Can We Govern Without God

[spiderman]

The Death penalty thread has me thinking.

With America's current move towards becoming a "secular" country, are we undermining our ability to govern and legislate?

[Ballbustah]

Are we?

Do we need God to keep us in line or is it common decency among men and women?

[BionicPatriot]

Originally posted by Ballbustah


Do we need God to keep us in line or is it common decency among men and women?

Exactly. Such a harsh issue with a simple, basic answer.

[mgoblue101415]

I am a huge advocate of separation of church and state.

I'm for taking "in god we trust" off currency. How hypocrytical was it of the founding fathers to want the separation, but then put that statement on money??

Oh, wait, that's because back when the country was founded Christianity was just about the ONLY religion. So, they had no problem throwing the word God all over the place. Plus, the only reason they wanted a separation of church and state was so that the US government wouldn't be subjected to church law, like the English thrown had been throughout the centuries. They wanted to make their own laws.

But I for one think there should be definite separation. Take that off the money, no commandments or prayer in Public schools, no Government endorsed mention of God, such as before every session in Congress. Perhaps the definition of "separation" should be shown to some of these people.

You don't need God to have values and morals and respect for your fellow humans.

Keep God in the Church and out of the Government. The US Government involves every American, not just those who believe in God.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
I am a huge advocate of separation of church and state.

I'm for taking "in god we trust" off currency. How hypocrytical was it of the founding fathers to want the separation, but then put that statement on money??

Oh, wait, that's because back when the country was founded Christianity was just about the ONLY religion. So, they had no problem throwing the word God all over the place. Plus, the only reason they wanted a separation of church and state was so that the US government wouldn't be subjected to church law, like the English thrown had been throughout the centuries. They wanted to make their own laws.

But I for one think there should be definite separation. Take that off the money, no commandments or prayer in Public schools, no Government endorsed mention of God, such as before every session in Congress. Perhaps the definition of "separation" should be shown to some of these people.

You don't need God to have values and morals and respect for your fellow humans.

Keep God in the Church and out of the Government. The US Government involves every American, not just those who believe in God.

So whatever WE as a people decide goes?

[spiderman]

I guess what I'm trying to say is if we don't need God for morals and values, then where do they come from, and how to we keep from losing them?

I think the Founding Father's saw the error in this logic and that is why, despite wanting to separate church and state, and wanting to avoid becoming another England, they saw the need to submit to a higher being.

God's laws cannot be changed.

Man's laws can.

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
So whatever WE as a people decide goes?


Yes, that's how it should be.

And yeah, I know you're probably going to bring up the death penalty thing... My response... If "We" the people make it legal, then that's law. BUT that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. One great thing about this country is that we have the right to speak out against the government, without fear of repercussion.
"We" the people elected Bush into the White House and I DEFINITELY don't agree with that.

Oh, wait, "we" the people didn't vote him in. That was the archaic, outdated, electorial college.

Anyway, yes, I agree with "a government for the people, by the people."

[spiderman]

Sorry, Mgoblue I made a comment above your post that sort of responds to what you said.

I offer this quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I think it is important that the Founding Father's note that our "unalienable rights" are endowed by their creator. Meaning that MAN can never change them.

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by spiderman
Sorry, Mgoblue I made a comment above your post that sort of responds to what you said.

I offer this quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I think it is important that the Founding Father's note that our "unalienable rights" are endowed by their creator. Meaning that MAN can never change them.


Yes, but remember...

The same people who stated, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Are the people who owned slaves.

The founding fathers spoke of their times. When religion was Christianity. When "all men" included just white men and definitely not women. Dang it, I have to get out of work and head home, but you get my general gist.

The founding fathers had the right idea, it just needs to be tweeked, which is another option they gave us down the road to be able to do. And I'm rushing and that may not make any sense, so I'll have to clarify later.

[bideau]

America and Europe was very religious at the time the Constitution was written. Every aspect of their lives revolved around their faith. Leaving God out of the equation when drawing up this document (and the Declaration) was unthinkable.

