Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance

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.

As noted in the post on the other thread that you haven't answered, Madison also said: (emphasis mine)That applies to atheists as well as people of any other religious thought.Yes, Madison's thinking is clear, that any single little infringement on the total unequivocal separation of church and state imperils it.He also opposed, lobbied against and voted against the establishment of a clergy for the congress, one of your favorite examples of how "pro-religion" the government is: He also said: when he introduced the 1st amendment. (emphasis mine again)Then we have John Adams, who would be sorely upset by the current administration: the unanswered post in question btw is:
http://EvC Forum: Separation of Church and Stateit is also on the thead about separation of church and state, mr admin.You never answered whether you thought it was possible for a religious person to have a divided allegience\loyalty ....So do you?This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*06*2005 11:06 PMmust be time for beds. the post with the quote is
http://EvC Forum: Separation of Church and State
and you haven't addressed that issue but tried to dodge it.a domani. definitely time for bedsThis message has been edited by RAZD, 12*06*2005 11:10 PMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 12*06*2005 11:13 PM

---

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 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?

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

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?

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.

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.

That is not support, that is protection. Support would prescribe making sure religion continues. It is neutral on that aspect. It is up to the community and not the govt to ensure its continuity.I might add that since that restriction on free exercise is known to cover atheism, by your definition that would be mean the govt majorly supports atheism? Yes there is. First of all there is no real avenue of supporting all religion equally, especially when one is discussing use of money. Second there is no way of supporting religion without oppressing (or acting to oppress) the religious belief that there are no gods, and that no gods are necessary. Third there is no mention of this being part of any expected terrain for Congressional control. Thus by ommission within duties, and proscription within the Bill of Rights, support for religion by the govt is nullified. I challenged this description you are using. Provide or drop this claim. You understand that even when they used the term "sect" it referred to even as broad a category as economic theory and atheism. Then again they never said proreligion but nonsectarian.You are simply making this up. 1) You brought up Jefferson as an example I was supposed to learn from.
2) My discussion (which you conveniently skipped) did not suggest that Jefferson should be disregarded. It suggested that they had intentions for further change which were not immediately effected or effectable and so no single statement or action can be used to generate a whole picture.
3) Jefferson, not Washington, was one of the prime architects of the govt. If Washington had been that important he would have been the one assigned that duty. And as it stands Washington supported what Jefferson drafted.
4) Washington was a giant due to his military achievements. He was a name, and I agree that he was very cool in how he approached the handling of govt. But uhhh... Washington made the same types of statements Jefferson did with respect to how restricted the govt was supposed to be, such that any and all could find protection there. He also made no statements to suggest that the role of govt was to champion religion to its population as long as it was nonsectarian.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

When I have specifically stated SECULAR not only in the opening post on separation of church and state (where admins take note this discussion should be taking place) and the opening post on this thread, and have specifically said that SECULARISM is not correct, for you to state this now shows(1) you don't follow the argument or
(2) you don't care what the facts areOf course you had to search to find your definition too eh?Try dictionary.com: I also noted before the use in wikipedia of secularism: Neither of these portray secularism or secularist as anti-religion.I also pointed out that "secular humanist" comes closest to your usage, but that it was not what I meant either.My usage is SECULAR is that clear? This is absolutely ludicrous and insulting on your part, given that you are the one who keeps repeating your points with no substantiation and in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, consistently trying to correct your mistakes and misrepresentations seems to be absolutely pointless. Case in point. I specifically said SECULAR, in fact here is the statement in full: My issue with the tax exemption is not that it favors religion, as that it favors some religions over others, as well as over people who are atheist or agnostic -- anyone and everyone who does not belong to an established church, no matter what their personal faith happens to be. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for you.Meanwhile your continued posting on this issue is off-topic on this thread (which involves a topic that you absolutely fail to address in any way other than to totally misrepresent it and take offense at the SUGGESTION that SOME religious people MIGHT not be fully committed to AMERICAN values).I expect more from an administrator.Enjoy your fantasies randman, but I'll take reality, thanks.Enjoy.Now, can we get back to the topic?This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*07*2005 07:56 AM

---

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.

This is a good question and a good topic, RAZD! You da man with that fancy formatting that you do so well! (although perhaps a bit excessively! There are many tangents that I can think of going off on in regards to this topic! Oh, Brother! You are thinking what I am thinking, although we may not agree entirely! I always thought it idolatrous to think of the alligience to America and the Flag as a higher value than my personal relationship with Jesus Christ who said: Of course, I did not always think that way. I was an American kid as much as anyone. I grew up enjoying freedom. Freedom to think and read and learn and express myself pretty much any way that my folks would allow me to...with an occasional visit to the Principals office if I got too domineering.I was taught that America and Britain and some of Europe were the good guys and that the Soviet Union and China were the bad guys and, as my Dad once said, "Maybe they will blow each other off of the map and we can live in peace!"As for the rest of the world? A bunch of little countries that had strange customs that I cared little about. My day was spent riding my bike up to the 7-11 with my friend Jimmy Sherman and getting an Icee and some cotton candy! Ahhnold wants to change that rule, I'd expect! He once had a chance, but people realize that he is not so bright. Of course, Ronnie was an Actor too, but at least he could act like he knew what he was doing! The only thing that I knew about Australia when I was growing up was from school....and it was pretty much Kangaroos and a place "Down Under" that was very far away. Later, I read a book in class called "On The Beach" which was about a nuclear war and Australia being the last place that was safe. I was glad that America had the most missles because I knew that nobody would want to start anything with us---but I was afraid that we might accidently get in a nuclear exchange and ruin EVERYTHING! Hmmmm *ponder, ponder* I gotta look that one up! America is a Republic. It is not a true Democracy, and it is not a Theocracy---nor should it be! My question, in light of randmans opinion, is this: Should America be a "Christian" nation that allows freedom of expression yet attempts to legislate morality? OR...Should America be a strictly secular nation with NO religious influence to guide laws and customs? (Thats quite a can of worms, you know! ) Yes. If we were to define the term, "National Interests" as a consensus, what would we come up with?

