• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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
conserv.pat15 said:
The thing that Christians don't like is when people try to keep the government from displaying religious symbols and prevent the free exercise of religion. I'm not saying the government should be forced to display religious symbols, but when people in the government want to display them, they should not be banned. For example, Nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments should not be banned from government buildings and they also should not be forced to display them. Also, if Christmas is a Federal holiday, then why can't a Nativity scene be displayed on government property?!

People in government can display symbols of their religion all they want, in public buildings. Trent Lott can display his Bible openly, wear a tie depicting Jesus, and wear a Roman Cross around his neck. Joe Leiberman can show his Torah and wear a star of David on his lapel, also, he can don his yarmulka. Any Islamic member can do the same with his religious symbols. Any of these people can also talk openly about his religion in public, George Bush does this all the time. Any of them can conclude a speech with 'God Bless America' if he wants to. These things are all legal.

But don't ask or demand that government endorse your particular religion by installing symbols of it in state buildings. This is illegal.
 
Though there is a fine line between formally recognizing God and establishing a national religion, however rudimentary, the history of "In God We Trust" and "Under God" show that such motto's were, in fact, attempts to establish Christianity as the national religion.

In fact, "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" were compromises too "In Jesus We Trust".
The only pro-God motto that passed untouched was "Annuit Coeptis"---The U.S. State Department translation of "Annuit Cœptis" is:
"He (God) has favored our undertakings."

There was even an attempt to change the preamble of the Constitution to read:
"We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government, and in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to ourselves, our posterity, and all the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

However, one must realize that there is simply no escaping our Masonic/Christian origin. Our Founding Fathers DID observe our rights from divinity. When it comes down to understanding, on a personal level, where your Constitutional rights come from, if you denounce God, then you denounce the legitimacy of your Constitutional rights; because your Constitutional rights, such as Liberty, are endowed upon you by your Creator, at the point of your creation.........at least according to the guys who wrote the Constitution, that is.

I believe that our Founding Father's intention was to omit an official religious institution from posessing legal authority, from proventing the Church from possesing the legal ability to enact scripture; not from omitting divine inspiration from the country as a whole.

As I hold a one-dollar bill in my hand and read the words "In God We trust". and look around within the structure of both the Fed. and the State, I see no "Federal Bureau of Religion". I see Presidents sworn into office ending their pledge with"...so help me God", and I have yet to see a President-Pope.

God-mottoes are a great way of instilling the People's trust into the government, by identifying the Government's legitimacy and stability with God's.

Since our money does not follow the Gold-Standerd anymore, rather who's worth is only relative to forgen currencies, the more trust, the better.

For a great book on our curency, I recommend Tracy Twyman's book: Solomon's Treasure

I have no problem with "God" on our mottoes and pledges.
I would have no problem if they were taken off, either.

p.s. Buy gold.
 
Last edited:
Busta said:
However, one must realize that there is simply no escaping our Masonic/Christian origin. Our Founding Fathers DID observe our rights from divinity. When it comes down to understanding, on a personal level, where your Constitutional rights come from, if you denounce God, then you denounce the legitimacy of your Constitutional rights; because your Constitutional rights, such as Liberty, are endowed upon you by your Creator, at the point of your creation.........at least according to the guys who wrote the Constitution, that is.

Where in our Constitution is this stated or implied? You are referring to The Declaration of Independence which is not law, our Constitution is.
 
alex said:
Where in our Constitution is this stated or implied? You are referring to The Declaration of Independence which is not law, our Constitution is.
I didn't refer to the DoI as Law.
I know that the DoI is not Law.
I said...
Busta said:
However, one must realize that there is simply no escaping our Masonic/Christian origin. Our Founding Fathers DID observe our rights from divinity. When it comes down to understanding, on a personal level, where your Constitutional rights come from, if you denounce God, then you denounce the legitimacy of your Constitutional rights; because your Constitutional rights, such as Liberty, are endowed upon you by your Creator, at the point of your creation.........at least according to the guys who wrote the Constitution, that is.

