Atheist, RP and his "notion of a rigid separation" statement.

[rpf2008]

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

I'm an atheist* also and this statement is mildly concerning to me.

Tangent : For some stupid reason Wikipedia claimed this paper was called " The War on Religion". That's because this guy decided to make up his own title for Ron Pauls piece. The official government document, stored at house.gov is titled "Christmas in Secular America". I've updated this part of the Wikipedia page to reflect the truth and have added this comment to talk page detailing the use of the personal web site Lew Rockwell as a "source".

Lewrockwell.com is the "reference" for many items (over 15 items) on the Political positions of Ron Paul Wikipedia page. This Wikipedia page needs to be fact checked and updated.​

What Ron refers to in this paper is real, it is happening. However I think he misunderstands the reasons behind these "attacks" on religion.

I don't think tax dollars should go to promoting any religion in any way. How would Christians feel if the Courts had signs on the walls that support my point of view? How would you feel as a Christian walking into a court room and seeing a sign that says "Your god is fake" behind the judge. Does that seem extreme to you ? Please consider that the Christian Bible accounts for only one God , all the rest are just gods (false gods). So when any non-Christian sees “in God we trust” and other variations the sign might as well say, “ hi, nice to meet you – I think your god is made up “. Or to the non-religious, “ hi, one day you'll wise up and come around “ ... "oh and by the way, if yall don't change your views our God, the real God, is going to send you to hell for eternity"

I'm offended at the idea that my taxes dollars are paying for this. Thank you very much, that's exactly what I want my money spent on; spreading the Christian word.

I was in a government building the other day and there was a "in God we trust"/American flag poster on the wall and a one page "essay" on the counter detailing God, Angels and how they're watching out for me. This is completely unacceptable. I don't need the court house telling me about Jesus while I wait in line. It's not their job, they have no business doing this.

These posters and stuff aren't for the employees either. This stuff is facing away from the employees and towards the customers. It's one thing to have a picture of an Angel or a religious saying at work facing you. I have no problem with that. But as a government employee you have no right to use your government job to promote your religious beliefs. You have no right

Religious jewelry ? I could care less. If someone wants to wear a cross or other religious jewelry to work that's fine by me. You can't tell Christians (or anyone else) they can't wear certain types of jewelry to work unless you plan on banning jewelry in that workplace altogether. Otherwise you're discriminating and that's not acceptable.

I'm not against public expression of Christian (or any other religions) views. You can hold parades in front of where I live and throw rallies at the public park - you get the same rights we all get. But what you don't get is "extra" rights to promote your religion via government offices using tax payers resources. Even if it's an item you brought to work that building is US Tax Payer property. Those are US Tax Payer walls you're hanging those items on. That a US Tax Payer owned desk you're using to spread your religion.


Chick-fil-A (a fast food chain) is a Christian establishment (they aren't even open on Sundays).

The company's official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists "to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A."

This is totally fine with me, I love Chick-fil-a. I know they have different views than me but I don't care, I don't even mind that they express them publicly and promote the Christian religion in other ways. Chick-fil-a is a private company, they can do whatever they want with their private property. If I don't like it I can go somewhere else for fast food.

However :

I can not go somewhere else for court.
I can not go somewhere else to get my drivers license.
I can not go to a different (insert government office here).
​

The US Government does not have the right to force any religion on its population.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Well there are laws that say I have to go to all these government buildings, and then once I get inside there is Jesus propaganda - what do you call that ? It's like a back door law. It's not actually on paper but sure enough, almost every time I go into a government building as required by law there is something about God or Jesus pasted up on the wall.

Do you think the founding fathers were Christians ?
Do you think America is suppose to be a "Christian Nation" ?


Consider these links and quotes

Debunking the Christian Democracy Myth

The Founding Fathers on Religion : Quotes from the founding fathers

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
link

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.

“Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”

“The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us.
...skip ...
Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.

Our Godless Constitution

In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

"As the Government of the United States... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

...skip...

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

* If you don't know much about what atheism is (and isn't) consult this wikipedia page and this page. A lot of people don't understand atheism or have been misinformed about atheism.

