constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion

Yes, and I think this is why chaplains in the army and in the Congress aren't really against the Constitution. They are there as resources for those in service away from their homes.I do worry when prayer is made a part of regular functioning, or as can be seen under Bush's reign, used as a chance to further political speech, rather than helping all involved regardless of political or religious viewpoint.I also find it a bit disturbing that while we may allow chaplains for those in service, we are now restricting resources to those of nonreligious persuasion.Then again I was never the kind of person to get bent out of shape by a prayer before a school ball game either, which does stretch the boundary (if not breaking it) to be sure.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Agreed, but I still maintain that I don't get bent out of shape over it. During a game a lot more will happen that has nothing to do with Gods.Then again, if they are going to banish Janet's nipple, screw 'em, pull the plug on prayers.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You just validated my choice for you for POTY with that. Although I still stand by my opinion that no pledge is needed, I'd be more than happy to take that pledge. In fact, I think I'll champion it from now on.Why not start a movement (send it to Congress) to get a new pledge. I don't see why it would be hated and it even sounds modern.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

In another thread you brought up Washington's inaugural addresses. I replied with several points, and you responded with just about the same thing you just posted here. It was a dodge in that I had as part of my points agreed that he did make reference to God, so pointing out that he did was meaningless.I will now reassert some of my points and add new ones...1) An Inaugural address does not set policy for the nation. It does not affect how anyone lives or suggest how the government feels they should live. Addresses are personal addresses by those who are being inaugurated as President. That you have to find language within an address indicates how hard pressed you are to find substance within Washington's presidency to support your claims.2) At first you mentioned that I should look at both his addresses. Now here you say people should only look at the first one. Could that be because the second address contains absolutely 0 references to religion and God in specific? Isn't there an important point to be made that his second address is probably the least referential to religion by any President?3) While in his first address he does mention God in a variety of flowery terms, which yes does show his personal faith, he does not use it to press any case that any particular idea of God or God's Laws should be stamped on this nation. To the contrary, as I pointed out in the other thread, he has clear language suggesting that the course of our nation is to be judged by men based on practical experiences, and individual action limited by private morality.4) You say... But that is not what he said at all. He did not say his first official act should be prayer. What he said is that GIVEN his own personal beliefs in that particular situation ("Such being the impressions under which I have... repaired to the present station"), he feels it would be improper to exclude a prayer from that act ("it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act").He is clearly saying his first official act is being sworn in as the first president of a brand new nation. He feels it would be improper to omit a prayer, and goes on to explain why he feels that way. He even ends that particular line of logic with an appeal to the feelings of others, essentially asking them to bear with him, and believes that they will agree (which would likely be true at that time) it would be a great way to kick off a nation... being thankful and asking for protection and wisdom from the guiding force of their universe.... Get it?You of course skip over what he suggests regarding what the nation should be like, his vision, which is not imposing any religious doctrines on individual or public policy, in order to skip to his end personal reflection on his beginning prayerful supplication, renewing and amplifying that prayer as a nice bookend.Thus you have taken the sauce and ignored the meat.5) You said... ... but that doesn't seem to help your case at all (even if it were true, but it is not). So his very first speech for the very first presidency of a beginning govt contained a prayer. His second contained absolutely no prayer and no reference to religion. If all that followed till now were less religious than the first, which simply included a personal prayer, then that suggests very strongly that religion has little to do with the gov't.6) I showed in the other thread that he wrote outside of that singular address more statements which substantiated that "meat" which you decided to ignore. He did not write about growing more attached to God and to specific doctrines in policy, but rather to increasing freedom of personal belief and protection for those other beliefs.If you answer none of the other points, at the very least answer what we should take from the fact that after that first address, his following address and actions taken in the govt were not related to religion, other than to distance the two in public policy?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Valid for what? Who said that presidents could not have personal faith, or express personal faith during moments of personal reflection?Your clear statement was that his address was pushing religion. If you are now going to back off that claim, then I guess there is no argument.You also suggested this was an indication that religion was accepted within the functions of govt. That it is only seen during a moment of personal reflection and he sets this as the context within that speech, is counter to your implication. If you are going to back off that as well, then there is no argument.If your entire argument has been simply to show that Washington had a faith of some kind, then there is no argument from me. He certainly had a different faith from most Xians of the day and today, but he had a faith and it was important to him. I did not see a correction, other than to say only look at the first address. I think the fact that you said look at both, and then had to correct yourself is something. It shows a lack of understanding of history on your part, no? And it shows that you were willing to draw conclusions from a single instance, rather than a body of work. It means that one cannot use faith to determine what are the right laws to impress upon the nation and individuals within the nation. While you are correct... and I have not said otherwise... that he believed God or a Godlike force has hands in the affairs of men and can allow for the success or failure of a nation, what did he clearly indicate was to be the decision making process for law? What was to be the limit of law on the individual?Once again I must point out that you look at an opening and closing personal prayer, and miss the very important content within his speech. I guess we can be thankful he didn't decide to open and end on a joke or standup comedians would be vying for courses on the importance of comedy to the formation and function of our govt. Undoubtedly Washington believed that a state would be answerable to A Creator. Not THE Creator as that would indicate some sort of relevance to your religion, which he did not share. And this is the more important point, from all the things he wrote and did it appears he would have allowed you to believe it is answerable to Your Creator, and to No Creator should someone not have believed in Creators.I'm still not sure how you miss the importance of this. He separated the personal from the public.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, you seem to have been arguing that public funds should be used to promote religion, or views of religion.You have used arguments that Congress has chaplains and that there has been prayer, as well as the fact that Washington said a prayer in one address, that the boundary between the two is illusory.If I have gotten this wrong, you may correct me. Yes there is a plan to evangelize america. That is what evangelism is, right? It's not like you can hide that from someone who has grown up within Xian communities and evangelicals in specific. The point is conversion. The point currently is to meld religion into the political arena.Even if there is not a "plot" to brainwash people into one version of Xianity, there is an effort to pose a threat to society for shifting away from mythical Xian roots, and a desire to force people to view the US and much of history from a Xian perspective, despite the errancy of that view.In short, even if not to be a Xian, to adhere to its moral laws, and react from a Xian viewpoint.Are you seriously going to deny this? Intriguingly he seemed to believe his deity had rewarded the nation for pursuing reason and rationality and expanding freedom of intellectual pursuits. That he might pursue one course and you might pursue another.That is not the evangelical view of God or what was implied by Washington's faith.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm sorry, but is this your attempt to argue this is a Xian nation? He clearly did not think God formed this nation. It was himself and others that did, and personally he thanked God for the success that had been awarded.You notice that he addressed those around essentially begging their indulgence for what he felt he had to do personally, and suggesting that those around him would feel the same. That did not indicate he thought others should, or that this was God's nation.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I already showed you where in this same speech he specifically defined morality as private in nature within this new govt.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You know I was really looking forward to see what his response was going to be to that question, but I guess it won't be coming.Interesting that they want prayer (at football games) despite the fact that it might offend others, but ban nipples because that might offend others. That would have been closer to a religious experience for me than any prayer. Indeed that before football games might increase attendance.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-18-2005 08:24 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)