Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 632

Separation of Church and State «

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: A New England
Posts: 9187

Great update.

I don't agree with much of it (if any), but it is something I'd love to argue about with you.

I'll knock a response up and get back to you in a day or so.

Exactly the kind of update I like to read. Many thanks.

(BTW, you're wrong and deluded).

------------------------
A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: baton rouge, la
Posts: 4101

i've said it before, and i'll (obviously) say it again: you're a moron.

------------------------
you've been drinking my blood, well i've been licking your wounds

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2000
Location: Houston
Posts: 545

This is a paper I wrote for my American Identities class. I guess this is my response, albeit long:

Religion has provided a spiritual foundation to accommodate structure and meaning to our lives. It has historically defined a social order, provided answers to philosophical questions, and defined a moral code. Religion has provided a sense of community, creating lifelong relationships between church and congregation. Religion is also a key player in the history of warfare. Religious rivalries have shed blood, slain generations, and enslaved the persecuted. Centuries of scientific enlightenment have been lost to the Church. Corruption and scandal find no stranger in religion.

The history of religion clearly has triumphs and tragedies for the human condition. Because of this, religion must be accepted yet not allowed to go unfettered. The role of religion in America should be explored to ensure that, as a society, we receive only the benefits that religion has to offer. It would be just as ludicrous to dismiss religion in America as it would be to give the churches free reign.

There is a role for religion in America. I will illustrate this role by looking at civil religion in America and religion’s relationship with morality. America was built on a foundation of religious principles that exist today as a civil religion. First, I will explore the background of American civil religion to account for the role of religion in America today. Then, since it would seem that the greatest role of religion in America is to be a beacon of morality, I will argue that by theological standards the non-believer has the same potential for morality as the religious community.

American Civil Religion

The concept of civil religion comes from Rousseau’s The Social Contract (Bellah 5). The main points of civil religion are “the existence of God, the life to come, the reward of virtue and the punishment of vice, and the exclusion of religious intolerance (Bellah 5).” Robert Bellah (4) has described American civil religion as a generic civil religion that does not identify with any religious specifics but utilizes common points between religions. American civil religion has allowed the political realm a religious dimension regardless of the separation of church and state. We find its sacred qualities in American holidays and historical documents. Religion in politics may only have a ceremonial significance to placate the unenlightened, pander to the religious right, or just display a form of piety that is an unwritten prerequisite for office, but it has the distinct spirit of America’s founding fathers.

The Declaration of Independence makes four clear references to God. The first addresses the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This passage entitles people to their independence with divine authority based on the Theory of Natural Law (to be discussed later). Next, it is stated that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.” Finally, “the supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions” and “a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” refers to a Biblical God standing in judgment over the world.

During Washington’s first year as President, he was requested by both houses of Congress to institute Thanksgiving as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer. Clearly, religious influences were at work. Washington’s Farewell Address explores the idea that religion is connected to morality and therefore is inseparable from our form of government and justice. Washington wants us to believe that our happiness and security depend on it.

Many more examples exist to illustrate civil religions impact on America. Lincoln includes religious references in his Gettysburg Address. In fact, all Presidents have used generic references to God on solemn occasions (Bellah 2).

Civil religion has had an intended separation from Christianity in America. Bellah (8) points out that the American government expected, through the doctrine of religious liberty, the churches to be responsible for personal piety and social action. I find this relationship favorable because religious liberty intends the church to address its congregation directly, instead of through government policy.

American civil religion, however, has its shortcomings. Civil religion principles have been used to support actions and policies that are considered wrong today. Manifest destiny was a shameful policy used by America to oppress the Native American tribes. Today, our foreign policy has been influenced by our ‘holier that thou’ presumption of being the ‘Chosen Nation’, leaping to the aid of any country struggling for our ideals (or aiding a country fighting a mutual ideological enemy).

Bellah (4) argues that sovereignty rests with the people but ultimately is implied and expressed through our national documents that sovereignty rests with God. This ethos was built into the United States. I believe civil religion creates a feeling of security with the majority of Americans. American civil religion gives America its needed religious face without interfering with individual rights. The churches are responsible for each person’s particular flavor of religion. That is where the line should be drawn and that is the role that religion should take in America. However, there is always the question of moral authority. Does religion have the monopoly on morality?

