News Separation of Church and State May God Bless the rest of us?

[SOS2008]

Separation of Church and State..."May God Bless"...the rest of us?

In the wake of the 2004 election, last count was that the IRS was investigating 60 religious organizations for endorsing Bush from the pulpit. The mixing of religion in politics has become a much more serious problem then most Americans realize, because this number only represents organizations that were blatant enough to be caught (this time around). Other organizations advised congregations to support the candidate who represented what their religion stands for, though just as inappropriate, not to mention presumptuous. After all, one candidate may be against gay marriage and abortion, while the other is concerned about poverty, the elderly, health care, etc.--as if one can pick and choose "values." The reason why some Bush supporters were less willing to participate in exit polls was because many were block voting, which is illegal.

With regard to separation of church and state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." - the First Amendment, the courts have gone back and forth on the issue with the use of various tests (the Lemon Test, Endorsement Test, Coercion Test, and ceremonial deism or the History Test).

The Coercion Test, which was advanced by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1992:

"[A]t a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so"

This immediately excludes the practice of prayer in school.

The Endorsement Test, which emphasizes government neutrality is summarized by Justice Sandra Day O'Conner:

"Endorsement sends a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community..."

Justice O'Connor continued that likewise "Disapproval sends the opposite message." If it wasn't for ceremonial deism (historical usage), the Endorsement Test would exclude everything else.

Yes, the founding fathers were religious men (though some had illegitimate children, were ladies men, etc.). However the minting of all coins with "In God We Trust" was not approved until 1938, and it didn't appear on paper money until 1956. It was not until 1942 that Congress wrote the Pledge into law, with the words "under God" added later in 1954. Likewise the many and various public buildings in which the Ten Commandments are displayed were not built until more modern times, but the biggest problem with the Ten Commandments is which version to accept:

"To Jews and Christians who take their beliefs seriously, these variations can make real theological differences. For instance, there are Protestants who make much of the Catholic omission of the graven-images commandment. And because the Jewish version of the Ten Commandments begins by establishing freedom as God's intended condition for man, many Jews consider the Sabbath -- a weekly day of freedom from work -- to be a sacred moral obligation and not just a commanded ritual observance."

Though legislative prayer dates back to 1774, it is conducted during Congressional sessions by a paid Chaplin, both of which are funded by tax dollars. While the use of tax dollars (e.g., also if applicable to holiday displays), and coercion are of most importance to me personally, one can see that the founding fathers were not responsible for establishing any of these things. Also, where is the compassionate sensitivity of Christians in this country? Some legal scholars like Steven Epstein question whether mere historical usage can truly continue to validate these practices:

"The year is 2096," Epstein writes. "Muslims now comprise seventy percent of the American population, while Christians and Jews comprise only twenty-five percent collectively. Elementary school students in most public school systems begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance in which they dutifully recite that America is one nation 'under Allah;' our national currency - both coins and paper - contains the inscription codified as our national motto, 'In Allah We Trust'. ."

Epstein queries, "Would the average Christian or Jew seriously contend that this America of 2096 would not make them feel like outsiders in their own country?"

Aside from prayer in school, and demands that creation be taught versus evolution (per tax-supported facilities/services), did you know churches checked with the IRS to see if they could pray for re-election of Bush? And then they boo-hooed because they weren't allowed to have crosses (crucifixes) at the presidential inauguration. Is the inauguration a "state" function? What part of separation of church and state don't they understand?

Regarding recent debate about the Ten Commandments erected on the grounds of the Texas State Capital in 1961 (44 years ago) one argument is that of historical usage (laughable by standards of even our young country).

Per the Americans United for Separation of Church and State web site: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer Other arguments being presented in the case per this article:

Justice Antonin Scalia, for example...had an easy remedy for those who might be offended: "Look away if you don't like it." Thankfully, many of the other justices asked more thoughtful questions...Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took issue with an assertion by Religious Right attorney Mathew Staver that the Ten Commandments aren't really that religious, firing back, "Have you ever read the first four commandments?"

Just to refresh your memory:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

You can see how these commandments pertain to the American legal system.

I know these people--they tell me their beliefs--they have signs on their office doors that read: God Bless America across the American flag. I drive a lot as a part of my job, but still, I challenge you to start looking around, and like me, you may notice the increasing amount of patriotic symbolism along with religious symbolism. There's a movement in our country to remove separation of church and state, and it has been growing stronger and stronger. If you don't want to believe it, don't believe it.

 

[Pengwuino]

So now its illegal for a private organization to contribute money to a presidential campaign fund? Wow, you certainly are a tyrant. And anyone whos studied history knows there's no such thing as a separation of church and state. It is nowhere in the Constitution or the Federalist papers and the only time it was mentioned was in a personal letter to a baptist church assuring them the government would not force them to worship a single religion. How you people turned this into "no person can show off any religious symbols in public" is absolutely beyond me. You are decieving people when you say it took 150 years for mentions of God to get on our currency when in fact, a standard system of currency took decades to create after our nation was founded. You've pretty much said all private citizens need to refrain from showing any religious promotion in their daily lives. That is equivalent to telling anti-war demonstrators or anti-tobacco demonstrators or anti-abortion demonstrators that they should not be allowed to protest in public. I find it funny that you seemingly somehow feel weakened by a flag saying "God bless America" or appauled by it yet i doubt you'd feel appauled by a demonstration on some street corner. Conversely if you showed your support of atheism through some symbol or went around telling people to be atheists, that's perfectly alright. That right is protected by teh Constitution. You can worship ro not worship whatever the hell you want to or not; that right is protected by the Constitution and was its original intent.

Also, what many anti-religious people can never seem to admit is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." means absolutely what it says it means. no LAW LAW LAW. No piece of paper can go through Congress and be signed by the President of the United States that promotes or protests against a religion/belief.

 

[SOS2008]

A quick response to the post above - Churches are allowed to endorse, pray for a candidate, etc. IF willing to give up tax exemption. If you don't agree with this, you need to take it up with the IRS.

I deliberated on even posting this thread, because it is such an incendiary topic. So if I may make a suggestion -- Let's please try to keep debate on the following:

1) Whether you have the right to believe as you choose and practice the religion of your choice. I believe I have these rights beyond question.

