- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
AlbqOwl said: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.
I completely disagree, and the federal courts have consistently disagreed with you as well. You are describing a theocracy that tolerant of other religious views. For example, Egypt is a Muslim nation yet allows freedom of religion. Islamic symbolism is present in all levels of the Egyptian government, yet no one is compelled to adhere to Islam and there is a thriving Christian community there as well. None the less, it is still by definition a theocracy.AlbqOwl said: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.
AlbqOwl said:Well Vanderveecken is back so all the pages will be stretched again.
Vandeervecken said:What does that mean?
AlbqOwl said:Your signature line, which is quite attractive, is so wide that it stretches each page you post on. Every time you post, I have to adjust my page to be able to read the posts. If you could shorten it up a bit so it wasn't so wide, it would not cause that phenomenon.
Vandeervecken said:Interesting, it doesn't do that on my monitor so I was unaware of that phenomena. I'll shrink it this evening so it no longer does that. It was not an intentional rudeness, but thank you for telling me so I can fix it. I would think that would get annoying.
\SouthernDemocrat said:I completely disagree, and the federal courts have consistently disagreed with you as well. You are describing a theocracy that tolerant of other religious views. For example, Egypt is a Muslim nation yet allows freedom of religion. Islamic symbolism is present in all levels of the Egyptian government, yet no one is compelled to adhere to Islam and there is a thriving Christian community there as well. None the less, it is still by definition a theocracy.
In converse, our government is by design a secular government. Our laws are not fundamentally based in Christian principles. In fact, virtually all of our laws are based in the basic principle that ones rights and liberty to live their life the way they choose to live their life extends so far as to not to impede another individuals ability to do the same. The line between acknowledgment of ones religious beliefs and using the government to endorse, promote, or compel them is as simple as this:
A judge can be a man of faith. Can pray every day. Can pray with other members of the court who share his or her faith. A judge can teach Sunday school and even preach a sermon every Sunday. However, a judge cannot use his or her position to promote their faith to others. Examples of this would be to place a monument of the Ten Commandments in his court room or to proselytize from the bench. That is the line and it is a very fine one.
Another example would be that almost all of our presidents, excluding some of the early ones, have been Christian men. They of course are free to practice their faith while in office. In fact, I cannot imagine having that enormous of a responsibility without knowing I could pray about the decisions I made. However, they cannot use their office to promote their faith or compel others to adhere to their spiritual beliefs.
AndrewC said:I don't think the concept of a God should be part of our government. I feel it belittles non-christian ideals and beliefs.
conserv.pat15 said:God should be in the Pledge
conserv.pat15 said:Nativity scenes should be legal in government buildings
conserv.pat15 said:Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in government buildings.
conserv.pat15 said:There is nothing in the constitution that bans these types of things.
dragonslayer said:There certainly was clear intent by our founders to keep God out of Politics, but they were mostly all Christians. Many of our founders and early law makers were High Degree Masons, the first 5 presidents were masons.
Religion was kept out of our government because of hundreds of years religious conflict in Europe and even in the colonies themselves. Only by a clear separation of church and state could America hope to keep religious conflict from our government and nation. These men were clearly Christians and the USA has a christian tradition. Yet there has also been a lot of religious conflict in the USA, among christian faiths and with Jews. Our founders gave us democracy instead of conflict. God Bless america.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm#menu
Religion should be kept out of our schools and Government unless your goal is to have wars between religious sects in our streets. Our system seems to work fine. There is huge growth in our religions in this country, so we must be doing something right. To put religion in Governemt is an invitation to Violence.
AlbqOwl said:We have much to fear from those who would deny others the right to their full expression of religious belief and faith, and all faithful Americans, religious and nonreligious alike, would be wise to view these with great skepticism and resist them as necessary.
SouthernDemocrat said:How is preventing the government and our public institutions from being used as a vehicle to promote, endorse, or compel religious beliefs "denying other the right to their full expression of religious belief and faith"?
Goobieman said:Let's say the Reverend Jesse Jackson were elected President.
Would Jesse be allowed to pontificate about God, as he so often does?
For that matter, could he even legally take office?
AlbqOwl said:We have much to fear from those who would deny others the right to their full expression of religious belief and faith, and all faithful Americans, religious and nonreligious alike, would be wise to view these with great skepticism and resist them as necessary.
SouthernDemocrat said:Of course he could. However, he could not for example use taxpayer property to put up monuments that promoted his religious beliefs. Thats basically where the line is and thats basically where some on the religious right just dont get it.
Goobieman said:So... how does the President preaching religion not violate the 'seperation of chuch and state'?
Not limited to monuments alone. But any law made that is based on religious values on his part would be a violation of the establishment clause. Him as president preaching would also be a violation because as active president his words and actions are representative not of himself, but of government.SouthernDemocrat said:Of course he could. However, he could not for example use taxpayer property to put up monuments that promoted his religious beliefs. Thats basically where the line is and thats basically where some on the religious right just dont get it.
SouthernDemocrat said:If a President uses his office as vehicle to promote, endorse, or compel his religious beliefs then he would be violating the constitutional separation of church and state. An example of this would be to address the nation from the rose garden and preach a sermon.
However, if a president were to preach a sermon at his church, then he would not be violating the separation of church and state.
Goobieman said:Wouldnt the President, preaching anything regarding religion, wherever he might be, be violating the 'seperation'?
After all - he is always the President, regardless of where he is and what he is doing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?