That's better.

Jefferson's, and from what I can tell most of the other founding fathers', perspective is more of a "religion gives you a morally relative view close to the one we think is correct" than "YOU NEED RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT OR IT WILL PHAIL". While I understand where they come from there, I also don't think it'd be a stretch to replace their use of "religion" with "christianity".

first off, much of my post was directed at Canadian anthem where a few years back there was a group that wanted to have the Canadian anthem translated and updated to include different religions into it, this make me angry, it's the anthem of our country, just because you came from another county does not mean that we should even entertain the idea of changing it for your religious beliefs.

yeah, thats the guys, forgot which religion that was fell under, thanks.

I understand that the constitution does not out right say that the nation is formed for god or exist solely to worship god, but do you deny that the founding fathers were at least religious? that much of the nation if not the founding fathers, worshiped GOD or nothing at all? from the beginning Canada and the states were populated by worshipers of god, and I understand and accept that other are free to worship their own gods and I don't force my beliefs on them, I just get upset when they come into a country they KNOW is primarily Christian or at least worship god and the holy bible and expect changes to occur simply to satisfy them, it's like people who come here and make no effort at all to learn English, that irks me too... I mean if you make an effort to learn English in a country who's official language is English you should at least learn enough to get by.

what eves, I started ranting.

Yes, the most prominent of the founding fathers (i.e. all the ones you learned about in school) were mostly deists, and some of them, such as Thomas Paine, could only be described as having hatred towards Christianity.


Yeah, the majority of Americans believe in god. Why does that mean it should be in any kind of national pledge?


What the HELL are you talking about? Who comes into our country and expects change to occur to satisfy them? Atheists, agnostics and even some Christians don't want phrases like "under God" in anthems, pledges or on money because it violates the separation of church and state. Religion should never, ever be a part of government. That's why it bothers us. It bothers us because someone got away with putting it in there to begin with.

Most people try to change it so that it's neutral and favors no religion/belief. There's a huge difference between that and what you're saying.

In a borderline flame. If you can't address someone with out getting worked up into a fit of indignation, you're an jerk. It is possible to disagree with someone with out being obnoxious and belligerent.



Granted. But the way you portrayed is was as ridicules as saying that they were all fundamentalist evangelicals.

Even if you had been 100% right, you were still a jerk. That just means that you were a hypocrite and a jerk.

Yeah, that's why I said 'importance of religion to society' and not to 'government'. But it is important to government - as a tool to manipulate people.


Also. Stop throwing around the phrase 'separation of church and state'. No such language exists in the constitution. Argue instead that these things 'establish a national religion'. It's a harder argument, but it actually leads somewhere.

[quote=First ****ing Amendment of the United States Constitution]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...[/quote]
It's explicit. It's poignant. It says "CONGRESS DON'T ****ING MAKE CHRISTIANITY STATE RELIGION! DON'T ****ING SPONSOR CHRISTIANITY OVER ISLAM! Stay the **** out of religion for the love of humanity!"

There's no such language of "you aren't allowed to kill people" in the constitution but I'm pretty sure it violates something about others' rights.

It boils down to how you interpret it and your definition of "separation of church and state".

"Separation of church and state" refers not only to the constitution, but also numerous court cases over the past two centuries.

From Wikipedia:
"The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state."

:facepalm:

I thought conservatives were very strict on the interpretation of the Constitution... Well looks like that was disproven. I dunno. That's pretty much tells me. "Congress...government...don't establish a state religion."

Who's conservative?



I don't think "don't establish a state religion" covers all the bases of "separation of church and state".

lemon test *****es

There is a current brouhaha over a cross prominately displayed in San Diego. It is on government grounds. The fact that it is still standing means the city council, an elected government, has prefaced one religion (Christianity) over another. It has established taxpayer funded displaying a religious symbol. San Diego City Council picked out a religion.

Now before anyone cries about examples like the Missions of California, I have no problems them being declared state parks even though they carry a religious background. They are part of California's history and I hate seeing history destroyed so long as they are not being used as active churches. If mass is still being performed then the Church should pony up the dough for keeping the ruins stable. Now I know this is gonna piss off people but the mission should adhere to government building codes. Yes it's a religious place but people still go in and out of said building. Solid building codes help EVERYONE.