2) My criteria for government endorsement of religion primarily is anything connected to government (tax supported) facilities/services, such as public schools, government buildings (e.g., state capital), government functions (elections, inaugurations, etc.), and so forth.

I've stated this in another thread - The intent of separation of church and state is to provide freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Please explain to me how secular, Jewish, Islamic, etc. Americans can feel freedom FROM religion if their tax dollars are being spent on Christian displays or practices?

Please tell me how your right to believe as you choose and to practice the religion of your choice per #1 is suppressed by not allowing religious content/practices according to the criteria noted in #2. Also I take the time to research and source, so please do likewise.

Otherwise, I think we will see that responses are likely to support my case--that people either support removal of separation of church and state, or don't understand what separation of church and state means.

 

[Pengwuino]

1) Whether you have the right to believe as you choose and practice the religion of your choice. I believe I have these rights beyond question.

2) My criteria for government endorsement of religion primarily is anything connected to government (tax supported) facilities/services, such as public schools, government buildings (e.g., state capital), government functions (elections, inaugurations, etc.), and so forth.

I've stated this in another thread - The intent of separation of church and state is to provide freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Please explain to me how secular, Jewish, Isamlic, etc. Americans can feel freedom FROM religion if their tax dollars are being spent on Christian displays or practices?

Well i agree #1 is one of the inalienable rights. #2 is also the correct way to look at things. No check stamped by the US Federal government should go towards a religous item/cause but if a judge wishes to use his own money to put up a cross inside his chambers, then so be it, his money, his right, his office. If i want to put a bumper sticker that says God Bless the USA on my car, its my right. Me placing that bumper sticker does not in any way force you into being a christian/jew/muslim.

And you are missing a third option. You can have people who don't want a "seperation of church and state", agroup that doesn't know what a separation of church and state means, PLUS a group who fully understands what the separation of church and state means. I am part of the latter obviously according to my ego. Because what the 1st amendment at the most says that federal dollars will not go towards any religious causes. There is nothing there saying i can't wear a cross, or that i can't put up a picture of jesus in my office at the dmv, or that i can't pray inside a room at the welfare department or read the bible inside a court room (none of which i actually work at... I am a student). These actions are not LAWS, i am not forced to put up/do such actions and should not be forced to stop such actions. I am not forcing people at the office to be christians/jewish/muslim either. If they see a picture of Jesus and think there is some sort of pressure to turn into a Christian, then that is just very unfortunate that their brain is wired in such a funny way.

And you got to admit... there is no actual separation of church and state in the US Constitution nor the Federalist papers...

 

[russ_watters]

Again, SOS, you're mixing two (three, really...) separate issues: separation of church and state and freedom of speech (and free exercise) are different issues. Endorsing a candidate from the pulpit is a freedom of speech issue, not a freedom of religion or separation of church and state issue. Replace the church in your example with any other non-profit organization (say, the NAACP, which was investigated last year for the same thing...) and the issue and outcome are the same.

 

[russ_watters]

SOS, none of your opening post, except the last sentence addresses the issue at all. Though its not a bad summary of the establishment clause, it doesn't discuss at all the actual reason politicizing from the pulpit is illegal. If all you base this on is your perception (from the last paragraph) that others don't understand the issue, then all we can really do in this thread is to make sure you understand the issue - and also offer me up as an example of a type of person who *might* wear such a t-shirt (I'm not a slogan person though...). Otherwise, there really isn't anything to discuss.

First, the 1st Amendment:

The 1st Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

...contains 3 separate clauses semi-relevant here. They are:

The Establishment Clause: This clause prevents the Federal Government (and via the 14th amendment, the state governments) from establishing a state religion or, more generally, from endorsing/supporting (or, conversely, punishing) any specific religion in any way over any other. This clause is what is being referred to when talking about "separation of church and state".

The Free Exercise Clause: This clause is the "freedom of religion" clause. Its what guarantees us the right to worship any religion we choose (or none at all).

The Free Speech Clause: Self evident. Caveat: depending on the wording of your murder threat t-shirt in the other thread, it may be considered an overt threat, and such threats are not protected free speech.

Some discussion of these clauses can be found HERE.

HERE is a reference to the NAACP example I gave in my previous post. Strangely, news articles don't seem to explain the issue (should I be surprised?), but it is discussed in numberous BLOGS. The issue is freedom of speech.

I've stated this in another thread - The intent of separation of church and state is to provide freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

"Freedom from religion" is actually a relatively new concept that scholars don't generally accept as being intended by the founders. But the USSC (for 30 years or so) is currently making decisions that way, so it is - de facto - the way it is.

SOS, some of your other allegations (block voting), I won't comment on unless you can substantiate them.

Now, me: I'm a christian who is barely hanging on to christianity. I'll probably go to church on Easter, and the last time I went was Christmas. But I say "God bless you" when people sneeze and if there is a God, I hope he blesses everything that's important to me, including my country. I certainly hope he would approve of the US - its only natural for a religious person to seek approval for everything important in their lives, just as a child seeks approval from their parents for everything important in their lives. I don't own any t-shirt with any slogan, but I like the song, so still - I am an example that directly contradicts your position. I am an ardent defender of separation of church and state (see below).

Now, that said, there are religious people who would do away with separation of church and state (my boss), but you cannot identify which is which via the t-shirt they are wearing.

And you got to admit... there is no actual separation of church and state in the US Constitution nor the Federalist papers...

Not correct, as discussed above. Though the founders didn't originate the phrase, the phrase was invented (not really sure by who) to paraphrase the establishment clause. Let's not side-track this discussion with an irrelevancy: even if you don't like the words "separation of church and state", you still need to deal with the establishment clause.

 

[Dayle Record]

So now its illegal for a private organization to contribute money to a presidential campaign fund? Wow, you certainly are a tyrant.

The rules have changed regarding how much anyone can donate, and how they may donate.

And anyone whos studied history knows there's no such thing as a separation of church and state.

The founders of this nation, really tried to get this one right, after escaping state mandated religion, in Europe, they wanted no part of it here.


