. In both cases it is in the negative "No religious test shall ever be used..." and "No law respecting and establishment of religion."

What we've seen lately has been a very upfront attempt first by the Reagan and now by the second Bush Administrations to cement their political power through religion. The Office of Faith Based Initiatives, the religious takeover of the Air Force Academy and the new laws which allow military chaplains to proselytize and even allow private religious groups official time, facilities and money to try and convert new military recruits to evangelical Protestantism and so on are only the most obvious. While we've had outbreaks of Know Nothingism in the past this represents a radical departure from the entire history of the United States.



> Why? Why seperate two ideas that America was founded for?



Eh? Separate two ideas? The whole point of the Wall of Separation was that the Church doesn't use its special status to create a theocracy. The State doesn't use its to support a particular sect or apply its coercive power to the establishment of state religions. The idea of religious freedom is that you and I are free to believe whatever hare-brained thing we want as long as we don't try to force anyone else to do the same thing. If you mix the rhetorical power of the Church and the coercive power of the State you don't have religious freedom any more.




> Why are people fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)?


Good Lord, do you even bother to crack a history book? Ever? Use Google? 

The Pledge of Allegiance was created in 1892 by a Socialist school teacher. It originally contained the words "with equality, liberty and justice for all". He was forced to remove equality because school superintendent didn't like the idea that it would include women and *shudder* *Negroes*. 

In 1923/4 the original wording "my Flag and the Republic" was changed to "the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic" after pressure from the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution. We note that just a few years later rich Republicans including Prescott Bush planned to use the American Legion as the military arm of a coup against Franklin Roosevelt so that the policies of Hitler and Mussolini could replace democracy as the guiding principles of the Republic. It's all absolutely documented, not even a glimmer of doubt or ambiguity.

The words "Under G-d" were added in 1954. The *spit* Knights of Columbus prevailed on Eisenhower to stuff them in. The idea was to remind Americans that G-d Almighty was behind them unlike the Communists. 




> Why arent kids aloud to say prayers at a public school?


Children are allowed to say prayers in school. That is absolutely protected. They always have been. What makes the Religious Right cry in its beer about how oppressed it is is that we no longer allow the State to enforce State-sponsored official prayers. And they're not allowed to use kids as cutouts to sneak their coerced prayers back in. The Fundies aren't angry because their rights are violated. They are angry because they are no longer allowed to violate the rights of others. It really is that simple. 



> Take it off the money as well.


Why not? It wasn't there in the beginning. The only reason it was put on coins and bills was religious fervor during the Civil War. Secretary Chase succumbed to pressure from religious Yankees who wanted everyone to know that G-d was on the side of the North. In other words, it's a lot like the "under G-d" bit in the PoA. It disappeared from some coins after the war and didn't get snuck back in (at least on the nickel) until 1938.

In other words, it started off as wartime hysteria. It was kept because the Fundies thought it would magically protect them from their enemies. Then it was used as a way of lying to people to convince them that we had always been a theocracy.




> Hell, the government has the right to seize land, why not see the land churches and other religous buildings are on and tear them down? Will it go this far?


Somehow the idea that the government shouldn't force people to do the Water Magic and mutter Christian incantations is the same as stealing from all Christians? That is an incredibly perverse and frightening leap of I hesitate to call it logic. You seem to think that your religion has some sort of cosmic right to suckle off the Federal teat and use the government's power to force itself on people who are not interested in joining. And somehow this qualifies as freedom for all of us. 

I would submit that such a view is about the same as calling East Germany the "German Democratic Republic". 



> Ideas...
> 
> Opinions....
> 
> ...



You couldn't have started on a more inflammatory note if you'd made the post out of gasoline and the "Submit" key was a gas welder. You've already set it up to be divisive and anything but civil. And you know it.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 12, 2007)

First off thank you. You are the people I wish I had as teachers in school. 3/4 of this stuff I never knew. 

I really havent stated what I feel. The questions I ask are to obtain information so I can better myself. Im trying to get a better understanding of of this topic. 

I knew the topic was tough and thought twice to about starting the thread. But why not? I wanted to get others views of this topic and every single person that has replied in this thread has given me a lot to think about. So thank you to all of you.

