What is it? How far does it go? How far SHOULD it go? Should there be a wall? Should the wall be made out of river stones or perhaps something in a nice Terracotta.
Some contend that the Goal of church state seperation in the US amounts to persecution against Christians. My response is below.
There are people who want to remove the national motto "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency.
...Dude, that is not persecution in the least. "We're going to treat you just like every single other religion" is the exact opposite of persecution.
You are promoting yet another false Dichotomy: Either the government actively endorses your god or its persecuting you. It doesn't work like that. There's at least three options
1) Put in God we trust on the money
2) Either leave the spot blank or put E pluribus unum
3) Have the money say "There is no God"
Now, how or why is 2 persecuting you... by not promoting you? You think its the governments job to promote your religion? Why isn't option 1 persecuting atheists? Heck, why isn't option TWO persecuting atheists for not advancing our point of view.
Quote:
He claims that because the pledge contains those words it is an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause in the First Amendment, and atheist children are supposedly being forced to recite it.
There's a few problems with your argument here.
I got detention for not saying it. There's peer pressure to say it. There's also the simple fact that people don't know that they can not say it: it would be kind of random for kids to assume that you have to do what the teacher does and do what everyone else is doing all day every day... except for that 2 minutes.
The pledge is "One nation, under God, indivisible" Which has a few religious connotations.
1) That God exists (just one)
2) That he is above us, ie, sovereign over us.
Neither of these ideas are the governments to promote. Just because Christians Muslims and Jews all agree on them doesn't mean that all Americans do.
Secondly, the court performed some rather interesting legal acrobatics in the Nedow case by dismissing his standing. Even if you consider removing the pledge from school persecution the government went out of its way to avoid doing it. What do you think should be done in the future to avoid the "persecution" of an atheist showing up in front of the supreme court and asking his case to be heard? Deny atheists access to the legal system in the name of stopping oppression?
Courts are forcing the removal of displays of the Ten Commandments from public property.
GOOD! Its not the governments job to tell me that there are no other gods but Yawey.
War memorials displaying crosses in honor of our nation's fallen fighters are under legal attack because the cross is also a Christian religious symbol
What else would it be? Its only a religious symbol.
Catholics and other denominations are being called "hateful" and "callous" for opposing gay marriage.
Because they're being hateful and callous. Someone using their right to free speech when you use your freedom of religion isn't persecution.
Why is calling them hateful and callous discrimination but calling anthers proclivities sinful not?
Christmas trees are being turned into "holiday" trees and the words of Christmas carols are being changed to "winter" and "holiday" songs.
Would you like to explain to me what an evergreen tree has to do with a guy born in a desert?
Christianity is far and away given preferential treatment in public discourse. The fact that people are pushing for religious neutrality and fact based solutions to our social problems is not persecution.
Re: original question
Only slightly further than we have it today. Your faith means little to me(note- not absolutely nothing, just not nearly so much as to get upset about it, unless your faith is based on making my life miserable directly).
Re: Other questions
Will answer later.
It's far from being an absolute division.
AFAIK, no avowed atheist has ever been elected to public office. In fact if you're not a Protestant Christian, you're going to have a rough go at it.
Indeed, this may be why my viewpoint is the way it is.
Well, one needs to remember that the government has no obligation to adhere to seperation of church and state. Granted, I do believe that seperation of church and state is a good thing, but under the Constitution the only requirements are that the government cannot establish a state religion or prevent the free excercise of a religion. There is nothing in the Constitution saying the government cannot get involved in religion, such as by funding private religion or giving one religion priveledges others don't get. The Supreme Court says it can't, but that ruling has a flimsy basis, and I'm not sure it would hold up to a serious challenge from a government entity. This is unfortunate, and should be rectified, but as it stands it doesn't have much water.
Granted, I do believe that seperation of church and state is a good thing, but under the Constitution the only requirements are that the government cannot establish a state religion or prevent the free excercise of a religion. There is nothing in the Constitution saying the government cannot get involved in religion, such as by funding private religion or giving one religion priveledges others don't get.
What pray tell is the difference between establishing a religion and giving one religion funds and privileges? If you take tax money and give it to the catholic church, and have school kids affirm their faith in the pope's infailability on doctrinal matters in all government schools, teach the catechism in all government schools, and set aside a block of land in every city for the catholic church... isn't that HOW you establish Catholicism as a state religion?
Granted, I do believe that seperation of church and state is a good thing, but under the Constitution the only requirements are that the government cannot establish a state religion or prevent the free excercise of a religion. There is nothing in the Constitution saying the government cannot get involved in religion, such as by funding private religion or giving one religion priveledges others don't get.What pray tell is the difference between establishing a religion and giving one religion funds and privileges?
