America is a secular nation.

[rocka21]

It's a tradition. I'm sure that if they refused it would cause too much controversy. Bad form for the first act of their presidency.

Huummmm.... a tradition huh, but I thought we were a secular nation?

huummm... I wonder why on that goverment money in my pocket it says " In God we trust". hhuuummm

so are you saying we can mix church and goverment when it would cause too much controversy to change it?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Huummmm.... a tradition huh, but I thought we were a secular nation?

huummm... I wonder why on that goverment money in my pocket it says " In God we trust". hhuuummm

so are you saying we can mix church and goverment when it would cause too much controversy to change it?

Two things are clear. There was an opinion at the time of the founding of our nation that the founders were not in favor of a religious organazation, such as The Church of England, being in charge of the government. It is also clear that they felt that the moral foundation that comes from religion was fundamental to the running of a democracy.

 

[doppelganger]

so are you saying we can mix church and goverment when it would cause too much controversy to change it?

"In God We Trust" on the money is a relic of the late 1950s. E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) was the motto before that. It's probably inappropriate, frankly, but I personally don't think it's worth fighting about. Now if it's giving the impression that this country doesn't honor the separation of religion and state, then maybe I'm wrong and it should be removed.

The oath of office for President is in the Constitution itself, Article II, section 1. It says nothing about a Bible or "God." That presidents choose to add a Bible is a personal choice and a tradition and a fairly innocuous one. Though again, as your own questions demonstrate, it's apparently causing confusion, too.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[Smoke]

That explains why he attended church regularly and at one point served as a member of the vestry for his local parrish?

Have you never known anyone, especially someone with a pious spouse (like Martha), who attended church regularly, but wasn't particularly religious? Anyway, the Church of England was the established church of Virginia until 1786, and the vestry had more local influence than a church vestry would today. Serving on the vestry was the kind of thing that went along with being a person of Washington's station -- by the time he was twenty, he owned or controlled most of his late father's land, and, more importantly, he married the richest widow in Virginia when he was twenty-six. Even Jefferson was a vestryman.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Luke,

I actually agree with much of what you have said. We are clearly a "Christian Nation" in the sense you have described, while being a secular nation in the sense of the entanglement of church and state.

However, I think you are wrong to downplay the imposition by religious interests on the rights of others in the U.S. Examples of this historically include: religious tests for office, interracial marriage, anti-semitic business practices, and prohibition; more contemporary examples include gay marriage, reproductive rights/sex education, and stem cell research, as well as less significant issues like 'In God We Trust' on our money and licence plates, placing the Ten Commandments or nativity scenes on government property in inappropriate contexts, etc.

I readily concede that these are vanishingly mild concerns in the face of foreign forms of religious oppression (e.g. in China, Saudi Arabia). But they are worthy of discussion, nevertheless, if for no other reason than that you and I are Americans and not Chinese, Saudi, etc.

This, posted in November of last year, has some irony with hindsight:

In case you didn't notice, Bhutto isn't dead, and people are allowed to protest [in Pakistan].

Two things are clear. There was an opinion at the time of the founding of our nation that the founders were not in favor of a religious organazation, such as The Church of England, being in charge of the government. It is also clear that they felt that the moral foundation that comes from religion was fundamental to the running of a democracy.

I buy that.

My sense is that most of the founders formed their moral foundation from a broad, liberal education that was informed by traditional Christianity but also by many other things, and in some cases in conflict with traditional Christianity. Perhaps they thought religion (and, ideally, tolerant progressive religion) was the only way to foster a moral citizenry during an age when all but an elite few had access to a broad, liberal education.

 

[WhiteSeal]

I'd like to start out by saying we should all give the political leaders of the last 300ish years a boatload of credit and respect for keeping the nation as secular as it currently is. That was probably very difficult with an army of Jewish lobbyists, Catholic lawmakers, Baptist/Evangelical zealots, Protestant reformists, and Atheistic scientists knocking on the doors of the White House 364 days a year in attempts to further their various agendas. (Forgive me if I missed anyone, there are probably plenty I didn't think of.) We're a secular nation where the city still has to zone churches and approve the construction of private catholic schools. Logically there's going to be some disagreement in that kind of system.

The government represents the majority and protects the minority. Students are asked to say "Under God" in the Pledge of allegiance because the majority requests it and approves of it. They are not required to say "Under God" because the minority is defended, and no one is forced to believe in anyone else's God. If there are 10 Jews, 20 Arabs, and 50 Christians living in a city block and only one spot for a religious structure, the city will zone that spot for a church. This will mean that 30 people are left without a nearby house of worship, but 50 will have one. This is majority rule. By no means are those 30 required to convert to Christianity.

We learn about science instead of religion because the majority decided science was more relevant. Some people believe evolution is a fraud and creationism must be taught, some believe both should be taught. There is only enough time to teach one, so they teach the one the majority tells approves of. When the beliefs of the majority change so will what is taught.

