Did you know? (seperation of church and state) [Archive] - Page 2

Jocabia

14-06-2005, 20:01

Actually, it wasn’t a personal attack at all. I merely pointed out what you are doing. I was suggesting that you're irrational because you are stereotying and judging all evangelical Christians as not really being followers of Jesus like you are. You're irrational because you're making the claim that if other people don't practice their religion in the same way that you practice it that somehow this makes you and your ideas superior to theirs. I always thought of that kind of thinking as prejudice myself. What do you call it in your world?

First, the personal attack was clearly explained. You didn't point out anything that was true. You didn't say what I was doing. You speculated on my upbringing and on my feelings about religion in general. And you speculated badly. You really should read what you write. What I was doing? When was I doing "you've come to the conclusion that religious ideas and practices are backwards and or a hindrance to modern man and modern societies ability to get to your imagined ideal." Where did I ever claim that religious ideas and practices are backwards? Unless you claim that your ideals are the only ideals, because I do think yours are backwards. Where did I claim they are a hindrance to modern man and modern societies ability to get to my imagined ideal? Quotes please. Oh, I see, unless I allow religious symbols to be displayed on government lands then I can't possibly believe in the Bible. Because we all know the Bible says "Thou shalt force other people to pay for your acts of faith because God will not allow thou into heaven unless you have one nativity scene displayed on government property in ever city to celebrate a holiday stolen from heathens." What was I thinking? How could I go against the clear and obvious purpose of the Bible? Or maybe I read it, and I take the Bible to trump any claims by people who are running around trying to force people to believe as they do.

Second, opinion is not automatically prejudice. I believe in the teachings of Christ and they are clear. So do fudamental evangelical Christians. Okay, now here's where it's okay to stereotype, call me crazy but I think fundamental evangelical Christians EVANGELIZE, thus the name. Evangelizing is contrary to the teachings of Christ, which I quoted. Also, I noticed that originally we both used the word fundamentalist (relating to a particularly sect of belief) and now you removed it. Another bait and switch maneuver I see.

Now, perhaps you need to explore the definition of prejudice. Calling me prejudiced for saying that I believe evangelists evangelize and that I believe envangelizing is contrary to the teachings of Christ, is like saying I'm prejudiced for saying that Nazis believe in a form of socialism (Nazi is short for national socialist). The only possible definition that could hold is the last one and since I clearly explained my rationale using a book you claim to hold as the word of God, it can hardly be called irrational by you.

Prejudice -
1a.An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b.A preconceived preference or idea.
2.The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3.Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4.Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

EDIT: Oh and the difference between my beliefs and the fundamentalists is that I don't want to force you to listen to my beliefs or to affect the laws of the country to take away the rights of people who believe differently than I. I didn't jump on here and start spouting my beliefs until you made up what my beliefs are and I had to place my own beliefs out their to dispute your ridiculous claims. Now read the definition of prejudice and let's see who better fits the definition. The person who used a basic tenet (so basice as to be part of the name) of a practice to suggest he disagrees with the practice (me) or the person who made up what another person believes to suggest what they believe is based in bias and hatred rather than a true assessment of the facts (you). I'll give you a hint - pssst... it's not me.

Ph33rdom

14-06-2005, 20:45

Okay, now here's where it's okay to stereotype, call me crazy but I think fundamental evangelical Christians EVANGELIZE, thus the name. Evangelizing is contrary to the teachings of Christ, which I quoted.

3.Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4.Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

EDIT: Oh and the difference between my beliefs and the fundamentalists is that I don't want to force you to listen to my beliefs or to affect the laws of the country to take away the rights of people who believe differently than I.

Sure you do, and isn't it Funny how I didn't even have to look for other posts to prove that you are trying to do against them exactly what you accuse them of doing to others... You're trying to shut them up and telling them that they aren't allowed to practice their beliefs in public. In fact, you say they aren't even Christians, or they are 'contrary' to being 'your' kind of Christian anyway.

Sweet irony.

Jocabia

14-06-2005, 20:56

Sure you do, and isn't it Funny how I didn't even have to look for other posts to prove that you are trying to do against them exactly what you accuse them of doing to others... You're trying to shut them up and telling them that they aren't allowed to practice their beliefs in public. In fact, you say they aren't even Christians, or they are 'contrary' to being 'your' kind of Christian anyway.

Sweet irony.

Where did I say they couldn't practice their beliefs in public? I said it shouldn't subsidized by government resources/money, i.e. my money. I love how you can't dispute what I have to say without changing it into something else. They can use television time (Billy Graham) if they pay for it (though I feel it is exactly what Jesus wouldn't have wanted). They can display whatever they like at their homes and on Church ground or other private property. Where did I say they couldn't? How about we play this game where we only talk about the things we put into print rather than making things up like you've been doing about me, Cat, the ACLU, etc. Oh, but wait, then you wouldn't really have anything to say would you. What fun would that be? Nevermind, carry on.

The only remotely (and I mean very remotely) accurate about your post is that I said they should read and follow the book they claim is the word of God. I didn't even say they aren't Christians. I said they were hypocrites (straight out of the text of the Bible). Oh, and just about everyone has a slightly different belief than me and thus wouldn't be 'my' kind of Christian. I, however, think spreading hate and trying to influence the law to suppress freedom of thought is contrary to what Jesus wanted and what the Constitution protects. And, now hold on to your hat... I think it damages Christianity to make the belief system appear to be so intolerant and hateful (much like flying planes into buildings hurt Islam). But again, nice try on the personal attacks.

When's your birthday because you can't wait till Christmas to get a dictionary? It's not irony to make things up that are contrary to what I said and then claim they are contrary to what I said.

Irony -
1a.The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
bAn expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
cA literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.
2Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
3An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.

Ph33rdom

14-06-2005, 21:09

*snip*

So now, with your broad sweep of the brush, they are all hatemongering hypocrites? nice.

As to how you've determined that I have endorsed that only Christian heritage should be preserved and honored in our public spaces is beyond me. I've mentioned by name; Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Navaho (and meaning all Native American in general) and Muslims as well. Why then do you now (again) accuse me of trying to get the government to endorse only my brand of religion alone?

Ah, yes, I temporarily forgot about the strawman you guys feel you must build up about the people that disagree with the strict ACLU's interpretation of the separation of Church and State and how that strawman is to be, 'that they (me in this case), must be an uneducated fundamentalist Christian wacko and hatemonger...' very good, right.

Jocabia

14-06-2005, 21:25

Ph33rdom,

Thank you for making your agenda so clear. You're not trying to protect everyone's freedom of religion or of thought. You're concern is to allow evangelizing with public resources and funds.

Jocabia

14-06-2005, 21:37

So now, with your broad sweep of the brush, they are all hatemongering hypocrites? nice.

As to how you've determined that I have endorsed that only Christian heritage should be preserved and honored in our public spaces is beyond me. I've mentioned by name; Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, Navaho (and meaning all Native American in general) and Muslims as well. Why then do you now (again) accuse me of trying to get the government to endorse only my brand of religion alone?

Ah, yes, I temporarily forgot about the strawman you guys feel you must build up about the people that disagree with the strict ACLU's interpretation of the separation of Church and State and how that strawman is to be, 'that they (me in this case), must be an uneducated fundamentalist Christian wacko and hatemonger...' very good, right.

Unless you feel that atheists should also be protected than yes, I disagree with you. What about my religious belief that says that religion and government shouldn't mix? Are you proposing protecting that?

And yes, I paint fundamentalist Christians as hateful just as I do fundamentalist Muslims as the term is used to apply to the extreme sect of Christians that want to oppress or in some cases destroy people who believe differently then they do. Fundamentalists are quite vocal about their hate for homosexuals (and try to prevent them from having legal unions and equal rights under the law). They are quite vocal about their disdain for scientific teachings that they feel go against the teachings of the Bible and wish for biblical teachings like Intelligent Design to be taught in schools. These ideas are about suppression of freedom of thought using government and it's hateful.

Come on, let's get into the nuts and bolts of your agenda. Do you support the teaching of ID? Do you think homosexuals should be permitted to form unions under the law and receive the same rights and benefits under the law that any other couple would? Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt? Should sodomy still be against the law? Should God be mentioned in the pledge? Should God be on our money? Should I just assume you won't answer these questions because they call your agenda right out on the table?

EDIT: I didn't call them hypocrites. The bible did. "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men"

Jocabia

14-06-2005, 23:46

Interesting. Not interested in answering those questions and showing your personal bias towards included what you believe to be Biblical law in secular law? Hmmmm...

Whispering Legs

14-06-2005, 23:55

Really? Things have changed in ten years since I was in school, then. I was permitted to pray silently any time I wanted; verbal prayer had to wait until after school. After school, I was permitted to organize a group of like-minded Christians, use a classroom to hold a Bible study and pray until the school was going to be closed for the night, if I so chose.

I'm not sure how I see this as being any different. If the Muslim students weren't forced to face a specific direction, they could stay in their classrooms to play. Their directive, that they must face East (I believe) would be disruptive to a normal classroom, hence they leave their classes.

I can assure you, most teachers would rather have these students leave, pray and return than remaining in the classroom and disrupting it. Certainly their leaving and returning is disruptive, but probably not as disruptive as the act of praying would be...

Is that what happens, or am I misunderstanding?

So why can't a Buddhist, or Christian, or anyone else (Scientologist?) do their thing in a room set aside for them (or for everyone)?

I'll say it again - either everyone gets to pray - in groups if they like - or no one prays. Let's be consistent, and not give one religion a special "out".

Chaos Experiment

15-06-2005, 00:12

Guys, you don't have to defend the situation with the Muslims being given special consideration. No one is perfect, even organizations like the ACLU make the occasional mistake.

Whispering Legs

15-06-2005, 00:16

Guys, you don't have to defend the situation with the Muslims being given special consideration. No one is perfect, even organizations like the ACLU make the occasional mistake.

In this case, it's not the ACLU making the mistake. It's local government.

The ACLU is ignoring it.

Chaos Experiment

15-06-2005, 00:19

In this case, it's not the ACLU making the mistake. It's local government.

The ACLU is ignoring it.

I know, that's what I was trying to say. Just because they're ignoring doesn't mean you have to defend it.

Whispering Legs

15-06-2005, 00:36

I know, that's what I was trying to say. Just because they're ignoring doesn't mean you have to defend it.
I'm not the one defending the policy. I think it's inherently unfair.

The ACLU is an organization with limited resources. They must, by definition, pick and choose their battles.

I do believe that they are biased in making those choices.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 00:50

Interesting. Not interested in answering those questions and showing your personal bias towards included what you believe to be Biblical law in secular law? Hmmmm...

I find it interesting that you think my position on other unrelated issues may somehow effect or can change what I've said here? Perhaps you can attack me there? Do you have your row of scarecrow-strawmen all lined up and ready to go yet? Well, if so, sorry to disappoint you.

As to how you can justify your little litmus test (s) of acceptable social positions of the various political and community issues you’ve mentioned, I do not know, but you have show yourself to be unreasoning and unforgiving, unsympathetic and callous, with an altogether lack of concern for those that may disagree with you. It appears that it is you and your ideologue of listing unforgivable positions on social issues, standings that must surely seem unimaginably indefensible to you, that is really the advocate of oligarchy here, not me as you accuse. But in the end, that's your loss, not mine, I see no reason to concern myself with them.

There is however, nearly a hundred million Americans that you have dismissed out of hand, people that you would shut out of the political processes entirely if you had your way. Good for you, that's the spirit of a nice ACLU puppy dog, advocating the party line come hell or high water, damn the opponents of reason!

Jocabia

15-06-2005, 01:05

I find it interesting that you think my position on other unrelated issues may somehow effect or can change what I've said here? Perhaps you can attack me there? Do you have your row of scarcrow-strawmen all lined up and ready to go yet? Well, if so, sorry to disappoint you.

As to how you can justify your little litmus test (s) of acceptable social positions of the various political and community issues you’ve mentioned, you have show yourself to be unreasoning and unforgiving, unsympathetic and callous, with an altogether lack of concern for those that may disagree with you. It appears that it is you and your ideologue of listing unforgivable positions on social issues, standings that must surely seem unimaginably indefensible to you. But in the end, that's your loss, not mine, I see no reason to concern myself with them.

There is however, nearly a hundred million Americans that you have dismissed out of hand, people that you would shut out of the political processes entirely if you had your way. Good for you, that's the spirit of a nice ACLU puppy dog, advocating the party line come hell or high water, damn the opponents of reason!

The point is you're not the defender of freedom you pretend to be. You don't want freedom for all. You want freedom for 'your people' to be able to influence the government and influence the government using government resources and money. You've made that clear. Thanks for playing.

A hundread million Americans are fundamentalist evangelical Christians? Really? Can you point me to the census figures on that. I think I could walk around all day and not find one.

And again, nice try. Where did I say they should be shut out of the political process? You can't debate on the points I myself make so you make some up. Also, as Cat will happily note for you, we disagree on the ACLU, so nice try there. They (fundamentalists) have every right to do anything they want so long as they don't violate my rights as given to me by the US Constitution. They are free to vote their conscience and do as they please within the bounds of the law.

It's been fun watch you try to keep that sheep suit hiding your big wolf snout. I thoroughly enjoyed the few times you simply couldn't help admitting that you don't like freedom of religion if it protects those who don't wish to be a part of any religion. It falls right in line with that biblical phrase "if they won't worship the Lord, our God of their own free will then make it law". Oh, wait, the Bible says no such thing. Well, then where exactly are you getting your direction from my good Christian friend?

You simply cannot in any way show how placing God on the dollar protects your religious freedom. You simply cannot in any way show how placing religious symbols on government property or buildings protects your religious freedom. More importantly you can't show how it protects the freedom of others.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 02:00

90% of you last post is balderdash... but here goes::
The point is you're not the defender of freedom you pretend to be. You don't want freedom for all. You want freedom for 'your people' to be able to influence the government and influence the government using government resources and money...
Hum, no, I haven't said anything like that anywhere. You really like painting your own targets to score bull’s-eyes don't you?

At least you got this accusation right…

You simply cannot in any way show how placing God on the dollar protects your religious freedom. You simply cannot in any way show how placing religious symbols on government property or buildings protects your religious freedom. More importantly you can't show how it protects the freedom of others.

I see no particular reason that Atheism should be the only belief system endorsed by the government of the United States. Now, if it was all brand new, and there were no existing structures and rules etc., then maybe you would have a point. However, it’s too late now. To now go back and try to remove all mention of religion, any religion, from the public properties in all of the communities of America, would be a drastic and powerful message, the message that ONLY atheism has any right to government support…

Here’s your one hundred million, what a silly thing to challenge. Now, add all of the religious people together, of every faith… The numbers are huge, they have a right to ask that their views be represented by their governments, both local and national.

The findings, weighted to be representative of the 208 million U.S. adult population, include national and state-by-state examinations of religious identification in relation to racial/ethnic identification, education, age, marital status, voter registration status and political party preference.

ARIS 2001 is closely modeled on The Graduate Center's 1990 National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI), permitting many comparisons:

-- Catholic adults increased from 46.0 million to nearly 50.8 million, but their proportion in the population fell by nearly two percentage points.

-- Although Protestant and other non-Catholic denominations remain the majority, with more than 105.4 million adult adherents, their proportion slid sharply from 60% to 52%.

-- 2.8 million adults give their religion as Jewish, down from about 3.1 million in 1990. Another 2.5 million, who say they have no religion or identify with another religion, are of Jewish parentage, were raised Jewish or consider themselves Jewish.

-- The number of adults who identify with a non-Christian religion rose sharply, from about 5.8 million to 7.7 million. However, their proportion remains small, 3.7% up from 3.3% in 1990.

-- Muslim/Islamic adults total 1.1 million -- nearly double the number in 1990. Those identifying their race as black are 23% of the group; the others overwhelmingly identify as white or Asian.

One of the most striking 1990-2001 comparisons is the more than doubling of the adult population identifying with no religion, from 14.3 million (8%) in 1990 to the current 29.4 million (14.1%). The 1990 figure may be downwardly biased due to a slight change in the wording of the key survey question in 2001. In seeking a more accurate measure of identification, the clause "if any" was added this year to the question, "What religion do you identify with?" The prior wording may have subtly prompted respondents to name some religion.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/press_information/current_releases/october_2001_aris.htm

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/introduction.htm

I don’t see any reason to mandate that more than half the American population ‘has’ to surrender their representation in their government and civil and criminal law, both local and national, they shouldn't be forced to surrender their world view to a purely sectarian world view as you demand.

Dempublicents1

15-06-2005, 03:34

I see no particular reason that Atheism should be the only belief system endorsed by the government of the United States.

Not advocating any religion does not equate to advocating the absence of religion.

Now, if it was all brand new, and there were no existing structures and rules etc., then maybe you would have a point. However, it’s too late now.

Really? You mean the things like "under God" in the pledge? You know, the extra addition that was added in the '50's specifically to single out atheists. You mean the addition put there specifically to discriminate against those "pinko atheist commies"?

Hmm, yeah, long standing tradition that. Just like the flags changed in the '50's specifically to intimidate blacks.

I don’t see any reason to mandate that more than half the American population ‘has’ to surrender their representation in their government and civil and criminal law, both local and national, they shouldn't be forced to surrender their world view to a purely sectarian world view as you demand.

You have yet to show how they would be doing any such thing. How does not asking the government to specifically endorse your particular religious viewpoint remove your representation in government?

I particularly like the color purple. However, I would not ask that my senators do the same, or that the flag or money be purple. Does this mean that I have no representation in government?

Geecka

15-06-2005, 03:44

So why can't a Buddhist, or Christian, or anyone else (Scientologist?) do their thing in a room set aside for them (or for everyone)?

I guess they could -- if they were required by their religion to do something disruptive to the class. If the Pentecostal kids want to go speak in tongues in that room they ought to be allowed, I suppose. But that's not done on a schedule, and it could far more easily be abused...

I guess my thought was that just making special accomodations doesn't imply support of the religion. During lent even most public school cafeterias serve seafood (or other meatless meals) on Friday. That doesn't imply endorsement of the Catholic faith, just acknowledgement that there are students who cannot eat meat. I guess I was equating providing the Muslim children a classroom for prayers to the cafeteria serving fish sandwiches on Friday.

I'll say it again - either everyone gets to pray - in groups if they like - or no one prays. Let's be consistent, and not give one religion a special "out".
This already happens. The accomodation of one religion's schedule doesn't to me imply endorsement. I suppose that if it does to someone else we should err on the side of making the same accomodation for other relgions; religions don't actually require that same accomodation...

Geecka

15-06-2005, 03:49

. . .but you have show yourself to be unreasoning and unforgiving, unsympathetic and callous, with an altogether lack of concern for those that may disagree with you. It appears that it is you and your ideologue of listing unforgivable positions on social issues, standings that must surely seem unimaginably indefensible to you, that is really the advocate of oligarchy here, not me as you accuse. But in the end, that's your loss, not mine, I see no reason to concern myself with them.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Geecka

15-06-2005, 03:52

Not advocating any religion does not equate to advocating the absence of religion.

I fear we can say this until we're blue in the face. We will remain ignored. :headbang:

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 03:55

Before I start, *wave* Hi Dem : )

Okay, back to work …

Not advocating any religion does not equate to advocating the absence of religion.

Removing existing icons, idols, symbols and all religious reference IS a sign of advocating one side as right and the other as wrong. How could it not be?

Really? You mean the things like "under God" in the pledge? You know, the extra addition that was added in the '50's specifically to single out atheists. You mean the addition put there specifically to discriminate against those "pinko atheist commies"?

Yup, exactly. In a world that had to decide between the cold hard sectarian atheism and the US... America decided to show the world that they believe in a higher power, that the end all of existence was not government nor it's own secular power. Besides, How old does something have to be before it is heritage? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred? I think it being about 20% of the entire age of the US itself, it’s old enough at two generations to be considered a heirloom of our heritage as a nation.

Hmm, yeah, long standing tradition that. Just like the flags changed in the '50's specifically to intimidate blacks. State issues are not the topic here, is your point that people were stupid then? Generally, across the board, they have nothing to offer? If not, then why bring this into the discussion of the separation of Church and State and how that is enforced and what it means?

You have yet to show how they would be doing any such thing. How does not asking the government to specifically endorse your particular religious viewpoint remove your representation in government?
Because the only viewpoint being expressed (by your examples, not the entire thread of topics here) is a generic belief in a higher power, a supreme being beyond the control and above the government. In the view of a believer, do they have the right to live in a country, under a government that recognizes it’s own limits, that confesses a belief in a power above and beyond itself? (EDIT: side note: in this entire thread I've defended the rights of all the recognized religions in the communities, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish and native American etc., but I have not defended the right of the non-religious to remove the acknowledgment of the religious sections of the communities)

They have a choice, they can choose to live under a government that acknowledges and shares their outlook on life and sees the world with a God, or a government that does not. And you suggest that they don’t have this right, this choice, that instead and against their wishes, their government HAS to be the end all of existence as far as it concerns itself the entire enchilada that goes with that, that atheism is the only outlook that can produce and maintain a fair and just government for everyone. Why?

Geecka

15-06-2005, 04:26

a government that acknowledges and shares their outlook on life and sees the world with a God

Isn't this the definition of a theocracy?

the·oc·ra·cy Audio pronunciation of "theocracy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

In no way does this mean the government actively denies the existence of any god. It just means that our government refuses honor or submit itself to that god's authority. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand. :headbang:

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 04:58

In no way does this mean the government denies the existence of any god. It just means that our government refuses to submit itself to that god's authority. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand. :headbang:

But by this you then insist that the people of ‘your’ country then are FORCED to live under the rule of a government that does not share, nor acknowledge, their belief in a supreme being above their own government and meaning of life (and all that is worthwhile and just in their eyes). The very belief, or non-belief, in the existence of a supreme being is principal in deciding our own liberties, and yet, you would take this right away from them. The right to live in a country with a government that acknowledges these sacred principles.

In the end, I would call it a democracy. Only a democracy in a country that is populated by people that mostly agree in the basic concept that there is a supreme being that has endowed them with their inalienable rights...

Doubt me that they mostly agree?

How about we list the multitude of the state preambles, shall we?

AL - We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:

AK - We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska.

AR - We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government, for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to our selves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

AZ - We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

CA - We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

CO - We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the "State of Colorado".

CT - The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government; do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors; hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.

DE - Section 1. Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted;

FL - We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.

GA - To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we, the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

HI - We, the people of the State of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage, reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with an understanding heart toward all peoples of the earth do hereby ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawaii.

ID - We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.

IA - WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuance of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the STATE OF IOWA, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows:

IL - We, the people of the State of Illinois - grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors -

IN - TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.

KS - We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges, in order to insure the full enjoyment of our rights as American citizens, do ordain and establish this constitution of the state of Kansas, with the following boundaries, to wit:

KY - We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

LA - We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property;

MA - We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence, or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other, and of forming a new constitution of civil government for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design,

MD - We the people of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and
religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:

ME - Objects of government. We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment,

MI - We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.

MO - We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the State.

MN- We, the people of the state of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution

MS - We, the people of Mississippi, in Convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

MT - We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.

NC - We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity,

ND - We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.

NE - We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, do ordain and establish the following declaration of rights and frame of government, as the Constitution of the State of Nebraska.

NH – “Morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as a knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the DEITY, and of public instruction in morality and religion;”

NJ - We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

NM - We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a state government, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

NY - WE, THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

NV - We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this CONSTITUTION.

OH - We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God
for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.

OK - Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

OR - We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution. no God here! OMGosh, a state of heathens! LOL

PA - WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

RI - We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.

SC – South Carolina’s 1778 Constitution said this:
Ist. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.
2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.
3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion.
4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
5th That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth. (This was the old one~ Even I think it went way too far :)

SD - We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution for the state of South Dakota.

TN – I can’t find anything for Tennessee (surprisingly to me, but they have a huge preamble)

TX - Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

UT - Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION.

VA - A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

VT - WHEREAS, all government ought to be instituted and supported, for the security and protection of the community, as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man;

WA - We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the
Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this
constitution.

WI - We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this Constitution.

WV – Found nothing about God in the West Virginia Constitution…

WY - We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 05:52

There is however, nearly a hundred million Americans that you have dismissed out of hand, people that you would shut out of the political processes entirely if you had your way. Good for you, that's the spirit of a nice ACLU puppy dog, advocating the party line come hell or high water, damn the opponents of reason!

I smell the victim argument again. You won't let us preach to anybody we want; whenever we want so you are oppressing us.

People can vote. You aren't denied the right to vote. Trying to create a theocracy is what you are denied.

Goverment by Religion is the most vile of arrangements. Not everybody is a Christian and to expect them to act like one would be the same as expecting you to act as a Muslim.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 06:02

I see no particular reason that Atheism should be the only belief system endorsed by the government of the United States.

:rolleyes: The seperation of church and state has nothing to do with athiesm.

Religious Neutral is what the goverment is supposed to be.

Plastering Christian stuff on goverment buildings while denying others is an endorsement of Christianity. This violates the constitution.

The numbers are huge, they have a right to ask that their views be represented by their governments, both local and national.

