The Separation of Church and State

[Feisty Mouse]

I pray (wink) we can keep our government separate from our church.

lol! :lol:

But seriously - me too.

 

[Brother John]

Our country's structure and the Constitution is the source of our freedom.

But I thought that the Constitution protects our freedoms, I didn't think it granted or bestowed them.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.

To my understanding, these were the foundational beliefs that our founding fathers used as a basis for the establishment of our government.

HERE is the entire "Preamble" to our constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

It establishes justice, insures tranquility, provides defense, promotes welfare and secures blessings of liberty... The source of which blessings our 'Declaration of Independance" says is God, not government.
"the law of Nature and Nature's God"

Just me thinkin.
The thought that Government is the source of our freedom or rights seems to me to be more akin to the founders of the USSR than the USA.

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

We the People of the United States .... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



​

The verb in the preamble of the Constituion is 'do'. The proper noun in the preamble is 'People' (defining the subject of the sentence, the pronoun 'We'). The People do establish the Constitution, Not God.


The purpose of the Constitution is to outline what role Government is supposed to take in the peoples lives: 'to create a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity'.

The quoatation you site from the Declaration of Independence references 'Nature's God' and 'Creator'. But by leaving out the next sentence of you miss the whole point.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


​

Governments are instutitued among Men. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. So, while Nature's God may have a hand in 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness', It plays little role in the creation of a government.

Notes:
Declaration of Independence signed : July 4, 1776
United States Constitution ratified : June 21, 1788

There is a big time difference between these to documents.

 

[Brother John]

We the People of the United States .... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
​

The verb in the preamble of the Constituion is 'do'. The proper noun in the preamble is 'People' (defining the subject of the sentence, the pronoun 'We'). The People do establish the Constitution, Not God.
The purpose of the Constitution is to outline what role Government is supposed to take in the peoples lives: 'to create a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity'.
The quoatation you site from the Declaration of Independence references 'Nature's God' and 'Creator'. But by leaving out the next sentence of you miss the whole point.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

​

Governments are instutitued among Men. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. So, while Nature's God may have a hand in 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness', It plays little role in the creation of a government.

Notes:
Declaration of Independence signed : July 4, 1776
United States Constitution ratified : June 21, 1788

There is a big time difference between these to documents.

Actually Michael, you and I are saying pretty much the same thing.
Maybe you misunderstood my point: God is the source of our "Life & liberty", the source of our 'inalienable rights', not government. Man establishes governments, democratic governments are arranged by the concent of the people.
I never said that God drafted either document, just that each acknowledge God's role. Government doesn't grant us our rights, it protects them.
That's pretty much all I was saying.

Agree???

Your Brother
John
PS: Happy Halloween

 

[michaeledward]

Yes ....

 

[shesulsa]

So, continuing, our government was set to ensure that the people of this nation are ensured their inalienable rights - not to force the hand of God upon the people (that is not government's place according to our ideals), hence the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Too bad the people are so disenfranchised today.

G

 

[Brother John]

So, continuing, our government was set to ensure that the people of this nation are ensured their inalienable rights - not to force the hand of God upon the people (that is not government's place according to our ideals), hence the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Too bad the people are so disenfranchised today.

G

Where is it that you feel that government has, in anyway, 'forced the hand of God upon the people'???
Just curious. That would be odd, and way out of line! I 110% agree that our government is by the people..
but 'the people' who originally founded our nation and drafted it's documents that act as the guide to our nation, did so on a theistic paradigm. Not essentially Christian per-say....but very theistic none the less.

Your Brother
John

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think certain actions by a small but annoying portion of our government to push through the "Christian" agendas. Definitions of marrage, special consideration for certain faiths, etc. The demand that "Under God" be included in the loyalty oath is a good example, even though that part was added less than 60 years ago, and was against the wishes of the oaths author.

 

[michaeledward]

I think certain actions by a small but annoying portion of our government to push through the "Christian" agendas. Definitions of marrage, special consideration for certain faiths, etc. The demand that "Under God" be included in the loyalty oath is a good example, even though that part was added less than 60 years ago, and was against the wishes of the oaths author.

Aren't you sleeping ?

 

[Brother John]

I think certain actions by a small but annoying portion of our government to push through the "Christian" agendas. Definitions of marrage, special consideration for certain faiths, etc. The demand that "Under God" be included in the loyalty oath

I think I see where you are coming from Kaith, but check this out:
#1: In a democratic society like ours, the governance should reflect the will of the people. (representational gov.)
#2: The majority of our country holds Judeo/Christian beliefs, weather they are practicing members of those faiths or not.

so IF the so-called "Christian agenda" represents the desires or beliefs of a majority, then they should be represented in our governmental policies.

Your Brother
John

 

[michaeledward]

I think I see where you are coming from Kaith, but check this out:
#1: In a democratic society like ours, the governance should reflect the will of the people. (representational gov.)
#2: The majority of our country holds Judeo/Christian beliefs, weather they are practicing members of those faiths or not.

so IF the so-called "Christian agenda" represents the desires or beliefs of a majority, then they should be represented in our governmental policies.

That way lies Iran. In a democratic society as ours, it is imperative that the rights of the minority are protected and respected. It is not just that a 'majority rules', but also that the minority feels protected.