Here a bit from wikipedia that sums the whole thing up :

When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.

link

Several very important things are made clear here :

• Atheism is the lack of a belief. Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods. It is the lack of belief in gods. I can not stress this point enough.
  
• There are many different types of atheist. The part that's underlined is the type of atheist I am (formerly a Christian).

 

[Jared]

I hold the same opinion (as an atheist) and this is probably the only area where I disagree with Dr. Paul.

 

[rpf2008]

Ditto, this is the only thing I disagree with him on so far. Christianity is so dominant in America I just accept most of it as part on politics, however there are some things I will never accept.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Great post rpf2008. I think that summed up very well my attitudes towards religion in government and the public sphere as well.

I think the pressure to force private businesses and individuals to not celebrate christmas is stupid. But I also think placing a ten ton monument to jesus in a courthouse is asinine and offensive. Everyone should expect justice in the nation's courts, not just one particular religious sect. That's why religion needs to stay out of government. But I don't mind if you set up a 400' tall lighted jesus on your front lawn as long as nobody's property rights are infringed.

 

[MBA2008]

Atheism

Certainly, one cannot argue with another on how he wishes to be viewed, and if you claim that the definition of atheism presented on Wikipedia is the one that applies to you, then I am loathe to disagree with you.

However, be aware that language is a very precise thing, and it is useless if we don't all agree on what particular words mean.

Webster has a different view about atheism:
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

So does Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

And:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism

I suspect that pretty much all of the online dictionaries I find will have the same thing, so I think it is fair to say that the definition you presented may not be the commonly understood definition of atheism.

Definitions aside, I understand your point, and I will now treat point in fairness. You are saying that you do not possess a belief. You do this in an effort to distinguish yourself from someone who does believe (specifically, in some sort of supernatural being), the implication of course being that someone who "believes" is not justified in doing so due to lack of evidence, and someone who has "an absence of belief" is justified in having it due to lack of evidence.

I see two problems with that. First, lack of evidence does not "prove" that something does not exist. How many things for which man previously had an absence of belief have subsequently been discovered? And how many things do we presently have an absence of belief for, but which we will believe in when it is discovered? You are certainly well within the bounds of reason to say, "hey I have no evidence for this, so I have no belief in its existence." Nevertheless, it still may exist despite your absence of belief.

Second, what you are really doing is not having an absence of belief in a supernatural being, what you are doing is rejecting what evidence has been presented for a "god's" existence. Perhaps you are justified in rejecting this evidence. But, what you are really saying is that, "I've looked at this evidence that has been presented to support the existence of god/s, and it doesn't stand up." Others have looked at this evidence and said that it does. The problem is that the evidence presented is not conclusive. It is hearsay, and circumstance. So, choosing one side or the other is belief.

Some other definitions that I operate on:

Belief:
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Evidence:
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

I suspect you'll try to tell me that evidence presented for the existence of god/s is not evidence, so I provided the definition above.

 

[rpf2008]

This isn't a thread debating atheism or the merits of Christianity. This is a thread about the separation of church and state, that's exactly how my post read. You chose to focus only on my addendum, my personal explanation of atheism instead of the other stuff I said - which actually made up the majority of my post.

Since you chose this tact instead of talking about all the other stuff I said I'll address you on that level. Just remember, I was talking about separation of church and state. You're the one who decided to begin this aspect of the discussion.

You call it "evidence" I call it "a really old book". Not only that, but there are a great many different versions and types of this really old book. None of which have substantial or scientific evidence to backup their God claims.

If "because the bible told me so" is "evidence" for you that's fine. But let's not pretend it should be accepted as "evidence" by everyone else.

To do so is insulting.

When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.

I think it is fair to say that the definition you presented may not be the commonly understood definition of atheism

dictionary.com
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

M&W
a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

the free dictionary
1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

What they consistently say is in line with what I quoted from Wikipedia.

First, lack of evidence does not "prove" that something does not exist.

You're absolutely correct. However a total lack of evidence supporting the idea of God, the afterlife, angels, etc speaks volumes.

Second, what you are really doing is not having an absence of belief in a supernatural being, what you are doing is rejecting what evidence has been presented for a "god's" existence.