So. Numbers doesn't mean anything in our setup. The one reason we have not had the Religious violence that Europe had is because of the establishment clause.

If you want a theocracy, start a movement to end the Constitution.

[indent] The findings, weighted to be representative of the 208 million U.S. adult population, include national and state-by-state examinations of religious identification in relation to racial/ethnic identification, education, age, marital status, voter registration status and political party preference.

Eww statistics. Everybody knows they are done without and agenda :rolleyes: Everybody identifies themselves to a religion. Practicing it is something else. A large part of France is Catholic. The numbers actively attending Church are significantly reduced.

I don’t see any reason to mandate that more than half the American population ‘has’ to surrender their representation in their government and civil and criminal law, both local and national, they shouldn't be forced to surrender their world view to a purely sectarian world view as you demand.

Sorry but to expect the law to follow Christian Morality? Nope not going to happen. The Constitution forbids it.

You want to see this country fall; create a christian theocracy.

Rambozo

15-06-2005, 06:06

Just because they did it doesn't mean they are right.

Just because non-Christians are a minority in the U.S. doesn't mean they should be trampled on and have religion forced on them.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 06:14

Goverment by Religion is the most vile of arrangements. Not everybody is a Christian and to expect them to act like one would be the same as expecting you to act as a Muslim.

Are you suggesting that muslims are somehow less than everybody else? Whats wrong with acting like a muslim if you are a law abiding, lover of freedom, send your kids to college, Amercian through and through muslim? Are you suggesting that they need to hide their heritage becuase you think it is something of an insult?

Geecka

15-06-2005, 06:20

Are you suggesting that muslims are somehow less than everybody else? Whats wrong with acting like a muslim if you are a law abiding, lover of freedom, send your kids to college, Amercian through and through muslim? Are you suggesting that they need to hide their heritage becuase you think it is something of an insult?

That's not what is being said, and you know it.

It's ridiculous to expect our laws to be based on Christianity. It forces citizens to observe the actions of Christianity. The referenced example was proposed to illustrate the fact that a Christian would not want to be forced to follow laws based on the Muslim religion. For that reason, we cannot create laws based solely on our religious beliefs.

Pretending to miss the point in order to avoid answering a direct question isn't becoming.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 06:23

:rolleyes: The seperation of church and state has nothing to do with athiesm.

I totally agree. But neither does it mean that it can't acknowledge the fact that the community believes in a higher power.

Religious Neutral is what the goverment is supposed to be.

Plastering Christian stuff on government buildings while denying others is an endorsement of Christianity. This violates the constitution.

And putting a bear and an eagle is an endorsement of Navaho and Apache (among others) native American religion. And you know what? I don't have a problem with them either, they and their beliefs are just as American as mine are.

So. Numbers doesn't mean anything in our setup. The one reason we have not had the Religious violence that Europe had is because of the establishment clause.

Tha'ts kind of a stretch now isn't it?

If you want a theocracy, start a movement to end the Constitution.

Eww statistics. Everybody knows they are done without and agenda :rolleyes: Everybody identifies themselves to a religion. Practicing it is something else. A large part of France is Catholic. The numbers actively attending Church are significantly reduced.

Sorry but to expect the law to follow Christian Morality? Nope not going to happen. The Constitution forbids it.

You want to see this country fall; create a Christian theocracy.

Dude, either you can't read or you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm defending the government system that has gotten us to this point, to the point that you can have the ideals that you have.

I'm only fighting because some people and organizations in this country think that it's time to throw away our past and our history and move one, that we are now suddenly so much smarter and so much better off, that the very principles of freedom OF religion is not good enough anymore. I disagree.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 06:27

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 06:32

That's not what is being said, and you know it.

It's ridiculous to expect our laws to be based on Christianity. It forces citizens to observe the actions of Christianity. The referenced example was proposed to illustrate the fact that a Christian would not want to be forced to follow laws based on the Muslim religion. For that reason, we cannot create laws based solely on our religious beliefs.

Pretending to miss the point in order to avoid answering a direct question isn't becoming.

Pretending that there is no God at all, and pretending that we aren't what we are, isn't exactly logical either, now is it?

Perhaps we should pretend that we don’t believe in a higher being, a supreme entity, and for what purpose? What do we gain to say, hey, we are the end all of existence, but God forbid anyone should be offended.

Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Confusionist, Native American, Wiccan etc., all of these people are expected to pretend like they don’t believe in the higher power? All of them have to pretend that a secularist/humanist American government that does not acknowledge any power higher than itself as the supreme power of the planet? Just because the Atheist say they are offended that we acknowledge the presence of God on our money and our mottos and public spaces? You’ve been duped in you think I’m the one trying to change it, I’m trying to defend what’s gotten us this far…

Venus Mound

15-06-2005, 06:34

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 06:36

You think I am going to take the bait.

If it's that simple, then convert to Islam.

You would not be quite if you started seeing Qu'ran writings in the court rooms and appearing on state buildings.

I've read the Qur'an , from right to left. Outside of the fact that it says Jesus didn't die on the cross for our sins I don't have much of a problem with it.

However, the topic here is, community standard. I suggest that if I moved in to a Muslim community in America, I would have no right to walk over to the local civic center and then protest that there might be a quote by Mohammed on the wall. I can accept their views and community effort, even in America.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 06:40

I totally agree. But neither does it mean that it can't acknowledge the fact that the community believes in a higher power.

The fact that the community has churches/etc shows the goverment allows them to belive in a higher power.

And putting a bear and an eagle is an endorsement of Navaho and Apache (among others) native American religion. And you know what? I don't have a problem with them either, they and their beliefs are just as American as mine are.

And that is ok. The fact there isn't an endorsement of one Religion over another....

Tha'ts kind of a stretch now isn't it?

Not at all. People were killed for simply being protestant, Catholic, Muslim.....

Dude, either you can't read or you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm defending the government system that has gotten us to this point, to the point that you can have the ideals that you have.

I'm only fighting because some people and organizations in this country think that it's time to throw away our past and our history and move one, that we are now suddenly so much smarter and so much better off, that the very principles of freedom OF religion is not good enough anymore. I disagree.

No you are not. You are quietly advocating Christianity. You know full well your Natives symbols is a weak example since they don't appear everywhere. They won't appear on our money, they will rarely if ever appear on goverment buildings. Defending their right simply gives you the ability to keep your symbols and icons.

There is no doubt that the people of the past were Religious but saying this country was founded for Christians is wrong.

How is removing endorsements of Christianity destroying our past. It is following the past. The treaty of Tripoli and the establishment clause.

Such removal from goverment properties does not impede your ability to worship.

If you feel you have to be reminded about God by seeing icons and sayings everywhere, then the problem is probably your faith and not the goverment.

Finally, you have freedom of Religion. You don't see the goverment outlawing Churches now do you.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 06:40

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 06:47

[QUOTE=Ph33rdom]CA - We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
QUOTE]

I won't speak for the other states. But come on. How many of the inhabitants of California even knew the Federal Constitution at the time?

You also left out :

Sec. 4. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State: and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience, hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.

Not exactly an endorsement of Christianity now is it.....

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 06:52

The fact that the community has churches/etc shows the goverment allows them to belive in a higher power.

And that is ok. The fact there isn't an endorsement of one Religion over another....

Not at all. People were killed for simply being protestant, Catholic, Muslim.....

No you are not. You are quietly advocating Christianity. You know full well your Natives symbols is a weak example since they don't appear everywhere. They won't appear on our money, they will rarely if ever appear on goverment buildings. Defending their right simply gives you the ability to keep your symbols and icons.

There is no doubt that the people of the past were Religious but saying this country was founded for Christians is wrong. [

How is removing endorsements of Christianity destroying our past. It is following the past. The treaty of Tripoli and the establishment clause.

Such removal from goverment properties does not impede your ability to worship.

If you feel you have to be reminded about God by seeing icons and sayings everywhere, then the problem is probably your faith and not the goverment.

Finally, you have freedom of Religion. You don't see the goverment outlawing Churches now do you.

It seems you are living in a world of make believe. Removing, scratching off, painting over, digging out and trucking off, the heritage our ancestors left for us means, changing it.

Sometimes that is necessary, sometimes they did things that we have decided to leave behind us, sometimes it is wrong, sometimes it leave behind the reason we are here and puts us in a untenable position.

We, as Americans and people, have a right to be us.

However, I object to what you said about American iconography. Meaning we don’t symbolize the American Indian and their heritage… I won’t even address it, go look at your money again, tell me there isn’t any native American sacred icons on it.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 06:59

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 07:04

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 07:10

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest]

dude, what year do you think the California became a state? For crying out loud they weren’t a bunch of ignoramuses...

FYI: I haven't been defending just Christianity, I've been defending the right of the community to expect their government to acknowledge them, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan or whatnot....

So the average mexican peasant had an undestanding of the Constitution? Wow.

Again the goverment acknowledges all Relgions as you don't see any laws preventing churches/mosques being built.

If we started replacing all Christian Icons with Wiccan you would not be quiet.

It's easy to say you defend the wiccans because they are small in number. For example They would get 1 building with Icons while the Christians get 10000.

Christians would not respect the other Religions. Actually some would but the majority would not.

Theocracy bad!

Relgious Neutral. Repeat it a few times.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 07:22

[QUOTE=Ph33rdom]

So the average mexican peasant had an undestanding of the Constitution? Wow.

As far as I can tell, you are advocating from a position of a complete and utter bigot. In essence, you are saying, If you are smart enough for college or modern social studies courses, than good, but if not, your personal experiences with life can not prepare you for the divine wisdom required to make us consider your opinion.... In other words, everyone except people that agree with you must be complete imbeciles, if we were to listen to you.

However, I on the other hand, believe that people, no matter how smart on your scale, have a right to determine their own spiritual course and should dismiss your concerns when it comes time to vote on the course the nation their country decides to take...

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 07:27

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest]

As far as I can tell, you are advocating from a position of a complete and utter bigot. If you are smart enough for college and or modern social studies courses than good, but if not, your personal experiences with life can not prepare you for the divine wisdom required to make us consider your opinion.... In other words, everyone except people that agree with you must be complete imbeciles, if we were to listen to you.

I on the other hand, believe that people, no matter how smart on your scale, have aright to determine their own spiritual course.

Again Bait I will not take....

Can you prove they even knew the Constitution existed?

What was the literacy rates of the time?

Was there an effort to educate them with federal laws?

It's easy to overlook the points that sink your arguments; isn't it.

But hey. You keep talking spirituality and I will keep talking history.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 07:31

[QUOTE=Ph33rdom]

Again Bait I will not take....

Can you prove they even knew the Constitution existed?

What was the literacy rates of the time?

Was there an effort to educate them with federal laws?

It's easy to overlook the points that sink your arguments; isn't it.

But hey. You keep talking spirituality and I will keep talking history.

Fine, everyone is a moron except you.... Lets see how far that gets you on the campaign trail (pick any party, I don't care).

Calling everyone stupid isn't going to help your cause.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 07:35

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest]

Fine, everyone is a moron except you.... Lets see how far that gets you on the campaign trail (pick any party, I don't care).

Calling everyone stupid isn't going to help your cause.

Ahh the conservative tactic of character attacks when the arugments fail.

You get a :rolleyes:

Whatever dude......

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 07:38

[QUOTE=Ph33rdom]

Ahh the conservative tactic of character attacks when the arugments fail.

You get a :rolleyes:

Whatever dude......

LOL

I character attacked you? LMAO

You character attacked every single American that ever had a vote and didn't have a modern day education to help them determine what they believed in. Whatever, nincompoop.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 07:42

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest]

LOL

I character attacked you? LMAO

You character attacked every single American that ever had a vote and didn't have a modern day education to help them determine what they believed in. Whatever, nincompoop.

Well slick you obviously read something I don't see.

Ok sweety. If you makes you feel good then yes I am a racist. Feel better now? Good.....

Venus Mound

15-06-2005, 07:43

The pilgrims didn't practice Religious Freedom. They had a quasi theocracy. They robbed graves and killed Native Americans for violating Relgious Law.

A great icon to follow. Never mind it's a myth. The English Sepretists (you call them the Pilgrims) had Religious Freedom in Holland.I'm not saying that pilgrims are a good example to follow (and weren't Quakers a- pacifists and b- oppressed in Great Britain?), I'm saying that they existed, and that, besides the handful of Freemasons, Christians did found the U.S. on Christian valuesThe motto after the Revolution was E Pluribus Unam. That motto appeared in 1864.The fact remains that it's the country's motto. Besides, the anthem from which the phrase comes was written in 1814.

Once again: the American State is religious, whether you like it or not. Like FDR said, freedom of religion is being able to "worship God in whatever manner you like." But the existence of God is not disputed.

Note : I'm a secularist, by the way. I'm not agreeing with this fact, simply stating it.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 07:51

I'm not saying that pilgrims are a good example to follow (and weren't Quakers a- pacifists and b- oppressed in Great Britain?),

Ahh ok. Thanks for the clarification. The pilgrim myth annoys me as you gathered. ;) As to the question. The quackers were/are pacifists. The pilgrims were not. You can find executions of the Native Americans. You can also find examples of people getting tossed from the settlement for challenging the elders.

Yes. there were oppressed in Britain as they expected everybody to live as they do. They ran to Holland and had the freedom they expected but didn't like the idea of being integrated into Dutch society.

I'm saying that they existed, and that, besides the handful of Freemasons, Christians did found the U.S. on Christian valuesThe fact remains that it's the country's motto. Besides, the anthem from which the phrase comes was written in 1814.

Ahh but again the Treaty of Tripoli signed by President Adams who was a very religious man stated the country was not founded for Christianity. Hmmm that date was 1781?

Once again: the American State is religious, whether you like it or not. Like FDR said, freedom of religion is being able to "worship God in whatever manner you like." But the existence of God is not disputed.

Nothing wrong with being religous. Expecting the goverment to follow one set of ideology creates problems.

Note : I'm a secularist, by the way. I'm not agreeing with this fact, simply stating it.

No worries. ;) I really don't have many problems with Religous people. Just like annoying the ones who convert history to their causes. ;)

I am an RC myself.

Hmmm didn't the Christians fear the election of JFK? ;)

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 07:57

*snip*

Okay, I get it, you don't actually know any substantial amount of anything when it comes to Amercain history. Perhaps it's time you went back and looked up what it is that you are against hmmm?

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 08:03

Okay, I get it, you don't actually know any substantial amount of anything when it comes to Amercain history. Perhaps it's time you went back and looked up what it is that you are against hmmm?

:D

Keep trying.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 08:09

:D

Keep trying.
Ah, then you recognize that there is a multitude of cultures that were created and assembled the United States of America that actually believe and proclaim that there IS a God of the Universe that we owe some allegiance to?

If not, then I want to know where you learned your American history from, I suspect that they may have failed you in their overall disposition of historical reality,

Venus Mound

15-06-2005, 08:15

Ahh but again the Treaty of Tripoli signed by President Adams who was a very religious man stated the country was not founded for Christianity. Hmmm that date was 1781?Yeah, but come on, who can seriously believe that? Everyone who was making treaties with muslim populations at that time proclaimed their indifference/hatred for Christianity if they could. When he invaded Egypt, Napoleon tried to pass himself as the Christian liberator from Muslim domination to the Coptic Christians there, and emphasized the oppression of the Catholic Church by the French Revolution to the Muslims and styled himself a Christian-hater. It's unlikely that President Adams was any less hypocritical by making this statement of non-faith.Nothing wrong with being religous. Expecting the goverment to follow one set of ideology creates problems.And secularism isn't an ideology?

The fact is, you can't build a lasting government outside of a set of cultural values. And this is good. This is why the world is so diverse, made up of different nations, each with its interesting and beautiful idiosyncracies. And, hate it or love it, but a significant part of America's heritage and culture is Christian, and it is a Christian Nation.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 08:17

Wow. I must be tired. Did you re-edit this? Nahh I am probably just tired.
It seems you are living in a world of make believe. Removing, scratching off, painting over, digging out and trucking off, the heritage our ancestors left for us means, changing it.

Again you "change" facts. You didn't hear me complain about Moses and the 10 commandments in the SCOTUS as it is done in a neutral way. It doesn't endorse Christianity. It acknowledges it.

That is the thing you and many Christians don't understand. Endorsing a religion is more then simply acknowledging it.

However, I object to what you said about American iconography. Meaning we don’t symbolize the American Indian and their heritage… I won’t even address it, go look at your money again, tell me there isn’t any native American sacred icons on it.

:D You need to understand comments that are simply poking.

Ok you have the Buffalo nickel, the Indian head Penny. I want to say dime. They are not used anymore.

You have Saqajuaia(sp) in print. Ok what else?

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 08:22

Ok you have the Buffalo nickel, the Indian head Penny. I want to say dime. They are not used anymore.

You have Saqajuaia(sp) in print. Ok what else? 3 or 4 on your own unreliable accounts, and yet how many did you account 'against' the Christians? You just seem like a very angry sort of person, don’t know why that is, but that’s the way it seems.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 08:33

Ah, then you recognize that there is a multitude of cultures that were created and assembled the United States of America that actually believe and proclaim that there IS a God of the Universe that we owe some allegiance to?

If not, then I want to know where you learned your American history from, I suspect that they may have failed you in their overall disposition of historical reality,

:D

You have never heard me say you can't be religous. Only keeping the goverment RELIGOUS NEUTRAL. I have many Christian bornagain relatives and they can't contain themselves and simply act Christian. They have to convert everybody. They expect everybody to live as a Christian. They think that "morality" should guide what is written, painted, and shown on TV and movies.

There are many that think that way. As such the goverment shall be Relgious Neutral as prescribed by the establishment clause.

When a politician starts push a Christian Agenda then problems will happen.

Don't forget the fear when JFK was elected. The people thought the vatican was going to take over.

Would you want your Catholic leaders following the agenda of the Vatican? They have tried in the past. For example, no RC politician should take communion if they endorse stemcells and or roe v wade.

How about Muslim leaders that try to impose the shairia(sp) on people?

They are following their faiths.

You and many Christians fail to see the folly of their desires. As John Leland said in 1802:

"Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy ; be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men ; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion ; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state ; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected ; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick dispatch, characterize the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined"

How many politicians claim Christianity and willing let their actions be examined *coughs Bush Coughs*

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 08:35

3 or 4 on your own unreliable accounts, and yet how many did you account 'against' the Christians? You just seem like a very angry sort of person, don’t know why that is, but that’s the way it seems.

Ah ok sweety

Now I am an angry racist!

Ok my accounts are unreliable? Ok how so? Can you offer insight?

Keep trying.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 08:41

Yeah, but come on, who can seriously believe that? Everyone who was making treaties with muslim populations at that time proclaimed their indifference/hatred for Christianity if they could. When he invaded Egypt, Napoleon tried to pass himself as the Christian liberator from Muslim domination to the Coptic Christians there, and emphasized the oppression of the Catholic Church by the French Revolution to the Muslims and styled himself a Christian-hater. It's unlikely that President Adams was any less hypocritical by making this statement of non-faith.And secularism isn't an ideology?

Ah but when we pick an choose nothing but arguments happen. I have listened to Christian arguments that this country was founded for Christianity and that Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were deeply Christian. Never mind the fact of their letters, etc. paint a different picture.

The fact is, you can't build a lasting government outside of a set of cultural values. And this is good. This is why the world is so diverse, made up of different nations, each with its interesting and beautiful idiosyncracies. And, hate it or love it, but a significant part of America's heritage and culture is Christian, and it is a Christian Nation.

Ahh but the fact we don't sponsor a state religion is our idiosyncracy. The fact we support the establishment clause is why we more or less have harmony amount the many many different religions in this land.

The establishment clause does not make us a Christian Nation.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 08:41

So what are you saying, your point is really just anti-Bush and not anti-acknowledgement of religion in American politics?

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 08:44

So what are you saying, your point is really just anti-Bush and not anti-acknowledgement of religion in American politics?

Ok sweety. I guess that was too many words for you.

Sorry about that.

Keep trying.

Tekania

15-06-2005, 13:06

Our Country was founded by Conservative Christians who lived simple lives.

"Conservative Christians" like? :

George Washington (Deist)
Thomas Jefferson (Deist)
John Adams (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin (Deist)
James Madison (Deist)
Ethan Allen (Deist)
Thomas Paine (Deist)

Their family was important to them, including their heterosexual marriages. They couldn't perform adultry, another present problem.

Of course, they could have sex outside of marriage.

Their lives were surrounded by their faith, the Christian Church. They lived hard, but happy lives. No doubt, they are now forever happy with their Father in Heaven. Our country, the good old U.S.A. is the greatest country on the face of the planet.

Except, not all of them were "Christian".

This is because of our conservative laws.

Actually, for the time, the USA was on the absolute LIBERAL side of the spectrum; with no king, democratic government, freedom of religion, speech, and conscious. "Conservatives" at the time ended up working for the Brittish.

The liberals are trying to change our lifestyles, but are obviously the minority. I am proud of the 10 Commandments, and how they are displayed in the Capital of our Nation. It goes to show that Jesus does ROCK!!!!

Justin Rohloff

Except, the "10 Commandments" are "displayed" no where, on any government building in the "Capital of our Country" (not Nation).

For your knowledge of history, you receive the following grade:

F

Tekania

15-06-2005, 13:35

Removing existing icons, idols, symbols and all religious reference IS a sign of advocating one side as right and the other as wrong. How could it not be?

You mean like Ashcroft and the Lady Justice fiasco?

I could care less about SOME icons. But there are some that do not belong, especially recent additions.

Yup, exactly. In a world that had to decide between the cold hard sectarian atheism and the US... America decided to show the world that they believe in a higher power, that the end all of existence was not government nor it's own secular power. Besides, How old does something have to be before it is heritage? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred? I think it being about 20% of the entire age of the US itself, it’s old enough at two generations to be considered a heirloom of our heritage as a nation.

There was no contention between "Cold Hard Atheism" and "the US". Atheists can be as much Americans as anyone else who adherse to our beliefs regardant liberty.

"in God we Trust" and the addition to the pledge of "under God" were addition. And did not express any heritage. Two generations does not a national heritage make. In fact, during the revolution similar ideals were scraped; because they defrauded the american principle of freedom.

Because the only viewpoint being expressed (by your examples, not the entire thread of topics here) is a generic belief in a higher power, a supreme being beyond the control and above the government. In the view of a believer, do they have the right to live in a country, under a government that recognizes it’s own limits, that confesses a belief in a power above and beyond itself? (EDIT: side note: in this entire thread I've defended the rights of all the recognized religions in the communities, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish and native American etc., but I have not defended the right of the non-religious to remove the acknowledgment of the religious sections of the communities)

However, rights regardant that realm, do not extend as far as using the government to ENDORSE YOUR BELIEF. That's where you keep failing Ph33r. You're too closed minded, much like most Fundies, to deal with the larger picture. Once you use the government, and create precedent whereby the government may be used to endorse a religion; then they could endorse ANY religion, dependant upon community whim (even against YOUR OWN).

They have a choice, they can choose to live under a government that acknowledges and shares their outlook on life and sees the world with a God, or a government that does not. And you suggest that they don’t have this right, this choice, that instead and against their wishes, their government HAS to be the end all of existence as far as it concerns itself the entire enchilada that goes with that, that atheism is the only outlook that can produce and maintain a fair and just government for everyone. Why?

Under American ideals ther GOVERNMENT is not the end all; the people are. The people GENERALLY are... That is the whole. Which is why endorsement of religious institutions was prohibited by the Federal Government and 12 of the 13 original states (Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersy, Pennsylvania, Deleware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia). Because endrosement, against one, denies the other.... The principle, as Thomas Jefferson, and even Patrick Henry (Anglican, Burgess and first Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia) put forth; was the concept of "General" and "Religious" governmental spheres of influence. Neither is to take on powers of the other (wall of seperation). The General Government is NEVER to be used to teach, instruct, or discipline regardant religion; and the religious government is never to be used to control secular law.... You want to deal with your religion, you HAVE A government to deal with it over; the one which presides over your church (your diaconate, your Session, your General Assembly, your Bishop)... Don't expect us to sit idly by why you pervert America.

Whispering Legs

15-06-2005, 13:38

I fear we can say this until we're blue in the face. We will remain ignored. :headbang:

Personally, I can't believe they're still arguing on this thread.

Tekania

15-06-2005, 13:59

But by this you then insist that the people of ‘your’ country then are FORCED to live under the rule of a government that does not share, nor acknowledge, their belief in a supreme being above their own government and meaning of life (and all that is worthwhile and just in their eyes). The very belief, or non-belief, in the existence of a supreme being is principal in deciding our own liberties, and yet, you would take this right away from them. The right to live in a country with a government that acknowledges these sacred principles.

They do not have a "right to live in a country with a government that acknowledges these sacred principles". Your rights extend only to the point where the rights of another begin.

In the end, I would call it a democracy. Only a democracy in a country that is populated by people that mostly agree in the basic concept that there is a supreme being that has endowed them with their inalienable rights...

Democracy is tyrany by majority. Which is why we're not a pure democracy. This country was founded upon liberty. Including liberties of the minorities.

