Normally I do not engage with posts on youtube but after having a few drinks I stupidly bite into the vile commenting ground that is youtube.
The reason for partaking in the conversation was that this fellow was denying that the idea of separation of church and state was written into the American constitution and asked for evidence, I happily replied with "Article 6 of the US Constitution and in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights". lo and behold the person I happened to reply to turned out to be a vile right-wing christian nutter.
The commenter was adamant about the freedom of belief in America is not the same thing is "separation between Church & State" and insists that this idea would be a violation to the constitution. As I am not an American has the term changed its meaning since its first appearance when Thomas Jefferson wrote "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" back 1802?
Separation of church and state has never existed. Period. Every American and non just needs to know that. Biggest example: Gay people not allowed equal rights- though they are human beings.
((haha, i've sadly fell victim a few times to attempting a valid arguement via youtube. It is futile. D: ))
Technically, article 6 only refers to public office. Religious affiliation or lack-there-of will never be used to keep someone from holding public office. Technically, the first amendment only bars the government from making laws regarding the establishment of religion. In other words, the US government cannot establish an official religion for the country. This has been expanded, and rightly so in my opinion, to include a separation of church and state, in court cases. The first amendment didn't directly prevent prayers or crosses in public places. It didn't specifically prevent a school from teaching intelligent design. However, in court cases the interpretation over roughly the last century has been that to allow any of these religious symbols, practices, or teachings into public lands or schools is like the country endorsing one religion over another, which puts the establishment clause at risk. It's sort of like the right to privacy. It's not actually spelled out word-for-word in the constitution. However, there was a court case where an opinion noted that the right to privacy was in the penumbra of the constitution, so therefore it was a real right.
I'm not directly familiar with court cases any more, and it's really late so it's going to be difficult to find them. Just know that the words "separation of church and state" are not in the constitution anywhere. Opinions in court cases have molded the separation of church and state, which still makes it valid, since interpretation of the constitution is a power granted the Supreme Court by the constitution.
Quote from: fester30 on July 24, 2011, 06:43:26 AM
Just know that the words "separation of church and state" are not in the constitution anywhere.
Yeah I totally understood that, however in my understanding the phrase "separation of church and state" was coined mainly in reference to the first amendment, specifically "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The phrase never had the connotation that it was devoid of a god, rather congress as a whole has no right to create an official religion of the US or prohibited the worship of one. With words like "in god we trust" on money and other god references in government buildings it is still a separation of church and state as that "god" mentioned can be any of the thousands available.
If I say "I want the British government to separate church and government" all it means is I want the Church of England to stop being the official religion of Britain and the removal of the lords spiritual from the House of Lords. If they want to still implement the word god in certain locations they can as its not a reference to any single religion and covers all religions equally.
Putting "in god we trust" on money, and forcing children to say "one nation, under god" in public schools doesn't sound like separation at all, in my opinion.
I think we need to take "god" away from public places, and keep him in homes. If people want to worship invisible sky daddy in privacy of their bedrooms, so be it. But thid "god" is such a big influence on the goverment that I doubt a non-religious leader would EVER be elected into anything.
Quote from: Crow on July 24, 2011, 07:33:27 AM
Quote from: fester30 on July 24, 2011, 06:43:26 AM
Just know that the words "separation of church and state" are not in the constitution anywhere.
Yeah I totally understood that, however in my understanding the phrase "separation of church and state" was coined mainly in reference to the first amendment, specifically "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The phrase never had the connotation that it was devoid of a god, rather congress as a whole has no right to create an official religion of the US or prohibited the worship of one. With words like "in god we trust" on money and other god references in government buildings it is still a separation of church and state as that "god" mentioned can be any of the thousands available.
Jefferson coined the term in a letter the the Danbury Baptists in which he was explaining why he was not going to make a proclamation of a day of thanksgiving as his predecessors had done. This would have been an act of the Executive branch which had nothing to do with Congress, and yet Jefferson felt bound by the 1st Amendment. So, implicit in the very birth of Jefferson's famous (some religious people would say infamous) phrase is the idea that the whole federal government (not just Congress) should avoid involvement with religion. A couple of years ago, I had what I thought was a good conversation (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=4146.0) with a Christian here about the history behind the phrase and its relevance to US law. I cringe a little when I read my posts in that thread, but only because I was still using an apostrophe for the possessive "its," which I have since learned is an error.
