Religion in Government

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

This nation was founded in the name of God.

---

No, it wasn't. It was founded in the name of the people. Perhaps you should read the Constitution:"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."Where in there do you find anything about god?In all the Constitution, the founding document that defines our system of government and our country, religion is mentioned exactly twice. In both cases, it explicitly points out that religion is not to have anything to do with government.

quote:

---

It was and is its freedom that allows you to "not believe in God"

---

Incorrect. It is because the founding fathers knew the perils of having religion and government intertwined that they specifically and deliberately wrote the Constitution to separate the two.

quote:

---

Funny, without God you might have never had that chance to "not belive in God"

---

Did you not "not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn" until you were just told about here?You seem to think that atheists go around constantly ranting, "There is no god! There is no god!" The thing about atheism is that you really don't think about it. What is the point of wasting time cogitating over something that doesn't exist?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

All the laws of the constitution were written in the spirit of God.

---

Then why do you have a constitutional right to worship some other god? Isn't one of your god's commandments that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? Isn't that the first commandment?How can the constitution be written in the spirit of god if it violates the very first commandment of god?

quote:

---

Slavery was part of the Bible, so they didn't believe it was wrong.

---

They most certainly did! You really haven't thought this through, have you? There was a huge debate right from the Declaration of Independence through to the Constitution about what to do regarding slavery. They're talking about freedom and yet enslaving.

quote:

---

I believe God intended for there to be slaves, but not the way we know it. It was only supposed to be more like a job, not slavery.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that.You really have no idea what slavery is, do you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator writes:

quote:

---

Fortunately, our Constitutuional rights are NOT determined by majority vote in the US.

---

Sorta. The Constitution can be amended by popularly elected individuals. It's not a direct line, but it is there. If enough people want to revoke the First Amendment, then it will be revoked.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Now you are just making stuff up.

---

The Constitution is not the founding document of this country? The rules by which a president is elected are determined by something other than the Constitution? When the police arrest you, your right to a fair, speedy trial is based upon something other than the Sixth Amendment? That piece of parchment in Washington, DC is a hoax?

quote:

---

The constitution was written way after the first landing of which I speak of.

---

Indeed. But the landing of which you speak were of Britons. We're not talking about British colonies. We're talking about the founding of the United States. That happens with the ratification of the Constitution, not the landing on Plymouth Rock.Don't you think that philosophical attitudes might have changed in the intervening 160 years?

quote:

---

The constitution was written by Christians with God in their hearts

---

Incorrect. The Constitution was written by Deists and Unitarians who had an extremely different view of what god is than you do. This was the Enlightenment where the dominant paradigm was the clockwork universe. God wound it up at the beginning and let it go, never to interfere directly again.Personal web sites? CBN? Those are your sources?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. It is because the founding fathers knew the perils of having religion and government intertwined that they specifically and deliberately wrote the Constitution to separate the two.

---

​

Not true

---

Have you read the Constitution?The word "god" or any equivalent does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The word "religion" or any of its equivalents appear exactly twice...both times to specifically remove its influence from governmental action:Article VI: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 [I][B]no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.[/i][/b]Amendment I: [I][B]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[/I][/b], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.What do you think those passages mean?

quote:

---

Everywhere you look it is written:

​

ONE NATION UNDER GOD.

​

I wonder why?

