My question is, where do you really draw the line? I understand that religion should not dictate policy. I understand that a rule or law should not be dictated from a religious text. But, should the very mention of God become off limits? Should a holiday such as Christmas be ignored by govenment because it has a Christian overtone to it? Should "In God We Trust" be eliminated from the dollar bill?

I just don't get it. For those who have read my posts in the past, you know what my views are on religion.

Ten Commandment for example. Not the laws to end all laws, but a few of them are good ideas. And considering the people who debate them, these rules did not actually come from God. These are just decent, general common sense rules. They shouldn't be law, but basic morality is consistant with most of them.

When I see the debate being limited to the "Christian" right and the "Communist" left, it just weirds me out.

There are certain parts of Christianity that I find to be completly correct. But say I was LORD of the world, I would not dicate policy based on christianity. Why is it, that so often those of us who are pro life are somehow limited to Jesus telling us that it should be so? Or those of us who are pro capitalism were told to be that way by Exxon?

Can we at least admit the middle ground here?

But when looking at seperation of Church and State, I always thought that it related to a particular religion. So far as, a particular religion should not control government. I do not see how that relates to the mention of God. .... God can mean just about anything. It does not relate to religion or faith. The Big Bang could be your God. Science can be God. And if you have no faith in your particular God, then burn your money, but please do not bore the rest of us with it

The problem is that the people who bring about these cases, and those that support them, generally are not looking for, or wanting freedom of religion. They seek freedom from religion all together. They see religion is the ultimate enemy and inhibitor of man. As asanine and frivolous as some of these cases may seem to you, I, and anybody else, to them they are steps at achieving their ultimate desire. A society free of religion.

LW, do you feel that the world would be a lot better without religion? I understand why people hate religion, but I think they are completly off. I do not believe in religion but I would like to think that I realize that the idea of religion is not the problem. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, hard to prescribe a 2000 year old text to the reasons these guys were ass holes. You can use religion for bad, just as you can use capitalism, comm...., social...., WHITE POWER!!!! The point I am making is that it has nothing to do with the concpet of religion. Faith is not a bad thing unless you believe in ill shit.

No, I don't think the world would be better without religion. Unfortunately, people need structure in their lives. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that people who don't believe in religion are completely incapable of living a responsible life. No, I feel wholeheartedly that one can live a moral and righteous life without religion. It's just that... a lot of people can't...

A lot of people view it as a hassle, as a prison, as a way of confining what one wants to do. Those people simply have no self-discipline.

To me, religion is another family. I love my church back home. They really are a second family to me. They're people that I know I can trust. They are people that would do anything to help me in a time of need. They are people who volunteer untold hours of their time to the community, not because of God, but because they want to. If I need someone to lean on, I know all I have to do is see a fellow member.

I'm not saying everyone needs that kind of thing. But I think many people would benefit from it.

Religion also adds character to a person. Do I need to explain that?

Anyhow, I think the key to solving all the worlds problems is that we all just need to understand and respect one another's religion. That's all. Then I think we could all get along. I don't think religion should be thrown into political or even societal arguments at any time. I do think that there needs to be a seperation of church state, but also the freedom for one to express ones religion freely, and uphold their religious culture in public. I also think that religious leaders should be just that, and not political leaders.

There's no need for anybody to hate religion for any reason. The only thing to hate are people who exploit religion.

I can't argue with anything you said there. From my experience, the more faithful folk tend to also be the most giving. I believe that most people need something to believe in order to push them towards being better folk. It can also turn them into ass holes, but on average, I would guess that faith causes people to be do more good then bad. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I would venture to guess that 90% of homeless shelters are operated by people who have faith in religion. Maybe there is a "United Front of Athiests For the Housing of the Homeless" but maybe I have missed it.

I am not bagging on anyone (how many times have I said that). But in general, I believe that people need some sort of motivation to be decent, succesful, or even an ass hole. There needs to be a drive in there somewhere. To me, being an Athiest makes you God. There is no right or wrong, it is just about how you see the world. And there is no consequence to your actions. I don't see that as a bad thing in general, but when considering there are 6 billion plus people in the world, and if that philosophy was generally accepted, I think we would die out pretty quick.

I consider myself an atheist, but I don't think I have a problem distinguishing between right and wrong. There's just not a guidebook to it, so you have to think it through for yourself. And doing so, you do realize just how much gray area there really is. That said, I personally have no real problem with religion, because I agree that if everybody had to determine "right and wrong" for themselves, we'd probably be in trouble.