Grant:

You are confused, I understand. But the truth is that Christianity is not synonymous with English, because English is the official language of our countries, and religion is not the official religion of our countries. Both of our countries conceptions were because of Britain's expectation of Orthodox Catholicism. The very documents that started succession of both our nations, the Declaration of Colonial Rights, says:

"Also the act passed ... for establishing the Roman Catholic Religion in the province of Quebec ... and erecting a tyranny their, to the great danger, from so great a dissimilarity of Religion ... of the neighboring British colonies ...."

Everyone:

For those of you who think that the Constitution does not expressly argue for the separation of church and state: Keep on wishing. The Constitution itself was written to provide for a stronger central government that could not create the religious and financial tyranny that the former rule had. (Interestingly enough, those two points cross party lines.)

Before adding the Bill of Right, the Constitution didn't say anything about religion (Apart from declaring that no one to take any office would be required to take any religious tests; essentially saying someone from any religion could take office). This was very intentional, as stated by Madison (you know, the guy who wrote the Bill of Rights) "[the Constitution was not to grant] a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion." It was done to silently disregard the concept of religion in the government, and the government in religion.

The Bill of Rights was suggested to ease the minds of the people by expressly stating things which the Constitution assumed. These were inherent and obvious rights of all people as observed by the constitution, and were simply being stated to make those assumptions clear. These are not rights given by the Government, or even rights of citizens. These are natural rights that all people should have. Religion was a hot topic during the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Many people were concerned that it'd abolish religion. Madison suggested:
"[Prevent Congress from making] laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion." and that the word 'national' be inserted before 'religion.'

This echoed his speech he made calling for the amendments to the constitution: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

Jefferson refused to take part in Thanksgiving Proclamations signifying worship and thanks to a deity, as it offended the establishment of religion clause of the Bill of Rights that he signed. He also wrote the famous "wall of separation" that has been the citation for all religion-based court decisions since he said those words.

The nail in this coffin comes from a letter Madison wrote to Jefferson, and is telling of the framers' desire for a Bill of Rights, and the meaning behind Madison's language:

"When indeed the Religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions is increased by the sympathy of a multitude. But enthusiasm is only a temporary state of Religion, and while it lasts will hardly be seen with pleasure at the helm [of state]. Even in its coolest state, it has been much oftener a motive to oppression than a restraint from it."

There is a separation of church and state. The state has nothing to do with the church. There is no national religion. The American state and it's flag are not Under nor do they Trust in God. Our nation is not subjugated to yours, or any other god; nor does it tell you what religion you can and can't have. We are free.

I want you to imagine for a moment that you're living in a country that claims to protect your freedoms, and claims to hold no religion above any others, but has an upside down cross on its dollar bill. You're living in a country with minor allusions to paganism seeded within that government. Your children spend every Monday morning at school agreeing with the strong foundation of freedom that your country stands for after invoking spirits as whitenesses. Your president argues that the Sun God is watching over him, and that his actions are sanctioned by that Sun God.

You wouldn't like it. You'd ask why the promise of religious freedom has been offended. You'd feel betrayed by your fellow citizens who call you a whiner, and claim that these things are only social conventions. You'd want to scream at the fool who claimed that these religious undertones were the foundation of your country, and that you are the outsider.

Emon was upset by Grant's post because he's disregarding freedom. No, not the freedom of Atheists and Agnostics, but all of our freedoms. The only reason people aren't more appalled is because the religious undertones that have been lowjacked into our state aren't contrary to their own religious ideals. If pagan whispers were everywhere, it'd be a revolution.

I am 18. Time to put you on ignore for a while Rob.

Anyways, the reason I chose not to stand is not because of the "under God" part. I do not stand because the pledge encourages nationalism and propaganda. Nationalism only gives people more of a reason to fight. I also feel it is ridiculous to do it every day, which is why I never stand.

I think it's worth pointing out that the founding fathers lived in a period when it was difficult to be anything less than a deist. Without explanations for things like the diversity of life, it was difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Instead, the most obvious explanation at the time would have been that some sort of higher power created it all.
Many of the founding fathers may have been religious but for some only because there were no other real options.