Morality and Religion

James Rachels (54) has said “in popular thinking, morality and religion are inseparable: People commonly believe that morality can be understood only in the context of religion.” Indeed, many government organizations, hospitals, and companies have morality and ethics boards comprised of people of the cloth. The rationalization behind the link between morality and religion, however, is flawed by theology’s own doctrines: the Divine Command Theory and the Theory of Natural Law. I will explain each in order.

Rachels (55) explains the Divine Command Theory as that which is ‘morally right’ means ‘commanded by God’ and that which is ‘morally wrong’ means ‘forbidden by God’. The theory views ethics as an objective matter. God decrees what is right and wrong. Also, the theory gives good reason to act morally because you will be held accountable for your actions.

The problem with the Divine Command Theory, and religious claims to morality, arises from the perspective of good and bad through God. Is something right because God commands it or does God command it because it is right? This ultimately questions God’s authority and supremacy, the foundations of Christianity. The theory allows for either a realm of morality that transcends God or an arbitrary choice of what is right. Rachels (58) sums this up by saying “we must either regard God’s commands as arbitrary, and give up the doctrine of goodness of God, or admit there is a standard of right and wrong that is independent of his will, and give up the theological definitions of right and wrong.”

The religious community cannot accept that God’s judgment is arbitrary, so they must accept that there is a standard of morality independent of God. It would be impious to think that there is not a theological connection with morality, so many people believe that the Divine Command Theory is impious. If it doesn’t fit the Church’s logic, then it must not be right!

The Theory of Natural Law is the dominant theory of Christian ethics (Rachels 59). This theory describes aspects of nature and life by asking basic questions. What is it? What is it made of? How did it come to exist? Who made it? Also, the theory states that there is an order to the world and everything has a purpose to serve.

This form was adopted by Christian thinkers to describe how things ‘ought to be’. The world is as God wants it when natural order prevails. Something contradicts God’s will when it falls out of order. This applies to morality, which must obey natural laws. Behavior can therefore be natural or unnatural. This theory forms the moral opposition that the Catholic community has for homosexuality and abortion (Rachels 64-69).

The problem with this theory is fact is confused with value. As David Hume pointed out in the 18th century, ‘is’ and ‘ought’ are distinctly different and no relationship should be rationalized between them.

Also, the Theory of Natural Law would have us believe that something occurs to serve a higher order. With today’s philosophy in science and contrary to the Christian perspective of the Theory of Natural Law, nature operates quite impersonally. Natural phenomena occur by rigid physical rules, not by divine intervention.

Finally, the Theory of Natural Law suggests that we find morality by reason. This gives no benefit to the believer or the non-believer. Each has an equal opportunity to reason morality.

Both the Divine Command Theory and the Theory of Natural Law show that the moral real estate held by the Church is not a monopoly. Many have argued that the proper role for the church in America is to be the leaders of moral and ethical judgment. Rachels (54) states that as a group, the religious community seems to be no better or worse than non-believers at moral insight. Religions proper moral role should be no greater than that of any other philosophy.

Conclusion

There is still a majority in America that believes in God. Religion, whether I agree with it or not, is needed to represent this majority, however, there are limitations that must be put in place to protect individuals from religious persecution. A generic civil religion represents the believers of this country with a non-denominational ethos where God ensures our sovereignty, guarantees our individual rights, and serves our spiritual needs. Organized religion’s role is to address each denomination’s needs without infringing on the rights of others. Finally, religion cannot be allowed a majority control over moral judgment in America. The rule of morality in religion in riddled with contradictions and bias.


Bellah, Robert N. “Civil Religion in America” Daedalus. Winter 1967: 1-12

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999


------------------------
I am a product of my environment and the torch bearer of a white trash legacy. Give me strength.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26496

I can't tell if it says more about society or this forum to call this peice really ballsy.

I'm with Goatboy, let me think on this a day or so.

Aw fuck it, when do I ever think.

I'll throw out a few thoughts and then hammer out an opinion later.

At what point does the Constitution become like the Bible, old and outdated: a static set of principles in a dynamic society? Is there a point? You are totally correct about the Seperation of Church and State and how it has been hammered out not by the founding fathers, but by the Supreme Court over the years (at least from my understanding). That said, these justices are appointed by our duly elected officials to do just what they did in these rulings: interpret the consitution in ways they feel are best for the country. There's something to be said for that. And many many justices since that first ruling have upheld it. Not sure what I'm getting at here, Bondo's post and PH's User Update have kind of blended together in my head.

