Is a Completely Secular Government Really so Bad?

[Stace]

You appear to procede from the false assumption that our government dictates religion to the masses. Our government has made no law that forces anyone to embrace religion. That would certainly go against the first amendment. However, it does appear that you would condone our government prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

"In God We Trust" has been on our money since the Civil War. If our currency was coined with the words "In God You Must Trust or else" I would take issue with that. The authors of our Constitution in fact hired the first Senate Chaplin. If his job was to force everyone to pray, I would take issue with that as well. As this is not the case, I have trouble understanding the animosity towards the free expression of religious faith. Should Atheist views be a prerequisite to government service? Considering the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian, it would be rather difficult to eradicate all mention of "God" in the public arena of which our government has always been a part of.

Secular progressives have worked very long and hard to expunge religious (particularly Christian) symbolism from more than just the government but the "public square" as well. The replacement of "Christmas" with more secular terminology is a good case and point. Businesses afraid to wish the public "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending customers?! Holiday Trees, Winter Break, Holiday parades, etc., etc. The secularist agenda is becoming more clear with each passing year and it stretches way beyond government.

I personally have no problem with "God" being on our currency, in the pledge, etc. I don't really pay attention to my money except to note how much it is, and I can't remember the last time I recited the pledge.

I can't help but feel, however, that as the numbers for atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, etc., grow, all of these references to God are becoming subtle jabs saying "You're wrong if you don't believe in God". Of course, that's just my own personal opinion. I don't care what the majority is.....the fact remains that Americans should feel comfortable practicing ANY form of religion, or none at all, and should not feel that the "majority" are ganging up on them.

It's been stated many times, businesses are choosing to use Happy Holidays over Merry Christmas to be more inclusive, not to offend anyone. But who's the group that's most upset over it? Christians, 'cause they seem to think that they're being attacked...it is not a stab at Christianity, and I just can't fathom why they would think that.....Christmas is NOT the only holiday celebrated this season, so in my mind, it only makes sense to use Happy Holidays.

I understand where the Holiday Tree thing comes from, too, seeing as how the "Christmas" tree did not originate with Christianity.

I never had Christmas Break when I was in school, it was always Winter Break...and I spent a majority of my school years in the Bible Belt.

And Holiday Parades....again, Christmas is not the only holiday celebrated this season, so what's wrong with that? Now, if the parade is only including things that are traditionally considered "Christmas" icons, that's not cool, but if it is including symbology from other celebrations, then it rightfully should be called a holiday parade.

Again, this is only my opinion, and should only be taken as such....I have no problem with any person, or whatever religion they choose to practice. But I do think that faith is a private matter, and should not be flaunted all over the place. It even says that in the Bible:

Matthew 6:5-6

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

 

[Connecticutter]

It's been stated many times, businesses are choosing to use Happy Holidays over Merry Christmas to be more inclusive, not to offend anyone. But who's the group that's most upset over it? Christians, 'cause they seem to think that they're being attacked...it is not a stab at Christianity, and I just can't fathom why they would think that.....Christmas is NOT the only holiday celebrated this season, so in my mind, it only makes sense to use Happy Holidays.

I understand where the Holiday Tree thing comes from, too, seeing as how the "Christmas" tree did not originate with Christianity.

I never had Christmas Break when I was in school, it was always Winter Break...and I spent a majority of my school years in the Bible Belt.

I agree that happy holidays is more inclusive. Everyone has a holiday - even if its only some time off. I don't think people should be outraged by someone saying either "happy holidays" or "merry Christmas".

The "Holiday Tree" is going too far. We all know why that tree is there. I don't think that serious non-Christians want to consider the tree to be part of their religion. In other words, I think putting up a tree and trying to make it "inclusive" by adding the word holiday is an insult to our intellegence. Christians can go celebrate it - they shouldn't pretend that its there for everyone else, too.

In terms of a secular government - I'm all for that. However, I think sometimes people confuse having a secular government with hacing a secular society in general. I wouldn't mind living in a world where religious practice and symbolism are everywhere, so long as we have a small government that's out of the way and everyone has the freedom to persue their own beliefs.

 

[Kandahar]

The "Holiday Tree" is going too far. We all know why that tree is there. I don't think that serious non-Christians want to consider the tree to be part of their religion. In other words, I think putting up a tree and trying to make it "inclusive" by adding the word holiday is an insult to our intellegence. Christians can go celebrate it - they shouldn't pretend that its there for everyone else, too.

