religion and politics

[Peter1469]

I agree that we don't need religion to govern the US.  But our thought process is so coupled with our historic religious roots that you cannot completely eliminate the influences- and to try would bring great harm - as seen in the debacle that is Europe. 

[pragmitician]

We have eliminated those ties, its all American History now. We made sure of that with the separation of church and state. The framers made sure that it wouldn't be the case that religion runs a country.

[Peter1469]

We have eliminated those ties, its all American History now. We made sure of that with the separation of church and state. The framers made sure that it wouldn't be the case that religion runs a country.

Not at all.

Separation of Church and State only means that the government doesn't support one religion over the other.  It does not strip religion from society.  If that is what the Founders' intended the Constitution would say separation from Church and State.

[pragmitician]

The Constitution ensures freedom of religion. You cannot have freedom of religion if a nation says one religion is correct over others. And separation of church and state means exactly what it says. The separation of the church, and the state (government). If you needed any clarification on that..

[conley]

Amendment 1:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Just so everyone can see it

[Peter1469]

Exactly.  It doesn't say that Congress will take all efforts to strip religion from the American society. 

[pragmitician]

No, i'm saying exactly, because it is saying that Congress will not prohibit or advocate the participation of citizens in their own private religion.

[Peter1469]

I am not advocating advancing religion through government.  I am saying that most Americans are creatures of the West and are infused with 2000-4000 years of religious thought that made the West the amazing success that it is today. 

[AntiCommunist]

"The standards of the law are standards of general application...It [the law] does not attempt to see them as god sees them...f a man is born hasty and awkward...no doubt his congenial defects will be allowed for in the ocurts of Heaven, but his slips are no less troublesome to his neighbors..."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Peter1469]

"The standards of the law are standards of general application...It [the law] does not attempt to see them as god sees them...f a man is born hasty and awkward...no doubt his congenial defects will be allowed for in the ocurts of Heaven, but his slips are no less troublesome to his neighbors..."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes

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


Declaration of Independence, United States of America.  No other people on earth have stated in their founding documents that their rights are provided by something other than the person in power at the moment.  This was the big break with European feudalism where the King's word was law. 

Think about it.  If you have rights that are granted by God, your government cannot take those rights away.  That is a good thing. 

[pragmitician]

They don't say God. Read over as many times as you want. They say their Creator. That can mean a number of things. Its whoever you believe your creator to be. They made very certain not to say God, otherwise they would have said it.

[Peter1469]

To me it is the same thing

it is an entity other than the government.  An entity above the government.  That is the point. 

[pragmitician]

It could be science for all you know. The point of putting that was to show that every person should have rights that you cannot take away no matter who they are, not who gave them to them. Once again, give me something besides a history lesson that proves to be feeble and irrelevant.

[AntiCommunist]

Perhaps the concept of our government is the "thing" that is over hte people who comprise it. It is no argument that religion encompasses basic human rights, and played a part in the framers mental processes - as well as most people in contemporary society. However, the fear of the government taking over inaliable rights is not something orginal to the Declaration, but rather persuasive writing. Even today, yes today, the Supreme Court looks back to the Common Law of England to make decisions that apply to current society.

[Peter1469]

It could be science for all you know. The point of putting that was to show that every person should have rights that you cannot take away no matter who they are, not who gave them to them. Once again, give me something besides a history lesson that proves to be feeble and irrelevant.

It certainly isn't science.  Science is a process.  But I agree that the important element about inalienable rights is that they cannot be taken away by government regardless of where they come from.  What would you accept as more persuasive than history?