Does the inscription “In God We Trust”, when on the front of a government building a church-state separation? Is it right to have such an inscription on a gov.building? Is it right to restrict it?
It’s on U.S. money(since 1865), It’s even the national motto(since 1956), it’s above the speaker’s chair in the House of Representatives, and above the main door of the Senate chamber… but is it right? The earliest mention of ‘God’ in Govt. is in 1865, 76 years after the constitution took effect. But is there a definite church-state separation? Should there be?
Just wanting to know your opinions. Feel free to voice yours even if you’re from outside the US.
I just want to make sure that everyone knew that there is no provision in the Constitution that sets up a separation of church and state. The only mention is that the state (government) cannot establish a state sponsored religion.
The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.
I see no problem with religious people or religions being involved with government.
The question of church-state separation is not about relgious people being involved with government, but whether the state should be using its considerable coercive powers to endorse religion, or back a particular side in sectarian disputes.
Yes, there is a such a provision, it is the first amendment. And it does apply to the states. The wall of separation is real.
You may not agree with how the fourteenth amendment is interpreted, but I do agree with it, and I support it.
I see no problem with religious people or religions being involved with government.
The wall of separation does not prevent “religious people” from being involved in the government – you will recall that 80 to 90 percent of Americans are religious. The wall of separation prevents governments from making particular religious confessions a matter of state policy.
Nowadays there are a lot of clowns running around trying to perpetuate some kind of myth that the founding fathers were all evangelical Christians who wanted an established church – it’s hogwash. These clowns are also trying to pervert and twist the meaning of “wall of separation” to make it sound like some kind of persecution policy against Christians. This is beyond false, it’s a big fat lie. Hiding behind this lie is a political agenda whose goal is to establish one particular kind of Christianity as the official state religion.
The founding fathers meant what they wrote. They were suspicious of mixing religious authority with government authority. Many people who came to the US were escaping from European kingdoms with established Christian churches, which persecuted them for their religious beliefs. (Yes, Christians persecute other Christians.) The establishment clause attempts to prevent this persecution from happening.
Religious freedom is a good thing. I do not support eliminating it.
Back to the original question, I really don’t care one way or the other about the use of this phrase “in god we trust.” It’s so generic that I can’t see how it constitutes an endorsement of any particular sect. On the other hand, I don’t see why some folks insist on using the phrase. I think debates about the use of this phrase are a big waste of time.
The wall is real only in that it has been established by activist judges. The intent of the founders was not to impede religious freedoms in any way, just to stop the state from endorsing / sponsoring one over another.
I wish it was a lie but the truth is that the only legal form of discrimination in this country is that of christians and christianity.
I agree completely but we obviously have a diference of opinion on the implementation of this.
Well, if that were true, they would have added a clause protecting the “free exercise of religion.”
Oh, wait, they did do that. How come we never hear about that in the news?
From where do you get this information? Take a look at these documents from the Library of Congress:
Thanksgiving Proclamation - Where, in 1777 (predating the Constitution) “Congress” (the predecessor of our Congress) makes this proclamation which includes phrases like “superintending Providence of Almighty GOD to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to Him…”
Sermon of the Second Coming of Christ - Delivered to both houses of Congress in 1804, after both the Constitution (1787) and the Bill of Rights (1789).
There are countless examples of ‘God’ being mentioned in government, especially during these earlier periods of our history.
About the poll: The poll itself seems vague, and there are several questions which begin the first post. Does a “yes” vote mean “yes, it’s ok” or “yes, it violates the establishment clause?”
I have to say, one of the more puzzling trends in contemporary American society is this mad rush to embrace victimhood. One can hardly walk a block without encountering someone who claims the whole of society is against him. And this:
is repeated endlessly, but substitute “christians” for, well, nearly everything. I’d guess half the country is part of some group against whom the nation has turned the entirety of its remaining urges to discriminate.
I confess to some difficulty matching this exclusive claim to victimhood to any reality I’m familiar with. Let’s take a quick look at some US state constitutions, shall we?
Texas, Article 1, Section 4: RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Maryland, Article 37: That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
So, no atheists, but I wasn’t able to identify the sections discriminating against Christians. Perhaps you could cite them for me, Rhuiden? In any case, this presents some challenge to your assertion of exclusive victimhood in terms of legal discrimination, and anyone else prepared to say something similar.
