Is it just me, or is that whole "Separation of Church and State" thing not working...?

Question

I realize that majority rules... but, It's BS... I mean, god believing people are making this "Free" country non-free. If the Separation of Church and State really works... Then why the hell is "In God We Trust" on currency? Seriously, who else thinks this is getting really ridiculous??

Answer 1

Although you don't state your country, you did leave a clue that your country's the same as mine.

Separation works when we don't have a president and Dominionist movement trying to subvert it, or a Reconstructionist movement denying that separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Yes, we know that the precise words "separation of church and state" aren't in the Constitution. But the *concept* is there, as the writings by Jefferson and Madison reveal. What else could the 1st Amendment mean? I fail to see how people can say it allows Christianity to be privileged. The founding fathers were a mix of Xians and deists anyway, putting the lie to any claim that they intended to set up a Xian system.

Besides, wouldn't the Reconstuctionist interpretation set up a religious caste system in the USA? Do they *really* consider non-Xians to be 2nd-class Americans? Majority rule is not absolute in America, and never has been. No law that compromises the rights of a minority should stand. The USA is no more a "Christian nation" because of its Xian majority than it is a "white nation" due to its white majority.

"In God We Trust" is on our money mainly because during the McCarthy days the politicians reasoned that communists are atheists, therefore all atheists are communist. (The unconstitutional phrase dates back to the Civil War, but it was not universal.) This goes, of course, with the immutable truth that all communists are anti-American. Some Xians carry this warped thinking to this day! And the sad reality is that any politician that works to give the 30 million non-theist Americans a fair shake will be voted out by the other 90%.

For some reason, most Americans cannot see anything wrong with Ceasar's notes carrying a statement about God that favors some Americans over others. Puzzling, but not surprising. Starr Jones defiantly believes that being afraid of her Sky Pixie is an essential qualification for the presidency, article 6 of the Constitution notwithstanding. Katie Couric doesn't believe that atheists are capable of defending their country. Chuck Norris wants the 10 Commandments to become U.S. law. CNN reported on discrimination against atheists, and then called a panel discussion with no atheists on the panel! (Would you call an all white panel to discuss racism?) The president's dad reportedly said that atheists are incapable of being patriotic, and shouldn't even be considered citizens! Liberty and justice for "all" indeed. It might have to do with the view of many monotheists that non-theists are inherently immoral and untrustworthy.

@Angeltrees:

- The government endorsing God on our currency is not an example of you exercising your religion.

- The government refraining from endorsing God on our currency does not prevent you from exercising your religion.

- "In God We Trust" as a motto is unconstitutional. The fact that it's the motto doesn't change that.

As pragmatically innocuous as the motto may be, it is still a government endorsement of religion, and it's not just academic. As with the pledge, it basically says, "You don't count unless you agree with the majority," which is exactly the *opposite* of the intent of the 1st Amendment. These paper endorsements are bound to slip out in attitudes, as happened with Bush the Elder when he disclaimed 20 million Americans in 1987.

Answer 2

I don't think The Last Ent Wife realizes that an exact phrase does NOT have to appear in the constitution in order for the concept to be present and valid.

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas.

There is nothing there about a "fair trial," but what should be clear is that the 6th Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have "a right to a fair trial", but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.

What people don't understand about the First Amendment is that it's twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines.

See, you do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs, rules or doctrines of other religions.

As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon. THAT'S why the separation exists, even if the exact phrasing DOESN'T.

By the way, someone should tell angeltress that many atheists (like me!) are perfectly capable of CORRECTING the "separation violation" by simply blotting out the word "GOD" with black permanent marker. Problem solved, and no one has EVER stopped me from spending my money in its "GOD-free" condition.

Answer 3

I do agree with you but what is actually stated is that the state can not institute a state religion. "In God We Trust" is generic where "In jesus We Trust" would be a violation. But yes, this fact does not change the fact that the mob rules in many cases. Salt Lake City for example, as well as a few places I have lived have laws based on what can only be explained as religious persuasions. Perhaps if legislation was debated prior to implementation there would be an improvement. BS? absolutely

Answer 4

You have it all jacked up dude. The god theyre referring to on the bill isnt the god you think theyre referring to.
And it isn't god believeing people who are makeing the country a Facist state. You need to look in a few more places to find out whats really going on. First of all, I'd read the words on the great seal (theyre in Latin) but also decipher the numbers at the bottom of the pyramid (still on the seal) they break down to 3 sets of numbers (theyre in Roman numberals), And why havent we pulled the troops out after numberous attempts from the people to petition so (I thought it was a democracy. of the people, by the people, and for the people)

Answer 5

In response to the first reply:

Bill of Rights, Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Law = State; Religion = Church

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (i.e. the state will not enforce a chruch), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. the state will not prohibit a church)..."

Sounds like seperation of church and state to me. Sorry that you cannot interpret big words into what they really mean.

Answer 6

The lines are definitely blurred, that's for sure. I've always had a problem with this issue. I think there needs to be more of a defined line drawn. Back in high school I constantly got in trouble in choir for refusing to sing songs that I felt were too religion oriented.

Answer 7

Money is the least of our worries.

You must state that you are a believer in the one true God to run for office in TX.

The Faith Based Initiative allows our tax dollars to be given to churches....but not all churches...just christian ones.

We must honor God in our pledge of allegiance...as if you must be a believer to be an American.

Indiana charges $40 to native americans to have a special license plate that states their heritage and beliefs...but you can get a "in god we trust" special for free.

And they are teaching "intelligent design/creationism" in many public schools already....as a 'test' model.

Get ready for another "Dark Age".....

Answer 8

It can and will work, when people realize that they don't have a monopoly on truth and actually come to respect each other.

It might seem like a pipe-dream, but mankind has come a long way in our history, and I don't see why this should be the highest pinacle of our social development.

Cheer up, most likely, things WILL get better.

Answer 9

How can it work, when in our money the phrase, In god we trust is printed? How separated are we and how much do people say we are?

Answer 10

Have you ever actually read either the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States?
For your educational benefit, here is the wording of the First Amendment which gaurantees me the right to my religion:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please notice...Congress shall make NO LAW resecting an establishment of religion....OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF...

Just in case you still don't get it, Christians DO have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to the free practice of our religion, and so does every other religious group in the U.S.

OH, and "In God We Trust" is the official motto of the United States of America, and has been for a very long time. So, yes, we CAN put it on our money.
But if it bothers you, tell ya what....you just gather up all those nasty bits of green paper with that offending phrase written on it, along with any small bits of metal that may have the same phrase, and send them to my P.O. box. Since God's Name doesn't offend me in the slightest, I promise to take very good care of them.

God bless!!