2. This is in relation to Bondo's post: You do realize the Christian right have pretty significant influences in the government. So it's not like religion doesn't get represented.

3. Is there such a thing as a harmful opinion? If there is, should people that don't believe in the opinion have the right to protect their children from it? Hell, even if it isn't harmful, do they still have that right?

Okay, I'm posting pretty fucking dumb thoughts. I'll think more and maybe post more later.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 15176

Okay, I could be wrong (It's been a while since my US History class) but I think I remember something about the basis for the whole "separation of church and state" was based on the fact that England had an established church, which basically oppressed other viewpoints. So while attempting to get states to ratify the constitution, in one letter Jefferson (I think) wrote a letter to someone assuring such a separation.

So basically, the separation of church and state thing isn't entirely constitutional, it was implied within the constitution and supported by the founding fathers. My facts may be off somewhat, due to a bad memory, but I'm pretty sure it was something like that. No constitutional basis, but supported by at least some of the founding fathers, and assured in unofficial documents.

However, it wasn't calling for a completely nonreligous government, but instead for a government tolerant and representative of all religous viewpoints. Like everything else, liberals have taken this and pushed it to the extremes we have today.

Now, I don't believe that laws should be passed that are based entirely in a religion (like Sunday alcohol laws, etc.), simply because that does favor a single religion to the exclusion of others. I hate a lot of SC's blue laws for that reason.

On the other hand, the extreme where it's taboo to utter the word "god" in a government building (including schools) is ridiculous. Hell, in my (public) high school, all of our assemblies included a (usually) student-led prayer. Being essentially atheist, I never bowed my head with the rest of the students. If any teacher had ever had the gall to bug me about it, I would've raised hell, but since nobody pushed me or anything, it never bothered me. Let the religious have their religion, and let me not have mine.

This is my take on the sitution.

[edit: Spelling]

------------------------
"i luv u!" -- Chantrea
Graphic Cheeseworks.

[This message has been edited by Roshigoth (edited 04-14-2001).]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: salmon city
Posts: 1409

quote:

---

Originally posted by Princess_Heather:
President Bush’s move to support faith-based initiatives is a big example. Faith-based government programs have shown time and time again to be more productive and satisfying to our citizens than a government hand out. The truth is that faith-based government programs give more than support. They give hope to their benefactors. They can fill an emptiness in them that only God can, and it gives them something the government can never give, unconditional love.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2000
Location:
Posts: 1800

In case you thought me ignorant... I am aware that there are many other religions besides my practiced Christianity and I do understand that hords of people in this country would be very outraged and opposed to to government sliding closer to the church and I wouldn't blame them either. In a lot of people's minds it's too close as it is... Above is only an expression of my opinion and how I would like to see things in an ideal world for me based on my experiences and upbringing. I know very well that the same scenario could be the extreme contrary to another person. I'm not trying to be oppressive or change anyones way of thinking, and nothing you can say to me will change how I feel. Yes you can show me another side and way of looking at it, and I just did that for you with the update. I knew this topic had great potential for heated discussion. Why not get it rolling with what I think? I didn't intend to start fights or plant seeds of hatred. I welcome disagreement - how you feel defines you as an individual and I will never look down on you for not having the same view I do. How could I expect any one person to agree with me? No body but me has lived my life and seen the world through my eyes... I will respect anyone who risks being judged by the hundreds of people who read this and posts their hearts opinions and I hope you all will have the maturity and integrity to do the same.

------------------------
"I want to be the Girl with the most cake..." .~*Pics*~.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1170

First of all Princess_Heather, I always try to keep an open mind when it comes to fellow asylumites rants and views on life, culture, politics, and in this case religion.

Unfortunately, I will have to go with the lot and disagree with your piece. Like Goatboy and Paint Chips, if you want to have a go at this I'm game. Honestly, I probably have calmer nerves than them when it comes to debate.

The reason for the separation of Church and State has it's origins before the First Amendment was created. The colonists wanted complete freedom from England. Complete freedom meant the abolishment of as many practised English laws and customs. As an English subject at the time you were expected to follow the crown-established religion. Which means whatever denomination the king or queen practised, you practised. In most cases it was either Anglican or Catholic (it seemed to change every year). If you didn't convert you were accused of being a heretic and usually had a limb cut off or in most cases found yourself living-impaired. This dogma did not sit well with the colonists.

