Separation of Church and State

Re: The "God" on the money is an unknown godWhen religion is mixed with politics, religion is always corrupted. In the case of "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins, the corruption is such that it prevents us from even determining which God we are under.God should never be the object of human legislation.

Of course this is no different than reality, where we cannot determine (a) IF a god exists and then (b) WHICH of several billion possiblities is likely to be true.That makes the act of putting it on money not likely to be a real corrupting action. Who knows, considering this question may liberate some people from some archaic preconceptions. Personlly I think it makes money 'dirty' by tying it to something that has no relationship to it. Fully concur. There should be no laws with the word, in any form, in it, or even of any religion, other than to express individual freedom to pursue the religious inclination of their chosing.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The Myth That Public Schools Taught the Bible and General ChristianityHere is an 1854 appeal by Stephen Coldwell for public schools to provide Christian religious instructions according to the "common standard." Of interest is the author’s comment that the sprit at the moment is “to have children go without religious instruction” in the public schools. It appears that Bible reading and prayer was not the general practice in 1854 and Coldwell didn’t much like it.Shall it be said, to the injury of Christianity, that we prefer to have children go without religious instruction, rather than have them instructed in the "common standard?" This spirit, which is a reproach to Christians, is fatally indulged at this moment throughout this country; let every man who entertains it, examine himself anew, to see whether he is not forgetting Him, who said, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not." This voice should be heard in every school in the land, as it repeats, "Suffer little children to come unto me;" and no child should grow up without being taught from whom this invitation comes and how deeply he is interested in it. Source of Information: The position of Christianity in the United States, in its relations with our political institutions,and specially with reference to religious instruction in the public schools.: By Stephen Colwell (1854) encredibly long link shortenedEdited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Exactly. And this myth is promoted by the religious right with no regard to their being wrong.Thanks.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

1854 is late. The usual reference to Christian texts as the basis for elementary school education is a century earlier and in the time of the revolution. There was no public school system until the late 1800s anyway.

Isn't that really the issue though? If there was no public school system it couln't have used religious text for educating kids.Any schools before then would have been more community schools than "public" and would depend on the resources of the community.(Good) Teachers would also use resources that they knew the children had in their homes -- so teaching reading to Christian children using a bible when that is the only book in the childs house makes sense, but using it for non-christian children would not make any sense -- they would be better off with a loaned book or two.Predominantly Christian communities would likely select "good christian" teachers for their schools and some may even have directed that a certain amount of study be biblical -- but this does not make it correct. We also know that a lot of communities were racist and bigoted, and we've moved (hopefully) forward from those days.Just because something was done in the past is no justification to keep doing it, particularly when it is counterproductive to the ideals, the values, of america: that all people are created equal and have equal rights to pursue their chosen beliefs.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I realize this thread has been dead for a while, and I've no clue if anyone brought this up earlier, but . . . Didn't we insert "In God We Trust", and "Under God", during the Cold War? I remember it being a propaganda move, in that, hey, those commies over there are godless, moralles, whatnot, and we're better becuase we have morals, god. A way to differentiate, I guess. I'm not positive, mut it may be at that time that "In God We Trust" became the national motto, where previously we either didn't have one, or it was E Pluribus Unum? I don't really know on that last point. I'd also like to say that politics, as if it really needed any help with this, gets corrupted when you add religion.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I want to say a couple things but first I have to set it up.Regardless of whether God is God in the Biblical sense, or a sacred galactic goat, or just the convention of society; God, for the purposes of this illustration, and philosophically in general, is that which is the assumped purpose or plan of existence and the controlling body. In short... The sovereign!Does everybody understand and accept that definition? (that's bound to be a no!)Now don't just read over this... rather, listen very carefully. Sorry if this is difficult, but it is a necessary and heavy logical procedure. [An excerpt from 'The Fanatic' By Robert S. Lockett]

Are you suggesting the repeal of the First Amendment? That's what I gather since it is what separates church from state in the US.

Dear Rob:Please give us a few good example of the alledged growing intolerance for the pure doctrines of Christianity?The foundation of the American political system is that the government has no authority over relgion.The idea of church and state being separate was ordained by God.If the State is not founded upon God's divine law of separation of church and state, then the state has imposed itself as God.

They have to be seperate because the only workable model is the real one... God's kingdom.We wouldn't need a state if we did the right thing...Sorry I muddled up the concepts, back to the drawing board...And no I do not advocate a theocracy...

Our founding fathers recognized that our rights (and corresponding morals) came not from each other, as we do not possess in our human form, the strength to altruistically and benevolently regulate the brotherhood of man. History confirms this assumption as per Stalin, Hitler ET all.They knew that these principles must come from God, and when followed, liberated mankind from the prison of his own ignorance and sin. By the absolute nature and divinity of them, these Godly principles enlighten mankind and create heroes from the likes of herdsman. Our founders knew humanity's history. Are you following the logic? If not, I hope that you soon will, and then you will understand why they believed in the power of freedom. They were Christians.We all know the story of America and the inspiring ideals of God and Country, the great founding fathers who put our present and future, in our hands. They had faith that the people would continue the legacy of stirring the free and open debate. They had faith that the people would hold fast to the morality which acts as glue, and holds the fabric of society together under one flag. They understood what I am writing to you here long before I did, and that without those absolutes, we would be divided amongst ourselves and fall. Consider the following quotes and weigh them against today's view of the role of religion in our lives and government:-The U.S. House Judiciary Committee Report, 1853-At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect...There can be no substitute for Christianity... that was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. The great, vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.-The author of the First Amendment, James Madison-"We have staked the whole future of all our political institutions... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the ten commandments of God" [2]-U.S. Supreme Court, 1844-Our law and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the redeemer of mankind... it is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense, and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. [3]Separation of church and state? Yes, to the extent that Congress shall make no law as to the establishment of a state religion. Their concern was that one sect of Christianity may become too controlling, the way it was in England. The way one sect of any religion tends to distort the truth if unchecked. These men knew that truth prevailing would depend upon the freedom to disagree. A system of checks and balances must be in place so that we have the ability to correct each other when ideas are taken too far and truth is in danger of being distorted.

quote:

---

Our founding fathers recognized that our rights (and corresponding morals) came not from each other

---

One of those God given rights was the right of a man to be absolutly free to obey his conscicience and convictions in matters of religion; and to be totally free from any type of government influence upon the duty which he owes to his Creator.

quote:

---

They knew that these principles must come from God

---

The principle of Separation of Church and State came from God.

Look, I understand that. I argue the same point with monists all the time. Jesus even said, "I have not come to unite, but divide!'I am speaking in the ideal sense, to point out that the ideal of law is nothing more than a claim at deity. It's a convoluted mess but that's why our system works, because we have the freedom to religion and that moral framework stabalizes the society. Take the morality away, and the society colapses and the state takes over...I obviously did a terrible job in driving home the point.