The Separation of Church and State

[shesulsa]

Where is it that you feel that government has, in anyway, 'forced the hand of God upon the people'???
Just curious. That would be odd, and way out of line! I 110% agree that our government is by the people...

I was agreeing, not arguing, that we have separation of church and state and that the Constitution guarantees us our rights.

Although there are instances, I think, where church has stepped in, I don't care to argue the point - I was seeking, again, to corroborate what was stated.

Also - just curious - why would an argument about this be out of line, in your opinion?

 

[Brother John]

I was agreeing, not arguing, that we have separation of church and state and that the Constitution guarantees us our rights.

Although there are instances, I think, where church has stepped in, I don't care to argue the point - I was seeking, again, to corroborate what was stated.

Also - just curious - why would an argument about this be out of line, in your opinion?

Oh...
OKay... Guess I missunderstood.

I wasn't saying that the argument was out of line, but it would be way out of line for anyone to try to impose their faith on anyone else, or as you put it "Force the hand of God.."against them. I feel very strongly that every religious point of view must be respected. You don't have to agree with say, a Pagan or Hindu or Jew or whatever... you don't even need to say that they are "Just as correct as me". That's not what tolerance is. We must safeguard the ideal of religious tolerance in our country. But it seems to me that this ideal is reserved for all but those who come from the Judeo-Christian background.
I consider myself a christian, but my personal views are way off from the mainstream christian views. If some of my own fellow church members really knew my inner feelings on things, I'm afraid they'd not understand at best and at worst ask me to not return. That's too bad. But it is a chuch that I feel good about and probably best represents some core beliefs I have. I AM in the minority. I sure am greatful that my rights are protected, but I'm not asking others to alter social norms for what it is I believe.

Something I object to is that separation of church and state has gone way beyond what (I think) it was originally meant to be. This term, btw, was never included in the constitution or declaration... it was coined later. The constitution does prohibit the creation of any laws pertaining to the establishment of a religion ((no state religions)). These days it's deemed Taboo for a politician to claim that they have strong (or even not so strong) religious beliefs. Bush claiming his christian faith is deemed wrong, a violation of church and state. Actually, it'd be wrong for him to be restricted on religious expression by the state or any laws thereof. True, it's often used as political coin.... so what. They, like any person under heaven, has the right to be wrong. But that's beside the point. Any person, politician or not, should have the right to express and claim their faith w/out derision.

Bush claims to seek God's guidance in making decisions.
Good. But others have claimed that it's not right for him to say this.
I think they are wrong.

Now I'm ranting.
Sorry. Much of my posts in this thread have been some 'devil's advocate' and somewhat based on how I feel.
Hope you understand.

Your Brother
John

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Huzzah, hhjh!

But the minority doesn't have the right to redefine social norms for the country. (as in the case of gay marriage)

Well, take me for example. I am a Christian, so I fall in the majority, right? But I believe that homosexual couples should be able to be married - or at least have civil unions that give them the same rights as married heterosexual couples. So am I now a voice for the majority or a minority?

Sometimes it takes a thoughtful and passionate minority to change the social norms and expectations in this country. I, for instance, am damn glad that I have the right to vote, which in the not-too-distant past, was considered laughable by the "majority".

ETA: Brother John, I don't think it's wrong for anyone to express themselves about their faith. What I have issue with is the manner in which Bush appears to make policy and military decisions based solely on faith, and *ignores* actual information or evidence.

 

[Brother John]

Endorsement and overt support of "faith based initiatives".

What's wrong with supporting faith based initiatives? Every faith would have an equal shot at it, it wouldn't favor one over another. The money wouldn't be used for prostletyzing. (MAN...I have NO clue how that's spelled. Maybe cus I don't do any...) It would be $$ given to charities that give material assistance to people in need. I think that that's a very good thing.

Congressional action inserting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was a secular pledge for over fifty years.

I understand. But this pledge wasn't forced on people. True, I could see people being compelled/cajolled (sp?) into doing so by teachers and the like... but that's the fault of teachers. An oath, to be an oath, must be voluntary.

The rest of the points are very good points Steve. Really, like you said, many of these things have been dealt with by those who've upheld the constitution, both on the state and federal levels. Having the laws and constitution doesn't mean that some won't go against them, but that there is a standard with which we can undo such things. (as has happened in some of these instances you site and needs to happen in the others)

But what about a politician claiming their faith and saying that they seek their Deities guidance and their scripture's direction?? Regardless of what faith it is, is this okay in your opinion??