As far as Separation of Church and State being implied by the Constitution you must remember one thing... The Constitution is about as vague as your average 17 year-old girl. It is a document whose sole purpose is to ask the reader "What do you think I mean?" or "I don't know, you tell me?"

Having a loose basis for law is exactly what the revolutionaries wanted and the Constitution was their answer.

Is the Constitution always right?
No

Do the people who do the interpreting always right?
No

However, they are a hell of a lot smarter than I am and until they change their mind, I'm sticking with them.




------------------------
Hard to believe I beat out 1,000,000 other sperm isn't it?

I've got more flame than an empty lighter.

Sp00ky ownz me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Ivory Tower, USA
Posts: 1496

PH--Congratulations on having your piece grace the Asylum's front page.

A major quibble: You need to clarify your point in the first paragraph. Washington state has the fewest churches per capita--not in the nation.

Really, I can't agree with much of anything you state. Quite a bit strikes me as unsubstantiated opinion that you've caressed into an essay.

------------------------
"Wisdom comes with winters."--Oscar Wilde

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: A New England
Posts: 9187

I'd prefer to say it in my own words, but if someone can say it that much better, I'll defer.

On Separation of
Church and State
By Barbara A. Simon, Esq.
Freedom Writer, January/February 1996

There are those who say that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. They are correct. The words "a wall of separation between church and state" are not found in our Constitution. Neither are the words "separation of powers"; "right to travel"; "freedom of association": or "religious liberty" found in our Constitution. This does not mean that those concepts are not embodied in our Constitution. The words "wall of separation between church and state" are the words of Thomas Jefferson.

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [government neutrality toward religion], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religious freedom]." The 14th Amendment extended this requirement beyond the Federal government to all the state governments.

In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court stated, "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.'" This was further emphasized in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), as expressed in the opinion for the majority written by Associate Justice Hugo Black. He wrote, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a three-prong test to determine if a governmental action is neutral toward religion. First, government institutions or legislation must have a secular purpose; second, the primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and third, there must not be an excessive government entanglement with religion. This principle was further clarified by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984). She said, "What is crucial is that a governmental practice not have the effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion."

The Supreme Court decisions provide an explanation of the rights and responsibilities granted by our Constitution. "Separation of church and state" is a constitutional principle that has been embraced by Supreme Court jurisprudence for more than one hundred years.

Those who insist upon denying the constitutional principle of "separation of church and state" are engaging in revisionist history. "Separation of church and state" is the prerequisite for religious and political liberty.


Copyright 1996 IFAS -- The Freedom Writer / ifas@berkshire.net




------------------------
A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 15176

Thank you Goatboy.

------------------------
Fun for the feeble-minded!
Graphic Cheeseworks.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1217

If the church becomes an even more intergral part of the Government, you run the risk of Government trying to control the church just as much as Church tries to control the government.



------------------------
†Insanity† Insanity as a religion
E=Insane² Insanity as a science

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: New Jersey. USA
Posts: 670

President Bush’s move to support faith-based initiatives is a big example. Faith-based government programs have shown time and time again to be more productive and satisfying to our citizens than a government hand out. The truth is that faith-based government programs give more than support. They give hope to their benefactors. They can fill an emptiness in them that only God can, and it gives them something the government can never give, unconditional love.

I think that if a faith-based program is working better than a non-faith based program it should be funded more so than the latter. If that program is only for those in that faith, though, I have a problem with it getting any funding.

If you want to bring Christianity into the government, bring every other religion right along with it.
Everyone else has already voiced my opinion better than I ever could, so I will leave it at that.

------------------------
Not only am I a sexually deviant, misogynistic, immoral, wealthy, male prostitute, but I also sit on the board of directors of the organization that governs others of my kind.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2001
Location:
Posts: 35

