Seperaqtion of Chirch and State huh ?

This_person

Well-Known Member
FredFlash said:
That religious truth is a matter of numbers is the cornerstone of the foundation of religious tyranny. Instead of snuggling up to it, we should flee from it as if it were a doctrine of Satan, which it is.
"Religious truth" a matter of numbers? I'm not sure what you mean - what religion people declare them to be is not "religious truth". It's statistics. "Religious truth" to me means things like who or what you believe created the world, the basic differences of right and wrong, whether there is a supreme being and how an individual perceives that supreme being, etc.

It's not "racial truth" to say that the majority of Americans are white, it's statistics. It implies no superiority other than volume of people. To say that the majority of Americans speaks no superiority, no establishement, no "TRUTH" about religion other than statistically what people identify themselves as.
 

FredFlash

New Member
This_person said:
You really can't think of any?

Dept of Education
Housing and Urban Development
Social Security
NEA

Off the top of my head, those would be some of the more expensive ones.

Are you arguing that the establishment of the Department of Education warrants an establishment of religion by law?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
FredFlash said:
Are you arguing that the establishment of the Department of Education warrants an establishment of religion by law?
No, there's a lot more to the Constitution than the first small portion of the first amendment to it.

I stated:
Me said:
There's no specific words granting the duty, responsibility, obligation, right, privilege, or authority to do a lot of things that we do as a matter of course - just part of how a government works.
To which you responded
You said:
So, I was listing a series of things, off the top of my head, that I believe there is no specific duty, responsibility, obligation, right, privilege, or authority for the governemnt to do, but are deemed appropriate and are done.

My point was that the government, as a matter of existence, must do more than only the limited enumeration of things. Providing for the protection of the president and the executive branch officers, intelligence officials, etc., is not listed in the Constitution, but it's needed be done.

A motto, while not necessarily needed, is certainly within the realm of what a reasonable person would see as the government's role.
 

FredFlash

New Member
This_person said:
If this is true, then every recommendation from any civil magistrate, to the people, assumes that the people have a duty to do that recommendation. Thus, it would assume a civil authority over my patience when Tony Snow is asking me to give the troop surge time to work, it would assume a civil authority over women's walking rights when a policeman is recommending that she have a friend walk her to her car in an unlit parking lot at night, it would assume a civil authority over my personal finances when recommending what age I retire (through adjusting how much Social Security I get depending on when I start)..... the list would be endless, and it's just not true. It can't be an assumption of civil authority over just religion, religion is not that special (legally speaking). This would just be common sense, to see one naturally follows the other.

A leader has a certain obligation to those he leads, and many presidents (including right there in the beginning, including the architect of the Constitution) chose to meet those obligations. They were not governmental recommendations, they were leader's recommendations. The difference is in whether they established anything.Another way of looking at that quote would be to say that, in offering their advise, they need to make sure it does not hold the weight of their office - meaning that they don't vote or sign their religious beliefs, but their constitutional obligations. What they believe as a person may not always be how they cast their ballot.

A civil magistrate's non-religious recommendations do not infringe upon the authority of God, or the individual rights of religious conscience. Religion is sacred, and off limits to the civil magistrate.

The troop surge, a women's walking rights when a policeman is recommending that she have a friend walk her to her car in an unlit parking lot at night and a recommendation regarding what age you retire, are not things over which God claims absolute and exclusive authority. Religion is!
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
FredFlash said:
A civil magistrate's non-religious recommendations do not infringe upon the authority of God, or the individual rights of religious conscience. Religion is sacred, and off limits to the civil magistrate.

The troop surge, a women's walking rights when a policeman is recommending that she have a friend walk her to her car in an unlit parking lot at night and a recommendation regarding what age you retire, are not things over which God claims absolute and exclusive authority. Religion is!
We seem to be having this argument from very very very different perspectives. I'm discussing the limitations and roles of government while you are talking about God's claims.

If a leader's recommendations are an assumption of civil authority, they always are. If they aren't always, they aren't ever. It matters not the subject.

The first amendment is, as you claimed earlier, a clarification on the limitation of governmental authority. What "things over which God claims absolute and exclusive authority" is a matter of each individual's opinion - their religion. The first amendment's establishment clause is the people's way of ensuring their government does not try to take authority it doesn't have, not a way of protecting your God's claims from government usurpation.

