Church/State Separation: Pros & Cons

[The Grimmus]

"In God we Trust"

I'm sure that this topic came up before, but i cou;detn find it in the search so...

I was just talking to a friend and some how we got on the topic of separation of church and state. We both agreed that it is not seprate and the way poloticians who representg our country and the way the government buildings throw around the words god bless or in god we trust it is clear that they are setting an example of a monotheistic relgion.

While some may argue that the term "god" refers to any god. It is clear that it dose not represnet Atheists Agnostics Buddists or other nongod relgions or philiosphys. It is almost cetian that it is monothesitic. And mostly interrupted as christian.

I don't feel that all relgions should be represent. I feel no religion should be represented because not only is it violating the frame work our country holds so saccriad but it will never be able to cover all of the religions. People could easily place there belifes in but i don't feel that the government should place them in themselves, for you.

READ THIS IF YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ THAT:

What are your feelings on sepreation of Church and State? Are they beign violated or not?

 

[CrystalStudios]

There is no innate rights or "shoulds".

So it is wonderful of you to ask our "feelings".

I am atheist - I recognize the truth that religion is merely a part of history for the human race. It had a beginning - and will have an end.

I rarely share feelings - and this is no exception. So let me say something related.

In the past year I have seen the USSC do some nice things. Some things which have - because the U.S. is such an impressionable country - pushed humans towards forgetting about religion.

I have no doubt more of these will come in my lifetime.

The "under god" one is at bay right now, and because of the USSC decisions lately it would not particularly surprise me either way - they seem like they could remove it or say it's politically not a good idea.

If the "in god we trust" issue is ever brought to the supreme court in my lifetime - which I think it will...

...it will be nice to see it brought up - even if it is not changed. To be honest, I think that is the most difficult church.state issue we have to overcome - because it is permenantly printed on our most valuable asset. To remove that ability we would have to retransfer new "god free" money - and that would truly be amazing.

READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANNA READ ALL THAT:

Heh - in other words, I will like to see this issue brought up, and the day this is struck out of our country will be a major step in the history of the (rise, and now the) fall of religion from human history.


I think my feelings are apparent from that anyhow!

 

[russ_watters]

Separation of church and state is pretty absolute and the USSC has ruled in favor of just about every challenge to religion in government. Clearly though, the founding fathers put more religion into government than they stated should be there.

 

[CrystalStudios]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Separation of church and state is pretty absolute and the USSC has ruled in favor of just about every challenge to religion in government. Clearly though, the founding fathers put more religion into government than they stated should be there.

Not really.
First off - the founding fathers didn't put religious monuments on our buildings, and didn't put it in the anthem.

Seperation from church and state is NOT separation from theology and state.

Saying in god we trust is a theological statement - except it excludes polytheistic theology. Which is not very popular anyways.

 

[Shadow]

Under the United States Constitution we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. So if the USSC says that saying the pleadge is unconstitutional, they themselves are doing something unconstitutional-taking away the freedom of speech and religion. Therefore, I think we should just leave it alone.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
Under the United States Constitution we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. So if the USSC says that saying the pleadge is unconstitutional, they themselves are doing something unconstitutional-taking away the freedom of speech and religion. Therefore, I think we should just leave it alone.

You don't understand either freedom of speech or religion, at least not the way I do, and teh Supreme Court does. Individuals have freedoms, and they have them in part because the government is restricted. Teachers in public schools are government employees, and for them to lead children in any sort of religious speach is a de facto government endorsement. Further, including religion in the Pledge is placing a religious test on citizenship. That is a violation of freedom.

 

[russ_watters]

For once I agree with Zero.

 

[Astronomer107]

Originally posted by The Grimmus


What are your feelings on sepreation of Church and State? Are they beign violated or not?

I don't think they are being violated unless a specific belief is being FORCED on the nation. What is says on the dollar bill won't affect anyone directly.

 

[Shadow]

Further, including religion in the Pledge is placing a religious test on citizenship. That is a violation of freedom.

