constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion

I wouldn't either, I'm just saying that God in Government is the way things are. If I were running for public office (don't worry, NOT gonna happen) I'd be wearing a cross every day... it's literally that easy to manipulate people (gee, don't I sound a little antisocial myself now?)I'm just saying I'd focus less on resisting the pull of God in Government and just go with the flow. Why tell these people what what they do is unconstitutional if it doesn't hurt you? You never know, it might even help them. Help them with giving unto caesar what is caesars, for example. (sp? Is the salad and the guy different?)And if you're caesar, I could make a case for school prayers. And imposed religion, etc. I don't think it'll come to that, but if it does... so what?That's the great thing about atheism... it's just life. And then you die, and you really don't care anymore, because you are decomposing.Which kind of makes everything pointless.and thank you, I'm looking forward to spending unhealthy amounts of time on online forums... it's been too long.

quote:

---

So if including "God" in the pledge makes people religious, and thus makes them "better" members of society, couldn't one justify this? Simply as a method of making them better members of society?

---

First you would have to show that being religious makes one a "better" member of society.Since our prisons and the boardrooms of Worldcom and Enron are full of believers, not athiests, I think there is strong evidence to suggest that being a believer or religious alone is not at all indicative of a greater concern for one's fellow human.

quote:

---

And if you're caesar, I could make a case for school prayers. And imposed religion, etc. I don't think it'll come to that, but if it does... so what?

---

Because that is a dictatorship, and I don't want to lose the freedom to worship or not as I see fit.I don't want to spend time pretending to be a Christian because it is imposed upon me by my government. It would be a lie.

quote:

---

The role of prisons is not to simply punish the prisoner; in fact, except for life sentences and the death penalty, this is never the case. The goal of prisons is to make the inmates better members of society.

---

Well, I don't want to derail this into a thread about prisons, but I agree that the role of prisons should be to make the inmates better members of society. However, here in the US the role of prisons is to punish the prisoners. And in some states, as harshly as possible.-Back to topic:

quote:

---

Couldn't you even justify forcing religion upon people if that made them better members of society? Isn't that what the government is for, after all, with all the laws and rules, isn't it to govern the society and make/help everyone fit in?

---

You are correct, the purpose of the state is to make people better members of society and to make/help everyone fit in; that is, the purpose of the state is implement and promote policies consistent with the ruling ideology that supports and protects the power and privileges of the elite over the masses.However, some of us believe that every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and this includes the individual right to determine for herself where her path to happiness leads.The problem with state enforced religion is that it, at best, forces someone else's path to happiness on the individual, and at worst it is simply a cynical means of social control.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I wouldn't say that was antisocial, just sardonically cynical. Or is that cynically sardonic? Because it does hurt me and it hurts future generations when you give up rights and liberties to satiate someone elses thirst for more {power\say}We are about to see a transition in the supreme court, not because of popular demand but because of the demands of an extremist bunch and the toadying of congress. Particularly the toadying GOP.If this comes to pass this could result in the loss of several civil rights that have been fought for and recognized by all except such extremists: womens rights in general, abortion in particular, workers rights, and many more. Be careful of what you are ignorant of eh? No. Except if you mean in physical reality ... Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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)

I will add to what holmes has said as well, seeing as the other thread is closed (temporarily) and this one is not being used and the topic has already been introduce (and discussed).The following are responses a post you made on that other thread in reply to my post that is the same as Message 24 here ... thus we have a direct link to the discussion.for the record your reply was (in two posts yet)
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America -->http://EvC Forum: DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America -->http://EvC Forum: DATELINE - Rise of Evangelism in America For starters I did not say that he was trying to "flim-flam" or "deceive people," so you can apologize for that little bit of randman falsehood (The president doing that, imh(sa)o, is "W" ... but that's a different issue).I also would not characterize Washington as "deeply" religious ...Let's start with his public display of religious behavior: In otherwords, both pastors that served the church that Washington attended say that he was only there with his wife and participated at the minimum level. Imagine how that would be regarded today ... somehow I cannot get to "deeply" religious on that evidence.Then there is his deathbed scene.Again, not the behavior that I would characterise as "deeply" religious. We also have these little bits:What I see is a person who was staunchly private about his beliefs and makes no divulgance to anyone in any record that anyone has found of what he personally believed, and who, when he did make public statements, used general terms that would be acceptable to a general public. A far cry from flim-flam deceit. Actually I posted more about them with more facts about his life than you are willing to accept and deal with.You are trying to make something out of them that just is not true. Denial is like that. To begin with you started with Christianity ... so dealing with the christianity issue comes first. That is easily dealt with:Then we move to "god in general" ... and we have this statement from that same sermon:Personally I don't see how you can get any more cut and dried than that: even the forefathers of the fundamentalists recognized that there was no hidden intent to include religion in government.Perhaps you need to reread Article VI, Section 3, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."What you fail to see is the big difference between having such a test and having a govenernment that allows the personal freedom for individuals to make statements of faith as they wish.What you fail to see is that having such a test means that you no longer have the personal freedom for individuals to make statements of faith as they wish. Excuse me while I chuckle. There is no "brand" of Deism, every Deist has his "own brand" because there is no dogma or set of beliefs involved. What I notice is that I cite historical information and you post unsubstantiated assertions of your opinions as if they were facts. Excluding your personal hyperbole and mistatement of the facts, my opinion is that Washington was Washington. He made no public statement of what his beliefs were. People of his time called him a Deist, people that knew him personally, people that knew him a whole lot better than you or I can.The fact that he was recognized as a Deist by others of his time is good enough for me, so what more evidence would you need for that?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You needn't have posted so a lengthy and colorful entry. Your argument falls down in exactly the same areas as before.Point 1: Washington was a very religious man in his political perspective, as evidenced by his words when he accepted the presidency.Point 2: The fact Washington may not have been an orthodox Christian or even a Christian, and thus did not participate in communion changes Point 1 none at all. It is completely and wholly a separate issue.If you want to discuss these points, fine. They were germane to the discussion. Whether he was a Christian or orthodox Christian are not.On the rest of your post, it seems a waste of time discussing this with you because you deny Washington made public statements after I quoted you the statements he made in his first inaugural address.If you wish to discuss reality, we can, but please don't make up stuff.This message has been edited by randman, 11-16-2005 11:54 PM

