Why do so many fear God's involvement in government?

bump...grind

I am personally religious, though I don't stick to a particular church (I consider myself christian and take many of my cues from the bible instead of pastors, priests, popes or reverends). However, I feel that my religion and faith is my own. It is up to me to live my life in accordance with it, to do right by God. It is NOT up to the government to in any way shape or form touch it. I also believe that each person has the right to believe as they see fit so long as they do not try to force it on anyone else.

I do not fear religion, I fear a government, or members of a government who would try and take their personal faith and turn it into laws and regulations that then impact me. I would never presume to try and pass laws regarding how you practiced your faith, so why do you get to pass laws that affect me or others in the same way?

God has no place in the workings of law and government. Christ himself was all for the separation of the secular government and faith (render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's). The reason God has no place in the world of law is because we can't really agree on which God is the right one. Is it the Christian God? (Oh, and would that be Roman Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Mormon etc?) The Muslim God? The Jewish God? One of the greek Gods? The Spagetti Monster From Space God? You can sit there and say "Mine! My God is the true one!" and that's cool so long as you're not ramming that down someone's throat.

What you do in your own life, that is the domain of God. God in Christianity has always been about the personal relationship in spite of a sinful world surrounding us. Everything Christ was about was what YOU did and what YOU said. Government however has to service and represent all of its citizens in a fair and reasonable manner. It's been stated on another thread that fully 1/4 of the US does not believe in a god... and Roman Catholicism only makes up 1/4 of the population as well. Where does Islam fit into the pie? Judaism? We are not even close to a spiritually homogenous society, and to pretend we are is a disservice to everyone.

I think we all have the responsibility to vote and speak out according to the dictates of our own consciences. If that means we pray for help in making decisions, so be it... even if we are in government. Whether Christian, Pagan, Jew, Atheist.. whatever, our means of coming to our decisions are our own. We don't have the right to tell Prs. Bush not to invoke deity anymore than he has the right to tell us we can't.

We don't have the right to tell Prs. Bush not to invoke deity anymore than he has the right to tell us we can't.

But we are not stopping Bush from invoking his faith, we are just asking for the Government not to sanction a religion or have us invoke a religion.

I have yet to find one supporter of the "Under God" statement added in 1954 to tell me how they would feel if "Under Allah" was in the pledge.

I agree with this blog. I don't think there's anything to fear of Christians or other religious people being involved and using their ideals to change the nation they live in. It's no different than the values of socially concious hippy-types, imho. If PETA folks can impose their values system, then anyone can.

BUT... that doesn't give anyone the right to bring religion into government. If you feel that life begins at conception, that isn't a church/state conflict. You can believe that and have no religion at all. The same goes for most religious values. With the whole 'pledge' conflict, that isn't an ideal, it is an actual imposition of the existance of God, which is completely different.

God has no place in the workings of law and government.

---Zoomba

I'm not talking about letting the country be run as a theocracy; that's wrong, and I have trouble remembering any successful and prosperous nations that operated as such.
There's nothing wrong, however, with allowing a deity, whichever one you personally choose to worship, to guide us in our choices and decisions. I know Christ was in favor of separation, or so it would seem, but that would be BASING a government on religion, having a theocracy, not having it as an aspect of government.

I think we all have the responsibility to vote and speak out according to the dictates of our own consciences. If that means we pray for help in making decisions, so be it... even if we are in government. Whether Christian, Pagan, Jew, Atheist.. whatever, our means of coming to our decisions are our own

---PT2K

Exactly....that's what I'm talking about.

I have yet to find one supporter of the "Under God" statement added in 1954 to tell me how they would feel if "Under Allah" was in the pledge.

---Lee1776

I'll ask again, as I did over on Modman's thread: how about "under ~~a~~ God"? There's no offense in that statement, unless you're in the atheist minority.

We don't fear God. We don't fear Religion. We only wish to live our lives without them being forced down our throats by fanatic fundamentalists and our government. The founders of our country strongly believed in the seperation of Church and State, and I don't see why we have to deviate from that now, in this day and age, when even though Christians are in the majority, diversity-cultural and religious, permeates our society.

Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion.

