100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Seperation of Church and State | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
the government share not establish nor hender the practice of vote out those that you feel are not of the fiber you want in office but to say because they are in office they can not practice their religion is unconstitutional Who said anything about government officials not being allowed to practice their religion? ok then if you are not talking about officials could you show where the govt is promoting any particular religion other than holidays which most are holidays b4 Christianity hijacked them to make it easier to convert pagans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but if athiesm is a religious belief...and the government bans all other religious practices...like the pledge...then isn't that church and state? things that make you go hmmm I think that's a fallacy that comes from the mindset of religions competing with each other. If no religious practices are permitted in government facilities that doesn’t mean that the ‘atheists win’. It’s not a war. The mere fact that people try to make it into a war is what causes all the problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well i've been saying this whole time that no one should push anything on anyone and should be allowed to practice what they want
no one listened so i'm arguing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but if athiesm is a religious belief...and the government bans all other religious practices...like the pledge...then isn't that church and state? things that make you go hmmm I think that's a fallacy that comes from the mindset of religions competing with each other. If no religious practices are permitted in government facilities that doesn’t mean that the ‘atheists win’. It’s not a war. The mere fact that people try to make it into a war is what causes all the problems. if you prevent a believer from practicing their beliefs just because they are on govt proberty you are hindering their right to practice their religion |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Thu 03/13/08 08:06 PM
|
|
if you prevent a believer from practicing their beliefs just because they are on govt proberty you are hindering their right to practice their religion That doesn't matter. As long as the government isn't writing "God" on their documents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but no one is forced to say the pledge or anything these days. they have a right not to and others have a right to say it if they choose
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you prevent a believer from practicing their beliefs just because they are on govt proberty you are hindering their right to practice their religion That doesn't matter. As long as the government isn't writing "God" on their documents. i can agree with that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but no one is forced to say the pledge or anything these days. they have a right not to and others have a right to say it if they choose i feel the words under god should be removed and it should be re instituted in the public schools |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
could you show where the govt is promoting any particular religion I'm not trying to make a case that it is doing this. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be doing it (if it is). If it's not doing it then things are the way they should be.  I'm not complaining. I'm just stating the way things should be. And I'm not even saying they aren't already that way. Maybe they are. I honestly don't pay enough attention to really know. For example, if President Bush wants to attend church services on his own time, I don't problem with that. There is nothing that says he can't do that. However, when on the Job he should try his best to make his decisions based on what will serve the country the best, and not based on what he thinks will serve his religion the best. I know that’s hard for some people to do. But I know that it is possible to do this. I can do it. When I work for a company I make decisions based on the policies of the company. Not based on my own personal policies. If the company I work for wants me to do things that I personally disagree with, I quit. Pure and simple. A politician shouldn’t even run for office if he can’t differentiate between his personal beliefs and the polices of the country he’s offering to serve. That level of maturity and clarity of thinking should be an automatic prerequsite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you prevent a believer from practicing their beliefs just because they are on govt proberty you are hindering their right to practice their religion That doesn't matter. As long as the government isn't writing "God" on their documents. i can agree with that Of course you can. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
could you show where the govt is promoting any particular religion I'm not trying to make a case that it is doing this. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be doing it (if it is). If it's not doing it then things are the way they should be. I'm not complaining. I'm just stating the way things should be. And I'm not even saying they aren't already that way. Maybe they are. I honestly don't pay enough attention to really know. For example, if President Bush wants to attend church services on his own time, I don't problem with that. There is nothing that says he can't do that. However, when on the Job he should try his best to make his decisions based on what will serve the country the best, and not based on what he thinks will serve his religion the best. I know that’s hard for some people to do. But I know that it is possible to do this. I can do it. When I work for a company I make decisions based on the policies of the company. Not based on my own personal policies. If the company I work for wants me to do things that I personally disagree with, I quit. Pure and simple. A politician shouldn’t even run for office if he can’t differentiate between his personal beliefs and the polices of the country he’s offering to serve. That level of maturity and clarity of thinking should be an automatic prerequsite. okay |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Thu 03/13/08 08:36 PM
