The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the United States Constitution. This phrase is mistakenly taken to mean what is stated in the First amendment, just as "self incrimination" is thought to mean what is said in the Fifth. (The fifth does not protect one against self incrimination. It protects one from being a witness against oneself...Mark Furman was required to testify at OJs trial..he was not on trial so had to answer incriminating questions regarding his using the N word..he could not take the fifth..OJ could since HE was on trial)
The First amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.." The key here is it specifically prohibits CONGRESS from making such laws. What the leftist courts have done is apply this amendment to STATES as well. The amendment does not give Congress the power to tell states how to legislate regarding religion. Nor the courts, who have been legislating from the bench for nearly a century, eroding the bill of rights little by little. This shift occured most markedly during Franklin Roosevelt's administration, where govt exploded in scope and power. The phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means what it says. So if a group of Christians want to pray before or after a football game, their right to do so is protected under the first. No jackbooted judge should be allowed to order them not to do so, whether they are in a "public" school or not.
The First amendment was constructed to prevent the forming of a national religion like the Church of England; and to prevent theocratic monarchies like Catholic France and Spain. (Incidentally if Great Britain had not won the world war was spawned after the the American colonies rebelled, there probably would be no United States. France and Spain would have gobbled them up as the spoils of war.) As far as "separation" goes, our entire system of jurisprudence is based primarily on Judeo-Christian morals. "Thou shalt not kill" so murder is illegal. "Thou shalt not steal" larceny/theft is also a crime. I don't see how you can separate this from the foundation of our nation.
It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!
I am a non-believer, but it does not bother me at all. It is just words. I would have a problem with forced prayer or something of that kind. However, if 86% of Americans believe in God, I would guess that it is not the same god. Some have Allah, Jehovah, Ganesha, etc... I would imagine the the people who are being the most vocal are the non-christian believers having to "Trust" in the christian god. Just my .02.
Allah, Jehova, Yaweh .... are all names for the same God.
Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same Diety, the God who revealed himself to Abraham. All three accept the Old Testament. The Muslims even accept Jesus as a prophet of God they just don't accept Jesus as the SON of God (neither do the Jews.
"The Muslims even accept Jesus as a prophet of God they just don't accept Jesus as the SON of God (neither do the Jews)" -- megapig
furthermore, Muslims believe that Mohammed was the LAST 'true prophet' of God and hence his teachings (in the Qu'ran) supercede those of Jesus and Christianity (though some theologians would take issue with the nuances of this interpretation)
--
believe me, the logical absurdities don't end just there ... they go on and on and on and on and on ...
My issue is that as a society we should not be such hypocrits by proclaiming our actions are so pleasing to God. I am actually an agnostic but do believe that if God is of the Christian (Muslim, Jewish, ...) form then God would not be pleased. Afterall, when the pledge of allegiance was written there was the practice of Slavery going on (under God, with liberty and justice for ALL - give me a fuckin break). Today, things are somewhat better (of course this depends on one's perspective) but there is still too much shit going on (aenima anyone ?).
The pledge was written in 1892....after slavery was banned in the United States. And the "under God" part wasn't added until 1954. Keep your facts straight.
wow! ... you learn something new on this board every day [cough]
no but seriously... i had NO idea it was a late addition (or THAT late an addition)
strange ... but still, thinking back to 1954 (and "US" vs. "THEM" -- the godless Commie bastards) it all sorta falls into place (sorta!)
Anyways, my point still holds. There certainly is no Justice for All (be it we are seperated by race or $$$$$).
For a country based on individuality, minorities are just as important as the majority. I see nothing wrong with the money or pledge the way it is but apparently others do.
seriously ... i'm ALL for complete and total separation of C & S
as silly as this money issue may sound
The whole point is that in a "democracy" (which, by the way, only applies at election time...the US is mostly a representative republic), freedom of speech allows those 14%, or even one seriously misguided individual (like Ann Coulter, perhaps?), to have their say. No one has to listen, and the minority wanting to take out the "God" references in the Pledge of Allegience (which was not originally part of it in the first place) or on federal reserve currency have not managed to do so yet, so it isn't like they have carte blanche.
I agree with the earlier post about the 86% believing in a "supreme deity", not necessarily the God of Christianity. As most government religious references or symbols were born of the Christian influence on US forefathers, one can understand people, even a minority, wanting to make things general, so that their own or any other minority beliefs are not deemed inferior.
