The Separation of Church and State

[RandomPhantom700]

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.

When you say that we all came from a "creator", this signifies some type of intelligent design, no matter how impersonal you make the designer out to be. This does not include natural laws, the cosmos, or "mother" earth (strange how all evolutionists now supposedly think that the earth has a maternal aspect), because none of them involve any type of intellect to be "creating" anything. So no, not even saying "creator", which admittedly is more general than "God", is all-inclusive.

 

[Phoenix44]

First of all, I wish people would stop using the term "JUDEO-Christian". Jewish principles are not the same as Christian principles, and as a Jew, I'm horrified by what Bush is trying to foist on us--and so were most of the other Jews I prayed with last night in temple. As a matter of fact, most of the Catholics I know are also horrified, and last I checked, they were also supposed to be "Christian." And before you start the "common origins" argument, remember that Islam comes from the same origin, and I don't hear anyone talking about "Christo-Muslim" principles. So let's say what we mean, which is usually "Christian."

When people talk about prayer in school, I don't hear anyone advocating praying to Shiva, the Goddess, or Buddah. When the Christian right talks about resting on the Sabbath, I don't hear anyone referring to Friday or Saturday. When people talk about "the holiday season," they're not referring to Ramadan or Rosh Hashanah. And what about people who simply don't believe in God? What about Americans who feel really uncomfortable with Christmas displays on public land? Yes, we in the minority should be protected from oppression by the majority. (Geez, collectively, we may not even be a minority!)

People came to this country for religious freedom. When this country was created, Thomas Jefferson, a Christian, said that religion should have no place whatsoever in government. None.

 

[Darksoul]

-People did come over here to avoid religious persecution in other countries. Yet, time and time again, those 'values' and 'morals' have been forced upon people either directly or indirectly. Look, two gays getting married in California and living happily with eachother is not going to affect me. Well, what if they were living right next door? Still not a problem. I want people to be happy with the ones they love.
-Marriage was around before many of the current religions, so Christianity has no claim to it. But, it has been pointed out that this nation was founded on values and morals that, if not specifically Christian, reflect Christianity. Well, they also reflect other religions as well. I follow no spiritual path yet still lead a good life that mirrors many of those values.
-How can marriage be defined as between a man and woman? If you deny marriage to two men, or two women, then you are forcing those morals, which are based on religious beliefs. But those beliefs are not universal, obviously, so it comes down to opressing a segment of the population. For what? I don't like abortion, but I accept it. Does that mean I should be out killing doctors who refuse to perform the operations?

A---)

 

[Melissa426]

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

Money is not the root of all evil. The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

1st Timothy 6: 10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Just clarifying.
Very interesting discussion.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[heretic888]

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.

I have done "some reading".

No offense, but this just sounds like a hefty dose of transference on your part. The theory of evolution does not preclude, nor require, any sort of creator principle whatsoever.

And, just to be clear, evolution is a scientific theory. It is not some sort of metaphysical or philosophical doctrine, as you are making it out to be. "Evolutionists" are made up a variety of people from many different religious persuasions. Some people that believe in evolution are atheists, and some are not.

But, your projection of "mother earth" or "cosmos = creator" are pronoucements of something akin to pantheism or naturism, and are not a part of evolutionary theory at all.

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?

Nope.

It helps to actually know a thing or two about the historical details of both of these issues. It also helps to not look at the currency insignia in isolation, but to look at in its proper context with the total symbolism used on our currency (which includes about five other religious symbols, the least of which being the Eye of Osiris).

As I said, I have no problem with the insignia on our currency because it has historical value and because it adds to the symbolism. The interjection of "God" onto our pledge of allegiance was soley created for propagandist purposes in the middle of the 20th century.

 

[heretic888]

And before you start the "common origins" argument, remember that Islam comes from the same origin, and I don't hear anyone talking about "Christo-Muslim" principles.

I actually have heard the term "Judeo-Christo-Islamic" on more than one occassion.

So let's say what we mean, which is usually "Christian."

Well, since you are referring to the so-called Religious Right here, then what we are talking about is not inclusively "Christian". A more appropriate term would "fundamentalist Protestant" --- which definately does not include most Catholics, non-evangelical Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Neo-Gnostics, Quakers, Unitarian-Universalists, etc --- all of which are begrundingly "Christian".