The rights of private cooperations and entities the turn down employment or acceptance based on religion are loosely protected. If you sue a company for not hiring you because you are Buddhist, you will probably win. In theory, you should not, because as a free nation we should bear no involvement in the hiring practices of private entities. However, we are also a nation that disapproves of racism and hatred, and we have made a point of it by saying it is against the law to hate publicly.

Cities will organize Christmas parades and actives using tax dollars. They spend significantly more money supporting Christmas than all other religions holiday of the same seasons. They do this because the majority of people celebrate and enjoy Christmas. I don't celebrate Christmas, but I enjoy the celebrations regardless. The non-religious aspect of the holiday is free to everyone. If you have a problem with your city setting up a divinity display, that's really quite unfortunate, because for every one person that does have a problem there's 100 that don't.

Our society as a whole has lost the ability to see when it is a minority attempting to impose its beliefs. What if a city with 10 baptists, 100 Hindus, and 600 Protestants opened up a Baptists church because the Baptist lobbyists provided more money and rallied more fervently? This would be a selfish imposition, contradicting the teachings of most religions in the first place.

This is the point, America's government provides for the majority and protects the minority. We are a secular nation that will always, to some degree, provide for the currently dominant religions. It is the only method of leadership that makes sense.

 

[rocka21]

"In God We Trust" on the money is a relic of the late 1950s. E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) was the motto before that. It's probably inappropriate, frankly, but I personally don't think it's worth fighting about. Now if it's giving the impression that this country doesn't honor the separation of religion and state, then maybe I'm wrong and it should be removed.

The oath of office for President is in the Constitution itself, Article II, section 1. It says nothing about a Bible or "God." That presidents choose to add a Bible is a personal choice and a tradition and a fairly innocuous one. Though again, as your own questions demonstrate, it's apparently causing confusion, too.

No confusion , just be watching in January when that presidents hand is on the Bible.

 

[McBell]

No confusion , just be watching in January when that presidents hand is on the Bible.

Funny, would it not be, if Obama wins and uses the Book of Mormon?

 

[rocka21]

Funny, would it not be, if Obama wins and uses the Book of Mormon?

yes it would.

you could insert ( blank president) puts his hand on ( blank book) all day, but in January you WILL see the president put his or her hand on the BIBLE.


if it happens any other way, you can always come back with an "I told you so".:angel2:

 

[McBell]

yes it would.

you could insert ( blank president) puts his hand on ( blank book) all day, but in January you WILL see the president put his or her hand on the BIBLE.


if it happens any other way, you can always come back with an "I told you so".:angel2:

My question is so what?
What difference does it make what non required book is used?

Or is your assumption that it is a Bible because of all the "Christianity" in the Government?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Funny, would it not be, if Obama wins and uses the Book of Mormon?

Yes, since he is not a Mormon.

 

[rocka21]

My question is so what?
What difference does it make what non required book is used?

Or is your assumption that it is a Bible because of all the "Christianity" in the Government?

Yes that is my assumption.

IN GOD WE TRUST ON OUR MONEY.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD IN OUR PLEDGE.
PRAYER IN OUR CONGRESS.
HAND ON THE BIBLE WHEN A PRESIDENT IS VOTED TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY.
WHEN YOU WRITE THE DATE, ITS 2008 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF JESUS.

I assume that christianity plays a vital role in the USA.

 

[Smoke]

you could insert ( blank president) puts his hand on ( blank book) all day, but in January you WILL see the president put his or her hand on the BIBLE.

It's a good thing in a way. When you take an oath on a book that forbids you to take an oath, you're showing in a rather profound way that you don't take the book too seriously.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's a good thing in a way. When you take an oath on a book that forbids you to take an oath, you're showing in a rather profound way that you don't take the book too seriously.

Where does the Bible say not to take an oath?

 

[doppelganger]

Matthew 5 (NIV):

33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

 

[blackout]

America should be a NEUTRAL field.
As no one governs my "State" of Mind
I do not consider myself a part of any "mass" of people.

The only crime in my mind
is one human being "en-forcing"
their personal reality outlook/view
on another.

This is a VIOLATION of anothers right to individuality.
All crimes could be boiled down to this one violation.
(as I see it)

Is "America" a secular nation?
a religious nation?

Any nation of freedom and justice should be a nation of INDIVIDUALS.
(not an en-forced, programmed, pressured, expected, demanded STATE of BEing/thinking)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This is a VIOLATION of anothers right to individuality.
All crimes could be boiled down to this one violation.
(as I see it)

That's fine until I decide to express my individuality by driving the wrong way on the expressway.

 

[blackout]

That's fine until I decide to express my individuality by driving the wrong way on the expressway.

In my mind that sort of blatant risk taking
would breach an obvious violation of other INDIVIDUALS.

You wanna risk your own life as an individual,
fine.
Risk others' right to live as individuals,
and you're in violation.

 

[rocka21]

Matthew 5 (NIV):

Keep your oath you have made to the LORD. Read it

 

[Smoke]

Keep your oath you have made to the LORD. Read it

Take your own advice:

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.​

You now have Jesus' word for it on this thread in two different translations. You don't even have to open your Bible.