http://ravine.dyndns.org/asylumwhores_1.txt

Of all the posts I've ever read, on this site, that have hacked away at what little optimism I have for humanity, this surely has to be one of the most blatant and insulting affronts to common sense and skeptical sobriety that I've yet witnessed. This "article" is but another in a seemingly endless cascade of pseudoscientific, self-centered, religious propaganda; all of it being, ostensibly, some sort of justification for the legalized indoctrination of the American people by their supposedly secular government.
Firstly, I find it offensive in the extreme for the author to have used the expression "our lord" in reference to the the character known as Jesus, whose existence has been called seriously into doubt by centuries of historical scrutiny. To perpetuate the notion that any and all readers, who are presumably intelligent enough to use a PC for web browsing, should or in fact do accept the absurd notion that a self-proclaimed prophet, only known to the world by means of a mythological document (whose text is utterly incoherent and out of line with modern scientific knowledge) wholly on the basis of the accounts contained within that document, was killed and then brought back to life by an all-powerful "magical" being obsessed with an utterly simian-like longing for the adulation of a group of "hairless apes", is to show a complete ignorance and disrespect for the diversity and potential intellect of our nation and world. So, to be clear, it's "your lord" not "our lord", although I'm sure the distinction might be a little clearer if a Satanist was to refer to Satan as "our Lord" in the author's presence.
Secondly, contrary to her beliefs, this "lord" of which she speaks has yet to live up to the task of, as she puts it, providing "eternal life". So far as any methods of acquisition for empirical evidence are concerned, the sole cause of the complexity and wonder of the human "mind" is the chemical intricacy of the brain (as with all animals with any level of "intelligence"). And every human so far observed, has died, only to decompose. It might be mildly comforting to suppose that a "copy" of the chemical algorithms which constituted that person's "mind" would now have been created out of some alternative to mass-energy, and then gone on to a mystical never-never land to be called an 'angel'. But it's not particularly beneficial to the totally dead and unthinking unfeeling deceased. And what's more, there's not any evidence for this little "fairy tale". When people get really depressed, we can rely solely upon counseling and perhaps search for an impossible method of curing their invisible, and intangible "soul", or we can augment the therapy with powerful psychoactive chemicals called "antidepressants". The latter actually has a highly successful record of success.
Going on disingenuously to provide a completely botched interpretation of the 1st Amendment, the author conveniently ignores the disagreeable portion, paraphrasing it as merely being a statement of protection for the rights of religion. This leaves out the first half of the Amendment entirely! Apparently the part about making "..no law respecting an establishment of religion.." utterly alluded her. By use of the word "respect" the obvious implication is that no law acknowledge, support, or otherwise advocate religion in any way whatsoever. Taken in the context of the latter portion of the Amendment, it is clear that this Amendment came about in recognition of the diversity that was present at that time. We must remember that the US founded in great part by small "radical" religious offshoots whose only hope for the freedom to practice and believe as they wished, without facing persecution, was to emigrate. The first Amendment was written with a conscientious spirit of having freedom for all to believe and practice as they wished. And the founders of our Constitution and the subsequent amendments understood that the ONLY way to protect this was to leave the government, with all of its influence and might, completely neutral in matters of religion. In order to protect the freedom of ALL religions equally under the eyes of the law, both sides of the coin are essential. Lending any type of support or preference to a particular religion, even if it is the religion of the majority, is the first step in the slippery slope toward a theocracy, in which competing religions are suppressed, and the freedom of religion for the few is drowned out by the power of the masses. Allowing the government to "respect" a particular establishment of religion is completely incompatible with premise of "allowing the free exercise thereof". Spending the tax money of all toward a legally sanctioned religious organization, which is in no way a public good, and not used by a great majority of the people (especially the non-majority religious and non-theists) is like forcing a political party to spend a great deal of their money for the other party. This is total lunacy!
As to the question of separation of State and Church, the implication that the statements by Judge Black are not legislatively valid (even though the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution has set numerous legal precedents throughout our history, which are considered as valid is law in many a court case) or that they alone constitute the entirety of historical documentation toward this end simply shows that our author has not done her research. For one thing, contrary to what she says, many sources indicate that "..no reference to any god is to be found in the body or in the amendments to the Constitution." I haven't look through the Constitution myself, but I also haven't seen one citation from it to verify this allegation. Many historical examples exist beyond the supposedly unique and isolated decrees of this one man:
*****
In his letter of release of the guidelines on these issues dated August 10, 1995, Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley wrote:
"At the same time, schools may not endorse religious activity or doctrine, nor may they coerce participation in religious activity. Among other things, of course, school administrators and teachers may not organize or encourage prayer exercises in the classrooms. And the right of religious expression in school does not include the right to have a 'captive audience' listen, or to compel other students to participate. School officials should not permit student religious speech to turn into religious harassment aimed at a student or a small group of students. Students do not have the right to make repeated invitations to other students to participate in religious activity in the face of a request to stop."
*****
The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. (Article VI, Section 3, The Constitution of the United States.)
*****
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], ... ("Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797
*****
Convinced that religious liberty must, most assuredly, be built into the structural frame of the new [state] government, Jefferson proposed this language [for the new Virginia constitution]: "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion. (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 38. Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.)
*****
I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor. (Thomas Jefferson, notes for a speech, c. 1776. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 498.)
*****
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369)
*****
Countless further examples exist, and can be easily obtained via the internet. Try http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...quotations.html It should be quite obvious to anyone willing to study some basic historical examples, that the concept of separation well predated and influenced the most ancient of American government policies.