The tree is simply an American tradition, it doesn't have any religious significance for anyone. It certainly has nothing to do with celebrating the birth of Christ. Since many non-Christians (including yours truly) decorate a tree during December too, I don't see the problem with calling it a Holiday Tree.

In terms of a secular government - I'm all for that. However, I think sometimes people confuse having a secular government with hacing a secular society in general. I wouldn't mind living in a world where religious practice and symbolism are everywhere, so long as we have a small government that's out of the way and everyone has the freedom to persue their own beliefs.

I agree. The government should remain neutral on religious matters, but if individuals want to proselytize with a megaphone, or decorate every inch of property they own with religious symbolism, far be it from me to try to stop them.

 

[Stace]

The tree is simply an American tradition, it doesn't have any religious significance for anyone. It certainly has nothing to do with celebrating the birth of Christ. Since many non-Christians (including yours truly) decorate a tree during December too, I don't see the problem with calling it a Holiday Tree.

On the contrary, the practice of decorating a tree in celebration can be traced back to the Romans, who decorated fir trees with candles during Saturnalia, their festival celebrating their god Saturn.

But hey, I'm a non Christian that decorates a tree, too. I just like shiny things :mrgreen:

I agree. The government should remain neutral on religious matters, but if individuals want to proselytize with a megaphone, or decorate every inch of property they own with religious symbolism, far be it from me to try to stop them.

:yt

Let 'em decorate all they want....as long as it's their yard and not mine! Of course, there's also the matter of people that live in apartments, duplexes, and townhomes, who essentially share a yard with others.....what happens then?

 

[Caine]

You appear to procede from the false assumption that our government dictates religion to the masses. Our government has made no law that forces anyone to embrace religion. That would certainly go against the first amendment. However, it does appear that you would condone our government prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

"In God We Trust" has been on our money since the Civil War. If our currency was coined with the words "In God You Must Trust or else" I would take issue with that. The authors of our Constitution in fact hired the first Senate Chaplin. If his job was to force everyone to pray, I would take issue with that as well. As this is not the case, I have trouble understanding the animosity towards the free expression of religious faith. Should Atheist views be a prerequisite to government service? Considering the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian, it would be rather difficult to eradicate all mention of "God" in the public arena of which our government has always been a part of.

Secular progressives have worked very long and hard to expunge religious (particularly Christian) symbolism from more than just the government but the "public square" as well. The replacement of "Christmas" with more secular terminology is a good case and point. Businesses afraid to wish the public "Merry Christmas" for fear of offending customers?! Holiday Trees, Winter Break, Holiday parades, etc., etc. The secularist agenda is becoming more clear with each passing year and it stretches way beyond government.

Again.. someone fails to realize that putting the term on our money is in violation of the constitution.....

Im no way am I advocating the government restricting the free exercise thereof, please, inform me of how I am doing this.

Im not saying that prayer shouldn't be allowed for the adults who know thier place... Jews and Gentiles pray completely differently, Adults can understand this... Children cannot. Jews pray in Hebrew, as Muslims pray differently than christians too...

Removing christian symbology from our courts and from the U.S. Flag Code (not necessarily christian in the pledge, I know) does not restrict the free exercise of religion. You are not required to place prayer on the walls of the courts in christianity, nor are you required to do anything outside of the church or home for that matter.

That being said, please in form me of how I am restricting the free exercise of religion by stating that we fix the unconstitutional errors of our earlier leaders?

As far as your secular progressives trying to remove religion from not just the government but "public arena" I ask you again to check the title of the poll and stop trying to get off topic.

As far as business goes.... they have the right to portray the image that they see fit for thier business.. No ACLU is forcing them, I haven't heard of Boycotts by anyone because of Merry Chrismas or Happy Chanukah, etc...
I do see christians using thier overwhelming majority to punish businesses that don't put them first, but put other religious/non-religious holidays of the season all into one inclusive phrase..... What is wrong with that? But again, this is not what we are discussing in this thread now is it? So I ask you to remain on topic.... secularism in the government.........stop trying to start some :spin:

 

[Columbusite]

Not at all. I believe the government of any country should be a secular one, indifferent to all religious beliefs.