The founders of our country strongly believed in the seperation of Church and State,

Only one that I'm aware of, Thomas Jefferson, actually made direct reference to a separation.
He, however, was a rabid secularist "Christian" who denied the Divinity of Christ, and published his own bible in whic he edited out the miracles, and even the Resurrection, of Jesus. I find his ideals a little suspect, based on his.

Both Madison and Washington are noted to have upheld the theory of seperation as well.

Washington, in an address to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island: "It is now no more that tolerance is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgenced of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens. . ."

I have a very powerful belief in GOD, I just think ALL ORGINIZED religion is wrong, anytime a sect tells anyone "this is the only way to GOD" you loose me.

I have yet to find one supporter of the "Under God" statement added in 1954 to tell me how they would feel if "Under Allah" was in the pledge

Actually, when a Muslim says it, they are saying "Under Allah". My copy of The Holy Qur'an reads "God" in the english language column of every page that refers to Allah. The point is, no one is telling anyone what the words "under god" have to mean to them. When I say "under God" I mean my Father in Heaven. When a Muslim says it, he or she means "Allah", when an atheist says the word "god" it means nothing at all, so leaving "under god" out of it shouldn't matter.

What I'm getting from most the examples I'm reading is, the problem isn't as much that the pledge itself is unconstitutional, but that teachers, administrators and classmates are insisting everyone recite every word. Which goes beyond their authority.

I'll ask again, as I did over on Modman's thread: how about "under ~~a~~ God"? There's no offense in that statement, unless you're in the atheist minority.

There is if you don't believe in God at all.

Only one that I'm aware of, Thomas Jefferson, actually made direct reference to a separation. He, however, was a rabid secularist "Christian" who denied the Divinity of Christ, and published his own bible in whic he edited out the miracles, and even the Resurrection, of Jesus. I find his ideals a little suspect, based on his.

His ideals are suspect because he wasn't a christian (as you define it)? Yet, we've based on government on a series of documents that he wrote.

You'd find that a lot of muslims would refuse to say 'under Allah'. Christians toss the word "God" around haphazardly, but the Hebrew and Islamic tradition takes using the name of God very, very seriously. You see folks on the internet use "G-d", instead of "God" for that reason. As I said above, the whole religious patriot thing is very "Christian" in the US. The two should not be tied together officially.

"He, however, was a rabid secularist "Christian" who denied the Divinity of Christ, and published his own bible in whic he edited out the miracles, and even the Resurrection, of Jesus. I find his ideals a little suspect, based on his."

Well, then. That opens the door for you to reject these Constitutional mandates outright, then, doesn't it? Hell, if Jefferson is "suspect", why adhere to any of it at all? Who do you prefer, Alexander Hamilton?

Worse, you seem to be saying that anyone that holds these beliefs is of suspect religious character. I hope that is not what you are saying, because there are a lot of people of faith out there that don't see any problem with removing "under God" from the pledge. I'm one.

The only passage in the above assorted bag of tawdry prejudice, partisan spleen, and general points-scoring that in any way addresses the actual issue at hand is this:

"It is now no more that tolerance is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgenced of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens. . ."

For those who don't understand the intersection of civics and religion (which would be all of you who have so far commented) let me put that issue plainly -

you don't need to be religious to be a citizen; but you have to be a citizen in order to live in a state capable of encompassing antagonistic religions within its body politic.

Whatever else that body politic is under it is most definitely under and subject to the State, whose only interest in the body of citizens is in whether or not they obey the law. As a private man a citizen may believe what he wishes. As a public man he must obey and uphold the law, and he must express in his life those principles which the term 'citizen' expresses.

Once you grasp these simple principles all the aggression, malice and confusion is drawn from the foolish and self-serving 'debate' between 'Left' and 'Right'.

But then, I'm talking to Americans of the present, who in general are so far degenerated from the standards of men such as Washington and Jefferson as to be barely worthy of the name.

"For those who don't understand the intersection of civics and religion (which would be all of you who have so far commented) let me put that issue plainly -

Ah, yes, EoIC returns to let us all know that we don't know anything. How wonderful that you are so enlightened. Just how does that happen, do you think? I think in the same way insane people feel that everyone else is insane...