How you people turned this into "no person can show off any religious symbols in public" is absolutely beyond me.

We didn't turn it into that, The Government may not show preference to one religion, over another, and may not officially display religious symbols, implying a defacto state religion.


You are decieving people when you say it took 150 years for mentions of God to get on our currency when in fact, a standard system of currency took decades to create after our nation was founded.

No, no deception, the fifties was hard on civil rights, and the constitution, in general. The erosion of our personal rights got a kick start in the fifties, with the outlawing and demonization of many systems of belief, and social dialogue.

You've pretty much said all private citizens need to refrain from showing any religious promotion in their daily lives.

No, he pretty much, didn't say that.

That is equivalent to telling anti-war demonstrators or anti-tobacco demonstrators or anti-abortion demonstrators that they should not be allowed to protest in public.

Those rights are being severely curtailed, as new crowd control weapons, designed to inflict harmless but excruciating pain, and some so poorly tested as to be possibly quite harmful, are paraded at Defense trade shows, and make the news. Then there is the absolute curtailment, as was witnessed at the time of the political conventions last year.


I find it funny that you seemingly somehow feel weakened by a flag saying "God bless America" or appauled by it yet i doubt you'd feel appauled by a demonstration on some street corner.

I don't find your projections funny at all, but in a few years, you might become an adept spin master, but for now, it is easy to dissect this. I don't understand your sense of humor, I will admit that, but that only.


Conversely if you showed your support of atheism through some symbol or went around telling people to be atheists, that's perfectly alright. That right is protected by teh Constitution. You can worship ro not worship whatever the hell you want to or not; that right is protected by the Constitution and was its original intent.

[I]The intent of the constitution, was that religion is a private matter, in the eyes of government, and the United States will never have a religion, nor discriminate for or against religion.

Also, what many anti-religious people can never seem to admit is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." means absolutely what it says it means. no LAW LAW LAW. No piece of paper can go through Congress and be signed by the President of the United States that promotes or protests against a religion/belief.

What many religious people can never seem to admit, is that being non-religious is not being anti-religious, and that protecting our religious or non religious rights, is not anti-religious or anti-athiest. Yet our nation is in the middle of the biggest anti-religious push, ever in the pursuit of Muslim men. They way they have it set up now, one Muslim male picked up and terrorized by interrogators, can say anything against any other Muslim male, and that man can be picked up anywhere, and taken anywhere on this earth, and treated anyway interrogators in that setting feel. So, any Muslim male is in danger in this nation, regardless of his guilt or innocence, simply that he is Muslim, makes him suspect. This is gross religious discrimination, and it is happening now. When that man, or woman, goes to court, and a federal judge, proudly displays his Cross in chambers, or his Star of David, then captives of a different religion may have good information that their pleas will fall on highly prejudiced ears. If they went into an athiests court, it might fare much better for them.

The problem with the pledge of allegiance is that it is to a symbol, then it moves on to one nation, and then religious dominance theme, and then lastly it moves on to liberty, justice and freedom for all, after the religious dominance.

 

[russ_watters]

So now its illegal for a private organization to contribute money to a presidential campaign fund? Wow, you certainly are a tyrant.

Please reread, Dayle, that isn't the issue at all. Private has nothing to do with it: its about being non-profit.

And anyone whos studied history knows there's no such thing as a separation of church and state.

That's a pretty empty statement: Substantiate it. The phrase came from somewhere and is not an arbitrary one.

Dayle, where the rest of your post from? Some of it looks like quotes, but none of it appears in this thread.

http://www.christianlaw.org/separation_church_state.html is a surprisingly good discussion of the historical origin of "separation of church and state". I say surprising, because it is from a christian website, but it does not contradict the view generally accepted by both lawyers and historians. Incidentally, the phrase originated from Jefferson in 1802 and the context is quite speicific - he applies the phrase to the 1st amendment directly, using it in the same sentence as he quotes the first amendment:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Sorry guys, that's a pretty straightforward historical fact.

 

[Dayle Record]

My comments are bold and italicized, the rest of the comments are are post number two of the thread, just dissected and commented upon. If it helps you differentiate, my stuff is spell-checked.

 

[Moonbear]

I know these people--they tell me their beliefs--they have signs on their office doors that read: God Bless America across the American flag. I drive a lot as a part of my job, but still, I challenge you to start looking around, and like me, you may notice the increasing amount of patriotic symbolism along with religious symbolism. There's a movement in our country to remove separation of church and state, and it has been growing stronger and stronger. If you don't want to believe it, don't believe it.

The entire premise of the argument does not support this conclusion. Mixing of patriotic and religious symbolism, as long as it is not state-sponsored (in other words, you're not being handed a t-shirt as you enter a courthouse, and your Congressional representatives haven't mailed them to you), is fully within the rights of the individual to express his/her religious views within the context of freedom of speech.

While I do not disagree that there are people who would like to blur the separation of church and state, that people are choosing to display symbols mixing patriotic and religious symbolism is not de facto evidence that they are one of the people who wishes to blur those lines. That you have some friends who claim that is their intent cannot be generalized to the entire population. There are a lot of people in the country who share similar religious beliefs, and thus might choose to display those symbols. The increasing display of these signs and symbols is not because of a movement to blur the distinction of church and state, but because there has been a flurry of people who have been reminded of their patriotism since 9/11 or who have jumped on the patriotism bandwagon. There has been an increase in display of patriotic symbols without religious symbols too. As long as they are being displayed on their own private property or carried on their person, it is their right to do so.

 

[russ_watters]

My comments are bold and italicized, the rest of the comments are are post number two of the thread, just dissected and commented upon. If it helps you differentiate, my stuff is spell-checked.

Sorry, misunderstood - it helps if you actually set it off with quotes and cite the person's name.

 

[SOS2008]

With regard to separation of church and state versus different variables involved in freedom of speech, I feel I discussed this to exhaustion in the previous thread.

