Hello
Just joined
Seperation of Church and State
-
cnn reports a poll stating that 9 in 10 want the phrase left in. If the majority were to rule in this case, would this be “tyranny by majority”, “victory for democracy”, or “back to square one for atheists”?
-
@TG:
“The fact that the Pledge of Allegiance happens to be some sort of “legal document” means it can be declared unconstitutional, compared with the “less important” Declaration. Our country was born on the Declaration; it’s a legal document in the way that it [13 colonies] declared independence from England.
So, it is then a legal document under british legislation, as there were no USA yet, and the colonies who wished to seperate were british.
How much legal importance does it have to the US (not historic, but legal)? -
And th Pledge of Alligence does? Unless you’re saying we should also edit the Declaration also.
-
Yes, the Pledge of Allegience is a legal document in the way that there are laws stating who recites it, when they recite it, and where they recite it.
-
So a foreigner reciting the Pledge of Alligence in the bathroom in the middle of the night is against the law? If so, what’s the punishment?
-
The Framers of the Constitution had seen firsthand in England and elsewhere the establishment of state religions and the suppression of competing beliefs. Many of those who fled to America, such as the Puritans, did so to escape religious persecution. They sought legal protection for all faiths and protection against an all-powerful church of the state supported by tax revenue.
What is clear is that the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, sought to protect religious freedoms and to provide an active role for the government in promoting the “moral character” of the people.
George Washington, in his Farewell Address said, "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
James Madison, who wrote much of the Bill of Rights, said: “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions … upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut-established in 1638-39 as the first written constitution in America and considered as the direct predecessor of the U. S. Constitution -declared that the Governor and his council of six elected officials would “have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God.”
Throughout the earliest days of our history the courts upheld the role of God as an essential thread that binds together our nation’s fabric. In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court held “The happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality…”
When you go to the Constitution, it actually invokes Christian beliefs directly … not just ‘God’ beliefs but Christian beliefs. (Art. I, Sec. 7, 2, stipulating that the President has 10 days to sign a law, “Sundays excepted”) So we now understand I guess, from this court, that the Constitution is unconstitutional. The clause ‘under God’ … goes back to the third verse of the national anthem, so what we’re now saying is the national anthem is unconstitutional.
It is important to note that the words “separation of church and state” do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. This, despite major media and advocates regularly trumpeting the constitutional separation of church and state.
The phrase “separation of church and state” came long after the Constitution was adopted. In 1802, newly-elected President Thomas Jefferson received a letter from a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They congratulated Jefferson on winning the presidency and urged him to promote religious freedom of outside-the-mainstream religious groups, which the Baptists were at the time. Jefferson, in an eloquent response, assured them that his government valued diverse religious expression and would never seek to interfere in their affairs or establish an official government religion with special privileges, one that would be superior to all other denominations. It was in the context of his brief, three paragraph letter, that Jefferson used the phrase: “wall of separation between church and state” as an allusion to a wall around a church to keep the government from interfering in the free exercise of religion.
Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example:
“No power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” - Kentucky Resolution, 1798
“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government.” - Second Inaugural Address, 1805
“Our excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary.” - Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808
“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises.” - Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is very outspoken on the subject:
“It would seem…that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations…The Establishment Clause did not require neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the federal government from providing non-discriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson [Court case]…”
Constitution was silent on the subject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer’s personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state governments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as “godless” or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God. The Court traditionally has allowed so-called “ceremonial deism” - references to a generic higher power with no real specific religious meaning. A public opinion poll by MSNBC shows 76 percent of respondents believe referencing God in the Pledge does not endorse a specific religion.
“And lets be realistic, you aren’t going to have kids below High School even refuse to recite the pledge, let alone walk out on it.”
When the Pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with a choice between participating and protesting. America itself was founded by protestors.
In a country where the President of the United States and many members of Congress end their speeches with “God Bless America” and citizens can exercise their First Amendment rights to display in a public setting a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung, it is inconceivable our schoolchildren may not voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a classroom.
Lets that a look at another few examples:
Recently, public schools were barred from showing a film about the settlement of Jamestown because the film depicted the erection of cross at the settlement.
In Omaha, Nebraska, a ten year old boy was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time. The boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law. On the other hand, in New York, a federal judge recently ruled in favor of a kindergartner who was saying grace out loud before eating lunch. The school had forced her to stop because, in the school’s interpretation, it violated the “separation of church and state.”
At Columbine High School, school officials told parents, teachers and students that they couldn’t paint messages with religious themes on commemorative tiles displayed in the High School, after they invited them to paint the tiles for healing. The parents won a lower court decision for their Free Expression rights but the school is appealing the case.