It must really make your day to know that you are here to "put the issue plainly" for the multitudes. How about some fish and bread while you are enlightening us?

#11 by ParaTed2k Friday, September 16, 2005 I have yet to find one supporter of the "Under God" statement added in 1954 to tell me how they would feel if "Under Allah" was in the pledge Actually, when a Muslim says it, they are saying "Under Allah". My copy of The Holy Qur'an reads "God" in the english language column of every page that refers to Allah.

That still did not answer my question though. I'm not trying to be rude, but you are spinning the topic of the Question. Would you have a problem saying "Under Allah"?

I have two Muslim friends and had one professor that all say that the word "God" is the Christian God. They also find that using the word "god" would also be offensive to their beliefs. Because if you’re going to pray to Allah, then say his name properly and not use a generic what could be a pagan name. When I have been at their house or work during prayer time I have never heard them say God, only Allah. Both my friends only speak English too.

---Lee1776 I'll ask again, as I did over on Modman's thread: how about "under ~~a~~ God"? There's no offense in that statement, unless you're in the atheist minority.

Yes, I do find it offensive. Yes, I am a member of the atheist minority. I normally don't wear my beliefs on my shoulder, because ones beliefs should be their own and I don’t try to force my faith into other people brains by requiring them to recite a god or the God. But you would be surprise at how much negative reaction/pressure you get from religious people when they find out that I am an atheist. I was a practicing Catholic until I changed my faiths, and I never received as even close to as much prejudice or looks of discust from people before my change. Do you have a problem with speaking to an Atheist? I have more morals then most of the religious people I know, and I did not get that from a Church or a Book. I got it from my family and from with in myself.

Just out of research for yourself, be a devils advocate and tell a group of people that you’re talking to that you’re an Atheist and see what reaction you get.

To BakerStreet:

Ah, yes, EoIC returns to let us all know that we don't know anything. How wonderful that you are so enlightened. Just how does that happen, do you think?

It happens through more than ten years of post-graduate study in the field of political philosophy. Ignorance is not a sin - but the arrogance of ignorance is. The depth of your lack of understanding of the most basic issues of civility and citizenship astounds me. You are, without a doubt, that fool who would have done better to keep silence and be thought a fool, rather than opening his mouth and proving himself a fool beyond all doubt.

How about some fish and bread while you are enlightening us?

Personally, I'd prefer to let you starve. It's a cheap way of cleansing the gene pool.

I've chosen to respond to you for one reason only: it's time you were addressed with the contempt you deserve. Your posturing and prating nauseates me - and from this point on, whenever you sufficiently insense me with your egregious arrogance, your simplistic stupidity, I intend to take it upon myself to correct you.

lol... feel free, and I'll grant it all the esteem it deserves.

Personally, I'd prefer to let you starve. It's a cheap way of cleansing the gene pool. I've chosen to respond to you for one reason only: it's time you were addressed with the contempt you deserve. Your posturing and prating nauseates me - and from this point on, whenever you sufficiently insense me with your egregious arrogance, your simplistic stupidity, I intend to take it upon myself to correct you.

Personally,I'd be careful how hard you step on this one Simon. Bakerstreet has a rather large following and it is not an undeserved one.

My first reaction to hearing the news of this federal judge's ruling was that I would like to take him out back and put a bullet in him. Then I realized that I was thinking like a terrorist.

I begrudgingly have to admit that the judge was correct in his ruling.

I will say this though, I find it amusing that the "anit-pledge" people are using our own constitution to institute minority rule.

If I moved to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or any other middle eastern country and they had an "under Allah" pledge, I would more than likely just have to live with it, move away or get my head chopped off. I guess that's what makes our country so much better. Two sets of parents in California can change the laws for hundreds of thousands of other parents for the sake of not offending them.

God Bless The USA!!! You gotta love it

Whatever else that body politic is under it is most definitely under and subject to the State, whose only interest in the body of citizens is in whether or not they obey the law. As a private man a citizen may believe what he wishes. As a public man he must obey and uphold the law, and he must express in his life those principles which the term 'citizen' expresses. Once you grasp these simple principles all the aggression, malice and confusion is drawn from the foolish and self-serving 'debate' between 'Left' and 'Right'.

