• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

God in the government

Should God be mentioned in our government?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 36.1%
  • No

    Votes: 51 61.4%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 2 2.4%

  • Total voters
    83

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Robodoon said:
They are partner documents.

And Jesus Christ is Referenced in the Consititution; Mr Rockefeller

She is? Amazing. Cite passage, please.
 

Robodoon

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
426
Reaction score
0
Location
Lakeport CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you deny God's place in government, then you deny everything Americas founding fathers were fighting for, and claim with your own mouths that you do not understand and deserve to be slaves.

IN FACT, you are claiming SLAVERY! yee haw :2wave:
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Robodoon said:
If you deny God's place in government, then you deny everything Americas founding fathers were fighting for, and claim with your own mouths that you do not understand and deserve to be slaves.

IN FACT, you are claiming SLAVERY! yee haw :2wave:
Why won't you answer SA's question?
 

Robodoon

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
426
Reaction score
0
Location
Lakeport CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
tryreading said:
Why won't you answer SA's question?
sorry I missed it, I jumped to the end, show me the question you want answered
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Robodoon said:
sorry I missed it, I jumped to the end, show me the question you want answered
The question, in response to your post. Which, would have been at the end :)
 

Thorgasm

Bus Driver to Hell
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
69,460
Reaction score
15,337
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Robodoon said:
If you deny God's place in government, then you deny everything Americas founding fathers were fighting for, and claim with your own mouths that you do not understand and deserve to be slaves.

IN FACT, you are claiming SLAVERY! yee haw :2wave:
Aaahh, yes! The founding fathers were the most moral people on earth ever! the way they owned slaves and had sex with them and forced the strong ones to breed with each other for "better slaves". The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing. Do you think that pro sports would be what it is today if it weren't for them playing god like that?
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
177
Reaction score
1
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
conserv.pat15 said:
Do you think God should be mentioned in our government?..... for example, "under God" in the Pledge, or Nativity scenes, or displaying the Ten Commandments at a courthouse... ect. ect.
Definitely. It is what devides us from a regime like Soviet Russia. All of the most brutal regimes outlaw God. With checks and balances it is more then ok. Secondly it is not referring to a specific denomination and this is a Christian country and we have a Christian heritage. It needs to stay at all costs.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
AmericanPatriot29 said:
Definitely. It is what devides us from a regime like Soviet Russia. All of the most brutal regimes outlaw God. With checks and balances it is more then ok. Secondly it is not referring to a specific denomination and this is a Christian country and we have a Christian heritage. It needs to stay at all costs.
What differentiates us from regimes such as Russia is our revolutionary Document which makes our government neutral regarding religion.

Christian because the majority of Americans are Christian, or because you say so?
 
F

FallingPianos

conserv.pat15 said:
Do you think God should be mentioned in our government?..... for example, "under God" in the Pledge, or Nativity scenes, or displaying the Ten Commandments at a courthouse... ect. ect.
the examples you gave are pretty harmless. i have no problem with them.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
star2589 said:
the examples you gave are pretty harmless. i have no problem with them.
Of course they are harmless. They infringe on nobody's rights and are coercive in no way. Nobody is required to say them, believe them, or pay them any attention whatsoever.

What they do is represent our religious heritage and history as all our other heritage and history is represented in various ways in our government buildings and symbols. Our religious heritage and history is who we are as a people as much as anything else, and to omit it would not only be dishonest, but ludicrous.
 
H

hipsterdufus

tryreading said:
What differentiates us from regimes such as Russia is our revolutionary Document which makes our government neutral regarding religion.

Christian because the majority of Americans are Christian, or because you say so?
As an agnostic atheist I would prefer not to have "god" on money or in the pledge. I usually omit the "under god" part, or substitute "under guard"

I would describe Communism as a religion - a fanatical, dark and intolerant religion.
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
independent_thinker2002 said:
Exactly how has it served us all well?
The business of government is a most serious undertaking, even to the extent of being sacred.
Some people, even most people must be constantly reminded of this. Thus the prayers, oaths, and minutes of silence..