I only have a problem when secularism begins to infringe on the rights of citizens. Many seem to think the first amendment advocates a freedom FROM religion and not freedom OF religion.

You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Saying you have to pick a religion isn't freedom since you have to be able to choose not to have a religion. To say otherwise otherwise is just ridiculous, anti-freedom, and anti-American.

 

[The Real McCoy]

You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. Saying you have to pick a religion isn't freedom since you have to be able to choose not to have a religion. To say otherwise otherwise is just ridiculous, anti-freedom, and anti-American.

Au contraire... I never said anything about having to pick a religon. Freedom of religion means people have the freedom to practice their religion where they choose, providing that it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The secular progressive movement seems to think otherwise, however, twisting the words of the Constitution to fit their leftist views... a common tactic of the left.

The founding fathers would be outraged at the prospect of hiding behind the 1st amendment while at the same time attempting to remove crosses from graves at public cemetaries like Arlington.

THAT is what I mean when I say freedom FROM religion.

 

[Caine]

Au contraire... I never said anything about having to pick a religon. Freedom of religion means people have the freedom to practice their religion where they choose, providing that it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The secular progressive movement seems to think otherwise, however, twisting the words of the Constitution to fit their leftist views... a common tactic of the left.

The founding fathers would be outraged at the prospect of hiding behind the 1st amendment while at the same time attempting to remove crosses from graves at public cemetaries.

THAT is what I mean when I say freedom FROM religion.

Umm.. if your referring to Arlington National Cemetery, look at the middle word.
Everyone of those is a cross, I dont want to be buried under a cross, its a symbol of idolatry that I just don't believe in, and its disrespectful to those who don't believe in it.

And, as far as anything else you said goes.....

Stay on topic... were talking about government..... for the last time stop bringing all the other retarded claims that make no sense into this.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Umm.. if your referring to Arlington National Cemetery, look at the middle word.
Everyone of those is a cross, I dont want to be buried under a cross,

I'm aware of the middle word... and if you don't want to be buried under a cross, then don't. Nobody's stopping you, champ.

its a symbol of idolatry that I just don't believe in, and its disrespectful to those who don't believe in it.

It's disrespectful to those who DO believe it (who happen to be the VAST majority, I might add) when the extreme secularists try to remove it.

And, as far as anything else you said goes.....

Stay on topic... were talking about government..... for the last time stop bringing all the other retarded claims that make no sense into this.

We're talking about SECULARISM in GOVERNMENT. This includes the CONSTITUTION. Think before you speak.. you'll do yourself a favor.

 

[Columbusite]

Umm.. if your referring to Arlington National Cemetery, look at the middle word.
Everyone of those is a cross, I dont want to be buried under a cross, its a symbol of idolatry that I just don't believe in, and its disrespectful to those who don't believe in it.

Hold on now, I understand that a choice can be made for what symbol and where you are buried there. There are graves of Muslims with Islamic crescents (only a few). So no, you don't have to have a cross if you don't want. Correct me if I'm wrong (with a source or three).

 

[Columbusite]

Au contraire... I never said anything about having to pick a religon. Freedom of religion means people have the freedom to practice their religion where they choose, providing that it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. The secular progressive movement seems to think otherwise, however, twisting the words of the Constitution to fit their leftist views... a common tactic of the left.

The founding fathers would be outraged at the prospect of hiding behind the 1st amendment while at the same time attempting to remove crosses from graves at public cemetaries like Arlington.

THAT is what I mean when I say freedom FROM religion.

No one is trying to remove crosses from Arlington. Quit pulling stuff out your ass.
Your definition of freedom of religion does allow one to choose not to pick a faith, correct?

 

[Caine]

I'm aware of the middle word... and if you don't want to be buried under a cross, then don't. Nobody's stopping you, champ.




It's disrespectful to those who DO believe it (who happen to be the VAST majority, I might add) when the extreme secularists try to remove it.




We're talking about SECULARISM in GOVERNMENT. This includes the CONSTITUTION. Think before you speak.. you'll do yourself a favor.

So, because its the belief of the vast majority everyone else should have to deal with it?
Not in this republic, this republic was founded on principles that even the minority has a fair share, and that the majority won't kick the minority down. Here in the USA Individual Minority rights are priority.

Anyways, don't tell me you weren't going with this secular humanist thing into the "public square" again, where the laws of seperation have no boundairy, and those who are complaining about religion on private property can go suck a nut.