B


----------



## sirdarksol (Oct 12, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Big topic here. Weve seen big debates in the last couple of years over seperating the two.
> 
> Why? Why seperate two ideas that America was founded for? Why are people fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)? Why arent kids aloud to say prayers at a public school? What harm can this actually cause? If people are so serious about this why not take it out of everything? Take it off the money as well. Hell, the government has the right to seize land, why not see the land churches and other religous buildings are on and tear them down? Will it go this far?
> 
> ...



My opinion on this matter, as is usual for me, in no particular order.

I believe that "under God" should be removed for the reason that it was not originally there. It is a recent addition, I believe from either WWI or II, in order to reinforce religious morals in the country. 

Kids should be allowed to pray, presuming their prayer doesn't get in the way of school (for example, if a prayer requires incense, that would be troubling to students with asthma). Heck, I'm all for setting aside ten minutes of "free time" a day. My problem is when some teachers try to enforce prayer time.

There are people out there who believe that all religion should be banned from the country, despite the fact that freedom to worship as we wish has been guaranteed in our country. There is a growing movement of atheists who are as zealous (perhaps even cultish) as any fundamentalist religion, and will discriminate against people due to the fact that they are "stupid enough" to believe in a higher power.
These people are one reason that I feel that the church/state thing must be carefully tread, because stepping too far over the line can create a backlash that hurts all religion. All these people need is a judge who is willing to give more credence to "separation of church and state" than to "freedom to worship," and you end up with kids only allowed to pray if they are silent and don't fold their hands.

On the other hand, there are people who would like to cram their religious opinions down the throats of others. Laws are being created with no reason other than "it's God's will." What if this law directly contradicts the beliefs of some citizens of the country? If the proscribed action does not hurt anybody, but is just considered taboo because of religious beliefs, why should their be a law against it?
Likewise, kids are being taught intelligent design in a science class, of course from a Christian point of view. If we're going to teach them Genesis, we should also be teaching the Japanese, Indian, Native American, Chinese, Wiccan, and African creation myths. Or, they can go to theology courses, where they belong. And then there's "abstinence only" education, where kids aren't being taught the realities about sex because some adults think that, if we don't teach them about it, they won't do it (look at the statistics of the "abstinence only" states, specifically with regards to teen pregnancy and STDs, and tell me how that's working out)

As far as seizure of land, this needs to end, and not just because of the religion thing. The government can take land, pay 100,000 for it (as residential property), then rezone, sell it for 1,000,000 (as commercial property), and keep the difference. This is just wrong. 
So of course, I don't believe that churches should be seized.

For those of you who are curious, I'm Christian. I don't, however, believe that Christianity is the only correct religion. Rather, I think it's the correct religion for me. To me, the basic ideas of religion, whether or not it guides its believers toward good actions, is the important part. The rest is just dogma. Because of this belief, I cannot support government actions that push a particular religion over all others.


----------



## Ray (Oct 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> There is no prohibition against a student saying a prayer in school.


surely you've heard reports where children we're told they couldn't offer a blessing at lunch time?  And other incidences of teachers & admins stopping school children from praying because the school reps thought they'd get sued for allowing it.


michaeledward said:


> I am the reason our forefathers founded the nation as they did. I am an athiest. I wonder why a "pledge of allegiance" to my nation (something I do believe in), would require me to also recite an acceptance of subservience to a supreme being (something I do not believe in).


The pledge of allgiance to the US doesn't have a recitation of acceptance of subservience to a supreme being....it says "one nation under God."  However, the original wording by the author didn't have the phrase.


michaeledward said:


> Is it possible to show fidelity to the State and its principles and ideals, without requiring a demonstration of fealty and subordination to a god?


Yes it is possible.  If you like, instead of being subordinate to God and King, we can just be subordinate to King.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 12, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Religion in gerneral is not the problem, it is when you introduce fanatical ideas that it creates a problem.


 
I disagree.  Moderates are the ones who make fanatics possible.  Moderates are the ones who prevent any sort of rational discussion of religious ideas.  MODERATES protect the fanatics while they protect their own beliefs.  

Religion, by is very nature, is irrational.  It is an appeal to authority at its very roots.


----------



## sirdarksol (Oct 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> There is no prohibition against a student saying a prayer in school.