I don't know what trends "away from" religion she might be talking about, but all estimates reveal the US to be invariably one of the most statistically religious of the industrialized nations. In the January 14th edition of the New York Times, Pulitzer-prize winning science writer Natalie Angier writes, "Every year, surveyors like Gallup and the National Opinion Research Center ask Americans whether they believe in God, and every year the same overwhelming majority, anywhere from 92 to 97 percent, say yes...According to the International Social Survey Program, a comparative study of beliefs and practices in 31 nations, while a mere 3.2 percent of Americans will agree flatly that they 'don't believe in God,' 17.2 percent of the Dutch concur with that statement, as do 19.1 of those in France, 16.8 percent of Swedes, 20.3 percent of people in the Czech Republic, 19.7 percent of Russians, 10.6 percent of Japanese and 9.2 percent of Canadians. "
But in any case, I still fail to see the relevance. Among the integral parts of our "society and history" that were mentioned in this article, I saw no mention of Einstein's contribution to our victory against Japan, or the numerous significant contributions to politics, education, art, history, film, etc. made by W.C.Fields, Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens), Arthur C. Clarke, Ernest Hemingway, Frank Lloyd Wright, Charles Darwin, Leo Tolstoy, Thomas Edison, Woody Allen, Vincent van Gogh, Sir Charles 'Charlie' Chaplin, Richard Feynman, Gore Vidal, Christopher Reeve (superman) and his brother Ben, Linus Torvalds, Eddie Vedder, Björk, John Lennon, Napoleon Bonaparte, Frank Zappa. Yet they are just a few of the millions of atheists in the world, and have all made significant contributions to society in a number of diverse ways. Should we infer then, on these grounds, that the national government ought to overlook the law and begin indoctrinating children into atheism in schools? Baseball is a historically important political party in our nation's history. How about we spend a lot of tax payer money strictly to recruit and train youngsters to play baseball in the major leagues, and build lots of new expansion teams at government expense; and of course print millions of baseball cards to spread around the local schools and city halls! Sound logical? Hardly!
As to the religious traditions that have made their way into the law books despite Constitutional provisions, I find it odd to, on the one hand, treat them as totally acceptable practices which support religious ties with government, and then to immediately thereafter assert that we have nothing to fear from this malady. Is it really 'unfortunate' that so many people see the entanglement of government and religion to be threatening? Consider a decision last year by the Kansas school board, to not only leave out the central unifying concept of biology, evolution, as a requirement, but to require that the pseudoscience of "creationism" be allowed time in the classroom as though it were a real science. When interviewed on April 22, 2000 by "New Scientist" magazine, Tom Willis, the leader of the Creation Science Center for Mid-America, the man whom the majority of the Board of Education members selected to write last year's Kansas science standards, rejecting evolution and an "old age" Earth, was asked "Just for the record, do you believe the Sun goes around the Earth or the Earth goes around the Sun?". He answered, "I'm sure your readers will love this, but I don't know. Every physicist who's looked at it seriously has realized that we don't know for sure." As we shall see, there is plenty more to feel threatened about!
Regarding the "tradition" of the phrase "In God We Trust", the truth is that it hasn't been around as long as many think, it wasn't supported by the founding fathers, and it is purely of religious origin, more particularly of Christianity. An excerpt from the home page of the American Atheists says:
"The national motto adopted by the Founders was inscribed next to the Great Seal of the United States, a decoration devised under the supervision of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson. It was Jefferson who suggested 'E Pluribus Unum,' and that slogan was adopted in 1782, five years before the Constitutional convention of 1787."
The full text can be found at: http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm I suggest that anyone who seriously intends to take a stance on this issue, definitely read it. It shouldn't be hard to see what sort of perversion of rhetoric is really at work here.
The pledge of allegiance is yet another slap in the face to millions of good honest American citizens who practice no superstitious beliefs whatsoever, and go to school as ordered by the government and also because they want to be educated. I have discussed this subject at length with many friends who profess no belief in a "personal deity", and have been made to feel highly uncomfortable because of this absolutely unnecessary line, which was added relatively recently, in 1954 (see http://www.icss.com/usflag/the.pled...allegiance.html ). Is it not something to be feared, when a school, supposedly a place for learning, is made to alienate or indoctrinate students by encouraging that they profess a belief in a magical unseen being as part of the process of "learning"? I cannot even imagine the uproar that would be caused if a high-ranking member of government were to change the word to "Allah" or "Buddha" or "Vishnu". Yet we still see the propagation of this ignorant sort of action by folks who seem content to enforce their beliefs via the government, simply because they have the influence to by-pass legal provisions put into place to protect the rights of those who go to such lengths as to believe that evidence and common sense ought to be the foundation of belief.