You will note that I, also, did not say that denouncing God in any way nullifies your Constitutional rights. God endowed you with these rights, and they are not something that can be taken away, only violated.
 
Busta said:
You will note that I, also, did not say that denouncing God in any way nullifies your Constitutional rights. God endowed you with these rights, and they are not something that can be taken away, only violated.

Creator, not God. My creator was my mother. Speak for yourself.
 
I have no issue with "God" having mention in my Government....I have issue with a "Christian" ...or anyone elses version of this creature/belief becoming a part of government decisions.
 
Busta said:
I didn't refer to the DoI as Law.
I know that the DoI is not Law.
I said...


You will note that I, also, did not say that denouncing God in any way nullifies your Constitutional rights. God endowed you with these rights, and they are not something that can be taken away, only violated.

Where in our Constitution does it say this, as you stated?
because your Constitutional rights, such as Liberty, are endowed upon you by your Creator, at the point of your creation.........at least according to the guys who wrote the Constitution, that is.
 
tryreading said:
Creator, not God. My creator was my mother. Speak for yourself.
Too say nothing of your father's participation.

If you wish to interpret "Creator" as "mother", then so be it.
Would you then have any problem with "In Our Creator We trust"?
 
tecoyah said:
I have no issue with "God" having mention in my Government....I have issue with a "Christian" ...or anyone elses version of this creature/belief becoming a part of government decisions.
Ah, you make a distinction between a generic word (God) and the specification of a particular god.

Also, I see that you make a distinction between said "God" mearly being mentioned and an institutionalized religion being given legal authority.

I agree with you here.
 
alex said:
Where in our Constitution does it say this, as you stated?
Within the context of understanding, on a personal level, where your Constitutional rights come from, I said "...at least according to the guys who wrote the Constitution...".

I did not say, within the context of law, "...according to the Constitution..."

I was speaking to understanding the origin of our Founding Father's ideals, not law. Nor, as you seem to elude, was I using the DoI to make a case for keeping God-mottoes on our curency or in our pledges.

As I said before, I have no problem with "God" on our mottoes and pledges.
I would have no problem if they were taken off, either.
 
Last edited:
aquapub said:
There is nothing wrong with our money, courts, and other things referring to God. We are a Christian nation.

We are not now nor have we ever been a Christian nation. We are a secular nation. The 1st amendment makes it clear that anything the government does must to even respect the establishment of a religion.


aquapub said:
The American people show overwhelmingly and consistently in polls to be against removing God from everything.

Irrelevant until they pass an amendment that repeals the 1st. We are a Constitutional Republic not an unlimited democracy. Why did our founders set us up as a Republic was to prevent the majority from imposing such things on the minority.

aquapub said:
It is not unconstitutional. The only thing the Constitution says about church and state is that "CONGRESS shall PASS NO LAWS respecting the establishment of religion." Allowing people to continue expressing faith on public property and such are NOT examples of Congress passing any laws. It is also not establishing a federal religion to which the states are accountable, which is what the 1st Amendment was talking about.

The 1st bans any law that even respects establishment, not merely establishment, Try again

aquapub said:
But if the people someday think it is inappropriate and have so little else to worry about, then they can have the ELECTED, ACCOUNTABLE LEGISLATURE split hairs about who can express faith where.

It is NOT the place of the Supreme Court. THAT IS in the Constitution.

You really need to re-read your Constitution.

aquapub said:
Freedom of religion does not mean anti-Christian bigots don't have to tolerate expressions of faith. Quite the opposite, it means they DO. As long as no one is forcing religion on anyone, there is no problem.

Anytime the government in any way promotes any belief system it forces that system on others. Not promoting Christianity is hardly anti-Christian bigotry.

aquapub said:
This issue always reminds me of this:

"Protect the easily offended, ban everything."

When in doubt and out of facts, make personal attacks. You've learned well from the GOP noise machine young grasshopper.
 
Busta said:
Within the context of understanding, on a personal level, where your Constitutional rights come from, I said "...at least according to the guys who wrote the Constitution...".

I did not say, within the context of law, "...according to the Constitution..."

