A theory on the Church/State question.

Skinnywater · Sep 22, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

I don't think non-believers and doubters are threatened by something they don't believe in. It is the people who do believe that are the threat.

I understand your examples and don't disagree with your observations. However, in the case of atheists that take issue, they are agressively pro-active in squelching a belief different than thier own. Maybe they were wrongly "punished", ostracized and ridiculed. It might even be a logical excuse for that chip on thier shoulder. The Constitution rightly takes issue with rights and harm. The activist Atheist takes issue with a Constitution that already protects him. Consistent with the above quote, his agenda is to Constitutionally "punish" those people that may have hurt him. Ultimately GOD or reference to it, has never harmed him or his beliefs. And by his own beliefs it isn't even possible.

Ralph 123 · Sep 22, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Could it be that they wanted to protect all Christian and Jewish denominations from one of them being declared a State religion, as in England?

Exactly. The establishment clause is what it is. A prohibition against the state from establishing a state (Official) religion - period. And, you can practice any faith you want and the government can't do anything about it. These guys never meant this wasn't a nation founded on Judeo-Christian ethics. That is a modern construct. These guys were all basically the same. How do I know? Consider this from George Washington's Farewell Address of 1796:

Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.

Now that we have established that, let's see what he says in the same speech about the role of religion in public life:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Now, what's the surest way of getting it shoved down your throat? Start by attacking it at every turn like suing a city over a stupid tiny cross in its seal but ignore the fact it has a huge Greek god as the main symbol. Start attacking Christmas trees and try to sue to take the "Christ" out of Christmas. That just pisses the huge Christian majority off and the pendulum starts to get pushed hard the other way - it is natural and human especially when their God trumps being an American. It is a stupid, ill informed tactic that is backfiring in a major way. We got along nicely for a couple hundred years without a religious war because people were tolerant. That's almost over.

JB · Sep 22, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Those who take issue with God in our government see themselves as requiring adherence to our Constitution in self defense, Skinny. Their position is that removing government sponsorship of Judeo-Christianity is required by our Constitution. I see no harm to Judeo-Christian beliefs by removing government sponsorship, just as many, perhaps you included, see no harm in shoving it down their throats.

jtexas · Sep 22, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Skinnywater: ... in the case of atheists that take issue, they are agressively pro-active in squelching a belief different than thier own.

disagree, skinnywater, they're not looking to sqelch anything; they are seeking to enforce their 1st amendment rights (as they perceive them), to be free from laws regarding religion; whether you agree or disagree with their interpretation, the are entitled to their opinion.

Originally posted by Skinnywater: The activist Atheist takes issue with a Constitution that already protects him. Consistent with the above quote, his agenda is to Constitutionally "punish" those people that may have hurt him.

You may feel as though you are being punished, but that does not mean that anyone is punishing you. The activist Atheist, as I understand it, is seeking his constitutional protection that has been denied him. He's been "forced" or "coerced" to profess a religious belief: * He is required by his government to choose between uttering "under God" or refusing allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands. * He is required by his government to hand out religious literature in order to acquire the basic necessities of life. Okay, I made all that up, but it seems way more likely than an attempt to squelch religion. I mean if the pledge were never heard again, and if currency were replaced by electronic funds tonight, how long before Christianity would vanish from the face of the Earth? Go ahead, take a wild guess.

Originally posted by Skinnywater: Ultimately GOD or reference to it, has never harmed him or his beliefs. And by his own beliefs it isn't even possible.

Don't you mean to say, he's suffered no harm that you could identify?

Ralph 123 · Sep 22, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Your living in a dream world if you think a tiny minority who may feel uncomfortable are going to be able to dictate terms to the majority. The more they try the greater the backlash. It really is a stupid tactic. The surest way of getting it really shoved down your throat is to attack it. In the end, the majority rules and they will - you can count on that. There is no law that prevents one from being ostracized because of their beliefs. It happens every day. You can't force acceptance among people. When you try, especially by attacking their culture and beliefs, people are just going to dig in their heels and become more determined to fight back. I spent about 20 years in a mostly Jewish town. Now how far do you think I'd get if I started attacking all the Jewish symbols? Not very. I chose to live there and it was part of the culture and history of the town. I accepted it and it didn't bother me. It's like living in Chinatown and suing to get Budah out of town hall or out of the New Year Parade... Very few Christians want a theocracy or anything like it, but they want their culture left alone.

jtexas · Sep 22, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

With respect, Ralph, you say "these guys never meant" then give us the opinion of one. Washington is the "father of our country," but James Madison, the "father of the constitution" described the 1st amendment as "the total separation of the church from the State." (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the 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 showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.