Actually, I would say that the State's primary interest in the average citizen is that they pay their taxes and keep the State operating. As well, that they vote for whomever is currently referred to as the "State" so that they may remain in office another few years. In fact, one of the most important duties of a citizen is to vote into office, people who will represent their ideals and create laws to reflect those ideals.

I have provided you a link to the citizenship oath.

Link

Now maybe you skipped class the day they taught the citizenship oath during your ten years of post-graduate study because I simply don’t know where you are coming from. Now I certainly don't have ten years of post-graduate study under my belt, but I am well versed in reading and writing and I just can't find a reference to obeying the law in this oath. I see that I am to take up arms to defend the law if necessary. Perhaps you went to school in Canada where indeed they do specifically mention the necessity of observing the laws of Canada.

Link

It happens through more than ten years of post-graduate study in the field of political philosophy

If you spent 10 years in post-graduate study of philosophy, then I would guess your job in some way or another is to think. In that case, I would surmise you are highly over paid. While you put together a nice sounding dribble of words that require most people without 10 years of post-graduate school to pull out a dictionary for translation, you really make almost no point other than that you are better educated than the average citizen and you therefore consider your point of view to be the mightier and ergo, the correct one.

Simon responded in kind. Your concern is touching, drmiler, but more than a trifle condescending. My Husband is a big boy and he can take care of himself, even against the likes of Big Bad Baker and his band of followers.

I don't see how you would think my statement was condescending. All it is, is a personal "observation". In "NO" way am I assuming an air of superiority by saying it. Which is what the word means. If anything, Simon's reply #14 was a lot more condescending than anything I said. In #14 he takes the previous statemnt apart bit by bit and basically said the person didn't know a lot. " The only passage in the above assorted bag of tawdry prejudice, partisan spleen,
". He then proceeds to say the rest of the people who comented on the thread don't either: "For those who don't understand the intersection of civics and religion (which would be all of you who have so far commented) let me put that issue plainly ". So who was being condescending? If that post was not affecting an air of superiority then I don't know what is.

I don't see how you would think my statement was condescending. All it is, is a personal "observation". In "NO" way am I assuming an air of superiority by saying it. Which is what the word means.

No, no drmiler, whip is right. You are certainly condescening when compared to the vaulted emporer. You really should try to be more humble like he, for example:

For those who don't understand the intersection of civics and religion (which would be all of you who have so far commented) let me put that issue plainly -

or better yet:

It happens through more than ten years of post-graduate study in the field of political philosophy. Ignorance is not a sin - but the arrogance of ignorance is. The depth of your lack of understanding of the most basic issues of civility and citizenship astounds me. You are, without a doubt, that fool who would have done better to keep silence and be thought a fool, rather than opening his mouth and proving himself a fool beyond all doubt.

And here's the epitomy of humility:

Personally, I'd prefer to let you starve. It's a cheap way of cleansing the gene pool. I've chosen to respond to you for one reason only: it's time you were addressed with the contempt you deserve. Your posturing and prating nauseates me - and from this point on, whenever you sufficiently insense me with your egregious arrogance, your simplistic stupidity, I intend to take it upon myself to correct you.

So really drmiler, please try to be a little more civil and let's not be so condescending to the ever humble emperor.

Now maybe you skipped class the day they taught the citizenship oath during your ten years of post-graduate study because I simply don’t know where you are coming from. Now I certainly don't have ten years of post-graduate study under my belt, but I am well versed in reading and writing and I just can't find a reference to obeying the law in this oath. I see that I am to take up arms to defend the law if necessary. Perhaps you went to school in Canada where indeed they do specifically mention the necessity of observing the laws of Canada.

Sorry dude but you missed it.

that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; Or this section: that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America

Just what do you think those highlighteed portions mean?

I've chosen to respond to you for one reason only: it's time you were addressed with the contempt you deserve. Your posturing and prating nauseates me - and from this point on, whenever you sufficiently insense me with your egregious arrogance, your simplistic stupidity, I intend to take it upon myself to correct you

Yep, the same as we'll do to you.