If I am to defend my own faith and practice, I must defend those of others. I must not use general government; or perverse principle of tyrany of the democratic system to stomp over others, and use general government powers to enforce my own faith. I will not succumb to your apostacy Ph33r. Apostacy to Christian Forbearance, Apostacy to American Liberty.

We will fight you Ph33r, all the TRUE american in here. Regardless of belief (I happen to be a Presbyterian.... and look how ardently I will fight for the liberties of ALL americans towards their freedoms; not just for the liberties of those who happen to believe the same religion I do...) When I fight for religious liberty of ALL. I do so for my own as much as others. Because as soon as I adopt your perverted ideas; I would be fighting for precedent that could be used against my own liberties. This is where you fail Ph33r, this is where all those like you fail, Ph33r. You can't look at the bigger picture. You can't see the DANGER to yourself and your beliefs of your own ideas.

Tell me, Ph33r, old boy. Would you adopt your position is America is majority Muslim? Would you do it if the majority were Hindi? What about Taoists or Buddhist? After all, if "god believers" are in the majority and can make God part of government; if the majority were atheists then they could remove God, and deny Him. How about "in Allah we trust"?

Your rights, and the rights of other are both EQUAL. IT does not matter who is in the majority. This is why the GENERAL GOVERNMENT is barred from meddling in religious discipline and doctrine. Because we're ALL equal in the eyes of the law. Whether we're muslim, jew, christian, hindu, buddhist, taoist or atheist. All are equally part of america, all have a part in American law and government. And I will defend the rights of ALL. Not just the "majority" and not just "christian" but ALL.

Tekania

15-06-2005, 14:10

Yawn yawn yawn.

Separation of Church and State is a different thing from separation of religion and State. What the separation of Church and State means is that the U.S. doesn't recognize or endorse any religion, doesn't interfere in religious affairs. It doesn't mean that it doesn't have religious values. Nothing can change the fact that the U.S. was built by Christians (remember those pilgrims?), for Christians (arguably), on Christian values (definitely).

I mean, the country's motto is "In God We Trust," for chrissakes!

You can't separate a country from its culture and its history. Even though the U.S. government is theoretically secular, America as a culture and as a civilization is definitely Christian, and you can't change that.

Pilgrims? Pfft.. Pilgrims found ONE colony... And they weren't even the first colony at that. (Sorry bub, you failed history). There was already functional Colonial government here decades before the first Pilgrims Settled Plymoth. The Virginia Charter was established 14 years before the First Pilgrims arrived. And the Pilgrims are no show for "American" ideals. Considering Connecticut and Rhode Island (Originally Providence Plantation) were settled purely due to the theocratic tyrany of Massachusetts. The Pilgrims were hyprocrits to the extreme, settling new lands in America, to commit the same violence and intollerance that they escaped in the Old World.... Everyone else (at least) settling the colonies, learned from the Old World Mistakes.

If you use the Pilgrims for your "ideal". You have no respect from me. You might as well be using the Roman Catholic Inquisitors as your ideal. Because there is no difference.

Tekania

15-06-2005, 14:14

I had to read it twice before I figured out that someone actually and finally said something I could agree with around here :D Thank you, I was starting to feel outnumbered. LOL

Yeah, and their history is as defunct as yours.

Also the US Motto is "E Pluribus Unum" (Out of many, one). That is THE offical Motto of the United States of America. "in God we trust" is not an "official motto". Official mottos are always in LATIN.

Whispering Legs

15-06-2005, 14:16

Pilgrims? Pfft.. Pilgrims found ONE colony... And they weren't even the first colony at that. (Sorry bub, you failed history). There was already functional Colonial government here decades before the first Pilgrims Settled Plymoth. The Virginia Charter was established 14 years before the First Pilgrims arrived. And the Pilgrims are no show for "American" ideals. Considering Connecticut and Rhode Island (Originally Providence Plantation) were settled purely due to the theocratic tyrany of Massachusetts. The Pilgrims were hyprocrits to the extreme, settling new lands in America, to commit the same violence and intollerance that they escaped in the Old World.... Everyone else (at least) settling the colonies, learned from the Old World Mistakes.

If you use the Pilgrims for your "ideal". You have no respect from me. You might as well be using the Roman Catholic Inquisitors as your ideal. Because there is no difference.

I would be pretty big on having Jamestown as our "ideal". That way, when Thanksgiving comes, we could be cannibals. ;)

Tekania

15-06-2005, 14:41

I would be pretty big on having Jamestown as our "ideal". That way, when Thanksgiving comes, we could be cannibals. ;)

I would rather neither be. If anything make Providence Plantation our ideal (a colony settled by people fleeing religious persecution in Massachusetts); Or the intelligent Roman Catholics who settled Maryland, under a precept of Religious Liberty to all in the colony.

Really, the single theme happening accross most of the colonies was religious liberty for ALL people (regardless of faith), and a move to seperate the powers of the general government and the various institutional governments of the various religious groups.

Let's look at the VERY FIRST Constitution in the colonies (Virginia, May 1776)

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Hmm, nothing about God there.

That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

Hmm, you mean PEOPLE are the power and not God? Oh my God!

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this Commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others, any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry; but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please.

Wow... Talk about "seperation".... No involvement what-so-ever.... And, BTW. This was the model for the United States Bill of Rights in the Federal Constitution. Madison carried it with him from his own home state (Virginia).

FYI: And I would have loved for Amendment II to match Section 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights....

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Whispering Legs

15-06-2005, 14:46

I was just trying to be funny about Jamestown.

One thing I've noticed - this topic has been discussed to death - and one only need read the letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists to see why we have the separation (and why it's a good idea).

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 16:08

Whispering Legs

15-06-2005, 16:09

Yup. But they like to ignore such evidence.

Am I the only Pentacostal Christian here who thinks that the separation of church and state is a good idea?

I've seen what happens when the local government gets a hankering for sponsoring one religion over another.

Dempublicents1

15-06-2005, 16:41

Before I start, *wave* Hi Dem : )

Hola!

Removing existing icons, idols, symbols and all religious reference IS a sign of advocating one side as right and the other as wrong. How could it not be?

Removing those symbols would not in any way say "Atheists are right". It would say what the government should say, which is "The government has no opinion whatsoever on this matter." This could also be accomplished by having a monument to every single possible religious belief, including the lack thereof - but can you imagine how much time, money, and space that would take?

Yup, exactly.

I don't believe this. You advocate blatant unreasoned and unfair discrimination because the majority have a belief different from the minority? How on Earth is that any different than the whites saying that they can oppress minorities because they are in the majority?

Besides, How old does something have to be before it is heritage?

If that something had unconstitutional intentions at its very root, as this did, it doesn't matter how old it is - it should be removed.

State issues are not the topic here, is your point that people were stupid then?

No, my point is that nothing done solely to express discrimination and alienate an active and productive portion of our citizenship should be condoned, regardless of what the majority believes.

If the majority of people in this country were KKK members, would you advocate changing the pledge to "I pledge allegience to the flag of the white folks of the United States of America."? Then, if it had been there for 50 years, would you suggest leaving it there because it was "heritage"? I think not.

Because the only viewpoint being expressed (by your examples, not the entire thread of topics here) is a generic belief in a higher power, a supreme being beyond the control and above the government.

A belief that is, in and of itself, religious and is one which all of our citizens do not share.

In the view of a believer, do they have the right to live in a country, under a government that recognizes it’s own limits, that confesses a belief in a power above and beyond itself?

Not when that belief is an establishment of a religious belief. Do you deny that a belief in a higher power is, in and of itself, religious?

Geecka

15-06-2005, 17:24

Am I the only Pentacostal Christian here who thinks that the separation of church and state is a good idea?

I'm no Pentocostal, but I was raised in the fundamentalist third of the Restoration Movement. I've sort of moved to the left, but I've got that fundamentalist spirit down deep somewhere. But I definitely think separation of church and state is a good idea.

Seangolia

15-06-2005, 17:34

Am I the only Pentacostal Christian here who thinks that the separation of church and state is a good idea?

I've seen what happens when the local government gets a hankering for sponsoring one religion over another.

Take a look at the Salem Witch trials to get a real good understanding if the local government sponsors only one government. I've also seen what happens, and it just ain't pretty. Hysteria come en mass.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but did not Jesus advocate a seperation of the Church from the State? It's been a great while since I last cracked the big book, but I seem to recall Jesus having a real distaste for religion getting involved in government and vice versa.

Not so much a reponse to what you said, but an open ended question.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 18:16

Um, what was the point of this list, Tekania? Deism is a belief in God and a higher power, it’s not atheism and it doesn’t object to the mentioning of God. But anyway…

George Washington (Deist) X
Thomas Jefferson (Deist)
John Adams (Deist) X
Benjamin Franklin (Deist) X
James Madison (Deist) X
Ethan Allen (Deist) X
Thomas Paine (Deist)

2 right 5 wrong, I don’t think that’s a passing grade.

You’ve been reading too much revisionist history and they’ve been overly liberal with their deist marker of late (I still don’t really see the relevancy of this to the thread though because Deism is not atheism, but I thought I better help you out here with this since someone else might read it and be confused and repeat it …

-George Washington belonged to, attended, and served as warden in the Anglican church.
-Thomas Jefferson, self-proclaimed Deist.
-John Adams, a deacon and He became the first U.S. minister to England in 1785
-Benjamin Franklin, a man of many vices but he was a member of the Christ Church and was buried in their graveyard.
-James Madison, considered divinity as a vocation, but entered politics instead.
-Ethan Allen, was an overbearing, loud-mouthed braggart. He was also a staunch patriot. Claiming republicanism he was first and foremost a Vermont founder, but hardly a deist.
Thomas Paine Self-proclaimed Deist.

Except, the "10 Commandments" are "displayed" no where, on any government building in the "Capital of our Country" (not Nation).

Um, you mean with this observation? You surely don’t mean God isn’t referred to in the national monuments and stuff like that right?
U.S. Capitol:
Senate Chamber, Over east doorway: "Annuit coeptis" (God has favored our undertakings), Over south entrance: "In God we trust," Prayer Room, "Annuit coeptis" (God has favored our undertakings), "Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust." —Psalm 16:1, House Chamber, "In God we trust."

However, rights regardant that realm, do not extend as far as using the government to ENDORSE YOUR BELIEF. That's where you keep failing Ph33r. You're too closed minded, much like most Fundies, to deal with the larger picture. Once you use the government, and create precedent whereby the government may be used to endorse a religion; then they could endorse ANY religion, dependant upon community whim (even against YOUR OWN).

Why do people keep accusing me of this? If I’ve advocated the creation of a theocracy anywhere in this thread, which religion was it? What did I ask for? I recall mentioning only that the communities have a right to express their religious beliefs (whatever they are), even on public property. And I’ve advocated that the “Under God,” and, "God save the United States and this honorable court," or, “In God We Trust” are just fine because they are so generic and the people ‘want’ it to say that.

You also mentioned how we have liberties that are protected, even for the minority, and I totally agree. However, you didn’t define the liberties and perhaps we differ there? You sure accused me of a lot of stuff I didn’t know I stood for…

Then again, since I did not say them perhaps I don’t stand for them at all and you’re just making a lot of stuff up, huh? Kinda like your list of Deists, just add a few extra names in there and hope nobody notices and accuse Ph33r of advocating tyranny (whether he did it or not is irrelevant, people won’t like it and agree with you instead of him).

Geecka

15-06-2005, 18:37

And I’ve advocated that the “Under God,” and, "God save the United States and this honorable court," or, “In God We Trust” are just fine because they are so generic and the people ‘want’ it to say that.

Again. Just because the people want it, doesn't make it right. This is one of the reasons we're a Representative Republic, for the fear of the tyranny of the majority. This:

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 grievance.

most certainly ensures that our government may endorse no religion -- and belief in God is religion, albeit not necessarily a specific religion. While atheism, the denial of the existence God may be considered "religion", agnosticism, the refusal to commit to the existence of God, and hence refusal to submit to God's authority, is not.

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 19:42

If you want a purely legalistic term of why it's okay to acknowledge God in the generic and to do it even when it is against the wishes of Atheists and Agnostics, is because it's freedom of religion. Atheism is not a religion, it is by it's very definition the absence of religion/faith/belief and therefore does not require protection from the religious part of the first amendment.

Agnosticism is very similar. Agnostic is, as you posted, a belief. It too, by it's very definition, is not a religion in and of itself that requires protection by the freedom of religion part of the amendment.

Not advocating any religion over another or establishing one over another is paramount to the amendment... Not offending atheists and agnostics wasn't a part of it.

The belief in a supreme being (s) is essential to being a religion, without a deity the gathered members are not a religious organization no matter what rituals they have, it’s a social club and is not protected by the amendment as a religion.

Dempublicents1

15-06-2005, 19:45

If you want a purely legalistic term of why it's okay to acknowledge God in the generic and to do it even when it is against the wishes of Atheists and Agnostics, is because it's freedom of religion. Atheism is not a religion, it is by it's very definition the absence of religion/faith/belief and therefore does not require protection from the religious part of the first amendment.

What about atheistic religions? What about polytheistic religions?

Of course, in truth, God is not a generic term. When it is capitalized in the English language, it specifically refers to the Judeo-Christian God (although many of the Jewish faith might find that offensive and prefer G-d). For it to be generic, the term is not capitilized - god.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 19:51

What about atheistic religions? What about polytheistic religions?

Of course, in truth, God is not a generic term. When it is capitalized in the English language, it specifically refers to the Judeo-Christian God (although many of the Jewish faith might find that offensive and prefer G-d). For it to be generic, the term is not capitilized - god.

There is no atheist religion, it's not a religion just because they have memberships and ritual, it is no different that a social club that has members and ritual, it's more like a political party or a members union (like the VFW or Lions Club).

What about polytheistic religions? I'm saying they do have rights too, and if they object to the word God not having an s at the end of it, then proclaim them the rights to say it with a lisp :)

Okay, nevermind about that last part lol, I say that they are protected though so how are they left out?

Neo-Anarchists

15-06-2005, 19:53

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 19:56

So Buddhism isn't a religion then?

Buddhism is a way of life, a practice, a 'how-to' guideline... You could theoretically be a Buddhist and a Muslim at the same time, except if you tried it in Pakistan they'd probably kill ya.

EDIT: oops, forgot to answer the question, sure, it's a religion.

Tekania

15-06-2005, 20:06

Dempublicents1

15-06-2005, 20:21

There is no atheist religion, it's not a religion just because they have memberships and ritual, it is no different that a social club that has members and ritual, it's more like a political party or a members union (like the VFW or Lions Club).

Religion:
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religious:
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances

Note that a deity is not necessary to be a religion. An "ultimate reality" or an "institutionalized system" counts.

Of course, you were probably choosing a subset of the applicable definitions, but why does only your definition of religion matter?

Okay, nevermind about that last part lol, I say that they are protected though so how are they left out?

By placing the word "God", the government is clearly stating that a monotheistic view is above all others.

Tekania

15-06-2005, 20:48

Um, what was the point of this list, Tekania? Deism is a belief in God and a higher power, it’s not atheism and it doesn’t object to the mentioning of God. But anyway…

2 right 5 wrong, I don’t think that’s a passing grade.

You’ve been reading too much revisionist history and they’ve been overly liberal with their deist marker of late (I still don’t really see the relevancy of this to the thread though because Deism is not atheism, but I thought I better help you out here with this since someone else might read it and be confused and repeat it …

No, you're the revisionist. Many Deists attended certain churches. They were, however still deists....

-George Washington belonged to, attended, and served as warden in the Anglican church.
-Thomas Jefferson, self-proclaimed Deist.
-John Adams, a deacon and He became the first U.S. minister to England in 1785
-Benjamin Franklin, a man of many vices but he was a member of the Christ Church and was buried in their graveyard.
-James Madison, considered divinity as a vocation, but entered politics instead.
-Ethan Allen, was an overbearing, loud-mouthed braggart. He was also a staunch patriot. Claiming republicanism he was first and foremost a Vermont founder, but hardly a deist.
Thomas Paine Self-proclaimed Deist.

Martha Washington was Christian. (And an Episcopal, not Anglican); attending an Episcopal church, George attended services with her: He was not, however a communicant (member of the church), merely ATTENDED services with his wife. (STRIKE ONE)

John Adams was a Unitarian. The Unitarian Church is a Deistic congregation. Not Christian. (STRIKE TWO)

I can't believe you would attempt to claim Christianity for Franklin. Who is a self-proclaimed deist (STRIKE THREE- YOU'RE OUT OF HERE)

I'll let Ethan Allen speak for himself- "In the circle of my acquaintance, (which has not been small,) I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not, for I have never read their writings; mine will therefore determine the matter.."... You also appearantly missed "The Only Oracle of Man"... Which is of no surprise you would omit that from your history.

And Madison- "An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government." - "Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."

Ph33r. Don't lie to me.

Um, you mean with this observation? You surely don’t mean God isn’t referred to in the national monuments and stuff like that right?
U.S. Capitol:
Senate Chamber, Over east doorway: "Annuit coeptis" (God has favored our undertakings),

Annuit coeptis means "To Favor Undertakings", it's latin.... The latin term for God is Deo.... You see Deo in there? I didn't think so.... Talk about revisionism.... There is no subject in that sentence... It was purposefully omited.

That is besides the point, of course. You said the 10 Commandments were displayed.... Where? They aren't.

This country was founded upon LIBERTY... FREEDOM OF THOUGHT... Get that through that 500 meters of granite you call a skull.... If you want to use the general government as a force towards your personal beliefs; be ready to have my foot up your ass the entire way... I've fought for people's freedom and liberty, and will continue fighting....

If you want the right to have a government that recognized your God, fine. Leave the United STates, and find one.... We're not goingto let you have it in the end, because it is AGAINST the very FIBER and PRINCIPLE of this country..... The government recognizes us, as PEOPLE of this country. Not supreme powers..... We can recognize supreme powers all we like..... We have churches and congregations, community groups; for all of that.... The General Government exists as a SERVICE to the people.... for their common benefit. There is absolutely NO NEED OR PURPOSE for the government to acknowledge anything EXCEPT THE PEOPLE.... You have no right, regardless of how many people back you, for the "Government to recognize a creator"... We as people have rights.... Not the government. If you want a God centered government, leave the United States; there are plenty of Middle-East states which are centered around religious dieties and thought..... I'm Christian, and I do not want the government centered around my God; I want them centered around me, and my fellow people (regardless of faith); that way we (individually) can persue our own spirituality... You want to acknowledge a supreme being, fine... I do to.... If you need a government to sponsor the creator for you, that creator and you are pretty pathetic. My God does not need government sponsorship... Yours appearantly does.... You must have VERY little faith in your God, Ph33r....

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 20:52

By placing the word "God", the government is clearly stating that a monotheistic view is above all others.

I propose that they are acknowledging the community held belief in ‘A’ entity that is supreme. It is monotheistic only in the fact that it says there is one all encompassing entity, but unlike other people I now diverge and say they should have this right… They have a right to believe in a unifying power, they’ve called it all kinds of things to avoid what you are accusing them of, but that all ends up sounding silly and just saying ‘God’ ends up being the best.

Look up some of the stuff they tried…I posted a lot of it here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9068938&postcount=275

‘God’ and ‘Almighty God’ are two favorites, but others, ‘Supreme Ruler of the Universe,’ ‘grateful for Divine Guidance,’ ‘Supreme Being,’ ‘the great Legislator of the universe’ (that one cracks me up every time, good ol’ Massachusetts LOL), ‘Sovereign Ruler of the Universe,’ ‘DEITY.’ And so on and so forth. The point is, the states were founded on the principle of acknowledging and thanking God first and foremost. And now, they’re right to found a government that supports that very right is being argued away from them, like it was wrong the whole time, and nobody even had to amend the constitution. It’s would have seemed unthinkable. Perhaps the court will fix it now, OR an amendment can be added to ensure that the right to acknowledge God is constitutionally protected.

Geecka

15-06-2005, 20:59

:headbang:

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 21:03

:headbang:

Don't let it get to you.

Jocabia

15-06-2005, 21:05

90% of you last post is balderdash... but here goes::

Hum, no, I haven't said anything like that anywhere. You really like painting your own targets to score bull’s-eyes don't you?

At least you got this accusation right…

I see no particular reason that Atheism should be the only belief system endorsed by the government of the United States. Now, if it was all brand new, and there were no existing structures and rules etc., then maybe you would have a point. However, it’s too late now. To now go back and try to remove all mention of religion, any religion, from the public properties in all of the communities of America, would be a drastic and powerful message, the message that ONLY atheism has any right to government support…

Here’s your one hundred million, what a silly thing to challenge. Now, add all of the religious people together, of every faith… The numbers are huge, they have a right to ask that their views be represented by their governments, both local and national.

The findings, weighted to be representative of the 208 million U.S. adult population, include national and state-by-state examinations of religious identification in relation to racial/ethnic identification, education, age, marital status, voter registration status and political party preference.

ARIS 2001 is closely modeled on The Graduate Center's 1990 National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI), permitting many comparisons:

-- Catholic adults increased from 46.0 million to nearly 50.8 million, but their proportion in the population fell by nearly two percentage points.

-- Although Protestant and other non-Catholic denominations remain the majority, with more than 105.4 million adult adherents, their proportion slid sharply from 60% to 52%.

-- 2.8 million adults give their religion as Jewish, down from about 3.1 million in 1990. Another 2.5 million, who say they have no religion or identify with another religion, are of Jewish parentage, were raised Jewish or consider themselves Jewish.

-- The number of adults who identify with a non-Christian religion rose sharply, from about 5.8 million to 7.7 million. However, their proportion remains small, 3.7% up from 3.3% in 1990.

-- Muslim/Islamic adults total 1.1 million -- nearly double the number in 1990. Those identifying their race as black are 23% of the group; the others overwhelmingly identify as white or Asian.

One of the most striking 1990-2001 comparisons is the more than doubling of the adult population identifying with no religion, from 14.3 million (8%) in 1990 to the current 29.4 million (14.1%). The 1990 figure may be downwardly biased due to a slight change in the wording of the key survey question in 2001. In seeking a more accurate measure of identification, the clause "if any" was added this year to the question, "What religion do you identify with?" The prior wording may have subtly prompted respondents to name some religion.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/press_information/current_releases/october_2001_aris.htm

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/introduction.htm

I don’t see any reason to mandate that more than half the American population ‘has’ to surrender their representation in their government and civil and criminal law, both local and national, they shouldn't be forced to surrender their world view to a purely sectarian world view as you demand.

Uh, I don't think I dismissed Christians. I dismissed fundamentalist evangelical Christians, and I doubt there are 100 million of them in the whole world, let alone in the US.

More importantly, I asked your views of how the government should pass laws and you said it's not germaine to the argument. However, that I don't like fundamentalists somehow is? I'm not denying their rights. I'm saying that their rights don't trump other's rights. I want to deny the fundamentalists no right guaranteed to them by the US Constitution.

A little point of interest, we aren't a democracy, we're a republic. It wouldn't matter if there was 12 atheists in the whole country and the rest of the country was of exactly one mind about religion they would still have a right to practice their beliefs and to freedom of religious thought. The US Constitution guarantees this. Now what you can't understand is that the government isn't atheist, nor is anyone here claiming they should be. They are AGNOSTIC or should be. They don't know if their are Gods or Gods and don't care. It doesn't matter at all to the government who's right or who the members of the government think are right. You know why? Because for the government to make laws that weren't agnostic then they wouldn't be respecting the religious rights of everyone who disagrees with the particular view the law is founded on.

Now again, I ask your views on the laws I brought up earlier. It specifically says whether you want an Agnostic government or a Christian one. Little tip, one of those two is unconstitutional. How about you just answer this one question - Would you like the government to be Agnostic?

Jocabia

15-06-2005, 21:15

I propose that they are acknowledging the community held belief in ‘A’ entity that is supreme. It is monotheistic only in the fact that it says there is one all encompassing entity, but unlike other people I now diverge and say they should have this right… They have a right to believe in a unifying power, they’ve called it all kinds of things to avoid what you are accusing them of, but that all ends up sounding silly and just saying ‘God’ ends up being the best.

Look up some of the stuff they tried…I posted a lot of it here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9068938&postcount=275

‘God’ and ‘Almighty God’ are two favorites, but others, ‘Supreme Ruler of the Universe,’ ‘grateful for Divine Guidance,’ ‘Supreme Being,’ ‘the great Legislator of the universe’ (that one cracks me up every time, good ol’ Massachusetts LOL), ‘Sovereign Ruler of the Universe,’ ‘DEITY.’ And so on and so forth. The point is, the states were founded on the principle of acknowledging and thanking God first and foremost. And now, they’re right to found a government that supports that very right is being argued away from them, like it was wrong the whole time, and nobody even had to amend the constitution. It’s would have seemed unthinkable. Perhaps the court will fix it now, OR an amendment can be added to ensure that the right to acknowledge God is constitutionally protected.