1. Actually, the fact the addresses are more personal is all the more reason why they are valid. The fact you cannot see that shows, despite repeating the same things to you ad nauseum, you still haven't a clue what my claims are.That's sad on your part that you are so wrapped up into deception you cannot listen to what another person's position is.2.On your 2nd point, I corrected myself about the 2nd address earlier. Did you not understand it or something? 3. That depends on what you mean by God and God's laws. He does, in fact, state that God protected and established the new nation, that God rules among the affairs of men. I think it's pretty clear he believes governments and nations are judged by God and that how those nations act creates either postive or negative reactions from God.As far as ecclesiastical affairs, like the vast majority of Christians, Washington believes the state should stay out of that, but that hardly means the state is not answerable to the Creator about it's own deeds and actions, nor individual leaders excused either.This message has been edited by randman, 11-17-2005 12:01 AM

I missed this in the last post so adding a new post here. Let me ask you something? Are you under the impression that anyone here or anywhere for that matter has argued that the government should involve itself in the affairs of religion?I don't know of any major figure in America today, nor of anyone here on this forum who has ever argued such a thing, and frankly wonder why you insist on beating your fists against the sky as if someone has, or secretly wants to, or anything like that. Do you guys on the Left just think there is some sinister plot to use the government to make you be a Christian or something?Washington believed in God, and clearly believed the state and the nation as a whole are answerable to the Creator. I would thus argue that all of his ethics and ideas are in light of that belief, and that everything he did as president, that he believed was right at least, was his personal religion being acted out in life. He believed God had brought the nation to that point, and that he and the nation and the government had a duty to the Creator to do the right thing, which entailed preserving the rights they fought for in the Revolution, and creating a functional, responsible government.

because clearly bare assertion outweighs evidence. -- if he was a deist. his statements make total sense if he was a deist. for instance, deists liked to refer to "the almighty" and "the creator" instead of "the lord god" and "jehovah." deist mentions of god can sound christian if you're looking for confirmation of religion, but i assure they are different.

---

אָרַח

And?Did it go right over your head that Washington being a Deist or not being a Deist is not relevant?Point 1: Washington was a very religious man in his political perspective, as evidenced by his words when he accepted the presidency.Point 2: The fact Washington may not have been an orthodox Christian or even a Christian, and thus did not participate in communion changes Point 1 none at all. It is completely and wholly a separate issue.

"god bless you"
"god rest his soul"
"god only knows"must a person be christian to invoke the word "god?" especially in a time were religious patterns of behaviour and speak were so thoroughly ingrained in society and the language? jefferson was quite anti-christian at times, yet still went to church.you want to impose a kind of modern dichotomy on this. nowadays, we have church so separated from the mainstream if we were to look back on our past and judge based solely on that, everyone would have been christian. now, only christians go to church, and we have athiests. back then, they had deists and agnostics, but atheism wasn't so popular -- and everyone went to church.and people used ideas of the divine alot, too, because it was generally assumed. this is well before darwin, so our very existance implied a creator. it's this implied creator that deism largely deals with -- and it's the implied creator mentioned in the declaration.but make no mistakes, talking about a creator does not make one a christian. it makes one a deist. now if he had talked about, i dunno, christ somewhere, maybe you'd have a cased. but as it stands, you're simply misrepresenting the state of religion 230 years ago. that doesn't make him a christian either. and frankly, most christians of the day, and today, tend to believe the opposite. they did vote on this back then, you know.but even if the statement were true, that's like saying "all apples are red. this firetruck is red. therefor it's an apple."

---

אָרַח

it does when the argument is that washington was a christian, in some regard: you even close with: yes, randman, it DOES sound like a deist to me. from his words, not your arguments.and deism v. christianity is VERY relevant. they are two different kinds of beliefs. deism tends to be quite personal, private, and withdrawn -- claiming washington's faith as "not oppressive" is kind of a no-brainer when you understand that very simple difference. christians like to talk about their faith, deists don't. christians insist they are the one true faith, deists admit they don't know and are thus much more tolerant of other faiths.

---

אָרַח

You are mixing up posts and thus the arguments. Washington believed in an active God that rules among the affairs of men, specifically causing events to be America's favor, and the evidence for this is his speech during his inaugural address.So I addressed that, and in the context of relative to ruling over the world, Washington had a fairly Christian concept of God, that was not fully consistent with what I learned of Deism, which is that God just ignores the world and lets the principles set in motion work, and thus it would be folly really to even bother praying to God.Of course, within Christianity, there is some sense as well that principles of God rule, and I also stated in that same vein that it seems likely that Washington held to a mixture of Christian or Judeo-Christian and Deist concepts, and perhaps like many of us changed somewhat over time.The important thing is not whether he was a Christian in his private life, but that he felt God should be acknowledged and credited with the formation of the nation.