I understand the problems with the Arlington National Cemetary.
Do you think every one of those buried there were asked if they could be buried under a cross? Do you think every one of them really wanted to be buried under a cross? No, im not saying we should remove the crosses, that would be dumb, and that would be violated the rights of the dead.. (if the dead have rights), what I AM saying is that, like with the example of the recent story of the troopers (somehwere, to lazy to look it up) who reguardless of thier religious belief, a cross is placed where they died to memorilize them. Thats disrespectful to the religious beliefs of some who may not believe in Jesus and the cross.

And don't even think about answering that the cross is an "International" sign of the dead.... cause thats just christian arrogance.

 

[Columbusite]

So, because its the belief of the vast majority everyone else should have to deal with it?
Not in this republic, this republic was founded on principles that even the minority has a fair share, and that the majority won't kick the minority down. Here in the USA Individual Minority rights are priority.

Anyways, don't tell me you weren't going with this secular humanist thing into the "public square" again, where the laws of seperation have no boundairy, and those who are complaining about religion on private property can go suck a nut.

I understand the problems with the Arlington National Cemetary.
Do you think every one of those buried there were asked if they could be buried under a cross? Do you think every one of them really wanted to be buried under a cross? No, im not saying we should remove the crosses, that would be dumb, and that would be violated the rights of the dead.. (if the dead have rights), what I AM saying is that, like with the example of the recent story of the troopers (somehwere, to lazy to look it up) who reguardless of thier religious belief, a cross is placed where they died to memorilize them. Thats disrespectful to the religious beliefs of some who may not believe in Jesus and the cross.

And don't even think about answering that the cross is an "International" sign of the dead.... cause thats just christian arrogance.

This whole Arlington thing was already covered in the Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays poll on pages 3,4, & 8. (Someone got pwned)

Link http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/ (Top entry)

 

[hiker]

Umm.. if your referring to Arlington National Cemetery, look at the middle word.
Everyone of those is a cross, I dont want to be buried under a cross, its a symbol of idolatry that I just don't believe in, and its disrespectful to those who don't believe in it.

I already posted what I think about that in another thread

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=164626&postcount=30

And for the last time I plan on mentioning it, you can't remove every reference to god from our society or the government formed by the people of our society. Its not going to happen. Nobody said you have to believe in anything, but the majority does believe. And the majority rules in our version of democracy. The countries of this world where a minority rules over the majority are generally good cases in point of why we have a superior system. Now I understand that you believe any mention of a diety or a religion inside of our government and institutions is illegal. I want to know why you believe that is so, when the facts speak otherwise? If the mention of god on money, in courts, etc. is illegal then this is certainly news to me. I guess that makes my cash illegal to own, and swearing in a witness is illegal. Heck, Congress and the Supreme Court itself are in violation of this law you came up with every morning when they come together for an opening prayer.

 

[The Real McCoy]

No one is trying to remove crosses from Arlington. Quit pulling stuff out your ass.

Try reading what I said:

The founding fathers would be outraged at the prospect of hiding behind the 1st amendment while at the same time attempting to remove crosses from graves at public cemetaries like Arlington.


Wake up man, it's common knowledge these atheist groups want religious symbols removed from government land.

Your definition of freedom of religion does allow one to choose not to pick a faith, correct?

Of course.

 

[The Real McCoy]

So, because its the belief of the vast majority everyone else should have to deal with it? Not in this republic, this republic was founded on principles that even the minority has a fair share, and that the majority won't kick the minority down. Here in the USA Individual Minority rights are priority.

I was simply pointing out Christians are the majority.. but regardless, secularists want to deny their Constitutionally guaranteed right of free exercise of their religion

what I AM saying is that, like with the example of the recent story of the troopers (somehwere, to lazy to look it up) who reguardless of thier religious belief, a cross is placed where they died to memorilize them. Thats disrespectful to the religious beliefs of some who may not believe in Jesus and the cross.

Again... free exercise...

And don't even think about answering that the cross is an "International" sign of the dead.... cause thats just christian arrogance.

It's a Christian sign.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Muslims are just as free to have a crescent on their memorial... same with Jews with the star of David or any religion with whatever symbol... or no religion.

 

[Columbusite]

Nobody said you have to believe in anything, but the majority does believe. And the majority rules in our version of democracy. The countries of this world where a minority rules over the majority are generally good cases in point of why we have a superior system.