Of course, it had to be the protestant version of christianity. No Jews, Muslims or Catholics need apply.

Little trivia...have you ever noticed that most old Catholic churches in New England are on side streets? That's because they weren't allowed to build in the center of towns. They were relegated to the outer portions of the townships.

Anyways, there's no denying that religion plays a part in our society morals. But I do believe that humans are basically good. Government can function without it and in fact it has. I don't consider miscelaneous religous symbols to mean our government has endorsed any religion.

We really didn't start moving towards a secular society until the 20th century, when science was starting to disprove many misconceptions held by religious doctrine. People started questioning the things they had been told since childhood.

In the interest of disclosure, I'm an atheist, although I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools. I started questioning the existence of a higher being at a young age. I respect everyone's right to worship and believe as they choose. But I get very angry when their beliefs are forced upon me either through law, policy or evangelism.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by spiderman
I guess what I'm trying to say is if we don't need God for morals and values, then where do they come from, and how to we keep from losing them?

I think the Founding Father's saw the error in this logic and that is why, despite wanting to separate church and state, and wanting to avoid becoming another England, they saw the need to submit to a higher being.

God's laws cannot be changed.

Man's laws can.

Just a thought -- our Founding Fathers choose to put "In God We Trust" on our currency while they legislated slavery as being legal and wrote into the Constitution that blacks counted as 3/5 of a human being and that only property holding white men could vote. Thomas Jefferson wrote statutes into the Virginia Commonwealth Constitution that allowed the punishment of death for a white woman who gave birth to a black child.

My point is, the laws of God are interpreted and applied by men, and throughout the last 3,000 years, those that proclaimed to be ruling in the name of our Bible have applied those laws very differently. The laws of God have arguably been misinterpreted and misapplied by men as often as not.

The Bill of Rights and the laws and statutes of the United States are clearly defined -- they don't need people's subjective belief in God for validity.

[spiderman]

It is difficult for me to try and formulate this argument while at work, so please bear with me.

First, the comments about the founding fathers, and religion are all valid, but that's not exactly where I was going with this.

Let's look at it this way. You have 2 places. Society A states that stealing money from others is wrong. Society B states that stealing money is okay, as long as the person you steal it from is rich.

Are both places equally just? Afterall, each took a vote and their people approved each law.

Or is one place right and the other wrong? Is a law valid simply because we as a people decide it is?

I'm not even sure how I feel about this which is why I started this thread, but I'm just trying to keep this on a philosophical level, that way we can avoid any superfluous issues that may accompany this discussion.

[Ballbustah]

Every human being has his own values.
Think of it on a sliding scale.
The different aspects launched into the equation define what each person will do.
It is not a black or white answer.

Religeon has caused more wars then any other human condition.
My forefathers were forced to leave the country of thier choice, Nova Scotia, because they were Acadians. Acadians were either protestants or catholics, I forget which, and were on the other side of the ruling governments religeon.

Even today in the Middle East conflicts it is largely thought of as a holy war. We may not think of it as that. We think of it as the good guys against terrorism but the other side has a completely diferent opinion. They see us as a threat to thier religeon.

Religeon can be a very good thing but it can also be a very bad thing.

[townes]

Separation of church and state was created to support religion, not discourage it. State sponsorship of a specific religion creates an environment that stymies the growth of alternate religions.


Al Quaeda is 100% in favor of state sponsored religion.

[townes]

Originally posted by spiderman
The Death penalty thread has me thinking.

With America's current move towards becoming a "secular" country, are we undermining our ability to govern and legislate?


America has always been a secular nation, it's the Bush Administration who is trying to move it away from secularism and towards state sponsored religion.Ironically, what the "religious" right doesn't understand, is that they are trying to stifle faith, not promote it. The promotion of faith is what led the founders of this country to come here and create a system that honored the RIGHT of every individual to observe their own faith, without any government sanction or interference.