As for any correlation between religious/patriotic propaganda and separation of church and state movements, I've reiterated that this is a personal belief again in the original post of this thread as follows:

I know these people--they tell me their beliefs--they have signs on their office doors that read: God Bless America across the American flag. I drive a lot as a part of my job, but still, I challenge you to start looking around, and like me, you may notice the increasing amount of patriotic symbolism along with religious symbolism. There's a movement in our country to remove separation of church and state, and it has been growing stronger and stronger. If you don't want to believe it, don't believe it.

It is true that this is not a scientifically-controlled study, however I know first hand that people, including my own very religious and large family, believe the U.S. is a Christian nation and as such there should be no separation of church and state. I have made this clear, and would like to know if/how you can prove there is no correlation between the propaganda and desire to remove separation of church and state.

In any event, the horse has been beaten to death on all these points and it's become ridiculous.

 

[russ_watters]

It is true that this is not a scientifically-controlled study, however I know first hand that people, including my own very religious and large family, believe the U.S. is a Christian nation and as such there should be no separation of church and state. I have made this clear, and would like to know if/how you can prove there is no correlation between the propaganda and desire to remove separation of church and state.

What propaganda? All I can say is that I have no more or less evidence than you do - but I'd just point out that if this were a major issue (wanting to scrap the establishment clause), you'd expect to see religious leaders trying to make it a major issue. And the fact is, there is no such movement.

In any case, I agree: you have your perception and there really isn't anything to discuss in it.

 

[cronxeh]

Personally I don't want to see the President of my country publically saying anything religious, supporting anyone religion or even mentioning word 'god' in any of his speeches. It is ignorant of other people's absence of believes, and nothing more but a political plea for support of religious nutjobs in this country.

The last 2 elections were a sham and I'm ashamed to have been sitting there on election night and waiting for results to come in - as I look at myself from side now upon these times I realize how stupid this whole thing was and how fooled we got, once again

 

[arildno]

In Norway, we have a state religion, which means (among other things) that the bishops are appointed by the government.

We have had a raging debate over the appointment of the new bishop for Oslo :
The previous (extremely popular) bishop (a former top politician for the Agrarian Party) was a staunch supporter of gay rights, and the Christian Conservatives (led by our priest, the prime minister) were determined to appoint a "conservative" bishop.
(It was considered scandalous that he has opposed the ordination of gay priests who were openly living in a same-sex relationship)
By threatening to leave the ruling coalition, the C.C's trumped their candidate through..

Well, this was rather off-topic, but I thought the whole process rather entertaining..

 

[SOS2008]

What propaganda? All I can say is that I have no more or less evidence than you do - but I'd just point out that if this were a major issue (wanting to scrap the establishment clause), you'd expect to see religious leaders trying to make it a major issue. And the fact is, there is no such movement.

I used the word propaganda per the Webster definition: "any widespread promotion of particular ideas, doctrines, etc." in that I believe people who support removal of separation of church and state (or who may be well-intentioned but sadly uninformed) are the same people who display "God Bless America" stickers etc., (and I think you know some of these people too). The information you added is very good--thank you--and I wouldn't mind borrowing some of your "engineer qualities."

With regard to the establishment clause, I'm not sure why religious leaders would need to try to scrap this--why not just try to remove separation of church and state by demanding creation be taught in schools, and to have the Ten Commandments displayed on state capital grounds, etc. as they are doing? Religious leaders are fighting the IRS rules, and as far as checks and balances and current efforts by Frist, et al, to try to change the senate rule regarding "filibuster" opposition, thus clearing a path to tamper with the Judicial branch for religious purposes, how can you say there is no movement?

 

[russ_watters]

With regard to the establishment clause, I'm not sure why religious leaders would need to try to scrap this--why not just try to remove separation of church and state by demanding creation be taught in schools, and to have the Ten Commandments displayed on state capital grounds, etc. as they are doing? Religious leaders are fighting the IRS rules, and as far as checks and balances and current efforts by Frist, et al, to try to change the senate rule regarding "filibuster" opposition, thus clearing a path to tamper with the Judicial branch for religious purposes, how can you say there is no movement?

Those things make the newspapers, but isn't that an indication of how widespread of an issue it is not? Plane crashes are big news while car accidents are not, yet a thousand times more people die in car accidents - same reason applies. There have been perhaps a dozen school districts to make an issue out of creationism in the past decade - a dozen out of what, a hundred thousand? I don't consider that widespread, and there certainly isn't any coordination between those districts: its just a handful of nuts who happened to get elected to the school board.

 

[Dayle Record]

Creationist pamphlets at the Grand Canyon, sold by the US Forest Service... handful of nuts got elected to national office. A handful of nuts a day, is a good practice to prevent cardiac disease, its no way to run a country. Wacka wacka wacka.

 

[SOS2008]

So there's nothing unusual going on. No Big Brother kind of things, no fundamentalist movement, nothing like that. Here's what I posted in the Terri Shiavo thread:

But that the President himself, along with Congress intervened in an “extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation early Monday aimed at keeping her alive” is appalling beyond my comprehension. This man has never understood the role of presidency and leader of the free world. I can’t wait for his last term to be ended.

In the meantime, I applaud this federal judge--the very check and balance Bush and Republicans would like to be rid of in their effort to change the historical senate rule allowing filibuster opposition. These people (Bush, Frist, etc.) are determined to remove any right, representation, or iota of democracy so they can turn this country into Jesusland.

Beginning with the war in Iraq, to the Patriot Act, to the religious right-wing agenda: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength." –The three slogans engraved in the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's book "1984." - Who wants to wait and find out who's right or wrong about a movement?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see a connection between the Patriot act, Terry Schaivo, or the Iraq war and the establishment claue. Please explain.

 

[Informal Logic]

I don't see a connection between the Patriot act, Terry Schaivo, or the Iraq war and the establishment claue. Please explain.

Since I have this in my signature, I'd say the war in Iraq = "War is Peace," things like the Patriot Act = "Freedom Is Slavery," and fundamentalism = "Ignorance Is Strength."

 

[russ_watters]

Since I have this in my signature, I'd say the war in Iraq = "War is Peace," things like the Patriot Act = "Freedom Is Slavery," and fundamentalism = "Ignorance Is Strength."

Sooooooo... how is that relevant to the establishment clause?

