The country was not founded "under god."

Where is God mentioned in the Constitution?

The Declaration doesn't matter, it has no force of law—and only mentions the "Creator"—a first cause, but deist reference, not a god who interferes or cares about the affairs of men.

It was only Christian in that the bulk of the population were Christians, there is nothing in law—which is a good thing.

Christians wanting more mixture of religion and State should be very careful. They should be aware that Muslims will use this, then instead of hearing about church at home, and nothing like that at school, they'll get to hear muslim crap at school, too. Separation of church and state is a massive plus to religious people, it's not aimed at atheists.

You say they don't invoke the "Xtian God", but Cynthia Dunbar herself is an Evangelical Christian (nothing wrong with that certainly) who, in her own book uses the phrase "emphatically Christian Government."

Overall the changes they want to make are indeed distinctly Christian in nature.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...tes-us-history

As with 'Intelligent Design', you can obfuscate all you want, but the basic premise is indeed that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation, and the underlying intent is to have Christian theology taught in public schools as history and science.

Baloney. Just because an historical document includes "god" or religious language does not mean it can't be taught.

Funny how when they actually got around to forming the nation in the Constitution, the Founders made a point of NOT doing so "under god." They could have easily done so, but they didn't.

When the establishment clause is followed, everyone wins. I don't know why the fundies want to do away with a good thing.

I think it's because they're feeling threatened. Every time someone sues to ban to Pledge of Allegiance or remove a Christmas nativity scene it's seen as a threat. A feeling some church leaders like to promote because nothing draws a group together like an external menace.

And in the process their making themselves intolerant, hypocritical, and their image changed to a group of people who would seek to force and manipulate their religious beliefs onto others. Or in otherwords, they have become a group who would seek to oppress others with their dogmatic garbage. I'm decidedly against them for that reason alone.

I do not doubt for one second that fundamentalists of "Christian America" would LOVE to have a theocracy like this in our country if they could:

http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imageb...5089753-17.jpg

Their incessant need to smear/force jesus, crosses, religion, dogma into peoples faces in just about EVERYTHING is a clear indicator i think.

You answered your own question: because when it's followed, everyone wins. To fundies, that is not a good thing, because as far as they're concerned they are right and everyone else is wrong and therefore nobody should be allowed to win except for them.

It's not just that they want to put "God" back in the schools and "religion" back into public life. They want to make their versions of "God" and "religion" the only ones that are accepted, endorsed, taught, and allowed.

This is what always amazes me about fundies. With regard to schooling, they are SO TERRIFIED that their pwecious chilluns might be exposed to anything that might in any way contradict fundamentalist teaching because ZOMG they will be led astray!! And yet they are at the same time absolutely adamant that their teaching is clearly and obviously the only right and true perspective and anyone who doesn't agree is morally or mentally deficient.

Don't tell me how "right" and valid your beliefs are, and then act like the only way to keep people from questioning them is to prevent exposure to any alternatives whatsoever. But that's exactly what they do.

Huh, I got more reasons to not want to go to private school than that...

Try getting dragged down to the principal by the ear/hair for being "rebelious" (or what ever they call the head Dickhead) and sit there for a hour.

Well, were you being rebellious?

This thread is 8 pages long as I type this and it seems it will only get longer, with no consensus or workable solution in sight. :hmmm:For those of you who haven't guessed it already, yes this is yet another Libertarian critique of public schools.

Rather than immediately asking oneself "what is the solution?" it might be wise to consider asking oneself "why is this a problem?" Clearly, there is a disagreement as to what level of religious involvement, if any, should be allowed in schools.

Q:So why is that a problem?
A: Because we all (save the very gifted and the very wealthy) have to attend the same kinds of schools; Public schools.

As Frau points out, the "fundies" have an agenda, but so do many other people and groups. This is not the first time that the issue of what should be taught or tolerated at public schools has come up, and the issue is not always a religious one. Curriculae, uniforms, discipline, teachers, books, funding, attendance issues.... all of these things and more have been the subject of debate and the resulting compromise that satisfies nobody at one time or another.

So.... if everyone has a different agenda and we must all use the same schools, which element of the equation seems the likely culprit for the disharmony? If you guessed "same schools" you're right. If you guessed "agenda" you're a control freak with and you need to re-examine your perspectives. You're a "fundie" of some type or another, and odds are there is a lobby group in Washington arguing for you, which is exactly how we wound up with the joke we call "public education" today.

