Should we have stronger separation of church and state?

[Nomad4Ever]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

 

[noonereal]

People still believed in that stupid carp 250 years ago so it was incorporated.

All religion needs to go and put in the closet.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

A reference to God (some power higher than government?) isn’t establishing a religion. You seem to be interpreting “In God We Trust” to (really?) mean “In Christ We Trust”.

Taken to the extreme, which some appear to favor, there are no ‘inalienable rights’ (enumerated or not), we the people simply have certain privileges allowed (conditionally granted?) by the (federal?) government.

 

[StillBallin75]

A reference to God (some power higher than government?) isn’t establishing a religion. You seem to be interpreting “In God We Trust” to (really?) mean “In Christ We Trust”.

Taken to the extreme, which some appear to favor, there are no ‘inalienable rights’ (enumerated or not), we the people simply have certain privileges allowed (conditionally granted?) by the (federal?) government.

This is a distinction without a difference, there shouldn't be any references to God at all.

Don't agree with me? Replace "God" with the word Allah, which literally refers to the same entity in a different language, and see what kinda responses you get.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

A reference to God (some power higher than government?) isn’t establishing a religion. You seem to be interpreting “In God We Trust” to (really?) mean “In Christ We Trust”.

Taken to the extreme, which some appear to favor, there are no ‘inalienable rights’ (enumerated or not), we the people simply have certain privileges allowed (conditionally granted?) by the (federal?) government.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

I don't care how you think the constitution should be interpreted.

I only care what you personally morally think the laws should be, not what you believe the laws are now. Pretend there is no constitution and you are writing one from scratch for a new country or something.

 

[VanceMack]

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States"

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

God is in our founding documents. Unless/until government dictates to you what church you MUST belong to or that you cannot practice the faith of your choice...there is no violation of church and state. You can go ahead and try to blame others for your self inflcited pain...but no...we shouldnt bend to your whims because the damage you inflict upon yourself.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

God is in our founding documents. Unless/until government dictates to you what church you MUST belong to or that you cannot practice the faith of your choice...there is no violation of church and state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

Can't stress enough how little I care how you personally think the constitution ought to be interpreted. I said in OP I do NOT want the thread arguing what our current laws/constitution are. I only care about how you think things should be morally on your own personal level.

Pretend the constitution doesn't exist.

How separated or otherwise do you think the church/state should be?

 

[VanceMack]

Can't stress enough how little I care how you personally think the constitution ought to be interpreted. I said in OP I do NOT want the thread arguing what our current laws/constitution are. I only care about how you think things should be morally on your own personal level.

Pretend the constitution doesn't exist.

How separated or otherwise do you think the church/state should be?

That IS how Marxists WOULD approach the situation...pretend the Constitution doesnt exist....NOW can we kill God and get what I want?

I answered your question. We should not change...not just because what is but because foundationally a BETTER adherence to moral behaviors authored by the higher power of your chosing would yield better results.

 

[Slavister]

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do.

I would guess we have weaker separation than most of the Western countries. I could be wrong though.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This is a distinction without a difference, there shouldn't be any references to God at all.

Don't agree with me? Replace "God" with the word Allah, which literally refers to the same entity in a different language, and see what kinda responses you get.

Change God to “higher power” (in any language) and my point remains the same.

 

[anatta]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

no one said we have to be a secular state. SCOTUS has been clear that you are allowed to have your beliefs and proselytize
But you cant use any religious test or coerce thru policy or treat religious and non-religious not the same

Im sure you understand the historical Judeo-Christian influence on the country in terms of symbols and culture

 

[MamboDervish]

Unless/until government dictates to you what church you MUST belong to or that you cannot practice the faith of your choice...there is no violation of church and state.

Well - no. It isn’t quite that simple. When government monies are funneled to religious organizations for any reason, a line has been crossed. As a taxpayer, I have a right to object to that.

Also, I object to churches of any stripe being tax exempt. Our police and fire departments serve them, our sewers and garbage removal serve them, our snowplows provide them with access in the winter, and on and on. They benefit from all the services the taxpayers benefit from - in some cases more - but they get them for free, and that’s just not right. They should pay the same property taxes that any land owner pays.

 

[Luce]

no one said we have to be a secular state.

Except the 1st amendment.

You could move to Iran. They're not secular.

 

[anatta]

Except the 1st amendment.

You could move to Iran. They're not secular.

you cherry pick my quote and show you dont understand it.. as usual

 

[Nomad4Ever]

no one said we have to be a secular state. SCOTUS has been clear that you are allowed to have your beliefs and proselytize
But you cant use any religious test or coerce thru policy or treat religious and non-religious not the same

Why is this so difficult?

I specifically stated I want to debate what should be, not what our current laws are. You are now the third conservative in a row that has answered by explaining what our current laws allow.

I want your opinion on how separate you personally believe the church/state should be. I don't care if SCOTUS allows school prayer or not. I want to know if YOU think school prayer should be allowed. Understand the difference?

 

[BirdinHand]

One day I do hope religion stops being used as a bludgeon in this country and we are able to have a truly secular government that respects the PRIVATE beliefs of every person.

For instance, I will be happy when a POTUS no longer needs to say “and God Bless the USA” while speaking AS the POTUS. It shouldn’t happen. Our money shouldn’t have religious reference in it. The pledge shouldn’t have it, etc.

In fact, I’d have respect for one that held personal religious beliefs but DID NOT say those words while speaking as the POTUS, because they were capable of recognizing the separation between their personal beliefs and their professional role.

 

[VanceMack]

Why is this so difficult?

I specifically stated I want to debate what should be, not what our current laws are. You are now the third conservative in a row that has answered by explaining what our current laws allow.