A federal judge ruled that VMI’s traditional supper prayer – a “brief, nonsectarian, inclusive blessing,” – constitutes a coerced religious exercise.
The town of Kensington, Maryland, gained national attention last Christmas for banning Santa from its annual Christmas tree lighting because two families out of a town of 1,700 people, complained over the lack of a Menorah.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the sentence of a murderer who killed a 70-year old woman with an ax, on the grounds that the prosecutor had unlawfully cited biblical law to the jury.
“Seems to me like we could be focusing on the real problems hurting this country instead…”
I agree. How is the Pledge so bad, that it hurts to listen to it in silence as a sign of respect toward our country? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court threw out the sentence of a murderer who killed a 70-year old woman with an ax, on the grounds that the prosecutor had unlawfully cited biblical law to the jury.
-
Excellent Moses. All things i’d heard or thought, but never had the wherewithal to research or discuss so eloquantly. Christmas is nearly a “pariah” as far as “appropriate terms” go (i still refuse to wish someone “happy holidays” - maybe a blessed Hannukah . . .), and i appreciate the history lesson. Are schools still allowed to teach the original reason for “thanksgiving”? Or is it a “thanksgiving” to the noble first nations people?
-
Why should we simply respect the christian faith in our government. Isn’t America a nation for all? then why don’t we pay respects to other religons too? Is our history so all important that we can’t change traditions so that they will be all inclusive? In modern times you can’t represent the entire nation when you refer to any sort of deity, so if the US is so worried about equally representing everyone the only feasable solution would be to remove all references to religion from coinage and such. Otherwise you have all sorts of cases of Americans not being represented by their own country.
-
but again, how about the “majority rule question”? Given that America is a democratic country, should not the lawmakers abide by the mandate of the voters? It is not communist yet, afterall.
-
Thanks, errr… Guest! :P
But really, most of that credit belongs to my Conservative friends who supplied most of the information. I’m just take scraps from here and there, pasting it together, editing some parts, adding a special brand of logic and humor into one organized, coherent post. And the way the Courts are going you might see Thanksgiving altered (no more saying grace). But then they’ll have to ply that turkey drumstick out of my cold, dead hands! :wink:
bossk, I see where you’re coming from. However, the Christian faith alone does not run our government (not to the extend that religion had in Europe). I do think we should at least allow religion (as said in the 1st Amendment) and its moral ethics (ie most of the Ten Commandments). And if most Americans wanted the words “Under God” removed from the Pledge, then there should be a legitimate concerned about it. While I may not always agree with what the “majority” has to say, I at least achknowledge their decision (ex once Bill Clinton got re-elected, I did not burn a life size replica of him and refuse to believe he would not be our next president). But this isn’t the case. Most Americans want our Pledge just the way it is. Instead, this is simply 2 of the 3 9th Circuit Judges making a rather brash decision without at least consulting the rest of the 9th Circuit panel.
“Otherwise you have all sorts of cases of Americans not being represented by their own country? “
What I learned is that you can’t appease everybody. What about all the ruthless convicts in jail? Maybe some of those don’t believe in having “justice for all” (meaning they could commit crimes with impunity). What about diehard white supremacist who don’t believe in “liberty for all?” What about fellow Confederates, such as myself, that don’t believe in a republic “indivisible?” Don’t we have just as much right to amend the Pledge as we see fit?
-
The problem is that the Catholic Schools are the only ones willing to take the poor.
You’ve GOT to be kidding me! You think catholic schools are the only ones willing to take the poor? Do you KNOW how much money I spend in taxes so some punk in the inner-city can go to school and smoke crack with his friends?
You couldn’t be more wrong. Everyone in this country pays for educaiton, whether they use it or not. This education is provided to everyone, regardless of race, religion, etc. Whereas in a catholic school, the students pay for their own education, and therefore the schools get to choose who they let in. If Catholic schools were in the business of accepting every poor person in this country, there would be no catholic schools….
-
so if the US is so worried about equally representing everyone the only feasable solution would be to remove all references to religion from coinage and such.
Woops…you’re wrong. The United States was formed with the understanding that you should not be prevented from believing in your own religion.
Now, by me saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school, I fail to see how this is stopping someone of another religion from practicing their beliefs.
How’s this for freedom? If you don’t want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or don’t believe in what is says…THEN DON’T SAY IT. But to stand up and try to dismantle a part of history that our country was founded on, is wrong. I don’t give a shit whether some aitheist thinks that saying “God” in school is wrong, this country runs on the majority, and CLEARLY the majority of the people in this country believe in God.