Please show me your scientific evidence. A bible does not count as evidence. Just because something is written down in a book from thousands of years ago does not make it real no matter how much you want it to be.

The stories of religion are so ludicrous that I'd need some serious evidence to believe them.

Moses organized the collection of all the animals on the face of the earth, including the all the sea life that couldn't possibly survive an influx of fresh water ? Spare me.

The main problem with anything mystic is that belief is the suspension of logic. When you suspend logic and reason for your belief of the Christian God why should you not also accept the Muslim God, or Witchcraft, or Buddhism. All religion rest on equally shaky ground so how can you chose one and then deny all the others ?

Maybe you've seen this quote before :

“I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do,”​

Many Christians disbelieve in a great many gods out of hand, without having ever investigated them. But somehow, someway, even as a former Christian when I reject your god because I've studied it and found it to be "false" you claim special exception.

That don't impress me much.

By the way, if you had any views on the actual topic of my post I'd love to hear them.

Please remember you're talking to some one who was a Christian most of their life. I was raised by Christians, I attended three private Christian schools, several different types of Churches and spent a good amount of time reading the Christian Bible. At one point I was even carrying it to work and school and reading it there to. I stopped believing in god about 5 years ago or so, maybe less.

Perhaps that will save us the trouble of you or anyone else telling me that I don't understand religion, I don't understand belief, I don't understand Christianity.

 

[MBA2008]

Well first off, I can concede that you do have a point about me not addressing the main point of your post. For that I apologize.

It just seemed to me that you were quick to advance a defnition about atheism that is not what the common understanding is.

I suppose that it is my own fault for starting semantics on what "absence of belief is" I don't equate disbelief with absence of belief, but I am hard pressed to see why someone cannot.

You seem to be hung up on Christianity. I actually wasn't referring specifically to Christianity. Islam has its own holy book, and so do many other religions. All the adherents of these religions accept these documents (and other things), however strong or weak, as evidence of a god or gods.

You may choose to reject these items as evidence, and you have to be correct in at least most of the cases if not all. Nevertheless, these items have been presented as evidence, and you choose not to believe them. But people presenting these items as evidence of their points of view is no different than a prosecutor presenting evidence at a trial. Some evidence is conclusive. Other is circumstantial. Yet more is hearsay. Some evidence is more convincing than other evidence. Jurors look at the evidence and make a decision about what really happened, just like you and I, and everyone else look at the evidence for God, or Allah, or Ra and either accept it or reject it. You have chosen to reject it. I'm sure that you have good reason for doing so. The New Testament is written testamony of contemporaries of Jesus of Nazareth who believe that he was God, and many confirmed that belief with their lives.

You claim to have a background in Christianity, yet you confuse two of the most well known figures, Moses & Noah. Moses did not organize the animals, Noah did. Based on this, I would be inclined to question your invlovement in and study of Christianty, but I will take you at your word, and believe what you say.

You seem to imply that because the Bible is so old, that it cannot be true, "no matter now much I want it to be." I agree that age does not make the Bible true. In fact, age generally makes something less believable. Yet, if we simply use age as a metric for authenticity, we would have to discount essentially everything that we know about ancient civilizations outside of archaeological evidence because the documentation we have of these events is so old. The truth is, that of all the Bible's contemporaneous writings, none come even close to the number of extant sources for the Bible. Forget about most of what you know about Roman civilization. The books we have about it are too old.

Look I'm not going to try and convince you on Christianity or any other religion. You've made it clear that your mind is made up. But I would ask you, what evidence would you require to believe in a god or gods?

As far as Church and state are concerned, I agree that taxpayer dollars should not be used to advance or promote a religion. I also believe that the government has no authority to regulate or grant different types of "tax" status to legitimate churches and other religious institutions. Separation of C & S goes both ways.

People spend a lot of time talking about whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or atheists. This is silly because some were Christians, some were atheists. Some were Deists. What difference does it make what religion (or not religion) a tiny fraction of the country subscribed to? They all agreed that religion (not religious people) should stay out of government and that government should stay out of religion.