A legal technicality.
If you take tax money and give it to the catholic church, and have school kids affirm their faith in the pope's infailability on doctrinal matters in all government schools, teach the catechism in all government schools, and set aside a block of land in every city for the catholic church... isn't that HOW you establish Catholicism as a state religion?
That would probably violate the Constitution, however, because you forced kids to affirm their faith, which would be establishment of state religion. If you did not do that one thing, however, everything else you discuss would be completely constitutional. Disgusting? Yes. Something that SHOULD be unconstitutional? Yes. Actually unconstitutional? No. There actually isn't much protection for the idea of seperation of church and state right now. One serious challenge, and it will collapse. That's why there needs to be more protection for it.
Thomas Jefferson was a deist. Why should we be giving money to churches anyway. Also like the supereme court will do anything to protect seperation of church and state.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be promised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."
~Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992
People are free to believe whatever they want here in North America and we should be eternally grateful to our lord and savior Bacchus.
Personally, I'm much more open to religions that use inebriation and orgies as part of their ritual worship.
Not so big on tearing people limb from limb, though.
"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be promised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."
~Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992
I agree with the statement. The problem is that, as it stands, the wording of the Constitution does not back it up. If challenged it court, I don't think it would be upheld.
I agree with the statement. The problem is that, as it stands, the wording of the Constitution does not back it up. If challenged it court, I don't think it would be upheld.
Actually that whole bit about how "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" completely backs it up. It's called "The Establishment Clause" and it has been repeatedly invoked in arguments about whether or not the United States has, or can or should have, a national religion.
The Constitution clearly says we cannot, and indeed, should not.
But don't take my word for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
It's far from being an absolute division.
AFAIK, no avowed atheist has ever been elected to public office. In fact if you're not a Protestant Christian, you're going to have a rough go at it.
We've had a Catholic President (and people were concerned about it). And we may have a Mormon (and people so far don't seem to care much).
Progress!! Yay!
(Not to disagree with you by the way, but just to add my 2 cents).
*edited for clarity*
I agree with the statement. The problem is that, as it stands, the wording of the Constitution does not back it up. If challenged it court, I don't think it would be upheld.
~Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992
.... what?
It WAS challaneged at court. The supreme court. Nine guys, robes, those funny little wooden hammers...? What court exactly do you want it to be challenged in?
A legal technicality
So nothing. The entire point of a judicial branch is to interpret the intent of a law and stop blatantly dishonest attempts at relabeling a crime to be something else.
So what exactly do atheists come out of? What's the "closet"? The primordial soup?
I think the ten commandments should be more widely known. For your convenience, here they are:
And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which thou didst break.
And be ready by the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to Me on the top of the mount.
And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.' And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand two tables of stone.
And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed: 'The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation.' And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.And he said: 'If now I have found grace in Thy sight, O Lord, let the Lord, I pray Thee, go in the midst of us; for it is a stiffnecked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for Thine inheritance.'
And He said: 'Behold, I make a covenant; before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been wrought in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD that I am about to do with thee, that it is tremendous.
Observe thou that which I am commanding thee this day; behold, I am driving out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
1 Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you.You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles
(for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice. And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods.
2 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, at the time appointed in the month Abib, for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
4 All that openeth the womb is Mine; and of all thy cattle thou shalt sanctify the males, the firstlings of ox and sheep.
And the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck. All the first-born of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before Me empty.
5 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; in plowing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
6 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first-fruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year
7 Three times in the year shall all thy males appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel.
For I will cast out nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders; neither shall any man covet thy land, when thou goest up to appear before the LORD thy God three times in the year.
8 Thou shalt not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
9 The choicest first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
10 Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.'
And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.'And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of the testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses knew not that the skin of his face sent forth beams while He talked with him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll speak up for practical absolutism. I think the Free Exercise Clause should be interpreted strictly as a description of the state of affairs that prevails when the Establishment Clause is fully enforced. Therefore there is no legally legitimate objection, exception, or exemption from anything. The generally applicable laws are the generally applicable laws, period. There is no circumstance where any one religion, group of religions, or all religions together should receive any special privileges or deference before the law or in their treatment by the state. The state should engage in no acts and adopt no policies that have such an effect or give the appearance of favor, preference, or anything like it. If the state is ever in a position where it comes to be expected to rule on the legitimacy or seriousness of someone's religious commitments, this is a sure sign it's run afoul of the Establishment Clause.
