Separation of church and state

From 1954 to 1956, three bills passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican president:
1954 -- The words "under God" were inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance.
1955 -- The phrase "In God We Trust" was required to be on all our coins and currency.
1956 -- The National Motto since 1782, "E Pluribus Unum", was replaced by "In God We Trust".Now, the Pledge was written in 1892 and therefore a century after the Founding. Even though its author, Francis Bellamy, was a Baptist minister (and Christian Socialist), he did not include any religious references, including our "One nation indivisible". It is truly ironic that the insertion of a blatantly religious phrase, "under God", divides our nation both in the Pledge and in real life, as the mixing of government and religion always does.And the origin of that phrase, "In God We Trust", is uncertain, with the earliest known form being found in The Star-Spangled Banner written in 1814, decades after the Founding: "In God is our trust". Laws allowing that phrase to be placed on coins and currency started appearing in 1865 and that phrase had appeared sporadically until the 1955 requirement.But the National Motto does go back to the Founding and what the Founders had decided upon has been replaced by a new upstart phrase, "In God We Trust".So, since we have a clear and unambiguous case of a founding principle having been usurped, can we count on marc to support my reactionary cause of restoring the National Motto? And there are also the reactionary causes of restoring the Pledge and our money.No, I'm not going to hold my breath. While on the face of it, those three Republican laws of the mid-1950's do fly in the face of the Establishment Clause, the courts have upheld them by instead citing historical context, deciding that the use of religious terms by government has removed from those terms all religious meaning. Which is exactly what James Madison warned against, that mixing religion with government destroys religion. Similarly, putting religious references on filthy lucre (AKA money, as in 1 Timothy 3:3) has always struck me as going against what the NT says concerning God and money. Indeed, President Theodore Roosevelt was also opposed to putting "In God We Trust" on money because he considered it sacrilegious.So I guess we can take some small comfort in knowing that those religious attempts of the mid-1950's have instead had an opposite effect.

Dwise1 raises a very important point: we poor kids that were forced by law to relearn the Pledge of Allegiance - me in the second grade, but also the kids a year or two older, who had just finished memorizing it it its original form - were so deeply scarred by the experience that we went on to become the first hippies! "Under God" led directly to free love and LSD! (Not that I ever managed to get any of the former......)Mixing state and religion is a corrupting influence.

Still cringe when I remember the day I had to recite the NEW Pledge of Allegiance and I was concentrating so hard on getting the new phrase in that I messed up all the rest. Oh the shame of it all. And Suzy was sitting in the very front row and she giggled and laughed and pointed at me.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'll be damned! Me too! But it must have been a different Suzy in front of me....

That change went in about a year before I reported to Kindergarten, so I was spared your trauma. Though I once noticed a guy sticking with the original "one nation indivisible" who then explained to his friend that he could never insert "under God" because the nuns would use their yardsticks on any kid who used the new corrupted form. That makes me wonder how much grass-roots resistence there was at the time.Though the other damage that has done has been to create an entire generation of right-wing know-nothings who think that the corrupted Pledge is the only one that has ever existed.Interesting bit of historical trivia: When the Know-Nothing Party dissolved, most of its members then joined the newly created Republican Party. Some things just never change.

Not really. The name of the game at these types of forums seems to be to discourage/stop a creationist from posting. ("oooh, that one lasted only three days before he fled", or "amazing, it took us two whole weeks to shake him down", etc) It's a science/atheist sport. I wouldn't be here if I minded - it's fun for me (in an admittedly unexplainable way) How do you keep track of it, do you have some methodological way of doing it, with....charts and graphs or something? As you know, worldviews can't be empirically kept track of. Each side has comparable gaps. Atheists can claim that they're closing theirs one by one, but in attempting that, it can cause the remaining big ones to loom larger than ever. (Origins of life, anyone?) I’m afraid it really is what we were talking about in that particular instance. We were talking about what states apply by law concerning traditional values and morals, as they are directed by their voters, either on issues, or, more commonly, the values of the representatives that they choose to elect. No, they're called foreign countries. The word state is sometimes a reference to a specific government structure, such as separation of church and state, or it can refer to a geographical division within a larger territory, such as a state within the US, or a single European country within all of the continent of Europe. But in a general conversation concerning any foreign country, it's simply not common in the US to refer to a foreign country as a "state". The CONTEXT SWITCH? Isn't it wonderful how the truth just sometimes has a tendency to just slip right out there all by its own self? Maybe the reason I was the only one who "had trouble" with it was because I was the only one it was directed to, the only one with any obligation to deal with it? Oh no, I wanna keep looking ridiculous. Please keep explaining the context switch to me, why the switch was done, and why those who it wasn’t directed to winked and nodded and didn’t say a thing about it. That isn’t what I asked. Political trends in some southern states could be secular, yet have a natural moral order that has significant religious influence, and be completely absent in several New England states. I didn't know that. But I don't think it's important to the topic of this thread. So I've learned something, but the main thing I've learned is about secularists - that is that they seem to know more about Jefferson than they do about all the other founders combined. Oh no, not at all. It's clear to me that most revisionists on this thread had no idea who Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Rufus King, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph were before I started this thread. (Actually, they probably still don't.)