|
|
Sorry. The Establishment clause is very clear. You obviously don't give a crap because you want the government to embrace the atheist view (no god, no prayer) and infringe on everybody else. You can't have it both ways. There's no need to be sorry. You're simply wrong. To not embrace religious concepts at all, is not the same as embracing atheism. The government would not be saying that there is no God. All the government would be saying is that they can't take an official stance on any religious concept because it's not their place to do so. So you're conclusion that taking this stance represents supporting atheism doesn't hold water. The government would be saying no such thing. The Founders believed there was a "God." Removing the word "God" from all government documents would be a statement from the government that the Founders were wrong to believe there was a "God." That's why atheists support doing so. Besides, I don’t want the government to embrace atheism. I’m not an atheist. And even if I was I still wouldn’t want the government to embrace atheism. Yet you are here attempting to make the same flawed argument that atheists make. The government isn't forcing anyone to believe in anything. They aren’t suppose to take any stance on religious concepts at all. Period. The government isn't. It’s not their place. Religion is a personal relationship between spirits and God. A government as a whole has no place in religion. It’s simply not a useful concept to a government. What are they going to use it for??? It’s simply has no purpose in government. It’s a totally useless concept for government, unless they are going to follow a specific doctrine or religion. Other than that it’s totally useless. It has no pragmatic value at all. It serves no purpose for a government. Again, already told you the historical basis for the word "God" in government documents and doctrine. The Founders were religious. If you so choose, maybe you can get a bunch of your fellow atheists together and overthrow a government of your own. Then you can choose to word your founding documents any way you wish. Until then, deal with it. Not all of the founding fathers were religious as you would define religion. Deist was a majority of the religious and they acknowledge a god. Not a religion but a god. I believe that the constructors of our bylaws and doctrines included the term "god" for reverence of the documents. I do not believe because they included the word god into a few documents that this is a free for all for religious to assume that they should have a stance of power in our governemt. It really comes down to this fact: THERE ARE TOO MANY DIFFERENT RELIGIONS AND DIFFERENT FORMS OF GODS IN THE WORLD TO BE ABLE TO NAME ONE OF THEM RIGHT OR JUST OR A MEDIUM OF ANY KIND. IN ORDER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO RESPECT ALL RELIGIONS IT MUST NOT REFER, ENGAGE, CONSIDER, ETC... ANY ONE RELIGION OR GOD IN ANY OF DEALINGS PERIOD. This is the only way for a government to be respectful of ALL. There is no other way around it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Thu 03/13/08 08:21 PM
|
|
Not all of the founding fathers were religious as you would define religion. Deist was a majority of the religious and they acknowledge a god. Not a religion but a god. I believe that the constructors of our bylaws and doctrines included the term "god" for reverence of the documents. I do not believe because they included the word god into a few documents that this is a free for all for religious to assume that we should have a stance of power in our governemt. It really comes down to this fact: THERE ARE TOO MANY DIFFERENT RELIGIONS AND DIFFERENT FORMS OF GODS IN THE WORLD TO BE ABLE TO NAME ONE OF THEM RIGHT OR JUST OR A MEDIUM OF ANY KIND. IN ORDER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO RESPECT ALL RELIGIONS IT MUST NOT REFER, ENGAGE, CONSIDER, ETC... ANY ONE RELIGION OR GOD IN ANY OF DEALINGS PERIOD. This is the only way for a government to be respectful of ALL. There is no other way around it. Again, read my earlier post. Already covered this. Yes most of the Founders were Deists and were religious (as I defined in my earlier post), but they all believed in a "God." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry. The Establishment clause is very clear. You obviously don't give a crap because you want the government to embrace the atheist view (no god, no prayer) and infringe on everybody else. You can't have it both ways. There's no need to be sorry. You're simply wrong. To not embrace religious concepts at all, is not the same as embracing atheism. The government would not be saying that there is no God. All the government would be saying is that they can't take an official stance on any religious concept because it's not their place to do so. So you're conclusion that taking this stance represents supporting atheism doesn't hold water. The government would be saying no such thing. The Founders believed there was a "God." Removing the word "God" from all government documents would be a statement from the government that the Founders were wrong to believe there was a "God." That's why atheists support doing so. Besides, I don’t want the government to embrace atheism. I’m not an atheist. And even if I was I still wouldn’t want the government to embrace atheism. Yet you are here attempting to make the same flawed argument that atheists make. The government isn't forcing anyone to believe in anything. They aren’t suppose to take any stance on religious concepts at all. Period. The government isn't. It’s not their place. Religion is a personal relationship between spirits and God. A government as a whole has no place in religion. It’s simply not a useful concept to a government. What are they going to use it for??? It’s simply has no purpose in government. It’s a totally useless concept for government, unless they are going to follow a specific doctrine or religion. Other than that it’s totally useless. It has no pragmatic value at all. It serves no purpose for a government. Again, already told you the historical basis for the word "God" in government documents and doctrine. The Founders were religious. If you so choose, maybe you can get a bunch of your fellow atheists together and overthrow a government of your own. Then