(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822) He wrote a great deal on the subject; his views seem clear enough. This is the path the supreme court will take, we'll see where it leads.

jtexas · Sep 22, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Ralph: Your living in a dream world if you think a tiny minority who may feel uncomfortable are going to be able to dictate terms to the majority. The more they try the greater the backlash. It really is a stupid tactic. The surest way of getting it really shoved down your throat is to attack it. In the end, the majority rules and they will - you can count on that. There is no law that prevents one from being ostracized because of their beliefs. It happens every day. You can't force acceptance among people. When you try, especially by attacking their culture and beliefs, people are just going to dig in their heels and become more determined to fight back. I spent about 20 years in a mostly Jewish town. Now how far do you think I'd get if I started attacking all the Jewish symbols? Not very. I chose to live there and it was part of the culture and history of the town. I accepted it and it didn't bother me. It's like living in Chinatown and suing to get Budah out of town hall or out of the New Year Parade... Very few Christians want a theocracy or anything like it, but they want their culture left alone.

Hey I thought we were debating the constitution. I take it you predict this "under God" issue will get overturned by the supreme court? Okay, I'll take the other side, I predict they'll uphold in a split decision.

Ralph 123 · Sep 22, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

That contradicts nothing JT. He is talking about an official mixing. That does not mean a government free of religion. All you have to do is look how they have co-existed from the beginning to today - from the oaths, opening prayers, to the paintings, etc. If they wanted no religion they would have said it. They would have voted on it. They would have ratified it. They didn't.

jtexas · Sep 22, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Ralph: That contradicts nothing JT. He is talking about an official mixing. That does not mean a government free of religion. All you have to do is look how they have co-existed from the beginning to today - from the oaths, opening prayers, to the paintings, etc. If they wanted no religion they would have said it. They would have voted on it. They would have ratified it. They didn't.

who said they "wanted no religion?" We're talking about the constitution...my assertion is they wanted no laws regarding religion. I know, you can quote the 1st Amendment and tell me it don't say "no laws regarding religion" yada yada yada. My assertion is that it means "no laws regarding religion," despite GW's farewell speech; he was not in favor of a complete separation, Madison was, the others were on one side or the other, the supreme court gets to be the ultimate arbiter.

you previously wrote: There is no law that prevents one from being ostracized because of their beliefs.

True, but someone expressed the opinion that non-christians weren't harmed by official expressions of Christianity. My assertion is that being ostracized for refusing to take part in government-sponsored religious activities is "harm."

you previously wrote: I spent about 20 years in a mostly Jewish town. Now how far do you think I'd get if I started attacking all the Jewish symbols? Not very. I chose to live there and it was part of the culture and history of the town. I accepted it and it didn't bother me.

Admirable. Question: were you required by the government to choose between professing allegiance to your country and professing your faith in Jesus (assume you are Christian for purposes of this question)? My assertion is that would bother your average American Christian.

you previously wrote: Very few Christians want a theocracy or anything like it, but they want their culture left alone.

I assert that while Christians wish to share our faith, we (apart from a few evangelicals) do not wish to have a culture that crams our religion down anyone's throat, with or without the help of government, and furthermore, we don't mind cultural changes when required. In fact I believe Jesus spoke out in favor of separation of church and state.

Skinnywater · Sep 22, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

disagree, skinnywater, they're not looking to sqelch anything; they are seeking to enforce their 1st amendment rights (as they perceive them), to be free from laws regarding religion; whether you agree or disagree with their interpretation, the are entitled to their opinion.

I read their rights already in The Constitution. It goes back to the practical sense of the time. The language I read in The Constitution surely prohibits being ostracized and ridiculed for your beliefs. And I'm not aware of any law regarding religion that binds them. An oath to god isn't requiered and isn't law. Respectfully obstaining from an oath only to be shamed for doing so requires those doing the ostracizing be educated of the rights already contained in The Constitution. The Constitution is the only words that need to be shoved down ones throat in this case.

They assumed a lot of things that we reject today. They assumed that "all men" were adult, white, male landowners. They assumed it was okay for human beings to be capital property of other human beings (adult, white male landowners), that women didn't have the temperament to be voting citizens, and a lot of other stuff. All of that was in their traditions and their culture.