---

Dwight D. Eisenhower.It wasn't because of the founding fathers, that's for sure. The original national motto was "E Pluribus Unum." On July 4, 1776, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were appointed to come up with a seal for the US. On August 10, they returned a seal with "E Pluribus Unum" on it which was rejected. Other designs over the years were also rejected until Mr. Thomson, Secretary of Congress, was asked to complete the project. He came up with the current seal of the eagle with an olive branch and arrows in its talons and a scroll declaring "E Pluribus Unum" in its beak. It was approved on June 10, 1782, first used on September 16 of that same year, and first used on coins in 1795.You will notice that that's still on the money, too.During the Civil War, Rev. M.R. Watkinson asked Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase to come up with a religious motto to put on the coins. Chase asked Pollock, Director of the Mint, to come up with suitable wording and Pollock settled on "In God We Trust."Congress then had to pass legislation since an 1837 Act of Congress had already established the text to appear on coins.But the official use of "In God We Trust" as the national motto didn't occur until 1956 in the aftermath of the McCarthy witch hunts.In fact, the insertion of god into governmental actions tended to happen right about then. "In God We Trust" became the national motto after nearly two hundred years of "E Pluribus Unum," "under god" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, and "so help me god" was added to oaths for federal judges.So once again, the reason why you see "In God We Trust" is because of Eisenhower.And do try to stop psychoanalysing me over the internet. You have never managed to get it right.If you cannot respond to an argument calling the other person "foolish" and "emotional" is not a valid response.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

All of our court rooms, and congress, and money has the words "In God we Trust".

---

None of that happened until 1956 when the Eisenhower administration and Congress made "In God We Trust" the national motto.Are you saying this country was founded in 1956?The original motto of this country, as I so painstakingly detailed for you, was "E Pluribus Unum." 1797.

quote:

---

Thats my point, that this country was founded by people who believed in God, and tried to follow his word.

---

But they didn't believe in your god.Did you know that Jefferson rewrote the Bible? He took out all the references to supernatural activity on the part of Jesus since he considered them ridiculous. Jesus was not the son of god but was simply a human being with a good philosophy.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

How can the constitution be written in the spirit of god if it violates the very first commandment of god?

---

​

Because God gave us the right to sin of we so choose.

---

That doesn't answer the question. In fact, it actually agrees with my point.If the Constitution was written in sin, then it wasn't written in the spirit of god.

quote:

---

Not all slaves were slaves by force.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Are you seriously comparing indentured servitude to slavery?

quote:

---

Some believed they had to be slaves to a particular group based on beliefs, and punishments from God.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Are you seriously saying that some of the black people in Africa willingly and deliberately decided to be packed in like sardines in order to become objects?You really have no idea what slavery is, do you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

If there was a choice to be a slave or die from starvation.

---

And what African was ever presented with that choice?You really have no idea what slavery is, do you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

you amaze me, how you got that from what I said

---

Well, you did say this: While there were other groups of people who were slaves, slavery in the US was primarily visited upon those of African descent.As I asked you in the exact same message, which you so conveniently ignored, you aren't trying to comare indentured servitude to slavery, are you?Help us out here. Say what you actually mean. You know, all that effort into eloquent prose you so disdain.

quote:

---

What does that have to do with the topic?

---

Oh, it's simply responding to comments you made. After all, you were the one who claimed that slavery was somehow benign in Message 24: So if you didn't think it was relevant, why did you bring it up?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

You think slavery is limited to Africans

---

No.Didn't you read my post? You know, the one where I asked if you were comparing indentured servitude to slavery? What do you think that might mean?

quote:

---

Any clue how slavery started in America?

---

I was the one who mentioned indentured servitude. What do you think?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

It was a response to someone who mentioned about slavery and the bible.
My comments on slavery were never pertaining to slavery in America.

---

Don't be disingenuous. The quote you were responding to was specifically about slavery in the United States: Message 11: This entire thread has been about the American system of jurisprudence and the connection between theology and legislation.For you to claim now that you weren't talking about the US, without ever making any indication that you had suddenly switched subjects, is disingenuous at best.

quote:

---

He was using the fact of slavery in America as a reason for not allowing God in the government.

---

And by your logic, then, there should still be slavery in the US because god intended for there to be slaves.

quote:

---

If God wasn't really on the hearts of our founders(like most in here are claiming), then that might explain why slavery happened?

---

Oh, please.Do you know nothing about the founding of this country? The question of slavery came up during the penning of the Declaration of Independence.While it's a dramatization, I highly recommend 1776 as a good introduction to the passions of the time and the political world that existed. The hypocracy of the North that outwardly condemned the slave trade and yet was an active participant in the entire process ("Molasses to Rum to Slaves"). It was called the Triangle Trade for a reason.

quote:

---

Either way, I don't see anything wrong with having people in our government who believe in God, or don't.