Thanks
Your Brother
John

 

[Feisty Mouse]

What's wrong with supporting faith based initiatives? Every faith would have an equal shot at it, it wouldn't favor one over another.

That would be the government (state) supporting various religious institutions (church). The ideal is to keep them separate.

What happens when, "from my taxes" (as people love to yell about when they are not happy), one church receives funding, and I perceive them to teach discrimination (say, against homossexuals and bisexuals), or violence (say, advocating the murder of doctors that perform abortions)? Now my tax dollars are fueling someone else's beliefs that I think are completely wrong and (I think) conflict with *my* religious beliefs.

 

[shesulsa]

I think the best of people search their souls for answers to the tough questions and if one's soul is dedicated to faith, then I'm sure they will search their leanings to the faith and consider the morals attached to the subject.

I would think less of anyone who said they avoid looking to their faith for guidance.

However, faith-based initiatives are, in my humble opinion, a slippery slope. And consulting scripture for answers is, I think, a big mistake. First of all, there is more than one sacred writing in the world and two - all sacred writings are written by human beings inspired by their creator.

Lots of questionable people have been "inspired by their creator." Jim Jones, the KKK, Hitler. And many exemplary people have been inspired by their creator - Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., etcetera.

I have to say one thing I do like about Kerry is that he outwardly stated that though he is strong in his Catholic faith and personally opposes abortion, he would not carry that over into the presidency, because he would be allowing his faith to interfere with or overrule the state, which would be wrong.

I don't want to debate abortion here, I chose that example for the last part which I enhanced for emphasis.

Brother John, it sounds like you and I are much alike. I have not yet found a church close enough to my beliefs in Christianity to become a member, most likely because I have a sprinkling of Taoist and Buddhist beliefs therein as well. I am in the minority of others in the Christian faith and I align my feelings towards homosexuality with Feisty's as well.

I understand your good faith in allowing faith-based initiatives. But I still worry about the expansion thereof.

Your Sister,

SS

 

[Brother John]

Gotcha sis...


well met.



Your Brother
John
:asian:

 

[michaeledward]

My point wasn't that the rules & laws & policies should be crafted in the mold of any religion, but by the will of the people...
thus if the majority of the 'will' has it that say, marriage shouldn't be redefined to meet the desires of the gay members of our society... then that's what sticks.

Using your example ... 'marriage' ... is it a religious institution, or is it a civil institution? In the Catholic church, marriage is one of the seven sacraments, therefore, it must be a religious institution. Yet, I was required to obtain a New Hampshire Marriage License, which makes marriage a civil institution.

In the religious institution, we see that God was not content to be alone, but embarked on a whole new life project. The commitments that husbands and wives make to each other are intended to be reflections of the commitment God has made to his Church.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0596.asp

In the civil institution, the state grants specific rights to the couple. There are tax benefites, estate planning benefits, medical, governmental and employment benefits. Are these benefits, granted by the state, connected in any way to the religious? Of course not.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825

So, what about the civil institution justifies prohibiting those benefits from same-sex couples who are willing to make the same commitment?

Currently, I think you would find the country split about 50/50 in saying there is no reason the state should deny marriage rights to gay couples. Although, the numbers are certainly against the 'term' marriage being used.

You know, in 40 years, this is not going to be an issue at all. Gay Marriage will be commonplace. Today's youth put on the cloak of homosexuality as a matter of rebellion, or exploration. Both of my daughters have proclaimed they are 'gay' or 'bi', although, we are fairly one of them is definiately heterosexual ... the other ... well, we'll see. But I see these declarations just expressions of pop-culture witnessed on MTV's 'Real Life' and 'Road Rules' and the like.

In Iran the rules come directly from their religion. In our country it comes from the will of the people...

I remind you of Judge Roy Moore. Judge Moore was elevated to the highest court, and the highest position in the court for the State of Alabama. He then prominantly displayed in the courthouse a monument to the 10 Commandments. In that the Judge would be presiding legally over petitioners and accused in that court, and that he places his monument to 'acknowledge the sovereignty of God', how can you think the rules are not coming from 'religion'. In all of his arguments, he never in any way indicated that the laws of man should supercede the laws of his God.

I experience similar mis-givings when the President talks about 'solemn' responsibilities and obligations.

"I believe the most solemn duty
of the American president is to protect the American people."
"We have a solemn responsibility to support
the servicemen and women who defend us in the field of battle."

While the Presidents' linguistic skills are, shall we say, often challenged, I am of the opinion he uses this word as special code for the Christian Right. I believe he is using definition 1 listed below, rather than definition 3.

