For crying out loud the Constitution gave recognition to God

Where does it mention God, specifically, in the Constitution?

IG

I find that the people who normally preach the hardest for government to lay off letting them put the ten commandments in court houses, etc., are the people who would make the biggest stink if the roles were reversed with another religion. I used to challenge people who wanted their kids' teachers to lead them in prayer how they'd feel next year when their child had a Hindu teacher.

I take a middle-of-the-road view. I don't like having the ten commandments in government owned buildings, I don't think it should be on money or in the pledge, or in any government act. That said, I think Democracy is of the most importance, and if people feel differently than me, they ought to have their due representation.

I would just urge people to reflect seriously on what they'd feel if the roles were reversed. If your child came home from school saying they'd been taking part in Hindu rituals, or if your money had "In the Prophet We Trust" on it, you might have an inkling of what non-Christians feel when they deal with this. You might even decide that government taking a neutral tone is in your interest, given you might not always be in the majority.

The constitution says that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


While this may not seem like much, the Supreme Court has decided in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) that:


""The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. 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.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.


When the Supreme Court rules something, its ruling is law, and can only be reversed by an amendment. So while it is not in the constitution, a Seperation of Church an State does in fact exist in this country. It appears James Dobson needs to check up on his history.

"Separation of church and state."

To successfully separate the church and state, we would need all of our politicians to be atheist. "Church," i.e. faith/religion, is as much of politics as a football is in the NFL. I mean, just looking at the Supreme Court, 56% is Roman Catholic. Congress itself has a large christian representation.

If we look at it, in that they (founding fathers) wanted to make sure it didnt become like England, where the church "advised" politics - still, you would need the same thing

Link

"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."

How did they define state and federal government?


The way I look at it is that those who essentially are against religion, really need to deal with it. Stomping their feet, whining and moaning simply will not work. Because it is deeply rooted in our nation, and it, and religious folks, are not going to go down without a fight. It will just create il will, and discord.

I suggest compromise. How, i don't know. ~L

To successfully separate the church and state, we would need all of our politicians to be atheist

Not necessarily so. I believe the founding fathers wanted each public servant to be influenced or ruled by their personal religious convictions. They just did not want another person to be ruled my your beliefs. If a senator is raised Catholic, it is only logical that thier decisions would be influence by that belief, but that does not give him the right to pass a law that infringes on the Jewish fait or lifestyle of another person.

IG

Not necessarily so. I believe the founding fathers wanted each public servant to be influenced or ruled by their personal religious convictions. They just did not want another person to be ruled my your beliefs. If a senator is raised Catholic, it is only logical that thier decisions would be influence by that belief, but that does not give him the right to pass a law that infringes on the Jewish fait or lifestyle of another person.

Well, that conflicts with those they represent. I mean, just because the voters want the politician to do one thing, doesnt mean that all of the voters do. i.e voting no, nay, etc...

I didn't know it wasn't in some of the original documents of our country.

Guess another supreme court could change it then couldn't they?

edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/

Baker has a good point.  But then I would say that Not establishing a religion is not the same as preventing people from practiciing theirs.  SCOTUS thinks otherwise.  There is nothing in the constitution that says our leaders cannot practice their religion, only that they cannot enforce it on us.  But today, the ACLU has decided it is the same.

No it is not. We elect our leaders.  But they are supposed to be us, and in that, they have their beliefs.  Minnesota just elected a Muslim.  Must we now prevent him from doing his thrice daily obligation to Mecca as that is forcing his religion on us?

Given that scenario (and I am glad he was elected), the ACLU must say no way.  I say butt out clowns!  He is not converting me, just professing his own beliefs!

Reply By: Ahmadinejad(Anonymous User)

From America:

Buzz off.

Just a comment on the Ten Commandments in public places. Do you know how they got there? In most cases, it was not via a public or governmental agency. It was by way of the movie industry.

"DeMille’s The Ten Commandments came to movie theaters and drive-ins in 1956. To help with promotion, DeMille got behind an idea to place etched granite slabs of the commandments in parks, state-capital lawns, and courthouses around the country. Counts vary, but it’s estimated that “4,000 Ten Commandment monuments are displayed in U.S. cities."

Source: Link

We have already covered the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was cited. James Madison, the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights also wrote, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Further documentation can be found in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison. So Dobson is clearly wrong in his assertion.

There are many places that do not practice separation of Church and State. Iran comes to mind right off the bat.

Suck my dick, you cock sucker.

That's rather homoerotic, Dr Guy. I'm not sure the church would approve.

Uh, is that you doc? I would think you would look at who the author of this article is and have a little more respect. We get a little 'blue' from time to time, but I've always been kind of proud that we find the level of the room when we visit other people's blogs. I wouldn't expect KFC of all people to appreciate that level of discourse.

I wouldn't expect KFC of all people to appreciate that level of discourse.

You are right.  My appologies to KFC, and to the rest of JU.

Dr. Guy, my level of respect for you, already high, has just soared.

You sir, are a real mensch.