[jeepndd]

I think the modern ideology of "Separation of church and state" goes beyond the extreme and clearly was never intended by our founders. The best example of this is that "Separation of church and state" appears no where in either the Constitution nor the Bill of rights. I believe that the founders just didn't want a state sponsored church like England had. Reading any document they produced it just baffles the mind how anyone could conclude that they wanted the government to trample on the rights of all but athiests. In fact, since the Constitution expressly forbids any test of religion to hold office as the strongest possible case that the founders intended that none would be forced to practice the religion of another under our government. Like it or not, no god is atheism and it is no more right to force god out of the daily lives of our people than it is to force god into the daily lives of our people.

Our modern interpretations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights seems to fly in the face of the Founders intent. You should all try reading not only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but the Federalist Papers. I think many of you will be quite surprised at what the Founders really intended.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by jeepndd
Reading any document they produced it just baffles the mind how anyone could conclude that they wanted the government to trample on the rights of all but athiests.

Like it or not, no god is atheism and it is no more right to force god out of the daily lives of our people than it is to force god into the daily lives of our people. [/B]

Jeep, that was well written, so I'll bite. I've quoted two sentences of yours. How, in our opinion, is government now being asked "to trample on the rights of all but atheists" and how does it conceivably "force god out of the daily lives of our people".

I feel fairly certain that I can practice any far flung religion I choose in my free time. How am i wrong?

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I feel fairly certain that I can practice any far flung religion I choose in my free time. How am i wrong?
Because schools can teach children all about "our duty to Mother Earth" but kids can't even get together of their own volition on school property to discuss the Bible?

Let's put it this way: I see the Church/State issue simply as "religiously neutral." To me, that means that kids doing a Koranic study group should be treated the same as a chess club.

What the current caselaw has done is state that you don't have the right to gather and discuss certain beliefs in a public forum (by which I mean a publicly FUNDED forum, like a school). That's not neutrality.

Now, I agree with Church/State separation, but it SHOULD be noted that most of the documents of the founders that dealt with this issue were focussed on (as has been discussed) keeping the State out of the Church, not vice-versa. Now, I think that our world has changed, and we should be wary of mixing the two in either direction, but if we're going to look back to the founders, we should make sure we're reading for context.

This is why I'm against faith-based charities getting government support, actually.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Because schools can teach children all about "our duty to Mother Earth" but kids can't even get together of their own volition on school property to discuss the Bible?
support, actually.

I fail to see how it "tramples anyone's rights" for children to wait until 3 PM to have whatever kind of God festival they choose. When I was a kid, I went to Hebrew School two days a week after school. I don't see why I should have expected to do this on publicly funded property during the middle of school hours.

Injecting religion into public school is bound to be exclusionary. If you lived in Saudi Arabia and most of the kids had an Islamic ho-down before soccer games, wouldn't your child feel excluded? How about an immigrant from India (or wherever), whose child is on a high school football team in Texas where the majority of the players join in a Christian prayer before game time?

Is it really "oppressive" for people to check their religion at the door when they enter the public domain? The majority of their lives are lived outside it and they have complete freedom to practice whatever they choose.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

You know what? I don't care about kids "feeling excluded." Maybe if we didn't worry so much about always making them feel like they are part of the crowd, THEY wouldn't feel like it was the be-all and end-all, making their friends more important than their families.

And speaking for myself and many that I know, I cannot and will not check my religion at the door ANYWHERE. It quite literally IS who I am. Asking people to do that belittles their faith. Seperation means religious neutrality, period. Therefore, if kids want to get together and pray to Jesus, Satan, Allah, or Shiva, they should do so.

And in the instance you cite about Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't be upset. I'd use it as a learning experience, because kids should get used to being ostricized and belittled from time to time based on what they believe. It's called learning to make a stand and have the courage of your convictions. I HOPE my kids would feel left out in that instance, and I hope they'd know why...it goes back to what townes said, about the separation of church and state promoting religion rather than discouraging it. I agree.