You have an absolutely protected right to acknowledge God. I have an absolute right to believe that their isn't one (of course I believe in God, but that's not the point). You can't trump my rights with yours. To take God off the dollar isn't Atheist. They're not gonna put "There is no God" on the dollar. They're shouldn't put anything. You know why? I'm gonna go slow for you here - because to do otherwise violates the first amendment. How?, you ask. Well, let's see "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Now, who makes the rules about how money looks, what it's made out of, etc.? Congress. Through what? Hmmm... law. And is putting God on the currency respecting an establishment of religion? Um, HELL YES!

Letila

15-06-2005, 21:24

DID YOU KNOW? Both the church and the state need to go, anyway.

Jocabia

15-06-2005, 21:39

Removing existing icons, idols, symbols and all religious reference IS a sign of advocating one side as right and the other as wrong. How could it not be?

Finally, you said something right. It's a sign that the government is Agnostic. It doesn't know if there is a God, it doesn't care if there's a God, it doesn't care if you care if there's a God. It would saying that the side that is arguing for freedom of religion is right and the side that wants a Judeochristian government is wrong. (Pssst... yes, I know this isn't what you were referring to). To the point you were trying to make, are you saying that if we had made the mistake of establishing a State Church, let's say Catholic, in violation of the US Constitution that we would be stuck with it, because if we were to get rid of it and honor the US Constitution it would somehow be denouncing Catholicism? We screwed up and ignored the Constitution so now we can't do anything about it without amending the Constitution to say what it already says?

Yup, exactly. In a world that had to decide between the cold hard sectarian atheism and the US... America decided to show the world that they believe in a higher power, that the end all of existence was not government nor it's own secular power. Besides, How old does something have to be before it is heritage? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred? I think it being about 20% of the entire age of the US itself, it’s old enough at two generations to be considered a heirloom of our heritage as a nation.

Who cares if it's heritage? I don't care if it happened the day after the country was founded, it's in violation of the first amendment. The state cannot acknowledge a higher power without first violating the first amendment. Ah, but at least finally you have admitted your stance as was requested Cat-Tribe so much earlier in the thread. You don't believe in the seperation of Church and State. You want the government to be theistic and in violation of the first amendment. It is you who needs to amend the Constitution. Becuase it is only a matter of time before we honor the first amendment and require the Church and the State to be seperate.

I say supporting dictators in order to destroy the commies was just as much a part of American policy as putting God in the pledge. I say it is our American DUTY to keep supporting dictators. Kim Jon Il, we're sorry we ever doubted you. We made a lot of mistakes during that era. Don't pretend like just because some of them supported your beliefs that we shouldn't or can't clean them up.

Because the only viewpoint being expressed (by your examples, not the entire thread of topics here) is a generic belief in a higher power, a supreme being beyond the control and above the government. In the view of a believer, do they have the right to live in a country, under a government that recognizes it’s own limits, that confesses a belief in a power above and beyond itself? (EDIT: side note: in this entire thread I've defended the rights of all the recognized religions in the communities, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish and native American etc., but I have not defended the right of the non-religious to remove the acknowledgment of the religious sections of the communities)

They have a choice, they can choose to live under a government that acknowledges and shares their outlook on life and sees the world with a God, or a government that does not. And you suggest that they don’t have this right, this choice, that instead and against their wishes, their government HAS to be the end all of existence as far as it concerns itself the entire enchilada that goes with that, that atheism is the only outlook that can produce and maintain a fair and just government for everyone. Why?

Absolutely wrong. The government doesn't speculate on where existence ends. To say there is a higher power is theistic and violates the first amendment. The state is to have show no preference as to religious belief as far as it doesn't violate the rights of others (meaning the state has to act if your religious belief is to sneak into homes and murder people in the night). You pretend like you want to protect freedom of religion but you don't. What if we just changed the dollar to say "In Allah we trust"? Would that be okay with you? What about "In Nature we trust" for the wiccans? Okay with you? NO, because your religion worships GOD and you like it the way it is. You don't really care about those other rights. You want to start by making government acknowledge and support religion (in direct violation of the constitution its founded on) and then you can worry about all those pesky heathens.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 21:42

Martha Washington was Christian. (And an Episcopal, not Anglican); attending an Episcopal church, George attended services with her: He was not, however a communicant (member of the church), merely ATTENDED services with his wife. (STRIKE ONE)

As a Virginian, Washington belonged to, attended, and served as warden of the established (Anglican) church. http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0410800-00 (but to save yourself from futher confussion, the episopal church is the american version of the english anglican church; In the United States and Scotland it is called Episcopal, and in most of the rest of the world it is called Anglican. http://www.anglican.org/church/index.html
)

John Adams was a Unitarian. The Unitarian Church is a Deistic congregation. Not Christian. (STRIKE TWO) I'm not a Unitarian, but I know they use the Bible to teach sunday school classes ~ However, President Adams called himself a "church going animal" and the Bible as the best book ever written, and about the church in his day he was solely against Catholics and Jesuits, but he says about Christianity and his personal belief was that "The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated." Of which I myself can easily agree.

I can't believe you would attempt to claim Christianity for Franklin. Who is a self-proclaimed deist (STRIKE THREE- YOU'RE OUT OF HERE) I didn't claim he was a Christian, I said he wasn't a Deist. By what you and I would call it I would say he was a humanist, but the fact is, he chose his own burial site and church.

I'll let Ethan Allen speak for himself- "In the circle of my acquaintance, (which has not been small,) I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not, for I have never read their writings; mine will therefore determine the matter.."... You also appearantly missed "The Only Oracle of Man"... Which is of no surprise you would omit that from your history. You called him a Deist, then you quote him saying he never even knew what it was until he was asked if he was one, what part of this did I get wrong? Sounds like you did to me.

And Madison- "An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government." - "Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest." How does that make him a deist? I think you forget, you're the one that brought the list into play and then you got mad because I pointed out that you exaggerated, and you still do.

That is besides the point, of course. You said the 10 Commandments were displayed.... Where? They aren't. No, I didn't say that, but they are displayed in many government buildings. I never said anything about D.C., you are thinking about someone else. I do believe they are the Reagan memorial though... But that's not an issue I brought up.

*snipped a lot of angry words, wants to kick my butt sort of talk, being a veteran and fighting for rights and seperation church and state, how Ph33r is pathetic with a weak faith etc., etc., etc.*

Fine, then explain all those state preambles if I’m inventing something new with this ‘theocracy’ as you call it, that I support...

*Ph33r runs off to polish his own military medals and ribbons before the irrelevancy of such things comes back into fashion*

Jocabia

15-06-2005, 21:44

Are you suggesting that muslims are somehow less than everybody else? Whats wrong with acting like a muslim if you are a law abiding, lover of freedom, send your kids to college, Amercian through and through muslim? Are you suggesting that they need to hide their heritage becuase you think it is something of an insult?

What's wrong with acting like an athiest if your are law-abiding, lover of freedom, send your kids to college (not sure this really fits), American through and through (wouldn't that mean a supporter of the first amendment? whoops, there's that logic creeping in again) athiest? Are you suggesting they need to hide their heritage because you think it is something of an insult?

Sinuhue

15-06-2005, 21:53

What's wrong with acting like an athiest if your are law-abiding, lover of freedom, send your kids to college (not sure this really fits), American through and through (wouldn't that mean a supporter of the first amendment? whoops, there's that logic creeping in again) athiest? Are you suggesting they need to hide their heritage because you think it is something of an insult?
slinks in shamefacedly*
*"TG and a THREAD JUST FOR YOU...*

Yeah...yeah...hide your heritage, it's shameful.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 21:54

What's wrong with acting like an athiest if your are law-abiding, lover of freedom, send your kids to college (not sure this really fits), American through and through (wouldn't that mean a supporter of the first amendment? whoops, there's that logic creeping in again) athiest? Are you suggesting they need to hide their heritage because you think it is something of an insult?

Atheist don't have a religion, how can freedom of religion apply to something that doesn't exist? They have personal rights, rights of freedom of speech etc., but their 'belief' is not a religion and isn't protected...

Jocabia

15-06-2005, 21:56

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest]

Fine, everyone is a moron except you.... Lets see how far that gets you on the campaign trail (pick any party, I don't care).

Calling everyone stupid isn't going to help your cause.

OK, seriously you can get a dictionary at almost any bookstore even the one that sold you your Bible.

Stupid -
1Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

He called no one stupid. He said they were likely to be uneducated about the US Constitution. More importantly, many were unable to educate themselves because they were illiterate. Would acknowledging that slaves were often illiterate and uneducated be bigoted and calling them stupid? Or is it just an acknowledgement of fact.

Jocabia

15-06-2005, 22:05

Atheist don't have a religion, how can freedom of religion apply to something that doesn't exist? They have personal rights, rights of freedom of speech etc., but their 'belief' is not a religion and isn't protected...

Nice job avoiding the questions you wrote and I reworded (replaced Muslim with Atheist). I wonder why you avoided them? Maybe because you clearly believe that insulting Atheists and not protecting them is okay while insulting Muslims and not protecting them would hurt 'your cause'.

Dictionary time again -

Religious -
1. 1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

That means that religious views do not require a deity but they just must be a belief about the ultimate reality based on faith (faith that there is no God, in this case)

Religion -
1b(2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Straight from Mirriam Webster's dictionary. You know what that makes an atheistic belief system? A religion. They are not all the same any more than all Christians are, but they do have religious views that should be and are protected by the US Constitution.

Seriously, they even have online dictionaries that are free.

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 23:11

DID YOU KNOW? Both the church and the state need to go, anyway.

Commie! :p

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 23:13

No, you're the revisionist. Many Deists attended certain churches. They were, however still deists....

Martha Washington was Christian. (And an Episcopal, not Anglican); attending an Episcopal church, George attended services with her: He was not, however a communicant (member of the church), merely ATTENDED services with his wife. (STRIKE ONE)

John Adams was a Unitarian. The Unitarian Church is a Deistic congregation. Not Christian. (STRIKE TWO)

I can't believe you would attempt to claim Christianity for Franklin. Who is a self-proclaimed deist (STRIKE THREE- YOU'RE OUT OF HERE)

I'll let Ethan Allen speak for himself- "In the circle of my acquaintance, (which has not been small,) I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not, for I have never read their writings; mine will therefore determine the matter.."... You also appearantly missed "The Only Oracle of Man"... Which is of no surprise you would omit that from your history.

And Madison- "An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government." - "Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."

Ph33r. Don't lie to me.

Danke!

I was going to respond but was thinking oh god here we go again. ;)

The Black Forrest

15-06-2005, 23:17

Atheist don't have a religion, how can freedom of religion apply to something that doesn't exist? They have personal rights, rights of freedom of speech etc., but their 'belief' is not a religion and isn't protected...

It's the part you can't understand. Freedom from Religion. You don't have freedom of religion if you don't have freedom from religion.

Ph33rdom

15-06-2005, 23:40

It's the part you can't understand. Freedom from Religion. You don't have freedom of religion if you don't have freedom from religion.

I can't understand it because it's not in the constitution. It doesn't say anything about freedom from religion. You can choose to believe or not to believe any religion you want, but it never gave the right to anyone to go and stop everyone else from acknowledging God...

Religion, NOUN:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 00:17

Atheist don't have a religion, how can freedom of religion apply to something that doesn't exist? They have personal rights, rights of freedom of speech etc., but their 'belief' is not a religion and isn't protected...

Ahh, there we go. The truth comes out.

Who were you saying was prejudiced?

Athiests, agnostics, and everyone have a right to free exercise of religion and against the establishment of religion.

You cannot deny others the freedoms you claim.

Geecka

16-06-2005, 00:22

Religion, NOUN:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

There you go, omitting crucial information, again.

re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

An atheist can most certainly claim "religion." All s/he must claim is that s/he has a conscientious devotion to a cause, principle or activity. If that cause is believing that no God exists, then that's a religion. And as such, s/he the right to expect that his/her government will respect that and not make laws based on a God in whom s/he does not believe.

************************
In any case, a government endorsing any religion, even if it is purely the endorsement of the concept of "God" is restricting the free exercise of its citizens right to practice religion. How can I participate in a religion which says that "I am my own highest authority" if my government claims "In God We Trust"?

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 00:25

Ahh, there we go. The truth comes out.

Who were you saying was prejudiced?

Athiests, agnostics, and everyone have a right to free exercise of religion and against the establishment of religion.

You cannot deny others the freedoms you claim.

If I’m such a tyrannical theocrat, prejudiced and what not, then so is

JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting U.S. Supreme Court
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)

He's saying here everything I've said throughout this thread, only he's admittedly much better at it than I :p

It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. Thus the Court's opinion in Everson - while correct in bracketing Madison and Jefferson together in their exertions in their home State leading to the enactment of the [472 U.S. 38, 99] Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty - is totally incorrect in suggesting that Madison carried these views onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives when he proposed the language which would ultimately become the Bill of Rights.

The repetition of this error in the Court's opinion in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), and, inter alia, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), does not make it any sounder historically. Finally, in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 214 (1963), the Court made the truly remarkable statement that "the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States" (footnote omitted). On the basis of what evidence we have, this statement is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history. 4 And its repetition in varying forms in succeeding opinions of the Court can give it no more authority than it possesses as a matter of fact; stare decisis may bind courts as to matters of law, but it cannot bind them as to matters of history.

None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them from the Select Committee, or the evil to be aimed at, would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke were concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly.

-----

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=472&invol=38

It’s not like I’m an irrational fundamentalist as has been expressed over and over again, I just say that the ACLU and others have over the years changed the meaning of the 1st Amendment and it’s about time to speak up and stop the ridiculously non-ending slide into absurdity when comparing it to the original wording and intent.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 00:35

An atheist can most certainly claim "religion." All s/he must claim is that s/he has a conscientious devotion to a cause, principle or activity. If that cause is believing that no God exists, then that's a religion. And as such, s/he the right to expect that his/her government will respect that and not make laws based on a God in whom s/he does not believe.

************************
In any case, a government endorsing any religion, even if it is purely the endorsement of the concept of "God" is restricting the free exercise of its citizens right to practice religion. How can I participate in a religion which says that "I am my own highest authority" if my government claims "In God We Trust"?

First part:
No, she can get away with it 'by' claiming as you say. But to really be doing it and having a religion, you MUST actually be doing it, devotion to nothing? It's absurd The athiest organization now are not churches, they are clubs, with membership and ritual and agenda and whatnot, but to call it a religion is just 'loop-holing' their organization into it for political purposes...

Second part: see my post to Cat, just above this one.

Geecka

16-06-2005, 00:51

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 01:02

I wonder how you'd feel if someone called your religion, your entire philosophy on life and the world absurd or 'loop-holing.' I imagine not good. Do you know why I imagine not good? Because if someone called my belief in Christ absurd or 'loop-holing', I'd feel not good.

a·the·ism: [ th - z m ]
n.

a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.

a·the·ist: [ th - st ]
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

a·the·is·tic [ th - s t k ] also a·the·is·ti·cal [ -t -k l ]
adj.

Relating to or characteristic of atheism or atheists.
Inclined to atheism.

Nope, I'm not seeing the word religion anywhere in there... Perhaps it's like believing one type of scientific theory of the other, even if zealous about it, it still wouldn't be a religion now would it?

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 01:38

If I’m such a tyrannical theocrat, prejudiced and what not, then so is

JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting U.S. Supreme Court
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)

He's saying here everything I've said throughout this thread, only he's admittedly much better at it than I :p

*snip*

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=472&invol=38 [/indent]

It’s not like I’m an irrational fundamentalist as has been expressed over and over again, I just say that the ACLU and others have over the years changed the meaning of the 1st Amendment and it’s about time to speak up and stop the ridiculously non-ending slide into absurdity when comparing it to the original wording and intent.

ROTFLASTC

You found a dissent in which one Justice said something vaguely similar to some of the things you have said here.

And, yes, I fervent disagree with Chief Justice Rehnquist on this -- so did at least 6 other Justices.

In addition to the opinions of the majority, extensive discussions of the errors in Rehnquist's dissent can be found throughout the web. See, e.g.,here (http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/162/1/41), here (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/rebuttal.htm)

Did you actually read the case you cited?

Or did you just read the clip from the dissent you found on the web?

Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985), involved a statute that allowed teacher-led prayer in school or an enforced minute for "meditation or voluntary prayer." Six Justices disagreed with Justice Rehnquist. (He was not at that time Chief Justice.) Do you agree with Justice Rehnquist that the law was constitutional?

Moreover, you previously said you agreed with the statement from Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ), 330 U.S. 1 (1947) that Rehnquist denounces in his dissent.

For example:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9045984&postcount=161
Again, read this (and either explain why it is wrong or accept it):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

I entirely accept it. And I say ‘allowing’ the individual communities to worship, in public and as a community, do not in any way break or change the above decision/ruling. You think allowing it breaks the rule, even though taxpayer money or taxes is not involved. I disagree, I think that above ruling is entirely about money and taxes and how it’s spent, not what face a community might display (religiously).

When pressed by me, you have repeatedly said you don't disagree with Everson and that you agree with principle with the separation of Church and State. Now, you quote and agree with Rehnquist directly disputing that quote from Everson and arguing against the principle of separation of Church and State.

Moreover, although you love to use the ACLU as a bugaboo, you and Justice Rehnquist are not just arguing against some recent changes in constitutional jurisprudence. You are attacking caselaw that goes back to at least 1879.

Just a few post ago you claimed that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience added in 1954 was now part of our historical heritage. Yet you endorse the attempt to overturn cases dating back to 1879 (including Everson, which was decided in 1947). How is newer event hallowed history, but the much older events recent abberations?

I know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but direct inconsistencies on the heart of the matter being discussed evidences of foolishness, desperation, and lack of intellectual integrity.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 02:02

Just a few post ago you claimed that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience added in 1954 was now part of our historical heritage. Yet you endorse the attempt to overturn cases dating back to 1879 (including Everson, which was decided in 1947). How is newer event hallowed history, but the much older events recent abberations?

I know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but direct inconsistencies on the heart of the matter being discussed evidences of foolishness, desperation, and lack of intellectual integrity.

It's entirely consistent. Go read the rest of the dissent if you think I'm talking out of my neck. The "under God" stuff goes perfectly well with my position.

It's seems odd to me that you are incapable of responding without the obnoxious flow of insults and spitefulness. It distracts from your ability to express your point effectively. Maybe you should seek help with that, perchance you are distinctly repressed and angry, I don’t know. You wanted an opinion instead of me saying compromise, I gave one. You called me prejudiced, I refuted that with others who agree with me on the non-prejudiced historical account and interpretation of the amendment.

You now say what?
Moreover, although you love to use the ACLU as a bugaboo, you and Justice Rehnquist are not just arguing against some recent changes in constitutional jurisprudence. You are attacking caselaw that goes back to at least 1879. Obviously YOU didn’t read the dissent, it’s a historical walk through the amendment itself and how it got enacted and why Jefferson’s version should not be more valued than Madison’s view of it, and he shows how it got to where we are today, and it all started with a wrong turn…

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 02:21

Atheist don't have a religion, how can freedom of religion apply to something that doesn't exist? They have personal rights, rights of freedom of speech etc., but their 'belief' is not a religion and isn't protected...

a·the·ism: [ th - z m ]
n.

a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.

a·the·ist: [ th - st ]
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

a·the·is·tic [ th - s t k ] also a·the·is·ti·cal [ -t -k l ]
adj.

Relating to or characteristic of atheism or atheists.
Inclined to atheism.

Nope, I'm not seeing the word religion anywhere in there... Perhaps it's like believing one type of scientific theory of the other, even if zealous about it, it still wouldn't be a religion now would it?

You walk a dangerous road, my friend.

If atheism is not a religion, then it can be official taught in schools, right?

Atheism could be officially established as the belief system of the government -- because, if it is not a religion, its establishment would not be the establishment of a religion.

Your position that only some religious beliefs qualify a religion is either simple prejudice or a disingenuous tap-dance.

Regardless, they are not the law.

From the majority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985):

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

Would you really argue against that sentiment?

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html ), 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488#495), 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=330&page=15#15), 330 US 1, 18 (1947) (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers").

You might also read some of the conscientious objector cases. It is has been clearly held that "religion" does not require belief in a God or gods. That firmly held athiestic beliefs qualify as a religion.

In addition to be the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face, your attempt to deny that some religious views are religions is simply wrong.

The Black Forrest

16-06-2005, 02:39

JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting U.S. Supreme Court
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)

*SNIP*

Findlaw good source!

Did you read the case?

That is nothing more then a dissenting opinion. Which with respect to the CJ he is wrong on many issues.

I get the impression you have not read heavily on Madison. He spent the later part of his life arguing against the misuse of his statements.

Here is an analysis with a case with the Burger Court. It has many comments made by Madison. It's small but it's meant to give you an idea to the man.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meet.htm

You might want to have a looksy at:

BOARD OF ED. OF KIRYAS JOEL v. GRUMET
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/512/687.html
Justice David Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-62
Prayers at a football game a nono.

The Black Forrest

16-06-2005, 02:40

Cat-Tribe

Thanks for that link. Interesting read. Book marking that site! :D

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 03:17

You might want to have a looksy at:

BOARD OF ED. OF KIRYAS JOEL v. GRUMET
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/512/687.html
Justice David Souter concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
That seems to have been found to be in error, AGOSTINI et al. v. FELTON et al. Decided June 23, 1997 here;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/521/203.html
(e) The Aguilar Court erred in concluding that New York City's Title I program resulted in an excessive entanglement between church and state. Regardless of whether entanglement is considered in the course of assessing if a program has an impermissible effect of advancing religion, Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 674 , or as a factor separate and apart from "effect," Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S., 612-613, the considerations used to assess its excessiveness are similar: The Court looks to the character and purposes of the benefited institutions, the nature of the aid that the State provides, and the resulting relationship between the government and religious authority.

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-62
Prayers at a football game a nono.

And of this one, I need a couple more Judges on my side and it won't happen anymore. As seen in the dissent;

Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The Court distorts existing precedent to conclude that the school district's student-message program is invalid on its face under the Establishment Clause. But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court's opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." Presidential Proclamation, 1 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, p. 64 (J. Richardson ed. 1897).

I've never pretended that my point of view is winning, only that it's right and NOT some off the wall radicalism... :p

Geecka

16-06-2005, 03:23

I've never pretended that my point of view is winning, only that it's right and NOT some off the wall radicalism... :p

I see, as long as the majority wants God on our bills, then we should do what the majority wants. When the majority does not want God in our schools, but the minority does, the minority is right.

Which is it? The majority or the minority?

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 03:40

That seems to have been found to be in error, AGOSTINI et al. v. FELTON et al. Decided June 23, 1997 here;
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/521/203.html
(e) The Aguilar Court erred in concluding that New York City's Title I program resulted in an excessive entanglement between church and state. Regardless of whether entanglement is considered in the course of assessing if a program has an impermissible effect of advancing religion, Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 674 , or as a factor separate and apart from "effect," Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S., 612-613, the considerations used to assess its excessiveness are similar: The Court looks to the character and purposes of the benefited institutions, the nature of the aid that the State provides, and the resulting relationship between the government and religious authority.

1. I've pointed out to you before that the syllabus is not the opinion of the Court and is not law. You continue to make this mistake. Read the top of the page of your own link:

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=200&invol=321#337) .

:headbang:

2. Care to point out where in the Agostini opinion the Court overturns Board of Educ.Kiryas Joel Village School v. Grumet, 512 US 687 (1994)?

And of this one, I need a couple more Judges on my side and it won't happen anymore. As seen in the dissent;

Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The Court distorts existing precedent to conclude that the school district's student-message program is invalid on its face under the Establishment Clause. But even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court's opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." Presidential Proclamation, 1 Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, p. 64 (J. Richardson ed. 1897).

I've never pretended that my point of view is winning, only that it's right and NOT some off the wall radicalism... :p

I'm sorry, but your position is hardly vindicated by the fact that the right-wing has managed to put 3 Justices on the Court that "agree" with you. (You ignore the number of cases in which at least 2 of these Justice disagree with positions you have taken. Or that you contradict yourself in your selective agreement with bits and pieces of some Court opinions.)

Again, this was a 6-3 opinion. So both the historical decisions of the Court and the vast majority of the current Court reject your view. (I am not suggesting that the 3 dissenters would agree with much of what you have said here.)

Moreoever, I suggest you didn't actually read much of the dissent, which argued primarily that the issue at hand wasn't ripe and conceded that "[t]he policy at issue here may be applied in an unconstitutional manner..."

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 03:44

I see, as long as the majority wants God on our bills, then we should do what the majority wants. When the majority does not want God in our schools, but the minority does, the minority is right.

Which is it? The majority or the minority?

The majority of the People of America DO believe in some form of supreme ruler, or as the MA preamble says; supreme legistature of the Universe :p , but the supreme court doesn't doesn't share the same disposition as the country does though. Some of them do, but not enough.

From the majority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985):

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.
Would you really argue against that sentiment?