Where do you live now? Because the USA is not a majority rules democracy, ie tyranny of the majority. The country in which I live is a democratic federal republic and it works because we are founded on a secular document that allows both religion and non-religion to flourish unfettered from goverment involvement.

 

[Stace]

And for the last time I plan on mentioning it, you can't remove every reference to god from our society or the government formed by the people of our society. Its not going to happen. Nobody said you have to believe in anything, but the majority does believe. And the majority rules in our version of democracy.

The majority is supposed to rule when it comes to matters of the law, in which a vote is taken. Individuals involved in said vote should not use their religious beliefs as a basis for their decision, nor should religion be the subject of any vote other than the whole separation of church and state.

Just because a majority of the people believe in one religion, that doesn't mean that they automatically have the upper hand.

 

[wrath]

So, because its the belief of the vast majority everyone else should have to deal with it?

What exactly do you mean by "deal with it"?
Forced to embrace it? Or more likely, inconvenienced by the very existence of it? So any secularist with an axe to grind gets to dictate to the majority what he chooses to see or hear?.........absurd to say the least.

 

[Columbusite]

Try reading what I said:

The founding fathers would be outraged at the prospect of hiding behind the 1st amendment while at the same time attempting to remove crosses from graves at public cemetaries like Arlington.

But no one's even acting or talking about removing those crosses, so why bring up a strawman?

Wake up man, it's common knowledge these atheist groups want religious symbols removed from government land.

Well, it's so common that surely you can provide source(s).

 

[Columbusite]

Individuals involved in said vote should not use their religious beliefs as a basis for their decision

Well, I think they shouldn't just base their votes on belief and instead on facts. However, it is perfectly OK so long as what they are voting on is constitutional.

 

[Deegan]

Where do you live now? Because the USA is not a majority rules democracy, ie tyranny of the majority. The country in which I live is a democratic federal republic and it works because we are founded on a secular document that allows both religion and non-religion to flourish unfettered from goverment involvement.

And nothing has interupted that process, certainly not a word on our currency, not a nativity scene, or a Christmas tree in front of a government building, none of these things. It's only a few, who obviously have nothing better to do, that want to make a mountain out of a mole hill. And majority does rule, you can see that in our government everyday, like when they decided to put "In God We Trust" on our currency, or made "Christmas" a federal holiday, or when they swore in the last president, and had him place his hand on the bible. These things have not hurt anyone, they have done the opposite, made this the greatest country in the world, as well as a super power. As far as I am concerned, we must be doing something right in our short 200 years.

 

[128shot]

I'm a fan of secularism, those who fight it tend to benefit from the fact it is there, and that religion does not rule our lives anymore the way it used to (the vatican used to be the center of everything, remember that?), and in those 400 years of enlightment we've progressed more since the roman times.


I believe this is because someone who has strong faith leanings can't sit here and say "oh look, i don't like that cause God told me not to, so you can't do that"


Stem cell research, for example...


and if you fight for your country, you aren't fighting for god (I hope not...), its usually for your countries ideals no?

I'd fight for the right to speak my mind....to own a gun....to assemble freely...to just do what I want to do. Whats not worth fighting for there?


largely, our countries success has been based on the fact that for the most part, we told religion no in our gov.

 

[hiker]

Where do you live now? Because the USA is not a majority rules democracy, ie tyranny of the majority. The country in which I live is a democratic federal republic and it works because we are founded on a secular document that allows both religion and non-religion to flourish unfettered from goverment involvement.

I live in a country with a government representative of the people that elect that government. If a politician does not represent the will of a majority, that politicial will not be elected. The same politicians that nominate and approve of judges, as an added note. The Constitution is a secular document, and I noted in a prior post that the government has done a great job of embracing the faith of the people that create it without imposing on the people any form of belief nor forcing anyone to worship any deity at all. The Constitution works, it has done well. This part of the document does well because it does not command government to remove any references to religion, only to make no laws whatsoever about religion. Go back and read it.

 

[Stace]

Well, I think they shouldn't just base their votes on belief and instead on facts. However, it is perfectly OK so long as what they are voting on is constitutional.

OK, I see your point....I guess what I meant is someone shouldn't use their faith to the extent of thinking "Well, this is wrong 'cause it says so in the Bible" or something like that, and then voting accordingly....they should stick to the legal aspects of it.