Quote from: Crow on July 24, 2011, 07:33:27 AMIf I say "I want the British government to separate church and government" all it means is I want the Church of England to stop being the official religion of Britain and the removal of the lords spiritual from the House of Lords. If they want to still implement the word god in certain locations they can as its not a reference to any single religion and covers all religions equally.
I disagree; not all religions acknowledge a deity. As well, by acknowledging a deity the government is supporting a particular stance in regard to religion. In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, this should not be something that government does.
It is true that the literal phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term 'fair trial' is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer home, who would deny that 'religious liberty' is a constitutional principle?
The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
What does that mean? A little history is helpful: (as mentioned above) In an 1802 letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson, then president, declared that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." (Colonial religious liberty pioneer Roger Williams used a similar phrase 150 years earlier.)
Jefferson, however, was not the only leading figure of the post-revolutionary period to use the term separation. James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."
The near universal acceptance of many terms, including 'separation of church and state, have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles.
Thus, it is entirely appropriate to speak of the "constitutional principle of church-state separation since that phrase summarizes what the First Amendment's religion clauses do they separate church and state.
JEFFERSON'S 1802 LETTER TO THE DANBURY BAPTISTS
Religious Right activists have tried to make light of Jefferson's "wall of separation" response to the Danbury Baptists, attempting to dismiss it as a hastily written note designed to win the favor of a political constituency. History surrounding the letter shows they are simply wrong.
As church-state scholar Pfeffer points out, Jefferson clearly saw the letter as an opportunity to make a major pronouncement on church and state. Before sending the missive, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets."
Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements that disliked his stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses.
Jefferson's letter has been cited favorably by the Supreme Court many times. In the 1879 Reynolds v. U.S. decision the high court said Jefferson's observations "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state.
The Declaration of Independence
First and foremost, we are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.
The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.
How about before the Constitution and Declaration? The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. Secular America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier? Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith.
America is one nation under a Constitution and not "the majority rules". The Constitution sets up a representative democracy (or Republic), with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, it was illegal when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.
And if this tard wants to throw the 10C's at you:
First, ask him which of the four sets of commandments he wishes to discuss (Exodus 20, Exodus 34, Deuteronomy 5, and 22 chapters later, once again). But we will assume the more popular set here:
1. I am the lord thy God.... Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
This runs directly counter to the first amendment. This commandment demands obedience to a single, specific god. The first amendment gives the right for worshiping any or none. The use of capitalization and upper and lowercase (God - god) carries the intriguing implication that there are other gods but not equally deserving of respect or awe.
2. You shall not make yourself a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
The ban is obviously intended as a very emphatic one since it comes with a reminder that
2a. I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. The collective punishment of future children may not strike everyone as an especially moral promise. Once again, this runs directly against the freedom of religion in the First Amendment. If the law prohibited non-religious images that would then be a violation of freedom of speech/expression.
3. You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain This commandment goes on for four verses and stresses the importance of a day dedicated to the lord, during which neither one's children nor one's servants or animals should be allowed to perform any tasks. Why is it specifically addressed to people who are assumed to have staff? In Exodus 20:8–11, the reason given for the day off is that "in six days the lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Yet in Deuteronomy 5:15 a different reason for the Sabbath observance is offered: "Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." Preferable though this may be, with its reminder of previous servitude, we again find mixed signals here. Why can't rest be recommended for its own sake? Also, why can't the infallible and omniscient and omnipotent one make up his mind what the real reason is?
Now this commandment is directly counter to freedom of speech. For being the 'basis for our laws' about one third of the commandments run directly counter to constitutional rights.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.
If America were a Xtian nation, why is there no law mandating that anyone keep the sabbath? Does that mean we are in violation of the commandment? Should we now give up our Saturdays and report to work? In Exodus 20:8–11, the reason given for the day off is that "in six days the lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Yet in Deuteronomy 5:15 a different reason for the Sabbath is offered: "Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." Preferable though this may be, we find mixed signals here. Why can't rest be recommended for its own sake? Also, why can't the infallible, omniscient and omnipotent one make up his mind what the real reason is?
In essence, the first four commandments, one should note, that "the lord thy god" has an uneasy vanity, and like most totalitarians/dictators, must resort to threats, rather than intellectual persuasion to get a point across. How can anyone not perceive the pettiness, bluster, bombast and psychotic insecurity behind the first four commandments? We are supposed to respect this!
5. Honor your father and your mother
Innocuous as this may seem, it is the only commandment that comes with an inducement instead of an implied threat. Both the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions urge it for the same reason: "that thy days may be long upon the land which the lord thy God giveth thee." " However, it is an extension of the authoritarian rationale behind the first four. Frankly, some parents might not be all that worthy of honor. There is no law requiring a person to honor their parents. In fact there are laws to protect children from abusive parents, and children can be taken away from unfit parents.
