The United States is NOT a Christian Nation...

It is why I support Separation of Church and State so strongly. Theocracies are and have always been bad news.

 

When has it become ok to force your morality on others. As long as no one is being hurt why should it be illegal? How does gay marriage hurt anyone?

 

The point is that government exists to maintain order, and yes, maintaining order is a good thing, perhaps you would call it a moral thing, but it is a necessary thing for people to be able to live together in harmony. It is also necessary to have some tolerance for your neighbor's religious beliefs if they should differ from your own in order for people to live together in harmony. It is not the purpose of government, not the goal of government to enforce or encourage Christianity or Judeo-Christian precepts. Religious rules are to be embraced by choice, not coercion or force from government.

 

I support that too. But there has to be a base standard. Currently the choices are, Judeo-Christian, Islamo Sharia, or Marxist Atheism. Hint: only one has brought about freedom and justice and allowed a peaceful society such as we enjoy today.

 

Law based on moral right and wrong is not force, but what brings strength and stability to society. People have bought into the false premise of 'theocracy' but are willing to promote 'Atheist' and 'Sharia' theocracy. Give it a think.

 

What this post is talking about is conformity to a new order based on not on what has been proven to work, but in order to destroy what has been proven to work in preference for what has never worked anywhere ever. So there is a call for others (the ones being displaced) to be tolerant while those making that call are practicing intolerence in order to advance their preference. Again with the false premise. There are currently three choices, Judeo-Christian, Islamo Sharia, or Atheist Marxism. Only one has created a civil society.

 

And what about the Jews, why should they have to support the 80%? Remember that the Jews, doctrinally, ARE Christians, but they don't believe that Christ is...uh..Christ, Christ meaning Savior, that is. The Jews don't believe that THE Christ, the Saviour, has come, so the whole IDEA of Christmas is a slap in the face to them.

What I can't see is why so many conservatives go out of their way to offend minority religions and then go acting all butthurt when the non-Christians dare to object to somebody using their tax dollars to offend them. Separation of Church and State means JUST THAT. NOTHING in any way religious should be put on public property

 

A religiously neutral government displaces NO religion. ALL people can believe whatever they choose and act on those beliefs when the government is neutral.

 

What about Buddhism? Hinduism? Wiccan? Better yet what about just have our society based on logic and not include any mythologies.

 

Law and morality has to be based on something as a basis for morality and right behavior and rule of law. Judeo-Christianty believes in freedom and, as applied to America, includes a limited government because the individual has unalienable rights, codified in law. In Islamo Sharia and Atheist Marxism the state is supreme and the individual is a conformed and subjugated minion with no rights and is submitted to the will of rulers, codified in law. You pick.

 

An atheist theocracy? I think you need to look up the definition of theocracy. Still, you didn't answer my other question, how does gay marriage hurt anyone?

 

Ah pure reason! The basis of Atheist Marxism. Even Thomas Paine rejected that in the end and regretted his pamphlet.

 

Well said. As Protestant who lives in the most Catholic country on this planet [Italy], I can say that when, in the 70's, the country left in a definitive way the Catholic tradition to endorse a lay conception of the state, Italy became a modern country.

In a few words, today Italy is not a Catholic country, but a lay Republic [not that attractive for Muslims, since Italians are a bit ... "spiteful", but this is a different tale].

 

Atheist theocracy is communism.

 

Are Latino's not predominantly Catholic ?

I guess the second point would be to criticize picking a single point in time. Clearly there were times in the past ... more than 1000 years from 325 AD onward in fact, when Christianity was the primary plague on humanity.

It is true that today the fangs of Christianity have been dulled somewhat but this does not mean that the factors within Christianity that caused the aforementioned horrors can not return in the future.

In fact it is precisely these horrors which the Constitution was designed to prevent.

 

What sepration of church and state means is irrelevant. Those words do not appear in the us constitution.

Also, why do you want an anti-religious government? What ever happened to freedom and equality under the law?

 

Ok, you can live in a world of ignorance and superstition, I prefer to live in a world of logic and reason.

 

You are right, seperation of church and state does not appear in the constitution, but neither does the phrase "fair trial". Does that mean that the U.S. does not believe in fair trials? Of course not. It was Thomas Jefferson that first talked about the seperation of church and state in a letter he wrote. In it he talked about "a wall of separation between church and State". Then there is James Madison, the main author of the constitution and writer of the First Amendment. He said "The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both;"

How is a government that puts no preference on any religion, anti-religous?

 

Morality is an individual choice and can be based on whatever belief the individual chooses. Law is a matter for government, it is not a choice but force by group decisions, and is not supposed to endorse or enforce any purely religious principles. The basis for law in this country is limited government by constitution, and the purpose is maintaining order in society. Individual rights are not possible without an orderly society. For instance, a moral individual who by choice is following Judeo-Christian precepts would follow the injunction "Thou shalt not kill", but our government enforces laws against murder because murder causes chaos in society. The Judeo-Christian injunction against "bearing false witness" is not against our laws because it does not interfere with order in society.