I was speaking to understanding the origin of our Founding Father's ideals, not law. Nor, as you seem to elude, was I using the DoI to make a case for keeping God-mottoes on our curency or in our pledges.

As I said before, I have no problem with "God" on our mottoes and pledges.
I would have no problem if they were taken off, either.

I was just trying to understand what your point was. The way you wrote it, it seemed like you were trying to say that "creator" was in our Constitution.
 
This is very simple why shouldnt God be mentioned in goverment now after all this time . I mean since the begining off USA God was allways included in goverment, why would somebody wanna change that? There is Constitution to protect rights of people and like i said before after almost 1500 years idea of taking God out does not make any sense.
 
Michan said:
This is very simple why shouldnt God be mentioned in goverment now after all this time . I mean since the begining off USA God was allways included in goverment, why would somebody wanna change that? There is Constitution to protect rights of people and like i said before after almost 1500 years idea of taking God out does not make any sense.

1500 years? Methinks you need to review your American history...
 
Michan said:
This is very simple why shouldnt God be mentioned in goverment now after all this time . I mean since the begining off USA God was allways included in goverment, why would somebody wanna change that? There is Constitution to protect rights of people and like i said before after almost 1500 years idea of taking God out does not make any sense.

This is false on so many levels. Firstly, the United States has been around for less than 300 years, so your figure of "1500 years" is entirely out of nowhere. Secondly, religion was not in our government from the beginning, and even if it it were, that would be entirely irrelevant. The 1st Amendment prohibits government sponsorship and recognition of any religion, and in our diverse, multi-religion society, this is what we need. We cannot have the divisiveness and religious persecution that is the inevitable result of government endorsement of religion.
 
Engimo said:
I have absolutely no idea what you are saying.

Then take the trouble to read the entire thread, then get back to me.
 
earthworm said:
Then take the trouble to read the entire thread, then get back to me.

:prof I have been posting throughout the entire thread. I was saying that your writing style was entirely unintelligible. I honestly could not understand what you were trying to say.
 
Busta said:
Too say nothing of your father's participation.

If you wish to interpret "Creator" as "mother", then so be it.
Would you then have any problem with "In Our Creator We trust"?

Yes I would have a problem with it. It would be intended to identify a God (on money), and would be printed on money for religious reasons only. There is no reason to insult one's God by placing his name on currency, is there? Is taht something you approve of? Even if you do approve, I think it is illegal.

There is an upcoming lawsuit to have 'In God We Trust' discontinued as far as being printed on currency. It was filed by Michael Newdow, who successfully sued to keep the 'Under God' Pledge from being led in public schools.
 
Quick question... should public schools and government workers go to work/school on Christmas day?
 
conserv.pat15 said:
Quick question... should public schools and government workers go to work/school on Christmas day?

That's really just a matter of pragmatism. If there wasn't an official day off, the majority of people would just take a day off or not show up to their jobs/school.
 
With your logic on religion in the government, public schools(though I know public schools would just say they are off for "winter break" to get around this) and government workers should not be given the day off for a religious holiday. My point is that I think many people are misinterpreting the establishment clause in the 1st amendment... With your interpretation, Christmas could not be a Federal holiday.
 
conserv.pat15 said:
With your logic on religion in the government, public schools(though I know public schools would just say they are off for "winter break" to get around this) and government workers should not be given the day off for a religious holiday. My point is that I think many people are misinterpreting the establishment clause in the 1st amendment... With your interpretation, Christmas could not be a Federal holiday.

Not really. Like I said, Christmas is a federal holiday for pragmatic purposes. Having Christmas as a day off does not say that Christianity is any more valid of a religion, just that many people celebrate it. If enough people celebrated, say, the birth of King Solomon to the point that governmental institutions would be severely understaffed on that day, it would be designated a federal holiday as well.

Christmas being a federal holiday is not an endorsement of religion or an affirmation of Christianity's truth, it's a matter of the amount of people that celebrate it.
 
1)

aquapub:
There is nothing wrong with our money, courts, and other things referring to God. We are a Christian nation.