Democritus, with all due respect, your post seems somewhat self-contradictory. You state the “founding fathers meant what they wrote,” but they did not write the 14th Amendment, that came almost 100 years later. They wrote that “Congress shall make no law…” If they meant what they wrote, then clearly they did not intend for this phrase to apply to the states.
As far as you statement that they didn’t want established religions, it would seem difficult to defend given that at the time many of the states did have established religions, or other religious tests as in annis’ post above, and the wording of the 1st Amendment would specifically protect these state laws by preventing Congress from interfering with them.
First, I did not say persecuted, I said discriminated. I do not claim that Christians in our country face persectution. What we face in the US does not come close to persecution–but in other countries around the world, christians are certainly being persecuted for their faith…but that is another topic.
I agree with you on this and it is sad to say the christians are not immune to this problem.
As far as some examples of how christians are discriminated against today in our country, here are just a few:
The military is currently trying to stop its own chaplains from sharing their faith and telling them they cannot pray in the name of Jesus.
There are groups, such as the ACLU, who are trying to stop the display of any christian reference our symbol in any public place. In a neighoring town, atheists tried to get the Ten Commandments removed from the courthouse. It had been there for many years. Here is a link to a story about an atheist trying to get “IN GOD WE TRUST” removed from our money: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22107
It is becoming harder for christians to even talk about their faith at work. Employers are afraid of being sued by someone backed by one of the groups like the ACLU. At the same time, employers are required to make accomodations for employees for all kinds of others things.
Pastors are not allowed to make political statements to their members from the pulpit for fear of the government coming down on them.
The teachers in our public school systems are not allowed to discuss God even if it is brought up by a student.
Creationism and Itelligent Design cannot yet be taught in our public school system even though there is as much or more evidence for these theories and the theory of evolution.
I am sure that others can add many things to this list. My only point is that the only group that can legally be discriminated against in the US is christians. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
This is a very telling list you’ve given us. You’ve set the bar for discrimination a good deal lower than I do. Let me pick out two.
Pastors are not allowed to make political statements to their members from the pulpit for fear of the government coming down on them.
I actually agree with you on this, at least to the degree that some clarity in the law is necessary here. Pastors both for and against the war have had their IRS status threatened by partisan zealots who disagreed with them. Political organizations don’t get to be tax-exempt, but it’s obvious political questions are ethical questions, and it’s to be expected that pastors will sometimes touch on these. I have no idea what the best way to deal with this is.
Creationism and Itelligent Design cannot yet be taught in our public school system even though there is as much or more evidence for these theories and the theory of evolution.
This, however, is most telling. You present this as a Christian issue. It is not. Of the people in the U.S. who accept the evidence for evolution, by far the majority are Christian. To expect schools to teach intelligent design creationism is a direct challenge to the first amendment, buy making the scools - supported by the state - into a platform for preaching a particular variety of Christianity. Several other items on your list are similar, defining discrimination as not being allowed to use state-granted powers and funds to preach.
My only point is that the only group that can legally be discriminated against in the US is christians. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
And my point remains: this is immoral hyperbole, trivializing the entire issue of discrimination.
Personally…I’ll take discrimination over persecution any day.
My old pastor goes to Papua New Guinea every year to meet with missionaries. One of the small landing strips in jungle had three good sized bumps at the end of it. When he asked one of the natives (through a translator) what those three bumps were he replied “the remains of the first three missionaries that came here.” They were a cannabalistic tribe. As a tribe they had slaughtered and eaten the first three missionaries that had come there. The gentleman my pastor asked had actually been present for the meals! Needless to say they gave the 4th one a chance to talk!
Jesus tells us we should expect suffering, persecution, and hardship. Sounds to me like he knew what he was talking about.
Discrimination is part of life (unfortunately) I guess it’s all a matter of (μεν) whether or not you are going to allow yourself to feel like a victim, or (δε) rising above the percieved insult or injury and moving on with life.
I’m sure that this is not true. Do you have any statistics for us? How many chaplains have been sent home? Have all the Christian chaplains been replaced with muslim chaplains, or pagan chaplains? If what you say were literally true, then why would the military even have chaplains in the first place? What would they actually do?
If anything, the opposite is true. Some chaplains of a certain political and theological ilk have become more aggressive in their activities, in spite of complaints from Christian soldiers and non-Christian soldiers who do not share the chaplains’ religious and political views.
Some people think that “freedom” means the right to bully and discriminate against non-evangelicals.