IMO, we may have the world's best government, one which other nations would do well to emulate - and some do, no doubt, others are simply envious...
That is not to say that reform is not necessary, it is.......
But, "what works" must NOT be changed.



Why do atheists have such a fear of God ?
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Please bear with me as I have been gone for the btter part of a month and will take a day or two to catch back up. If I miss anything, please repeat the question you were waiting on. Thanx!
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AmericanPatriot29 said:
Definitely. It is what devides us from a regime like Soviet Russia. All of the most brutal regimes outlaw God. With checks and balances it is more then ok. Secondly it is not referring to a specific denomination and this is a Christian country and we have a Christian heritage. It needs to stay at all costs.

This is a secular nation. The Constitution clearly sets us forth as such. There is no meaningful mention of god in it at all. The only mention of religion is the first amendment wherein it tells the government to butt out of religion rather clearly. It is a lie to say this is a Christian nation, or an admission of abysmal ignorance.

What makes us better than the Soviet Union is FREEDOM of Religion. That Freedom extends to any or all or none of the above. It does not mean we have to choose from one Christian domination or another. The government has no business in religion at all neither for nor against, nor do any agents of the state when acting as agents of the state.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
earthworm said:
The business of government is a most serious undertaking, even to the extent of being sacred.
Some people, even most people must be constantly reminded of this. Thus the prayers, oaths, and minutes of silence..

IMO, we may have the world's best government, one which other nations would do well to emulate - and some do, no doubt, others are simply envious...
That is not to say that reform is not necessary, it is.......
But, "what works" must NOT be changed.



Why do atheists have such a fear of God ?
We do not fear god, any more than we fear the easter bunny. We fear the rapture filled zealots that history shows do great evil in the name of their various and sundry gods.

I once had a bumper sticker (of all things) that summed it up well, it said: Dear Lord, Protect Me From Your Followers.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Well Vanderveecken is back so all the pages will be stretched again.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
23,363
Reaction score
14,428
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
AlbqOwl said:
Of course they are harmless. They infringe on nobody's rights and are coercive in no way. Nobody is required to say them, believe them, or pay them any attention whatsoever.

What they do is represent our religious heritage and history as all our other heritage and history is represented in various ways in our government buildings and symbols. Our religious heritage and history is who we are as a people as much as anything else, and to omit it would not only be dishonest, but ludicrous.
Of course God can be mentioned in government. However, we were not founded as a theocracy. Our Founding Fathers, many of whom were Christians and many of whom were deists or agnostic, knew the danger in allowing the government to promote, endorse, and compel religious beliefs. Therefore, they established a government where church and state were separated. Most of those who represent us our men and women of faith. However, no one can use the government as a vehicle to endorse, promote, or compel his or her religious beliefs. It’s really that simple and without a separation of church and state, you cannot have freedom of religion.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
SouthernDemocrat said:
Of course God can be mentioned in government. However, we were not founded as a theocracy. Our Founding Fathers, many of whom were Christians and many of whom were deists or agnostic, knew the danger in allowing the government to promote, endorse, and compel religious beliefs. Therefore, they established a government where church and state were separated. Most of those who represent us our men and women of faith. However, no one can use the government as a vehicle to endorse, promote, or compel his or her religious beliefs. It’s really that simple and without a separation of church and state, you cannot have freedom of religion.
I know it may be seen as splitting hairs, but I think 'separate' in this case is a misnomer. I think the founders, even the Deists and agnostics, had no intention of government being 'separate' from relgiion which is why they unashamedly included prayer in all their endeavors, invoked the name of God in virtually everything they did, and even held worship services in the chambers of Congress. The truly nonreligious were completely unbothered and unconcerned about such activities and participated or not as they chose.

What the Founders did do, and what they clearly intended, is that the Federal government would have absolutely no say in what any person believed, professed, or practiced re his/her religious faith. There would be no reward, advantage, or consequence for whatever a person believed respective to religion and no religious test for whatever government position a person might wish to hold. That of course required that there be no state religion and no one religion could be endorsed or favored over any other nor have any influence in government not available to everybody.