6. You shall not kill
Strange that this commandment is in there. Not more than a few veres later, after god gives these to Moses, the Israelites are told to murder their brethren (Exodus 32:27–28) for making a golden calf. The whole book of Exodus is a commandment riddled, littered with more orders to slay people for minor offenses. It includes the sinister, verse "Thou shalt not suffer (or permit) a witch to live," which was taken as a divine instruction by Christians. So, what is first-degree or third-degree killing and what isn't? Distinguishing killing from murder is not a job easily left to mortals: what are we to do if God himself can't tell the difference? At any rate, a hardly original commandment; laws against murder existed in pretty much all cultures long before the 10 C's. Therefore claiming such laws are based on the 10 commandments are unfounded.
7. You shall not commit adultery
A very good suggestion, if you define adultery as between a married person and someone who is not their spouse and NOT consensual. However, there is no federal law against it. Adultery, it must be remembered, involves an act between consenting adults. How much more relevant and valuable it would be to have a commandment that forbids the violent crimes of rape and incest?
8. You shall not steal
Like #6, hardly original. It raises questions regarding the usefulness of a blanket condemnation, and may put squatter's rights ahead of public and private welfare. Those who work to acquire a bit of property are entitled to resent those who would rather steal steal it. Ironically, the prosperity of some Christian families, companies, corporations and some states are founded on original theft, and in that case the same principle of disapproval applies.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
like #6 and #8, not original. This is possibly the most sophisticated ruling in the whole Decalogue except it is stated in absolute terms. Note how relatively inflexible this commandment is; its crux is the word "against." If you are quite sure of somebody's innocence and you shade the truth a little in the witness-box, you are technically guilty of perjury. But if you consciously lie in order to indict someone who is not guilty, you have done something irretrievably foul. The truth is not always a reasonable or kind solution. Lies have saved lives, preserved relationships, and every day they save hurt feelings. Interestingly, in biblical times the dictum not to bear false witness against a neighbor was a tribal commandment and meant to apply only to persons within the tribe--it was quite all right to bear false witness against "strangers."
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's
Isn't that what capitalism is all about? Note that no specific act is being pronounced as either compulsory (the Sabbath) or forbidden (perjury). Instead, this is the first but not the last introduction in the Bible of the totalitarian concept of "thought crime." You are being told, in effect, not even to think about it. Jesus takes this a step further, announcing that those with lust in their heart have already committed the sin of adultery. Note also that this commandment lumps one's wife in with oxes, cattle, slaves or anything that is one's neighbours. Wise lawmakers know that it is a mistake to promulgate legislation that is impossible to obey and enforce. There are no laws against thoughts or desires. Any such law would run counter to civil liberties.
Out of the 10- 4, 1, 2, 3, 10 are counter to American laws.
3, 6, 8, 9 are part of our legal system, but are part of just about every legal system in history.
2, 4, 5 are not a part of our laws.
And 1 & 7 may or may not be a part of state or local laws. Even in a state that has laws concerning #7, that still means less than half of the 10 commandments carry any legal weight, and an equal number are illegal to enforce. Those that claim the 10 commandments are our basis for law apparently do not know the law very well. The only thing funnier is those that want it posted illegally in schools "to teach children respect for the law".
Wow, thanks for the summarization, Gawen!
I can't believe anyone would take the 10C's seriously.
I totally agree with you about the adultry one. I don't believe anyone SHOULD cheat, but it does take two consenting adults to tango.
And the "wife" being put with slaves and oxen and donkeys... Just fucking offensive.
Oh, so it's a-okay to have slaves, "god"? No, thanks you fucking sexist douchebag. I can't believe so many people worship such an evil book.
Me neither.
I actually wish we could scrub any theology from government. We have references to Moses, the ten commandments, and various references to other religions in and on the outside of many local, state, and federal government buildings, especially courthouses. The Supreme Court has references to Moses and the ten commandments. Most of the time the justification for such things is that they are there in an historical context for the history of law, and not meant to show any connection between religious law and US law. A case in Florida has been accepted because there are a variety of religions represented in historical legal displays. This kind of idea leaves us out, though. Representing all gods still doesn't represent lack of god.
Quote from: Abletony on July 24, 2011, 05:35:01 PM
Me neither.
You need to stop trolling.