You have the right to your god, I have the right to mine, and others have their rights to have no god. The government cannot tell us which one to have, nor stop us from having the one we choose. That's what it says. It's not protection for me to have your god maintain his authority over all religion. It's protection for me to not have the government tell me what god to follow.
 

FredFlash

New Member
This_person said:
"Religious truth" a matter of numbers? I'm not sure what you mean - what religion people declare them to be is not "religious truth". It's statistics. "Religious truth" to me means things like who or what you believe created the world, the basic differences of right and wrong, whether there is a supreme being and how an individual perceives that supreme being, etc.

It's not "racial truth" to say that the majority of Americans are white, it's statistics. It implies no superiority other than volume of people. To say that the majority of Americans speaks no superiority, no establishement, no "TRUTH" about religion other than statistically what people identify themselves as.

The argument that most people trust in God, therefore the majority gets to use the civil government to declare its religious opinions, assumes that religious truth is whatever most believe, that civil government is competent to determine religious truth and that civil government, not God, has jurisdiction over the means of salvation. All of those assumptions are false.
 

FredFlash

New Member
This_person said:
A leader has a certain obligation to those he leads, and many presidents (including right there in the beginning, including the architect of the Constitution) chose to meet those obligations.


Are you claiming that Presidents have an obligation to direct or influence the religion of the people?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
FredFlash said:
The argument that most people trust in God, therefore the majority gets to use the civil government to declare its religious opinions, assumes that religious truth is whatever most believe, that civil government is competent to determine religious truth and that civil government, not God, has jurisdiction over the means of salvation. All of those assumptions are false.
But, those assumptions aren't the ones I'm talking about.

"Religious truth" is not even a part of "In God We Trust". It's statistical truth about the makeup of the country. Nothing is declaring what the "religious truth", or Truth is. In no way does the phrase "In Reason We Trust" declaring that the only "Truth" in life is reason. It's a statement of a plurality of belief. In no way does "In God We Trust" assume a governmental jurisdiction over salvation. I honestly cannot fathom the argument that would get your mind there.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
FredFlash said:
Are you claiming that Presidents have an obligation to direct or influence the religion of the people?
I'm claiming that each president determine what obligations they have, but I think it fair to believe that presidents feel an obligation to assuage people's fears and worries. Religion is excellant for that, and (knowing the bulk of the population believes in prayer) recommending prayer would help people feel better and more unified.
 

FredFlash

New Member
This_person said:
Another way of looking at that quote would be to say that, in offering their advise, they need to make sure it does not hold the weight of their office - meaning that they don't vote or sign their religious beliefs, but their constitutional obligations. What they believe as a person may not always be how they cast their ballot.

James Madison made the statement in the context of a discourse on religious proclamations.

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts [the attempt in Virginia to establish a general assessment for the support of all Christian sects, the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress and the Chaplainships for the army and navy] reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are 1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms. 2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate. 3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea.


 

FredFlash

New Member
This_person said:
FredFlash said:
If the advice is issued only to those who have previously acknowledged the authority of the civil magistrate over the things that are God's, and thereby turned their backs upon the Almighty's authority over the means of salvation, and worship in the House of Satan, then I have no problem with the issuance of the advice.

Wow, what the hell are you talking about?

I using the rhetoric of the Baptists, circa the late 1700's. I do that a lot.
 

FredFlash

New Member
This_person said:
FredFlash said:
Spoken words, as well as written words, can constitute an unconstitutional assumption of civil jurisdiction over religion.

Sure they can, if they issue some kind of rule to follow, some discriminatory practice for not following, or in some other way meet the hurdle of "Congress shall make no law..." Otherwise, they're just words.

It meets that hurdle because the word "Congress" in the First Amendment means "the U. S. Government", and the word "law" includes a religious recommendation clothed with civil authority.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
FredFlash said:
James Madison made the statement in the context of a discourse on religious proclamations.

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts [the attempt in Virginia to establish a general assessment for the support of all Christian sects, the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress and the Chaplainships for the army and navy] reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are 1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms. 2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate. 3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea.


Was this before or after he did the same thing?

You realize this is just one man's opinion, and hasn't been upheld in concept or action, right? This isn't the law of the land.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
FredFlash said:
It meets that hurdle because the word "Congress" in the First Amendment means "the U. S. Government", and the word "law" includes a religious recommendation clothed with civil authority.
You read what I respond, right? You know I've repeatedly stated that I understand "Congress" is not limited just to Congress?

