Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance

Nope. The government is required to be neutral in the sense of non-sectarian, but the governments are allowed, for example, to grant churches exemptions from property taxes because there is no prohibition restricting favoring religion in general.Sorry bud, but you are wrong. I am aware though that plenty of people want to redefine the Constitution to make secularism the de facto religion, but if that were the case presently, we would not have churches be exempt from property taxes, nor "In God We Trust", nor Congressional prayer and chaplains, etc, etc,..

Madison's reasoning though is clear. He thinks it's unfair because it favors one religious sect over another. That's much different than favoring religion in general or a general acknowledgement of God, which is non-sectarian for religious faiths.

Dang, if you guys think it is bad, it might well be a good idea. Gonna have to talk with my accountant about this.

The reason you are not getting answered is that it is waste of time repeating the same points you which you never answer substantively.Here is a definition, first one that came up on google, that confirms that I have been using the term in a proper manner. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's QuestionsThe US government was not set up to be "secularist", meaning rejecting every form of religious faith, but to be non-sectarian. That's why things like tax exemptions for any relgious organization are Constitutional. They are non-sectarian so there is no establishment of religion, just an embrace and support for any and all religions.Got it?

And so favoring religion in general via tax exemptions is fully Constitutional, right?Or do you disagree?Remember that favoring religion in general in this manner does not involve an establishment of religion because no particular faith is being established. I bring this up because I don't really want to play semantics here.I genuinely believe RAZD's posts indicate he believes the US government is meant to be secularist, and that this example I give is one way to illustrate the difference between just limiting the government to secular affairs, making it non-sectarian, and advancing the concept that the government should not be involved with in anyway religion and so even tax exemptions are wrong, and also religious values are inappropiate motives for influencing legislation.There's a difference here. Where do you stand?secular or secularist?

If your definition of wanting a secular government means a government that does not legislate religion, as you say, and sticks to civil matters, then I beleive almost all Christians in this country agree with you, even the religious right.

Washington publicly expressed gratitude to God and thanks to God as his first official act as president. Tax exemptions are one way the government is supportive of all religions. Another now is allowing for faith-based charities to compete with secular charities.

Ever hear the term "higher power"? It refers to God. The problem with denying faith-based groups funds to deal with some social problems is that faith-based groups are often more effective, and sometimes almost the only effective method for dealing with certain problems.For example, very, very few people are delivered from chemical addictions without conscious contact with their higher power, or just getting saved, as some Christians would put it. Now AA is sufficiently non-sectarian to obtain government endorsement, but it is still faith-based. In fact, that's one of the primary ingredients, placing faith in a higher power.Personally, I think through the Lord not only can you be delivered from not just substance abuse but from being an addict altogether. I think the AAers would say always an addict, but you can be free from the behaviour. So maybe that's the watered-down version, but still works, and is good advice in many respects.The fact is faith-based charities cannot always be duplicated by secular charities. It's just the way it is.

That's right. No laws and so the government is not forbidden from ackowledging God, participating in religious expressions, nor from grants to faith-base charities, as these are not laws pertaining to religion.

I am not a major fan of AA, but regardless, you are mistaken about it. Turning to a higher power for help, i.e. turning to God is taking responsibility for your life.

I'll give you an anology to illustrate it for you. There are 2 guys drowning. One sees he is going to drown and calls out for help, and he is saved by the Lifeguard. Heck, he tells the lifeguard he messed up by getting out in the water in the first place when he couldn't swim.Did he take responsibility for his life, or was he irresponsible?The 2nd guy decides he doesn't need saving, and he can take of care himself just fine, thank you, and drowns.Which one was the most responsible?It's not accepting responsibility for your life to reject the means of saving your life. It's just recklessness.This message has been edited by randman, 12-10-2005 04:17 AM