The Pleadge is not being forced on anyone and therefore, it is not violating anyones freedom. I don't see how you see it as a violation of freedom.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
The Pleadge is not being forced on anyone and therefore, it is not violating anyones freedom. I don't see how you see it as a violation of freedom.

Of course you don't. Now, imagine if you were required to stand and place your hand over your heart and recite a statement that included 'one nation under Satan'. Or, as another choice, you have to show everyone you are different by walking out while it is being said. Sounds fun, doesn't it?

 

[Shadow]

Walk out? Why would you have to walk out. You could simply not say it. Is that too easy?

 

[Zero]

Why should some people have to compromise their principles at all? Isn't it more fair by far to remove religion from government-supported speech?

 

[Shadow]

So what, now the government doesn't have the right to express it's freedom? If the government wants to, they have the right to do that. Or are you saying rights don't apply to the government?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
So what, now the government doesn't have the right to express it's freedom? If the government wants to, they have the right to do that. Or are you saying rights don't apply to the government?

Actually, I stated it quite explicitly earlier in the thread, I think. Does the government have religious freedom, do you think?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Shadow
So what, now the government doesn't have the right to express it's freedom? If the government wants to, they have the right to do that. Or are you saying rights don't apply to the government?

The government doesn't have rights. Rights are an INDIVIDUAL thing. Individual people in government have rights.

There is a huge difference there.

 

[Shadow]

Actually, I stated it quite explicitly earlier in the thread, I think. Does the government have religious freedom, do you think?

Yes, I do. If we have a government that stands for freedom of speech and religion, I think that they should excercise those rights too. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a chance for a new beginning are the main reasons immigrants came here and I'd like to add we wouldn't have those things if the government didn't allow it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
Yes, I do. If we have a government that stands for freedom of speech and religion, I think that they should excercise those rights too. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a chance for a new beginning are the main reasons immigrants came here and I'd like to add we wouldn't have those things if the government didn't allow it.

Uh huh...for a government to have freedom of religion, it would have to HAVE a religion, don't you think? Do you claim that the American government as a religion which it can exercise?

 

[GENIERE]

In fact the US Constitution does not provide for “freedom of religion”. The 1st amendment begins; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The keywords are “Congress shall make no law…” The Constitution therefore passes that responsibility to the states via the 10th amendment; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Massachusetts sponsored a state religion until about 1840, if I remember, and its citizens had to pay taxes to the church. It is the individual state constitutions that provide for religious freedom. I believe all have some such provision.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
In fact the US Constitution does not provide for “freedom of religion”. The 1st amendment begins; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The keywords are “Congress shall make no law…” The Constitution therefore passes that responsibility to the states via the 10th amendment; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Massachusetts sponsored a state religion until about 1840, if I remember, and its citizens had to pay taxes to the church. It is the individual state constitutions that provide for religious freedom. I believe all have some such provision.

So, by this standard, 'In God We Trust' is illegal, isn't it? That is, if you allow that a federal law exists, voted on by Congress, that establishes 'God' as part of American law? Isn't that an establishment of religion?

 

[GENIERE]

I agree but I am not aware of the law you speak of. Can you give a citation?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
I agree but I am not aware of the law you speak of. Can you give a citation?

\

I was assuming either a law or otherwise legally binding action by Congress to legally establish 'In God We Trust' as the national motto, and to require it on the currency.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
\

I was assuming either a law or otherwise legally binding action by Congress to legally establish 'In God We Trust' as the national motto, and to require it on the currency.

There were several "coinage" laws passed for individuals coins to bear the motto "In God We Trust" then in 1873 the Coinage Act was passed, which authorized the Treasury Department to place the motto In God We Trust on all United States coins.

In 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. (Cold war "those Godless" Commie fears again?)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
There were several "coinage" laws passed for individuals coins to bear the motto "In God We Trust" then in 1873 the Coinage Act was passed, which authorized the Treasury Department to place the motto In God We Trust on all United States coins.

In 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. (Cold war "those Godless" Commie fears again?)

Uh huh...and all of those laws and declarations were unconstitutional, and everyone knows it. It would be political suicide to follow the Constitution, though.