you can choose to word your founding documents any way you wish. Until then, deal with it. Not all of the founding fathers were religious as you would define religion. Deist was a majority of the religious and they acknowledge a god. Not a religion but a god. I believe that the constructors of our bylaws and doctrines included the term "god" for reverence of the documents. I do not believe because they included the word god into a few documents that this is a free for all for religious to assume that we should have a stance of power in our governemt. It really comes down to this fact: THERE ARE TOO MANY DIFFERENT RELIGIONS AND DIFFERENT FORMS OF GODS IN THE WORLD TO BE ABLE TO NAME ONE OF THEM RIGHT OR JUST OR A MEDIUM OF ANY KIND. IN ORDER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO RESPECT ALL RELIGIONS IT MUST NOT REFER, ENGAGE, CONSIDER, ETC... ANY ONE RELIGION OR GOD IN ANY OF DEALINGS PERIOD. This is the only way for a government to be respectful of ALL. There is no other way around it. well that's what the "believers" are trying to point out and the non believers think it's a religious thing like I've said...no one is forced to say the pledge or anything |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, there is no "separation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution and it is not supported by the 1st amendment in any way whatsoever. The concept of "Separation of church and state" is a misapplication of a letter between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Please note the US Constitution was ratified and adopted in 1787. There is a gap of 15 years between the adoption of the first amendment and Jefferson's statement to the DBA. In most cases it is taken completely out of context as a means of attacking Christianity as a whole. Most of the Founders were deists, although some of them were Christian. The government itself was not founded on any religion specifically, but all of the original documents had some mention of "God" being as all of the Founders, regardless of their religion, believed in a Supreme Being or "God" that gave all men inalienable rights as human beings. Is what I originally said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Thu 03/13/08 08:32 PM
|
|
Not all of the founding fathers were religious as you would define religion. Deist was a majority of the religious and they acknowledge a god. Not a religion but a god. I believe that the constructors of our bylaws and doctrines included the term "god" for reverence of the documents. I do not believe because they included the word god into a few documents that this is a free for all for religious to assume that we should have a stance of power in our governemt. It really comes down to this fact: THERE ARE TOO MANY DIFFERENT RELIGIONS AND DIFFERENT FORMS OF GODS IN THE WORLD TO BE ABLE TO NAME ONE OF THEM RIGHT OR JUST OR A MEDIUM OF ANY KIND. IN ORDER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO RESPECT ALL RELIGIONS IT MUST NOT REFER, ENGAGE, CONSIDER, ETC... ANY ONE RELIGION OR GOD IN ANY OF DEALINGS PERIOD. This is the only way for a government to be respectful of ALL. There is no other way around it. Again, read my earlier post. Already covered this. Yes most of the Founders were Deists and were religious (as I defined in my earlier post), but they all believed in a "God." That is not correct they did not all believe in a god. I had to look this up before and there were atheist in the group who did not fight the fight of keeping god out of the documents. Most Atheist really do not care about the word god nor the reference to god but they do not want to have to pray or refer to god as revered when he/she/it is not revered to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Removing the word "God" from all government documents would be a statement from the government that the Founders were wrong to believe there was a "God." But you’re just assuming that a particular action is making a particular “statement”. If the government officially makes a “statement” that they are removing the word “God” from all of their documents for the sole purpose of not taking any stance at all. Then you would have to accept their “statement” of why they are doing it as being their truth. It would be wrong of you to claim that they are making any other “statement” by that action. Who are you to decide what “statement” the government is making by their actions? They have microphones and press conferences. They can make their own “statements” to explain why they are talking specific actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you guys have me so lost. if someone wants to pray silently...let them
if someone wants to sing a show tune silently....let them |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is not correct they did not all believe in a god. I had to look this up before and there were atheist in the group who did not fight the fight of keeping god out of the documents. Most Atheist really do not care about the word god nor the reference to god but they do not want to have to pray or refer to god as revered when he/she/it is not revered to them. Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian George Walton Georgia Episcopalian John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian George Read Delaware Episcopalian Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian William Paca Maryland Episcopalian Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist) Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist) Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian William Floyd New York Presbyterian Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html So which group were the atheists exactly? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you work for the government as I have. They do not allow any religious mentions on the property of the government offices. It is repectful of all who work there. Now each person has the right to practice whatever religion they want to on their own time, just don't bring it to work.
We had a moment of silence on the job for the victims and the families of 9/11 victims. A moment of silence that could be used to pray for those who pray, a moment for those who do not pray to send their silent wishes of strength and whatever. Nothing wrong with this. |
|
|
|
|