All of the fighting we are seeing in Iraq right now can be plausibly explained as the Sunni Iraqis fighting because they do not believe in this idea. The Shi'ite Iraqi's outnumber the Sunni's by at least 3 to 1. There are also the Kurdish Iraqi's in the country, numbering similiar to the Sunni's. Under Saddam Husseing, and the governments for the preceeding several hundred years, the Shi'ite's have been oppressed by the Sunni's. It is not a stretch to rationalize the Sunni's are afraid of the majority. The Sunni's are not sure their rights will be protected. The Sunni's might rationalize it is better to die fighting for control than to agree to be a minority.

Dante - It is better to rule in Hell, than Serve in Heaven.

If the Judeo-Christian heritage forces me to accept their beliefs, our country is weaker.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I believe that in a nation such as ours, that government should not regulate religion. In a nation ruled by a Christian majority, under Christian laws, non-christianzx would be at a disadvantage. It is the responsibilty of our nation to live up to the intent of our founding fathers, which was to keep the 2 seperate. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the majority doesn't crush, overbear or otherwise harm the minority. (sleep deprived, so hope that makes sence.)

Michael, I took a short nap.
Have to hang out n make sure things are smooth, which they are. Think it's tea time!

 

[Brother John]

That way lies Iran.

My point wasn't that the rules & laws & policies should be crafted in the mold of any religion, but by the will of the people...
thus if the majority of the 'will' has it that say, marriage shouldn't be redefined to meet the desires of the gay members of our society... then that's what sticks.

In Iran the rules come directly from their religion. In our country it comes from the will of the people... and if those people are predominantly Judeo-Christian (which our country is) then it will reflect that. That's all I'm saying. It's not that anyone needs to be forced to "believe" anything from a religion that is not their own...that doesn't even enter into this subject, I feel. Just that the norms and trends of our society reflect the general concensus of the majority. Not that others rights are denied them. They are 'protected' too. But the minority doesn't have the right to redefine social norms for the country. (as in the case of gay marriage)

No one is forcing you or the rest of the American public to accept anything from another religion. Besides, history proves that an impossibility. Belief can not be mandated.

Your Brother
John

 

[Bob Hubbard]

No one is forcing you or the rest of the American public to accept anything from another religion. Besides, history proves that an impossibility. Belief can not be mandated.

But it can be legistlated. Why should an Athiest (sp) be forced to say "Under God" when they don't believe in it? Kids have been punished, humiliated, etc over that little bit of stupidity.

Why should we write into law an "Anti-Gay" piece of "law" like Dubya proposed? My faith has no problems with 2 individuals who care about each other joining and being given all the rights, protections and responsibilities of their union. May pagan faiths have actively performed "gay" marriages for centuries. Some Islamic branches allow for upto 4 wives (provided you can properly care for them). GWB's push for his "protection of marrage" bit was based on -his- religious beliefs.

I could go on...but, i'm pooped. Religion and Politics should not mix, don't mix well, etc.

 

[Brother John]

I believe that in a nation such as ours, that government should not regulate religion. In a nation ruled by a Christian majority, under Christian laws, non-christianzx would be at a disadvantage. It is the responsibilty of our nation to live up to the intent of our founding fathers, which was to keep the 2 seperate. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the majority doesn't crush, overbear or otherwise harm the minority. (sleep deprived, so hope that makes sence.)

Michael, I took a short nap.
Have to hang out n make sure things are smooth, which they are. Think it's tea time!

Kaith, our govt. doesn't regulate religion. Our laws are not 'christian', they are a concensus of the will of the people and are regulated by the constitution. Our society our rules and our constitution are secular in nature and intent. Nothing is going to change that and no one is trying to change that.
What would non-christians be at a disadavantage for? Disadvantaged for what?

It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the majority doesn't crush, overbear or otherwise harm the minority.

Very true.

Your Brother
John

 

[Flatlander]

Shall I spin this discussion off into a "separation of church and state" thread? I find it to be generally unrelated to the intended topic.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Dan - Probably a good idea. You're the man.

 

[Flatlander]

Done. :asian:


Enjoy!

 

[Flatlander]

Something that will not add to the separation of church and state is HR 235, which is, the best of my knowledge, currently before the House Ways and Means commitee.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Where is it that you feel that government has, in anyway, 'forced the hand of God upon the people'???

I cite instances in the past (which have been overturned in some instances), as well as in the present...both at the state and federal level:

Endorsement and overt support of "faith based initiatives".

Congressional action inserting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was a secular pledge for over fifty years.

Legislation that would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill certain prescriptions. (Birth control pills, aborticants, etc.)

Atheists at one time were not allowed to hold public office in some states. The last state to repeal the restriction was South Carolina in 1997.

Two words: Scopes Trial.

The last I checked, two states included disclaimers in their textbooks that evolution is "theory not fact", (Alabama and Nebraska), and Oklahoma biology textbooks had a disclaimer saying, "human life was created by one God of the universe".

Personal experience: While attending 4th grade in Biloxi, Mississippi I was compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer every morning or face going to the principal's office for a spanking with a ping pong paddle.

The Comstock Act. (Look it up)

Forbidding women, both married and single, access to birth control.

Forbidding women access to health care literature concerning feminine hygiene and birth control.

Forbidding consensual sexual relations between adults.

Forbidding alcohol sales and consumption.

Restriction of stem cell research.

And then there is that Ten Commandments thing.




Hows that for starters?


Regards,


Steve