Vandeervecken:
We are not now nor have we ever been a Christian nation. We are a secular nation. The 1st amendment makes it clear that anything the government does must to even respect the establishment of a religion.

aquapub:
I really didn't expect anyone to challenge this. This is the EASIEST to defend point that I have made. Our founding fathers were all VERY DEEPLY religious people. All our criminal laws are based on classic Judeo-Christian codes. God was written into every part of our federal government. Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence asserts that God gave us our rights. Not Christian? In what possible sense could you say that this is not a Christian nation?


2)
aquapub:
The American people show overwhelmingly and consistently in polls to be against removing God from everything.

Vandeervecken:
Irrelevant until they pass an amendment that repeals the 1st. We are a Constitutional Republic not an unlimited democracy. Why did our founders set us up as a Republic was to prevent the majority from imposing such things on the minority.

aquapub:
The 1st Amendment is a PROTECTION of religious expression, not an attack on it. Repealing the 1st Amendment would be the only way to legally suppress religious speech as you are advocating; you have it exactly backwards.

The will of the people is irrelevant because we are not an "unlimited democracy?" Dead wrong. The founding fathers AND the people are FOR God not being removed from everything. By our system, this means nothing should change. And it is not "imposing" anything on anyone for the federal government to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian roots of all it's laws. As long as the federal government is not establishing a federal religion to which the states are accountable, the 1st Amendment is not being violated.


3)
aquapub
It is not unconstitutional. The only thing the Constitution says about church and state is that "CONGRESS shall PASS NO LAWS respecting the establishment of religion." Allowing people to continue expressing faith on public property and such are NOT examples of Congress passing any laws. It is also not establishing a federal religion to which the states are accountable, which is what the 1st Amendment was talking about.

Vandeervecken:
The 1st bans any law that even respects establishment, not merely establishment, Try again

aquapub:
:lol: You've got to be kidding! So you think the use of the word "respecting" DOESN'T mean "regarding?" So, only laws that "disrespect" the establishment of religion are ok? That's hilarious....completely wrong, but hilarious :lol:



4)
aquapub:
But if the people someday think it is inappropriate and have so little else to worry about, then they can have the ELECTED, ACCOUNTABLE LEGISLATURE split hairs about who can express faith where. It is NOT the place of the Supreme Court. THAT IS in the Constitution.

Vandeervecken:
You really need to re-read your Constitution.

aquapub:
Reeeeeeealy. I carry around a copy of the Constitution in my back pocket particularly for occasions when I run into people like you. NOTHING.....let me say it again.....NOTHING in the Constitution confers upon the federal courts the final authority to decide how other entities of government may acknowledge God.

There are numerous ways that the Constitution backs up my claim that the Supreme Court has NO authority to be banning the pledge of allegiance, inventing a right not to be offended by expressions of faith, or that they should be the determining factor in ANY of this.

Article III Section I of the Constitution creates the Supreme Court. In that section, it gives CONGRESS sole discretion over the federal courts.

The Constitution vests sole legislative powers to the CONGRESS. That means the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to illegalize acknowledgements of God, levy taxes, rewrite state election laws, or half the other things it has done.

Article V gives us a way to amend the Constitution. The courts are not involved. This means the Constitutional rights they keep inventing are invalid: the "right" to taxpayer-funded porn, the "right" to an abortion, the "right" to taxpayer-funded welfare for illegal immigrants, etc.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 81 that he expected Congress to use its discretion to make appropriate "exceptions and regulations" to keep the federal judiciary the weakest and "least dangerous" of the three branches.

The way separation of powers was supposed to work was that if a branch disagreed with an action of another branch, then they would not honor it or uphold it WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. What has transpired is the Supreme Court overruling the other two branches, blatantly usurping its authority and illegally creating a Constitutional crisis.