Interesting how you didn't address my first point. Do you see what I'm getting at with that? The "secular" religions are not so regulated - the Earth Mother is a central figure in Druidic and Wiccan theology (such as it is). Yet children get a field day on April 22 (or whatever) to discuss their duty to Mother Earth.

More to the point of your response, though - why should anyone have to check their faith at the door? It isn't as if the kids are trying to get the school to buy them equipment or anything - they just need an empty room, or not even that.

Here's the big problem, IMO: with the religious freedom in this country, ANYTHING can be a religion. That's not a problem per se, but where it runs into problems is when you add Free Speech into the equation.
So Johnny stands up at lunch, and starts preaching about his polytheistic faith, in which the Gods play competitive mumbly-peg with galaxies, in order to see who gets to scare the mortals and give them really weird instructions. He may get taken to the principal's office, but he has free speech, no big deal.
Janie does the same thing, and starts preaching about Jesus, etc. This is a much bigger deal. Why?

That's my problem - the way this is set up, "established" faiths are put at an automatic disadvantage because they are "established."

[jeepndd]

Mark, that's a fair question but it will take a little time to compose. I will get to it as soon as I can. I will explain with examples how we have religion intolerance which has in far too many ways usurped the religious freedom that the founding fathers intended.

[dreadlord]

Believe it or not there is a difference between separation of church and state to that of the absence of church in state. You can have one without the other. The historical implication of this (since there really isn't a direct constiutional relationship) is that the founders of this country came here in order to practice their own faith. The separation of church and state came as a direct response to forcing a "national religion" which is the exact reason why people came to this country to begin with. Essentially this term is used to reinforce the notion that people are\should be allowed to practice whatever faith they want. And that includes people within the Government itself. If anything the underlying tone of this term was to ensure that the secular motions of the church was not corrupted by what is termed "the outside world".

We're not really suggesting that we don't live in a pluralistic society are we? Where the church and government view things the same way. :confused: :confused: I'd be interesting in hearing somebody substantiate this claim if that's what is being said.

[townes]

Anyone, including governmental leaders, has a right to whatever faith they believe in, what they don't have a right to do is use it as the reasoning behind policy decisions, nor does the majority when it comes to the relation of church/state. You are absolutely right that this country was founded upon the freedom to worship in whatever faith you wish to worship in, which is why state sponsored religion is in opposition to the beliefs this country is based upon.

The President can be a Sikh, a Baptist, a Jew, a Catholic, or any of a number of faith's, EVEN A NON BELIEVER:eek: :eek: :eek: , just as long as they don't use it as the basis for creating and validating policy.

This is one of those issues where "majority rule" has nothing to do with it, as the constitution was, in large part, created to protect the rights of the minorities and individuals, not to guard the rights of the majority or policymakers.

Imo the beauty of the constitution, is that it creates an environment where all should have the opportunity to prosper, and believe subsequent interpretations of that document should be based more in the spirit of the concept and not in fine print.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by townes
The President can be a Sikh, a Baptist, a Jew, a Catholic, or any of a number of faith's, EVEN A NON BELIEVER:eek: :eek: :eek: , just as long as they don't use it as the basis for creating and validating policy.
How would you plan on enforcing this? Hell, how would you plan on determining this?

[dreadlord]

Originally posted by townes
Anyone, including governmental leaders, has a right to whatever faith they believe in, what they don't have a right to do is use it as the reasoning behind policy decisions, nor does the majority when it comes to the relation of church/state. You are absolutely right that this country was founded upon the freedom to worship in whatever faith you wish to worship in, which is why state sponsored religion is in opposition to the beliefs this country is based upon.

The President can be a Sikh, a Baptist, a Jew, a Catholic, or any of a number of faith's, EVEN A NON BELIEVER:eek: :eek: :eek: , just as long as they don't use it as the basis for creating and validating policy.

This is one of those issues where "majority rule" has nothing to do with it, as the constitution was, in large part, created to protect the rights of the minorities and individuals, not to guard the rights of the majority or policymakers.

Imo the beauty of the constitution, is that it creates an environment where all should have the opportunity to prosper, and believe subsequent interpretations of that document should be based more in the spirit of the concept and not in fine print.