@fester: The courthouse is the worst! What the hell.. Do they actually think swearing people in on a bible makes them tell the truth?
Has anyone refused this? Like an athiest?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 24, 2011, 08:24:44 PM
Quote from: Abletony on July 24, 2011, 05:35:01 PM
Me neither.
You need to stop trolling.
@fester: The courthouse is the worst! What the hell.. Do they actually think swearing people in on a bible makes them tell the truth?
Has anyone refused this? Like an athiest?
A couple years ago I was called for jury duty in an idiotic civil case brought by a christian morallity driven sheriff's deputy against a male teenager in high school.
Being that I live in Texas, I was not looking forward to the Biblical swearing in. I was at odds to do it or not; to not and become a minor celebrity anti theist or just do it and get it over with. Imagine my surprise that it wasn't even offered!!
Quote from: Gawen on July 24, 2011, 11:58:28 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 24, 2011, 08:24:44 PM
Quote from: Abletony on July 24, 2011, 05:35:01 PM
Me neither.
You need to stop trolling.
@fester: The courthouse is the worst! What the hell.. Do they actually think swearing people in on a bible makes them tell the truth?
Has anyone refused this? Like an athiest?
A couple years ago I was called for jury duty in an idiotic civil case brought by a christian morallity driven sheriff's deputy against a male teenager in high school.
Being that I live in Texas, I was not looking forward to the Biblical swearing in. I was at odds to do it or not; to not and become a minor celebrity anti theist or just do it and get it over with. Imagine my surprise that it wasn't even offered!!
Lucky you! I'm shocked.
Anybody can refuse the Bible swearing in as well as "so help me God." I am in the military, and can affirm instead of swear, and I can request the officer swearing me in not use so help me god. Even the President can choose against swearing on the Bible, and "so help me God" is not an official part of the oath of office for President. Every President has chosen to say it out of tradition.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 24, 2011, 12:14:12 PM
Putting "in god we trust" on money, and forcing children to say "one nation, under god" in public schools doesn't sound like separation at all, in my opinion.
It may not be a separation from belief in a god but it is a separation from any particular religion, even though it does seem to favor the monotheistic institutions it doesn't endorse any individual religion; that god could be Allah to a person of an Islamic belief, Yahweh to Christians and Jews or the deist idea of a god. There is a difference between separation from the organisation of religion and separation from the belief in that religion.
-
I can see why a Christian could get pissed off at the phrase, as church solely relates to the christian building of worship but its not what the word "church" means literally but what it stands for conceptually. It is also used internationally in this conceptual form.
-
@Gawen that is exactly what I was trying to say but obviously failing to do so.
Quote from: Crow on July 25, 2011, 04:16:15 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 24, 2011, 12:14:12 PM
Putting "in god we trust" on money, and forcing children to say "one nation, under god" in public schools doesn't sound like separation at all, in my opinion.
It may not be a separation from belief in a god but it is a separation from any particular religion, even though it does seem to favor the monotheistic institutions it doesn't endorse any individual religion; that god could be Allah to a person of an Islamic belief, Yahweh to Christians and Jews or the deist idea of a god. There is a difference between separation from the organisation of religion and separation from the belief in that religion.
While not respecting religions that do not believe in a god. Which would be making laws respecting an establishment of religion by respecting religions that beieve in a god over religions that believe in multiple gods and religions that do not believe in any god or gods.
Quote from: Davin on July 25, 2011, 04:27:56 PM
While not respecting religions that do not believe in a god. Which would be making laws respecting an establishment of religion by respecting religions that beieve in a god over religions that believe in multiple gods and religions that do not believe in any god or gods.
Hence why there is an uprising of individuals and groups that are questioning this as they have there constitution to support the argument. However in the case of Aronow v. United States the court ruled "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
Quote from: Crow on July 25, 2011, 07:51:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 25, 2011, 04:27:56 PM
While not respecting religions that do not believe in a god. Which would be making laws respecting an establishment of religion by respecting religions that beieve in a god over religions that believe in multiple gods and religions that do not believe in any god or gods.
Hence why there is an uprising of individuals and groups that are questioning this as they have there constitution to support the argument. However in the case of Aronow v. United States the court ruled "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
Did you cite this ruling because you agree with it?
Edit: Meant "cite" instead of "site".
Quote from: Crow on July 25, 2011, 07:51:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 25, 2011, 04:27:56 PM
While not respecting religions that do not believe in a god. Which would be making laws respecting an establishment of religion by respecting religions that beieve in a god over religions that believe in multiple gods and religions that do not believe in any god or gods.