 

[bvboys]

A different point of view

I looked around on the web and found this link.

http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/print_article.php?id=422

I think the author makes several good points and I have cut and pasted some excerpts here. Please read and consider this point of view.


Jefferson penned a letter to a Baptist association in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he said that the First Amendment built “a wall of separation between church and state.” In a carefully crafted missive, the president wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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 & State.

No phrase in American letters has had a more profound influence on church-state discourse and policy than Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” Although nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution, this trope is accepted by many Americans, including influential jurists, as a virtual rule of constitutional law and the organizing theme of church-state jurisprudence. “In the words of Jefferson,” the Supreme Court famously declared in 1947, the First Amendment “erect[ed] ‘a wall of separation’ … [that] must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The metaphor, in our time, has become the locus classicus of the notion that the First Amendment separated religion and the civil state, thereby mandating a strictly secular polity.

The very nature of a wall reconceptualizes First Amendment principles. A wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil state and religion; this is in contrast to the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on the civil state only. In short, a wall not only prevents the civil state from intruding on the religious domain but also prohibits religion from influencing the conduct of civil government. The various First Amendment guarantees, however, were entirely a check or restraint on civil government, specifically Congress. The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press; rather, it was designed to protect a free and independent press from control by the federal government. Similarly, the religion provisions were added to the Constitution to protect religion and religious institutions from interference by the federal government—not to protect the civil state from the influence of religion. Any construction of Jefferson’s wall that imposes restraints on entities other than civil government exceeds the limitations imposed by the First Amendment.

A “high and impregnable” wall inhibits religion’s ability to inform the public ethic and policy, deprives religious citizens of the civil liberty to participate in politics armed with ideas informed by their spiritual values, and infringes on the right of religious communities and institutions to define and extend their prophetic ministries into the public square. This wall, critics say, has been used to silence the religious voice in the marketplace of ideas and, in a form of religious apartheid, to segregate faith communities behind a restrictive barrier.

The “wall of separation,” represents an idea that was quietly introduced into American discourse and that, in the last two centuries, has become firmly rooted in political and legal thought. The wall stands as a defining image of the prudential and constitutional role of religion in the public arena. Serious consideration should be given to whether that wall accurately represents constitutional principles and usefully contributes to American democracy and civil society.

 

[Mom4Ron]

As an atheist, this was a concern for me too until I remembered that Dr. Paul actually respects the limits that The Constitution places on the government.

I can respect that he's a man of faith, I respect even more that he doesn't use it as a campaign tool, or wear it on his sleeve, or think that I need to be governed into behaving in a fashion that is acceptable to HIS faith as opposed to my own beliefs.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

Why this is simple, god can be anything you want. If money is your aspiration and that could be what you strive for then make money your god and in god we trust would be accurate, if it was based on the gold standard. Get my drift god can be anything you believe in. You decide. If there is no ultimate force you believe in then the law of the constitution could be what you believe hence your ultimate belief or what others call their god. Does it bother you that much ? Just interprete it any way you want.

 

[rpf2008]

Thank you for your reply. I chose to focus on Christianity because it's the only religion I have detailed knowledge of and was the only religion I was really exposed to until I was an adult. Since I only have limited knowledge of other religions I think it'd be inappropriate for me to make specific comments about them.

1) You may choose to reject these items as evidence, and you have to be correct in at least most of the cases if not all.

[skip]

2) You claim to have a background in Christianity, yet you confuse two of the most well known figures, Moses & Noah.

[skip]

3) Yet, if we simply use age as a metric for authenticity, we would have to discount essentially everything that we know about ancient civilizations outside of archaeological evidence because the documentation we have of these events is so old.

[skip]

4) But I would ask you, what evidence would you require to believe in a god or gods?

[skip]

5) People spend a lot of time talking about whether the Founding Fathers were Christians or atheists. This is silly because some were Christians, some were atheists. Some were Deists. What difference does it make what religion (or not religion) a tiny fraction of the country subscribed to?

1) We have different definitions for evidence, mine is very high and based on certain parameters.