Calvinism was a prominent form of Christianity during the founding of the US. John Calvin, (born in 1509);

quote:

---

always believed that governments should be chosen by the people. He described the Hebrews as extremely foolish for jettisoning their free government and replacing it with a hereditary monarchy. He also came to believe that kings and princes were bound to their people by covenant, such as those that one sees in the Old Testament.

​

In Calvin’s view, which was based on Romans 13, the governmental duties of "inferior magistrates" (government officials, such as mayor or governors, in an intermediate level between the king and the people) required them to protect the people against oppression from above. Calvinism readily adopted the Lutheran theory of resistance by such magistrates.

---

http://www.davekopel.com/religion/calvinism.htmWhether one believes in God or not, it's clear that if he exists, he gives anyone and everyone the freedom to accept or reject him. It only makes sense that he would approve of a government that does the same. Quite, quite wrong. The humanist manifestos claim a new knowledge that trumps worldviews of the past. From Humanist manifesto 2;

quote:

---

The decades ahead call for dedicated, clear-minded men and women able to marshal the will, intelligence, and cooperative skills for shaping a desirable future.

---

There are no hints anywhere within humanism, scientism, evolutionism, atheism, liberalism that the population at large will have much, if any say in deciding just who the "clear minded men and women" will be.

I don't understand why you think we would want to play that, or even how we possibly could. Short of outright banning for rules infractions, we have no way to make anybody stop posting. And if creationists find it discouraging when trained biological scientists aren't immediately convinced by the arguments the creationist heard in church last week, maybe they should take it upon themselves to educate themselves in biology before they try to stump us.And if we prevent all the creationists from posting - who do we have to talk to? I think you really need to stop and rethink this whole notion. None of us have ever said anything of the kind. The point is to try to convince creationists not drive them away in retreat. RNA world, anyone? We've got it covered, I think. No, they're called "states." Why do you think the nation's most senior diplomat is called "the Secretary of State"? Why do you think we call a foreign leader a "head of state"? Because one of the dictionary definitions of "state" is "nation."Honestly. He used the word in a definition you weren't familiar with. It wasn't a trick or a trap. You just made a mistake. Get over it, you're being ridiculous. Nobody is judging you based on the mistakes you make but on your capacity to recognize and correct them. And by the standard of what states apply by law, all 50 states are secular states, because the law of the First and Fourteenth amendments apply in all 50 states.Religion may play a large role in the life of a voter but that doesn't mean that religion plays a role in that voter's government. That's forbidden in the United States under the First Amendment, and you should be thankful that it is, because the first priority of a number of religions is eliminating the competition. Why is it that the clowns who demand the government establish a religion always assume that it's their religion that would be established? Huh? You're the only one who misunderstood. That has nothing to do with the fact that the post was directed to you. The rest of us are reading all the posts, you know, regardless of who they're to or from. Because we know more than you. We're aware of the fact that "state" is commonly used to refer to nations and their government, and you were not.There's nothing more tricky than your own ignorance going on, here. That makes no sense. The source of a putative "natural moral order" is natural moral law, not religion. Personally I don't accept such a construct, but if something has a "natural moral order" the source of that order is not religion. Christianity doesn't define natural moral law, it is defined by it (if it exists, which it doesn't.) He's by far the most influential and did the most to define the project of democracy as it exists in the United States. In a large part the US is a secular nation because Jefferson argued that it should be so.I mean I guess we could focus on John Hancock instead but aside from his huge signature, he's not remembered for an enormous amount of influence on the drafting of the US constitution.