The whole point of separating church and state in this country is to avoid religious conflict in the first place, which has been the source of most wars throughout history. The more you take religion out of state functions, slogans or supported services, the more you keep things impartial and avoid inflaming people's passions.
You also avoid any possible government sponsored discrimination, but that is harder to prove.
Many may feel that the argument over these two issues is another example of rampant PC. However, it is representative of a bigger issue, one that has seldom been more clear, given that Christian fundamentalists have never had more power in the federal goverment than right now.
though "especially" may also apply in this case!
--
[speaking to others]
for anyone who doubts the "political correctness" (for lack of a better pun) of the separation of C & S ... just take a look at what 20 years of theocracy did to Iran (look for a documentary about this on the Sundance channel this month)
my Persian friends couldn't disagree more with anyone who thinks there's a place for RELIGION in matters of STATE ... and some of them have had relatives and loved ones PAY THE ULTIMATE PRICE fighting against allowing the two of these to mingle
it's one thing to pontificate whether those who dare revolt against "faith-based" compassionate conservatism [cough] should be allowed to "teach our kids" and run our government, ESPECIALLY when you're living in a pseudo-utopian "paradise" (comparatively speaking)
it's an entirely different thing to live in the societal "hell-on-earth" that has been clergy-ruled Iran (and other countries like it) and to say that this is a harmless policy and that there's nothing wrong with words/imagery that tokenize ONE god above an individual's own personal god/spirituality
[off-soapbox]
[ignore knee-jerk flames]
It is silly. I believe in God but have no stong opinion that it should be on our money or not. Just because 86% of people believe in God doesn't mean that they have strong feelings that it should be on the currency. When are material objects suppose to be important with God? Isn't that why the prodestants broke from the Catholic church in the first place?
Actually, in a Democracy, the 86% CAN tell the other 14% to fuck off. We don't linve in a democracy, we live in a republic. It's a whole other ballgame.
In a country that is so concerned about making sure the little guy isn't abused, it is to be expected that the _majority_ of people _will_ be offended by those that are so self absorbed they have _no_ concern for anyone other than themselves. There seems to be little or no courtesy anywhere lately.
Singleton has a point.
We live in a society that, for some reason, has allowed the 14% to tell the 86% to sit down and shut up.
A really true Democracy could be just another way to describe mob rule. If the majority truly always got their way, they could and would run rough-shod over everyone else. The beauty of a Representative Republic (which is our form of government - NOT a Democracy) is where we elect people who are (theoreticaly) smarter than we are and send them to the seat of geoverment to do what is "right" as opposed to what is popular.
So people who were clearly wiser than any politician I can think of in today's times gave us a Constitution that guarantees that 86% can NOT tell the 14% to sit down and shut up.
Now as far as the Pledge goes .. it started with a little girl in San Francisco that sued over that. Actualy, her father did. This COULD have been a golden opportunity for him to teach her that not everything in life will go her way. That sometimes a functional grownup has to see a situation they don't like and just suck it up and try to make life bearable anyway.
Instead ... the Court just added one more person to the general population that thinks she has a God given right [pun] to "ask to speak to the manager" and have the world remade to her liking.
Those same wise founding fathers also gave us freedom of religion, not freedom from it!
First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
The Separation of Church and State is a myth, it is not contained in the Constitution.
It speaks for itself, if a community of Christians wants to have a nativity scene on public land at Christmas time at private expense, the federal government should have no voice in it.
If a country of 86% God fearing people want "In God We Trust" on their money, (hardly defining ANY religion) the government has no business refusing it. Especially secularist shouldn't have a problem with it, as they think they themselves are God.
We have elected presidents without a simple majority of the vote - many times!
...there is no room to have ANY government tied to ANY religion. You open that door, and LOOK OUT!! See what has happened in other parts of the world.
By the way, I'll bet that in 1995, only 14% of the population thought that Osama bin Laden was a threat to the U.S.
btw, i thought we agreed that you would fellate me and my friends in exchange for the "nuts" we bring you !
Well, you're right about the fellating...anytime oh sweet one! Nevermind the fact that you and I are the only ones who know what the CR is.
H A P P Y ... B I R T H D A Y !!!
It's got nothing to do with democracy. It's a constitutional issue: separation of church and state.
Even if 86% of the population were against free speech (which is almost the case it seems), we couldn't get rid of it. They are safeguards built into our constitution to prevent us from turning into a facist state (even if such a regime comes to power democratically).
It's not God that worries me....
It's the churches.....