I commend the President for standing up against those damn liberals in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
-
The Pledge of Alligence is a representation of what America stands for and American ideals. While most Americans are christians, it is not a christian nation and should not be veiwed as one. This would be similar to including something about being white in the Pledge; after all most americans are white. The majority does rule in America, but within certain limits. If the majority really ruled then I would not be able to express many of my opinions becuase most people think they are either stupid or simply wrong.
-
@TG:
Thanks, errr… Guest! :P
yes yes,
sometimes your guest is me, the Crypt.
my 'puter’s in the shop and i’m too lazy to log on. Mind you, i do find it fun and kind of liberating to be anonymous sometimes. Kind of like walking around my condo nude . . . . -
So what your saying is America should be a Christian State, with Christian laws, but your aloud to practice any Religion as long as it goes along with Christian laws? Whats next, outlawing Polytheism? Making Satanism illegal? Taking away free speech rights against the church?
Just think of something. Right now, many, many Catholic priests have admitted to child molesting. People are debating whether or not they should be aloud to still be priests. If they were any other profession, each priest would be on trial right now.
-
So what your saying is America should be a Christian State, with Christian laws, but your aloud to practice any Religion as long as it goes along with Christian laws?
Absolutely not, I do not believe that America should be a Christian state, but I do believe America needs to retain the values that it was founded on.
As for the scandal in the church, that’s an entirely different subject. I think those priests (aka: molesters) should be punished just like anyone else in society, and that’s what’ll happen. The church can do whatever it wants on it’s side, but the plain and simple fact still remains: they are a danger to society. Anyways, this is for another thread….so i’ll leave it at that.
-
Well Yanny, i think that it might be thought of another way. Allowing Christians more freedom of speach, for example. Leveling the playing field in more respects. For example, “free speach” against the church in many instances would be considered a “hate crime” against another religion or culture (the two are often entwined), or at the least “not very p.c.”. Yet the Christian church must endure it for some reason (i.e. it is secured for by the first amendment).
Now true, the make up of America is different today then it was when originally a haven of refuge sought by religious persecutants, but i have a problem identifying what is wrong with maintaining its religious traditions, history, or even allowing the majority its voice. Does it suggest the persecution of other beliefs and cultures? Or the diminishment or ignore-ance of other faiths?
Of course, as a Canadian, i am afraid that my knowledge of America is limited to what i learned in school, the news, here, and Hollywood, so please forgive me for sticking my nose where it might not belong. -
Cystic Crypt…Nice Post. :wink:
-
“sometimes your guest is me, the Crypt.”
Ha, I knew that religious banther had to come from somewhere :wink:
BTW, I enjoyed reading your previous post, it was very true to life. (Poor Christians… :cry: )“The majority does rule in America, but within certain limits.”
I agree. That’s why we are endowed with certain “inalienable rights” that cannot be taken away. However, you’ll be hard pressed to find “separation of church and state” in the Constitution as opposed to Freedom of Speech. But just as a question, if this ruling does stick, what happens now? What if in disgust, I now recite the Pledge every single day? (as opposed to probably only once a week) What is my punishment for not adhering to the code and expressing my own freedom of expression? What “inalienable right” are the authorities now taking away?
“While most Americans are christians, it is not a christian nation and should not be veiwed as one.”
In the eyes of the world, it probably is viewed as one (well maybe in the eyes of FinsterniS [j/k] :wink:). And I’m not seeing how removing the words “under God” insure 100% that this is a Christian God we’re talking about. How do we know it’s not Zeus? Or Vishnu? Or Bokonon? I think we ourselves are responsible for making the biggest assumption of all.
But for a different (though related) subject matter, the Courts ruled in favor of vouchers used to attend private schools. What do you guys think of this? Personally, I’m pro-vouchers, though if can convince me otherwise, I will change my position. :wink: Many people believe that it is sending kids to attend Religious schools (which most private schools happen to be). However, the money is given for the student who has the Freedom to decide what school to attend. This is not money given to the religious school itself.
-
“While most Americans are christians, it is not a christian nation and should not be veiwed as one.”
Maybe not a “christian nation”, but at least a very religious nation with a very judeo-christian sence of moral.
UNITED STATES
- 265.300.000 inhab.