I also find it interesting how the US was founded with ideals about separating religion from government yet religion remains much more of a hot button issue there than in most of Europe where perhaps our changes have been more gradual and natural. For example, we still have blasphemy laws in the UK (though they almost never get used) and we have a state religion but no one gives a rat's arse about it. In fact we treat overt displays of religiosity with suspicion. Tony Blair kept his religious convictions under wraps for years because he was afraid of being perceived as a religious nutter.

I'm not sure why it should be considered an improvement that an elected official was forced to hide his religious convictions. Persecution of theists doesn't strike me as different from persecution by theists. As long as the elected official can provide reasons for their stance on issues that doesn't boil down to, "<supernatural being> says that's the way it should be," it shouldn't be treated like it's a problem.

I don't have a problem with Christian symbols (Though 'God' can be interpreted other ways) and I'm not Christian. Why would I have a problem with this?


I've never seen any reason why you shouldn't feel a connection to your country, and want to support it.

But you used to be, before you became an Internet Taoist.

My main point was that the difference in attitude to religion and politics is interesting, whether it's an improvement or not, but I would hardly characterise the situation as persecution
Blair chose to keep relatively quiet about his religion because he was concerned he might lose votes. He still went to church with his wife and converted to Roman Catholicism, it turns out he got into it in a major way but he chose not to share all that with the rest of the nation while he was meant to be serving it. We're not all atheists here either, the majority in fact are religious in one way or another. It's just that we associate overt religiousness with American culture, dodgy televangelists and the ridiculous and horrific acts committed in our country and the rest of Europe during the pre-modern era.
Religion therefore is generally considered a private issue. Blair bringing it up while in his capacity as a the leader of our country is what would cause troubles. And it's not like he didn't touch on such issues anyway. He championed the faith schools idea and pumped ****e-loads of money into it so he could say "Look they really work! It's not a nu-Labour gimmick gone wrong!". He simply couched his reasoning for these schools with claims about diversity and choice; and by ignoring the counter-claims that it served to further segregate children down religious lines.

If religion doesn't really have a place in politics in a pluralistic society, we would not expect it to be trumped about by our politicians either. For a nation that's meant to be secular, US politicians sure talk about their religion a lot, and the reason is that the electorate are concerned about whether they worship the right god before they bother with the ideas they propose.

hehe, this thread is awesome now.

Not really. I finally realized that I never did believe, but merely felt like I SHOULD believe. So I'm going with the philosophy that already matches what I came up with on my own, kthnx.

You know, Separation of Church and state is just as much for the protection of religion as it is for the state. In fact, more so, because when the two merge, the religion just becomes a stronger more draconian form of government. Mixing church and state has always been a recipe for bad news.

So basically, what you're saying, is that the founding fathers in essence didn't believe in importing religion into the government anyway. Am I correct? On all fronts?


Separation of church and state is the gist of "no national religions" to me. If you have a different view, fine, more power. But that doesn't mean yours is right and mine is wrong.

It doesn't mean mine is wrong and yours is right, either.

I was NEVER arguing that they DID want religion in government. All I said was that they recognized it's importance.

-to society, which has nothing to do with money or oaths.

I sure hope Grant comes back to this thread. I wrote a mini-essay.

I'm tl;dr'ing is in advance.

You agree with me an awful lot for someone who doesn't agree with me.

To society. Which has nothing to do with religion in the case presented in this thread.

And I never said yours was wrong. You, however, seem to insist mine is.

Not at all. You just continue to argue with me for some reason when I said



At the same time I brought up Jefferson in the first place. Really. Pay attention.

Clay pose attention

I swear, Wookie does this to me enough: Grant, defend your horrible points against the kak detty essay I wrote.

Well, you kinda went off on a tangent about what was intended to be said in the Constitution. Supreme Court isn't going to look back on what our predecessors said they intended. =/

... yes they are. That's part of constitutional literacy. That's why the common phrase is "separation of church and state," because the Supreme Court cited Jefferson's "wall of separation" in the statements of the case that has become the lemon-test for all state/religion cases to follow.

But be my guest: Keep reasoning and sidestepping. I'm sure your religious ideals will become law one way or another. It's worked in the past.

I'd appreciate it if you were more clear with exactly who you are addressing there. I have absolutely no intention of promoting religious ideals in law.