Ok but what's the real problem here? Are we talking about state sponsered religion or funding faith based charities? I'm under the impression that these are two distinctly different things. Are we talking about the Government funding faith based charities in general? Or the claim of funding certain faith based charities which results in the the perception of state sponsered religion? I'm not disagreeing with you per se. I'm trying to clarify 1) what we are talking about in an attempt to 2) figure out how policy is being defined by it.

[townes]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
How would you plan on enforcing this? Hell, how would you plan on determining this?


The only way i have, with my vote.

I determine it by how they act and what they say. When W says he "consults with a higher father" on matters of strength it tells me that he is weighing the voice in his head more than the voice of the only other living President to declare war on Iraq (who he incidentally didn't consult?), who just happens to be his father?


Presidents are entitled to their faith, not the right to choose ours for us.

[townes]

Originally posted by dreadlord
Ok but what's the real problem here? Are we talking about state sponsered religion or funding faith based charities? I'm under the impression that these are two distinctly different things. Are we talking about the Government funding faith based charities in general? Or the claim of funding certain faith based charities which results in the the perception of state sponsered religion? I'm not disagreeing with you per se. I'm trying to clarify 1) what we are talking about in an attempt to 2) figure out how policy is being defined by it.




I'm not opposed to government sponsorship of charities as long as they can find a way to do so in a very balanced fashion, which won't be easy.

Where government crosses the line is in suggesting that any religion has more validity or credibility than others do. Everyone has a right to worship whatever belief they wish to in this country, and insuring that we continue to adhere to that philosophy was clearly a goal of those who wrote the constitution.

We aren't a "Christian Nation" and we aren't an "Athiest nation" we are a nation where people have the right to believe in what they want, without the government weighing in on their beliefs.

It's really none of their goddamn business.

[dreadlord]

Originally posted by townes
I'm not opposed to government sponsorship of charities as long as they can find a way to do so in a very balanced fashion, which won't be easy.

Where government crosses the line is in suggesting that any religion has more validity or credibility than others do. Everyone has a right to worship whatever belief they wish to in this country, and insuring that we continue to adhere to that philosophy was clearly a goal of those who wrote the constitution.

We aren't a "Christian Nation" and we aren't an "Athiest nation" we are a nation where people have the right to believe in what they want, without the government weighing in on their beliefs.

It's really none of their goddamn business.

I won't argue with keeping the nose of the government out of my choice of religious practice(or lack of). I also won't argue the whole "In God we trust" issue either. Though I will point out that this particular issue did not originate from this administration and it's historical significance stems back to equating religious abstinence to communism. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I'm at a loss on what exactly this administration has done to cross the line suggesting that it's not acceptable to practice anything other than Christianity. It's clear that Bush (and other members of his cabinet etc) practice this religion but have they really come out and stated that every American should practice this faith :confused: :confused: :confused: If this conclusion has been brought about by funding faith based charities than I have two issues that I would like clarification on. I am under the impression that the funding for these charities are given via applications (much like grants etc). So is the lack of funding for particular religious charities based on simply not applying or preferred selction by the government? If it's the latter what information are you basing this off of?

[dreadlord]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415
I am a huge advocate of separation of church and state.

I'm for taking "in god we trust" off currency. How hypocrytical was it of the founding fathers to want the separation, but then put that statement on money??

Oh, wait, that's because back when the country was founded Christianity was just about the ONLY religion. So, they had no problem throwing the word God all over the place. Plus, the only reason they wanted a separation of church and state was so that the US government wouldn't be subjected to church law, like the English thrown had been throughout the centuries. They wanted to make their own laws.

But I for one think there should be definite separation. Take that off the money, no commandments or prayer in Public schools, no Government endorsed mention of God, such as before every session in Congress. Perhaps the definition of "separation" should be shown to some of these people.

You don't need God to have values and morals and respect for your fellow humans.

Keep God in the Church and out of the Government. The US Government involves every American, not just those who believe in God.

