Religion In Government

Hey guys tell me your views on Religion in the Government. This just came to me mind this morning after seeing the news about the Pledge of Alliegence case. The one with that guy from California, who's Atheist, who thinks religion shouldn't be in the government in any way. Tell me what you all think about this case. Here's my thoughts on it.

I believe that if you don't like it don't say the Pledge or just omit the word God. Next thing you know will have to take In God We Trust off all of the USA currency. I believe that this is just a way for the man to get his name in the papers. I mean his daughter isn't even Atheist, she's Christian. I think that it really doesn't matter if religion is in the government. I really don't have any religion, but I do believe in God. That's why it doesn't bother me. This is just my opinon though.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

I think we've discussed this before, but I'll try to summarize my stance on the issue.

Re: religion staying out of government. Yes, that's true. Government should not endorse any specific religion. The question, then, is whether "under God" qualifies. "God" is a vague, all-purpose religious term. It can be used to describe Jesus, Allah, Gaia, or anything other Supreme Being you can imagine. In that sense, one could make the case that no religion is being endorsed...except perhaps Theism, which is not a religion in the organized sense.

But then again, one could make the case (as I have in the past) that the mere declaration of unalienable rights also implies some sort of God, and thus anyone who has a problem with the phrase "under God" ultimately has a problem with the very bedrock of America's system, and Democracy itself.

You could also make the (less compelling) case that the country, for better or worse, WAS, in a sense, founded "under God," and therefore the phrase is less a description of what is or ought to be, and more a historical acknowledgement.

Anyway, regardless of where you come down on the issue, there's no doubt that Mr. Newdow is most definitely hoping to achieve some level of fame. Apparently he's raised various other hot-button issues in the past, all of which have increased his name recognition. Right or wrong, I think the man is clearly more concerned with making a name for himself than with justice, truth, and all the other virtures he likely claims this movement is about.

This is where I'm at on this. Like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles. If you take that foundation away then you will end up with something entirely different. To me, that would be a bad thing.

Are we just talking about the States? I live in a secular democracy and I wouldn't want it any other way. Iran, Sudan and many other nations have non-secular governments and who of you would like to live there, I certainly wouldn't.

__________________
Let us go, Through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster shells

From The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S.Eliot

Oh Mr McCarthy, stop with the communism-categorisation will you?

Seriously, i really wish you'd leave this particular argument alone, coz it's a meaningless distinction you make. But feel free to repeat your argument and i'll point out (concisely this time) why it is logic-light

But the constitution was founded on the principles of secular government wasn't it?

Shouldn't you be true to these principles too? They've also got you where you are.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Honestly, I am more inclined to let the "under god" part of the Allegiance pass. As Yoda and others have pointed out, 'god' can be any number of things. I feel strongly in this matter that without a 'moral' code provided by religions, there would be chaos in the world, and, therefore, the government as well.

However, those who want to argue to take "under god" out have a very good arguement that many of you may not know of. The "under god" part of the Pledge of Allegiance was only added in about 50 years ago. Therefore, you can't really say that the founding father completely relied on christian foundations.

That's arguable.

Notice I said 'principles'. That's different from saying that we govern by rote using the bible as law.

There is much language in governmental documentation that refers to God and to Christian principle. I see where you're coming from, but the whole 'separation of church and state' was meant to segregate the administrative duties of the two... not to be mutually exclusionary in concept and theory as folks would like to believe that it means.

The main thing I would like to get out is the fact that Mr. Newdow is just trying to get his name out. You know your 15 mins of fame? He wants more than 15 mins though. You see he based this case on the fact that his daughter had to say "Under God" and he doesn't like that. I mean he's an Atheist and his daughter is Christian. I mean what the f***! All I have to say to him would be "Don't use your daughter as a way to get the ruling in your favor. I mean she's Christian and your Atheist. Don't hurt Amercia because you don't believe in God. I mean they're plently of Atheist that still say "Under God" without a problem." That's all I have to say on that part.

Well, all you can say on that count is that that particular phrase wasn't put in place by the founding fathers. It doesn't go much further than that. (tho Yoda went through a bit of a time warp, back to commie-bashing days, when he suggested that a concept of democracy and social rights cannot exist without religious substantiation. [But then again, i've always thought he was born 50 years old ]).

Incidently, i agree that the "under god" thing is pretty harmless, and that societies have gained their cohesion and moral potential through religious/belief structures.

If the "Under God" is taken out then the next you know some other bozo will say "It's against my rights as an American to have to read "In God We Trust" on all of the USA currency. I think that no one should have to do that either. I think we should take off and leave religion out.

Notice that i said 'principles' too.......

But yeah, i respect that the over-riding central "principle" was Christianity.

I just see secularism as a beneficial emergent phenomenon that lends potential for constructive mutual growth and adaptation.