The practical effects of this are extensive: No chaplains for any government agency or in the military. No religious slogans on money. No politicians invoking deities in the course of their official duties. No religious monuments on state land. No tax exemption for churches. No "conscience clauses". No prayers to open state functions. No religious dogmas taught in the schools. No religious beliefs driving legislation. No legislation that in effect or intent requires one follow any strictures of any religion. If you can't make a secular case for it, you should suck it up and vote against the bill no matter how much you think Jesus, Allah, or Zeus says otherwise. And no sneaking around and trying to get it past scrutiny by employing some kind of outside official to do the same act on the state's behalf.
I agree with the statement. The problem is that, as it stands, the wording of the Constitution does not back it up. If challenged it court, I don't think it would be upheld.Actually that whole bit about how "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" completely backs it up. It's called "The Establishment Clause" and it has been repeatedly invoked in arguments about whether or not the United States has, or can or should have, a national religion.
The Constitution clearly says we cannot, and indeed, should not.
But don't take my word for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
Just because it is used that way in practice does not mean the wording mandates that it is used that way. The wording does not phrohibit financial support, the interpretation does. Interpretations can change. Case in point, segregation. It was both held as constitutional and unconstitutional until amendments clarified things.
I agree with the statement. The problem is that, as it stands, the wording of the Constitution does not back it up. If challenged it court, I don't think it would be upheld.
~Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992
.... what?
It WAS challaneged at court. The supreme court. Nine guys, robes, those funny little wooden hammers...? What court exactly do you want it to be challenged in?
The supreme court can and has gone back on an earlier supreme court decision.
A legal technicalitySo nothing. The entire point of a judicial branch is to interpret the intent of a law and stop blatantly dishonest attempts at relabeling a crime to be something else.
Don't underestimate the chaos you can cause with a technicality, and don't underestimate the ability of the system to lable one thing as another. This supreme court gave us Citizen's United, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The practical effects of this are extensive: No chaplains for any government agency or in the military.I'm going to take issue with this, mainly because as badly as we screw with our soldiers, we should not deprive them of a service that's vital to the bulk of them. On the other hand, I think that all faiths with a population should be represented including atheist counselors as well.
I have no objection to the military hiring psychiatrists and other therapists. If a clergyperson wants to go to college and get their therapy license, I'm quite fine with having them take a job with the military's social services.
If a clergyperson just wants to go preach to the troops, said clergyperson is free to enlist like any other person and do whatever said clergyperson cares to do with his free time.
This is yet another attack by the lame stream media on Bacchanalia. Were there drunken orgies, sure, where men and children hunted down and torn limb from limb? Who can say? A lot of stuff happened that weekend. It's hard to keep track of these things. I think automatically blaming the Maenad for any cannibalism and dismemberment in an area speaks to your prejudices. People have been torn apart and eaten long before our lord and savior Bacchus came around after all.People are free to believe whatever they want here in North America and we should be eternally grateful to our lord and savior Bacchus.Personally, I'm much more open to religions that use inebriation and orgies as part of their ritual worship.
Not so big on tearing people limb from limb, though.
I am interested sir. Do you have a pamphlet?
The supreme court can and has gone back on an earlier supreme court decision.=
.... what?
It WAS challaneged at court. The supreme court. Nine guys, robes, those funny little wooden hammers...? What court exactly do you want it to be challenged in?
... which has nothing to do with what you said before. Are you trying to say that it won't hold up if its brought before the supreme court now? Its highly unlikely. Its how the first ammendment has been interpreted for 200 years.
Don't underestimate the chaos you can cause with a technicality, and don't underestimate the ability of the system to lable one thing as another. This supreme court gave us Citizen's United, after all.
I'm really not worried enough about it to consider conspiracy theories.
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
~Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11
(Ratified unanimously by Congress and signed by President John Adams in 1797)
I'm not a law buff but, unless I misunderstand it, international treaties 'trump' all domestic laws and becomes the de facto 'law of the land'. As such, given the intent of the Treaty of Tripoli was to assure Muslim nations that the US was not a Christian nation (with a concomitant faith-based agenda) and that we would act as a strictly secular, law-based, government.
Taking a bit from the wiki on this for ease of reading:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,
"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."
The Senate's ratification was only the third time in history the Senate had voted unanimously.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not a law buff but, unless I misunderstand it, international treaties 'trump' all domestic laws and becomes the de facto 'law of the land'. As such, given the intent of the Treaty of Tripoli was to assure Muslim nations that the US was not a Christian nation (with a concomitant faith-based agenda) and that we would act as a strictly secular, law-based, government.