However, a recommendation is not a law, nor any form of authority. It's a recommendation. Again, if we take this recommendation as equal to a law (like we take an executive order as equal to a law, or a code of federal regulation as equal to a law, etc.) then we must take ALL recommendations as equal to laws.

We don't. They're not. What part of that do you not get?
 

FredFlash

New Member
This_person said:
Fred said:
I dispute the truth of the claim that every American considers himself, and each one of his religious opinions, under the authority of the same God, as the one referred to the phrase under discussion.

"EVERY American"? Of course not. That would be absurd. But, do you not believe that the general makeup of the population can be summarized?

It could, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the government is authorized to declare religious truth. It is not!

This_person said:
Fred said:
To which god does that refer?

Heck if I know. The statement is so vague, it could refer to anything, including Satan. Vague religion is corrupt religion. In this case the corruption is so extensive that it is impossible to identify the deity that Congress says we all trust.

A great Texan once said that, "religion and politics are things that must forever run in parallel lines which never meet; for whenever they meet, there is contamination, and religion has in it much more of earth than heaven." (See Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention of 1845.)
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
FredFlash said:
The issue is whether the government is authorized to declare religious truth. It is not!
I agree, so it's a good thing that it didn't try to do that. It is stating a statistical truth, not a religious one.
Heck if I know. The statement is so vague, it could refer to anything, including Satan. Vague religion is corrupt religion. In this case the corruption is so extensive that it is impossible to identify the deity that Congress says we all trust.
You, again, make my point. Congress is clearly not identifying A god in which we trust. It's make a statement that the bulk of us believe in one god or another. It's not vague religion, nor corrupt religion. As a matter of fact, it's not any religion at all, as you so aptly point out here.
A great Texan once said that, "religion and politics are things that must forever run in parallel lines which never meet; for whenever they meet, there is contamination, and religion has in it much more of earth than heaven." (See Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention of 1845.)
Neat quote.
 

FredFlash

New Member
This_person said:
I believe it refers to every god the American public trusts. It's an encompassing statement, not a divisive one, as it refers to no specific god, and over 80% of the population believes in one or another form of a god.

The issue is whether it is religion. It is, and religion is exempt from the cognizance of civil government. Therefore, the issue of trust in God is totally exempt from the cognizance of Congress. The least interference by the government with religion is a most flagrant usurpation of God's prerogatives. James Madison said that.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
FredFlash said:
The issue is whether it is religion. It is, and religion is exempt from the cognizance of civil government. Therefore, the issue of trust in God is totally exempt from the cognizance of Congress. The least interference by the government with religion is a most flagrant usurpation of God's prerogatives. James Madison said that.
Which religion is it?

Do you believe the census bureau has the right to ask the question of what religion a person belongs, as long as that person has the right to deny such request?

Do you believe the government then has the right to establish churches as non-taxed entities?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
FredFlash said:
The issue is whether it is religion. It is, and religion is exempt from the cognizance of civil government. Therefore, the issue of trust in God is totally exempt from the cognizance of Congress. The least interference by the government with religion is a most flagrant usurpation of God's prerogatives. James Madison said that.
2006 News Article regarding this subject said:
Federal Judge Nixes 'In God We Trust' Lawsuit - Monday , June 12, 2006
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

A federal judge on Monday rejected a lawsuit from an atheist who said having the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and dollar bills violated his First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said the minted words amounted to a secular national slogan that did not trample on Michael Newdow's avowed religious views.

Newdow's "In God We Trust" lawsuit targeted Congress and several federal officials, claiming that by making money with the phrase on it the government was establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment clause requiring separation of church and state.

The phrase "excludes people who don't believe in God," he claimed.

Damrell disagreed, citing a 9th Circuit decision from 1970 that concluded the four words were a national motto that had "nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion."
Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. In 1955, the year after lawmakers had the words "under God" put into the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust."

Newdow filed the lawsuit five days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected, without comment, a challenge to an inscription of "In God We Trust" on a North Carolina county government building.
Seems some pretty good legal scholars are against your case.
 

FredFlash

New Member
This_person said:
Was this before or after he did the same thing?

After he failed to live up to his principles.

You realize this is just one man's opinion, and hasn't been upheld in concept or action, right? This isn't the law of the land.

I thought we were discussing what the original intent of the legislator was.
 
Top