Seem to me to put "in God we Trust" is an aweful responiblity. But if we can just say ut and not do it I guess its cool
Amen, Raoul... I am an atheist, and don't care what beliefs my fellow men/women hold to. It's their (your?) life; whatever gets you through the night....
Now having said that, I don't care about slogans on money, but it's a slippery slope. I do mind more intrusive forms of laws being made based on a Christian mind-set. Easy to enumerate (mostly morality-based)... don't need to list, but that's the problem.
So how to draw the line? I'd rather see solid wall separating church and state. England has managed notwithstanding the Church of England, but many other societies (countries) have not.
Biggest issue is that the majority can tyrranize, and religion is the easiest "excuse" for a majority to tyrranize.
"Why don't we just tell the 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!"
Doesn't this sound a little self-righteous to anyone?
It's this type of intolerance, whether from the extreme right or the extreme left, that chips away at our inclusiveness.
Thomas Jefferson pushed to include the "establishment of religion" clause, and wrote:
"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802)."
I fully agree that the late addition of "under god" in the pledge is wrong and we should agree to restore the pledge.
Money is full of symbolism. Look at the back of a bill for the visual symbolism of the pyramid, the eye, the latin mottos. They all had meaning to rich, powerful, politically connected men in the late 18th century, and probably should be reconsidered today.
Whether it is a protest of state imposed symbols of religion, what the Dixie Chick said, or the right of Nazis and Communists to peaceably assembly, it is the height of patriotism to defend, not stifle, our right to speak our minds.
The religious right captured OUR flag as their symbol during the anti-war years of the 60's and 70's, and they are trying to do the same thing with marriage over the gay issue today. They are always talking about the founding fathers, but if they really knew what these men belived and how they acted I don't think they would be using them to support their slef-righteous, bigoted
values.
Is their anyone on this board that believes for one minute that if the likes of Jerry Farewell and Pat Robinson were involved in drafting a Consitution we would have anything remotely similar to what we have in our Constitution. It is only because we were lucky enough to have a group of some of the most enlightened men in history around after our revolution to draft that document that we have the freedoms we have today. I don't think it could ever happen again.
The right would like us to believe how much better it was in the past, but what they don't say is back when the divorce rate was around 15% prostitution was legal in most areas of the country.
There were no laws against drugs so no war on drugs. The country certainly didn't have as large a percentage of our citizens in jails as we do today.
Back to the "In God We Trust" issue, I say give the religious right and inch and they will grab a mile. I my trust in God but not in Grorge W. Bush or Pat Robinson.
.02 from SlowStart
BTW the car is running just fine. She loves it.
-- Modified on 8/4/2003 5:20:08 PM
to know where to begin. A number of other posters have raised the constitutional issues, so I'll try a slightly different tack.
The articles which comprise the Bill of Rights weren't just dreamed up because someone sat down and thought they would be nice. Every last one of them was a direct response to an abuse of power which was commonplace in the Western world at the time. These men knew FROM EXPERIENCE that the limits they were placing on government authority were necessary for a free society.
The Church and State issue is particularly interesting because (then and now) it goes both ways. You had instances of the state running the church (e.g England, Nazi Germany) and the church running the state (Spain, Iran). Each is pernicious in its own way.
Let's take your home state as an example. I'll be talking about things which happened before you were born or were still an infant, so there's no hint of accusing you of personal responsibility.
Fifty years ago, NC was fully segregated, and this was supported by the majority. Did the majority of that time have the right to tell the opposition minority to "sit down and shut up"? They certainly acted as if they did, and when saying it wasn't enough they backed it up with force, both official (local police, National Guard) and unofficial (lynchings, mob violence). Yet now out and out segregationists are a small minority even in the old "deep south".
Point is, majority rule without respect for and protection of the rights of minorities is not merely flawed democracy, IT IS NO DEMOCRACY AT ALL. This has practical as well as moral implications. Minorities are sometimes right, and might even eventually become the majority.
The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the United States Constitution. This phrase is mistakenly taken to mean what is stated in the First amendment, just as "self incrimination" is thought to mean what is said in the Fifth. (The fifth does not protect one against self incrimination. It protects one from being a witness against oneself...Mark Furman was required to testify at OJs trial..he was not on trial so had to answer incriminating questions regarding his using the N word..he could not take the fifth..OJ could since HE was on trial)
The First amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.." The key here is it specifically prohibits CONGRESS from making such laws. What the leftist courts have done is apply this amendment to STATES as well. The amendment does not give Congress the power to tell states how to legislate regarding religion. Nor the courts, who have been legislating from the bench for nearly a century, eroding the bill of rights little by little. This shift occured most markedly during Franklin Roosevelt's administration, where govt exploded in scope and power. The phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means what it says. So if a group of Christians want to pray before or after a football game, their right to do so is protected under the first. No jackbooted judge should be allowed to order them not to do so, whether they are in a "public" school or not.