There is no federal prohibition. Individual schools, however, have told students that they are not allowed to pray out loud (even during recess or other places/times where their voice would not bother the other students) and could not take any form of formal pose (such as folded hands) that would indicate prayer. This, of course, was an overreaction to the whole prayer thing, but it still happened.



upnorthkyosa said:


> I disagree.  Moderates are the ones who make fanatics possible.  Moderates are the ones who prevent any sort of rational discussion of religious ideas.  MODERATES protect the fanatics while they protect their own beliefs.
> 
> Religion, by is very nature, is irrational.  It is an appeal to authority at its very roots.



Please support the first statement. I disagree with it, but I don't just want this to be a "yuh-huh", "nuh-uh" discussion.

The second statement is incorrect. The organization of a church can be an appeal to authority, but religion, at its core, has nothing to do with an organization, and everything to do with the spiritual self. I can (and do) pray to God without the help of a church. In fact, I haven't been to an organized religious ceremony, outside of weddings, for several years, yet I am still religious. 
This is a false concept that many atheists latch onto in an attempt to make religion look evil, but in the same way that fundamentalist religious sorts only look at the worst cases of a particular group of people, fundamentalist atheists only look at the worst cases of religious people.


----------



## tellner (Oct 13, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I disagree.  Moderates are the ones who make fanatics possible.  Moderates are the ones who prevent any sort of rational discussion of religious ideas.  MODERATES protect the fanatics while they protect their own beliefs.


I'm having trouble following you on this one. If there were only fanatics there would be no discussion of any sort unless you consider a chorus of amens and the screams of the victims to be discussion. The moderates make compromise and change possible. The religious people who have a handle on science are the moderates, not the fundies. It isn't the moderate Catholics who still refer to Queen Elizabeth I as "the blaspheming whore". It's the fringe elements within Opus Dei and the followers of Lefebvre. 

The pinnacle of Spanish civilization was during the time it was ruled by moderate Muslims who believed in accommodating Christianity and Islam. The Enlightenment moderated the absolutist tendencies within Christianity and was responsible for large parts of the Scientific Revolution, classic liberalism (the 18th century meaning of the word) and many other areas of great progress in the West. 

By contrast Wahabism and Know Nothingism along with its spiritual descendants like Reconstructionism and Dominionism have _always_ stifled dissent, discussion and the different. They've been antithetical to science as a concept and have made ecumenism a crime. 



> Religion, by is very nature, is irrational.  It is an appeal to authority at its very roots.



That depends very much on what you mean by religion. "The Big Guy in the Sky thinks people like me are really special. We get to party forever. People who aren't like me will get tortured forever. If you ask inconvenient questions you're not people like me," is just the sort of religion you are referring to. There are other traditions and other things vaguely under the rubric of "religion" that are quite different. 

Consider Buddhism. Yes, there are versions with more guardians and demons and arahats and spirits and buddhas and deities than you can shake a begging bowl at. But at it's core, what the old Sutras say, it's atheistic. If there are gods they are just as trapped as anyone else. There is no Big Guy in the Sky whom you obey. There's only a set of guidelines that will help you clear away your crap until you can face up to Reality without your spiritual teddy bears.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 13, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I disagree. Moderates are the ones who make fanatics possible. Moderates are the ones who prevent any sort of rational discussion of religious ideas. MODERATES protect the fanatics while they protect their own beliefs.
> 
> Religion, by is very nature, is irrational. It is an appeal to authority at its very roots.


 
Now that I think about it, this is a very ethnocentric way of looking at this.  I've painted with too broad a brush as some posters have pointed out.  There are lots of completely benign religions out there that are surreptitiously protecting a bunch of crazies.  

