At the same time that there is a general call for separation of church and state, the majority of the nation seems to think they are tied together - and quite a bit.
First, there was a big stink over Obama and the rumor that he was Muslim. God forbid we have anyone but a born-and-raised Episcopal or Presbyterian. (Oh wait, did I just say God? Is that allowed?) He may belong to a different, Africa-worshiping church, but he’s still Christian, not Muslim. He is, however, very liberal, and do we want someone who considers babies “punishment”? (He was quoted as saying, "I've got two daughters - 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby…”)
And what about Clinton? She’s supposedly Methodist, but it must be some weird church, because Conservative Methodists are against abortion and gay marriage. She, however, is going to a liberal church that accepts gay people and is pro-choice. Supposedly, though, the denomination as a whole opposes both. So, is she really Methodist, or merely affiliating herself in hopes of gaining at least some Christian votes?
Then there’s McCain. He is Episcopalian. What the heck is that? According to Christianity.about.com, it is a church that is the American version of the Anglican church. It bans same-sex marriage and is both pro-life and pro-choice, as they believe a baby has rights as soon as it is conceived, yet they respect women’s rights. The only problem is - how do we know what McCain believes? He has kept religion hush-hush in his campaigning, so where does that leave him? He does say that he wants to keep the Republican platform on gay marriage as is, but he doesn’t reveal what he believes. Back in 2007, he was calling for the Republican party to back off the platform of pro-life, but now he is saying he does not wish to “soften” the platform anymore. Is he someone who will go against his platform after he is put into office if he is elected, or did he honestly have a change of heart? With him struggling to win over right-wing Republicans, the answer isn’t clear.
I find myself again struggling with deciding who is the lesser of evils. This shouldn’t be something I should be doing. I should approve of one candidate. But all of them seem to have things I don’t agree with, things that are really deal-breakers. So, should I not vote and make my disapproval known? Or should I vote for whomever I dislike the least? Decisions, decisions.
Church and state were never meant to be separated. Thomas Jefferson meant that the state would never impose a religion on the nation, which they haven't. We can't help that America was founded on Christian PRINCIPLES, and therefore reflects Christianity.
America was founded on democratic principles, which originated in Ancient Greece and then Rome, long before Christianity even existed.
And, here's a lovely Jefferson quote for you.
Think about it, how could a law be passed with religious purposes that does not respect the establishment of religion. It isn't possible. If, for instance, homosexuality was outlawed (which is only called by religions), then that law would be because of religious establishments. That is why a law must have a legitimate secular purpose.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
...that contradicts these historically inaccurate claims concerning the intentions of our founding fathers regarding the separation of church and state...
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." ~ Thomas Jefferson (From his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, itself being the basis of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment).
This statement clearly indicates that our founders were fully aware of the need to protect the relgious freedomes of ALL of our citizens, and not just the christian ones. Likewise, we know that Madison (the Father of the Constitution, and the other founder who along with Jefferson was the primary author of the First Amendment) greatly feared what he called the "encroachment of Ecclesiastical Bodies" into the body of our government...
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" ~ James Madison (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
But even more directly to the point, we have James Madison's own explicit description of what he meant when he began to draft the prohibition against religious establishments that eventually became the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. From the Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731...
"Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to wroship God in any manner contrary to their conscience...He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
Frankly, the suggestion that the United States was predicated upon a complete and total separation (in BOTH directions) of the realms of religion and government is wholly false, and one that is unfortuately perpetrated by a movement of religiously motivated revisionism that relies primarily on the historical ignorance of many modern christians.
TTFN,
Blackout
"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." ~ Treaty of Tripoli (1797)
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Could you clarify the last paragraph?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
...but would you be more specific? What is it, exactly, that you found unclear?
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
It seems to be suggesting that there isn't a separation of church and state, but religious groups are saying that there is. I assume that I'm misreading it, but I don't see what I'm misreading.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Well, that was a silly typo. Here, let me try that AGAIN...
"Frankly, the suggestion that the United States was NOT predicated upon a complete and total separation (in BOTH directions) of the realms of religion and government is wholly false, and one that is unfortuately perpetrated by a movement of religiously motivated revisionism that relies primarily on the historical ignorance of many modern christians."
There, I hope that clears things up.
I feel stupid, now.