2) Simple mistake,

3) I'm not suggesting we cast out knowledge and history based on its age. I'm suggesting we don't recognize events that don't stand up to science or claim "super natural" events occurred when there no evidence supporting this claim.

Men can't preform miracles now a days so why should I believe they were able to in the bible days. I'd believe it If someone says "Rome Invaded XYZ but we only have these old books to prove it". So long as their is no evidence to the contrary I see no reason to doubt this statement; it's not inconsistent with the type of thing Rome would do.

However to claim "a God showed up, preached the word, did some miracles and then left" is a very extraordinary claim and as such requires a much higher degree of evidence.

4) Some type of scientifically provable evidence, not just the words of a book. And proving someone existed does not prove that they walked on water or raised the dead.

5) It's a very important issue. Some people claim they were all Christians therefor this gives Christians some kind of supreme right in choosing the direction of this country or that this country should follow some kind of Christian agenda.

My main concern with Christianity in politics is fake Christianity.

Jesus doesn't want us to bomb people. Maybe God in the old Testament, but not Jesus. Somewhere between the old Testament and the new Testament God got a lot nicer.

But I don't believe many of the Christians who followed some in Church down this path are bad people, I think they have been mislead.

Jesus wouldn't approve of how the old, sick, imprisoned and other incapacitated people are treated in this nation. Jesus wouldn't want us to go to war against Afganistan, Iraq and possibly Iran (North Korea?) - maybe even if nuclear weapons with we have to. We haven't been making new nuclear weapons for nothing. Jesus wouldn't want America to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems treaty, but we did.

Jesus wouldn't approve of George Bush, the ultimate "fake Jesus" candidate putting all of those people to death when he was governor of Texas. I remember clearly in an debate before W was selected president they were asking everyone who their favorite philosopher was. George Bush answered Jesus Christ. Despite his death row record people actually believed him and the Church embraced him.

For a long time some Christians have felt that their voice isn't represented in government The period from the 80s to modern day have been particularly successful for them. They've organized efficiently and are able to exert considerable political influence.

In a nut shell it's become a hijack of Christianity and the history of the founding fathers to forward a specific agenda. While the Christian base thought they were doing the right thing they ended up supporting terrible acts.

The fact that good meaning people can have their faith and religious tenets hijacked in support of crimes against humanity is another excellent reason to leave religion out of politics and out of government business.​

Please excuse any obvious mistakes

 

[cjhowe]

This is an interesting issue. I'll spare you the details and distinctions, but I would classify myself as an atheist as well.

There is often a disconnect between atheists and libertarians. Even though there is a huge overlap in these cohorts. An atheist thinks, "religion doesn't belong in the public schools". A libertarian thinks "religion is fine in public schools, government doesn't belong in public schools"

If you put forth your libertarian leaning viewpoint first, you avoid almost all of the personally held belief issues that exist.

 

[rpf2008]

Similarly, the religion provisions were added to the Constitution to protect religion and religious institutions from interference by the federal government—not to protect the civil state from the influence of religion. Any construction of Jefferson’s wall that imposes restraints on entities other than civil government exceeds the limitations imposed by the First Amendment.

It was also designed to keep religious influence out of the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

As I said before, there are many laws in place that require me to visit government buildings and 9 times out of 10 inside these government buildings are religious text, icons, posters and so on. In my faithful execution of the law the government is exposing me to religious propaganda material. This is not their job and is prohibited by the constitution.

The government (a) requiring by law that you report to their officers and (b) allowing the exhibit of religious propaganda is (c) a `law by proxy of effect`.

If I pass a law that says you must walk across the beach everyday (this beach is covered in hot coals) it doesn't matter if my law is called "the law to make you walk across hot coals" or not, that's the end result.

Call it court, call it the DPS, call it the name of any government office you want; it still feels a little like Sunday school. I doubt this is the effect the founding fathers were going for.

 

[rpf2008]

A libertarian thinks "religion is fine in public schools, government doesn't belong in public schools"

Religion is not fine in a school funded by money from taxes in any way shape or form in my opinion. I don't think our government was intended to some how (even if partially) "prop up" religion.