George Washington warned about this. He warned that we should only amend the Constitution by the ways spelled out in the Constitution:
"Let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

A revealing example of how unconstitutional it is for federal judicial bodies to legislate about acknowledgements of God is Glassroth vs. Moore. In that one, a federal judge named Myron Thompson ordered the removal of the ten commandments from a STATE court house (brazenly overstepping his jurisdiction). It took him an astonishing 76 pages to not mention one single sentence in the Constitution that gave him this power. Since his decision had ZERO basis in the Constitution, his extraordinarily long rambling dissertation consisted of speculation about the Alabama state judge Moore's intentions in putting up the ten commandments, "guilt by association" assertions based on the church he belonged to, and the judge's campaign literature-NONE of which is a legitimate basis for rulings. The ONLY valid basis-the Constitution-was the only criteria left out!

The PEOPLE have the power via their elected and accountable representatives. We were not supposed to be a judicial oligarchy.


In short, maybe YOU need to read the Constitution.



5)
aquapub:
Freedom of religion does not mean anti-Christian bigots don't have to tolerate expressions of faith. Quite the opposite, it means they DO. As long as no one is forcing religion on anyone, there is no problem.

Vandeervecken:
Anytime the government in any way promotes any belief system it forces that system on others.

aquapub:
letting a judge display the ten commandments-the basis of our laws (which you somehow think are secular)-is not forcing you to accept that religion. It is honoring our Judeo-Christian founding, whether anti-Christian bigots are bothered by it or not.

And this is all irrelevant anyway, because, again, the only thing the Constitution says about church and state is that the CONGRESS cannot PASS ANY LAWS respecting the establishment of religion. None of the cases involving acknowledgemen ts of God are a result of any law passed by Congress, so, again, NONE of it is unconstitutional.



6)
Vandeervecken:
Not promoting Christianity is hardly anti-Christian bigotry.

aquapub:
We are not talking about merely "not promoting" Christianity. We are talking about illegally banning any mention of it just to appease easily offended bigots.
 
Last edited:
Michan said:
This is very simple why shouldnt God be mentioned in goverment now after all this time . I mean since the begining off USA God was allways included in goverment, why would somebody wanna change that? There is Constitution to protect rights of people and like i said before after almost 1500 years idea of taking God out does not make any sense.

:rofl Sorry but I cannot take anyone seriously who thinks the US Republic is 1500 years old. :x
 
aquapub said:
)
I really didn't expect anyone to challenge this. This is the EASIEST to defend point that I have made. Our founding fathers were all VERY DEEPLY religious people. All our criminal laws are based on classic Judeo-Christian codes. God was written into every part of our federal government. Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence asserts that God gave us our rights. Not Christian? In what possible sense could you say that this is not a Christian nation?

I challenge you to show how our criminal codes are religously based. What a nonsensical claim. Our legal code is based upon English Common Law, which itself was a descendant of Roman Law, which itself was a outgrowth of Greek Law which goes all the way back to the first codified laws we know of, the Code of Hammurabi.

How can I say we are not a christian nation? Well for one it is the law of the land. The Treaty of Tripoli, article 11 to be specific, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." SIGNED BY PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS As you should know Treaty Law is second only to the Constitution. Then there is the fact that the Constitution is a wholelly secular document.

A FEW FOUNDERS QUOTES FOR YOU:

Thomas Jefferson: They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned.
 
 James Madison: A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

John Adams "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity"
 
There is in the clergy of all Christian denominations a time-serving, cringing, subservient morality, as wide from the spirit of the gospel as it is from the intrepid assertion and vindication of truth.-- John Quincy Adams

James Madison:   Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together

Benjamin Franklin....I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies


aquapub said:
)
aquapub:
The 1st Amendment is a PROTECTION of religious expression, not an attack on it. Repealing the 1st Amendment would be the only way to legally suppress religious speech as you are advocating; you have it exactly backwards.

The 1st bans any government action that respects establishment, it is that simple.

aquapub said:
)
The will of the people is irrelevant because we are not an "unlimited democracy?" Dead wrong. The founding fathers AND the people are FOR God not being removed from everything. By our system, this means nothing should change. And it is not "imposing" anything on anyone for the federal government to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian roots of all it's laws. As long as the federal government is not establishing a federal religion to which the states are accountable, the 1st Amendment is not being violated.

