...It doesn't appear that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed in the "separation of church and state." He prayed publicly and asked the American people for continued prayer during the Normandy Invasion and for the rest of World War II. He sought the Lord's grace, strength and help for our soldiers, as well as those who served at home. He prayed for victory, that our freedoms and civilization might be preserved, and that we be spared from tyrants.
...I haven't heard of anyone's feelings were irreparably damaged by having to listen to President Roosevelt humble himself and pray....
...Any thoughts or comments?
*******************************************
Text and audio can be found at this link: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/audio.html
2007-06-26 08:30:13 · 13 answers · asked by carson123 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
...How does one ignore the "constitutional separation of church and state", which does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution.
...The First Amendment's purpose was to prevent a state church like the Church of England. Study of the Founders' documents reveals this. www.wallbuilders.com
2007-06-26 09:03:22 · update #1
...I am aware of FDR's behavior, and do not support everything he did.
...Even "borderline socialists" can and do seek God in dangerous times.
...I doubt there were very few atheists in foxholes.
2007-06-26 09:24:04 · update #2
...I meant to say that there were very few atheists in foxholes, and none reported on the D-Day landing crafts.
2007-06-26 14:20:32 · update #3
well we sure can't have that happening. When we go to war we don't need God helping us, we can do it on our own. Right?
We don't want God telling our Govt employees to NOT lie cheat or steal no sir we want the best liars, cheaters, and thieves in the Govt that we can get.. Get those Godly people out..
2007-06-26 08:32:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
whilst you're suggesting that "the church" could desire to have a say in government, i will could desire to disagree. Which church? in case you do no longer understand the belief, basically insert somebody else's faith into the area, and notice in case you do no longer think of separation is a sturdy thought. think of if: Your newborn says that the instructor led the class in prayer. The prayer became right into a Hail Mary. Your taxes are getting used to construct a mosque. a non secular chief is invited to furnish the benediction at a university's commencement and the prayer is to a mom Earth goddess. Your city passes a regulation against the sale or intake of beef, because of the fact that's against the Hindu faith. Do you notice what we are asserting?
2017-01-01 07:19:00 · answer #2 · answered by sandlin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Constitution as it's understood today is actually weaker on church/state than it was during FDR's time. Do you recall FDR having any faith based initiatives or trying to put "in God we trust" on currency?
The President personally expressing his own views is one thing, and it has *never* been a violation of church/state. Clinton publicly said he prayed.
2007-06-26 08:35:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The issue is not whose feelings are hurt. The issue is whether by politicians or others employed by the government, including teachers, are speaking in a way or using money in a way some faiths are supported and others are inconvenienced, damaged or held up to ridicule.
The other issue is whether a religion's rules of appropriate behavior can be codified into law. In Israel on Fridays from sundown until Saturday sundown, businesses are supposed to be closed. To follow the Christian Sabbath, we'd have to close all businesses and forbid all driving on Sunday. Once you allow one religious rule to be enforced by the law, you open the door to all of them being enforced. No more Sunday football because those people are working, not playing.
2007-06-26 08:38:19 · answer #4 · answered by Sarah C 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
FDR did more harm to the constitution than any president ( other than the current one) to ever hold the office.
When he didn't like the courts decisions he attempted to change the numer of justices so he could pack it with his favorites.
I would hardly look to him as a respecter of the constitution or an interpreter of it.
2007-06-26 08:37:47 · answer #5 · answered by Zarathustra 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
O.K.
How would you like it if a Catholic was elected, and started a systematic discrimination against the Protestants?
Or a Jew who implemented Jewish laws - no working on Saturday etc.?
If you are not prepared to live under someone else's religions doctrine why would you want others to live under yours.
If the president wants to wear his religion on his sleeve, let him. But as soon as it starts effecting policy, he needs to be reminded of the constitution.
2007-06-26 08:37:44 · answer #6 · answered by Simon T 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Are you suggesting that it's okay for one of our employees who took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution to ignore the constitutional separation of church and state?
Your lack of ethics is showing.
2007-06-26 08:40:49 · answer #7 · answered by YY4Me 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
List the laws that he made that force people to pray or belive or teach a certain thing/way
2007-06-26 08:33:37 · answer #8 · answered by U_Mex 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
He also harbored a deep disdain for Father Coughlin, and didn't like the influence he was having on politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Coughlin
2007-06-26 08:33:32 · answer #9 · answered by I WALK FUNNY 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
A lot of Presidents drag their personal faith into office. What else is new?
2007-06-26 08:32:32 · answer #10 · answered by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