Separation of Church and State

[Master Vigil]

"we can take the word "God" out of places but it won't make anything better for it."

Why not? Its just a word. If anything it will make things more universal. Instead of referencing to your god, I can do whatever I want. I can pray to thor, or tree spirits. I don't need the word god in political addresses, or bibles in courtrooms. Why don't they put the quran in the courtrooms. Or the Tao Te Ching?

"Actually since they took God out of public schools the price of education has gone up and the performance of students has gone down, but that's just a correlation."

No, the price of "religious" private education has gone up, and the performance of students has to do with poorly educated teachers in post middle school grades, not the absence of religion. If anything, the poor performance of students has more to do with funding than with religion.

"Which country that has 'kicked God out' would you prefer to live in, the former USSR or Communist China?"

This is the difference between american and communism. America separates church from government. But religion is still completely free for everyone who wants to worship any way they choose. Communism countries ban religion in everything. Just because religion shouldn't be in government, doesn't mean all the people in government can't worship as they please. But they shouldn't shove their personal religious ideals down my throat.

 

[Pah]

Hate to break it to you but God is in the constitution, as well as every courtroom, as well as the money in your pocket. If you are a humanist independent of God, all you need to do is look to the former USSR and Communist China to see where that road leads.

Nope! God is not an authority in the Constitution. The Bible is available for those who want to use but is not complusory. It's only on the money because Christian zealots had enough political power to put it there in the 20th Century.

If you are fundementalist, you only need to look to Bin Laden to see where that leads

Bob

 

[Valjean]

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion;...."

Treaty of Tripoli, article 11. Adopted 1797 by US congress, Signed by G. Washington, president.

 

[desi]

Nope! God is not an authority in the Constitution. The Bible is available for those who want to use but is not complusory. It's only on the money because Christian zealots had enough political power to put it there in the 20th Century.

If you are fundementalist, you only need to look to Bin Laden to see where that leads

Bob

If "God created all men equal", I'd say that 'self evident truth' puts God in authority.

Gee, please don't label me fundamentalist, I guess that would make me like... Jesus?!

 

[Pah]

If "God created all men equal", I'd say that 'self evident truth' puts God in authority.

Where in the Constitution is that asserted? Can you site the phrase in one of it's Articles or Amendments or even in a Constitutional law? I always have read about the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary and have not found where specified governmental power is ascribed to God

Sounds like a self-serving Christian fallacy to me

Gee, please don't label me fundamentalist, I guess that would make me like... Jesus?!

First, I don't think you have a definition common to many people. I would direct your attention to a thread where Atheistic fundementalism is discussed and more common definitions are used.

Second, I didn't label you a fundementalist, I merely pointed out the evil that occurs with strong, misguided fundementalism.

Bob

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Gee, please don't label me fundamentalist, I guess that would make me like... Jesus?!

Fundamentalists now say that one should love your neighbor, treat women as equals, associate with those of 'ill repute' and are kind to everyone regardless of their race, calling or orientation?

The definition of fundamentalist has changed, then? Sign me up, too!

 

[lilithu]

Why can't this be the guiding principle of separation?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Or how about the following quotes from James Madison, Father of our Constitution:

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Gee, please don't label me fundamentalist, I guess that would make me like... Jesus?!

I'm thinking that you're probably safe from being confused with Jesus.
I would even go as far as to guess that Jesus wasn't a bigot. Then again, you may be right.

TVOR
(known by my friends as "Spammy")

 

[lilithu]

i agree with the idea, but i wonder if it extends to seperating the religion(church) from the individual whom is participating in the government(state) since many common morals are said to be rooted in religion.

We can't separate religion from the individual since that would be in violation of the free-exercise clause. But we can vote the individual out of office if the majority of us feel that his/her religion is interfering with his/her ability to represent/lead/serve us.

The idea of separation of church and state is NOT that we can actually separate religious sentiment completely from government. As you and others have pointed out, people's moral values are influenced their religious beliefs and it is people who run the government. Anyone who denies that protestant Christian values influenced the founding fathers is being blinded by wishful thinking.

Religious beliefs do affect public morality and public morality does affect our laws.

The idea of separation of church and state IS that government will do nothing to promote one religion over another or to promote religion in general over secularism. Our founding fathers were wise enough to realize that their views may not be absolute and thus left open the possibility for change.

As the religious demographics of our country have changed, our public morality has changed, and our laws have changed to reflect that.

If government does not take sides to promote any particular religion, then our laws will eventually properly reflect the public morality of the times (tho not without strife).

If government does take sides to promote a particular religion, then our laws will reflect that particular religion regardless of how much our religious demographics change. If we establish Christianity, we will continue to have laws that reflect Christian values even if we were to become more Hindu or more atheist, etc.

We can't separate religious morality from public law, but I for one would prefer that our laws properly reflect the morality of people that they rule.