Did it occur to you that many members of the ACLU are themselves Christians? There are plenty of Christians who do not want the ten commandments to be used in this way.
Did it ever occur to you that some of the people who don’t want to hear your religious talk, are themselves Christians? And that they are just tired of debating religious issues with you? That they already have some kind of faith, thank you very much, and are tired of being accused of atheism or worse, because they don’t accept the evangelical interpretation of the Bible?
And that maybe part of the reason religious discussions are avioded at work is just to keep the peace… the peace between Christians? Ever hear of the old saying “no politics or religion at the supper table”?
Religous groups can also sue. Employers can and do get sued for religious discrimination.
Pastors make political statements all the time. I’ve seen it myself. Lately it’s gotten worse, they have been falling all over themselves trying to get their flocks to vote Republican. It’s silly.
It’s not just churches – all tax-exempt groups have restrictions on the sorts of political activities they can engage in, theoretically. But anyone can say anything they want, as long as they pay taxes. There are no restrictions on political speech.
If the teachers could discuss God, they may not say the things that you want them to say. What makes you think their religious notions would be similar to yours? Perhaps their Christian views are quite different. Who would determine what sorts of religious ideas could be discussed in public school? Who would police it?
Do you want your kids to get religious instruction from a public schoolteacher whose understanding of the gospels differs sharply from yours? Do you want your tax money to pay the teachers who are trying to convert your kids to another faith?
First, you are factually incorrect, there is no evidence that supports the dogma of intelligent design, while there is far, far more evidence for evolution. It’s abundantly clear that evolution is part of God’s creation.
Second, you are wrong to present this issue as a “Christian” issue, because the majority of Christians reject creationism. Most Christians see no conflict between Darwin’s ideas and the Bible.
In many districts, the school boards try to require science teachers to mention creationism in science class – over the objections of teachers themselves. What’s happening here is that an extremely aggressive religious sect is using politics to force its own religious views into science classrooms, and is encountering resistance from Christians and others who do not share this sect’s dogmas. The truth is, creationists do not like freedom of religion. They want freedom of religion only for creationists, but not for anyone else.
Why should Christians who reject creationism (a religious idea) allow school boards to require that creationism be taught – in science class? Of course they will fight against this. Why shouldn’t all people have religious freedom? Is freedom just for creationists?
This is factually false, organizations can be sued for religious discrimination. There are all kinds of laws about this.
I have recieved almost all of my formal education in the public school system, and I think statement #5 is a gross exaggeration. There is an English class at my school where they read and study the Bible, not because they wish to impose Christianity/Judaism on anybody, but because it is an extremely important part of world literature, and this is well understood by the school administration, students, and parents. Religion is discussed a lot in my history classes since history frequently doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if you omit religion. I cannot think of any discussions where the nature of God was directly addressed, but that doesn’t mean there weren’t any. However, if I raised my hand in European History class and asked “What is God?” I would be hushed because we need to discuss the reign of Louis XIV and don’t have time to spare to discussing God. It would be the same as if I asked “Are cats better than dogs?”. Discussions of directly addressing God belong in a theology class, and public schools should leave it to the family to teach theology. However, mentioning God is certainly not forbidden, anymore than mentioning Brahma or Izanami is forbidden.
What teachers cannot do is say “If you don’t say that Poseidon causes the tides in your physics exam, I will mark you down,” since that would clearly be indoctrination. Note that Poseidon is not a Christian god.
As to point #6 … intelligent design is not science. Evolution is. Science consists of finding out what the world is and how it works through tests. I can have a theory that gravity will pull any object I have in my hand to the ground once I let go. If that is so, that means that when I let go of a ball in my hand it will fall to the ground. I can test that theory by holding a ball and letting go of it. If it falls to the ground, then that is evidence that my theory is correct. Let’s say it falls to the ground. I then can try the same experiment on a helium balloon. Let’s say it goes up to the ceiling. Therefore I have to rethink my theory.
The theory of evolution is very complex, so it requires many different kinds of tests, but it can be and has been tested many times. Therefore it belongs in the realm of science. Most recently it has been supported by genetics. But how can you test whether intelligent design is true through the scientific method? If it cannot be tested, it cannot be science. After all, God might have instituted evolution as one of his tools, and if that’s the case then both intelligent design and evolution are correct. But you cannot test scientifically that the intelligent design part is correct.