And as much as I'd like to believe in the ambiguity of the god mentioned in the pledge of allegiance, money, and wherever else, I don't necessarily think that everybody sees it as so. I have no problem with the fact that the majority of americans believe that the god referenced (on money, the pledge, the constitition, etc) is the christian god, but it seems like a few too many of them want everybody to acknowledge this. To me, sneaking god into these areas is just a way of setting the table for future majorities to take it one step further towards what the majority specifically believes. And that alone is reason enough for there to be a separation.

Anyhow, this quote from Littlewing sums it up pretty well.

I don't see this as being about banning the word God. The belief in God is not shared by everyone, and has no place on things like currency.



Considering most of their workforce is going to be out that day, they need to regonize it on an operations level. To spend our tax dollars celebrating it is different. That's an endorsment.



Absolutely.



The "few of them" exist as law because they protect us from eachother. To say that "don't take the Lord's name in vain", and "worship no other gods" didn't come from religion wouldn't make sense. If someone worships more than one God, is he immoral?



Why? Did anyone make you read the other thread? This isn't really an important issue to me,but it's still an issue.



No way. Freedom of religion grants you the right to practice whatever you want. You can talk freely of it, gather freely to celebrate it, spread the gospel.....whatever. God is religious. Legal currency, stating that "In God we trust", is an endorsment of religion. I won't say it's an endorsment of Christianity, but some religions don't have gods.

As far as the "their ultimate desire", I disagree. I know there's people out there that hate religion, but come on.




People who don't believe in religion are just as capable of anything. Your morals are yours, mine are mine. Maybe I don't want to structure my life exactly like yours.




Some people don't view it at all.



WOW.

WOW.



I know alot of people who feel the same way. I thoroughly enjoy seeing people find their happiness. It's not for everyone though.



It builds religious character. Life in general builds character.




Atheists don't believe in God. That doesn't make them bad people.

You guys seem to be confusing Atheists with savages.

The "separation of church and state" is an interpretation of the religious test clause ban.



This is interpreted (and is most likely the authors intent) to mean that no religion should have influence on the laws of the federal government by making religion a requirement to hold office. It has been taken further to mean that no particular religion should be shown preference by the federal government, as that is a defacto endorsement.

I don't believe, nor have I seen any arguments, that the Constitution bans practice of religion by the government, just that cannot decimate against any religion. Many people feel that the act of practicing religion is discrimination against those who do not believe and so in order not to offend anyone, the government has begun eradicating anything that anyone could find religious. Of course that offends the religious folks and they get all riled up.

It's really a no-win situation.

Doesn't it also have something to do with this?

I see broken_iris clause as more relevant to the actual separation of church and state. The first amendment strikes me more as a freedom to participate in any religion you like without persecution for your beliefs.

Wow....I agree with LittleWing.

here's the thing: i live in christian society. i am not a christian and, thus, am in the minority. does it bother me that the "under god" was inserted into the pledge? yes. but you know what? i'm an adult, i'm a rational person and i just don't say it. i shut my mouth during that part. does it bother me that "in god we trust" is on money? yes, but you know what? i'm less bothered by that than i am those damn state quarters and the ever changing american currency.

those are pretty minor issues, though.

my family used to be fairly active in local politics when we lived in texas. my dad ran for city council, and we were always at the meetings, which they started with prayers. every one of my high school football games started with prayers. the band had a chaplain that would lead prayers before all our competitions. after september 11, my school had a "non-denomenational rememberance service" that quickly revealed itself as a christian prayer ceremony. THAT is the kind of thing that needs to be focused on first. THAT is the kind of thing that honestly makes people uncomfortable.

yes, the senate sessions in NY start with a prayer by the official priest. it's weird.

The problem is when governments abuse religion to claim moral authority and exploit it's influence for political gain.

Separation of church and state intends to remove the haze that loyalty to religion can create and give greater accountability and transparency in government.

The current administration plainly abuses Christian loyalty in America to gain support, even though many of it's policies are inconsistent with those in the bible. For example - lack of policy to reduce social inequality, environmental policy, prisoner abuse, death penalty, ........

Furthermore, when people call for greater separtion of church and state they claim it is an attempt to marginalise religion (as Little Wing pointed out). When in reality all this serves to do is solidify support from their Christian grass roots. Fear of being marginalised and the potential of Christianity being wiped out encourages voter loyalty to the government.

What consitutes abuse though? Praying before supper? I don't see how his policies not matching up with all biblical examples has anything to do with anything.