In regards to this topic, I think that our founding fathers understood that their could be no exceptions.  Any mixing of religion and government might very well lead to the crazies taking power...as has happened numerous times throughout European History.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 13, 2007)

tellner said:


> I'm having trouble following you on this one. If there were only fanatics there would be no discussion of any sort unless you consider a chorus of amens and the screams of the victims to be discussion. The moderates make compromise and change possible. The religious people who have a handle on science are the moderates, not the fundies. It isn't the moderate Catholics who still refer to Queen Elizabeth I as "the blaspheming whore". It's the fringe elements within Opus Dei and the followers of Lefebvre.
> 
> The pinnacle of Spanish civilization was during the time it was ruled by moderate Muslims who believed in accommodating Christianity and Islam. The Enlightenment moderated the absolutist tendencies within Christianity and was responsible for large parts of the Scientific Revolution, classic liberalism (the 18th century meaning of the word) and many other areas of great progress in the West.
> 
> By contrast Wahabism and Know Nothingism along with its spiritual descendants like Reconstructionism and Dominionism have _always_ stifled dissent, discussion and the different. They've been antithetical to science as a concept and have made ecumenism a crime.


 
Here is the crux of what I was arguing.  Religious moderates create a generally accepting climate for this or that religion allowing fanatical groups to sprout up and gain followers.  Further, more often then not, its the moderates who stifle criticism of these groups.  Often its just through the power of majority, but it could just as well be through the mechanics of politicallycorrectpsuedothoughtcontrol.  One is prevented from criticizing religion because its Religion.  

The end results is that the fanatics grow unchecked.  They may or may not take power, but that threat is always there.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 13, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> First off thank you. You are the people I wish I had as teachers in school. 3/4 of this stuff I never knew.
> 
> I really havent stated what I feel. The questions I ask are to obtain information so I can better myself. Im trying to get a better understanding of of this topic.
> 
> ...


 
B ... 

I am kind of curious. When you started this thread, you made some statements that I don't understand. 

_Why are *people* fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)?_

_If *people* are so serious about this why not take it out of everything?_

You mention 'big debates', and the only subject that you list as having these debates is the people in these sentences. 

Do you have any idea who you mean when you call out these 'people'? How did you hear about them fighting to remove 'under god' from the pledge? When was the last time you saw or heard of a rally to remove the pledge. If they were big debates, I think this 'other side' of the debate should be a large well organized bunch. 

Again, I am one of those guys who would love to see 'under god' removed from the pledge and 'in god we trust' removed from the currency. And I have taken exactly zero action on these desires. Oh, sure, I point out that Thomas Jefferson did not write the Pledge of Allegiance, and that 'under god' is a 50 year old invention, but that is education, not radicallization. 

It's okay that you were not aware of the facts revealed in this thread (well, sort of). But, where were you getting your mis-belief or misunderstanding?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 13, 2007)

There is no 'Federal' prohibition against prayer in school. If a school principle does not understand federal law, and attempts to prevent a child from saying a prayer over a meal, or children from praying a recess, I know an organization that will protect the rights of those children. 

The American Civil Liberties Union.

You guys aren't really using stupid people as a defense here, are you? (a school board rep that prevents a child from saying a prayer over a meal is, I believe, accurately described as 'stupid'). 


As for the claim that moderate religions make radical religions possible, there is a school of thought that informs us that moderate religions identify with those who believe more than those who do not believe. Therefore, they are willing to accept practices and beliefs that are more extreme because they see similarities in their own practice; and dissimilarities with non-believers.

For instance, while Catholics do not believe in 'Speaking in Tongues', they are less likely to critize or analyze that activity than they would be to criticize or analyze the belief of an athiest.


----------



## Ray (Oct 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> There is no 'Federal' prohibition against prayer in school. If a school principle does not understand federal law, and attempts to prevent a child from saying a prayer over a meal, or children from praying a recess, I know an organization that will protect the rights of those children.
> 
> The American Civil Liberties Union.



I know other organizations that will protect the rights of those children.  I don't see the ACLU jumping on these types of cases.



michaeledward said:


> You guys aren't really using stupid people as a defense here, are you? (a school board rep that prevents a child from saying a prayer over a meal is, I believe, accurately described as 'stupid').


What do you mean "You guys"?  I'm one guy and don't think you should stereotype me.  Especially since you don't know me...you probably think I'm wearing a Hawaiian shirt right now...er, I am.

There lots of stupid stuff that happens, perpetrated by stupid people.  Some of it is legal and some of it isn't.  I just figure those stupid people doing stupid things are in the same class as most people (average and mediocre).



michaeledward said:


> As for the claim that moderate religions make radical religions possible, there is a school of thought that informs us that moderate religions identify with those who believe more than those who do not believe. Therefore, they are willing to accept practices and beliefs that are more extreme because they see similarities in their own practice; and dissimilarities with non-believers.


ref the above re "stupid people" (not you but those who are "radically" religious and those who claim the "moderately" religious cause "radical" religions).



michaeledward said:


> For instance, while Catholics do not believe in 'Speaking in Tongues', they are less likely to critize or analyze that activity than they would be to criticize or analyze the belief of an athiest.


