True Separation of Church and State

Just saw THE LIFE OF PI last night. I really liked Pi being a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jew. I am too. I can't see any one religion having a monopoly on God. Since God is the creator, he must have created ALL religions....and science...which I think is a religion too.

If science is correct, that everything is cause and effect, whatever caused the big bang is God, and everything that exists is the effect.

Everything must be kept in proper perspective. God=creator, evil=destruction. So God doesn't destroy, only evil destroys. So eventually evil will destroy itself, because that's it's function. Without creation there is nothing, so God has to exist. And you can't have evil without God. Nothing from nothing is nothing.

Einstein said, "Once you realize that everything that exists, comes from nothing that is something, it's easy to wear stripes with plaid."

 

Nice try, but no thanks.~ You're completely trying to distract from the issue and go off subject.~

This is NOT about accepting "God" into our lives, whether we believe in "God" or not is not relevant.~ We are trying to create and maintain a country based upon Freedom, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Choice,

Freedom of the People to Elect Their own Government, when one 1 belief in particular tries to FORCE it's way onto ourselves via our OWN GOVERNEMENT AND LAWS, then that violates our rights to choose for

ourselves what we WANT to believe, just as you are allowed to preach in public, we ARE ALLOWED NOT TO LISTEN AND NOT TO HAVE SUCH THINGS FORCED UPON OUR DAILY LIVES, IF I WANT NO MENTION OF

"GOD" AT ALL IN MY HOUSE I HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO HAVE ANTHING THAT MENTIONS IT INCLUDING MY OWN MONEY!!~ To include one

particular deity or ANY deity "God" in anything of our government and/or laws is to make a mockery of what this country was founded upon.~

 

Sorry dude. I wasn't trying to distract from anything. I made my reply from the posts made on God on the second page of this thread. And I'm not preaching, just stating my appreciation of the Life of Pi character's views.

As far as your "right" to not have God mentioned on your money, well I think you'll have better luck moving to a country that doesn't have that on their money than you will getting it taken off American money.

If you really want true separation of church and state, you'll probably have to get rid of the GOP. The republican party is owned by evangelical Christians that are determined to make this country live up to their beliefs. Good luck with that, I hope you succeed.

 

Thanks!~ ^_^

 

"IN GOD WE TRUST"

God - A supreme being in whom we place our faith.

Perhaps you should look at the word "GOD" as representing who ever you place your greatest amount of faith in, a supernatural being, a human, politician, or perhaps even yourself. It could also serve as a warning, that you should not put too much faith in that piece of paper, which on the front side of the bill claims "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" as its' value in purchasing our needs and wants diminishes continually.

The only being I have complete trust in is myself, therefore the words on the money only serve to reinforce my ability to use them wisely.

There are probably a number of persons who equate the word "GOD" with Obama, the current President who they seem to have placed their full faith and trust in.

I can say with absolute certainty that the GOD this thread appears to relate to can be trusted fully to have no effect, good or bad, at all on my life. People and how they exercise their beliefs in ways having effect upon others without their consent is an entirely different matter.

Try looking at the words as an example of free speech, which you are totally free to ignore if you wish, and since the numeric value of each bill is displayed on both sides you never have to view them if you don't want to.

 

Sorry, but did you read the first few posts in this thread especially by Dancing in The Mists?~

The original purpose of putting that on the coin and all money things was so that some bigots could have their way so we wouldn't be seen "as a heathen nation".

Here's the proof:

History of 'In God We Trust'



Page Content

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

The rest of this documentation is here: http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

 

I'm quite aware of the history behind what you are complaining about, and if the words irritate you as it appears, considering they have no effect on us as individuals, as a people, or even how we are governed, I provided you a ways to interpret them to your advantage, in hopes that more consequential issues, such as unemployment, debt, or maybe even a budget might be given greater attention. Politically speaking, religion as a whole has little effect on our lives today, and as the 1st amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...", along with article VI, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", it stands to reason that persons who hold strong religious beliefs are in no way banned from voting for or being elected to political office based on their religious views, BUT the Constitution protects us from even a great majority who would impose their religious views or lack of upon us collectively. Just because our dollars have "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed upon them does not impose upon you to actually trust in God, or anything at all for that matter. They are simply words, and there are no laws enforcing them, or which provide any means of prosecution or punishment for disobeying or ignoring them. If that changes in the future I will support the removal of them, but until that time, why worry?

 

Unforchantly this religious invasion of our government goes much farther than that, legal marriage anyone?~ I can understand the limiting of number of people allowed in the marriage, because of legal benefits issues, but there is no non-religious basis for restricting the marriage based upon sex at all nowadays.~ Some people are not even distinguishly a man or a woman physically, should these people not be allowed to legally marry to?~ Sex should not even be a factor at all.~

Why does such a discriminating agreement exist in the first place in our laws?~ It has no place in our legal system when it actively discriminates against others.~ If it is was indeed a religiously based thing or it became a religiously based thing over the years, then it no longer has any place within our legal system or it should not actively favor ANY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OVER OTHERS.~

Some food for thought:

Turner v. Safley

Over time, restrictions on marriage have become more and more suspect. IN 1987, the last time the Unites States Supreme Court considered the claim of a group of Americans about restriction on their right to marry, the Court articulated four attributes of marriage common to this group and all other Americans. These attributes are:

1. expression of emotional support and public commitment;
2. spiritual significance, and for some the exercise of a religious faith;
3. the expectation that for most, the marriage will be consummated; and
4. the receipt of tangible benefits, including government benefits and property rights.

Looking at these attributes of marriage, the Court decided that these Americans - incarcerated prisoners - shared with other Americans the freedom to marry. Because prisoners, too, can enter into a marriage with these characteristics, the Court invalidated Missouri's' virtually complete ban on marriages of prison inmates. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 (1987).