The First amendment was constructed to prevent the forming of a national religion like the Church of England; and to prevent theocratic monarchies like Catholic France and Spain. (Incidentally if Great Britain had not won the world war was spawned after the the American colonies rebelled, there probably would be no United States. France and Spain would have gobbled them up as the spoils of war.) As far as "separation" goes, our entire system of jurisprudence is based primarily on Judeo-Christian morals. "Thou shalt not kill" so murder is illegal. "Thou shalt not steal" larceny/theft is also a crime. I don't see how you can separate this from the foundation of our nation.
It is especially useful to make comparisons to someone's home environment...great visuals.
Having said that, one of my closest friends lives in NC, and a state that has worse laws (especially divorce, insurance, and ones that affect raising children), I would be scared to see. A woman named Barbara Ehrenreich, who wrote a great book entitled "Nickle and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" about low wage workers (she lived for several years doing this) had quite a time in NC. See the following link:
www.progressive.org/sept03/ehr0903.html
We don't need no commies in this country. (Joe McCarthy)
The Aryan nation is supreme--kill the Jews. (You know who)
Kill the infidels for Alah (Sept. 11)
(How many Muslims are in the world? How many Christians?)
...so, you see, there's absolutely NO reason why the majority shouldn't tell the minority to shut the fuck up. It happens with great regularity.
but on the whole correct. We obviously agree that for society as a whole (or for a local mob), the transition from "telling" the minority to shut up and physically shutting them up is a very short slide down a particularly slippery slope.
Unfortunately, all too few people understand this. If I thought that Tammy was pushing this "logic" my response would have been at least as harshly worded as yours. I know precious little about her, but I doubt that's the case. I hope she'll take all the responses here as pointing out facts of social life that she hadn't considered carefully enoungh.
Disclaimer: what I'm about to say does not refer to any post on this thread and only occurs rarely on TER. One of the things I love about this "place".
OK. Don't you just love it when some bozo says "Just be glad you live in a free country where you can say crap like that. So you better watch what you say if you know what's good for you." ?
1. When writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights the founding fathers in general thought of separation of church and state to mean that there should not be a state sponsored religion. As others have mentioned they had seen the problems in Europe and for that matter the problems in the colonies. For example the Puritans came to Massachusetts seeking religous freedom and then promptly refused to tolerate anybody who did not follow their beliefs. The "Animal Farm" story in real life. It would appear that many of them did believe in a supreme being because a few years earlier when writing the Declaration of Independence there is a line about every person having been given certain unalienable rights from the Creator.
2. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution contained in the original Bill of Rights were done at the insistence of various states who were concerned about an all powerful central government. Without each of the amendments one or more of the states would have refused to ratify the constitution.
3. Although many wars have been attributed to religion arguably more have had economic causes (greed) at the root including some of the Crusades.
In a republic, the rights of minorities are protected.
If we lived in a democracy, the populace could simply have a majority vote to execute hobbyists and providers...
Freedom of religion (a primary driving force behind our declaration of independance and the Constitution), is clearly now interpreted to include freedom from religion.
Separation of church and state is only one of several incredibly brilliant cornerstones for our country that our founding fathers crafted into the fabric of our nation.
I am a believer, but the thing I hate the most is when a total f--ing stranger walks up to me, says hi, and starts telling me how great his/her church is... Nothing makes my blood boil more than these prosthelytizing idiots.
The other thing that gets to me is when "believers" find out that Im not one and thier condesending attitude. They think I have something wrong with me and need to be fixed. I'm not the one who needsthe crutch of religion to get through the day.
Our "republic" was extinguished in 1860 when upon the election of Abe Lincoln the southern congressmen walked off the job. The republic was terminated "sine die" (meaning the "sun has set"or something similar). Lincoln then declared a state of rebellion after the firing on Ft Sumter; then issued "Executive order no.1" declaring martial law. There was no declaration of war here; he called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion. This first executive order was never rescinded. Upon the end of hostilities martial law lapses into martial rule; ie military govt.
What we live in today is far from a republic...it more resembles a democratic fascism; with government controlling business to an overly large degree.