Separation of Church and State...

[Skybird]

I wonder if anyone has looked up the link I gave, since you all are so busy in repeating it as if it has not been said before.

Religious discussions - as always: plenty of fun. Haven't we laughed, haven't we partied so much together, comrades...?

Check that linik and the various keywords it offers on the left side of the page. There is plenty of historic reference that put some things into perspective.


1776 Declaration of independence (US), declared separation of the 13 colonies from Britain.
1776 "E Pluribus Unum" (US), Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson submit their design to congress with the motto meaning "One from many" .
1781 Articles of Confederacy (US), first US constitution
1787 Constitution of the United States
1789 Bill of Rights, defines civil rights of the people including freedom of expression, religion and of the press
1864 "In God We Trust" approved by Congress for use on coins.
1892 'Pledge of Allegiance' adopted by congress
1954 "Under God" is added to the Pledge of Allegiance
1956 "In God We Trust", congress declares national motto

And this is my repeatedly given classic: why atheists care for religion:


You raise the same questions we have had before, so I give the same answers - do not complain, then.

Religion is a personal belief system. It is no political belief system. And so those who claim that they have The Word and want to come into politics and impose morality, are dead-wrong. You can't legislate morality, people either have it or they don't have it. And if you want to develope morality, you do that within the religious-spiritual field. The fact that we lack morality in many parts of the human race, it's an indictement of the failure by religions.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Even having the flag flying over government buildings is a new thing. The US flag was created because naval warships always sail under a national flag.

I learn something new every day

I can't understand why you Americans would ever want to separate the state and the church. I mean it's soooo much fun when the're one and the same. We Finns know this.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

I can't understand why you Americans would ever want to separate the state and the church. I mean it's soooo much fun when the're one and the same. We Finns know this.

I'm all for the separation.

But I'm also pragmatic. How does a cross on public land affect said separation?

It doesn't.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I can conceed the point of not having religious imagery on places such as courthouses, although I do not believe such imagery is representative of anything but the basis of the majority who wrote the law.

However, I find the line crossed when groups attempt to ban personal prayer in schools, prevent the president from mentioning God in the Oath of Office, etc.

Individual students, or even private groups of students praying on their own in school, in a way that doesn't force others to participate or point them out for not participating? Fine, absolutely fine.

For example, at my high school we had a moment of silence before everybody sat down for lunch. If a student wanted to, they could say a short prayer, while the rest of us just enjoyed the silence.

My problem is if the school allows students to read prayers over the PA system, or leads prayers for the entire student body. That implies the school (and thus the government's) endorsement of one religion over others (including atheism).

As far as the Oath of Office, I believe the Constitution's prohibition on religious tests/requirements for public office means that any MANDATORY inclusion of God in any oath of office is illegal by the Constitution. However, if the person taking the oath wishes to ask for God's help after reading the oath, I have no problem whatsoever.

Overall, I think that anything that implies mandatory religion is against this country's ideals. However, private worship is also protected by our Constitution.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I'm all for the separation.

But I'm also pragmatic. How does a cross on public land affect said separation?

It doesn't.

A cross, and only a cross, on public land implies public endorsement of Christianity over other religions.

If other religions are allowed to put their symbols there (including a symbol for atheism), then fine by me. For example, there are plenty of crosses in Arlington National Cemetery, but those of other faiths are allowed to be buried under their own religious symbols.

[Platapus]

I wonder what the reaction would be if we had a President only use the exact oath that is listed in the Constitution?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Max2147

A cross, and only a cross, on public land implies public endorsement of Christianity over other religions.

If other religions are allowed to put their symbols there (including a symbol for atheism), then fine by me. For example, there are plenty of crosses in Arlington National Cemetery, but those of other faiths are allowed to be buried under their own religious symbols.

I still stand by my point. If the people democratically choose to place a single symbol, and that symbol means nothing to the Constitutionally protected processes, then they should be allowed to place that symbol.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I wonder what the reaction would be if we had a President only use the exact oath that is listed in the Constitution?

I suspect that, in the case of Obama, conservatives would have made a huge stink about it especially considering the controversy surrounding his church and religion.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Aramike

I still stand by my point. If the people democratically choose to place a single symbol, and that symbol means nothing to the Constitutionally protected processes, then they should be allowed to place that symbol.

That sounds like tyranny of the majority to me. The First Amendment is the Constitution's key protection against that.

I also think that it's difficult for a religions symbol to "mean nothing to the Constitutionally protected process." It may be innocent and harmless in the eyes of the people who believe in that religion, but it can still be offensive to people of different religions.

Think of it this way: Every time you think about a cross on public land, imagine if it was a star and crescent, or a pentagram, or some other religious symbol that you don't believe in. I think it will change your views.

For what it's worth, I think the "No God" advertisements on publicly-owned buses are also a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Max2147

For what it's worth, I think the "No God" advertisements on publicly-owned buses are also a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

Not really, since state and public space are not the same. The campaign is simply stupid. I understand that it was meant to let religious missionaries, who aggressively go from door to door or try to get a public audience, tate their own medicine. But I wonder if such a bus-.campaign is the right answer. Not to mention to express a rest of doubt in one's own statement - that was the most stupid of all.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Whoa, slow down: who said anything about praying out loud?

If someone prays within themselves, who would even know? All public debates over the subject of school prayer have been about out-loud prayers involving the whole class.

Yes, the Freedom From Religion folks have attempted twice to sue to prevent Presidents from using God when taking the oath, along with the prayer, claiming it was exlusionary among other things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...123002858.html

Well, I'm with you on that one, sort of. I agree that suing to keep the candidate from adding what he wants is silly. If a president suddenly said "So help me Athena", it woud kill any chance at credibility he might have had, so "So help me God" is just words, and words are free. On the other hand, they might have some justification for being upset over the prayers, but obviously the courts didn't think so, and that's good enough for me.

If the public doesn't like me saying "So Help me Zeus" when I become Emperor of Earth then they can leave the planet.

[Kapt Z]

Let Santa rule the town square and the manger scene rule the church grounds.

Problem solved.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Max2147

For what it's worth, I think the "No God" advertisements on publicly-owned buses are also a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

That's interesting! The space is sold for advertising revenues. Who then decides what is offensive and what isn't. Ads for say, the sex industry, or those using profanity would likely not be allowed. But ads for a service provided by a religious entity would, such as charity pleas and medical care, or Scientology.

Buddahaid