Hence why there is an uprising of individuals and groups that are questioning this as they have there constitution to support the argument. However in the case of Aronow v. United States the court ruled "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
That's bullshit.
We need to update a lot of stuff. How could they say it has nothing to do with religion when they make you swear on a bible before testimony?
Awwwwww....In God We Trust is normally and more than probable to denote the Judeo/ Christian God. But there are 2700 other gods to choose from. So pick one, whether it be Biblical or not and the next time this subject comes up tell them your new God...*chucklin* and how you trust it.
I may go with Huitzilopochtli, if I can figure out how to pronounce it. Same goes for swearing on a Bible. Pick another god or goddess, like Amaterasu, for example. Next time I go up for jury duty I may bring a plate of Spaghetti for something to swear upon.
Then again, if I'm chosen for jury duty I may just tell them I'm a Last Thursdayist and can't swear on anything unless it's a Thursday.
Quote from: Gawen on July 26, 2011, 01:29:10 AM
Awwwwww....In God We Trust is normally and more than probable to denote the Judeo/ Christian God. But there are 2700 other gods to choose from. So pick one, whether it be Biblical or not and the next time this subject comes up tell them your new God...*chucklin* and how you trust it.
I may go with Huitzilopochtli, if I can figure out how to pronounce it. Same goes for swearing on a Bible. Pick another god or goddess, like Amaterasu, for example. Next time I go up for jury duty I may bring a plate of Spaghetti for something to swear upon.
Then again, if I'm chosen for jury duty I may just tell them I'm a Last Thursdayist and can't swear on anything unless it's a Thursday.
I loooove Shinto Gods. Amaterasu and her brothers; Tsukiyomi and Susanoo are amongst my favorite.
That's good advice though. Especially the Thursday thing. xD
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 26, 2011, 04:15:35 AM
I loooove Shinto Gods. Amaterasu and her brothers; Tsukiyomi and Susanoo are amongst my favorite.
Meh, give me any Finnish god or god of war and I'm happy
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fth159.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft150%2Fgolff1983%2Fth_evil_grin.jpg&hash=240f64a8a6750849d6cd0ad08597e90dbb978faf)
In Ukko Perkele we trust ;D
Quote from: Crow on July 25, 2011, 07:51:26 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 25, 2011, 04:27:56 PM
While not respecting religions that do not believe in a god. Which would be making laws respecting an establishment of religion by respecting religions that beieve in a god over religions that believe in multiple gods and religions that do not believe in any god or gods.
Hence why there is an uprising of individuals and groups that are questioning this as they have there constitution to support the argument. However in the case of Aronow v. United States the court ruled "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
This strikes me as similar to the argument lawyers in favor of the Utah highway crosses are using. They are trying to say the crosses aren't making a Christian statement, but are being used as a memorial to dead cops, and in an historical context. They are saying that the crosses are a universally recognized symbol for memorializing the dead, and other symbols wouldn't put the same message out there to motorists (I guess the message is that cops died).
These sorts of arguments are an example of Christians diminishing the value of their own symbols and mottos just to keep them around.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 26, 2011, 04:15:35 AM
Quote from: Gawen on July 26, 2011, 01:29:10 AM
Awwwwww....In God We Trust is normally and more than probable to denote the Judeo/ Christian God. But there are 2700 other gods to choose from. So pick one, whether it be Biblical or not and the next time this subject comes up tell them your new God...*chucklin* and how you trust it.
I may go with Huitzilopochtli, if I can figure out how to pronounce it. Same goes for swearing on a Bible. Pick another god or goddess, like Amaterasu, for example. Next time I go up for jury duty I may bring a plate of Spaghetti for something to swear upon.
Then again, if I'm chosen for jury duty I may just tell them I'm a Last Thursdayist and can't swear on anything unless it's a Thursday.
I loooove Shinto Gods. Amaterasu and her brothers; Tsukiyomi and Susanoo are amongst my favorite.
That's good advice though. Especially the Thursday thing. xD
Do you believe in those gods?
Why do you ask?
Quote from: Abletony on July 26, 2011, 12:11:15 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 26, 2011, 04:15:35 AM
Quote from: Gawen on July 26, 2011, 01:29:10 AM
Awwwwww....In God We Trust is normally and more than probable to denote the Judeo/ Christian God. But there are 2700 other gods to choose from. So pick one, whether it be Biblical or not and the next time this subject comes up tell them your new God...*chucklin* and how you trust it.