It is further disheartening to hear the author muddling together the concepts of freedom of speech and the influence of "religious" values upon our legal codes. For one thing, the freedom of speech guarantees, to a reasonable extent, that people can say and publish what they like. And I wholeheartedly agree with the rights of religious groups to publish any literature they so choose, as well as speak in favor of their "religion". This is a blatant red herring in the context of the author's article however. The issue at hand is the entanglement of specifically religious concepts into government policy and regulations. If ethical or social concerns stemming from religious belief may compel a citizen to support legal infrastructure reflecting such beliefs, then so be it. What people like myself find objectionable is using the influence and power of the government of ALL to bolster these underlying superstitious principles, and coerce, directly or otherwise, citizens of any and all religious/non-religious backgrounds into belief, or at least an involuntary respect for those beliefs.
Yes, it is true that the government tells us how to live all the time, which is especially just when it concerns how we treat others. Laws against homicide are a simple extension of protection for individual rights. Once again, she's blurring the issues. The issue of separation of State and Church is about the implications of telling people what they can BELIEVE.
And then, we're expected to believe that religion in government actually helps?! Anything that can be done *with* a superstitious belief in an all-powerful "deity" can be done equally well, if not BETTER, without it! I'm shocked at the kind of inattention to the facts here. Do superstition-based programs *really* do a better job of helping people than programs which invoke "magic" and irrational remnants of the Dark Ages (which, need I remind, have no statistical benefits!)? Well, first of all the alternatives are far more broad than a "government hand out" (maybe she's not familiar with 'false dilemma'). The implication here seems to be that superstitions have a monopoly on compassion, commitment, care, love, etc. This is absurd in the extreme. One of my best friends, Radha Chigurupati, heads a campus chapter of Circle-K (a volunteer-based student organization) at the University of Kansas. Being raised by parents who had immigrated from India in the 70's, her life was barely touched by religion, and yet she ended up becoming a good student with many ties to volunteer organizations, in order to lend personal, non-monetary assistance to many many people. Would she be a better provider of social services if she were to start believing in goblins, ghosts, fairies...an afterlife? Of course not. In my own dealings with psychological counseling to help with ADD and occasional depression, I have found some of the most caring and friendly people one could want to know. Yet in none of my therapy sessions, through all of the tears and stress, was any mention of "God" mentioned, or needed.
What's more, even the positive benefits that might come from organizations that happen to be religious in nature, come about only through "secular" actions. If members of Habitat for Humanity, or a local church, come together to rebuild a church they are using principles of construction developed, essentially, by scientific methods of trial and error, and mathematical relationships of building plans. Yet in no way is any benefit brought about by the superstitious component of these activities. How would one, viewing two groups of people building a house, know which was atheist and which was Christian?
And it appears that hardly any consideration has been given to the negative sides of this issue. For one, who may or may not receive government funding as a religious organization? How about Satanists who plan to do "good" things with it? I guess the government will have to define what is a "good" religion and what is a "bad" religion. So how about Islamic or Jewish organizations? What about those who believe that little elves created the universe? Maybe magical worms the size of planets did it. Should the Wormists receive federal funding for their inspirational faith-based good deeds for humanity? Sounds like the government has to decide which religions are "true" and which are "false". What if Christianity is considered true? Then will we have to be taught in school that Earth is flat? And which denominations of Christianity are okay? I'm sure each denomination will have a different answer for that one, no?
The truth is that there are many cases already of misappropriations in these types of affairs. And people are being pushed around over having minority religious beliefs as well. According to a recent newsletter from the American Atheists,
Another "god pod" is operating in the Jasper Unit of the [Texas] state [prison] system.
While the Texas program is supposedly voluntary for prison inmates,
there have already been concerns raised that those who choose not to
participate encounter more difficulties in obtaining parole or fair
treatment behind prison walls.
A quick search through their web site turns up several more stories just like this one.