I cannot speak to the Catholic view on tongues, only what I have come to believe as a Mormon.  I believe in the "gift of tongues" or the ability to sometimes speak in a different language, as long as there is someone there to understand what is said.  I don't believe in speaking "gibberish" as a sign that the Holy Ghost is moving you.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 13, 2007)

Ray, how many times have you visited the ACLU web site to see what kinds of cases they do take? Individuals being prevented from practicing their religion is exactly the type of case the ACLU takes. 

EDIT - Here's an example

The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) filed a a motion to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Olivia Turton, a second-grade student who was forbidden from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The only restriction on the student's selection for the talent show was that it be "G-rated." The case, filed in federal court, is Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et al. 

www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html

More here .... http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

END EDIT.​ 
And, you were not the only one on the board to make the claims about children being prevented from praying in school. An average person who holds the belief that there are prohibitions against a child praying in school is misguided. If that average person runs for office, and is elected to the school board, they are no longer average. He or she has self-selected into a position of authority. If one demonstrates ignorance of the rules, in which they have chosen to put himself in a position of authority, a claim of average or normal is no longer an adequate defense for wrongdoing.

If you are exceptional - elected to the school board - you can't claim to be average as a defense.


Lastly, I have seen all variations of 'speaking in tongues'. In the faith I was raised, we were taught that such 'spirit speech' no longer happens, because the teachings are now available in all of the native languages on the planet. You state a position that is different than this; spirit speech may happen in German, Spanish, or Mandarin. And, I have attended churches and services where 'spirit speech' was uttered and 'translated' from no known language (gibberish, is the word you used). The teachings at those services is that the spoken words are from the language of angels. 

First Corinthians Chapter 13, Verse 1: Thou I speak in the tongue of men and of angels .....

Three different points of belief along the same continuum. Each is more likely to accept the position of the other, rather than my opinion, that there are no angels, and no spirit that speaks to man, or through man, in any way, shape or form.


If you were to meet a person from the Evangelical churches where spirit speech is 'the language of angels', would you argue with him as vigorously as you might choose to argue with a person who claims there is no spirit, or less so?


----------



## Ray (Oct 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Ray, how many times have you visited the ACLU web site to see what kinds of cases they do take?


I've only visited once, a couple years ago. I didn't see much made me associate that group with protecting (help me phrase this to not offend and get my meaning across) groups of people with the typical american judeo-christian religous practice. And if they do more so than I thought they did then that's wonderful...mostly one hears about the rights of the non-typical non-american non-judeo-christian (religious or not) being "protected." Which sometimes gets reported as strange stuff being freedom (and I'm not saying that's the case in reality, just the way the press reports it).


michaeledward said:


> If you are exceptional - elected to the school board - you can't claim to be average as a defense.


Yup, the people who work and run schools should know the laws, rights and limits of what they can allow and can't allow. However, they are gov't workers and if they do something that ain't right then it sure looks like the "gov't did something wrong."

They are also in a position of authority and sometimes make the wrong decisions. I think everyone makes a wrong decision on occaision. But it sure is tough on a 5 year old when that kind of stuff happens. (or conversely, should a person in a position of authority offend a non-believer or a believer of a different belief).

I think the schools (some of the people in schools) are just worried about lawsuits and have a lot of other things going on that may not be conducive to taking the time to think things throught.



michaeledward said:


> Lastly, I have seen all variations of 'speaking in tongues'. In the faith I was raised, we were taught that such 'spirit speech' no longer happens, because the teachings are now available in all of the native languages on the planet. You state a position that is different than this; spirit speech may happen in German, Spanish, or Mandarin. And, I have attended churches and services where 'spirit speech' was uttered and 'translated' from no known language (gibberish, is the word you used). The teachings at those services is that the spoken words are from the language of angels.
> 
> First Corinthians Chapter 13, Verse 1: Thou I speak in the tongue of men and of angels .....