I agreed with this part of the dissent anyway… BURGER, WHITE, and REHNQUIST, filed dissenting opinions.
from your link:
The solution to the conflict between the Religion Clauses lies not in "neutrality," but rather in identifying workable limits to the government's license to promote the free exercise of religion. The text of the Free Exercise Clause speaks of laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. On its face, the Clause is directed at government interference with free exercise. Given that concern, one can plausibly assert that government-imposed burden on the free exercise of religion. If a statute falls within this category, then the standard Establishment Clause test should be modified accordingly. It is disingenuous to look for a purely secular purpose when the manifest objective of a statute is to facilitate the free exercise of religion by lifting a government-imposed burden. Instead, the Court should simply acknowledge that the religious purpose of such a statute is legitimate by the Free Exercise Clause. I would also go further. In assessing the effect of such a statute - that is, in determining whether the statute conveys the message of endorsement of religion or a particular religious belief - courts should assume that the "objective observer," supra, at 76, is acquainted with the Free Exercise Clause and the values it promotes. Thus individual perceptions, or resentment that a religious observer is exempted from a particular government requirement, would be entitled to little weight if the Free Exercise Clause strongly supported the exemption.

Geecka

16-06-2005, 03:48

The majority of the People of America DO believe in some form of supreme ruler, or as the MA preamble says; supreme legistature of the Universe :p , but the supreme court doesn't doesn't share the same disposition as the country does though. Some of them do, but not enough.

Again, you miss the point. :headbang:

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 03:52

1. I've pointed out to you before that the syllabus is not the opinion of the Court and is not law. You continue to make this mistake. Yes I do, my apologies, I'll try to remedy that.

I'm sorry, but your position is hardly vindicated by the fact that the right-wing has managed to put 3 Justices on the Court that "agree" with you. (You ignore the number of cases in which at least 2 of these Justice disagree with positions you have taken. Or that you contradict yourself in your selective agreement with bits and pieces of some Court opinions.)

Again, this was a 6-3 opinion. So both the historical decisions of the Court and the vast majority of the current Court reject your view. (I am not suggesting that the 3 dissenters would agree with much of what you have said here.)

Scary for your side though isn't it? Just two more to go and it all turns around on a nutshell :eek: You think we can get two more in there before Bush is gone?

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 04:04

I can't understand it because it's not in the constitution. It doesn't say anything about freedom from religion. You can choose to believe or not to believe any religion you want, but it never gave the right to anyone to go and stop everyone else from acknowledging God...

Religion, NOUN:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Dictionary.com is known for being flawed. Try Mirriam-Webster where it explains it much better as I quoted it to you. www.m-w.com

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 04:08

a·the·ism: [ th - z m ]
n.

a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.

a·the·ist: [ th - st ]
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

a·the·is·tic [ th - s t k ] also a·the·is·ti·cal [ -t -k l ]
adj.

Relating to or characteristic of atheism or atheists.
Inclined to atheism.

Nope, I'm not seeing the word religion anywhere in there... Perhaps it's like believing one type of scientific theory of the other, even if zealous about it, it still wouldn't be a religion now would it?

I clearly showed you how Atheism counts a religious belief in that it is related to the absolute nature of reality and it's faith-based. A deity is not required for a religion no matter how much you try to make it a requirement. I noticed you chose to ignore that because it makes what you say ridiculous.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 04:10

Nice job avoiding the questions you wrote and I reworded (replaced Muslim with Atheist). I wonder why you avoided them? Maybe because you clearly believe that insulting Atheists and not protecting them is okay while insulting Muslims and not protecting them would hurt 'your cause'.

Dictionary time again -

Religious -
1. 1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

That means that religious views do not require a deity but they just must be a belief about the ultimate reality based on faith (faith that there is no God, in this case)

Religion -
1b(2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Straight from Mirriam Webster's dictionary. You know what that makes an atheistic belief system? A religion. They are not all the same any more than all Christians are, but they do have religious views that should be and are protected by the US Constitution.

Seriously, they even have online dictionaries that are free.

I'll just throw this one up there again.

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 04:13

*snip*

You continue with your policy of highly selective responses -- often ignoring my primary points and posts.

Your refusal to respond to salient points has grown too tiresome to tolerate.

I may choose to respond to your most erroneous points when it amuses me.

But, as you have ceased to "debate" in any meaningful way, I will not attempt to engage you further and carry on this farce.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 04:21

Yes I do, my apologies, I'll try to remedy that.

Scary for your side though isn't it? Just two more to go and it all turns around on a nutshell :eek: You think we can get two more in there before Bush is gone?

And here we go, finally the truth comes out. You want to amend the constitution from the back end. Because it currently tries to protect freedom of thought and you want to end that. Does it matter to you that though the majority of us believe in some God the majority of Americans vehemently defend the seperation of Church and State. Your suggestion that just because I believe in God I believe in trampling the rights of others is ludicrous. Yes, all people do have the right to be represented by a government that does not crap on their beliefs by suggesting another belief is more right just because it's held by the majority. There was a time when the majority believed that black people were lesser human beings. There was a time when the majority thought that women didn't deserve to vote. There was a time when the majority thought the sun revolved around the earth. Your claims are ridiculous. Our country has constantly evolved towards protecting more and more rights. You complain about it. It's obvious where you sit on the issue of protecting human rights. I understand why the ACLU would be an affront to you.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 04:23

You continue with your policy of highly selective responses -- often ignoring my primary points and posts.

Your refusal to respond to salient points has grown too tiresome to tolerate.

I may choose to respond to your most erroneous points when it amuses me.

But, as you have ceased to "debate" in any meaningful way, I will not attempt to engage you further and carry on this farce.

So he's not only doing it to me? It's ridiculous isn't it?

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 04:35

I clearly showed you how Atheism counts a religious belief in that it is related to the absolute nature of reality and it's faith-based. A deity is not required for a religion no matter how much you try to make it a requirement. I noticed you chose to ignore that because it makes what you say ridiculous.

Finding a legal definition should be our goal here, the tax man says:

An institution will be a religious institution if:

its objects and activities reflect its character as a body instituted for the promotion of some religious object, and
the beliefs and practices of the members constitute a religion.
The term ‘religion’ is not confined to major religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, but also extends to Buddhism, Taoism, Jehovah’s Witness, the Free Daist Communion of Australia and Scientology. The categories of religion are not closed. Nonetheless, to be a religion there must be:

belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle, and
acceptance of canons of conduct that give effect to that belief, but that do not offend against the ordinary laws.

http://www.ato.gov.au/print.asp?doc=/content/34269.htm&page=1#P464_34091

Is there any athiest churches that qualify as Tax Exempt Church instead of non-profit organization?

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 04:47

Finding a legal definition should be our goal here, the tax man says:

An institution will be a religious institution if:

its objects and activities reflect its character as a body instituted for the promotion of some religious object, and
the beliefs and practices of the members constitute a religion.
The term ‘religion’ is not confined to major religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, but also extends to Buddhism, Taoism, Jehovah’s Witness, the Free Daist Communion of Australia and Scientology. The categories of religion are not closed. Nonetheless, to be a religion there must be:

belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle, and
acceptance of canons of conduct that give effect to that belief, but that do not offend against the ordinary laws.

http://www.ato.gov.au/print.asp?doc=/content/34269.htm&page=1#P464_34091

Is there any athiest churches that qualify as Tax Exempt Church instead of non-profit organization?

Sorry, Charlie, that is a definition from the Australian tax code of a "religious organization." :eek:

Not the U.S. Not related to the First Amendment. Not a definition of religion.

3 strikes. You're out.

LOL. :D

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 04:49

Sorry, Charlie, that is a definition from the Australian tax code. :eek:

LOL. :D

So find a better one... Even I admit that the IRS one stinks, heck, it's a wonder anyone get tax exempt with those guys :D (I thought I was being realistic with an international definition that looks reasonable)

The IRS criteria are:

a distinct legal existence,
a recognized creed and form of worship,
a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,
a formal code of doctrine and discipline
a distinct religious history,
a membership not associated with any other church or denomination,
an organization of ordained ministers,
ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies,
a literature of its own,
established places of worship,
regular congregations,
regular religious services,
Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young,
school for the preparation of its ministers.

In summary, the IRS criteria are hopelessly flawed. They favor large, well-established, high or formal churches and discriminate against small, new, unconventional, informal or low churches. The Christian churches of the New Testament at Philippi, Corinth, and Thessalonica arguably would not meet the first through eighth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth criteria of the IRS test. The criteria are conceptually flawed and should be abandoned. In their place, the IRS should use a simpler, broader, and more constitutionally acceptable definition.

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm

Perhaps the UN has one?

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 05:00

Finding a legal definition should be our goal here, the tax man says:

An institution will be a religious institution if:

its objects and activities reflect its character as a body instituted for the promotion of some religious object, and
the beliefs and practices of the members constitute a religion.
The term ‘religion’ is not confined to major religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, but also extends to Buddhism, Taoism, Jehovah’s Witness, the Free Daist Communion of Australia and Scientology. The categories of religion are not closed. Nonetheless, to be a religion there must be:

belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle, and
acceptance of canons of conduct that give effect to that belief, but that do not offend against the ordinary laws.

http://www.ato.gov.au/print.asp?doc=/content/34269.htm&page=1#P464_34091

Is there any athiest churches that qualify as Tax Exempt Church instead of non-profit organization?

Besides the fact that this isn't US law (you had to go to another country to find what you were looking for), because people adhering to a particular set of religious principles don't have a church doesn't deny them their religious rights. Does it say that in order to be protected one must worship in large groups and request tax shelter?

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 05:03

Besides the fact that this isn't US law (you had to go to another country to find what you were looking for), because people adhering to a particular set of religious principles don't have a church doesn't deny them their religious rights. Does it say that in order to be protected one must worship in large groups and request tax shelter?

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm
The Court in Thomas v. Review Board again signalled that personal philosophical choice is not protected by the first amendment religion clauses. Chief Justice Burger stated that "[o]nly beliefs rooted in religion are protected by the Free Exercise Clause, which, by its terms, gives special protection to the exercise of religion." While not defining religion, the Thomas decision makes it clear that a constitutional definition should distinguish between religion and mere conscientious belief.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 05:09

So find a better one... Even I admit that the IRS one stinks, heck, it's a wonder anyone get tax exempt with those guys :D (I thought I was being realistic with an international definition that looks reasonable)

The IRS criteria are:

a distinct legal existence,
a recognized creed and form of worship,
a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government,
a formal code of doctrine and discipline
a distinct religious history,
a membership not associated with any other church or denomination,
an organization of ordained ministers,
ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies,
a literature of its own,
established places of worship,
regular congregations,
regular religious services,
Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young,
school for the preparation of its ministers.

In summary, the IRS criteria are hopelessly flawed. They favor large, well-established, high or formal churches and discriminate against small, new, unconventional, informal or low churches. The Christian churches of the New Testament at Philippi, Corinth, and Thessalonica arguably would not meet the first through eighth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth criteria of the IRS test. The criteria are conceptually flawed and should be abandoned. In their place, the IRS should use a simpler, broader, and more constitutionally acceptable definition.

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm

Perhaps the UN has one?

Awesome link. You read it, yes? It says atheists can belong to a religion. Guess it must be protected

The second criterion is flawed because recognized creed and form of worship is sometimes imperceptible even in major denominations. The Unitarian Universalists, for example, a denomination of approximately 200,000 members, follows

No formal or central creed. Their ministers and members are not required to pass any test of faith. Freedom of belief among Unitarians is broad enough to include agnosticism, humanism, even atheism, on the one hand, and, on the other, a belief in God which can be manifested in a wide range of definitions - from that of a "personal god" to a an "Ultimate Reality." [b][i]May Unitarians feel the word "God" a stumbling block to communication about the supreme matters of the spirit[b][i]. They choose to avoid an excessive use of all words that stand in the way of, instead of encouraging, profound understanding.
Oh, look, this document you referenced suggests a religion that should be protected includes atheists (in what should be a recognized religion). Note the bold. Also in the bolded and italicized portion, it seems this same religion has a distinct problem with the word, "God". Seems like putting "God" on our money and in our pledge would violate their freedom of religion.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 05:13

Awesome link. You read it, yes? It says atheists can belong to a religion. Guess it must be protected

Oh, look, this document you referenced suggests a religion that should be protected includes atheists (in what should be a recognized religion). Note the bold. Also in the bolded and italicized portion, it seems this same religion has a distinct problem with the word, "God". Seems like putting "God" on our money and in our pledge would violate their freedom of religion.

So show me your athiest church then... read with understanding. An athiest in the Unitarian Church, would be protected. An athiest without a church is not protected.

EDIT: Interesting enough, side note: while looking for this stuff, I saw a few references to some Unitarian Church in Texas having a problem keeping their tax-exempt status.... anyone know anything about that?

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 05:13

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 05:15

So show me your athiest church then... read with understanding. An athiest in the Unitarian Church, would be protected. An athiest without a church is not protected.

I guess I missed in the clause where it said that churches were required for religion. I suppose you can point out where in the first amendment says that it's freedom of religions with churches?

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 05:17

I guess I missed in the clause where it said that churches were required for religion. I suppose you can point out where in the first amendment says that it's freedom of religions with churches?

Freedom of belief among Unitarians is broad enough to include agnosticism, humanism, even atheism, on the one hand, and, on the other, a belief in God which can be manifested in a wide range of definitions -

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 05:17

http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm
The Court in Thomas v. Review Board again signalled that personal philosophical choice is not protected by the first amendment religion clauses. Chief Justice Burger stated that "[o]nly beliefs rooted in religion are protected by the Free Exercise Clause, which, by its terms, gives special protection to the exercise of religion." While not defining religion, the Thomas decision makes it clear that a constitutional definition should distinguish between religion and mere conscientious belief.

This is truly sad.

You didn't really read that article did you?

In United States v. Ballard, Justice Douglas, writing for the majority, embraced a much broader definition of religion:

Freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of orthodox faiths . . . . Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines of beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law.

As Judge Hand had asserted, religion need not be bound by reason and logic. In Everson v. Board of Education, the principles of voluntarism, essentially the notion that belief should be free and not coerced, and separatism, the belief that religion and government should not involve themselves in the other’s activities, were developed. These two purposes find expression in the contemporary understanding of the two religion clauses of the Constitution: the free exercise clause and the establishment clause.

In Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court broke the theistic mold which had theretofore restricted the American legal definition of religion. According to the Court, the first amendment precluded government from aiding "those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." The Court noted that "[a]mong religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." This expanded position reflected a recognition of the great diversity of religious beliefs in modern America.

While Congress has provided no definition of religion in the context of federal tax exemptions, it did so in the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948. The Act’s provision allowing a military exemption for those conscientiously opposed to war due to religious credences defined religious training and belief as "an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation but [not including] . . . essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."

In 1965, the Supreme Court interpreted this definition, in United States v. Seeger, to allow conscientious objector status to persons bound by a perceived duty to realities superior to man, but not affiliated with any orthodox religion. The Court found that Congress intended the term "Supreme Being" to encompass all religious but not purely political, sociological, or philosophical beliefs. Thus, the key determination was

whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of the respective holders we cannot say that one is in a relation to a ‘Supreme Being’ and the other is not.

In Welsh v. United States, the Court reinforced Seeger’s interpretation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, finding that although Welsh could not characterize his beliefs as religious, they nevertheless "function as a religion in his life," and holding that he was therefore qualified for exemption under the statute. The Court distinguished registrants who do not have strong convictions, and "those whose objection to war does not rest at all upon moral, ethical, or religious principle but instead rests solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, or expediency."

Nice try. No cigar.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 05:18

Freedom of belief among Unitarians is broad enough to include agnosticism, humanism, even atheism, on the one hand, and, on the other, a belief in God which can be manifested in a wide range of definitions -

Are you making a point? I said show me where in the first amendment it says that a church is required? Don't see the word church below, do you?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 05:23

This is truly sad.

You didn't really read that article did you?

Nice try. No cigar.

I really don't think he did. It also says that atheists should be protected.

EDIT: It also specifically referenced a protected religion that has a distinct problem with the word "God"

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 05:24

So find a better one... *snip*

I already provided you with links to multiple Supreme Court decisions saying the First Amendment protections for free exercise of religion apply to atheism and non-theistic religion.

I also pointed out your argument that atheism is not a religion leads to the conclusion that the government could constitutionally require the teaching of athiesm in schools.

You've just conveniently chosen to ignore that post. :rolleyes: :headbang:

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 05:25

This is truly sad.

You didn't really read that article did you?

Nice try. No cigar.

The Act’s provision allowing a military exemption for those conscientiously opposed to war due to religious credences defined religious training and belief as "an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation but [not including] . . . essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."

In 1965, the Supreme Court interpreted this definition, in United States v. Seeger, to allow conscientious objector status to persons bound by a perceived duty to realities superior to man, but not affiliated with any orthodox religion. The Court found that Congress intended the term "Supreme Being" to encompass all religious but not purely political, sociological, or philosophical beliefs. Thus, the key determination was

whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of the respective holders we cannot say that one is in a relation to a ‘Supreme Being’ and the other is not.

At the end there, a relation to Supreme Being is paramount, the identifying factors of that are in question...It's not saying it isn't needed.

OBVIOUSLY: the definition of what is and is not protected by the first amendment is still being discussed. Neither Webster nor our government has the end all answer yet. I stand with my position. The lack of religion is not itself religion, Atheism is by it's very description, not worship.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 05:30

The Act’s provision allowing a military exemption for those conscientiously opposed to war due to religious credences defined religious training and belief as "an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation but [not including] . . . essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."

In 1965, the Supreme Court interpreted this definition, in United States v. Seeger, to allow conscientious objector status to persons bound by a perceived duty to realities superior to man, but not affiliated with any orthodox religion. The Court found that Congress intended the term "Supreme Being" to encompass all religious but not purely political, sociological, or philosophical beliefs. Thus, the key determination was

whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of the respective holders we cannot say that one is in a relation to a ‘Supreme Being’ and the other is not.

At the end there, a relation to Supreme Being is paramount, the identifying factors of that are in question...It's not saying it isn't needed.

OBVIOUSLY: the definition of what is and is not protected by the first amendment is still being discussed. Neither Webster nor our government has the end all answer yet. I stand with my position. The lack of religion is not itself religion, Atheism is by it's very description, not worship.

You already said that atheists within the Unitarian Church should be protected. So great, now we all agree that the first amendment protects both people who believe and people who don't believe in a supreme being. So anyone trying to prevent the govennment from acknowledging God as it would be respecting an establishment of religion that is not Unitarian and thus be preventing the free excercise of Unitarians is acting in direct accordance with the intent of the first amendment. I'm glad we all agree. Good night.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 05:30

I also pointed out your argument that atheism is not a religion leads to the conclusion that the government could constitutionally require the teaching of athiesm in schools.

Oops, it's been a busy thread...

What's your point? Atheism IS already taught in schools, in social studies, government courses, debate, the existence of people that say there isn't any true religion and God is dead etc., is well known in every public high school in America, no one is keeping it secret. Look at the number of high school kids in this forum that are well aware and agree that there is no God. Atheism isn't a religion, it's a belief, a point of view.

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 05:31

Perhaps the UN has one?

In 1993 the Human Rights Committee, an independent body of 18 experts selected through a UN process, described religion or belief as “theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.” http://www.wunrn.com/reference/pdf/Gen_Comment22_on18.PDF

The United Nations recognized the importance of freedom of religion or belief in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) (Universal Declaration), in which Article 18 states that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his [her] choice.”

In 1966 the UN passed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm), expanding its prior statement to address the manifestation of religion or belief. Article 18 of this Covenant includes four paragraphs related to this issue:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his [her] choice, and freedom either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his [her] religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his [her] freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his [her] choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 05:34

So show me your athiest church then... read with understanding. An athiest in the Unitarian Church, would be protected. An athiest without a church is not protected.

EDIT: Interesting enough, side note: while looking for this stuff, I saw a few references to some Unitarian Church in Texas having a problem keeping their tax-exempt status.... anyone know anything about that?

Good, you have now acknowledged that atheists can sometimes be protected, small progress, but progress nonetheless. So you see why putting God in our laws, on our money, in our mottos, etc. would not be respecting their religious freedom as protected by the first amendment.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 05:37

Oops, it's been a busy thread...

What's your point? Atheism IS already taught in schools, in social studies, government courses, debate, the existence of people that say there isn't any true religion and God is dead etc., is well known in every public high school in America, no one is keeping it secret. Look at the number of high school kids in this forum that are well aware and agree that there is no God. Atheism isn't a religion, it's a belief, a point of view.

That's a load of crap. As you pointed out, the majority of people, including teachers, believe in a supreme being(s). Why would those people be teaching people not to believe in God? Schools are specifically required to leave God out of the curriculum. Again, that's not atheism, it's ignoring religion altogether.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 05:44

That's a load of crap. As you pointed out, the majority of people, including teachers, believe in a supreme being(s). Why would those people be teaching people not to believe in God? Schools are specifically required to leave God out of the curriculum. Again, that's not atheism, it's ignoring religion altogether.

I didn't say they were 'advancing the belief in it' I said that it is taught by not being ignored, it's existence is quick and simple. Name one high-school kid that doens't know what atheism is. It's taught like history is taught, I don't have a problem with this, why would I? Atheism isn't a religion.

Parfaire

16-06-2005, 05:46

But not to the extreme that librals are taking now, example: The ACLU trying to ban all Boy Scouts from government land and such because they mention god in an oath they take when they join.

Are you suggesting that if the ACLU had its way, a Boy Scout would be prohibited from setting foot on government property? I suspect that that's an exaggeration.

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 05:46

Oops, it's been a busy thread...

What's your point? Atheism IS already taught in schools, in social studies, government courses, debate, the existence of people that say there isn't any true religion and God is dead etc., is well known in every public high school in America, no one is keeping it secret. Look at the number of high school kids in this forum that are well aware and agree that there is no God. Atheism isn't a religion, it's a belief, a point of view.

ROTFLASTC.

That atheism isn't kept a complete secret means it is being actively taught?

That may be the silliest thing you have ever said. :p

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 05:48

In 1993 the Human Rights Committee, an independent body of 18 experts selected through a UN process, described religion or belief as “theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.” http://www.wunrn.com/reference/pdf/Gen_Comment22_on18.PDF
*snip*

Nice find that, but even they don’t advocate that atheism is a religion so much as they are advocating the right to not have a religion and atheism is an acceptable choice. And with that I agree.

But they didn’t have a problem with their governments not agreeing with them either, so long as the governments don’t force them to convert to anything by force nor stop them from converting by force:

10. If a set of beliefs is treated as official ideology in constitutions, statutes, proclamations of ruling parties, etc., or in actual practice, this shall not result in any impairment of the freedoms under article 18 or any other rights recognized under the Covenant nor in any discrimination against persons who do not accept the official ideology or who oppose it.

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 05:50

I didn't say they were 'advancing the belief in it' I said that it is taught by not being ignored, it's existence is quick and simple. Name one high-school kid that doens't know what atheism is. It's taught like history is taught, I don't have a problem with this, why would I? Atheism isn't a religion.

Again, you are ducking the issue.

(In addition to ignoring all the cases I cited saying the First Amendment protects non-belief along with belief).

If atheism is not a religion, then it can constitutionally be actively taught, right?

The government can declare atheism the official doctrine without violating the First Amendment.

The schools can "advanc[e] the belief in" atheism -- teach kids to be atheists -- without violating the First Amendment.

Are you really advocating that position? Or do you want to re-think your logic?

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 05:50

I didn't say they were 'advancing the belief in it' I said that it is taught by not being ignored, it's existence is quick and simple. Name one high-school kid that doens't know what atheism is. It's taught like history is taught, I don't have a problem with this, why would I? Atheism isn't a religion.

Name one high school kid who doesn't know what Christianity is. It isn't taught by not teaching about God. You really don't get it do you? Atheism requires faith also. Nobody actually knows if there is or isn't a God. It's all about belief. So not mentioning God doesn't teach people to believe one definitely doesn't exist or even encourage it. It teaches people that it's not for your high school teacher to teach you about. It's for your Sunday school teacher to teach you about. Strange how the country is 200 years old with the same first amendment and somehow without teaching religion in school we've still got a majority of people who believe in a supreme being. If what you say is true, why isn't Atheism the only belief system in America? Private schools?

Parfaire

16-06-2005, 05:54

...Atheism isn't a religion.

It isn't?

religion, n.. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
--Webster's College Dictionary, 1999 ed.

If I'm not mistaken, atheists generally believe that the universe was not caused by God, that the universe is material in nature and devoid of any God, and they have a variety of beliefs concerning the purpose of the universe. Atheism, at least to me, seems to fit the definition of a religion.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 06:17

Name one high school kid who doesn't know what Christianity is. It isn't taught by not teaching about God. You really don't get it do you? Atheism requires faith also. Nobody actually knows if there is or isn't a God. It's all about belief. So not mentioning God doesn't teach people to believe one definitely doesn't exist or even encourage it. It teaches people that it's not for your high school teacher to teach you about. It's for your Sunday school teacher to teach you about. Strange how the country is 200 years old with the same first amendment and somehow without teaching religion in school we've still got a majority of people who believe in a supreme being. If what you say is true, why isn't Atheism the only belief system in America? Private schools?

Lets just consult with the atheists...

Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as science, politics, and watching TV.

"OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But surely belief in atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith, like religion is?"

Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one actually believes in.
Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

But of course they like the ACLU version of the establishment clause, but regardless, that's the political position we've already been fighting for pages and pages.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 06:27

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 06:27

Lets just consult with the atheists...

Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of "religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as science, politics, and watching TV.

"OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But surely belief in atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith, like religion is?"

Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one actually believes in.
Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

But of course they like the ACLU version of the establishment clause, but regardless, that's the political position we've already been fighting for pages and pages.
So one group of atheists says something and it must be what all of them believe? Ridiculous. We're both Christians. How come we don't agree? Oh, right, because it doesn't work that way.

Secondly, some atheists hate the word religion simply because they associate it with a lot of the ills of the world. This does not change the definition of words. They don't get to decide that only belief structure that contain a deity can be a religion any more than you can.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 06:31

So one group of atheists says something and it must be what all of them believe? Ridiculous. We're both Christians. How come we don't agree? Oh, right, because it doesn't work that way.

Secondly, some atheists hate the word religion simply because they associate it with a lot of the ills of the world. This does not change the definition of words. They don't get to decide that only belief structure that contain a deity can be a religion any more than you can.

Can we do that? Are we allowed to just 'say' what people are, even if they themselves vehemently deny it? :D

Okay, I'll play... hmmm... I declare you a Buddhist *waves my magic wand*

Hmmm, it didn't work.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 06:32

You guys sure freak out about the silliest things. Of course they teach what atheism is, they teach what republican and democrats are, what astronomy is, what history is, the meaning of words etc., if a kid can get through high-school and not know what atheism is I think it's time to start suing the school board.

AS to advocating and/or preaching a belief, I've said no such thing about schools. The schools don't teach atheism in world religion classes, outside of mentioning that it is the absence of religion, because it's not a religion, its a belief system...

Ok, so you admit you weren't actually making a point and you were just being pedantic. Good. We noticed. He was talking about the fact that if Atheism is not a religious belief it is not affected by the first amendment. That means that there could be classes focused on convincing kids that God doesn't exist. So if you get your way then the Constitution will no longer protect you or your children from being taught in schools that God doesn't exist. And if that can't be taught in public schools because of the first amendment then Atheistic principles fall under the first amendment. You can't have one without the other.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 06:34

Can we do that? Are we allowed to just 'say' what people are, even if they themselves vehemently deny it? :D

Okay, I'll play... hmmm... I declare you a Buddhist *waves my magic wand*

Hmmm, it didn't work.

Some people who are Christian say they aren't religious as well because they don't like the word. Is Christianity a religion?

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 06:45

Again, you are ducking the issue.

(In addition to ignoring all the cases I cited saying the First Amendment protects non-belief along with belief).
Sure, I advocated for the dissenting opinion in them I believe…

If atheism is not a religion, then it can constitutionally be actively taught, right?

Yes. Taught as an ideology, like communism, capitalism, democracy, theory of economy, etc., etc., etc.

The government can declare atheism the official doctrine without violating the First Amendment.

Can they? Yes, will they? No, it would never pass congress, political suicide all the way around.

The schools can "advanc[e] the belief in" atheism -- teach kids to be atheists -- without violating the First Amendment.

Teach kids to be atheists? How can you do that? Teach them that you think all religion is a complete and utter crock? Sure, you could do it, it wouldn’t be very wise career choice, I’m sure there would be parents that saw to it that you were dismissed one way or the other. But I bet your right to say it would be defended in the courts.

Are you really advocating that position? Or do you want to re-think your logic?

Re-think what? That Atheism isn’t a religion? Neither is oligarchy, nor socialism, what’s the problem here? Did they ever teach you that the old communist soviet union was atheist and that they outlawed most religions? Didn’t they teach you what that meant when you were in school? Teaching a topic is not in and of itself advocating the preponderance of it.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 07:05

From the “Wanna become an atheist?” Thread…

Look at it this way:

Do you consider 'bald' to be a hair colour?

If so, you can justifiably call atheism a religion.

LMAO, that’s good stuff. And it's relavant here too :D

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 07:11

Sure, I advocated for the dissenting opinion in them I believe…

No. You did not. Because you persist in such nonsense, I will repeat the post.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9074532&postcount=361

You walk a dangerous road, my friend.

If atheism is not a religion, then it can be official taught in schools, right?

Atheism could be officially established as the belief system of the government -- because, if it is not a religion, its establishment would not be the establishment of a religion.

Your position that only some religious beliefs qualify a religion is either simple prejudice or a disingenuous tap-dance.

Regardless, they are not the law.

From the majority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985):

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

Would you really argue against that sentiment?

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html ), 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488#495), 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=330&page=15#15), 330 US 1, 18 (1947) (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers").

You might also read some of the conscientious objector cases. It is has been clearly held that "religion" does not require belief in a God or gods. That firmly held athiestic beliefs qualify as a religion.

In addition to be the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face, your attempt to deny that some religious views are religions is simply wrong.

You have not cited any Court opinions -- majority, concurring, or dissent -- that state that atheism or non-belief are not protected by the First Amendment.

Can they? Yes, will they? No, it would never pass congress, political suicide all the way around.

So, your position is that, under the First Amendment, the government can officially advocate atheism. The government can constitutionally declare atheism the official belief of the United States.

You don't understand freedom of religion at all.

Not to mention you have now contradicted yourself in several different ways. :rolleyes:

Yes. Taught as an ideology, like communism, capitalism, democracy, theory of economy, etc., etc., etc.

Teach kids to be atheists? How can you do that? Teach them that you think all religion is a complete and utter crock? Sure, you could do it, it wouldn’t be very wise career choice, I’m sure there would be parents that saw to it that you were dismissed one way or the other. But I bet your right to say it would be defended in the courts.

Re-think what? That Atheism isn’t a religion? Neither is oligarchy, nor socialism, what’s the problem here? Did they ever teach you that the old communist soviet union was atheist and that they outlawed most religions? Didn’t they teach you what that meant when you were in school? Teaching a topic is not in and of itself advocating the preponderance of it.

Again, you are mostly deliberately ducking the point with silly semantic games.

You are well aware of the difference between teaching about something, like communism, and teaching the belief in something, like communism. Schools are allowed to teach about religion now. They just are not to teach religious beliefs. No indoctrination.

But you actually have gone so far as to say that, under the First Amendment, schools could teach children to be athiests: teach them there is no God or gods, that any other beliefs are just superstitions.

As I thought, you'd cut off your nose to spite your face.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 07:16

Re-think what? That Atheism isn’t a religion? Neither is oligarchy, nor socialism, what’s the problem here? Did they ever teach you that the old communist soviet union was atheist and that they outlawed most religions? Didn’t they teach you what that meant when you were in school? Teaching a topic is not in and of itself advocating the preponderance of it.

I like how you try to compare an ideology based on faith to an ideology based on observed and scientifically verifiable phenomena. You mention theories about how some would like the world to be and compare it to a religious theory about the absolute nature of reality and the presence of God. Every other theory you mentioned can be supported with testing, but not Atheism. You know why? Because Atheism is faith-based and therefore doesn't really compare to you other theories. You know what else is faith-based theism

Hey, I have an idea. Let's all just try to group things together like it makes sense when it doesn't. If asexual and sexual are both means of reproduction, then it holds that theism and atheism are both types of religion. What do you mean the comparison doesn't hold because their not the same types of relationships? Oh, you mean kind of like how atheism and communism aren't the same kind of theories. Glad that's settled.

Plus, you've already admitted that atheism can be a religious belief so why are we arguing, friend?

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 07:20

From the “Wanna become an atheist?” Thread…

LMAO, that’s good stuff. And it's relavant here too :D

Bald isn't a hair color, but it is considered a hairstyle. [whine]No, but wait, it can't cuz the name has hair in it so you must have hair. I declare it so!!! /whine Nice try at a word game.

Again I go back to if sexual and asexual are both types of reproduction then theist and athiest must both be types of religions.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 07:22

Teach kids to be atheists? How can you do that? Teach them that you think all religion is a complete and utter crock? Sure, you could do it, it wouldn’t be very wise career choice, I’m sure there would be parents that saw to it that you were dismissed one way or the other. But I bet your right to say it would be defended in the courts.

It would be defended in the courts and the teacher would lose because it's a violation of the first amendment and always has been.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 07:39

It would be defended in the courts and the teacher would lose because it's a violation of the first amendment and always has been.

IF atheism was a religion, your analyses of it being wrong to teach it in public schools would be right. However, your premise is wrong, it's not a religion.

If religion is the water in a cup, and some religions had lots of water and some had a little water and you could see how much water there was in each cup before you picked it up, you'd know the atheist cup because it didn't have any water at all, it's a cup that denies water exists...There’s no religion there.

It's a belief, like saying you believe the big bang occurred 12 billion years ago. Sure, some people would think you were wrong, but it's your conclusion all the same. But it's not a religion, even if you get ten thousand other people to come and make a lot of rituals with you in the celebration of the big bang club of America...Unless you deify the big-bang, it’s not a religion, it’s a club.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 07:49

No. You did not. Because you persist in such nonsense, I will repeat the post. I did too post that I agree with the dissenting opinion on this one. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9074899&postcount=367 And in addition to that, it also goes with my assertion that I think the Lemon test should be done away with as well (from pages and pages ago).

You have not cited any Court opinions -- majority, concurring, or dissent -- that state that atheism or non-belief are not protected by the First Amendment.

I did, here:

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion , nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...ol=472&invol=38

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 08:05

Again I go back to if sexual and asexual are both types of reproduction then theist and athiest must both be types of religions.

Theist is like car owner, Atheist is like non-car owner. You either own a car, or you do not. But if you do not, you can't drive it to work... :p It's not a vehicle, its the absence of vehicle.

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 08:10

I did too post that I agree with the dissenting opinion on this one.

I quoted 4 cases. You ducked the issue on the first one and did not respond to the other 3.

On the one case where you "agree[d] with the dissenting opinion," you did not respond to the specific point re protection of atheists expressly stated in the majority opinion I quoted. Nothing in what you quoted in response said anything on the point.

I did, here:

The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion , nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...ol=472&invol=38

Setting aside that you did not cite this for this point before, that doesn't quite say what you think.

It certainly does not say atheism and/or non-theistic religions are not protected by the First Amendment.

(Not to mention you are back to that rogue dissent by Rehnquist. He was not joined by any other Justices in that dissent.)

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 08:21

Setting aside that you did not cite this for this point before, that doesn't quite say what you think. sure I did, but it was on the bottom of a big lead up, and I didn't highlight that part then...

It certainly does not say atheism and/or non-theistic religions are not protected by the First Amendment.

Sure it does, it says irreligious, because atheism isn't a religion, it the opposite of religion, as it said, and it (the opinion) says that it doens't need to be weighed because they don't have to be equal...

(Not to mention you are back to that rogue dissent by Rehnquist. He was not joined by any other Justices in that dissent.)
It doesn't matter if none of them agreed with me, it's my opinion I'm expressing. It just so happens there IS at least Rehnquist who agrees with me and thus I agree with him... That's why I posted on of his dissents in the first place because it's nearly exactly what I've been saying all along only you guys keep accusing me of saying stuff I didn't say (like the atheism in school fiasco, I swear I don't know where you guys will take stuff sometimes).

But it's too late, I'm off to bed, I'll try to rememeber to look at those other 3 cases you say I skipped over...

Bitchkitten

16-06-2005, 09:14

Don't give up, Cat, he'll eventually see he's beaten.

The Black Forrest

16-06-2005, 09:17

Don't give up, Cat, he'll eventually see he's beaten.

Doubtful. The "faithful" only see what they want to see.

Tekania

16-06-2005, 15:01

First part:
No, she can get away with it 'by' claiming as you say. But to really be doing it and having a religion, you MUST actually be doing it, devotion to nothing? It's absurd The athiest organization now are not churches, they are clubs, with membership and ritual and agenda and whatnot, but to call it a religion is just 'loop-holing' their organization into it for political purposes...

Second part: see my post to Cat, just above this one.

Atheism, like polytheism and monotheism, are theologies [more specifically viewpoints in the realm of "Theology-Proper" [Doctrines of God] (theologies are composed of doctrines), a framework of different theological disciplines, into a "World-View" form a religion.

Other realms of systematic theology include:
Ecclesiology (Doctrines of the Church)[Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, Episcopalianism]
Eschatology (Doctrines of the end times)[Amillenialism, Postmillenialism, Premillenialism(Post, mid, and pre-tribulational; Coventialism, and Dispensationalism)
Anthropology (Doctrines of Man)
Christology (Doctrines of Christ)[Mancheanism, Trinitarianism, Arianism, etc.)
Soterology (Doctrines of Salvation)(Pelagianism, Arminianism, Calvinism, Antinomianism)
Bibliology (Doctrines of the Written Word)
Pneumatology (Doctrines of the Holy Spirit)

Tekania

16-06-2005, 15:08

Finding a legal definition should be our goal here, the tax man says:

An institution will be a religious institution if:

its objects and activities reflect its character as a body instituted for the promotion of some religious object, and
the beliefs and practices of the members constitute a religion.
The term ‘religion’ is not confined to major religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, but also extends to Buddhism, Taoism, Jehovah’s Witness, the Free Daist Communion of Australia and Scientology. The categories of religion are not closed. Nonetheless, to be a religion there must be:

belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle, and
acceptance of canons of conduct that give effect to that belief, but that do not offend against the ordinary laws.

http://www.ato.gov.au/print.asp?doc=/content/34269.htm&page=1#P464_34091

Is there any athiest churches that qualify as Tax Exempt Church instead of non-profit organization?

You just included "Taoism"... Taoism is a secular-naturalistic religion which affirms the non-existence of diety [much like Confusionism]. They are "Philosophical Religions". So your argument (at the end) is fraudulent.

Tekania

16-06-2005, 15:18

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 15:29

IF atheism was a religion, your analyses of it being wrong to teach it in public schools would be right. However, your premise is wrong, it's not a religion.

If religion is the water in a cup, and some religions had lots of water and some had a little water and you could see how much water there was in each cup before you picked it up, you'd know the atheist cup because it didn't have any water at all, it's a cup that denies water exists...There’s no religion there.

It's a belief, like saying you believe the big bang occurred 12 billion years ago. Sure, some people would think you were wrong, but it's your conclusion all the same. But it's not a religion, even if you get ten thousand other people to come and make a lot of rituals with you in the celebration of the big bang club of America...Unless you deify the big-bang, it’s not a religion, it’s a club.

Atheism is theological viewpoint and theological viewpoints fall under religion. Teachers are not allowed to espouse theological viewpoints.

Amazingly, you are arguing that teachers and in fact the government should be allowed to teach people that God does not exist. We could put There is no God on the money because according to you it is not a religious viewpoint. Of course, the idea is ludicrous.

According to you if you lived in a community that was mostly atheist that community's school could teach your children that there is no God and you couldn't do anything about it. If Atheism is not a religious viewpoint then it doesn't fall under the first amendment and the courts would be helpless to help you. However, your supposed viewpoint (I'm sorry but I simply think you're being pedantic. There is no way you don't understand that atheism cannot be taught in schools) is not the way it actually works. In reality, this is in violation of religious freedom and you can't possibly believe that it's not and consider yourself to be a rational person. The first amendment is specifically to prevent this kind of occurance.

Again, you try to mix theology and scientific theory. The Big Bang is not faith-based. There are tons of scientific tests that have been conducted to support Big Bang. No scientific test ever has supported the existence or non-existence of a God. You keep trying to put atheism under scientific theories instead of under theological theory where it belongs.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 15:36

Theist is like car owner, Atheist is like non-car owner. You either own a car, or you do not. But if you do not, you can't drive it to work... :p It's not a vehicle, its the absence of vehicle.

Seriously, how old are you? Because I get the impression you feel that if you are just more stubborn you win. You're not actually making points anymore.

Theist is a person who has a belief based on faith. An atheist also has a belief based on faith. That belief is about there being no God, so your analogy isn't even close. They both have belief systems that are not scientifically verifiable. In order for you analogy to be correct then atheism would have to be the absence of belief and it isn't.

Much like the hair argument and the water argument, it's ludicrous because the 'water' or 'hair' is faith and atheists have just as much faith as you do. The faith is the only thing that the government knows to exist. Unless you're claiming that theists somehow own God (instead of just believing in God) like they would own a car then you're arguments are silly.

Dempublicents1

16-06-2005, 16:07

Theist is like car owner, Atheist is like non-car owner. You either own a car, or you do not. But if you do not, you can't drive it to work... :p It's not a vehicle, its the absence of vehicle.

You still ignore the fact that religion is not dependent upon a God.

Neither Budhists nor Taoists worship a god or gods. They are, generally, atheists. They have a philosophy which they follow as a religion - because it still pertains to the supernatural and the meaning of the universe. You have already pointed out that both of these beliefs are protected as religion. As such, declaring a government support for a belief in God is an affront to their religious freedom.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 16:29

At what point am 'I' the one being stubborn? For the purpose of your position you want them to be something that they themselves vehemently deny about themselves. You want to put them under the fold of religion so that you can't treat and dismiss them as you would any other religion, but you are pigeon holing them into the wrong place. Assigning them a title that is false.

It is a ideology like Democratic, Republican, or Libertarian, they form political and social groups and/or social clubs that go out and try and recruit more members so that their viewpoint will have more power etc., etc., but they are not a religion.

If it can or cannot be taught in schools it would be the same as far as any political indoctrination is legal or not legal in schools, as far as that goes. To put the “I don’t believe in God” stuff on the dollar would be like “Printed for Democrats and by Democrats”… Ridiculous, but not a religious statement.

AMERICAN ATHEIST:
We are not a "religion." The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them.
http://www.atheists.org/

ATHEIST UNITED:
Our Mission: 1) To promote atheism through education; 2) To do our part to maintain the separation of church and state; and 3) To create and support an atheist community.

In the spirit of supporting the wall of separation between state and church, We monitor ongoing political events and provide information to our membership and to the news media when we observe a breach forming in that wall. We work with other organizations to protect our First Amendment rights. Our policy has always been one of positive protest, always offering alternative, legal solutions.
http://www.atheistsunited.org/

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION:
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., is an educational group working for the separation of state and church. Its purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Incorporated in 1978 in Wisconsin, the Foundation is a national membership association of freethinkers: atheists, agnostics and skeptics of any pedigree. The Foundation is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3). All dues and contributions are deductible for income tax purposes
http://www.ffrf.org/index.php

And I already posted what the ATHEISM WEB said about the issue, that they are not a religion:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

ATHEIST ALLIANCE:
The Atheist Alliance Inc. (AAI) is a democratic association of independent, autonomous atheist societies. Applications for Alliance membership from independent local, regional or international atheist clubs, groups, societies, organizations, and associations are always welcome. The goal of the Alliance is to establish strong, democratic atheist organizations in every state, and indeed, worldwide. The Alliance facilitates the formation of independent atheist groups by locating atheists in a particular area and providing information on how to set up a group, including standard articles of incorporation and forms to apply for IRS nonprofit 501(c)(3) tax exemption.
http://www.atheistalliance.org/

Dempublicents1

16-06-2005, 16:36

It is a ideology like Democratic, Republican, or Libertarian, they form political and social groups and/or social clubs that go out and try and recruit more members so that their viewpoint will have more power etc., etc., but they are not a religion.

Are Taoism and Budhism not religions? (Remember that you yourself have use quotes as "evidence" stating that these beliefs are considered religions).

Of course, in the end, this argument doesn't matter. If the government makes any definitive religious statement, it is an affront to the religious freedom of those who believe otherwise.

Here's an interesting question: What about those beliefs that don't really believe that human beings are subject to the gods? What about those beliefs which state that the power of the gods is dependent upon tributes from human beings who can control them to do things? In these cases, the nation would be under these gods, would it?

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 16:45

At what point am 'I' the one being stubborn? For the purpose of your position you want them to be something that they themselves vehemently deny about themselves. You want to put them under the fold of religion so that you can't treat and dismiss them as you would any other religion, but you are pigeon holing them into the wrong place. Assigning them a title that is false.

It is a ideology like Democratic, Republican, or Libertarian, they form political and social groups and/or social clubs that go out and try and recruit more members so that their viewpoint will have more power etc., etc., but they are not a religion.

If it can or cannot be taught in schools it would be the same as far as any political indoctrination is legal or not legal in schools, as far as that goes. To put the “I don’t believe in God” stuff on the dollar would be like “Printed for Democrats and by Democrats”… Ridiculous, but not a religious statement.

AMERICAN ATHEIST:
We are not a "religion." The concept of an agency outside of nature with the ability to reach into natural law and control events is supernaturalism, the foundation of any religion. Belief in the existence of that agency is based on faith. An Atheist has no specific belief system. We accept only that which is scientifically verifiable. Since god concepts are unverifiable, we do not accept them.
http://www.atheists.org/

ATHEIST UNITED:
Our Mission: 1) To promote atheism through education; 2) To do our part to maintain the separation of church and state; and 3) To create and support an atheist community.

In the spirit of supporting the wall of separation between state and church, We monitor ongoing political events and provide information to our membership and to the news media when we observe a breach forming in that wall. We work with other organizations to protect our First Amendment rights. Our policy has always been one of positive protest, always offering alternative, legal solutions.
http://www.atheistsunited.org/

FREDDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION:
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., is an educational group working for the separation of state and church. Its purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Incorporated in 1978 in Wisconsin, the Foundation is a national membership association of freethinkers: atheists, agnostics and skeptics of any pedigree. The Foundation is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3). All dues and contributions are deductible for income tax purposes
http://www.ffrf.org/index.php

And I already posted what the ATHEISM WEB said about the issue, that they are not a religion:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

ATHEIST ALLIANCE:
The Atheist Alliance Inc. (AAI) is a democratic association of independent, autonomous atheist societies. Applications for Alliance membership from independent local, regional or international atheist clubs, groups, societies, organizations, and associations are always welcome. The goal of the Alliance is to establish strong, democratic atheist organizations in every state, and indeed, worldwide. The Alliance facilitates the formation of independent atheist groups by locating atheists in a particular area and providing information on how to set up a group, including standard articles of incorporation and forms to apply for IRS nonprofit 501(c)(3) tax exemption.
http://www.atheistalliance.org/

Only one of those quotes actually showed that they claim to not be a religion. Like I said, many atheists do claim to have a religion. Many Christians claim to not have a religion. Does that make Christianity not a religion? What makes something a religion? It's very simple. Religion is a belief structure based on faith (versus scientifically verifiable assumption) about the true nature of reality. This definition includes theism, taoism, atheism, native american beliefs, etc. Many atheists have a specific problem with the effects of other religions on society and don't want to be called religious for that very reason. They, however, do not get to redefine the term religion, nor do you. What qualifies as religious doctrine has long been classified by sociologists, theologists and the government. A belief regarding the existence of god(s) clearly falls under religious doctrine.

I'll tell you what, give me a your definition of religion. But remember that you already included taoist and buddhists and Unitarians as religions. Whenever you're ready.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 16:51

It would really help the identification of Religion if the people in it agree that it is a religion. As to Buddhism, I believe that it is regarded as a religion even though (depending on who you ask) it is a 'out-look' a 'way to do things' and that it can, or cannot be joined with other beliefs like Christianity or Islam. However, I believe they have been recognized as a religion by the government (although I do not believe that 'see the world as it is not as what you want it to be' is the type of thinking that’s going to go around being offended that the US Government says "Under God" and favors the freedom of religion over freedom from religion in LAW.

As to Taoism;
The world can not be changed by one's will

Those who wish to change the World
According with their desire
Cannot succeed.

The World is shaped by Tao;
It cannot be shaped by Self.
If one tries to shape it, one damages it;
If one tries to possess it, one loses it.

Therefore:
Sometimes things flourish,
And sometimes they do not.
Sometimes life is hard
And sometimes it is easy.
Sometimes people are strong
And sometimes they are weak.
Sometimes you get where you are going
And sometimes you fall by the way.

The sage is not extreme, extravagant, or complacent.

It is not likely that they are actually offended by the US Government being what it is. You cannot be offended 'for' them if they themselves are not offended.

If you are offended, then decide 'why' you are offended and post that rational and we can go from there.

Dempublicents1

16-06-2005, 16:54

Only one of those quotes actually showed that they claim to not be a religion. Like I said, many atheists do claim to have a religion. Many Christians claim to not have a religion. Does that make Christianity not a religion? What makes something a religion? It's very simple. Religion is a belief structure based on faith (versus scientifically verifiable assumption) about the true nature of reality. This definition includes theism, taoism, atheism, native american beliefs, etc. Many atheists have a specific problem with the effects of other religions on society and don't want to be called religious for that very reason. They, however, do not get to redefine the term religion, nor do you. What qualifies as religious doctrine has long been classified by sociologists, theologists and the government. A belief regarding the existence of god(s) clearly falls under religious doctrine.

I'll tell you what, give me a your definition of religion. But remember that you already included taoist and buddhists and Unitarians as religions. Whenever you're ready.

As a side note: I was once told that I could not possibly claim to be religious. Why? Because I don't wait for any other human being to hand me my beliefs on a silver platter. The fact that I don't follow any particular denomination and that I actually examine beliefs that are not "traditionally" a part of the Christian faith, according to those I was arguing with, meant that I was not actually religious.