 

[cjhowe]

Religion is not fine in a school funded by money from taxes in any way shape or form in my opinion. I don't think our government was intended to some how (even if partially) "prop up" religion.

That's the point. Libertarians advocate getting the government out of the school. When government is gone, there is no church/state conflict.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

Religion is not fine in a school funded by money from taxes in any way shape or form in my opinion. I don't think our government was intended to some how (even if partially) "prop up" religion.

Who decides religion? I don't believe in creationism but I also don't believe in the religion of evolution, so who decides?

.

 

[damijin]

Hi, I didn't read the entire thread because it's long and boring, but I'd just like to say that the OP should be identifying himself as 'agnostic' in public rather than atheist.

I also identify myself in agnostic in that I do not believe that man will ever know whether or not a God or gods exist, and therefor I do not make it a part of my daily life to ponder on the subject. I simply ignore it all together. I think this is the case for many self described 'atheists' but I strongly urge them to change the term used to describe themselves so as not to get lumped in with the angst-ridden teenage 'hard atheists' who believe that the word God should be removed from the pledge of allegiance because there is no God.


With all of that said, as an atheist or agnostic, do you really care if the government actively supports religion so long as there is no state church? The government is a representation of the people within it, and I see no problem with that government representing the Christian nation that America is. The government does *NOT* need to be secular in a Christian nation. If enough agnostics exist to vote out the Christians who have put Biblical images in our court houses, THEN we can have a secular nation with no hint of Christianity. But shockingly enough, theres not enough of us who really care about that issue, nor should we. Christian values are on the whole, good values. With the exception of the whole rapture bit and the kooks who want to bring about the end of the world, it's a fine upstanding religion.

We are a Christian nation and Christians make up the majority of our government and people. Deal with it, and be glad that you are not persecuted for your heathen beliefs

 

[ARealConservative]

I'm an atheist or agnostic - depending on which definition is being used.

The constitution has been trashed for all kinds of reasons. I hate to say it, but athiests have been just as guilty.

Here's how I see it:

In 1776 the 1st amendment was ratified. It stated that "congress shall make no such law".

In the 1860s the 14th amendment was ratified. This was designed to open up constitutional rights to the freed slaves.

For about 150 years there was no such thing as a seperation between church and state/county/city government.

In the 1940s unlelected men in robes decided that the 14th amendment vastly increased the power of the federal government and the 1st amendment. They "incorporated" many of the amendments - including the 1st.

80 years after the 14th was ratified, and after most that approved the amendment died, seperation of church and state as we know it today was born. The same administration that expanded the commerce clause, enumerated general welfare, and begin taking taxes out of pre-earnings, did this as well.

So I guess since I'm an atheist and this bad ruling helps me I should just pretend it was cool to alter the social contract in such an illegal fashion. I'll simply focus on the other government abuses of the constitution? Nope.

 

[PennCustom4RP]

Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion

 

[BravoSix]

I'm an atheist or agnostic - depending on which definition is being used.

The constitution has been trashed for all kinds of reasons. I hate to say it, but athiests have been just as guilty.

Here's how I see it:

In 1776 the 1st amendment was ratified. It stated that "congress shall make no such law".

In the 1860s the 14th amendment was ratified. This was designed to open up constitutional rights to the freed slaves.

For about 150 years there was no such thing as a seperation between church and state/county/city government.

In the 1940s unlelected men in robes decided that the 14th amendment vastly increased the power of the federal government and the 1st amendment. They "incorporated" many of the amendments - including the 1st.

80 years after the 14th was ratified, and after most that approved the amendment died, seperation of church and state as we know it today was born. The same administration that expanded the commerce clause, enumerated general welfare, and begin taking taxes out of pre-earnings, did this as well.

So I guess since I'm an atheist and this bad ruling helps me I should just pretend it was cool to alter the social contract in such an illegal fashion. I'll simply focus on the other government abuses of the constitution? Nope.

I couldn't have written it better myself.

I think a great many "Constitutionalists" support a strict interpretation of the Constitution until such time as it is no longer convenient for them. Oh, they'll claim otherwise, but it's a transparent argument and their hypocrisy shines through rather easily.