I don't limit the gift of tongue to only those commonly spoken on the earth today; I may have read accounts of someone in the history of my own church speaking in the Adamic tongue and it was translated by someone who had been given the gift to understand it (briefly or permanently, i don't know). I just believe that a gift given is for the benefit of someone (in the case of tongues: the speaker - the hearer - or both).


michaeledward said:


> Three different points of belief along the same continuum. Each is more likely to accept the position of the other, rather than my opinion, that there are no angels, and no spirit that speaks to man, or through man, in any way, shape or form.
> 
> If you were to meet a person from the Evangelical churches where spirit speech is 'the language of angels', would you argue with him as vigorously as you might choose to argue with a person who claims there is no spirit, or less so?


I would not argue with either position. I might share my belief with them if they did with me. I don't think I'd try to convince them that "I'm right" and "they're wrong" but I always try to consider the postion that "I might be wrong."

If indeed they speak the language of angles, then I might like to learn it as well; expecting it to have syntax, grammer and so on. I'd also expect it to be vastly different from Esperanto.


----------



## rustyself (Oct 14, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I think you'll find that most Atheists put both in about the same place. What gets defended is not the religion, but the freedom to choose Islam over Christianity, and the freedom to not be persecuted for that belief.
> 
> This site of yours amounts to basically hate speech, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but the Christian bible contains some pretty nasty things too.


 
that is not hate speech, my friend.  it is the words of the koran, in the words of the koran.  it is their words, not mine.  the author was merely pointing out the passages.  each passage is pointing directly to their beliefs.


----------



## Kacey (Oct 14, 2007)

Okay, I've been gone for a couple of days, so I'm going to go back to the original questions, along with commenting on a few things I saw on my way through.



KempoGuy06 said:


> Big topic here. Weve seen big debates in the last couple of years over seperating the two.
> 
> Why? Why seperate two ideas that America was founded for? Why are people fighting to remove "under God" for the Pledge of Alligance (sp?)?



As has been stated, the Pledge was originally written with no reference to God at all; in fact, several sources I have read, including this one, reference the the granddaughter of the author, Francis Bellamy, saying that her grandfather would have been quite upset at the addition made to the Pledge that he wrote.

As far as _why_ this is an issue - I don't believe in the God referenced in the Pledge; I'm Jewish - and my personal religious beliefs are a lot closer to the Christian God referenced than quite a few students I know.  

When I was a child in school and objected to that part of the Pledge, I was told that I could mouth those words, but I _would_ say the Pledge, like it or not.  As a teacher, I require my students to stand and be respectfully quiet, but I do not require them to recite the Pledge if they are not so inclined.



KempoGuy06 said:


> Why arent kids aloud to say prayers at a public school? What harm can this actually cause?



Children are allowed to pray - public schools are not allowed to _require_ prayer.  I've seen many copies of a bumper sticker reading, more or less "As long as there are final exams, there will be prayers in schools" and that's quite true - the prayers may be more or less religious - but they are definitely happening!



KempoGuy06 said:


> If people are so serious about this why not take it out of everything? Take it off the money as well.



I believe we should... but not strongly enough to do anything about it.  It doesn't offend me personally, but I can see why it would offend others.



KempoGuy06 said:


> Hell, the government has the right to seize land, why not see the land churches and other religous buildings are on and tear them down? Will it go this far?



The separation of Church and State was intended to prevent the establishment of a state religion; the writers of the Constitution were, as previously discussed, were, as a group, very religious - if I recall correctly, 17 were ministers - because they came from England, fleeing religious persecution, where the practice of their personal religion(s) was illegal because the Church of England was the religion of the country.

This separation was not originally intended to provide the protections that churches now enjoy; it was intended to prevent the types of persecution a state religion caused.  However, that is a different issue from allowing the government the right to exercise the power of eminent domain, which is the power it uses when seizing land to build other things... a power I have a problem with in the way it has been used in some instances - but that's a discussion for a different thread.



KempoGuy06 said:


> I thought there was. I though the Supreme Court ruled that prayers were to be taken out of public schools. Am I wrong or have I miss read something? Please someone set me straight



As I said above, prayer cannot be _mandated_ - but it is certainly allowed.


----------