It really is a wonder how people tend to misuse words.

Dempublicents1

16-06-2005, 16:57

It is not likely that they are actually offended by the US Government being what it is. You cannot be offended 'for' them if they themselves are not offended.

What an interesting statement.

So, if a woman was being beaten by her husband, but she felt that she "deserved" it and was not angry, I could not be angry at him?

Geecka

16-06-2005, 17:01

You cannot be offended 'for' them if they themselves are not offended.

Why not? I'm not black, but I'm offended by the use of the "n" word, even though I know black people who are not. I'm not Jewish, but I'm offended by the use of the "k" word, even though I know (a very few) Jewish people who are not. I'm not Irish, but I'm offended by the derogatory use of "Mc", even though I married into an Irish family who is not.

And truly, how do you know that "they" aren't offended? You're theorizing. You've blatantly disregarded the fact that several people [I]in this thread have said that they are opposed to the government's endorsement of God. It offends me. You don't care.

So your argument is moot. Even if eachTaoist in the US told you s/he was offended by "under God" in the pledge or "In God We Trust" on his/her money, you'd still not want budge on your position. So why waste the energy, unless it's a pure diversionary tactic? :confused:

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 17:06

What an interesting statement.

So, if a woman was being beaten by her husband, but she felt that she "deserved" it and was not angry, I could not be angry at him?

You're not really trying to say that the believers and followers of Buddhism and Taoism are co-dependent and self-destructive, insecure in their own outlook on life and undervalue their own identity and reality and they need someone to look out for them because they are not responsible to choose their own lifestyle and outlook on life, are you? I didn’t think so.

None of this changes what the First Amendment says. If it needs to be changed in the future to match a changing society, then so be it, but that’s a different topic.

Angry Fruit Salad

16-06-2005, 17:11

No it doesn't. As long as you are not persecuted for your beliefs you have freedom of religion. Freedom from religion would mean taking any mention of religion out of public places, which is by no means what was meant.

There should not be mention of any specific religion in public places if that is the only religion given a chance. What if a follower of Islam asked that the Qu'ran (poor spelling of a bad translation, I know) be displayed in the Supreme Court? It is likely that the public would be outraged, because we pretend to be a Christian nation. However, it is that person's right to follow Islam, and it is also his/her right to have Islam recognized alongside Christianity.

What if I decided to post the 13 rules of Wicca, or even Gardner's laws in hospital rooms, or if I decided to base legislation upon them? Would you not be bothered by that? What if that legislation passed, and religious groups were not allowed to build structures in which to worship? What if a militant athiest based legislature upon his/her beliefs, and decided to tax all religious organizations, including churches? Would you not be outraged?

I am simply trying to point out that religion has no place in law. Ethics, morals, and religion are three different things. Law requires ethics; morals can vary between cultures; and religion is personal. Let's keep them separated.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 17:12

It would really help the identification of Religion if the people in it agree that it is a religion.

Actually this is absolutely not true. What if I start a group and our motto is "I'm sure glad we ain't human"? We'll have a group song (definitely country) and a group flower (the thistle) and a group bird (vulture). So are we not human or is that for biologists to decide? It's the same with religion. The definition of what qualifies as a religion is not defined by the people within the religion. I guarantee you that atheist want their freedom of religion to be protected just as we are arguing.

As to Buddhism, I believe that it is regarded as a religion even though (depending on who you ask) it is a 'out-look' a 'way to do things' and that it can, or cannot be joined with other beliefs like Christianity or Islam. However, I believe they have been recognized as a religion by the government (although I do not believe that 'see the world as it is not as what you want it to be' is the type of thinking that’s going to go around being offended that the US Government says "Under God" and favors the freedom of religion over freedom from religion in LAW.

As to Taoism;
The world can not be changed by one's will

Those who wish to change the World
According with their desire
Cannot succeed.

The World is shaped by Tao;
It cannot be shaped by Self.
If one tries to shape it, one damages it;
If one tries to possess it, one loses it.

Therefore:
Sometimes things flourish,
And sometimes they do not.
Sometimes life is hard
And sometimes it is easy.
Sometimes people are strong
And sometimes they are weak.
Sometimes you get where you are going
And sometimes you fall by the way.

The sage is not extreme, extravagant, or complacent.

It is not likely that they are actually offended by the US Government being what it is. You cannot be offended 'for' them if they themselves are not offended.

If you are offended, then decide 'why' you are offended and post that rational and we can go from there.

You have yet to define religion. I'm waiting. You don't like my definition of religion so give me a definition we can work off of.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 17:19

You're not really trying to say that the believers and followers of Buddhism and Taoism are co-dependent and self-destructive, insecure in their own outlook on life and undervalue their own identity and reality and they need someone to look out for them because they are not responsible to choose their own lifestyle and outlook on life, are you? I didn’t think so.

None of this changes what the First Amendment says. If it needs to be changed in the future to match a changing society, then so be it, but that’s a different topic.

Actually the first amendment says nothing about offense or reaction. Taoists are nonconfrontational. This doesn't negate their right to be protected by the first amendment. The first amendment says that their free exercise of religion must be protected. It also says that NO law may be passed respecting an establishment of relgion (even if it offends no one).

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 18:46

Actually the first amendment says nothing about offense or reaction.

There you go, now you're talking, follow that through...

Taoists are nonconfrontational. This doesn't negate their right to be protected by the first amendment. The first amendment says that their free exercise of religion must be protected.

Absolutely, no problems here...

It also says that NO law may be passed respecting an establishment of relgion (even if it offends no one).

Absolutely right, but why did you stop? There's more to it after that... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . You forgot to conclude your thesis and just stopped, unfinished.

The Government is not blocked from acknowledging the existence of religion in the population, it's politicians CAN be religious, their policies CAN be influenced by religious view points, the peoples acknowledgment of the existence and recognition of a supreme being, a great legislature of the Universe (I still like that one :p ) can be a public one provided no single state religion is established or forced on it's citizens and no litmus test is created to restrict others.

My opinion, is without a doubt the minority view in the supreme court currently, but it's not like I don't have a leg to stand on...

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 18:57

There should not be mention of any specific religion in public places if that is the only religion given a chance. What if a follower of Islam asked that the Qu'ran (poor spelling of a bad translation, I know) be displayed in the Supreme Court? It is likely that the public would be outraged, because we pretend to be a Christian nation. However, it is that person's right to follow Islam, and it is also his/her right to have Islam recognized alongside Christianity.

Actually there already is a Mohammed displayed there, there is in the supreme court itself; Outrage is irrelevant (IMO)

Washington Post;
The 18 lawgivers looking down on the justices are divided into two friezes of ivory-colored, Spanish marble. On the south wall, to the right of incoming visitors, are figures from the pre-Christian era -- Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (Caesar Augustus). On the north wall to the left are lawmakers of the Christian era -- Napoleon Bonaparte, Marshall, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Muhammad and Justinian.

As far as I can tell (no real effort done trying to find out) this is just some guy's personal website, but it's a very good link to a picture if you like.
http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/SCFrieze1.html

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 19:12

Absolutely right, but why did you stop? There's more to it after that... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . You forgot to conclude your thesis and just stopped, unfinished.

I stopped because you are proposing that laws that violate the first part of the clause not be overturned. The point is taking God off the money or out of the pledge has no effect on your free exercise of religion, but leaving it there does violate the first part even if you propose that it doesn't violate the second part (which it does).

The Government is not blocked from acknowledging the existence of religion in the population, it's politicians CAN be religious, their policies CAN be influenced by religious view points, the peoples acknowledgment of the existence and recognition of a supreme being, a great legislature of the Universe (I still like that one :p ) can be a public one provided no single state religion is established or forced on it's citizens and no litmus test is created to restrict others.

Acknowledging that SOME of the population are part of particular religions is perfectly acceptable. Acknowledging, no. Passing laws supporting those religions or their views, they are not allowed to do. The politicians can be religious and they can vote their conscience (which is influenced by their beliefs) and make any law they want so long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

The purpose of the first amendment is very clear in that no state religion can exist even if there are multiple state religions. You try valiently to ignore the first part of the clause Congress shall pass NO law respecting an establishment of religion. It says nothing about this only applying to 'single' establishments. Technically, Catholicism is multiple religions.

The fact that the second part exists only means that we have to adhere to both parts of the clause not one or the other. What you are proposing clearly violates the first part of the clause and nothing we have proposed violates the second part or the first part. You are still free to excercise your freedom of religion. You just can't get the state to excercise it with you.

My opinion, is without a doubt the minority view in the supreme court currently, but it's not like I don't have a leg to stand on...

No, you really don't have a leg to stand on. You clearly wish to violate the first part of the clause. It's not hard to see how what you propose violates that clause. And you claim it is us that need to amend the constitution.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 19:16

Outrage is irrelevant

Unless it fits your cause

You cannot be offended 'for' them if they themselves are not offended.

You're so inconsistent it's hard not to be amused. If they're not offended then they don't matter. Then, later, they can outraged if they want, it doesn't matter. Apparently all that matters to you is that the majority believe in a supreme being in this country so you think only that majority should be protected. And you're willing to twist anything you can find to your will even if you are shown time and again that the US Constitution (and, in fact, the Bible) is against you.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 19:26

Post your definition of religion. Certainly, you must have one in order for atheists to not be included in it. You don't like mine, so I'd like to see your (obviously better) definition. Certainly you must believe that the Supreme Court should operate off of a definition of religion. What definition do you propose?

Dempublicents1

16-06-2005, 19:37

Actually there already is a Mohammed displayed there, there is in the supreme court itself;

...in a list of people related to law. This does not in any way establish Islam or even suggest that the laws stipulated by Mohammed's writings are correct, any more than showing Solomon is advocating polygamy or showing Napoleon indicates that we follow French law.

Tekania

16-06-2005, 19:41

There you go, now you're talking, follow that through...

Absolutely, no problems here...

Absolutely right, but why did you stop? There's more to it after that... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . You forgot to conclude your thesis and just stopped, unfinished.

The Government is not blocked from acknowledging the existence of religion in the population, it's politicians CAN be religious, their policies CAN be influenced by religious view points, the peoples acknowledgment of the existence and recognition of a supreme being, a great legislature of the Universe (I still like that one :p ) can be a public one provided no single state religion is established or forced on it's citizens and no litmus test is created to restrict others.

My opinion, is without a doubt the minority view in the supreme court currently, but it's not like I don't have a leg to stand on...

The people have a right of free exercize; not the government. The government is restrained. Government officers are SERVANTS to the people. They have no rights, but to represent their own people; that being said; the officers as people have a right to free exercize; however, as servants to the people they do not have said rights.

CONGRESS CAN PASS NO LAW..... None whatsoever..... It doesn't matter what the congressman's personal beliefs are. When he's in service as a congressman; he's a SERVANT of the people. And his duty is to that, and that alone; as his power and properiety under the Constitution (to uphold and defend those for the people).

I have a right to recognize God, and to worship God, and to be a servant of God... The government of the United States of America; does not have that right. I DO! YOU DO! Jocab DOES! DEM DOES!... But NOT the Government. The Government is MY servant, JOCAB's Servant, YOUR servant, DEM's servant; not God's servant. If they claim servantude to God; they are no longer my servant, and no longer JUSTIFIABLY the proper authority; since they have DENIED their own foundation (WE THE PEOPLE).

You cannot use political power to recognize religion. That is afront to the governments own foundation (the people). The people can exercize that right themselves (it is a personal right; not a governmental one)... Communities have a right to recognize God, yes. They do so BY THEIR OWN COMMUNITY CHURCHES.... The City/Town Hall, the State Capitol, the Federal Capitol is not where you give servce to God. you do so in YOUR community. The centers representing the people, are for ALL people, not merely those who recognize a Creator/God. The Government as well, may not recognize any higher authority except that of "WE THE PEOPLE"; who are the SOURCE and ORIGINATION of all of their power and authority. No where in the Constitution has the government been granted the right to recognize a supreme being..... The only higher power they may recognize is in the foundational document of this countries own preamble.... "We the people of the United States..." THAT is the ONLY source...

If you disagree, then you can supply me with a direct quote from the Constitution of the United States of America, whereby governmental authority is granted so as to recognize some "Creator/God".... If not, shut up.

Whispering Legs

16-06-2005, 19:42

The people have a right of free exercize; not the government. The government is restrained. Government officers are SERVANTS to the people. They have no rights, but to represent their own people; that being said; the officers as people have a right to free exercize; however, as servants to the people they do not have said rights.

CONGRESS CAN PASS NO LAW..... None whatsoever..... It doesn't matter what the congressman's personal beliefs are. When he's in service as a congressman; he's a SERVANT of the people. And his duty is to that, and that alone; as his power and properiety under the Constitution (to uphold and defend those for the people).

I have a right to recognize God, and to worship God, and to be a servant of God... The government of the United States of America; does not have that right. I DO! YOU DO! Jocab DOES! DEM DOES!... But NOT the Government. The Government is MY servant, JOCAB's Servant, YOUR servant, DEM's servant; not God's servant. If they claim servantude to God; they are no longer my servant, and no longer JUSTIFIABLY the proper authority; since they have DENIED their own foundation (WE THE PEOPLE).

You cannot use political power to recognize religion. That is afront to the governments own foundation (the people). The people can exercize that right themselves (it is a personal right; not a governmental one)... Communities have a right to recognize God, yes. They do so BY THEIR OWN COMMUNITY CHURCHES.... The City/Town Hall, the State Capitol, the Federal Capitol is not where you give servce to God. you do so in YOUR community. The centers representing the people, are for ALL people, not merely those who recognize a Creator/God. The Government as well, may not recognize any higher authority except that of "WE THE PEOPLE"; who are the SOURCE and ORIGINATION of all of their power and authority. No where in the Constitution has the government been granted the right to recognize a supreme being..... The only higher power they may recognize is in the foundational document of this countries own preamble.... "We the people of the United States..." THAT is the ONLY source...

If you disagree, then you can supply me with a direct quote from the Constitution of the United States of America, whereby governmental authority is granted so as to recognize some "Creator/God".... If not, shut up.

It's a pity that the basics of American government are no longer thoroughly taught in American schools.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 19:44

No, you really don't have a leg to stand on. You clearly wish to violate the first part of the clause. It's not hard to see how what you propose violates that clause. And you claim it is us that need to amend the constitution.

Nah, I didn't violate the first part of the amendment. I violate your interpretation of what you think the first amendment means.

As far as consistency goes, (whether you agree or not), my position:
Atheism is not a religion, therefore is not protected by the amendment.
The right to free exercise shall not be prohibited.
The right to not be mandated to join or participate is to be protected.
The State shall not start it's own religion.

Neutrality is not in the amendment, you try to put it there.

I think overall my view is very consistent. Your referral to what I've said about people being offended in regards to Taoism, Buddhism and any other religious groups was because it was said to me that they might be offended from a religious point of view, meaning their religions were not being protected because the word 'God' is being used by the State from time to time. I pointed out that neither of the two mentioned were actually offended so it was moot point.

If they were offended, I would move to the fact that they are still protected to express their views as well, publicly and in the open and run for office and representation as well, but the discourse didn't get that far.

(Side note: not directly related to topic) Atheism is a political movement in America and I have a right to oppose it, same as any other political ideologue. It doesn’t mean I’m going to win, or lose, but I’m allowed to oppose it and their agenda and interpretation of the first amendment.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 19:50

Nah, I didn't violate the first part of the amendment. I violate your interpretation of what you think the first amendment means.

As far as consistency goes, (whether you agree or not), my position:
Atheism is not a religion, therefore is not protected by the amendment.
The right to free exercise shall not be prohibited.
The right to not be mandated to join or participate is to be protected.
The State shall not start it's own religion.

Neutrality is not in the amendment, you try to put it there.

I think overall my view is very consistent. Your referral to what I've said about people being offended in regards to Taoism, Buddhism and any other religious groups was because it was said to me that they might be offended from a religious point of view, meaning their religions were not being protected because the word 'God' is being used by the State from time to time. I pointed out that neither of the two mentioned were actually offended so it was moot point.

If they were offended, I would move to the fact that they are still protected to express their views as well, publicly and in the open and run for office and representation as well, but the discourse didn't get that far.

(Side note: not directly related to topic) Atheism is a political movement in America and I have a right to oppose it, same as any other political ideologue. It doesn’t mean I’m going to win, or lose, but I’m allowed to oppose it and their agenda and interpretation of the first amendment.

I like how you are careful not to use the actually wording of the amendment. It does not say the state shall not establish a religion. It says that Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means no laws regarding religious views whatsoever.

I'm going to keep repeating it. The definition of religion is germaine to the argument. Would you please define it?

Dempublicents1

16-06-2005, 20:07

Nah, I didn't violate the first part of the amendment. I violate your interpretation of what you think the first amendment means.

So God and religion have nothing to do with one another? Belief in God is not, by its nature, religious?

I pointed out that neither of the two mentioned were actually offended so it was moot point.

Which is silly. As I asked before, if someone is being beaten severely but profess that they don't mind, does that mean I cannot be angry about it? When slavery was still legal and most of the slaves didn't mind being slaves - and in fact thought it was their rightful place, does that mean that the abolitionists had no right to try and end slavery?

(Side note: not directly related to topic) Atheism is a political movement in America and I have a right to oppose it, same as any other political ideologue.

Seriously, you have said some silly things, but this is truly off the wall. Atheism is a polictical movement? Please, show me the Athiest Political Party. What offices have they run for? What offices have they attained?

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 20:25

I like how you are careful not to use the actually wording of the amendment. It does not say the state shall not establish a religion. It says that Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means no laws regarding religious views whatsoever.

Now that's a baseless accusation isn't it? I gave you my interpretation of it for review, separating it out into easy to understand sections... I think the words of the first amendment have been well represented in this thread, I wasn't trying to carefully avoid any of them... I just don’t add the stuff you do.

I'm going to keep repeating it. The definition of religion is germaine to the argument. Would you please define it?

Didn't we already discuss how the government doesn't even have a working description of what is and is not religion? I already posted the Australian example, and the UN example was posted by Cat, and the Webster example was posted by you. None of them are perfect. But I'd add the clause that a group has to believe themselves to be a religion or else they can't be forced to be on the list as far as legal purposes go.

Angry Fruit Salad

16-06-2005, 20:29

Actually there already is a Mohammed displayed there, there is in the supreme court itself; Outrage is irrelevant (IMO)

Washington Post;
The 18 lawgivers looking down on the justices are divided into two friezes of ivory-colored, Spanish marble. On the south wall, to the right of incoming visitors, are figures from the pre-Christian era -- Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (Caesar Augustus). On the north wall to the left are lawmakers of the Christian era -- Napoleon Bonaparte, Marshall, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Muhammad and Justinian.

As far as I can tell (no real effort done trying to find out) this is just some guy's personal website, but it's a very good link to a picture if you like.
http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/SCFrieze1.html

The figure, I knew about. Several years ago, I visited and used about 10 rolls of film, so I know what you're talking about. I was referring to the actual text, not a figure.

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 20:36

Actually there already is a Mohammed displayed there, there is in the supreme court itself; Outrage is irrelevant (IMO)

Washington Post;
The 18 lawgivers looking down on the justices are divided into two friezes of ivory-colored, Spanish marble. On the south wall, to the right of incoming visitors, are figures from the pre-Christian era -- Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (Caesar Augustus). On the north wall to the left are lawmakers of the Christian era -- Napoleon Bonaparte, Marshall, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Muhammad and Justinian.

As far as I can tell (no real effort done trying to find out) this is just some guy's personal website, but it's a very good link to a picture if you like.
http://www.geocities.com/khola_mon/SCFrieze1.html

Nice job of bait-and-switch. That was not the question you were asked.

Moreover, these friezes were already discussed earlier in the thread. They are historical lawmakers. They symbolize the law -- not religion.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 20:38

So God and religion have nothing to do with one another? Belief in God is not, by its nature, religious? I think the definition of religion will likely end up having a belief in something 'higher than' humanity, as a part of it. But the absense of deity, divinity and humanists beleifs are not protected as religions because they are not religions.

Which is silly. As I asked before, if someone is being beaten severely but profess that they don't mind, does that mean I cannot be angry about it? When slavery was still legal and most of the slaves didn't mind being slaves - and in fact thought it was their rightful place, does that mean that the abolitionists had no right to try and end slavery?

The point is, you can't show a wrong is being committed in this case, like you can with the others. You are hypothesizing an event that hasn’t occurred. The people who might be offended by the mentioning of God are just as equally represented as everyone else. They are not held against their will to do anything different than anyone else. Equality doesn’t mean that nobody is going to be offended, it means they won't be 'wronged' anymore than everybody else is, or is not, wronged.

Seriously, you have said some silly things, but this is truly off the wall. Atheism is a polictical movement? Please, show me the Athiest Political Party. What offices have they run for? What offices have they attained?

Actually this one is easy, I already pointed them out, they practically all have political agendas but none of them call themselves a religion. Their political agenda for advancing the idea of 'freedom FROM religion' is not a secret.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9077554&postcount=428

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 20:44

Nice job of bait-and-switch. That was not the question you were asked.

Moreover, these friezes were already discussed earlier in the thread. They are historical lawmakers. They symbolize the law -- not religion.

The entire premise of the question was based on a misunderstanding. I didn't bait and switch anything.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 20:53

The figure, I knew about. Several years ago, I visited and used about 10 rolls of film, so I know what you're talking about. I was referring to the actual text, not a figure.

Okay, I'll readdress it then...

There should not be mention of any specific religion in public places if that is the only religion given a chance.
*snip*
I am simply trying to point out that religion has no place in law. Ethics, morals, and religion are three different things. Law requires ethics; morals can vary between cultures; and religion is personal. Let's keep them separated.

Straight to the point. Top part; You said IF it is the only religion given a chance, that's not the case. Other religions can be represented as well.

Middle part: Offensive to other people is not the point, If a Wiccan or Muslim or Buddhist (and so on and so forth) community wants to donate and put up a memorial on public property to represent their beliefs, I have no problem with that and throughout this entire thread I've defended their right to do it.

Bottom part: You've concluded that it's 'just easiest' to stop everyone from being able to express their religions instead of risking someone somewhere of being offended. I disagree. I don't think that's what the first amendment says and I think that communities are allowed to express their religious heritage on and in public property in their communities.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 21:16

Now that's a baseless accusation isn't it? I gave you my interpretation of it for review, separating it out into easy to understand sections... I think the words of the first amendment have been well represented in this thread, I wasn't trying to carefully avoid any of them... I just don’t add the stuff you do.

Actually that's a good point. Here is my version of the first amendment with modern wording. Congress shall pass no law supporting particular religious views, nor preventing the free exercise of religious faith. There's mine. How about you reword it so the intention is clear. Let's see what you come up with, since you think we're misinterpreting it.

Didn't we already discuss how the government doesn't even have a working description of what is and is not religion? I already posted the Australian example, and the UN example was posted by Cat, and the Webster example was posted by you. None of them are perfect. But I'd add the clause that a group has to believe themselves to be a religion or else they can't be forced to be on the list as far as legal purposes go.
Actually, government has a pretty clear definition of religion. It matches mine. You can find it in many of the court documents that were offered up by our friend, Cat.

Unfortunately, you are looking at tax laws which often don't match regular definitions of things by court, congress or nongovernment standards. Tax law has to add things to it in order to prevent the abuse of it. Freedom of religion is not so burdened. Nobody gets hurt if you are permitted to freely exercise your religion and it really is just you worshipping your left foot.

My definition is not flawed. I'd like for you to show me one single religion that is not included under my definition or one ideology that is not religious in nature that is included. You won't define religion because you don't want to admit that any definition that includes Unitarians, Buddhists and Taoists includes Atheists as well. Oh, wait, even if you exclude people who don't wish to be called a religion, you are only excluding very specific atheists. Again, I'll point out that sociologists and others who study people and the nature of religious belief decide how religion is defined not the specific religion. Much like zoologists decide what a human is, not each and every human. Can I declare myself not human, not male, not alive? Your destinction that suggests Atheists get to define what religion is, is ludicrous even by your standards.

Ph33rdom

16-06-2005, 21:27

Dempublicents1

16-06-2005, 21:47

I think the definition of religion will likely end up having a belief in something 'higher than' humanity, as a part of it. But the absense of deity, divinity and humanists beleifs are not protected as religions because they are not religions.

Most atheists have a belief in something "higher than" humanity, even if that something is simply a better humanity.

The point is, you can't show a wrong is being committed in this case, like you can with the others.

Really? How would you be wronged if the government tomorrow said "Hey, the government religion is Islam. We're going to put a bunch of tax money into building mosques. Don't worry about it though, you can still practice your own religion." You would be wronged in exactly the same way as those whose beliefs contradict yours are harmed by having the government state them.

Actually this one is easy, I already pointed them out, they practically all have political agendas but none of them call themselves a religion. Their political agenda for advancing the idea of 'freedom FROM religion' is not a secret.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9077554&postcount=428

One cannot have a freedom of religion without a freedom from religion. It isn't possible. If one does not have the freedom to have no religion at all, then one must be forced upon them.

