Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance

These sound like grand principles of equality. But they do not correspond to reality.As a naturalized citizen, I recognize that I am not treated with exact equality with everyone else. According to the constitution, I am forbidded to run for U.S. President. As it happens, I have no interest in running. But the fact that there is such a prohibition demonstrates that equality cannot exist.Of more serious concern, is what happened to John Demjanjuk. To me, the implication of this case is that an any time somebody could cobble up a bunch of false evidence and use that to have my citizenship revoked and have me expelled. These words have a nice ring to them. But they, too, cannot stand up to analysis. Like it or not, although I am an American, I am an Australian too. There is no divided allegiance. But I grew up in Australia, and that experience cannot be erased. There will always be some sense in which I am Australian. My children studied French in elementary and high school. Roosevelt's statement would seem to question that. Yet surely we need more teaching of foreign language and foreign affairs. America is far too insular. It seems to me that Roosevelt's speech was jingoistic, and one should be cautious about using it as the basis for policy. Although I have concerns about the quoted Roosevelt speech, I do agree that there should not be a divided allegiance. Committment to a religion need not imply a divided allegiance.Every American should be wanting the best for America. Religious people are not automatically excluded. As religious people, they are still entitled to want the best for America. And it would be surprising if their religion did not color what they think would be the best. As citizens, with undivided allegiance to America, they are entitled to work within the system in an attempt to change America in ways that they believe will be in the nation's best interest.

It seems to me that you are confused between "secular government" and "secular society". I agree that we do not have a secular society. But RAZD was talking about a secular government, which we do have. To say that we have a secular government, is simply to say that the government operates on the basis of reason and evidence. It does not in any way require that the government favor secularism within society. Indeed, favoring secularism or any other specific philosophy would be contrary to the requirements of secular government.

I cannot find anywhere that the OP proposes an official belief system.The whole idea of "the official beleif system of the government" misunderstands the meaning of "government." A government does not have beliefs.

Not so. Apparently you are confusing "secular" with "atheist". But they are not the same at all.

Maybe you should tell us what you take that form of secularism to be. No, we couldn't. A Christian government would be entitled to say that only baptised people may vote. A secular government cannot do that. I'll grant that politicians are often unreasonable. But that's mainly a side issue. The point is that the government operates in accordance with evidence based rules that should not show any religious bias.

I'm not sure which posters you are referring to, other than yourself.I have been very careful to avoid the word "secularism" in my posts to this thread. I have commented on a secular government, but not on secularism. I'm really not sure what "secularism" is supposed to mean. The "ism" on the end suggests a system of philosophy or a belief system. As I use it, "secular government" has no such implication. It is simply a government which avoids entanglement with religious or other philosophical belief systems. Sure it was. That's what the establishment clause in the first amendment is all about.

Fortunately, we have a secular government. As a result, that government cannot be entangled in secularism (whatever that is) any more than it can be entangled in other belief systems.

Who ever suggested otherwise. I was quite clear that there was no exclusion in the last paragraph of Message 4, and RAZD seemed to agree in Message 9.

In Message 4, I criticized the OP as based on a jingoistic speech, as as sounding too anti-religion. RAZD seems to have admitted that the OP was a tad overstated (see Message 9). It's not always clear what "latest post" means -- it would be better to give a message number. I will assume that you are referring to Message 36. It was poorly worded in my opinion. For example, I see However, there is no such limitation on people. The limitation is on acts of the state. I suspect, from the context, that RAZD intended this to refer to people acting on behalf of the state, but his wording is a little ambiguous there. There is no such requirement. The "good reasons" is there because there are cases where one makes inferences for which logic is not decisive. The term "good reasons" allows such inferences, if typical people would find them reasonable. One must distinguish between 'religious values' and 'values held by religious people'. The latter not automatically excluded. Religious people have the same rights as anyone else to attempt to have their values considered. In Message 4 I criticized RAZD for seeming to imply that, and he agreed that he had not intended so extreme a reading of his OP. No, you miss the boat entirely. You seem to be hung up on some mistaken ideas about "secular" and as a result you misconstrue what is being said.

I would not agree with that.In Illinois we have a law that does not allow auto dealerships to be open on Sundays.This was not always the law. I don't recall the date when it was enacted. But I do remember something of why it was enacted.Some influential car dealerships wanted to be open only 6 days per week. And they wanted to be sure that their competitors were also only open for the same 6 days.Basically, this was a case of old fashioned Illinois political wheeling and dealing, influence peddling, and restraint of trade. The churches were not conspicuously involved.

That was actually considered. Some car dealerships argued for that. But the influence peddlars insisted that it had to be the same day of the week for everyone, lest some upstart deal takes advantage of the day they are closed.I don't doubt that some of these dealers had religious reasons for preferring Sunday to say Tuesday. But I think you would have a tough case demonstrating that a law was unconstitutional if they picked Sunday but okay for any other day.

Say RAZD, while we are on the question of divided allegiance, do you have any comments on Americans why are execs of international corporations?

I agree with you, RAZD. And I consider it a very serious problem, especially considering the amount of influence these CEOs have in both major political parties.

Quite right. It is set up to be secular which is quite different from being secularist.

I guess the courts have so ruled it. It is probably difficult to change. My preference would be no tax exemptions for religion. However, I would also favor that payment from Church members to their parson be considered a gift and not salary, so be exempt from income and payroll tax. It would be the responsibility of the religious group to take care of retirement, since this would eliminate social security eligibility. I'll leave that for RAZD to comment on. I believe the government should be secular.