Why do people come to the US and try to change it to echo their past experience in some other country. Many of them are fleeing a suck factor to look for opportunity... then they come here and try to make it suck here too.

Obviously this is not true for all immagrants but it sure is true for some.

So if capitalism were COMPLETELY Godless then you would be happy? The opposite would be interesting... what if religion were penniless?

Yes yes, the US is perfect, and can benefit from no form of cultural input (i know you're not completely saying that, but i wasn't even going to respond to this until i saw you tottering off towards silliness below, and felt i was allowed some "extremeness" too...)

Ohhh, you demon of extremes you.

I'm not advocating godless capito/socialistic societies silly (). I was just asserting that you don't need to believe in "a god" to believe in the benefit of societal laws (contrary to what Yods says).

I've got me own God. I wish some other people would dig my dogma rather than their own too, and put it at the heart of their actions. My God is called the Universe. I'm quite fond of it . (I could call the Earth the "son of god" if that would make you feel more comfortable ).

Capitalism is completely godless. It's an economic system, not a political ideology or philosophy.

And if you white christian guys came to America and made it suck for the indians, then I think you can take a few immigrants trying to make it suck for you too as well. I'm pretty certain you wont see a muslim president this millenium so don't worry.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

To me it seems like he is excercising his rights as the legal guardian of his child. Keep in mind, his daughter does not yet have the right to choose every course of action in her life. Parents have the right to bring their own children up however they see fit, as long as they don't abuse/harm the child. If a father does not want his child exposed, even in the slightest, to religious ideals, then by all means he has the right.

That said, I don't agree with this man's actions. If he was so concerned about shielding his child from certain ideas, he should have had her privately tutored, or taken some form of action other than attempting to push his beliefs on the public. Someone should explain to this man that America is, for now anyway, not a fascist state. Explain to him that attempting to force a public body to conform to his ideals is not democracy, by any stretch of the imagination.

Unfortunately, the news is rife with issues like this right now. Howard Stern, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, gay marriage.... Uber left and uber right extremists (whom, btw, constitute a small portion of America's overall population) are attempting to manipulate the system in such a way as to lock certain ideals, their ideals, in as the American way of life. I consider these people fascists. I want Howard Stern on the air, I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Sterns views, but I understand that at any point, I can turn my radio off and stop listening!

Public decency is a concern to a point, and should not be taken lightly, but neither should the Bill of Rights.

As for Religion in Government, since I should probably have at least one sentence on topic, it depends greatly on the situation. If we are talking denominational, I would keep them as far apart from one another as possible. If we are talking upholding certain religious ideals and morals, (Thou shalt not Kill, Thou shalt not steal) through governmental means, well then I am all for it. As I have said before, these ancient texts that have been around for thousands of years, be it The Bible or The Torah, they must have something to teach us eh?

As for hurting America by not believing in God, I fail to comprehend a correlation here. This comment could also be phrased "If you don't believe in God, you are hurting America", and this reminds seems a lot like the aforementioned fascist gentleman's comments in it's intent.

_S

__________________

The fact is his daughter is living mostly with her mother who's rasing her to be Christian.

I mean to say "Don't hurt America by pushing your views on everyone. What this means is the fact that by you wanting the "Under God" removed you are hurting America's foundations. This is possible because when you push your views on America you hurt Americans freedoms. If you don't like saying it omit it when you say it. Americans have this right and if you were to take it out you would still have people saying it. Then you would have cases against that. I mean as an American you have the right to not do what you think is wrong. As long as it doesn't back any laws. I know some one who doesn't agree with the Pledge, so he doesn't say it. I mean he doesn't push his views on to me, because I have my rights and he has his rights.

It's not though. Companies are run by people who follow their own principles. If they are christian then they will likely run their companies with at least some christian values. You can't just extricate a person's political/religious/etc leanings from his job performance and/or choices. The world is not black and white and neither are any of the issues that we spend so much time banging around here.

Your last comment sucked and I'm not even going to dignify it with a response. Why is it that Golgot 'gets' my twisted humor (God love him ) and you're always always ready to pounce?

Don't stop, by the way, it's fun.

Nice reply.
I didn't know that this topic would get such a response.

I dunno. I think the survival ethic often outweighes the moral one, and people will bend their morals to fit with the requirements of their job. And capitalism is a very amoral system in many of its incarnations.

(as a secularist, i'm also tempted to say many people drawn to religions actually do see things in a more black-and-white way, and might be tricked into 'evil' actions while believing them to be good, amongst life's grey areas, and pure-capitalism's morally-astray ones. Just a thought )

When you make comments like that last one, my first instinct is that your tongue is poking out of your mouth, rather than into your cheek. But i guess i've known you long enough now . And Pidz has too, you've just gotta remember that that's not his mother's tongue you've got stuck in your mouth