- Usual statistics: 22-26% Catholic, 16% Baptist, 6% Methodist, 4% Lutheran, 2% Presbyterian but in total the Protestants
are the 31.8-40%, 1.5-1.9% Orthodox, 2.6% Jewish… The usual self adscriptions are: 56% Protestant ( 6% So. Baptists,
10% other Baptists, 9% Methodists, 6% Lutherans, 3% Pentacostalists, 3% Presbyterians, 2% Episcopalians, 1% Church
of Christ and an 11% in none of these); 26% as Catholics; 1% is Mormon; and according to The 1998 Britannica Book of
Year, the non-christians are: 8.8% Nonreligionists, 2% Muslim (with Black Muslims), 2% Jewish, 0.7% Buddhists, 0.3%
Hindus, 0.3% Atheists, 1% other religionists. - Data: Appeared in ABC news, to teach creationism and evolutionism in the school: 68% yes - 29% not; to teach creationism
without evolutionism: 40% yes - 55% not; the human race was created by god 10.000 years ago maximum 44%, created with
evolution but with the providence too 39%, evolution only without god 10%. Poll of Gallup '99 shows a 33% of believers in a
literal Bible. In a survey among catholics in 1995, the 43% accept the abortion but in case of ill or violation, other 15% never;
the 76-82% a favour of the use of anticonceptives; but among all the americans (according to a poll appeared in the CBS 1995):
the 46% think that is assassination, but the half of those thinks that sometimes is necessary. Continuing with the catholics,
the 57% practice weekly and the 28% once per month min., the 83% believe that the bread and the wine of the mass is the
Body of Christ. In the Harris poll '95, 95% believe in god, 90% in the heaven, 80% in the divinity of Christ, 89% in the after life,
87% in miracles, 85% in the virginity of Mary. In another survey, among the believers in the heaven (81%), the 5% think that
after his/her death will be the end, the 6% will be the reincarnation. In a poll by the Yankelovich Partners '97, the 25% of all
americans believe in some degree in the reincarnation. Gallup '95 and '96: White protestants whom in the self description is
fundamentalist is 24% ( 28% vote republican, 20% democrat); your religion is important in your life ?, 60% all (50% men -
68% women - 48% in 18/29 age - 58% in 30/49 age - 67% in 50/64 age - 73% in more of 65 age. In the self ascription: 28%
Catholic, 0.4% Orthodox, 57% Protestants (where 19% Baptists, 6% Lutherans, 9% Methodists) = 85.4% Christians, 0.5%
Islamic, 1.8% Jewish, 9% None. Nowadays, the 40% is weekly practicing and the 89% believe in god (1997). In New York,
19% bisexual or homosexual, another cipher: By 500.000 US heroinomans, the half dwell here. USA: The 13% of the
matrimonies finish in divorce. According to Andrew Greeley, 57% believe in hell, 70% in the heaven, 80% in the other life.
Gallup '98 believing in a literal Bible 38%, inspired 45.6%, without god 13%; in others polls, they show to us that in 1998-99
the 96% believe in god. About the reincarnation vary depending the source in: 35% (CNN in '90), 20% in 1991, 20% (Gallup’98),
30% (Luitz Research, in George 12/96). According to certain calculus there are 4.000.000 Freemasons.
The Harris Polls have some different results surely because of the way to ask; the number 52 in September 2000, at the
question of beliefs was “Please say for each one if you believe in it, or not” (Negative or positive answers only) give us these
results: God 94% - Heaven 89% - Resurection of Christ 86% - Survival of the soul after death 86% - Miracles 85% - Virginity
of Mary 82% - Devil 72% - Hell 73% - Ghosts 39% - Reincarnation 20%.
If we go deeply into the american beliefs, the journalist Russell Chandler (Los Angeles Times) reports that a 40% believe
that god is all and all is god (pantheism); Gallup reports that the majority of the Christians in America believe in biblical
Trinity; and other polls report that a 62% believe the Holy Spirit do not represents a personal entity but a divine manifestation
of power… The calculations let us a big portion of people that put on the same level God and a fly (all is god), in a TRInity
composted by two persons, etc. ( ! ). - Abortions: 22.9 (1996), representing to 1.365.700 babies / Ratio: 25.9%. The 78% of the women that “aborted” their children
were unmarried. - New statistic: 2% Atheist; 4% Agnostic; 2% Pseudoatheist in ISSP98; 14% Deist; 5% Jewish and others; 4% Christian
deist; 21% Neodoukhobor; 8-0% Pseudochristian; 40-48% Christian (26% Protestant; 13% Catholic). Approximate
valuation.
So if we look at the non-religious, what we often call freethinker (Agnostic & Atheist).
US = ~8%
Canada = ~18%France = ~50%
Germany = ~44%
UK = ~40%Compare to France, Germany and the UK, we can consider North-america to be highly religious.
Suggested Topics