Not teaching intelligent design is not a rejection of Christianity; it is on the basis that it is not science. Besides, intelligent design is not espoused solely by certain sects of Christianity and Judaism. I have seen a Hare Krishna booth which was discrediting evolution with something which, though they called it by a different name, was practically the same as intelligent design.
I think, Rhuiden, that what you are talking about is not “discrimination” against Christians, but against the use of public institutions for religious indoctrination.
If enough Hare Krishnas moved to your little town in Texas to become the majority and won the elections for major, sheriff, judge, school board superintendent, etc., I don’t think you’d be too happy if your son came back from school singing “Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare”; or if he was taught “Krishna Creationism”; or if on Krishna Day the major spent 5 Grand of public money decorating the public parks with images of naked women with 10 arms; or if the Sheriff and the Judge sermoned the misbehaving drunks about Krishna to set them straight; or if you found a statue of Krishna at the entrance to the hoosegow; hell, you might even call the ACLU yourself!
EDIT: Change Texas for Tennessee, sorry. Didn’t you say a few months ago that you lived in Texas, by some creek?
I do not believe this to be true, I have never seen a study or survey that says anything like this.
This is not what I am advocating but I am saying that christians should not be limited any more than any other groups when it comes to these “state-granted powers and funds”.
I am afraid it is true. I have heard the news reports on the radio and seen stories on Drudge recently.
I do not accuse anyone of anything when I discuss God with them. If they feel that way then possibly it is the Holy Spirit convicting them. I am very careful to try not personally attack/tear down someone. All that would do is end any chance I have of sharing my faith with them. I am also very sensitive to those I speak with and stop when it is obvious they want me to.
By the way, my two favorite topics to discuss are religion and politics – as many of you know. It drives my wife crazy. But these are topics that people will tell you what they really think if you can get them to talk.
The local people through the local school board should control these issues. Not politicians in the state capitals or in Washington.
It is not abudantly clear that evolution is part of God’s creation. In fact, why would a perfect God, who can not do anything that is not perfect, use such an imperfect method as evolution. It is completely inconsistent with the character of God.
While it is true that theistic evolution is gaining popularity today, I think it is far from accepted by a majority of christians. Also, you are incorrect about the majority of christian rejecting creationism. I did hear recently that the vatican has come out and said that there is no conflict between the story of creation found in Genesis and Darwin’s evolution - I have to think this was politically motivated, an attempt to stop in-fighting between members.
By your definition, evolution is not science either. It cannot be verified through testing either. In fact, only micro-evolution (survival of the fittest or changes within kinds) has every been observed. No other form of evolution can be verified through testing. So why is it taught in science class?
What testing? When was something changed from one kind to another kind? How does genetics play into this? If we have a dog that “evolves”, what is it after it “evolves”? It is still a dog (same kind). It may have slightly different characteristics but it is still a dog.
No, this is not what I am saying, I just want christians to be free to do the same things other groups do. Noone has to listen but we should be free to speak.
I have never lived in Texas, but I did have a post some time back where I described the valley I live in and we do have a river here.
Part of the confusion arises from the media interchanging the terms “evolution” and “natural selection.” To a scientist in the field, these terms are quite distinct. “Evolution” actually refers to any change in the frequency of genetic traits, regardless of cause, and without any sense of “direction” or “complexity.” If there are more individuals with genes for red hair today than there were 20 years ago, that is evolution.
“Natural selection” refers to a specific subset of evolution that occurs under certain circumstances (limited resources for which there is competition, and heritible traits which offer one or more survival advantages). Over time, natural selection can lead to increases in the frequency of those genetic traits that offer a survival advantage. There are countless examples of this type of natural selection (e.g., the prevalence of thalassemia, a genetic blood disorder that causes a severe anemia but which paradoxically offers a survival advantage against malaria).
Neither evolution nor natural selection, as defined above, are difficult to prove. Neither would be contested by even the most fundamentalist Christian. The controversy for some arises from the next step, that is, that the process of natural selection led to the creation of the different species. While I personally believe this to be the case, I will admit that the evidence here is more circumstantial. I’m not sure how one could prove that (1) natural selection can lead to the creation of new species and (2) in the past, it in fact did lead to the creation of the species we have in the world today.
(By the way, a species is defined by the ability to mate and produce fertile offspring, so it is relatively easy to determine if two groups of animals are the same species or not. Thus one could test if that ‘dog’ were, in fact, still a dog or not – though it would be better if there were a larger group of these ‘dogs’ to get a more accurate test.)