This intent I believe has been corrupted by people who practice a religion of anti-religious belief. They think that 'separate' means that there shall be no evidence of religion whatsoever in the public sector. This not only violates the intent, but I believe it to be patently unconstitutional respective to the First Amendment. Government and religion can coexist in perfect peace under the Constitution as it is now written, but it requires religious tolerance from all regardless of what they do or do not believe.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AlbqOwl said:
What the Founders did do, and what they clearly intended, is that the Federal government would have absolutely no say in what any person believed, professed, or practiced re his/her religious faith.
Then 175 years later, Congress mucked it up by forcing the lie "under God" into a stupid pledge of allegience.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Then 175 years later, Congress mucked it up by forcing the lie "under God" into a stupid pledge of allegience.
I really don't see how the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (which most of us don't consider 'stupid') affects in any way or has any bearing whatsoever on my previous comments. Nothing changed when these words were included in the Pledge any more than any other changes that have been made in the Pledge over the years. Acknowledgement of our cultural and historical religious heritage in no way changes, alters, or violates the Constitution.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
23,363
Reaction score
14,428
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
AlbqOwl said:
I really don't see how the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (which most of us don't consider 'stupid') affects in any way or has any bearing whatsoever on my previous comments. Nothing changed when these words were included in the Pledge any more than any other changes that have been made in the Pledge over the years. Acknowledgement of our cultural and historical religious heritage in no way changes, alters, or violates the Constitution.
The other side to that though is that the Constitution and our government is not there to acknowledge are cultural and historical religious heritage.

So there you have it, and that is why even with what is by all counts a predominately conservative Federal Judiciary that we have today, civil libertarians consistently win on this issue.

One, the constitution prevents the government from being a vehicle to promote, endorse, or compel religious beliefs. Two, the constitution prevents the government from being a vehicle to promote or compel adherence to our religious heritage.

That has been the consistent position of the federal judiciary and I suspect that unless the constitution is amended on this matter, it always will be.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
SouthernDemocrat said:
The other side to that though is that the Constitution and our government is not there to acknowledge are cultural and historical religious heritage.

So there you have it, and that is why even with what is by all counts a predominately conservative Federal Judiciary that we have today, civil libertarians consistently win on this issue.

One, the constitution prevents the government from being a vehicle to promote, endorse, or compel religious beliefs. Two, the constitution prevents the government from being a vehicle to promote or compel adherence to our religious heritage.

That has been the consistent position of the federal judiciary and I suspect that unless the constitution is amended on this matter, it always will be.
I did not use the words 'promote or compel'. I specifically used the word 'acknowledge'. The Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the design of our flag, our National Anthem, federal holidays commemorating various historical or cultural events, the symbolic artwork on almost all government buildings including the Supreme Court building are all recognition of our national heritage, cultural, and/or history. It is appropriate that a government of the people, by the people, for the people should acknowledge such.

To leave religious heritage, culture, and/or history out of the mix would be not only ludicrous but dishonest.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
23,363
Reaction score
14,428
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
AlbqOwl said:
I did not use the words 'promote or compel'. I specifically used the word 'acknowledge'. The Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the design of our flag, our National Anthem, federal holidays commemorating various historical or cultural events, the symbolic artwork on almost all government buildings including the Supreme Court building are all recognition of our national heritage, cultural, and/or history. It is appropriate that a government of the people, by the people, for the people should acknowledge such.

To leave religious heritage, culture, and/or history out of the mix would be not only ludicrous but dishonest.
My point though is that it is a very fine line between acknowledge and endorse.
 
Last edited:

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
SouthernDemocrat said:
Might point though is that it is a very fine line between acknowledge and endorse.
I disagree. There is a distinct and clearly identifiable line between acknowledgment and endorsement. When a government establishes something, there is a requirement attached to that to which the citizens must adhere whether it is a law that must be observed or a deadline that must be met or taxes that must be paid or a reward or consequence for failure to act or choice to act.

In matters of religion, so long as nobody is required to say, speak, agree with, or do anything, so long as no unalienable, legal, or constitutional rights are involved, so long as there is no reward and no consequence for believing or professing or not believing or not professing, then the government can acknowledge til the cows come home with no violation of the First Amendment or any other constitutional provision whatsoever.
 
Top Bottom