Is there such a thing as the separation of church and state?

I think rhad summed up my point well, but I'll reiterate. The passage in Matthew that I quoted is an obvious indictment of the kind of behavior described by the OP. The fundies at the meeting went out of their way to make sure that their prayers, and ONLY their prayers (i.e. to the exclusion of other faiths), were heard by the entire body.

Also, try not to be so patronizing, especially when you are so clearly wrong. The language of the Bible, while somewhat archaic, is pretty simple (the Gospels especially so). I know how to read and interpret a piece of literature, and, unlike you, I am not approaching the text with any preconceived notion of what it means.

Well, I had to guess since you didn't cite the passage in your first post. But your petty quip is not really relevant.

Your quote from Daniel is about the absolute suppression of religious expression, not the exclusion of prayer from secular institutions. The contexts are completely different.

 

In theory, there is separation of Church and State

But religion in America cannot for some reason (many reasons) cannot be taken away from Politics. Would it ever be possible in America for Atheist to become president? How about a Muslim? The fact is too many people care about the religious beliefs of their leaders instead of their positions.

 

I don't like that government functions open with prayers or that our money has "God" on it, but those expressions seem to be ad hoc exceptions to the way the law generally deals with religion/state issues. I posted a link earlier to the Wikipedia page for the Lemon v. Kurtzman Supreme Court decision. I suggest you read it.

Completely different. The billboard is an expression of a private individual or group.

 

When you have a guest in your home for awhile, do you just change everything you do to please them?

Imperfect example I know because lots of Muslims and Buddhists are not guests but are Americans.

Nonetheless the religious traditions in our governmental forms are Judeo-Christian so in a sense that tells us who the home-dwellers are...

Pretty soon it's not going to be the same home we started with... the question is will it be a better or worse one.

 

I'm well aware of the Lemon test.

Personally I could care less what is written on my money.

But in God I trust.

 

Actually, I'm more concerned about the separation of church and Jesus.

but that subject is for another day.

 

I don't know why I chose to ignore that point, its pretty valid and I can't think of a reason why I dismissed it other than pure reactionary posting.

sorry.

 

The analogy isn't just imperfect, it's invalid for the reason you stated.

I think it's more important to follow the Founders' words (i.e., church and state should remain separate) rather than join church and state because of some vague notion of "tradition". Even so, it's clear that many of our nation's founders were either not Christians or were very ambiguous about their religion, which is quite notable considering that they lived in the 18th century. So I have real doubts that they intended the US to be a "Christian nation" in any way pertaining to the government, especially since they left explicit instructions to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States

"In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence.

Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe)."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060801123.html

Washington's religious affiliation, on the other hand, is notoriously ambiguous. Raised as an Anglican, Washington attended church, sometimes regularly. He served as churchwarden, observed fast days and vigorously promoted religion among the soldiers of the Continental Army. Yet he was never confirmed, avoided communion and during his lingering death never prayed nor asked for a clergyman. When he spoke or wrote of God, he favored words with decidedly deist and Masonic connotations: "Providence," "the Deity" and "the Grand Architect."

 

Wow, I really appreciate this, and I am humbled by your gesture. I sometimes am a little too provocative in my discourse, and your post has helped me realize that I need to work on that. Thanks.

 

I don't know, I've always looked in that context of that passage you quoted and believed that it meant the bond between you and God and should be just that, between you and God. I don't think that he is arguing against public prayer, which is perfectly fine as long as a it's inspired from the divine.

However, when we start doing things not from inspiration, but rather out of entrenched customs, habits, as to say "we are Christians hear us roar", that's when we start to tethered on the "hypocrasy" of being a Christian.

If we go to church because we've always gone to church and that's what "Christians" do; if that we pray at certain function because we always pray at certain function and that's what "Christians" do; then I believe it's an "act" of being Christian on th externally. Not that there is necessarily a lack of faith, but that one feels compel to show that faith outwardly. That I disagree with.

 

somebody pull up one of my umpteen posts on how you'd have to be out of your mind or read just wikipedia to assume that john adams (in particular), james madison and george washington were deists.

 

Yeah, the point isn't that all of them were crazy deists, just that it's unreasonable to think that they all wanted America to be a "Christian nation" in an official sense.

 

Washington and Madison certainly had deist leanings. Whether they were out-and-out Deists is somewhat of a pointless question, as deism was more of a personal philosophy than a religion per se for many of that time. That they participated in Christian rituals is also something of a red herring; many deists believed in the importance of respecting religious traditions, even if they disagreed with the religion as a whole (Madison and Washington both declined to be confirmed in their churches).

http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2003/autumn/holmes-religion-james-monroe/

 

I'd disagree. Quite a few of the founding fathers were either Deists or followers of enlightenment philosophy, not Christians. Their thoughts and beliefs were a large part of the reason for the 1st amendment. I'd say that those Christian spiritualities of which you speak were added over time, such as the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. It was not in the original, which was written by a socialist, for what it's worth.

 

MadMax posted something entirely different stating that the founding fathers where very much into Christian beliefs.

 

That's great. Why not also point out that LScolaDominates disagreed as well?

MadMax also only mentioned three by name, while you imply that all were Christian. I mentioned none by name, but I can if you'd like. Franklin was most certainly Deist. Jefferson took scissors to the Bible, making it his own by removing all miracles and supernatural interventions. Sounds Deistic to me.

 

MadMax also explained Deists as well. It was not in this thread but he mentioned it. I wasn't posting that to tell you that you were wrong just that your statements will be disputed but you may have already figured that.

 

But how can you ignore the Old Testement? Which is about half the bible?

DD

 

This has nothing to do with Jesus or whether not the founding fathers were Diests, Puritans or Vodoo priests. It's about respecting the rights of minorities and not coercing religion.

Religion and the law collide all the time. The US military has chaplains, the Senate has an elected chaplain (all but one in history has been Protestant), drug and alcohol related crimes are often sentenced to several hours of AA (which requires people to believe in a higher power), and so on.

I'm not one to freak out because a city puts up a Christmas tree or anything...it's just a matter of keeping things in good taste, but in this instance, I think Mr.Paige's colleague has a right to complain. She is a member of the school board, and prayer should either be wholly inclusive of all members or just dropped altogether. It's not hard to say a non-denominatinal prayer, or to find a chaplain with the ability and cultural sensitivity to do so.

 

It's not invalid. It shows where this country started. It seems we have eroded our traditions.