The federal government can't pass a treaty that it can't enforce: or rather it doesn't gain enforcement power from writing a treaty. It could definitely not for example, promise to stifle criticisms of the Qur'an in order to swing an oil deal with a middle eastern country (interfere with freedom of speech). It probably also can't mandate that every american buy a blue marble because it doesn't have the power to make that law.
I'm not a law buff but, unless I misunderstand it, international treaties 'trump' all domestic laws and becomes the de facto 'law of the land'. As such, given the intent of the Treaty of Tripoli was to assure Muslim nations that the US was not a Christian nation (with a concomitant faith-based agenda) and that we would act as a strictly secular, law-based, government.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that treaties are effectively that. However a treaty in the US constitutional sense isn't just any agreement between nations but rather one ratified by 2/3 of both houses of Congress. Such treaties have the force of domestic law (except when they don't) and thus the American end of them can be altered or amended by acts of Congress.
Most agreements are actually passed as ordinary legislation, which as ordinary legislation has the same effect in being the law of the land by definition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly enough, despite being an atheist, I disagree. Religion is very important to many people. Military personnel, particularly in wartime, can be out of reach of civilian religious services for extended periods, while under great stress. I do not think it's necessary to deprive the military of religion in the name of separation of church and state.
It's a difficult issue, especially since, particularly in smaller groups, you can't supply a properly qualified religious official for everyone. You might have a forward base with 50 guys in it of a dozen different religions or sects. Do you add another dozen chaplains? It's not feasible.
People in the military are not being deprived of religion because it the military is not subsidizing preachers. They are free to contract these services on their own and/or seek out coreligionists who can perform the same roles. If they are out of reach in the course of their duties, this is a risk that should have been obvious long before they enlisted. Sorry GI Joe, the military might send you somewhere that doesn't have many amenities. Other people might even shoot at you.
If someone honestly has a severe need to frequent religious professionals which may not be available where the military has sent them, they should have considered a different line of work. If that kind of privation is causing them serious mental health problems, they should seek a medical discharge and/or the proper psychiatric help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, even in the military no one should be required, or even encouraged by their superiors, to convert or be proselytized to. There have been issues with this.
An understatement. I've experienced them, as have most other non-monotheists who have been in the service -- and most particularly in OCS or one of the Academies.
Thanks for the clarifications BNW and Samnell. I have a mild contempt for laws so I appreciate the edjamacation without having to do the research.
I think we all know that treaties get 'broken' too often. As I recall, the US has violated over 100 treaties made with the Indian Nations alone. But still, Article 11 is an interesting bit of legislation - whether it is worth the paper it was printed upon or not. Moreover, in regards to Samnell's bit stating Such treaties have the force of domestic law (except when they don't) and thus the American end of them can be altered or amended by acts of Congress... I would love to see the mental, ethical, and verbal somersaults that the Moral Majority would have to go through to claim that domestically we are a Christian Nation, anointed by Gawd, while simultaneously trying to argue internationally that we are a secular, law-driven, government without a Christian agenda.
I think that would peg out the Hypocrisy Meter. :)
I think that would peg out the Hypocrisy Meter. :)
I doubt it would even cause them to blink. The fundies were all for a secular state when that state was Iraq, because secularism meant it would be easier for them to get in and try to grow their businesses.
LOL. I mean it would peg out MY Hypocrisy Meter.
LOL. I mean it would peg out MY Hypocrisy Meter.
Heh. Mine is permanently broken, I think. The one for irony too.
It's far from being an absolute division.
AFAIK, no avowed atheist has ever been elected to public office. In fact if you're not a Protestant Christian, you're going to have a rough go at it.
I always find it funny when I hear an atheist talk about there never being an atheist president after making fun of Romney for being a Mormon.
I always find it funny when I hear an atheist talk about there never being an atheist president after making fun of Romney for being a Mormon.
I'm trying to parse your post, and so far it's coming across as "Well, of course people won't elect a silly atheist, because atheism is way, way more ridiculous than Mormonism, which a lot of people* make fun of." If you meant something else, please help.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We ask a lot of our military. They expect to get shot at. They expect not to have many amenities. Not offering them the support they need is not negotiable.
I have no problem with military chaplains.
I have a problem with "there are no atheists in foxholes, so you'd best see the chaplain now!"I have a big problem with "if you choose not to attend this Christian rock concert and prayer session, you can always clean the latrines instead."
I have a huge problem with mandatory "spiritual fitness evaluations" for all soldiers.
I have a massive problem with the whole "We're God's army doing God's will, and if you're not a part of that, you're with the enemy!" thing.
I assume you're familiar with Military Religious Freedom Foundation?
Only tangentially; they were founded 15 years after my time.