Please read in entirety?

Question

1st amendment

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

I am an atheist

Our Christian forefathers understood the importance of keeping government out of the business of religion. Religious persecution is what led pioneers here for in the first place. Over time, newer christians lost sight of that ideal of "the seperation of church and state" and have used a loophole that they can endorse a "generic god" instead.

A technicality that allows them to force their "generic god" AKA the christian god in sheep's clothing on atheist-american cash, pledge to my country, and on government owned property and monuments.

This invasion of my government by fundamentalists is the ONLY reason I come to the religious section of yahoo answers, otherwise I don't care what people "just believe".

My Question:
Isn't endorsing a "generic god" the same as endorsing a religion, and therefore a violation of the first amendment?

Answer 1

Endorsing a generic god is not the same as endorsing a specific religion, it tells the faithful that the government acknowledges their right to believe in a greater power. True atheists should not be concerned or get angry about this, how can they be angry for acknowledging something that they believe does not exist? It would be like being angry about the Eastern bunny of Santa Claus displays.

Answer 2

What the Bible-thumpers don't understand is that the clause regarding religion was put in the First Amendment primarily to protect the freedom of religion. Many of the founders of this country came here to escape religious persecution in the form of state religions being forced on them by monarchs. It would be bad for everyone, especially Christians, if our government enforced religion on us any more than it already has. For example, I'm a Protestant, and I would resent being forced to accept Catholic views with which I don't agree. I'm sure everyone of any denomination can think of other denominations with conflicting ideas. The whole point of freedom of religion is to be able to choose how to worship, and we can't do that if the government takes away that option to choose. The only way to have true freedom of religion is to keep religion separate from the government.

I don't see how anyone can read the first amendment and not see that freedom of religion is the same thing as separation of church and state. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, when it comes to religion the government can't tell you what to believe or what not to believe. If we lose that separation and the government starts preaching religion, or worse yet legislating religion, the freedom is gone because you no longer have a choice. That's why religion must always be kept separate from the government.

Answer 3

As a fellow atheist, I understand your concerns.

Endorsement and Establishment are two different things. While the founding fathers did not want the government to establish a religion, they were also religious men.

Both sides of the issue have been guilty of pushing their agenda. Even though I don't believe in a god, I still enjoyed the Christmas and Hanukkah displays which have been severely cut back because of litigation by the ACLU.

What you have now are extremists on both sides shouting their point and battling for control. The people in the middle (like me) who don't care either way just begin to tune out.

I absolutely agree that we must have a separation of church and state, however, endorsement is not establishment. The minute the government attempts to become a theocracy, I'm on the protest line right next to you.

Answer 4

To read this as you've written it, I'd have to say literally yes, going as to the letter of what is written. However, as with any document, it's open to interpretation.

There is no specific on religion that has been endorsed. A "generic god" as you've put it, is not what christians believe. I could go on and drone on about this but I won't do that, others will be able to do it much more articulately than what I could.

It's my belief that it's the spirit of the law, not necessarily the letter of it that is followed now. Given that our country was founded on religious freedom, it allows you the freedom to be an atheist, so I think that's what is most important here.

You have the freedom to be who and what you are. Not to follow anyone else or be or do as others. To thine ownself be true. Do what your heart tells you.

I don't know that this helps you in seeking out the answers that you need or want, but it is my perspective.

Have a great day.

Answer 5

The idea of a generic God (if there is one) doesn't offend me in any way shape or form because it REMOVES argument over how to believe and that's a step forward. At least they acknowledge the generic God as being the one all Judea Christian religions are built upon. It's a step toward one United Religion and I favor it despite being an Agnostic-Heretic. Theologically it'd be nice to get rid of the factionalism that exists today and narrow down the belief systems...Of course that's not going to happen...just like you as an Atheist can't even accept the idea of a God without religion. I respect that belief, but give them a chance...Generic God...No Religion and perhaps evolution will eventually result in the discarding of the God concept all together. PEACE!

Answer 6

Note that Congress can not make a law prohibit the free exercise of religion. Also the idea of separation of church and state comes not from the Constitution, but a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The idea of separation of church and state was to keep the state from running a religion. Now it has been flipped to mean no religion in government.

Answer 7

You have Gods... You just can't admit it.

Your house
Your car
your bank accounts & money
your job.
Science

God, like truth, is relative. What we worship indivisually -IS- our God! The type found, right on the back of the dollar bill is proof!

Be a little less anal and a bit more tolerant... You sound like Hitler at the podium, before he went nuts. Only not in German and less charismatic!

Therefore... There is nothing wrong with saying "Higher Power" if you use it like they do in the teachings and practices of organizations like A.A.

Everyone has a higher power. You people can't take everything away... Stop trying or go to Russia and become a Marxist or worse... follow Stalin to HIS letter of the law!

There is a place for everyone to be happy every where It is here. Maybe America just aint the place for you, if tolerance is required to live among a diverse people with a sea of different beliefs.

Just chill out... geeze! If you honestly think that religion is the worst thing going on in our schools... You are very, sadly mistaken and shortsided.

Basically, most people don't feel complete unless they have SOMETHING, some cause to harp on and be right about, they can neither keep it to themselves or tolerate anyone who isin't them. That in and of itself shows the flaws in a mans belief. It is not truth unless you feel absolutely NO need to argue it. Truth needs no argument to be...

It requires the same ammount of energy to harp on this thing or that thing... In the end, it comes down to energy transference and winning.

I want neither! The point is moot!

Answer 8

If it is the government, YES.
I am an agnostic, meaning I believe there is God, but we can't really know God. I have a Christian cultural background, and strong Buddhist tendencies. My husband is also an agnostic, with a strong Muslim cultural background. I don't want to force religion on anyone and don't think it should be shoved down anyone's throat.
I suspect what you are seeing here is partially a campaign by blogger groups and others, who are either paid or instructed to flood the religion and political sections with extremist rhetoric. When you talk about your government being invaded by dumbdamentalists, I believe it all started in the Reagan era. I hope you continue to express opposition to this and to get other people to think about it.

Answer 9

I think that it is. I think that if the god referred to by people today, the God on our money in our pledge etc, was REALLY a generic god, not associated with one religion, you could make an argument for it being Constitutional, and I as a atheist really wouldn't mind it that much. The god that people refer to constantly, however, seems to act and think and believe a whole lot like the Christian God. This can be seen in liquor laws banning sale of alcohol on Sunday (why not Saturday, or any other day, if the law is not based in Christianity?), by gay marriage and (the now struck-down) sodomy laws, and in laws that seek to prohibit abortion or birth control or any sexual practice that Christianity tends to be against. I think that as long as this god represents only one (albeit large) segment of the US population, this god is unconstitutional.

Answer 10

Perhaps. But regardless of the 1st Amendment, the underlying spirit of this whole nation is based on Christianity. Even the First was written to be fair and apart from undue influence when developing laws and ruling the populace.
The separation of church and state is a good thing. As for a so-called generic god, eh, you want to fight it, then fight it.
Good luck.