JB, one additional point that might be presumptuous on my part but it goes along with this and how I interpret The Constitution. The founders may not have assumed anything. For instance, they wrote "All men created equal" while many owned slaves. Yet in most eyes at the time, and even when it was ammended that slavery be unConstitutional. The words were already there "All men". Thomas Jefferson wrote to Adams regarding the hypocracy and stated that time would prevail the issue and that those words "All men created equal" already granted the slaves rights under the Constitution. Those words already contained in that document forced that ultimate outcome. The atheist and slave already have protection and freedoms in The Constitution. Do we need an ammendment stateing that racial bigotry be unConstitutional? If so, then ostracizeing and ridicule need a spot too. It isn't a Constitutional issue, it's a social issue.

I predict they'll uphold in a split decision.

JB, jtexas, please, I rest and encourage your very good posts and thank you for the exchange.

Ralph 123 · Sep 23, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

What government sponsored religious activities are you talking about? Saying an optional pledge with the words "under god"? An opening prayer at the start of every session of Congress? Moses and the Ten Commandments on the wall behind the SCOTUS? "In God we Trust" on the currency? A Christmas tree in the Town Square? A tiny Cross on a city Seal? Give me a break. What's the harm, they don't say the pledge and their friends make fun of them? If that's harm we better pass anti-teasing laws against fat kids, skinny kids and kids with chicken pox... You can't build a society that favors the feelings of a tiny minority over the vast majority. It won't work. The Constitution is still relevant because a vast majority of Americans want it to be relevant. The day a majority see it as hostile towards them is the day it begins to die. It already happened once and a lot of blood was spilled as a result. It will happen again if judges begin to find things like a constitutional right to gay marriage (as they did in MA) or try to impose (yes impose) a prohibition of any mention of God in the classroom. In an effort to spare the feelings of a few the whole glorious most tolerant society ever built is put in mortal jeapordy...watch...

jtexas · Sep 23, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Ralph: What government sponsored religious activities are you talking about? What's the harm, they don't say the pledge and their friends make fun of them? If that's harm we better pass anti-teasing laws against fat kids, skinny kids and kids with chicken pox... You can't build a society that favors the feelings of a tiny minority over the vast majority. It won't work.

What govt sponsored activities: pledge and currency. (btw, the pledge is law: see 4 USC 4) What's the harm? Govt forcing you to choose between professing allegiance to your country or professing your religion. You can't be a good American unless you profess faith in the Judeo-Christian God. I say, that is harm enough. We have not built a society where the majority can oppress the minority. The constitution is relevant. It is open to interpretation. That is why the supreme court is there. I personally do not feel that my religion is threatened by reversing a couple changes made in 1954 & 1955; I have faith in the constitution. Furthermore, God is on my side.

tommays · Sep 23, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

This is interesting and it may be different NOW but government in the form of public schools did have a problem with children of the catholic faith attending school in Johnson City Tennessee. They were very upset and outraged that we were not going to the small local catholic school and we received a LOT of harassment. The local Catholic Church even had to have its own Boy Scout troop as that also created problems when you tried to join a NON catholic one Its should be different now but it was no fun as a kid there if you went to the wrong church tommays

JB · Sep 23, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

I said nothing about government sponsored activities. I mentioned government sponsored religion. The inclusion, by law, of reference to the Judeo-Christian God in The Pledge, in oaths of office, in oaths of truth and on our currency amount to government sponsorship of Judeo-Christian theology and the exclusion of all other points of view. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether that violates the Constitutional prohibition. I see lots of comments about majority rule. As I have pointed out before, our Constitution protects the interests of minorities from majority misuse or abuse of power. This is not, as popularly believed, a democracy. It is a libertarian Federal Republic in which the minority, the little guy, wins disputes if he is right. That is what is new and unique in history about our country. When opposing points of view come before the Supreme Court popularity of either is irrelevant, it does not matter which is the majority and which the minority view. The ONLY thing that matters is which view is correct in the law.

QC · Sep 23, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

JT, Skinny, Ralph, and I guess JB too . . .