As I pointed out to Townes previously, the origin or separating church from and state was to secure the secular laws not the other way around. In other words, it was desinged to make sure that you could practice your own faith and believe in whatever religious governance of your choice. The notion that "In God we trust", religious practice in school and any other type of mention of God is a far cry from saying you can't practice whatever faith you want. To that end it's reasonable to challenge these religious endorsements. It's also reasonable to be upset with the government for wanting to maintain the status quo on these endorsements. What isn't reasonable is to assume the government is claiming you must practice Christianity. That simply isn't true.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Interesting how you didn't address my first point. Do you see what I'm getting at with that? The "secular" religions are not so regulated - the Earth Mother is a central figure in Druidic and Wiccan theology (such as it is). Yet children get a field day on April 22 (or whatever) to discuss their duty to Mother Earth.


I was just looking back and noticed this one. No disrepect, but the reason I didn't address this point is because I thought it was silly. I grew up in the 70's and we had pretty long elementary school units on the environment where they taught us about what had happened with DDT, acid raid, etc. Just because kids do something outside on Earth Day, are you actually claiming that they are being indoctrinated in some kind of Celtic Druidic/Wiccan rituals? How about when little kids do art activities centered around Halloween -- are you saying that is equivalent to talking about Jesus? When they make a paper mache turkey before Thanksgiving, are they being indoctrinated in the cult of the Egyptian bird God Ibis?

When I was a kid, we also had long school units focused on the dangers of smoking. Unless you're a tobacco industry lobbyist, you'd probably be o.k. with that. One of the goals of education is to raise responsible citizens. With the environment, the goal is to hopefully instill a sense of responsibility, so that when some of the kids grow up to be corporate executives, they won't entirely base their decisions on the shareholders' bottom line. Unfortunately, that would disqualify them from serving in the Bush administration.

[Tiger_69]

Without who? :confused:

I don't think the word belongs in our pledge of allegiance or on our currency so I believe that we should govern....without god.

As far as the death penalty, don't give it to the ones that want it (see Timothy McVeigh). Make them do hard time with the big boys, it's much more difficult than taking the easy way out.

[dropKickMurphy]

Originally posted by townes
The President can be a Sikh, a Baptist, a Jew, a Catholic, or any of a number of faith's, EVEN A NON BELIEVER:eek: :eek: :eek: , just as long as they don't use it as the basis for creating and validating policy.


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

The framers of the Constitution were pretty careful with the words they chose to use. Notice that the First Amendment specifically restricts Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government, in regards to passing laws regarding the establishment of religion.

There is no mention that the President can not, or should not, take his religious beliefs into account when forming and implementing his policies.

The Founding Fathers were, by and large, men with strong religious faith. They did not check their beliefs at the door when writing the documents that established our country. The Declaration of Independence states the belief that our rights are endowed by our "Creator", and that the whole reason for forming a government is to protect those rights.

I am not a religious person myself, but I do think it is generally a positive thing when a leader acts in a way that is consistent with his faith. It is a major part of who they are.....whether you're talking about George Bush or Joe Lieberman. The idea that such a person can totally ignore their religious beliefs when making important decisions is simply impossible. And it was certainly not what our Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
Just because kids do something outside on Earth Day, are you actually claiming that they are being indoctrinated in some kind of Celtic Druidic/Wiccan rituals?
No. And that's not what I said.

I object to the common phraseology "Mother Earth," particularly with respect to our "duty" to said being/concept. Tell me how that isn't a religious concept.

Add to that the more obvious difference, that this is school enforced as opposed to being not only not enforced, but actually disallowed by the school...

Look, my point isn't that the kids are being indoctrinated. The point is this: "Mother Earth" is a central figure in Druidic and Wiccan thought/teachings. Keep "her" out of school, too. Earth day is fine.

Would you think it was fine to talk about Jesus the day before Christmas break? Just because a religion isn't considered mainstream doesn't exempt it from the distinction, if this is where we're going to make that distinction.