I want your opinion on how separate you personally believe the church/state should be. I don't care if SCOTUS allows school prayer or not. I want to know if YOU think school prayer should be allowed. Understand the difference?

Imagine...you are at a school where there is school prayer. Time is allotted for individuals to start their school day with a personal request for calm, peace, love, support, for a better school day. Everyone is free to pray or to meditate or to peacefully collect their own thoughts...and out af 2378 students in that school, 17 of them are sitting seeting smashing themselves in the ***** muttering I hate them...I hate this...I HATE you people....**** you **** you **** youuuuu!!!! Look what you are doing to me!!! BLLLARRRAGGHHHH!!!!!

Now tell me...who has the problem?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why is this so difficult?

I specifically stated I want to debate what should be, not what our current laws are. You are now the third conservative in a row that has answered by explaining what our current laws allow.

I want your opinion on how separate you personally believe the church/state should be. I don't care if SCOTUS allows school prayer or not. I want to know if YOU think school prayer should be allowed. Understand the difference?

I doubt what you said (bolded above) is true based on your OP following statement:

But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

That was clearly based on what currently exists.

 

[BirdinHand]

Imagine...you are at a school where there is school prayer. Time is allotted for individuals to start their school day with a personal request for calm, peace, love, support, for a better school day. Everyone is free to pray or to meditate or to peacefully collect their own thoughts...and out af 2378 students in that school, 17 of them are sitting seeting smashing themselves in the ***** muttering I hate them...I hate this...I HATE you people....**** you **** you **** youuuuu!!!! Look what you are doing to me!!! BLLLARRRAGGHHHH!!!!!

Now tell me...who has the problem?

The person that conjures up such an image in their imagination.

 

[anatta]

Why is this so difficult?

I specifically stated I want to debate what should be, not what our current laws are. You are now the third conservative in a row that has answered by explaining what our current laws allow.

I want your opinion on how separate you personally believe the church/state should be. I don't care if SCOTUS allows school prayer or not. I want to know if YOU think school prayer should be allowed. Understand the difference?

but the status quo is what I think it should be.SCOTUS has been clear. I go with SCOTUS
no mandated prayer-School-sponsored prayer- from school officials, student groups can do as they wish

 

[Crakhobarbie]

.NOW can we kill God

You cannot kill a non-existent mythological being.

 

[butterfly]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

I am a Christian and a Methodist minister (retired). The separation of church and state should never be weakened. In the long run, it hurts all faiths. A point being a Christian value should never be accepted as an argument. I wish we still used "e pluribus unum."

 

[ttwtt78640]

One day I do hope religion stops being used as a bludgeon in this country and we are able to have a truly secular government that respects the PRIVATE beliefs of every person.

OK, but that gets tricky when it comes to things like marriage and monogamy. After all, being in a business partnership (contract) doesn’t prevent being in other business partnerships and doesn’t limit the number of business partners to 2 people.

For instance, I will be happy when a POTUS no longer needs to say “and God Bless the USA” while speaking AS the POTUS. It shouldn’t happen. Our money shouldn’t have religious reference in it. The pledge shouldn’t have it, etc.

In fact, I’d have respect for one that held personal religious beliefs but DID NOT say those words while speaking as the POTUS, because they were capable of recognizing the separation between their personal beliefs and their professional role.

This seems to favor preventing those in government from freely expressing their personal “religious” views. After all, the POTUS saying “May God bless you all and protect our troops” doesn’t establish any official religion.



IMHO, the most serious violations of the 1A are having Christmas (Christ’s mass) designated as a federal holiday (holy day?) and few ‘blue laws’ here and there still on the books.

 

[Glitch]

Everyone has the inherent right to believe whatever they wish, including a religious belief. Government should be prohibited from interfering or influencing those individual beliefs. Which means that if an individual wishes to express their belief (religious or otherwise) in a valedictorian speech, government shall not interfere with that speech.

There needs to be consequences for any government employee that prohibits or inhibits the free exercise of an individual right. A school principle, for example, that prohibits a student speech because it contains a religious theme or a theme in which the principle may disagree, should be fired on the spot.

Government should not be establishing a religion. That is for each individual to decide for themselves. However, that does not mean government should prohibit religious activities, it merely means government should not establish a religion via a law. Like Massachusetts, and several other of the original States did in their State Constitutions before the First Amendment existed. Congress holding a non-denominational benediction before each session, for example, is not government establishing a religion.

Government may assist religious institutions, but only if they do so equally. If they cannot provide equal assistance to all religious institutions, they should provide no assistance to any religious institution. Once again, government providing assistance to religious institutions is not "establishing a religion."

If government decides to give a tax exemption to one religious institution, they must do so equally with all other religious institutions. However, there is no reason why government need to give any religious institutions a tax exemption. If those religious institutions happen to own land, then they should pay the same property taxes as everyone else. Even non-profit businesses that own land still have to pay their property taxes, so why not religious institutions?

 

[Glitch]

A reference to God (some power higher than government?) isn’t establishing a religion. You seem to be interpreting “In God We Trust” to (really?) mean “In Christ We Trust”.

Taken to the extreme, which some appear to favor, there are no ‘inalienable rights’ (enumerated or not), we the people simply have certain privileges allowed (conditionally granted?) by the (federal?) government.

Actually, referencing a Judaeo-Christian-Muslim God is establishing a religion if you are requiring everyone to participate. Such as the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. By making that a government mandate they have established a government religion. The phrase "In God We Trust," however, is not establishing a government religion since it is not mandated by government that everyone must recite that phrase. The phrase "In God We Trust" should not exist in the first place, but it is better than the mandated "under God" in the Pledge which is blatantly unconstitutional.