I may go with Huitzilopochtli, if I can figure out how to pronounce it. Same goes for swearing on a Bible. Pick another god or goddess, like Amaterasu, for example. Next time I go up for jury duty I may bring a plate of Spaghetti for something to swear upon.
Then again, if I'm chosen for jury duty I may just tell them I'm a Last Thursdayist and can't swear on anything unless it's a Thursday.
I loooove Shinto Gods. Amaterasu and her brothers; Tsukiyomi and Susanoo are amongst my favorite.
That's good advice though. Especially the Thursday thing. xD
Do you believe in those gods?
No, I'm athiest. I think it is absolutely foolish to believe in any God. I just enjoy various mythology, especially Shinto, Greek, and Norse.
QuoteNo, I'm athiest. I think it is absolutely foolish to believe in any God. I just enjoy various mythology, especially Shinto, Greek, and Norse.
I just got done reading The Iliad and The Odyssey back to back (for the second time). Those Greek gods were some characters weren't they!! Always muckin' around in mortals lives.
hmmmm...sounds rather familiar, don't it?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 26, 2011, 04:40:04 PM
Quote from: Abletony on July 26, 2011, 12:11:15 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 26, 2011, 04:15:35 AM
Quote from: Gawen on July 26, 2011, 01:29:10 AM
Awwwwww....In God We Trust is normally and more than probable to denote the Judeo/ Christian God. But there are 2700 other gods to choose from. So pick one, whether it be Biblical or not and the next time this subject comes up tell them your new God...*chucklin* and how you trust it.
I may go with Huitzilopochtli, if I can figure out how to pronounce it. Same goes for swearing on a Bible. Pick another god or goddess, like Amaterasu, for example. Next time I go up for jury duty I may bring a plate of Spaghetti for something to swear upon.
Then again, if I'm chosen for jury duty I may just tell them I'm a Last Thursdayist and can't swear on anything unless it's a Thursday.
I loooove Shinto Gods. Amaterasu and her brothers; Tsukiyomi and Susanoo are amongst my favorite.
That's good advice though. Especially the Thursday thing. xD
Do you believe in those gods?
No, I'm athiest. I think it is absolutely foolish to believe in any God. I just enjoy various mythology, especially Shinto, Greek, and Norse.
Right.
Quote from: Gawen on July 27, 2011, 01:21:29 AM
QuoteNo, I'm athiest. I think it is absolutely foolish to believe in any God. I just enjoy various mythology, especially Shinto, Greek, and Norse.
I just got done reading The Iliad and The Odyssey back to back (for the second time). Those Greek gods were some characters weren't they!! Always muckin' around in mortals lives.
hmmmm...sounds rather familiar, don't it?
Sure does. ;)
At least Greek gods admit they are assholes, haha.
Aw, I read the Iliad when I was 16. Memories~
Quote from: Davin on July 25, 2011, 08:13:09 PM
Did you cite this ruling because you agree with it?
Edit: Meant "cite" instead of "site".
No simply to show where the American legal system stands on this matter, its not something I agree with. I personally think that with the slow but growing change in the American populace towards religion it will eventually be possible for American Atheists to effectively argue the case for the removal of "god" being forced down there throat especially when the first amendment and various writings by there founding fathers support the view.
Quote from: Crow on July 31, 2011, 05:31:06 PM
Quote from: Davin on July 25, 2011, 08:13:09 PM
Did you cite this ruling because you agree with it?
Edit: Meant "cite" instead of "site".
No simply to show where the American legal system stands on this matter, its not something I agree with. I personally think that with the slow but growing change in the American populace towards religion it will eventually be possible for American Atheists to effectively argue the case for the removal of "god" being forced down there throat especially when the first amendment and various writings by there founding fathers support the view.
I do like that many of the founding fathers were against religion in government, I also like that they put a major protection as the first amendment but only because those two work so well on those that say that the country was founded on Christianity or those that worship the founding fathers. However if the founding fathers had put religion into the government, I'd still be fighting for separation of church and state because I see that as the best way to run a government (especially a representative government that has constituates of more than one religion).
So I disagree with the ruling both on the constitutional grounds and on the grounds that it is one good way to empower religions to influence the government. I've had to show many a people that the "in god we trust" and "under god" were not added until the 1950's and they're left surprised because of the actual history of them (top it off with the Bellamy Salute and their brains almost explode). I really think the only reason the national slogan, the pledge and the flag salute changed was because of the red witch hunts at the time due to the soviet scare and the prick pimple McCarthy.