 

If "fair trail" does not appear in any law, then it shouldn't be followed. Rule of law means that rule is based on what's said in the law. But, I think that "fair trail" or something similar does appear somewhere, otherwise I can't see why it is being followed. Oh, so Jefferson wrote about that in a letter? So why should we care about that? It was not Jefferson's private opinions that were being voted on, it was the words in the law. And among those words are not "separation of church and state". Whatever jefferson -or any other influential figure- thought privately about things is totally irrelevant because their thoughts are not the law. If they wanted a wall of separation they should've put that in the constitution.

A government with no preference is not anti-religious. But "NOTHING in any way religious should be put on public property" implies that the government takes an anti-religious position, as it disqualifies religious things automatically, by virtue of being religious. That is not a government with no preference, it's an anti-religious government.

 

First of all, that quote was not in a private letter, but a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association written in Jefferson's official capacity as President in response to their complaint about the infringement of their religious liberty.

Secondly, the Jefferson and Madison quotes are not about law, but about intent and intent is very important when interpreting the Constitution. The INTENT of the First Amendment is that there should be a wall of separation. Thomas Jefferson was in France when Madison and the others wrote the Constitution and Jefferson didn't think of the phrase "separation of church and state" until after the Constitution was written. That doesn't mean though that is not what Madison meant, especially since he said "that a connection between them is injurious to both".

As for "fair trial", I guarantee it does not say that anywhere in the Constitution, but the Sixth Amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense", which when all added up, is a fair trial. The same is true of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that there is a separation between the government and religion.

The court decision that nothing religious be put on public property is not anti-religious, quite the opposite, it is protecting all religions. It would not be against the First Amendment to put up a religious display, if the display did not appear that the government was endorsing any one religion.This is how Texas was able to keep up their statue of the Ten Commandments when other states had theirs taken down, because the court ruled that it conveyed a historic and social meaning rather than a religious endorsement (Van Orden v. Perry).

 

Well, wheter private or not, does not matter. The law is the words written in the law. Whatever Jefferson's intent or wishes were are not really relevant unless he put that down in words in the law. The opinion of the president, wheter private or as president, are not law. Nor does the supposed "intent" of the authors really matter. People could argue back and forth with no good conclusion about what these people thought about this, but that is not rule of law. The law, as written, is the law. It was not their opinions which were voted on, and their opinions are not the law by virtue of them being influtential people. The law is clear, and there is no separation of state and religion anywhere in there.

Well, there you go. I said that it, or something similar, was probably in there somewhere. Yes, what is said in the sixth amendment does equal a "fair trial". The same is not true for what is said in the first amendment. That "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does not imply that there is a wall of separation between state and religion. It just means there cannot be any laws which refers to establishments of religion.

Well that's kind of what I'm saying here. That the government puts up a display which happens to be religious does not necessarily mean that the government is endorsing or favouring any particular religion. What I'm saying is that in the process of deciding what should be put of on public display like that, religion cannot be automatically disqualified by virtue of being religious. To do that, would be to take an anti-religious stance. My view is that wheter it's religious or not shouldn't matter. What matters is what the people affected wants to put up, wheter religious or not. Thus, if something religious is put up, that's not an endorsement of any religion, it's a sign of the will of the people, who wanted to put up this thing, which just happened to be religious. If, on the other hand, the government put up a religious display contrary to the will of the people, that would be an endorsement of religion.

Also, the distinction between "historic, social and cultural" on the one hand and "religious" on the other is arbitrary and very silly when you come down to it. There are literally religious references everywhere. To avoid them is almost impossible. The rod of asclepius which no doubt appears on many hospitals is a reference to a greek god. Lady justice which stands outside many courthouses is a roman godess. and so on. There isn't really any meaningful difference between lady justice and the ten commandments. Western countries have a roman and christian heritage, and both symbolise justice. To alloow lady justice but not the ten commandments is purely arbitrary if not simply anti-christian. And I don't think the government should be in the business of being anti-christian.

 

This is why we have the Supreme Court, to decide things like what the Constitution means and which things are Constitutional and which is not. Everyone loves the Supreme Court when it agrees with them, but hates it when it does not. Also, not giving preference to Christianity is not being anti-Christian.

The thing is that Separation of Church and State is very important to this country. It keeps the U.S. from becoming another ISIS or Taliban and it keeps the government's nose out of religion. I think that is worth the price of losing some Nativity scenes and some displays of the Ten Commandments.

 

Well, as it happens, the USC agreed with me until around the 60's or something, when the constitution suddenly changed its meaning despite not a single letter being changed. It's called judicial activism, and it's a gross violation of the rule of law.

Having a religious display on public land that the people wants there is not to give preference to a religion, it is to do what the people want. To disqualify christianity from that process is anti-christian.

Kind of unnecessary to throw away nativity scenes and the ten commandments when all you have to do is to have a neutral government in my view. A government which forbids those, but allows greek and roman gods, is arbitrary and follows double standards, and is anti-christian. A government which is consistent in forbidding everything religious is anti-religious. A truly neutral government would be blind to religion, and that means it can neither be biased for or against any religion or religion in general. Religion should never be a factor in any decision the government makes. That is a truly neutral and secular government entails. Both state religion and state athiesm are equally violating the principle of secularism which is neutrality.

 

You don't seem to understand how our legal system works. You have to have a "compelling state interest" to ban something. Even if you got 70% of the people to ban, say, string beans, because there is no compelling state interest such a ban would be Unconstitutional and invalid. "Because (my) gawd said so" is NOT a valid compelling state interest.