---

In and of itself, it isn't a problem.The question is whether they allow their religion to override their duty to the Constitution.Take, for example, your opposition to legal equality for gay people. That is in direct violation to the Constitutional demand for equal treatment under the law.So if you were president, would you fight for your religious values or would you fight for the Constitution?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

So we agree there are many kinds of slavery?
Including being a slave to righteousness?
Or being a slave to sin?

---

No, we don't.You are engaging in the logical error of equivocation. "Slave" meaning a person who is now an object and subject to the whims of another person is very different from "slave" meaning beholden to a concept.By this logic, football is a "religion" because people follow it fervently.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

bob_gray98 writes:

quote:

---

I believe that most of these laws are state laws (abortion and monogamy are federal) and there is nothing in the constitution which says that states can’t have an official religion.

---

Incorrect.Fourteenth Amendment: It is therefore unconstitutional for a State to establish religion. After all, what is the point of having a federal right to practice religion freely if the State can take it away?

quote:

---

So when Roy Moore put the ten commandments in the courthouse I was torn between states rights and my strong disdain for religion in government.

---

But the States do not have that right. The Fourteenth Amendment is quite clear.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Secondly, God was not responsible for slavery in the U.S.

---

But you said god wanted slaves.So why are you picking on slavery?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if you were president, would you fight for your religious values or would you fight for the Constitution?

---

​

I would fight for the constitution and what the people want. Majority rules.

---

What if what the majority wanted directly contradicted the Constitution?When Loving vs. Virginia was decided, fully 70% of the US population thought that interracial marraige was a bad thing.The SCOTUS said no, marriage is a fundamental right and the Constitution permits interracial marriage.Would you, as president, have fought for the Constitution and its declaration of equal protection under the law, including the right for people of different races to marry, or would you have fought for the "will of the people"?You seem to be arguing that if millions of people do something, that means it's the right thing.Is it never possible for most people to be wrong?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Take, for example, your opposition to legal equality for gay people. That is in direct violation to the Constitutional demand for equal treatment under the law.

---

​

Don't go bringing that in here, it is off-topic.

---

Incorrect. It is spot on. You say that you would fight for the Constitution. Well, the Constitution clearly indicates that same-sex marriage is protected and cannot be denied as the Constitution requires equal treatment under the law.And yet, you have directly stated that you would fight such a concept.So which is it? Are you fighting for the Constitution or are you fighting for your religion?You made contradictory statements. I am merely trying to get you to clarify. And if that isn't on topic, what else is?

quote:

---

It is also wrong of you to describe what I feel

---

I am not describing what you feel. You are. I am merely repeating what you said.If you didn't mean it, why did you say it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Go look up the word slave, and salvery.

---

I have.That's why I pointed out your logical error of equivocation. You confounded the meaning of "slave" as someone who is an object forced to do the bidding of another and "slave" as devotion.

quote:

---

Also try reading the bible's defination of slavery.

---

It's pretty much the same thing as American slavery: The treatment of someone who is an object forced to do the bidding of another.That's why when Jesus talks about slavery, he's talking about people and not about concepts.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

bob_gray98 writes:

quote:

---

What I still don't understand is how Texas will change this. It isn't a law that they have it is actually written into their constitution. Do they have to pass a constitutional amendment to fix this or will a simple law take care of it? Or is simply considered null and void because the ruling is against it?

---

Take a look at Colorado's Amendment 2 for an example.In the early 90s, Colorado passed a constitutional amendment that revoked all city equal protection ordinances regarding non-heterosexual sexual orientation and further went on to say that anybody who had experienced discrimination on the basis of non-heterosexual sexual orientation had no standing to take their case to court. The SCOTUS struck this down. It clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment requiring equal treatment under the law, creating non-heterosexuals as a distinct class and indicating that they are available for governmental discrimination: The amendment is, indeed, null and void.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!