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I'd like to say a big Wordy McWord to Phoenix44 and heretic888.

When people refer to the contemporary "Judeo-Christian" values of the right, they don't mean "Judeo-Christian", or even "Christian". I am a Christian, and my beliefs on how people should live lead my political orientation to the left. I wish people would knock that off.

Also, scientists and people who understand the theory of evolution do not usually refer to themselves as "evolutionists" - it's a manner of speaking that tries to equate a scientific theory with "creationists", a religious perspective. People who understand the theory of evolution come from every religious background there is out there - and some are agnostics, and some are atheists. If you are an atheist and support the theory of evolution, then we did not come from a benevolent Mother Earth, but as an amazingly small likelihood of a long series of happenstances which are so mind-boggling as to themselves almost seeming mystical.

ETA: right on heretic - I missed your last post. I think I've heard the "big three" (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) ususally refered to as the Abrahamic religions.

 

[heretic888]

:asian: :asian: :asian:

 

[GAB]

We the People of the United States .... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.





​

The verb in the preamble of the Constituion is 'do'. The proper noun in the preamble is 'People' (defining the subject of the sentence, the pronoun 'We'). The People do establish the Constitution, Not God.



The purpose of the Constitution is to outline what role Government is supposed to take in the peoples lives: 'to create a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity'.

The quoatation you site from the Declaration of Independence references 'Nature's God' and 'Creator'. But by leaving out the next sentence of you miss the whole point.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,




​

Governments are instutitued among Men. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. So, while Nature's God may have a hand in 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness', It plays little role in the creation of a government.


Notes:
Declaration of Independence signed : July 4, 1776
United States Constitution ratified : June 21, 1788

There is a big time difference between these to documents.

Hi Michael,

Not much time when you think of all the other arguements put forth.

I am reading a book right now. 'FREETHINKERS' A history of American Secularisim, By Susan Jacoby. (had to do something while not on the board)

Good read, the problem is you need some water (pretty dry) if you are not interested in this thought, or remain in the grip of the religious right.

What I find is the same people who will argue the principles set down by our founding fathers, it seems to (in their mind) substantiate their reason for pushing their agenda of religion and their particular version...

Nothing in the history of man was more clearly set down to be secular, and yet we are slowly converting the thought to religious views...Giving up our freedom and freethinking daily.

Robert G Ingersoll was a great orator and very popular in his time but his thoughts today are considered blasphamy and atheistic.

I believe he was an Agnostic. He said he was, talked about the breaking of the chains of religion, for freedom of thought and ideas.

Thomas Paine was truly a freethinker. Many of the founding fathers were, but to hear and read, they always put them with a church (politically right)
Abraham Lincoln was a Freethinker, he was pragmatic and did what had to be done at the time to preserve the Union (his thoughts) He turned out to be right.

When you read the thoughts of or listen to Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggert, just to name a few, They feel correct in their bigoted side of view that is best not talked about in public, sends bad messages to the rest of the world. Based on the almighty dollar or weaker dollar.

So much good and bad has been done in the name of religion, wish it was placed in an old history book and only brought out to show how far off they were...

Just a few thoughts on the topic.

Regards, Gary

 

[hardheadjarhead]

A book I'd suggest for Michael, Robert, Feisty, Heretic and Peach...and those others who aren't adverse to reading..."The Godless Constitution" by Isaac Kramnick and Laurence Moore.

Excellent ammunition for this debate.


Regards,


Steve

 

[qizmoduis]

Money is not the root of all evil. The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

1st Timothy 6: 10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Just clarifying.
Very interesting discussion.

Peace,
Melissa

D'oh! How embarrassing. I've made exactly that point to other folks in conversation any number of times in the past. Luckily, none of them were here to see it.
:disgust:

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Money is not the root of all evil. The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

Quite true. Combine that with:

Mat 19:24- "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

or this take on it--

Mar 10:25 - "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Probably one of the most universally ignored quotes of Jesus.

Makes one wonder why people are so adverse to rendering unto Ceasar.


Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

PARK SERVICE STICKS WITH BIBLICAL EXPLANATION FOR GRAND CANYON

Promised Legal Review on Creationist Book Is Shelved

Washington, DC — The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Despite telling members of Congress and the public that the legality and appropriateness of the National Park Service offering a creationist book for sale at Grand Canyon museums and bookstores was “under review at the national level by several offices,” no such review took place, according to materials obtained by PEER under the Freedom of Information Act. Instead, the real agency position was expressed by NPS spokesperson Elaine Sevy as quoted in the Baptist Press News:

“Now that the book has become quite popular, we don’t want to remove it.”

In August of 2003, Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, by Tom Vail, a book explaining how the park’s central feature developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters that there would be a high-level policy review, distributing talking points stating: “We hope to have a final decision in February [2004].” In fact, the promised review never occurred –

· In late February, Barna crafted a draft letter to concerned members of Congress stating: “We hope to have a final decision on the book in March 2004.” That draft was rewritten in June and finally sent out to Congressional representatives with no completion date for the review at all;

· NPS Headquarters did not respond to a January 25th memo from its own top geologists charging that sale of the book violated agency policies and undercut its scientific education programs;

· The Park Service ignored a letter of protest signed by the presidents of seven scientific societies on December 16, 2003.

“Promoting creationism in our national parks is just as wrong as promoting it in our public schools,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, “If the Bush Administration is using public resources for pandering to Christian fundamentalists, it should at least have the decency to tell the truth about it.”

The creationist book is not the only religious controversy at Grand Canyon National Park. One week prior to the approved sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, NPS Deputy Director Donald Murphy ordered that bronze plaques bearing Psalm verses be returned and reinstalled at canyon overlooks. Superintendent Alston had removed the bronze plaques on legal advice from Interior Department solicitors. Murphy also wrote a letter of apology to the plaques’ sponsors, the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. PEER has collected other instances of what it calls the Bush Administration’s “Faith-Based Parks” agenda.


Link: http://www.ems.org/nws/2004/10/13/park_service_sti

Regards,


Steve

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Holy ******* ****, I can't believe it. This is insane. And, for anyone with an iota of geological understanding, yes, canyons are carved by rivers over a long period of time - a single flood would wash a surface uniformly, maybe move lots of detritus around.

God give me strength!

 

[rmcrobertson]

Same old story: people are scared of the modern world, they are ideologically unable to look clearly at the economic system that remains their real enemy, so they express this as a rejection of the beautiful, immense universe of which they are a part.

To paraphrase Heinlein, such a LITTLE god they believe in!

 

[heretic888]

To paraphrase Heinlein, such a LITTLE god they believe in!

Indeed.

Honestly, it is rather strange that these individuals are hailing their deity as a "universal" route to "salvation". Its pretty evident to anyone with even a cursory background in cultural anthropology that many of these philosophical underpinnings are extremely culture-dependent.

The idea, for example, that a "universal god" would establish rigid codes of dress, grooming, diet, or even marital laws is rather strange given the incredible diversity (and fluidity) of human societies.

One would think a "god for all mankind" would be more concerned with other things --- like world hunger, global warming, poverty, racism, needless wars, etc.

That's exactly why many of the Founding Fathers jettisoned this kinda crap and embraced deism.

 

[michaeledward]

Hi Michael,

Not much time when you think of all the other arguements put forth.
.....
What I find is the same people who will argue the principles set down by our founding fathers, it seems to (in their mind) substantiate their reason for pushing their agenda of religion and their particular version...
.......
Regards, Gary

There is 12 years separating the two documents. I think my point was that the original post combined language from the two documents into a single argument, implying, if not specifically stating, that all the quotes were from one of the documents.

Further, the two documents cover really two seperate ideas, not just the same idea twelve years apart. The first is a divorce decree, the second a pre-nup for the second wedding, so to speak.

Lastly, I seldom argue the intent of the 'founding fathers'. These men were created by their times. I think in today's world, they would be very different men. I do think they were farsighted enough to create a Constitution that could evolve with the changes in times, so we would not, as a nation, be stuck in 1788.

Thank you for contributing. Michael

 

[heretic888]

I do think they were farsighted enough to create a Constitution that could evolve with the changes in times, so we would not, as a nation, be stuck in 1788.

A classmate of mine in high school was real big on the Founding Fathers. He admired them quite a lot, and often cited them in support of certain political issues.

Anyways, an interest thing he used to say was that they advocated the country should have a "revolution" (which need not be violent) every 200 years or so to keep the ideals of America fresh and vibrant.

Think we might be a bit overdue, neh??