The analogies are clear. Restricting who can marry whom based on their sex and sexual orientation is also discrimination. Creating a civil institution which is available to all committed adults -- even if they are incarcerated prisoners -- is essential for the happiness of everyone, including same-sex couples. Perhaps that is why civil rights leaders like Coretta Scott King and now United States Representative John Lewis of Georgia have endorsed the right to civil marriage for same-sex couples. On 19 May 2012 the national NAACP endorsed the right of same-sex couples to legal, civil marriage and stated that marriage is a civil right.

http://www.marriageequality.org/historical-look

 

You are confusing "Separation of Church and State" with popular majority opinion in this matter.
The gay marriage debate has nothing to do with the concept of Separation of Church and State in the constitution. There is no state-sponsored religious mandate that prevents gay marriage. Instead you had a majority of Americans (many of whom happen to be Christian) that supported a view that homosexuality was a sin and gay marriage should not be allowed.
Now, it appears, that opinion is changing with the majority of Americans.

 

When "opinion" becomes law and that "opinion" is based on religious sentiments, THEN it becomes an issue of favoritism of religious beliefs over equality to ALL Americans.~ Nothing you have said has invalidated my point.~ It IS a conflict of an unhealthy mixing of church and state when a man and a woman can marry under law, but when a man and a man wish to marry the law says "NO!", "Why?" they ask, "Because it is against these people's religious or spiritual beliefs", "But it is AGAINST OUR OWN RELIGOUS OR SPIRITUAL beliefs to NOT be allowed to marry the one we love regardless of physical sex." the man and man say. THEN you have a case of the law favoriting the religious or spiritual views of a set of people over the religious or spiritual views of another set of people.~ Why should people get to marry "because of their religious views", when other people with the same significant "religious views" be denied?~ How is that NOT religious or spiritual favoritism?~

Here's some more food for thought:

The supreme courts of three states (Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut) have, as of 2009, found bans on gay marriage to violate state constitutional provisions. In November 2008, however, California voters narrowly approved a proposition designed to overturn the decision of that state's supreme court. The legality of the voters' action is now an issue in the California courts. Meanwhile, many states have, by legislation or voter initiative, enacted "defense of marriage" laws to keep marriage an institution exclusively for a man and a woman.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

It would seem as you may have hinted at that this is a state issue and not a Supreme Court issue.~

 

While I agree with most of what you say, your point is invalid because gay marriage has little to do with the constitutional intent of Separation of Church and State (look it up). Gay marriage is a civil rights issue.

 

I hinted at no such thing (state-sponsored was used as a term referring to the Federal government).

 

Still don't see your point. Perhaps you could explain it?~

 

How much is 2+10?

 

12, what does have to do with anything?~ If you refuse to see that this is a matter of separation church and state with the evidence presented before you, then I cannot continue talking to you about this.~

 

Could it not be 4?

 

Gay Marriage is a Civil Rights issue, and a Human Rights Issue. There's no question in my mind Gay Marriage is long overdue and needs to be passed right now. It scares me that there are people who think otherwise.

 

Republicans in North Carolina are passing a law making Christianity that states official religion. They call it freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gop-...-north-carolina-to-declare-official-religion/

 

Not being familiar with the North Carolina State Constitution, is there anything written in it to prohibit them from doing so? The U.S. Constitution DOES prohibit the Congress in the Federal government from such an action, but does not say that States can not, therefore I would assume the 10th amendment would apply, although I don't think the State would be allowed force residents to go to church, pray, or not practice some other or no other religion.

As long as religion is taught at home or in Sunday school, and the 3 r's taught in Federally funded public schools, I'd have no problem with a State making Christianity the States official religion, if it was done by a democratic process receiving consent by a majority of the voting residents.

 

Thank you!~ At least some people can see this is a problem.~
People don't seem to realize that the issue of separation of church and state trickles down all the way from the government, to the laws, to civil rights, and to a personal level.~

Individual ~

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjhangover
Republicans in North Carolina are passing a law making Christianity that states official religion. They call it freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gop-l...cial-religion/


"Not being familiar with the North Carolina State Constitution, is there anything written in it to prohibit them from doing so? The U.S. Constitution DOES prohibit the Congress in the Federal government from such an action, but does not say that States can not, therefore I would assume the 10th amendment would apply, although I don't think the State would be allowed force residents to go to church, pray, or not practice some other or no other religion.

As long as religion is taught at home or in Sunday school, and the 3 r's taught in Federally funded public schools, I'd have no problem with a State making Christianity the States official religion, if it was done by a democratic process receiving consent by a majority of the voting residents."


Sorry, but something like this sounds like an attempt to tear this country apart by splitting it all the way down the constitution and it's amendments, the Civil War over Slavery was bad enough, can you imagine a RELIOUS war, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE MIDDLE-EAST?!~, with the sheer amount of religions, beliefs, spirituality, logic, and non-beliefs in this country ALONE we would literally tear this country to pieces shredded into tiny ribbons, each ribbon clinging to a belief or non-belief, until there was nothing left of this once great united country and we might even wipe each other out in the process: more people died in the Civil War ALONE than all the people of ours in the all our Wars with others COMBINED!~

I don't mind them teaching religion in public school, but it must never become mandatory, and no one should be prevented or discouraged from practicing their own religion in school.~ The problem with bringing religion in public schools is an environment where everyone is supposed to feel equal regardless of religion suddenly may becomes uncomfortable at least or even deadly at worst if their own religious beliefs seriously conflict with that of those of the state and public school, public libraries, public stores, and public everything for if religion is able to be taught and freely practiced in public places as "official" then where does that leave the rest of us?~