Religion is just a good feeling.

Worshiping is stupid.

 

It does not matter what they do or say in Kansas, the Supreme Court will just step in later and say, "No that is unconstitutional." whether it is or not. Really, the states should be able to do what they want, because the Constitution says if it is not explicit power of the Feds, it is left up to the states. It seems to me that this is one of those things not explicitly under federal jurisdiction, but that won't matter either when The Court gets it. It is a common misconception that it says something about separation of church and state in there, but as I recall, it is they shall make no laws in favor or against any particular religion, or words to that effect.

 

The misconception stems from the fact that it's called "The Seperation of Church and State clause", which does say that the government cannot make laws that unfairly promote or marginalize a particular religion.

The problem is not that these new politicos are creating inherently (or at least overtly) new laws that promote christianity over all other; the problem is that they are using their political clout to promote their morals over the morals of others. A fine distinction which has kept it legal so far. Of course, what they're doing is perfectly commendable in a free democracy, as they're mobilizing people who believe in similar issues to vote and work on their goals to promote their platforms.

Their methods, though, are questionable. The whole "Evolution is a theory, not a fact" is using people's common misconceptions of the english language to promote their platform. The whole procurement of the medical records of late term abortions is highly questionable and quite possibly illegal, and I think the discrimination of any legal benefits to cohabitation is quite discriminatory as well. The censorship? I have yet to weigh in on that topic, as there is such a thing as inappropriate text for children to read... but if they start banning things like Catcher in the Rye again, I will be very pissed.

The Federal gov't has no say in what they do, unless it expressly violates the power and the protections put in place by the Federal government, and that is for the courts to decide.

Hell, if you wish to teach religion in public schools, offer an optional relgious studies class. Just don't mix Science with Religion... I'm not saying they're like oil and water, but they can coexist without perverting each other.

 

Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The first amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The phrase comes directly from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists Association.

In 1947, regarding Everson v Board of Education, 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 quote has been used in Supreme Court decisions a handful of times, and it is federal law.

This is part of what makes the gay marriage amendment so absurd. The prohibition of homosexual relationships comes directly from religious texts. The government should not be in the business of enforcing scripture.

 

When the Declaration of Independance and Constitution were penned, they were based on accepted moral practices and expectations of the day, and those happened to be Christian. The founding fathers never sought to "prove" God exists or any such thing, but it was just an understood thing with them. They never intended to "separate" church and state in the manner in which some interpret it. If they had sought that separation, then why in the world would they have plastered scripture all over gov't. monuments and buildings, and used "God" in the Declaration itself? In their mindset, it would have been a stupid idea to start a country without faith in God. What the Puritans were escaping was religious persecution, not religion.

What we have to be careful of, and what I believe the founding fathers intended, was to never allow any religious group to become more powerful than gov't. and yield power to the church. Historically that has been catastrophic, because it ultimately gave all the power to a few, and would not be "of the people".

Christians, along with every other group has every right to voice opinion and seek to construct laws they believe in. That keeps us in a balance. The conservatives keep the liberals in check, and vice versa.

We are still considered a Christian nation, but there are so many diverse beliefs nobody can agree on anything anymore. I've seen social expectations and beliefs change radically over the last three decades. It's no wonder that there is so much turmoil.

 

Not quite. Snopes has a discussion about the presence of religious references on government buildings. The upshot is that they are typically intended as historical references to the rule of law, including Moses and the ten commandments.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

How does forcing non-Christians to obey Christian law fit into that philosophy?

I agree that Christians have a right to voice opinions and influence governance, but the government has a duty to its citizens not to adopt exclusive Christian policy. I refer again to discrimination against gays who want to marry.

A Christian nation? Maybe in the midwest, but I'm a Jew and I'm from New York. Christianity has its place alongside hundreds of other religions, but if you think I'm going to lose my identity to your idea of a "Christian nation," you need to rethink who the oppressor is here.

I'm going to expand a bit on that last statement.

I occasionally hear a prominent Christian, such as Rev. Billy Graham, talk about how Christianity is under attack in this country. I honestly don't know what he means. I think he perceives any rejection of the practice of Christian reliigon as an attack on the faith. He is ignoring the possibility of adopting the virtues of Christianity -- and there are many -- without the entire belief system a la communion, etc.

The irony is that every time legislation is passed that endorses a specifically Christian belief, non-Christians really are being put under seige. Atheists know that "thou shalt not kill" is a good idea. The sanctity of life isn't a specifically Christian idea. Atheists don't necessarily believe that homosexuality is wrong. For what its worth, neither do all Christians.