The author suggests that only "God" can fill a certain emptiness in people. Yet in all the religious activities so far performed, no verifiable evidence of such a being has been found! The most likely cause, based on numerous studies, shows that it is the belief itself that makes people feel less "empty"--NOT an all powerful being who sit's in the sky and observes its virtual "ant farm". Sure, the religious programs (if they are of the "right" type of religion) can give hope. Hope of an eternal afterlife that is a pernicious convolution of the human imagination. How does it really help people during their real lives, to believe in an absurd and naive fantasy afterlife that doesn't even exist? I would argue that a better kind of hope is a hope that stems from human understanding and cooperation right here on the one and only real solid Earth.
The author says that religion "humbles our leaders". Yet because of it, our country's citizens are being brainwashed by their "leader", George W. Bush--the SAME man who has unabashedly loosened environmental regulations left and right since his "Presidency" began. Is laying waste to the environment and wildlife at all becoming of a supposedly "humble" national leader who proclaims himself to be a devout Christian (which it's been asserted here, should make a leader humble)? How about the militant Islamic religious leaders all over the world, who have made terroristic threats, and advocate excessive and arcane punishments for the most benign of "blasphemic" crimes. Maybe we can see their humility in the way they treat their female citizens.
Yet two of the most notably humble "religious" leaders in history, Gandhi and the latest Dalai Lama, espouse belief systems which do not concern themselves over devout viewpoints on how the Universe came about. As the Dalai Lama puts it, "Basically, religions may be divided into two groups. One group, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and some ancient Indian traditions, I call God religions. Their fundamental faith is in a Creator. The other group of religious tradition, including Jainism, Buddhism, I usually call godless religions. They do not believe in a Creator. But, of course, God is a sense of infinite love. The religions are not so different in this understanding. But God in the sense of Creator, something absolute, that is difficult to accept." Somewhere amidst this, essentially spiritual atheist standpoint, has formed a reverence and respect for nature and humanity, that seems nowhere rivaled in the narrow confines of Western religion.
And how can we be lead to truly moral decisions, if we base our morals on what has been given to us in an ancient mythological document, on the presumption that these really are the beliefs of "God" no less? If this "God" decided to change murder to "right" instead of "wrong" tommorow, would that be okay? An atheist would surely say not! But if you just go along with whatever ethical beliefs are impressed upon you by "someone smarter", then you are copping out on your responsibility to sound judgement that is part of being an adult! But if you really want to practice the "ethics" that were taught by "God", then by all means don't be selective about them! Practice them all, indiscriminantly! http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/...eviticus+26:7-8 http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/...umbers+31:17-18 http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?Joshua+8:22-25 http://www.gospelcom.net/bible?Joshua+11:9-15
Now we're told in the article that the government can't give unconditional love. But it's not the government we're debating! The issue is government *funding* of social service organizations. The only thing that can give unconditional love, so far as science has revealed, is a socially evolved animal like a human, chimp, dolphin, dog, etc. This makes sense given the need for social bonding and group cooperation that was vital to the evolution of these types of organisms throughout "prehistory". But the thought that an all powerful, unevolved being could somehow have developed emotional interactions that just so coincidentally happen to perfectly mimic those felt by mammals sounds just a bit improbable, if not totally implausible. It's the same sort of homo-centric naivety that had our ancestors thinking that Earth was the center of the Universe. Give me a break!
The author wants for government and religion to "work together", but my first question is "WHOSE RELIGION?!" How about atheism? It's underlying premises are the foundation for all that we know in medicine and every other realm of science. What else could have a better track record? You want realistic solutions? You can use logic, or you can use superstition. Superstition has been (and is purported to still BE) the cause of some horrific "solutions" to problems like disease and 'witchcraft'. In order to obey the Biblical proscription against "bloodshed", city tribunals had sanctioned mass murder in the name of "God" to be committed against thousands, if not millions of perfectly innocent people. I'm lawyer, but I'll wager that none of them had magical powers or were in league with goblins. Consider the recounting, in Carl Sagan's