I think more of a danger than religious thought in government is religion being infiltrated by politics. For instance if you look at the Christian Coalition's Legislative, Agenda: http://www.cc.org/issues.cfm
you'll see this. #2 and #3 are Passing President Bush's Social Security reform (with personal accounts) and Making permanent President Bush's 2001 federal tax cuts. They put tax cuts and privatizing SS before even abortion. Another funny one is at #10 Passing Congressman Bartlett's First Amendment Restoration Act (H. R. 3801). On the surface you would think it has to do with Freedom of Religion, but no it's about repealing parts of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act and parts of McCain-Feingold.
I believe in Separation of Church and State, I think it is the very thing that has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. I believe it basically means the state should not take sides. On issues like the Pledge I don't have a problem with it as it is. I really don't think it's any business of mine if a court house in Kentucky wants to put up a plaque with the 10 commandments on it. I do have a problem with the money, I think it's a kind of blasphemy, In God we Trust on the money, to me, is kind of saying yep were capitalist and this is really our God. And I really do not want religion in public schools because I could never trust a stranger in a school to properly teach religion to my kids, that is if I had kids. For example I'm Catholic, would a Protestant want me teaching Catholicism to their kids. I think in time those that think they can use religion to push political agendas and to serve their personal ambitions are in for a rude awakening. In time there will be a backlash and unfortunately the good and genuinely faithful will suffer for what the pundits have done.

You may say that. But I see it as just another brick being pulled from the wall. If "In God we Trust" is removed from the money, it will be seen as a victory and a calling for another nut job to take it one step further. Perhaps it will be someone trying to ban all crufixes in public, or to stop praying in public, or to stop public solicitation. I think time is in my side when I say the very far left will continue to try and achieve a laic society. I think I spelled that wrong, but...think France. Eventually it will become, "religion is something personal that stays within your home. When you are at home, you are whatever you want to be. But when you are in public, you are just another person."



Perhaps I needed to communicate that better. What I meant was, people who commit inequity, and do bad things, and strictly avoid religion because of those things are weak and have no self discipline. It's like a cop out. When someone of religion says, "God says you shouldn't steal." They reply, "I don't believe in God, so I'll steal whatever I want."

No self discipline. No self discipline instilled artificially from religion. And the complete inability to discern right from wrong out of their own accord.



Yeah, it builds character. I assure you my "non-religious" character is influenced a good bit by my religion. And I assure that people of deep faith are heavily influenced by it. The character of the people here, particularly the women, is molded around the religion.

I know a large amount of people, including myself, who have a hell of a lot of character and are not the least bit religious and I know a good amount of people who practice immoral or sinful acts but then use religion as a cop out when they just simply repent these very deeds every Sunday.

Why do you automatically classify this person as a nutjob? Are you insinuating that the goal of these people is to eliminate religion altogether? Because I don't see that as the case at all. I see the goal as to simply keep it away from government and such. Obviously there are some lunatics who'd like it gone completely, but I wouldn't classify everybody who wants the statement removed from money into that group.

And please explain to me what's wrong with the statement that I bolded.



I'm failing to see how religion would affect this situation at all, unless you forced religion upon this person. And even at that, do you really think it would make a difference?



Everything molds character, religion is just one of many factors. I don't see religion as a critical building block of one's character, however.

I do not believe the US government should be endorsing religion. God is religious. Not every person in the US trusts in God. It shouldn't be there. The pledge of allegiance is a pledge to the country, not to God. Sure, it doesn't really take any effort to keep your mouth shut during the 'under God' part, but does a child being told to just not say it solve anything?

As far as your view of the future, I don't see how those examples relate. If the crucifix was paid for with tax money and displayed at the local post office, then yes, it would be wrong. You, however, have every right to walk into that same post office wearing 1000 crucifixes and a t-shirt that says "I love Jesus" in huge letters. That's your religious freedom. Religion is personal. That's the whole point. It doesn't need to stay in your home, but it does need to stay out of our government.



I take it God never said "You shouldn't molest young boys".

This is where you really lose me. At least in the first part of your post, I see where you're coming from, even if I don't agree.

Attrocities are commited in the name of God all the time. Look over at the middle east and tell us all that religion has nothing to do with the situation. What about all the hate crimes against blacks and gays that have occured in the South, arguably the most religious area of the nation, over the last 50 years. Again, how about thoses priests? Did they just put aside that self-discipline whenever little Johnny was around?

There's good religious people, and bad ones. There's good nonreligious people, and there are bad ones. Going to church on Sunday morning doesn't make you better than anyone else. Being religious does not make you morally superior.




That's you and the people you know over there. Other things can equally influence a person's character. I really have no problem with religion itself. It helps alot of people. I would never agree with anything that limited the practice of it, I just feel the government should not be endorsing it.