Gay marriage should be banned in the domain of the church. The church doesn't execute marriage contracts, though -- that job belongs to the state. If two people meet the conditions required to enter a contract, then what difference does it make if they're two gay guys? To the state, it does not, and it should not. If the law of the land becomes the same as the law of the church, where is my freedom of religion?

 

I guess you're missing the point I'm trying to make. The founding fathers had to create law based on their experiences, and that was overwhelmingly Christian. Does that reflect the prevailing thinking of this day? Maybe so, maybe not. I guess that gets left up to voters.

I'd say that now more than ever with as diverse as our country is, there is no danger of Christians taking exclusive hold of policies, heh. They are voicing opinions like every other group does. :dunno: However, our nation is identified as Christian, since 75-80% of our population identifies itself as such.

When Christians are not allowed to practice their faith openly, which has been a trend in public schools (having a Bible confiscated, or individuals not being allowed to pray, or share their faith, at appropriate times of course.)

Do they? Why? What belief system would they base this on? Maybe it depends on the mood they're in on a particular day.

You can't separate morality from law. Law is defined by some belief system(s). The $64 question is which ones do we base it on? Also, law should NOT be changed to accomodate a sub 1% minority who happens to maintain a strong lobby in Washington. That would then be unfair and unrepresentative to the other 99% of the population.

 

They also owned slaves. Many were adulterers. Should I really aspire to live by that moral code?

A nation containing Christians and a "Christian nation" are not necessarily the same thing.

You are allowed to practice your faith openly, but not anywhere that the government pays for it. Have you noticed that Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists aren't allowed to have prayer time at school? Do you think those other three groups are also under attack?

(Note: this last quote was in answer to my assertion that atheists know that "thou shalt not kill" is a good idea.)

Answer: I don't need you or your book to tell me the difference between right and wrong. The next time you think that atheist liberals are snooty and elitist, try to remember that you just told me that my moral code is bullshit because I didn't get it from the bible, which does in fact endorse slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_world_religions

Christianity: 2 billion

Population of the world: more than 6 billion

Where do you get 99% from? And speaking of ideas that are widely held but later proved to be wrong, is the Earth flat, resting upon the backs of an infinite stack of turtles, or is it an oblate spheroid?

In fact, law and morality are not one and the same. Tell me, why is it immoral to have anal or oral sex? Both are proscribed by the bible, are they not? Both have even been illegal in parts of the United States. How is it immoral?

Is driving 76 miles per hour immoral? Its illegal.

Is smoking pot immoral? Thats illegal too.

By the way: I find your willingness to subjugate the needs and freedoms of the small minority to the vast majority to be immoral. I don't know what "liberty and justice for all" means to you; obviously not much.

 

Just because they call it that, does not mean it is what they call it. My ex-wife is a whore, just because her current husband doesn't call her that makes it no less true.

Even if I say, "You are right, it does say that." It still could be circumvented, if they promoted all religions, or banned religious practice altogether it would not violate this because they are treating all religions the same, which is what it literally says must be done.

BTW, I always figured atheists would be better people, because they believe it is all right here, no "I am sorry, let me into heaven" It is Judeo-Christian, not Christian, the US I mean.

I think these Christians are concerned about the decay of society in general, and call it "An attack on Christianity!" when it is more the deterioration of concern about good and bad, which are pretty nebulous distinctions to start with.

This is all academic anyway, when they refer to the "Government" they are talking about the federal government, not state.

Benjamin, the Christian faith is sort of an "add on" to Judaism, most of the first Christians were Jews. Aside from a few minor things(Jesus was a Prophet vs The Son of God, that sort of stuff) the basic values of a good Jew and a good Christian(whatever that means) are going to be pretty damn close. Old Testament is part of the Bible, we share a good portion of the same playbook, even if we are not on the same team.

 

Tobra,

I see what you're saying about the close connection to Judaism and Christianity, of which I was, of course, aware. However, that does not excuse a Christian agenda for the government. If we are for religious freedom everywhere -- Iraq included -- then we must be for reliigous freedom here. Not everyone is a Jew or a Christian, and government cannot and ought not endorse a Judeo-Christian worldview over any other.

Where some people see the decay of society, I see growth. Change is inevitable, and although not all change is good, all change offers opportunity for growth and learning. If that change is a societal shift away from religion -- and advanced democracies around the world would indicate that it is -- then so be it, and I welcome the future.

By the way, the states cannot break federal law, so the argument is not exclusively academc.