My solution is to simply let all the "fundie" groups compete. Let their public schools compete. Privatize them. Put in a voucher system. Something!
Is group X a bunch of idiots? Put your money where your mouth is, then! Prove it through actions, not hypotheses!

Yes, this will result in inequality, but the current system does that already..... just visit a few schools in poor communities. Yes, this will result in non-uniform education, but so what? Universities and colleges train people in whatever they (or their parents) choose in whatever environment they choose and there seems to be no public outcry about that. Perhaps the college-boys learn the concept of "specialization" or "division of labor"?

That system may sound bad to many people, but it is certainly better than equal suckage for all, except for the priviledged, and greater suckage for some, yes?

This whole debate should be a complete non-issue. It is irresolvible and silly on a level usually reserved for Federal legislatures and fashion pundits. Fix the problems, not the solutions.

Not really, just being a normal kid (yea, I was 5)... not as bad as some others.

Yeah, the libertarian take (intentionally lower case, BTW ;) ) is right I think.

Any time ANYTHING is paid for by the government it is ALWAYS political. Science, schools, whatever. This is, and will always be true. If your money is tax money, then political representatives decides who gets it and how much.

The science, for example, is annoying. The fundie take is 100% wrong. Not debatable, sorry, it's fantasy. But since the schools are political by definition, they might well get creationism nonsense in there at some point—luckily this always gets bitch-slapped in court.

Going all private has some positives, but then we'll see a balkanization I fear. Muslims in madrassas, christians being trained to be equally stupid in their schools, etc. On the plus side, those of us using good private school will save tax money, and still train our kids to be the ruling class (in every serious discipline) over fundie morons.

@ Undersea - exactly...

@ tater - I answered that challenge about God in the constitution already in this thread. Also - your saying that the Declaration of Independance has no legal force? Excuse me - it is THE document that founded this country - NOT the Constitution. The Constitution defines HOW the nation that was founded in the Declaration of Independance will operate. Nice try to twist it - but withou the DoI - the Constitution cannot exist - because the United States of America cannot exist.
So even the signatories note in the document that the US of A was and had been in existence for 12 years - so the Constitution is not the founding document. SHEESH!

@ Sailor Steve - Ms. Dunbar can claim to be whatever faith she wants, and want whatever she wants to be taught. I made the point that the statement that was quoted say "under God" - which is accurate. I also stated had they said "under the Xtian God" they would be wrong. I don't see us as disagreeing on what they may or may not have meant - but what was stated - was accurate.

Also - Steve, I have great respect for you - but I posted the links directly to the material in question for debate - and you reply with a link from a week old newspaper source in the UK? I would think the actual material is better source data for discussion than what some newspaper across the pond thinks when its doubtful they have looked at it in depth. If we are going to debate whether changes are good or bad, religious or not, etc - then lets use the actual stuff being changed - instead of some overseas news article.....

I have not at all said that there is no "seperation of church and state" - what I have done is state that people take the term freedom of religion and have tried for decades to make it freedom from religion - freedom from having to allow others to practice it as they see fit, freedom from having others promote it as they wish provided it does not violate another persons rights, etc. I have not said that religion needs to be part of government - and in the cases of MOST of the laws Skybird posted - I think they are unconstitutional and should be abolished. No man can be constrained to worship outside the dictates of his conscience - I agree - but I also agree that no man should be constrained to NOT worship in ways he sees fit provided that no rights of another are trampled. And sorry - an elected representitive who wants to put the ten commandments in his office - or an elected judge wants them in his courtroom - well - vote em out if you don't like em - but if you stop them - your stopping them from worshipping as they see fit - and that violates the freedom of religion clause.

You said that these people said "under God", and not under the Christian God. Their agenda is very specifically Christian, and there's no denying that. I think a direct quote from the woman's book is sufficient direct evidence for that.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...2&postcount=14


But that phrase - "Not freedom from religion" - has been used by evangelicals to say that the government should be based in religion. Most people I've listened to don't believe that anyone should be denied their freedoms. The believe the Christians want to enforce their beliefs on everyone. The fear is on both sides.

Then we are in complete agreement on that.

Well, putting your beliefs in your office is your business. Putting up in a taxpayer funded courtroom is a little different. Do you want to go into a courtroom with Buddhas on pedestals everywhere?

And the protests aren't over private usage, they are over public displays on the lawns of public buildings.

Steve - the link is in regards to the constitution. The fact is that a seperation of church and state does in fact exist - and I have not said that it is not a proper thing. Specifically - it should exist to keep government from mandating ANY religion. I have said as much repeatedly - there is a difference to it "not being in the constitution" and it "not being"....