...and not that its relevant, but have you read "1984"? Is is a criticism of right or left totalitarianism...? (HINT)

 

[Artman]

Personally I don't want to see the President of my country publically saying anything religious, supporting anyone religion or even mentioning word 'god' in any of his speeches. It is ignorant of other people's absence of believes, and nothing more but a political plea for support of religious nutjobs in this country.

Clinton was a womanizer, who was nearly impeached for his improprieties, but that's okay I guess, so long as he didn't mention God in his speeches, right?

I don't want our president publicly supporting anyone religion either, but I can overlook his mentioning God in his speeches, it is his right to freedom of speech.

 

[SOS2008]

Russ, if I remember correctly, you've stated there is no "separation of church and state movement" in this country, thus I point to the most recent illustration of this--Bush's intervention in the individual rights of Terri Shiavo (i.e., Big Brother) on the basis of religious belief (the involvement of the executive branch and congress, which therefore is contrary to separation of church and state), and then made reference to efforts to remove checks and balances (the judicial branch), because all these things are elements of totalitarianism (i.e., defined as "one political group maintains complete control") and "1984" which is about Big Brother. I don't know why you've brought the establishment clause into this--no one mentions it in these recent posts.

 

[Kerrie]

Ironic thing is, the general Republican belief is less government needs to be involved with individual rights. Clearly, Bush's intervention in the Terry Schiavo case doesn't represent this. What is truly the modern Republican way?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, if I remember correctly, you've stated there is no "separation of church and state movement" in this country, thus I point to the most recent illustration of this--Bush's intervention in the individual rights of Terri Shiavo (i.e., Big Brother) on the basis of religious belief (the involvement of the executive branch and congress, which therefore is contrary to separation of church and state)...

Where in the law passed is there any mention of God or religion? Beyond that, the only way religion enters this is its in her parents' claim: and that's a free exercise clause issue, not an establishment clause issue. You haven't shown how Terri Schaivo's case is related to the establishment clause.

Furthermore, though it should be assumed that Bush gets his ideas on "right to life" largely from his religion, that is his right. Its only against the establishment clause if he passes a law specific to religion.

I don't know why you've brought the establishment clause into this--no one mentions it in these recent posts.

Its your thread! The thread is about the establishment clause! And you made the segue in post 19 talking about "the right-wing adjenda". I asked specifically what that had to do with this thread (a thread about the establishment clause), and that led us here. If you want to go on a tangential rant, just say so and I'll get out of the way. Or better yet, if you wanted this thread to be a general anti-right rant in the first place, you should have specified it in the OP.

Ironic thing is, the general Republican belief is less government needs to be involved with individual rights. Clearly, Bush's intervention in the Terry Schiavo case doesn't represent this. What is truly the modern Republican way?

Not quite. The government's primary purpose is to protect the fundamental individual rights. Bush thinks this is a "right to life" issue and that's fine (though he's wrong on how to go about protecting it). I will agree, however, that Bush (and the party) is further right than the average American Republican. I was greatly annoyed when the party torpedoed McCain's campaign 5 years ago.

 

[SOS2008]

Where in the law passed is there any mention of God or religion? Beyond that, the only way religion enters this is its in her parents' claim: and that's a free exercise clause issue, not an establishment clause issue. You haven't shown how Terri Schaivo's case is related to the establishment clause.

I was never relating this point to the establishment clause.

Furthermore, though it should be assumed that Bush gets his ideas on "right to life" largely from his religion, that is his right. Its only against the establishment clause if he passes a law specific to religion. Its your thread! The thread is about the establishment clause!

The original post of the thread is about many aspects of separation of church and state. The establishment clause is only one aspect of this topic.

And you made the segue in post 19 talking about "the right-wing agenda". I asked specifically what that had to do with this thread (a thread about the establishment clause), and that led us here. If you want to go on a tangential rant, just say so and I'll get out of the way. Or better yet, if you wanted this thread to be a general anti-right rant in the first place, you should have specified it in the OP.

This thread was an extension of earlier remarks in another thread, so this was brought back up--though it did deviate a bit, sorry, but I feel it is related.

I hear you about McCain--And yet he is still pulling the R-line currently on stage with Bush while doing his SS tour in the Southwest. I'm not sure whether I admire McCain for this or not.

 

[russ_watters]

IThe original post of the thread is about many aspects of separation of church and state. The establishment clause is only one aspect of this topic.

That is not correct. The establishment clause is separation of Church and state. See the Jefferson quote.

 

[Informal Logic]

In reading through various threads, it seems the point regarding the Bush regime and the obvious taking of sides = contrary to separation of church and state (favoring Christian belief over secular Americans and those of other religions). I don't see where this point has been ignored or needs to be debated further.

 

[russ_watters]

What you guys aren't getting is that separation of church and state does not mean he can't allow his religion to affect his policy/decisions - it just means he can't favor a specific religion with legislation. So apply this test to a law: ask yourself what specific religion does this law favor or suppess? If you can't answer it, then its not a separation of church and state issue.

MORE

The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

And the tests:

The Lemon test: This was defined in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971. 10 To be constitutional, a law must:
-have a secular purpose, and
-be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and
-not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.

The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor created this criteria: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.
The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accommodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion.

A simple set of criteria is that the government (and by extension public schools) may not:

-promote one religion or faith group over any other
-promote a religiously based life over a secularly based life
-promote a secularly based life over a religiously based life.

 

[loseyourname]

Jesus, Logic and SOS. No matter what decision any leader makes, he is being informed by some system of ethics. Whether that system is religious or secular, it is going to be a system that is not universally adopted by all American citizens. Criticizing Bush for making policy decisions based on his Christian ethics is no different from criticizing an atheist president for making policy decisions based on secular humanism. Both systems exclude the opinions of those who do not adhere to it. Russ has made it more than explicit that the constitution does not proscribe this (in fact, it cannot proscribe this unless it proscribes all action by elected officials).

 

[russ_watters]

Criticizing Bush for making policy decisions based on his Christian ethics is no different from criticizing an atheist president for making policy decisions based on secular humanism...(in fact, it cannot proscribe this unless it proscribes all action by elected officials).

Well, theoretically it could be a specifically athiest government, utterly devoid of religious ideas, right?? How you would get that from the words of the founders of the US, though, I dunno...

 

[SOS2008]

Okay guys. There's no problem in our country. There is no mixing of religion and politics in inappropriate ways. Bush and administration have not taken sides of any special interest groups that just so happen to be religious, specifically Christian. Christian votes didn't help Bush to be reelected. There is no increase of fundamentalism, and these fundamentalists don't have any agenda. We don't need to worry, and anyone who questions it is just being ridiculous. Let's all vote for Frist in 2008. I'm sure the path where all this is leading will work out just fine, and we will live happily ever after in the Christian Republic of the United States.

 

[kat]

The type of governing body; that SOS seems to think is his inherent right...godless...has also been responsible for the most deaths of any other type of governing bodies in the world.
You seem to be of the mind that in a country where the overwhelming population professes to be Christian..that a president shouldn't have Christian votes helping him to be in office...what you're spouting is nonsense.

 

[russ_watters]

SOS, if you think there's a problem with too much religion in the US, fine (well, not fine - kat's point is a problem for that position), but that's not the same as separation of church and state.

I've given you the criterea by which you can easily prove a separation of church and state problem: find me a law that breaks one of those Constitutionality tests.

 

[Curious3141]

find me a law that breaks one of those Constitutionality tests.

Don't you think that the granting of tax exempt status to religious organisations (like churches) qualifies as a violation of separation ?

 

[russ_watters]

Don't you think that the granting of tax exempt status to religious organisations (like churches) qualifies as a violation of separation ?

Churches don't get tax exept status because they are churches, they get tax exempt status because they are non-profit. And that applies to all churches of all kinds and all other non-profit organizations.

If they start doing things that violate the rules for non-profit organizations, then they lose that status - see last-years' issue with several churches and the NAACP being too political. They are under investigation by the IRS to review their tax exempt status.

edit: that's the Lemon test. It passes, though the tricky part of the Lemon test is figuring out what constitutes "entanglements". One example would be if a law required the government to decide what are valid religions and what aren't.

 

[SOS2008]

I don't know how it is equated that to not favor a particular religious group means therefore that we should have an atheist (anti-religious) country!? This also has been brought up more than once in various threads. One of the points in the original post of this thread is if government favors a particular religious group (e.g., Christians) it is contrary to separation of church and state, in that it is discriminatory to other citizens of other religions or of no particular organized religion/dogma.

Secular people, like myself are not necessarily "Godless" and quite frankly I find this offensive. Not that it's anyone's business, but I own a bible, and have the Ten Commandments on my fridge, etc., but this is my choice and that's how it should remain. We all have the right to choose our beliefs, and parents have the right to teach their children what they choose to teach them in their homes, etc. -- it isn't for our government to interfere in our lives and to dictate any of these things. I don't understand what is so difficult about this point.

 

[Integral]

A presidents religious believes should be immaterial, it should not matter in the least what the president believes. What does matter is how religion is translated into law. In our system there is NO place in our laws for religious beliefs. Other then the fundamental one which restricts the government from interfering in an individuals right to believe what he wishes.

So there should be no room in our legal system for a presidents PERSONAL belief system. If a persons belief systems does not permit them to have abortions or marry persons of the same sex then that is their business and they should follow their belief system. On the other hand. If a persons belief system allows such behavior the government should not restrict those rights, with reasons based on a belief system. In other words (Russ) you cannot say it is not right for me, therefore it is not right for you.

That is where our not so great president is getting into grey areas. He and his fundamentalist buddies seem to think that their belief system is some how superior to the the legal system. This is a very scary thing for those of us who do not agree with much that the fundamentalist take for granted. It is very scary that a single religious mindset is gaining so much power that they think their beliefs are core to the American way of life. And that they have a right to declare what is and what is not moral.

 

[russ_watters]

If that's the way you see it, (Integral and SOS), vote accordingly, but that is not the way the Constitution reads or was intended.

And that they have a right to declare what is and what is not moral.

We've had that discussion before: a lot of laws/issues have moral implications (murder, abortion). So the people who write those laws will necessarily use their morality to shape those laws. Thats what we elect/pay them for! If their morality comes form their religion, there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it - vote for an athiest!

 

[Informal Logic]

If that's the way you see it, (Integral and SOS), vote accordingly, but that is not the way the Constitution reads or was intended. We've had that discussion before: a lot of laws/issues have moral implications (murder, abortion). So the people who write those laws will necessarily use their morality to shape those laws. Thats what we elect/pay them for! If their morality comes form their religion, there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it - vote for an athiest!

In reading the original post of this thread, it is interesting how the debate can progress as it has. Please explain how you conclude that those who don't want government to dictate particular religious views means they want to be atheist?

 

[Informal Logic]

The type of governing body; that SOS seems to think is his inherent right...godless...has also been responsible for the most deaths of any other type of governing bodies in the world.
You seem to be of the mind that in a country where the overwhelming population professes to be Christian..that a president shouldn't have Christian votes helping him to be in office...what you're spouting is nonsense.

Actually, religion has done far more damage in history, suppressing scientific advancement, gaining wealth in exchange for promises of salvation, killing in the guise "crusades" and now we are dealing with countries in the Middle East with religious governments that we so abhor...I can see how it would be much better to have more of the same here in America.

 

[fifiki]

Furthermore, though it should be assumed that Bush gets his ideas on "right to life" largely from his religion, that is his right. Its only against the establishment clause if he passes a law specific to religion.

I've given you the criterea by which you can easily prove a separation of church and state problem

That's not entirely correct. a government action can violate the establishment clause if the government’s primary purpose was to advance religion, or if the principal effect is to aid or inhibit religion, or if there is excessive government entanglement with religion. Also, it's far from an easy test, if you're read any of the case law on the subject matter at all. There are at least 3 separate theories that people can use when it comes to the establishment clause. The Supreme Court has said that the Establishment Clause jurisprudence is that the government may neither promote nor affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization, nor may it obtrude itself in the internal affairs of any religious institution.

 

[russ_watters]

In reading the original post of this thread, it is interesting how the debate can progress as it has. Please explain how you conclude that those who don't want government to dictate particular religious views means they want to be atheist?

Since it is unreasonable to assume that a politician can "check his religion at the door", the only way to get a politician who doesn't make decisions based on his religion-shaped morality is to elect a politician who doesn't have any religion-shaped morality.

That's not entirely correct. a government action can violate the establishment clause if the government’s primary purpose was to advance religion, or if the principal effect is to aid or inhibit religion, or if there is excessive government entanglement with religion.

I'm not sure why you are saying I'm incorrect - that's the Lemon test I posted. So, clearly, I agree with all of that.

Also, it's far from an easy test...

I mentioned that as well. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said it would be "easy" - but then, there is quite a bit of caselaw on the subject to go by.

 

[fifiki]

Since it is unreasonable to assume that a politician can "check his religion at the door", the only way to get a politician who doesn't make decisions based on his religion-shaped morality is to elect a politician who doesn't have any religion-shaped morality. I'm not sure why you are saying I'm incorrect - that's the Lemon test I posted. So, clearly, I agree with all of that. I mentioned that as well. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said it would be "easy" - but then, there is quite a bit of caselaw on the subject to go by.

well i totally missed that post, i just went by the earlier one where you said that the law is specific to religion.

 

[SOS2008]

Since it is unreasonable to assume that a politician can "check his religion at the door", the only way to get a politician who doesn't make decisions based on his religion-shaped morality is to elect a politician who doesn't have any religion-shaped morality.

Your reasoning is what's faulty. All our presidents have been religious, but they haven't misused the executive office (state) to champion their particular religious beliefs (contrary to neutrality) to impose it upon all other citizens (secular, Jewish, Islamic, etc.) in pursuit of laws (banning abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and even to the point of unprecedented intervention by the Executive Branch and Congress in the private matters of the Shiavo family. How much clearer does it have to be?

And just because people don't choose to wear their beliefs on their sleeves by displaying religious symbols, or marching around, praying in public, sitting in Jeb's office, pushing their beliefs on others, etc. it does not mean they are "Godless" and support atheism (a black and white conclusion). Maybe some of us choose to practice tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs, which is what the president should do, of all people.

I'm not sure why you are saying I'm incorrect - that's the Lemon test I posted. So, clearly, I agree with all of that. I mentioned that as well. Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said it would be "easy" - but then, there is quite a bit of caselaw on the subject to go by.

I'm not sure why you feel your persistence on this point makes everyone else's point invalid.

 

[kcballer21]

The type of governing body; that SOS seems to think is his inherent right...godless...has also been responsible for the most deaths of any other type of governing bodies in the world.

What's the implication here?
http://www.atheists.org/action/alert-11-mar-2004.html

We've had that discussion before: a lot of laws/issues have moral implications (murder, abortion). So the people who write those laws will necessarily use their morality to shape those laws. Thats what we elect/pay them for! If their morality comes form their religion, there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it - vote for an athiest!

That's a good point. Democracy is great and all, but can't we all acknowledge that it is a little disturbing that the most powerful man in the world is an evangelical? Shouldn't critical thinking be a prerequisite for the President of the United States? Is someone who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible a critical thinker? I guess that's my biggest problem.

 

[fifiki]

If that's the way you see it, (Integral and SOS), vote accordingly, but that is not the way the Constitution reads or was intended. We've had that discussion before: a lot of laws/issues have moral implications (murder, abortion). So the people who write those laws will necessarily use their morality to shape those laws. Thats what we elect/pay them for! If their morality comes form their religion, there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it - vote for an athiest!

People elect them so that they can represent the people, not to shape the laws according the their own morality or religion. People can have morals based on their religion, but the line is crossed when those morals have the effect of endorsing a particular view or religion. That's where it becomes dangerous. Those laws with moral implications that you mentioned such as abortion laws, were largely about freedom to choose--that crosses all religious boundaries. However, for Bush, for example, to use his religious morals to create a law, is violative of the establishment clause.

To use your religious morals as the basis of a law, there's a good argument that there was no secular purpose in creating the law. Further the law may no longer be neutral. Also, to insert their morals in that way, it may be that they are affiliating themselves with a particular religious doctrine, which as a government it shouldn't do. Especially when one's moral views affects another's freedom of choice.

As a government representing a group of multicultural people, given freedom of religion and thought, I would hope that when an elected member of government chooses to include their morals into any rule of law, they do so without violating the establishment clause. Just to say that since we all have morals that are based in some way on religion its ok to have laws with those same morals is not enough. The law does not need to specifically mention God or religion to violate the establishment clause.

It's fanciful to think that since we have a "test" then that will tell us when there is a separation of church and state, and it's as simple as that. My answer to those questions could differ drastically from the way others answer them. It's in the application of that test and others that it becomes difficult, and possibly where a little fudging comes in. That was why the last election was so important as Bush may possibly elect 4 or so Supreme Court Justices to the bench who hold his particular viewpoints. That's where morality and religion becomes so important because these are the people who create the laws and without a doubt their religious viewpoints does play a part in their decisions. Just read the case law.

Athiesm is also a system of belief, as other "religions" are, so one cannot simply remove "religion" just by having an athiestic state.

 

[loseyourname]

People elect them so that they can represent the people, not to shape the laws according the their own morality or religion. People can have morals based on their religion, but the line is crossed when those morals have the effect of endorsing a particular view or religion. That's where it becomes dangerous. Those laws with moral implications that you mentioned such as abortion laws, were largely about freedom to choose--that crosses all religious boundaries. However, for Bush, for example, to use his religious morals to create a law, is violative of the establishment clause.

No, it isn't. It's a violation to pass a law favoring one religion over another. If he believes murder and abortion to be morally wrong (for whatever reason), then he should attempt to pass laws outlawing those. If it were a matter of popular opinion rather than the opinions of the lawmakers, I don't think you'd be any happier. Since the vast majority of American citizens are religious Christians, we'd pretty much have Christian laws.

To use your religious morals as the basis of a law, there's a good argument that there was no secular purpose in creating the law.