The constitutional answer: America is a secular state

That's what the first amendment is all about. That's where the idea of "separation of church and state" comes in.

The cultural answer: America is a Christian nation

The majority of Americans claim to be Christians, of one kind or another. Church attendance here is higher than in most nations.A nation is the people and their traditions. The instruments of state do not, by themselves, make us a nation. That we are a Christian nation comes from the people. That we are a secular state in no way alters that we are a Christian nation. If anything, the secular nature of our government strengthens the Christian traditions. America has a very dynamic kind of Christianity, with new churches and denominations forming to find different ways of exercising the core traditions of Christianity.

Laws and morality

Phat raises the question of the relation between laws and morality.It is an obvious point that, as long as America remains a Christian nation, there will be religious influence to guide laws and customs. For laws and customs so not arise in a vacuum. The customs come from the people, and the laws are influence by the people.

Should morality be legislated?

Here we enter a controversial area. Many in the religious right believe that their moral principles should enacted into laws. By contrast, libertarians believe that there should be as few legal restrictions on behavior as possible.Many people see some of those libertarian principles in the constitution, often described as a right to privacy. Others deny that the constitution has such principles.My personal impression is that America has tended toward the libertarian view, in the sense that there have been fewer restrictive laws than in most nations. I believe that America has taught much of the world that having fewer restrictive laws can work.This issue is where at the center of the cultural wars. At least some of the talk about the religious right wanting a theocracy is really a disagreement with the right on how much morality should be legislated.Personal opinion: I don't believe we should legislate morality. I see the purpose of laws as being to maintain a reasonably orderly society. Laws against murder and theft, traffic laws, etc are needed for this purpose. Other moral questions (abortion, for example) need not be part of the law. Morality comes from within and from the culture. The law has never been a very effective way of establishing moral behavior.

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.

We have already been through this. I even showed you the wording. He did not say his first official act was to praise God. He said that within his first official act he wanted to personally thank God. I am in full agreement that that is not a bad thing, as a person during a personal moment (which is an inaugural speech) can say personal things.Furthermore within his speech he discussed what he wanted for a govt and it was religious and intellectual freedom... not a Xian nation for all.If that is not enough his second inaugural had no mention of God whatsoever.Bring this up one more time, now that I have challenged it twice, and you will be a proven liar. Not taxing churches is not necessarily to support religion. I would not tax churches, though at this point I would tax some entities trying to shelter themselves that way.Taxation has nothing to do with support and nonsupport anyway. We support businesses and yet tax them. We support people and yet tax them. There are nonreligious entities which also are not taxed.Your argument is defunct on its face. If the only argument for not taxing such entities is that they are religious and the govt needs to support religion, there would be a constitutional problem. You are absolutely correct that faith-based govt programs are in support of religion. I'm glad you can admit that, since Bush and Co adamantly deny that that is what their goal is.But that it has happened does not settle its constitutionality at all. Such programs were rejected by the founding fathers and directly criticized by them. You can't get more clear than that.That a rise in fundamentalism has put people into power who would do this only proves that rights are mere words on paper as long as no one is willing to stand up for them, and that any system... no matter how clearly worded and set in precedent... cane be twisted for tyranny.That is of course what the founding fathers warned about long ago.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-08-2005 07:30 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hello, Mr. Holmes. I have a few questions for you and, perhaps, a point to be made if I can figure out what it is! Anyway... I am a volunteer at the Denver Area Youth For Christ. I am a volunteer and thus not a fund-raiser in any way, but I DO see the effect that many faith based organizations have on the youth within the system....particularly the troubled and incarcerated youth.As a volunteer, I am able to get closer to many of these youth than any social services employee could ever hope to get. I do not force my religion on them any more than I do with you and the regular bunch at EvC Forum.I WILL say that I think it a good way for the state to spend their money if they were to support faith based programs. The only problem with the legalities of such a situation is that if they supported us, they would not only have to support the "good" organizations but ALL of them!Fundraising and generous philanthrophy provide the salaries of the paid members of YFC. They are often so busy fundraising that it is us>>the volunteers>> who do most of the actual work.In regards to the topic of legislation of morality and/or funding for faith based organizations, I suppose that it can never happen without including the shoddy organizations as well as the good ones.(Who really defines "good" vs "Shoddy" anyhow?) I would guess that the families themselves do.