The seperation of church and state is founded on a letter to the Danbury Baptists - a PRIVATE letter - that was used to justify a legal ruling. Now you can lump anything in with "those evangelicals" or "those gays" or "those (insert your target here)" all you want - but your painting a with a broad brush that is intentionally generalizing.

I disagree with Ms. Dunbar on a number of points. But while their AGENDA may be one thing, their statement on "under god" is in fact correct. See the 2 declarations I mentioned earlier for proof. The fact that the DoI was the document that founded us - and specifically put our independance before the "Supreme Judge" is rather clear, regardless of whether people like it or not. I will say it again - has she said "under the Christian god" then I would be right there with you saying she was wrong. But there is a difference. The terms used - as has been pointed out - were very deist - which in fact most of the "Founding Fathers" were.

As for the issue of Buddhas in the courtroom - I personally wouldn't care. If I did have an issue with it - there are options. First - make sure the judge isn't re-elected - and also appeal IF and only IF the law was not followed. What statue is in the room matters not one bit to the legal ruling - and if it does - then the ruling isn't going to stand. Simple enough.
Also - an elected official has an office - but taxpayer money pays for it, taxpayer business is done in it - and taxpayers often see officials in their office. So what is the difference between that and a courtroom? Both are accessible to, serve and are paid for by the taxpayer. Careful with your answer though - because if you say ok remove every religious icon in government buildings - then your also saying a religious person could not bring a token of faith to their work - and that infringes on their right to worship as they see fit.

You see - its a 2 edged sword..... Lets say you did have a judge that wanted to have a statue of Buddha on his wall. Ok - then his clerk wants to bring in a small Cross mounted on a stand. Maybe the court recorder wants to have something else on her little desk. Where do you stop - or do you? Does it matter what each of them does as long as they do the work of the people as they are duty bound to by law and terms of employment?

People want to talk about how Xtians want to take over and remake government - and a few loonies do. And I will stand with you to stop them when I see the idiocy- but the lunacy has to stop when it comes to the rabid FEAR of any religion having any impact on governance... If it were not for religion - this country would not exist - because most of the settling of this country was an attempt to find religious freedom. Meaning you practice your thing - I'll practice mine, and we live and let live. But instead you have people who want to make sure no one can practice anything on "public" grounds. Well public means yours and mine and the other guys too - and last I checked you weren't to tell me what to do any more than I am to tell you. What is good for the goose is good for the gander....

And I've shown that it was used repeatedly by the man who wrote the first amendment. He obvoiously believed that was what it meant.

You're afraid of people trying to use that to remove all traces of religion from American life. I'm with you on that. On the other hand every time I've heard someone using the "no separation" phrase they've been pushing an agenda. You seem to be the only one who means it differently. Why should I believe you, other than that I'm willing to give anyone the benifit of the doubt?

But she did say it. The fact that she didn't say it there is what has people up in arms. She's lying.

I'm glad we agree on that. And I'm not intentionally generalizing, I'm speaking of the most outspoken leaders - the ones who make the most noise and seem to speak for the majority, even if they don't. They are also the ones whom people listen to.

And that is a tough question. No, people should never be prohibited from demonstrating their faith in the open, as long as it doesn't intrude on anybody's rights. That can be a thorny question itself. My only answer is to refer to Jefferson.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes On The State Of Virginia

I believe the courtroom itself, as a public place paid for by the taxpayers, should be free of all religious symbols. Though the Judge's office is also provided by the taxpayers, that is not a public place, but a private office. If a Church wants to have a cross, that is their business and nobody elses. If someone wants to put a cross or anything else over a public school, that is a violation of the concept.

I agree about standing against loonies, no matter what fringe they're from. But as for finding religious freedom, most of the colonies were started as business enterprises, mostly planting. Massachussetts was founded by a group seeking religious freedom, which to them meant escape from the established Church of England and finding a place where they could establish their own Presbyterian Church. And they drove out anyone who preached religious freedom. This included Roger Williams, who was the only contemporary religious leader who did practice true tolerance, and he ended up founding Rhode Island. Interesting that he called his capital 'Providence', a decidedly non-specific term. The history of Christianity in early America is not one of religious tolerance. It took Enlightenment types like Jefferson to go against the grain and push laws guaranteeing freedom. And the religious leaders of his own day branded him an Atheist.

As for practicing in a public place, I used to attend a church that met in a local park. I thought it was a great setting, and I see not problem with anybody meeting anywhere public. I do, however, have a problem with the government, whether federal, state or local, using taxpayer money to put up religious symbolism.