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Phew...So it wasn't me. lol That makes a lot more sense.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
That's exactly what I said: government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Government should never force religion upon people, and America hasn't. Ever! The word establishment does not mean a building, like so many people think. It means one nation and one religion. Period.
And about democratic principles.
Yes, America is a democracy, and America was designed to be a democracy. We still are in many ways, but it was also founded on one of the most famous statements in the Declaration of Independence.
"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."
Why would the Founding Fathers write such an impressive document, mention God in passing, and not mean for it to be the guiding light of our nation?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the founders didn't mean your god. Seeing as the main writer, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist, that possibility is quite high. Also, seeing as they were writing to the head of a theocratic monarchy, certain etiquette has to be followed. Oh, and the Declaration of Independence is not a state document. It has nothing to do with our government.
Perhaps one should ask why, if we are founded upon Christianity, is there not a single mention of god in the constitution?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I would suggest that in fact our government has crossed this line, more than once. For example, I would say that changing our national motto from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" is a rather obvious example of an unlawful establishment, as was the insertion of "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance.
You are correct. The Establishment Clause does not refer to "buildings." But, it most certainly does refer to laws enacted by the Congress that favor one set of religious beliefs over another.
Actually, The United States of America was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy which while similar are not exactly the same thing (contrary to the popular belief that is unfortunately perpetuated in our severly lacking pubilc school systems). One of the main differences is that in a Republic, the rights of the individual are protected over the rights of the majority through a Rule of Law. For us as Americans, that Rule of Law is founded in the Constitution.
Aside from the fact that the First Amendment (and thus the Establishment Clause) was written after the Declaration, and aside from the fact that the First Amendment (unlike the Declaration) was actually an official and binding act of our new Government, I would suggest that the quote which you provided is taken rather significantly out of context. When one looks at the Introduction to the Declaration, however, we can see that the premise upon which this document is predicated does not rely uniquely on any particular religious perspective...
"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."
It is of no surprise to a serious student of history that these men attibuted a separate but equal station to realms of thought based respectively on science and reason, as well as religion. Many of our founding fathers, and especially the three men responsible for writing the Declaration (Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin), were not "christian" in the modern evangelical sense of the word. In fact, these three men were characteristc examples of 18th Century Deism. Here are a few quotes from these three men that may may perhaps put this concept (and the Declaration itself) into perspective for you...
"I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. ~ Thomas Jefferson
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." ~ Benjamin Franklin
Even the most "religious" of these three men had this to say...
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." ~ John Adams
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
If this is the case, then why doesn't the church step up and support the state by paying taxes?
I love abortion. Read more here:
http://progressiveu.org/044921-i-love-abortion-even-if-it-murder
Religious zealots want religious leaders, so any candidate, whether they are believers or material Atheists, needs to affect a suitably religious front if they have any realistic aspirations of being elected. The religious masses want to see their team represented in state, so politicians need to humour them much like adults humour children by dressing up in costumes like Barney the dinosaur just to get them to listen to them.
If I wanted to run for state, the last thing I would do is tell people that I am Agnostic. I'd be out there acting as Christian as a homophobia, then once elected, I'd do what most politicians do anyway and fail to deliver on most of the bullshit my campaign office managed to spin out to win me votes.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
Your comment pretty much sums up my feelings about politicians. You have to take what they say with a grain of salt, because it's all an act.
And you're right about the agnostic thing. You'd be called a flip-flopper, accused of immorality, lack of conviction, lack of a moral compass, heartlessness, etc. And that's as an AGNOSTIC! An atheist wouldn't have a prayer (excuse the pun). My best friend likes to remind me that atheists are even more reviled in the U.S. than gays.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Damn straight we are! A proud member of the most distrusted minority in the United States! :dances:
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
...to know I am on the second rung from the bottom, rather than the bottom rung. Yes, I take joy in your oppression. It makes me feel powerful. I might even join in on pushing through some anti-atheist legislation, just to take the heat off the gays for awhile.
:)X
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
...who are gay AND atheists? Do we get a special prize?
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Sometimes I revel in the fact that I'm a black lesbian who flip flops between pagan and atheist.
“I hope the departure is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
I'm gonna betch slap the dumb outta you
I think that pagans are also below atheists...
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson