Happy Holy Days--Tis the season to take offence?

[Guest]

Not a 'religion'. It is a faith. A religion or church, as utilized at the time the founding documents were written, would refer to the Church of Christ, teh Church of England, the Catholic Church, the First Baptist Church of the United States, etc.

If I can find one who can answer based on the Constitutional intention of the founding fathers, I would be happy to. :) In fact, MOST atheists do not particularily care. It is the zealot atheists who do. Amazing, that a group who suggest that 'faith' is mistaken, they have a mighty strong group of extremist zealots of their own. :)

Okay, what number comes just before infinity? :)

Okay, Gatorman, I'm going to bite. But, let's make the intent of the question clear so we can be sure we're talking about the same thing. Can you rephrase the questions - or even just make statements that I can prepare a rebuttal/agreement for?

I just don't want the discussion to go like this:

Gatorman: Who says separation of Church and State means separation of God and State?

Anatess: Who says separation of God and State has anything to do with separation of Church and State?

See what I'm saying? It's like verbal baiting that is very exhaustive. Let's make it a more meaningful discussion or debate by truly exchanging ideas.

[prisonchaplain]

So, for me, I have no problem taking out "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance. I don't have a problem with taking out the 10 commandments from the state/federal courts. I especially don't have a problem with taking out the bible from the oath to "tell the truth and nothing but the truth".

In a vacuum, I understand your point. But not in American society. These civic traditions have been with us since the founding. They are not considered sectarian, but rather a nod to the broad Christian consensus. So, to remove them is an intentional repudiation of those traditions and that consensus.

I mean, let's say you have a Buddhist witness and you ask him to put his hand on the bible to swear to tell the truth. Okay, sure, I'll put my hand on that there bible and swear...

If I were in a Thai court, asked to swore on the Buddhist Scriptures, I would neither see my promise to tell the truth as spiritual compromise, nor would I risk lying because, after all, it's not the Bible. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, most courts will allow alternative Scriptures when the defendant, or person testifying, is not Christian.

I don't think this is synonymous to removing religion out of the public conscience. The government is not responsible - nor should it be responsible - for promoting religious practice. It shouldn't be responsible for public conscience. The PUBLIC is responsible for that.

Most societies have some semblance of civic religion. When I lived in Korea, and visited national parks, a portion of the ticket-entry went to support the Buddhist temple that was on the grounds. On Buddha's birthday, the Buddhist taxi drivers would all drive their cars in a parade down the town's main street.

Now, there is an American culture formed by the environment in which we live. American culture has shifted slowly from their Christian roots. You can't put blame on the government or any political move for that.

Actually, I do. Our courts targeted the generic public school prayers of civic culture and said, no these were no longer appropriate. That single court decision led to numerous others, and a body law developed that did indeed rapidly drive civic religion out of the public square. Kids picked up on the reality that religion was no longer considered important by broader society. Of course, government and courts do not bear total, or perhaps even primary, responsiblity. But, their actions surely were a catalyst to the trend you mention.

If God is getting removed from the public conscience, it is not because God gets removed from the pledge of allegiance. It is because parents quit teaching their children about God. It is because they buy into this "hollywood style" or subscribe to the news outlets telling them it's not okay to say Merry Christmas. Bah humbug! I don't let CNN or Fox or Brad Pitt tell me what to say.

You mention several issues, but one does not negate the other. Parents should be stronger in their instruction. That truth does nothing to detract from our complaint that government has intentionally driven the super-majority civic religious sentiment in our land out of the public square.

[Gatorman]

My point was not to get off topic. It was a passing comment on the situation. This thread is not meant to address the direction, whether you consider it good or bad, that this nation has taken since its founding.

Okay, Gatorman, I'm going to bite. But, let's make the intent of the question clear so we can be sure we're talking about the same thing. Can you rephrase the questions - or even just make statements that I can prepare a rebuttal/agreement for?

I just don't want the discussion to go like this:

Gatorman: Who says separation of Church and State means separation of God and State?

Anatess: Who says separation of God and State has anything to do with separation of Church and State?

See what I'm saying? It's like verbal baiting that is very exhaustive. Let's make it a more meaningful discussion or debate by truly exchanging ideas.

[Guest]

In a vacuum, I understand your point. But not in American society. These civic traditions have been with us since the founding. They are not considered sectarian, but rather a nod to the broad Christian consensus. So, to remove them is an intentional repudiation of those traditions and that consensus.

I tend to see it in a different way - the government is a representation of the people. In the founding of the States, the people were mostly Christians migrating to the Americas to free themselves from the British Empire, explore opportunities for fortune, or criminals forcefully sent to the Americas as a prison sentence. As Latter-Day Saints, we see this as part of God's preparation of the land. The government, at its inception was built by Christian standards, inspired by the true God. A revolutionary idea took root that this government must not run a state religion - an essential part of the restoration - breaking the bonds of tradition where a government dictates religion, easily tainted by corruption and oppression.

Today, America has become the symbol of democracy. A glowing beacon where a free people can come together and exercise free agency and choose for themselves what they want to believe in. In my humble opinion, another step in the building of the kingdom. We are not just Christians here anymore. We are everyone. (Note, I count myself as one of the we, although, I am not American - because my children are American). It is where we, as a people, can break the bonds of the apostasy and see the light of the true gospel. The more non-Christians come here, the better it is. Because, the United States of America is the best place for us to be able to freely proselyte without fear of government oppression.

PC, you are Christian, and so am I. It is comfortable for us to be dictated who God is, because you and I both believe in the true God. Other free people - like my Buddhist friend - are not as lucky. They have a bigger obstacle infront of them in seeing the light of the true Gospel. The next step in this revolution is to completely break free of the dictates of tradition where a government defines who God is. This is where my Buddhist friend can know the one true God by testimony without it being tainted by corrupt government officials.

If I were in a Thai court, asked to swore on the Buddhist Scriptures, I would neither see my promise to tell the truth as spiritual compromise, nor would I risk lying because, after all, it's not the Bible. Besides, if I'm not mistaken, most courts will allow alternative Scriptures when the defendant, or person testifying, is not Christian.

We're not in a Thai court. We are in America. We shouldn't have to put our hands on a Bible to tell the truth. In the early days, sure, I understand that. These days? We've gone past that. You can equate this with Mosaic law versus new law if you like.

Most societies have some semblance of civic religion. When I lived in Korea, and visited national parks, a portion of the ticket-entry went to support the Buddhist temple that was on the grounds. On Buddha's birthday, the Buddhist taxi drivers would all drive their cars in a parade down the town's main street.

We are not in Korea and I wouldn't choose to live in Korea.

Also, please note the MAIN point in my discussion. Society SHOULD be free to parade for Buddha's birthday. Government is not.

Actually, I do. Our courts targeted the generic public school prayers of civic culture and said, no these were no longer appropriate. That single court decision led to numerous others, and a body law developed that did indeed rapidly drive civic religion out of the public square. Kids picked up on the reality that religion was no longer considered important by broader society. Of course, government and courts do not bear total, or perhaps even primary, responsiblity. But, their actions surely were a catalyst to the trend you mention.

You mention several issues, but one does not negate the other. Parents should be stronger in their instruction. That truth does nothing to detract from our complaint that government has intentionally driven the super-majority civic religious sentiment in our land out of the public square.

Public school prayers led by government employees SHOULD be removed. BUT - the law does not state that you cannot pray in the school anymore. Florida statute specifically assigns 2 minutes to give each student an opportunity to pray to whoever they want to pray to. It is much better this way. Then my children don't go home praying in a "different manner" than what I teach. You can always enroll in a religious private school if you so desire.

Civic religious sentiment does not belong in government either. This is a good change. A higher law. Where religion on the public square becomes the full responsibility of the people. Do not be lazy with your proselyting. You don't have the government to do it for you anymore. I'm excited for the day when we see religious fervor sound loud and strong on the public square. Because then there is no government to attribute for its strength. It is truly of a free society choosing for themselves to glorify His name, even the name of Jesus, the Christ.

Edited December 15, 2009 by anatess

[Dirk]

What a sad day it would be if the US constitution is changed

[Dirk]

As another thought, should the country adapt to the people that immigrate there or should the people adapt to the country?

Maybe it would be wise to see if the country you want to immigrate too is tolerant towards your ideologies and all that other stuff you want to bring with you

I always taught my children “ when in Rome do as the Romans”

[Wingnut]

What a sad day it would be if the US constitution is changed

You mean like the 27 times that it already has been?

[Guest]

As another thought, should the country adapt to the people that immigrate there or should the people adapt to the country?

Maybe it would be wise to see if the country you want to immigrate too is tolerant towards your ideologies and all that other stuff you want to bring with you

I always taught my children “ when in Rome do as the Romans”

If the country didn't adapt to the people that immigrated there, then you'd all be splitting corn with the Native Americans.

So, it is time to ask yourself, What Is An American?