1 : marked by the invocation of a religious sanction <a solemn oath>
2 : marked by the observance of established form or ceremony; specifically : celebrated with full liturgical ceremony
3 a : awe-inspiring : b : marked by grave sedateness and earnest sobriety
​

The President tosses the word 'soul' around with similar casualness. I do not see him acknowledging the rights of those who believe differently than he, with the sole exception of the Presidential debate (when I almost fell out of my chair)

and if those people are predominantly Judeo-Christian (which our country is) then it will reflect that. That's all I'm saying. It's not that anyone needs to be forced to "believe" anything from a religion that is not their own...that doesn't even enter into this subject, I feel. Just that the norms and trends of our society reflect the general concensus of the majority. Not that others rights are denied them. They are 'protected' too. But the minority doesn't have the right to redefine social norms for the country. (as in the case of gay marriage)

No one is forcing you or the rest of the American public to accept anything from another religion. Besides, history proves that an impossibility. Belief can not be mandated.

But, whether anyone is 'forced to believe' in George W's God is not the point. It is the argument made by the 2nd Amendment crowd. By even asking gun owners to register their weapons, you are beginning the process of confiscating the weapons.

By accepting the Christian definition of marriage as a 'social norm' ... we are turning our civil institution over religion. I believe we will all see the 'norm' change over time (as it did for slavery and sufferage).

OK .. enough of a rant for now ... I'm sure all be back. Thanks for listening - Mike

 

[Jay Bell]

Great article written on marriage being a "religious" union:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004760

 

[heretic888]

but 'the people' who originally founded our nation and drafted it's documents that act as the guide to our nation, did so on a theistic paradigm. Not essentially Christian per-say....but very theistic none the less.

George Washington and Ben Franklin were both initiated Freemasons, which meant something very different then than it does now (might want to read up on Thomas Paine's discussion of freemasonry).

Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were both deists, the latter being a unitarian as well.

Thomas Paine --- who probably did more than anyone else to outline the intellectual and philosophical position of the American Revolution (a role that is typically downplayed in American history books) --- was a staunch atheist and wrote some interesting things about freemasonry (whose symbols adorn our currency).

Others, like Alexander Hamilton, were more mainline, conventional Christians.

The point is that the framers of our governmental paradigm did not have a "theistic" reference anymore than anything else. The paradigm they espoused was borne of a multitude of philosophical voices, some theist and some not.

The them of this paradigm is tolerance and diversity of beliefs --- not "theism".

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I understand. But this pledge wasn't forced on people. True, I could see people being compelled/cajolled (sp?) into doing so by teachers and the like... but that's the fault of teachers. An oath, to be an oath, must be voluntary.


Read the post again, John. It was forced on me.




Regards,


Steve

 

[Rich Parsons]

I understand. But this pledge wasn't forced on people. True, I could see people being compelled/cajolled (sp?) into doing so by teachers and the like... but that's the fault of teachers. An oath, to be an oath, must be voluntary.


Read the post again, John. It was forced on me.




Regards,


Steve

The Pledge was forced on many, including myself as well.

You could be sent to office and get detention and also be made fun of, and yelled at, by the adults, who were supposed to be mature enough and educated enough to be teaching me topics.

Personally, I have said it before and I will say it again, all reference of "God" should be removed from any governmental format or teaching format, unless expressed as art or for historical purposes.

Why?

Because, it does not stop you from believing in "God". It does nto stop you from going to a church and obtaining spiritual guidance or counsiling and other like minded people. This is your right, priviledge and freedom to do such.

It is not your right, priviledge or freedom to force your interpretation or views of your world upon me. For if that is true, then I would be allowed to do lots of things, for my Religion (* The religion of RP *) allows me to hurt people who do not listen to polite requests to leave me alone and respect my Rights and priviledges granted to me as well by the US Constitution. Sorry for the sarcasm. Yet, my point is valid, people want it one way, their way. What if I want it my way? Hmmm Compromise. Ok I say look at the US Constitution and leave Religion out ot the government and all projects provided by monies from taxation.

Peace

 

[Cruentus]

Well..


obviously Rich Parsons is unholy. You can't expect to get ANY support from the red states with that attitude, you unholy Parsons you...