Very good posts that have brought this discussion full circle back to JB's original intent (I think?). Anyway, I am closer to Ralph on this issue than the others. IMHO this is kinda like gun registration as the first incremental step in dismantling the 2nd amendment. At face value gun registration is not that horrible. Maybe even a good thing, but it will snowball into restrictions that would limit my constitutional right to protect my family under circumstances like Katrina. Although I would like to trust that the removal of "under God" from the Pledge would be a reasonable and logical thing to do, I see it as the first step toward dismantling all references to the origins of the Constitution, and potentially first steps toward the dismantling of the Constitution itself. It is steeped in Judeo-Christian values and those values are at the core of our culture. JB asked if "under Buddha" would offend me. Not if I was immigrating to somewhere that already had that in place. I would have to accept that I was aware of that line (maybe) and I'd be an idiot to not understand their existing culture before I made a decision to go. The ostracizing of children in schools is done by bullies and zealots. That is not protected behavior and IMHO needs to be dealt with on its own. You cant make people behave properly simply by removing a word in a Pledge or by its being there in the first place. The very definition of conservative is to leave well enough alone. The very definition of liberal is to desire and pursue change. I submit when it comes to the association of this country, its values, its Constitution and its history to Judeo-Christian values; I want it left alone . . . .

alden135 · Sep 23, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

To Whom it May Concern, If you're one of those folks who support removing religious refrences from public, than try growing some stones and do it in the light of day. We have a mechanism to have the Constitution ammended in this country. The reason you don't pursue that path is because you are sure to fail. Instead, you continue to dishonor the Constitution by utilizing activist judges to legislate from the bench to get your way. At some point, the legislature will be forced to reign in the unlawful actions of those same judges and begin to function as a true "equal" branch of government. If you truly feel you have a valid reason to change the Constitution, than go through the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. That was the intention of the framers. Any dumb a$$ can at least understand that notion by reading the document, even the "living changeable doucument" crowd.

Ralph 123 · Sep 23, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Well said Alden - and that's what leads to a major backlash. JT, you'll have to show me where God is defined to be the Judeo-Christian God. Good luck. You'll also have to show me where people are forced to say the Pledge. Again, you can't offend 999 people just to make one person "feel" better. You can't build a society on that kind of logic when it involves something that is at the core of so many people lives; their belief in God - no matter how they define it. It is up to the 1 to be tolerant and understanding. This hasn't been an issue for over 200 years until now because of a small group using the courts to further their agenda. Now, why the big push to get God out of public life? One theory is, it's the first step at removing all moral based judgments - removing all the societal prohibitions on behavior. Now who would want such a thing? Gee, I wonder... Like Washington said:

let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle

Remember, I am not very religious but I understand its importance in the history and health of this nation. Just look to what is happening to Europe since they gave God the boot. Keep a close eye on them and read everything you can about what is really happening to them and their cultures. There but for the grace of God go us.

Ralph 123 · Sep 23, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

I am just going to include this from the other post for completeness sake:

Newt Gingrich puts it best. What separates this country and its government from all others ever created is this: This nation was founded on the concept that all rights flow from God to the people and the people lend some of them back to the government. (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) All other governments are founded on the premise that all rights flow from the government to the people. Therefore, this is one nation under God rather than one nation under a government.

JB · Sep 23, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

More irrelevant arguments. The question, for the fifth time, is whether Congress may make a law placing "under God" in the Pledge. That is the only question. These hysterical whines that nullifying the law is going to stamp out Christianity or deny Christians and Jews some inalienable right are nothing but a paranoid smokescreen. Get used to it, friends. The Constitution forbids Congress from making any law regarding the establishment of a state religion. Arguments that it ought to be able to because of blah, blah, blah require an amendment. If 999 people infringe the rights of one, they are wrong; and it is the job of the Supreme Court to say so.

QC · Sep 23, 2005

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by JB: The question, for the fifth time, is whether Congress may make a law placing "under God" in the Pledge.

Ok I'll play, but a quick thought. Although I helped sidetrack this, your question was not part of your original post. It was about the mind set of the framers. OK ready for the answer? Yes, they already did, and yes they can as many times as they want. It is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether that law is constitutional. Nothing more. Maybe we should send these notes to their clerks?

A theory on the Church/State question.

Commander

Captain

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Fleet Admiral

Captain

Fleet Admiral

Fleet Admiral

Captain

Fleet Admiral

Commander

Captain

Fleet Admiral

Admiral

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Supreme Mariner

Lieutenant Commander

Captain

Captain

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Supreme Mariner