Who says Calvinism is the correct Christianity? Are you a Calvinist?And let's take a look at Romans 13:

quote:

---

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

---

The United States was founded in rebellion. The notion that you can use Romans 13 to defend rebellion against God's appointed king is absurdly contrary to a plain reading of the text. I mean did you even look up Romans 13 before you quoted John Calvin? I don't get any sense that you did. Chalk up another instance, I guess, where the atheist knows his Bible better than the Christian. Exactly. Skepticism in human knowledge necessarily includes skepticism about the knowledge of humans in the past. Why would being old make something more right? That's nonsense.Skepticism in human tradition is part of that skepticism in human infallibility. It's people like you who will brook no skepticism in their knowledge whatsoever. I can't imagine what you think you're on about. Why would people have to elect people to be clear-minded? Either they're clear-minded or they're not. I guess you're opposed to the notion that people should be intelligent, as well; surely if secular humanists came out against cancer, you'd stand up in support of more cancer.

It's this mantra, repeated over and over in spite of the fact that it has been completely demolished, that makes so many people not trust so much of what emanates from the scientific community. Public school biology textbooks go into speculation into naturalistic origins, something we can't perceive with our senses. Not only do they speculate on them, they declare them to be fact, only that we haven't yet discovered the details of them. I recently borrowed my friend's son's biology textbook, and saw it with my own eyes. I don't need to prove it to anyone. Atheism is publicly established, that this fact is not admitted by the scientific community is yet more evidence why people have good reason to not believe much of what they say. Each side is always going to accuse the other of being one-sided, I've seen no evidence that you're anymore open minded than anyone else. But I'm sure that's very accurate that you base your conclusion on what the courts have to say. There is plenty of evidence that the courts have become more powerful than the spirit of the constitution allows them to be. I base my conclusions on what the US founding documents actually say.

Don't trust it, Marc, read the journals and see for yourself.People aren't supposed to trust scientists. Scientists don't trust other scientists. The entire community is based on the state nickname of Missouri - the "Show Me" state.The whole notion of science is that you just don't trust people, you look at their data and their methodologies to see if they did it right.If you think it went wrong somewhere, Marc, then grab the research for yourself and demonstrate that it did. That sounds like a great idea! Why don't you start by reading them?

Evidence? Evidence? Given your poor track record in this thread, you'll forgive me if I'm not particularly inclined to take your word for anything. Besides, this is a debate forum where you are expected to present your evidence. And "I've seen it but I'm not going to share it with you" doesn't count as presenting evidence. Spirit of the Constitution? Is that like the Holy Ghost? Unfortunately for you, the Constitution has been amended a couple of times since then.Actually, you base your conclusions on what you want them to say. Then, when the vast majority of people who've spent time studying and practicing law come to a different conclusion, you simply dismiss them with a wave of your hand as if calling them names means they are wrong.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

I have mostly kept out of this discussion to avoid the "piling on" problem. Others are doing a pretty good job of responding, so there's no need for me to jump in. I do want to comment on just a couple of issues. There's no need for you to reply, though of course there is nothing stopping you from replying, either. Actually, no, I haven't seen any sign of that. However, there is an effort to keep the discussions honest by pointing out factual errors and unsupported claims. Perhaps you don't get around very much. I expect that there are parts of society that don't use the word "state" when referring to other nations. However, that usage is nevertheless quite common elsewhere including in Washington, in the universities, and in the major media. There's a Department of State and a Secretary of State that deal with other nations. There's the term "statesman" which is normally applied to people at the level of national government and international relations.I'll suggest that you try to broaden your horizons, learn to recognize both uses of "state" and learn how to use context to determine which of those meanings is being used.

Just a quick "to point something out" post. They're also called states. We refer to our queen as "staatshoofd" (literally "stateshead", better translated as "head of state"). So, you see, even outside the U.S., with countries that don't have states, the word state is still used to refer to themselves, and other nations.

My understanding is that

"state" refers to a distinct and generally autonomous/independent region which is capable of determining its own laws, leadership and direction,

"country" refers to an area which is also a state, but which has no higher organisational grouping (you can't bunch countries into one group and still have that grouping called a state), but

"nation" refers to a distinct people and the boundaries between nations do not necessarily coincide with those of states/countries; nations like the British, the Californian or the Indonesian do match up with states/countries, nations like the Jewish, the Amish and the Roma don't.

​

So while states can be part of a larger state or country, countries can't.

​

This means that both usages -- referring to a country and to a part of the US -- involve the same meaning. Using it to refer to the US (and also places like Australia, although less so) confuses the matter though, because one may be referring to an individual state within the country, or to the entire state of the US, Australia, etc. I get problems like Marc's misunderstanding often, but this is due to a rather idiosyncratic use of terms, where words are given a further specific or new definition, in the US as compared to the rest of the world.