Meanwhile, however, these groups are pushing to have their own rights recognized. This does not mean that atheism itself is a political movement. Would you call the NAACP a "Black political movement", or is it simply a civil rights group that focuses on those of color?

Middle part: Offensive to other people is not the point, If a Wiccan or Muslim or Buddhist (and so on and so forth) community wants to donate and put up a memorial on public property to represent their beliefs, I have no problem with that and throughout this entire thread I've defended their right to do it.

Why do you advocate using public funds to represent certain religions on government grounds, but these religions that you don't agree with have to pony up the money all on their own? Does the government not use public funds to maintain these monuments?

Sorry, if someone wants a religious monument on public grounds, it must meet the rules (whatever they may be) of placing something on those grounds, and must be completely and totally maintained without a cent of government money (or must pay the government to take care of it). If public funds are to be used, there must be no monument at all, or a monument to every possible religion. As I asked before, how much time, money, and space do you think that would take?

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 21:53

The court isn't going to go around saying, "you are a religion whether you like it or not" it's absurd.

Organizations petition from time to time to be included and recognized as religions, but I've never heard of anyone trying to get themselves removed from this 'all-encompassing' governmental list of who's who in the religion world, that you seem to think exists.

You are breaking the first amendment yourself by saying in the Governments eyes that they 'have' to be a religion because they hold certain beliefs.

The government has no need to have such a list. They have no need to address whether a specific group is included as a religion. They merely have to protect freedom of religion for ALL. This means if your views would be considered religious, they are protected whether you ask that they be protected or not. You're trying twist the subject. Even better, you're the one that suggested that someone can exclude themselves from the list of what qualifies as religious. The job of the government is to make sure everyone is entitled their freedom of religion which requires an all-encompassing definition of religion that leaves no religious thought out (including the faith-based belief that there is not supreme being(s))

The Cat-Tribe

16-06-2005, 22:01

*snip*

You claim to be defending the historical heritage of the relationship between government and religion.

But you have not found a single Supreme Court decision in the history of the Republic that agrees with your view.

To the contrary, I have previously cited consistent Supreme Court caselaw directly rebutting your position going back to 1871. (BTW, I can now trace it back to 1815 if necessary.)

The only Supreme Court opinions that come even close are a couple of recent dissents. One or two times that 1 to 3 newer Justices have sort of "agreed" with you with in dissents within the last 10-20 years are not a historical record to defend.

I pointed out that some of the "heritage" you point to, such as "Under God" in the Pledge, is more recent than the caselaw you claim is rebutted by such "heritage."

The truth is that you wish to overthrow the historically established meaning of the Establishment Clause. And you aren't willing to be honest about it.

Similarly, I cited multiple Supreme Court majority decisions directly rejecting your revisionism about the scope of the First Amendment. You yourself inadvertently cited more cases that also rejected your view that freedom of religion does not extend to athiests or non-believers.

For example, the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/367/488.html ), 367 US 488 (1961):

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, 10 and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11

[ Footnote 10 ] In discussing Article VI in the debate of the North Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, James Iredell, later a Justice of this Court, said:

". . . It is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?"

And another delegate pointed out that Article VI "leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority; and no kind of oppression can take place." 4 Elliot, op. cit., supra, at 194, 200.

[Footnote 11]: Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

And, btw, in the fourth point of his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, James Madison expressly stated that "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience" belonged to believers and non-believers. "Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us."

I can find many more such quotes if I thought there was a hope in your even listening to them.

Your only support for your position -- which flies in the face of the UN definition, dictionaries, and reason -- is a single quote from a dissent from 1 Justice. And even that rogue quote does not say that athiesm or non-thiestic beliefs are not protected by freedom of religion.

To use yet another quote from James Madison:

Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

--Letter to Edward Livingston, 1822

You would fall into what Madison thought was an "old error" 200 years ago. You would turn the law on its head to get your result. Even saying that government could establish atheism as an official belief and indoctrinate children in that belief in public schools. You are willing to say anything to cut down any precedent no matter how long standing that gets in the way of government endorsement of your religion.

You remind me of a passage from "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt: The hero, Sir Thomas More, a devout Catholic and leading citizen, has refused to bless the annulment of the king's first marriage. King Henry, hoping to get even has sent a spy to More's household. Recognizing him for what he is, More's daughter cries: "He's a spy. Arrest him, Father."

More answers: "There's no law against that." But his son-in-law interjects: "There is God's law." More replies: "Then God can arrest him."

Meanwhile, More's daughter is getting more and more exasperated as it becomes clear that the spy will be allowed to escape. "While you talk, he's gone," she complains.

"And go he should if he were the Devil himself," says More, "until he broke the law."

Sarcastically, his son-in-law inquires: "So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law?"

"What would you do?" More asks him. "Cut down a great road through the law to get at the Devil?"

"Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that," his son-in-law replies.

"Oh?" More said, "and when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut the down do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

The wall of separation of Church and State is just such a law. With it, we are sheltered from the winds of oppression and intolerance. Without our nation could hardly stand as it does today, a haven where people of all religious viewpoints can live together in peace.

What some of here are fighting to defend is not the oppression of Christianity. That is a farce. You rail against laws that have allowed Christianity to thrive here. What we are fighting for is the freedom to interpret life and the world around us as we choose. What the Founders often referred to as freedom of conscience. We fight for that freedom for all -- not just for those that pass your litmus tests.

Jocabia

16-06-2005, 22:52

You claim to be defending the historical heritage of the relationship between government and religion.

Mind if I have a little fun quoting Ph33r today. Let's see how consistent you are, shall we? (my summaries of the quote or where the quote comes from are below the quote)

Besides, How old does something have to be before it is heritage? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? A hundred? I think it being about 20% of the entire age of the US itself, it’s old enough at two generations to be considered a heirloom of our heritage as a nation.

Excellent point. How old does it have to be to be a part of our heritage?

100 years? Hmmm, that sounds about right. The law of the land defended the right to keep and retain and reclaim slaves for about a hundred years, time for a change.

When shown caselaw for the last hundred years supports what we are espousing.

However, to suggest that repeating past and current case law during every social issue discussion in any way invalidates opposing point of view is IMO short-sighted.

Eventually you got frustrated that caselaw suggests that your views are not the view of the Supreme court.

Now, if it was all brand new, and there were no existing structures and rules etc., then maybe you would have a point. However, it’s too late now. To now go back and try to remove all mention of religion, any religion, from the public properties in all of the communities of America, would be a drastic and powerful message, the message that ONLY atheism has any right to government support…

So 100 years ins't historical, but 50 is just too much historical basis to change?

Its (the first amendment) meaning is slowly being changed anyway, from the outside in, dispite not changing the constitution nor amendments themselves. It's being done and confirmed, endorsed by it's own changes from case to case as the years go by.

Above you were suggesting that caselaw hasn't been consistent and that atheists are slowing whitling away the meaning.

If the Constitution needs to be changed, change it, lets start putting it out there and getting the people arguing and voting on what the new versions of the amendments should say or should be changed to.

Here you say that we need to change the constitution instead of whittling away at it using the courts.

Perhaps the court will fix it now, OR an amendment can be added to ensure that the right to acknowledge God is constitutionally protected.

Then, you suddenly decide that you need to amend the constitution to support you view (suggesting your view is not in the current amendments).

And I’ve advocated that the “Under God,” and, "God save the United States and this honorable court," or, “In God We Trust” are just fine because they are so generic and the people ‘want’ it to say that.

But the community infringes on all kinds of individual civil liberties, when they share community values the have always had that right, as it should be.

An athiest in the Unitarian Church, would be protected. An athiest without a church is not protected.

Many Unitarians feel the word "God" a stumbling block to communication about the supreme matters of the spirit

Just so everyone is clear on what Ph33rdom is espousing. The community should be able to stomp on the civil rights of an individual and if the majority of people want to say something about God they should be allowed to. Unitarian wishes matter unless they are contrary to having God on the dollar and in the pledge because God has been there for fifty years which is too long a time to change now but caselaw 100 years old doesn't matter. There, clear as mud!!

Ph33rdom

17-06-2005, 00:16

A 5-4 vote done in 1947, and I’m ostracized for agreeing with the verdict but disagreeing with how it got there and the cost of it afterwards? Fine…I’m tyrannical and I want to implement a state religion on the entire nation because I think “Under God” isn’t unconstitutional (which the court majority does agree with me on that one but you all seem to think it shouldn’t).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1
-----

As to addressing the great big cut and paste Jacobia did it would have been fine accept for the editorial comments made in it that actually misdirected the intent of many of the quotes.

-----

As to the history of public prayer, public worship and public acknowledgement of a supreme being in our documents, actions and public properties throughout the history of America, good luck abolishing all of them and pretending that they never happened. I’m sure your intentions were good as you wiped out the memory of those that came before us and belittled their faith and aspirations for free expression of both faith and non-faith, dissing the heritage they left to us and replacing it with the only ideologue you find acceptable, which is a complete and utter lack freedom of religious expression for everyone.

However, I have to admit, I don't think that's going to happen because as you take your train of ‘forced neutrality thought’ to it's logical conclusion... "The first law passed that says a politician just elected to office can't publicly "Thank God" while on government time, is going to start a popular uprising.

-----

Last bit: What religion is it that you guys keep saying I want the government to support anyway?

Jocabia

17-06-2005, 00:39

A 5-4 vote done in 1947, and I’m ostracized for agreeing with the 4? Fine…I’m tyrannical and I want to implement a state religion on the entire nation because I think “Under God” isn’t unconstitutional (which the court majority does agree with me on that one but you all seem to think it shouldn’t).

You're 'ostracized' for trying to repress the rights of people who don't believe what you believe (in a Supreme Being).

As to addressing the great big cut and paste Jacobia did it would have been fine accept for the editorial comments made in it that actually misdirected the intent of many of the quotes.

Feel free to redirect those quotes. I could have left out the context, but they speak for themselves. You made it clear that you don't believe the individual's civil rights should be protected from the desires of the group, that you think historical significance trumps when it agrees with you and doesn't matter when it doesn't, that you quite simply don't believe in religious freedom for those who don't believe in a Supreme Being, unless of course they are part of a church that also includes some theists (Unitarians).

As to the history of public prayer, public worship and public acknowledgement of a supreme being in our documents, actions and public properties throughout the history of America, good luck abolishing all of them and pretending that they never happened. I’m sure your intentions were good as you wiped out the memory of those that came before us and belittled their faith and aspirations for free expression of both faith and non-faith, dissing the heritage they left to us and replacing it with the only ideologue you find acceptable, which is a complete and utter lack freedom of religious expression for everyone.

Ha. How is allowing people to express themselves on their own property or on the property owned by their organizations represents a complete lack of religious freedom. In fact, no one can stop you from saying "In God We Trust" every time you hand someone money or saying "Under God" in the pledge. Just no one can require you to say it or pass paper with it on it.

We know it is only oppression if the state doesn't actively support theism, according to you. And it's not oppression to suggest to the religions that are not theistic are lesser since they can't be represented equally by the government, according to you. Yes, that's the road we're travelling. Trying to force you to spread your religion yourself instead of using your government to do it. Those damn people who defend the rights of everyone instead of only people who are theists as you are. I can see why you're upset.

However, I have to admit, I don't think that's going to happen because as you take your train of ‘forced neutrality thought’ to it's logical conclusion... "The first law passed that says a politician just elected to office can't publicly "Thank God" while on government time, is going to start a popular uprising.

Everyone here is advocating freedom of speech. We are against laws being passed that people must hand out papers (dollars) that advocate the belief in God. We are against laws that require people to say a pledge that says God exists. Mainly, we are against the state surpressing the freedom of thought, so if you want to become president and yell out that you are God's child, you are permitted to, as you are now. However, you should never be required by the State to use the word God or to advocate its use. That is freedom of speech. Nice strawman, however.

Last bit: What religion is it that you guys keep saying I want the government to support anyway?

Theism.

Ph33rdom

17-06-2005, 01:01

Everyone here is advocating freedom of speech. We are against laws being passed that people must hand out papers (dollars) that advocate the belief in God. We are against laws that require people to say a pledge that says God exists. Mainly, we are against the state surpressing the freedom of thought, so if you want to become president and yell out that you are God's child, you are permitted to, as you are now. However, you should never be required by the State to use the word God or to advocate its use. That is freedom of speech. Nice strawman, however.

You want to deny us the public use of the word God, for freedom of religion you say, and I'm mamking a strawman by protesting it?

ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCH. DIST., et al., Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL A. NEWDOW, et al., Respondents.

As Congressman Wolverton observed in urging the
inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge:

Our American Government is founded on the concept
of the individuality and the dignity of the human
being. Underlying this concept is the belief that every
human being has been created by God and endowed
by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil
authority may usurp. Thus, the inclusion of God in
our pledge of allegiance . . . sets at naught the
communistic theory that the State takes precedence
over the individual . . . .
100 CONG. REC. 7336 (1954) (statement of Rep. Wolverton).

The proponents of adding the phrase “under God” to
the Pledge were conscious not only of that tradition
generally, but also of the exigencies of their historical
moment. As the court below conceded, a prime reason the
words “under God” were inserted into the Pledge was to
distinguish this country from the Soviet Union.2 But this was
not some jingoistic exercise in contrasting good believers
with bad atheists. It was a serious reflection on the different
visions of human nature—and therefore of human freedom—
that underlay the two systems. Representative Louis
Rabault, who first proposed the change in the House of
Representatives, explained his motivation:

My reason for introducing this resolution may be very
briefly stated. The most fundamental fact of this
moment of history is that the principles of democratic
government are being put to the test. The theory as to
the nature of man which is the keystone in the arch of
American Government is under attack by a system
whose philosophy is exactly the opposite.
. . .
. . . Our political institutions reflect the
traditional American conviction of the
worthwhileness of the individual human being. That
conviction is, in turn, based on our belief that the
human person is important because he has been
created in the image and likeness of God and that he
has been endowed by God with certain inalienable
rights which no civil authority may usurp.
100 CONG. REC. 5750 (1954).

The House Report likewise
echoed that idea:
At this moment of our history the principles
underlying our American Government and the
American way of life are under attack by a system
whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our
American Government is founded on the concept of
the individuality and the dignity of the human being.
Underlying this concept is the belief that the human
person is important because he was created by God
and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights
which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of
God in our pledge therefore would further
acknowledge the dependence of our people and our
Government upon the moral directions of the Creator.

In short, the political philosophy through which the
Congress viewed the world when it amended the Pledge was
traditionally and quintessentially Jeffersonian.3 It contended
simply that people who recognize a higher power than the
State live in greater freedom.4 By adopting the phrase “under
God” in the Pledge, Congress explicitly sought to draw a
distinction between the “natural rights” philosophy of

3 The Declaration of Independence is not the only evidence of Jefferson’s
consistent argument that God is the source of inalienable rights. For
example, shortly before drafting the Declaration of Independence,
Jefferson wrote: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same
time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.” Thomas
Jefferson, On the Instructions Given to the First Delegation of Virginia to
Congress, in August, 1774, reprinted in 1 THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS
JEFFERSON 181, 211 (Albert Ellery Bergh ed., 1904). Later, he
questioned: “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we
have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are of the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson,
Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII (1782), reprinted in 2 THE WRITINGS OF
THOMAS JEFFERSON, supra, at 1, 227.

4 The House Report also quotes from two other men who helped shape
this country early in its history. William Penn said, “‘Those people who
are not governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.’” H.R. REP. NO. 83-
1693, at 2 (1954); see also 100 CONG. REC. 7333 (statement of Rep.
Oakman (quoting William Penn)). George Mason explained: “‘All acts
of legislature apparently contrary to the natural right and justice are, in
our laws, and must be in the nature of things considered as void. The
laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by
no power on earth.’” H.R. REP. 83-1693, at 2 (1954); see also 100 CONG.
REC. 7333 (statement of Rep. Oakman (quoting George Mason)).

Madison, Jefferson and other Founders, on which the
American system is based, and the Soviet view that rights,
such as they are, are conferred at the pleasure of the State.5

II. The Executive Branch Has Consistently Affirmed
the Principle of Limited Government Reflected in
the Pledge and the Declaration of Independence.

The Executive Branch has also participated in this
tradition, most notably in the speeches of our Presidents. For
example, with one exception (Washington’s brief, second
inaugural in 1793), every single presidential inaugural
address includes reference to God—whether as the source of
rights, of blessing to the country, or of wisdom and guidance.
Examples include the following:

• “[M]ay that Being who is supreme over all, the
Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the
Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty,
continue His blessing upon this nation . . . .” John
Adams, Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1797), reprinted
in LOTT, supra, at 10, 15 .

• “We admit of no government by divine right,
believing that so far as power is concerned the
Beneficent Creator has made no distinction amongst
men; that all are upon an equality . . . .” William
Henry Harrison, Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1841),
reprinted in LOTT, supra, at 81, 82.
5 The Soviet Union, happily, is a threat no more. And the particular
urgency the Congress perceived in the Cold War has passed.
Nonetheless, the underlying principle of the inalienability of rights
remains fundamental to our tradition. Moreover, the present moment is
not without its own exigencies, as we engage entirely different enemies
who deny, for different reasons, that liberty is a right given us by the
Creator.
9

• “The American people stand firm in the faith which
has inspired this Nation from the beginning. We
believe that all men have a right to equal justice under
law and equal opportunity to share in the common
good. We believe that all men have the right to
freedom of thought and expression. We believe that
all men are created equal because they are created in
the image of God.” Harry S. Truman, Inaugural
Address (Jan. 20, 1949), reprinted in LOTT, supra, at
280, 289.

• “[T]he same revolutionary beliefs for which our
forbears fought are still at issue around the globe—
the belief that the rights of man come not from the
generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”
John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address (Jan. 20, 1961),
reprinted in LOTT, supra, at 306, 306.

• “We are a nation under God, and I believe God
intended for us to be free.” Ronald Reagan, First
Inaugural Address (Jan. 20, 1981), reprinted in LOTT,
supra, at 340, 344.

• “[M]ay He continue to hold us close . . . one people
under God, dedicated to the dream of freedom that He
has placed in the human heart, called upon now to
pass that dream on to a waiting and hopeful world.”
Ronald Reagan, Second Inaugural Address (Jan. 20,
1985), reprinted in LOTT, supra, at 345, 350

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-1624/02-1624.mer.ami.koc.pdf

You argue with them then, not me.

Jocabia

17-06-2005, 01:11

You want to deny us the public use of the word God, for freedom of religion you say, and I'm mamking a strawman by protesting it?

You argue with them then, not me.

You can't read or you just choose to ignore what I say? I said very clearly that presidents and anyone else are allowed to publicly say anything like. You've heard of it. You know that thing called freedom of speech. You are advocating that people be required to say those things. The opposite of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. No one is saying that GWB can't thank God in every speech he gives. He cannot, however, make a single law that makes me tell people we are a nation under God or that I trust in God. That's the part you don't get. It's silly to make out like one equals the other. Nice strawman, though.

I DO NOT WANT TO DENY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THE PUBLIC USE OF THE WORD GOD. I WANT TO PREVENT YOU FROM FORCING OTHER PEOPLE TO USE IT. I WANT TO DENY THE GOVERNMENT THE USE OF THE WORD. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION BUT INDIVIDUALS DO.

Sorry for the ALL caps guys but he is intentionally trying to suggest that I the ACLU and many others are claiming something diffent than they are.

The Cat-Tribe

17-06-2005, 01:18

First and foremost, you once again skip almost all of what I said.

Simple intellectual cowardice.

A 5-4 vote done in 1947, and I’m ostracized for agreeing with the 4? Fine…I’m tyrannical and I want to implement a state religion on the entire nation because I think “Under God” isn’t unconstitutional (which the court majority does agree with me on that one but you all seem to think it shouldn’t).

ROTFLASTC

You really need to read the cases before you say such silly stuff. I don't think you even carefully read the part you quoted. :rolleyes:

This time you have truly outdone yourself.

The Everson (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ) Court was unanimous on the principle of separation of Church and State.

The majority upheld New Jersey law allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system. Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy.

The majority concluded: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here. "

The dissent you say you agree with found the law to be a violation of the First Amendment!! The dissenters took a stricter view of separation of Church and State than the majority. :p :headbang:

Mr. Justice JACKSON, dissenting (joined by Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER):

... The Court's opinion marshals every argument in favor of state aid and puts the case in its most favorable light, but much of its reasoning confirms my conclusions that there are no good grounds upon which to support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in educational matters. The case which irresistibly comes to mind as the most fitting precedent is that of Julia who, according to Byron's reports, 'whispering 'I will ne'er consent,'- consented.'

...

I agree that this Court has left, and always should leave to each state, great latitude.... But it cannot make public business of religious worship or instruction, or of attendance at religious institutions of any character. There is no answer to the proposition more fully expounded by Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE that the effect of the religious freedom Amendment to our Constitution was to take every form of propagation of religion out of the realm of things which could directly or indirectly be made public business and thereby be supported in whole or in part at taxpayers' expense. That is a difference which the Constitution sets up between religion and almost every other subject matter of legislation, a difference which goes to the very root of religious freedom and which the Court is overlooking today. This freedom was first in the Bill of Rights because it was first in the forefathers' minds; it was set forth in absolute terms, and its strength is its rigidity. It was intended not only to keep the states' hands out of religion, but to keep religion's hands off the state, and above all, to keep bitter religious controversy out of public life by denying to every denomination any advantage from getting control of public policy or the public purse. Those great ends I cannot but think are immeasurably compromised by today's decision.

... I cannot read the history of the struggle to separate political from ecclesiastical affairs, well summarized in the opinion of Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE in which I generally concur, without a conviction that the Court today is unconsciously giving the clock's hands a backward turn.

Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE, with whom Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, Mr. Justice JACKSON and Mr. Justice BURTON agree, dissenting.

Not simply an established church, but any law respecting an establishment of religion is forbidden. The Amendment was broadly but not loosely phrased. It is the compact and exact summation of its author's views formed during his long struggle for religious freedom. In Madison's own words characterizing Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, the guaranty he put in our national charter, like the bill he piloted through the Virginia Assembly, was 'a Model of technical precision, and perspicuous brevity.' 8 Madison could not have confused 'church' and 'religion,' or 'an established church' and 'an establishment or religion.'

The Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, outlawing only a formal relation such as had prevailed in England and some of the colonies. Necessarily it was to uproot all such relationships. But the object was broader than separating church and state in this narrow sense. It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion. In proof the Amendment's wording and history unite with this Court's consistent utterances whenever attention has been fixed directly upon the question.

...

No one would claim today that the Amendment is constricted, in 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion, to securing the free exercise of some formal or creedal observance, of one sect or of many. It secures all forms of religious expression, creedal, sectarian or nonsectarian wherever and however taking place, except conduct which trenches upon the like freedoms of others or clearly and presently endangers the community's good order and security. ...

'Religion' has the same broad significance in the twin prohibition concerning 'an establishment.' The Amendment was not duplicitous. 'Religion' and 'establishment' were not used in any formal or technical sense. The prohibition broadly forbids state support, financial or other, of religion in any guise, form or degree. It outlaws all use of public funds for religious purposes.

So, by agreeing with the dissent, you advocate a stricter separation of Church and State.

Nicely done.

As to the history of public prayer, public worship and public acknowledgement of a supreme being in our documents, actions and public properties throughout the history of America, good luck abolishing all of them and pretending that they never happened. I’m sure your intentions were good as you wiped out the memory of those that came before us and belittled their faith and aspirations for free expression of both faith and non-faith, dissing the heritage they left to us and replacing it with the only ideologue you find acceptable, which is a complete and utter lack freedom of religious expression for everyone.

Utter bullshit. Mostly a pathetic strawman -- I have not advocated, nor has the ACLU advocated, most of what you allege.

I've responded to most of your feeble historical arguments. They simply are not so. And you have dodged and/or simply ignored my counter-arguments.

According to you, not just me but the Supreme Court has misapplied the history of the First Amendment since 1815 (and again in 1871, 1879, 1890, 1940, 1947, etc.) :rolleyes:

Nor I have objected to public religious expression. Merely government expression of religion. You like to play that bait-and-switch, but there is a fundamental difference and that difference lies at the heart of the Establishment Clause.

You contradict yourself yet again. You have specifically argued that there is no right to freedom of religion for non-believers.

However, I have to admit, I don't think that's going to happen because as you take your train of ‘forced neutrality thought’ to it's logical conclusion... "The first law passed that says a politician just elected to office can't publicly "Thank God" while on government time, is going to start a popular uprising.

Nice strawman.

Of course a politician can publicly "Thank God." No one -- except you -- has suggested than anyone should be denied free exercise of religion.

Last bit: What religion is it that you guys keep saying I want the government to support anyway?

Actually, you claim any community majority can use government to support any religion.

Although, you've made clear a preference for Christianity and you clearly assume that the "Christian majority" will prevail in most places.

The problem is that this all utterly contrary to the express language, history of interpretation, and clear intent of the First Amendment.

You simply don't get it. You don't get it at all.

Government is not supposed to support any religion whatsoever. It does not matter which.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Did you know? (seperation of church and state) - Page 2