Explain my previously posted founders quotes please if you think that. LOL Explain away the law. I invite you again to prove your silly claim our laws are based on religion. The first bans far more than a simple state religion, it bans anything that even respects establishing one.

aquapub said:
)
:lol: You've got to be kidding! So you think the use of the word "respecting" DOESN'T mean "regarding?" So, only laws that "disrespect" the establishment of religion are ok? That's hilarious....completely wrong, but hilarious :lol:


This gibberish cannot be decyphered, care to try again?

aquapub said:
)
Reeeeeeealy. I carry around a copy of the Constitution in my back pocket

Well for goodness sake take it out of your damn pocket and read the thing!

aquapub said:
)
particularly for occasions when I run into people like you. NOTHING.....let me say it again.....NOTHING in the Constitution confers upon the federal courts the final authority to decide how other entities of government may acknowledge God.

Can you find any major law school that agrees with you? Can you find any minor ones? Do you have tinfoil in your hat? What do you think the Supreme Court was supposed to do? Do you beleive it was created simply to do nothing?

aquapub said:
)
There are numerous ways that the Constitution backs up my claim that the Supreme Court has NO authority to be banning the pledge of allegiance, inventing a right not to be offended by expressions of faith, or that they should be the determining factor in ANY of this.

The law that added, "Under God," to the pledge was passed solely to make people acknowledge god, as such it respects establishment, as such it should be banned by the courts.

aquapub said:
)
Article III Section I of the Constitution creates the Supreme Court. In that section, it gives CONGRESS sole discretion over the federal courts.

It gives the congress the right to set up and regulate lesser courts; a different thing than you claim.

aquapub said:
)
The Constitution vests sole legislative powers to the CONGRESS. That means the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to illegalize acknowledgements of God, levy taxes, rewrite state election laws, or half the other things it has done.

Show me a single case where the Supreme Court has levied a tax please.

aquapub said:
)
Article V gives us a way to amend the Constitution. The courts are not involved. This means the Constitutional rights they keep inventing are invalid: the "right" to taxpayer-funded porn, the "right" to an abortion, the "right" to taxpayer-funded welfare for illegal immigrants, etc.

That presumes that any right it protects cannot is not covered under the Constitution already. With each of your examples it was.

aquapub said:
)
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 81 that he expected Congress to use its discretion to make appropriate "exceptions and regulations" to keep the federal judiciary the weakest and "least dangerous" of the three branches.

Federalist papers have no force of law, sorry.

aquapub said:
)
The way separation of powers was supposed to work was that if a branch disagreed with an action of another branch, then they would not honor it or uphold it WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. What has transpired is the Supreme Court overruling the other two branches, blatantly usurping its authority and illegally creating a Constitutional crisis.

Silly. So you think the Constitution was set up to create three seperate and fueding systems of government and law? Nonsenseical. Asinine.



aquapub said:
)
The PEOPLE have the power via their elected and accountable representatives. We were not supposed to be a judicial oligarchy.

The people cannot vote to supress the rights of other people. So we have courts.

aquapub said:
)
In short, maybe YOU need to read the Constitution.

I know it well. I read mine, not keep it in a pocket.

aquapub said:
)
letting a judge display the ten commandments-the basis of our laws (which you somehow think are secular)-is not forcing you to accept that religion. It is honoring our Judeo-Christian founding, whether anti-Christian bigots are bothered by it or not.

I challenge you to support your claim our laws are based on the 10 commandments. In fact a goodly number of those commandments are purely religous commands!

aquapub said:
)
And this is all irrelevant anyway, because, again, the only thing the Constitution says about church and state is that the CONGRESS cannot PASS ANY LAWS respecting the establishment of religion. None of the cases involving acknowledgemen ts of God are a result of any law passed by Congress, so, again, NONE of it is unconstitutional.

It was laws passed by congress and signed by presidents that changed the Pledge of Allegiance to include, "Under God," and added, "In God We Trust," to our currency.

aquapub said:
)
We are not talking about merely "not promoting" Christianity. We are talking about illegally banning any mention of it just to appease easily offended bigots.

We are talking about making the government secular as it is supposed to be. It should take no stand for or against any religious system.
 
Back
Top Bottom