If favoring one religious morality over another is to be banned as a violation of the constitution, why not the favoring of secular humanism over religious morality? Any why do you assume that secular morals are necessarily going to be any different? I've probably been the most well-spoken and knowledgeable arguer in favor of the pro-life position in the abortion thread in this very forum, yet I'm not the least bit religious. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, I will applaud that decision. Frankly, I don't care if the Supreme Court makes that decision because they are Christians or if, like me, they have reasoned to it by other means. If it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. It's worth noting that Russ, who is Christian, has stated that he is pro-choice.

Also, to insert their morals in that way, it may be that they are affiliating themselves with a particular religious doctrine, which as a government it shouldn't do.

A government cannot align itself with one religion, a government official can; that is his personal choice and personal liberty. When he is implementing policy, do you honestly expect him to put aside his ethics? Would you pass policy or legislation that you felt was unethical?

Especially when one's moral views affects another's freedom of choice.

All morality affects your freedom of choice. I'd really like to know when choice became the number one value in this nation. There is no virtue simply in having a choice. There is virtue in making the right choice.

Just to say that since we all have morals that are based in some way on religion its ok to have laws with those same morals is not enough.

That is enough. What would you have us do? Only pass laws that are in line with the morality of everybody? We would have no laws if that were the case; some group of people is always going to disagree.

The law does not need to specifically mention God or religion to violate the establishment clause.

On this I can agree. And while we're on the mentioning of God in public policy, removing Ten Commandments plaques and "In God we Trust" is most certainly the right thing to do because, simply put, our nation is not supposed to trust in God. We trust in the constitution and in the people, for better or worse.

Athiesm is also a system of belief, as other "religions" are, so one cannot simply remove "religion" just by having an athiestic state.

That is a good point. By the same token, we also can't bring laws into line with your objections by making them in line with atheistic morality.

 

[fifiki]

No, it isn't. It's a violation to pass a law favoring one religion over another. If he believes murder and abortion to be morally wrong (for whatever reason), then he should attempt to pass laws outlawing those. If it were a matter of popular opinion rather than the opinions of the lawmakers, I don't think you'd be any happier. Since the vast majority of American citizens are religious Christians, we'd pretty much have Christian laws.

I have never said that the laws of the US were never based in some manner in Christian ideology. However, the difference with those laws such as those relating to murder is that it doesn't necessarily point in anyone religious doctrine. These are laws based on crimes that we would all agree are abhorent, no matter what religion we believe in. Or else the laws were design to allow us the freedom to follow one's religion.

Further there is a slippery slope with allowing legislators to create laws simply by following their own morality. What if it wasn't as clear as murder? If we allowed legislators to do this, where will it stop? Shall we override Roe v. Wade because the legislators think it's morally right to do so, never mind a person's own right to choose for themselves? Whatever would that do to free exercise of religion?

Furthermore, who's morality are you going by? To each their own? What chaos that would surely create. Can ANY person be allowed to pass laws no matter his/her morality? What about a satanist? Which religion would you exclude from this free-wheeling religious morality-based lawmaking?

If favoring one religious morality over another is to be banned as a violation of the constitution, why not the favoring of secular humanism over religious morality? Any why do you assume that secular morals are necessarily going to be any different? I've probably been the most well-spoken and knowledgeable arguer in favor of the pro-life position in the abortion thread in this very forum, yet I'm not the least bit religious. If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, I will applaud that decision. Frankly, I don't care if the Supreme Court makes that decision because they are Christians or if, like me, they have reasoned to it by other means. If it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do. It's worth noting that Russ, who is Christian, has stated that he is pro-choice.

That's the point. We all think differently. That's why it shouldn't be about religion. What you are saying is that as long as something gets decided the way you like them to be, then you don't care why they decided it that way. Well don't we all want things just the way we like them. That would be just super. The problem is that we do have to think about why they decide certain things because it effects us all. Principally, when the reason they do certain things or make certain laws are based purely out of one's religious morality, that's leaving out the rest of us who think differently. The majority of Americans may be Christians, and the US coin may say God, but US government is still a secular government and that should be kept in mind, especially when the people who lead the nation, make important choices. We should embrace all religions as much as possible and the people in government should represent them all when they do acts of government.

A government cannot align itself with one religion, a government official can; that is his personal choice and personal liberty. When he is implementing policy, do you honestly expect him to put aside his ethics? Would you pass policy or legislation that you felt was unethical?

You seem to think that if one doesn't use one's religious morals as the basis of laws, then it would be like relegating one's morality to the sidelines. It's almost like arguing that athiests are immoral. I'm not saying that one has to toss aside one's religious morality. That would be impossible. However, when legislators are creating laws they have to keep in mind not only their religious morality but those of others also. No one is saying that the legislators has to be free of morals or ethics. Only to embrace not only one's own but to keep in mind that people have their own beliefs. You seem to be missing the point in what I'm trying to say or perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm referring to a situation where because of a certain religious belief, a legislator makes laws in conformity with those beliefs and only those beliefs. In other words the purpose was nonsecular. At the very least, there is a good argument for it.

All morality affects your freedom of choice. I'd really like to know when choice became the number one value in this nation. There is no virtue simply in having a choice. There is virtue in making the right choice.

Of course, any decision affects choice and any law would affect another's freedom to do as one wishes. However, I was making the point that an argument could be made that the establishment clause may be violated and that legislation would arguably be deemed unconstitutional, especially if freedom of choice was considerably affected. The courts do look at that as a factor when it's a large enough factor.

That is enough. What would you have us do? Only pass laws that are in line with the morality of everybody? We would have no laws if that were the case; some group of people is always going to disagree.

I meant not enough as in there needs to be more foundation than that if you want to insert a personal religious viewpoint into creating a legislation. Just saying, oh mostly everyone has religious morals, that's ok for the legislators to act in non-secular ways. That's not enough.

That is a good point. By the same token, we also can't bring laws into line with your objections by making them in line with atheistic morality.

I never said that laws must follow atheistic morals. Legislators should not endorse a particular belief and there is a danger of that when legislation gets created BASED on religious morality.