 

[Sapper6]

about the the "God" thing, God means many different things to different people, you could look at it that way. perhaps the pledge of allegiance should say, "...one nation, under our creator"....? so that way, it would satisfy all the folks we firmly believe we evolved from germs in the water and later monkeys. since the evolution belief folks beleive we came from the earth, mother nature is our creator. the word "creator" would certainly satisfy people of all beliefs, don't ya think?

of course there would be even more to ratify besides the pledge, oaths of office, etc. for the folks who refuse to say the pledge because of the word "God", you might want to boycott US currency as well since it does say "In GOD we trust".

 

[qizmoduis]

about the the "God" thing, God means many different things to different people, you could look at it that way. perhaps the pledge of allegiance should say, "...one nation, under our creator"....? so that way, it would satisfy all the folks we firmly believe we evolved from germs in the water and later monkeys. since the evolution belief folks beleive we came from the earth, mother nature is our creator. the word "creator" would certainly satisfy people of all beliefs, don't ya think?

You know, that's actually not a bad idea. It would never happen, though.

of course there would be even more to ratify besides the pledge, oaths of office, etc. for the folks who refuse to say the pledge because of the word "God", you might want to boycott US currency as well since it does say "In GOD we trust".

I do find this offensive. If only it were possible to boycott currency. I'd do it in a heartbeat. The government should not be in the business of proclaiming religious beliefs, period. Even in such a weirdly blasphemous way as printing "In God We Trust" on money.

Frankly, I'd think that christians would find this offensive, too. Money being the root of all evil, after all.

 

[Brother John]

I understand. But this pledge wasn't forced on people. True, I could see people being compelled/cajolled (sp?) into doing so by teachers and the like... but that's the fault of teachers. An oath, to be an oath, must be voluntary.
Read the post again, John. It was forced on me.
Regards,
Steve

Maybe it was, that wasn't my point. My point was that the "state" wasn't responsible for forcing you. There's been no law or motion in congress to make this oath mandatory.
And my point about "an oath...must be voluntary", I stand by that. You weren't forced by teachers to make an oath...but to repeat some words.
I feel there is a real difference.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

If only it were possible to boycott currency. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I'd be more than glad to help you by taking all of that offending currency off your hands for you.

What's a brother for??
:ultracool
Your Brother
John

 

[heretic888]

about the the "God" thing, God means many different things to different people, you could look at it that way. perhaps the pledge of allegiance should say, "...one nation, under our creator"....? so that way, it would satisfy all the folks we firmly believe we evolved from germs in the water and later monkeys. since the evolution belief folks beleive we came from the earth, mother nature is our creator. the word "creator" would certainly satisfy people of all beliefs, don't ya think?

No. And, just for the record, that is not what "the evolution belief folks" adhere to, either.

Also, on a personal note, I actually don't oppose the insignia on our currency because: 1) it has historical value, and 2) it adds to the overall symbolism.

 

[Sapper6]

No. And, just for the record, that is not what "the evolution belief folks" adhere to, either.

Also, on a personal note, I actually don't oppose the insignia on our currency because: 1) it has historical value, and 2) it adds to the overall symbolism.

i differ on both accounts.

so for the believers in evolution, you're saying they don't believe mother earth, natural law, the cosmos, etc. would be classified as their creator? what exactly is their left? you think we just popped out of nowhere and have nothing to think for our very existence? you gotta believe in something. do some reading, even evolutionists firmly believe we has a human species have an ultimate creator.

and so the word GOD on the currency you spend isn't a problem? that's good. so do you have a problem with it being stated in our pledge of allegiance?

also, how can anyone say they're alright with "In God We Trust" printed on our countries currency but have also have a problem with the government having anything else to do with religion in regard to the common citizen. couldn't that be classified as hypocritical on both sides involved?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Maybe it was, that wasn't my point. My point was that the "state" wasn't responsible for forcing you. There's been no law or motion in congress to make this oath mandatory.
And my point about "an oath...must be voluntary", I stand by that. You weren't forced by teachers to make an oath...but to repeat some words.
I feel there is a real difference.

The "state" in this case was the state of Mississippi. I was in a public school where the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer were mandatory. A state employee threatened me with violence. That there was no law or motion in Congress making it mandatory is obvious...but I was forced by the state's wards to do something against my will. This violated my rights as outlined in the first, ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution.

You weren't forced by teachers to make an oath...but to repeat some words.

Last I checked, to make an oath, one had to repeat words.

If you're suggesting that any lack of passion on my part for that oath somehow nullifies it and relegates it to "mere words", sorry. No. There is no real difference.

Such a thing forces a nine year old child into being a hypocrite and shames him by robbing him of choice and the freedom of expression.



Regards,


Steve