Separation of Church and State

[The Bear's Key]

The Arkansas provision, and any others like it, are unconstitutional and unenforceable under Torcaso v. Watkins

States and the federal government have an untold number of ancient laws on the books that can no longer be enforced because the Supreme Court has found those laws to be unconstitutional.

Damn activist judges

 

 

Do you know of any court precedent in which atheism has been deemed a religion?

That's like calling a non-drinker an alchoholic.

 

OK! What is the deal with this utterly atrocious formatting nonsense that this new forum software sometimes creates?

Judging from the tags in your post (<br> <div>), a webpage's source code is getting included when you copy & paste its text.

[pioneer]

When they swear in the president they still use a bible. It is also used in the Judicial branch for swearing in witnesses. If the intent was to remove religion that would have never been part of the ceremony. The intent was not to separate symbols but simply not to create a church branch of government. Say we used one of the atheist bibles, when people swear to tell the truth, would this carry as much weight?

 

I tend to think they never intented there to be an EPA for religion, which creates regulations that either favor or obstruct the free enterprise of any relgion.

Edited November 9, 2010 by pioneer

[swansont]

When they swear in the president they still use a bible. It is also used in the Judicial branch for swearing in witnesses. If the intent was to remove religion that would have never been part of the ceremony. The intent was not to separate symbols but simply not to create a church branch of government. Say we used one of the atheist bibles, when people swear to tell the truth, would this carry as much weight?

 

I tend to think they never intented there to be an EPA for religion, which creates regulations that either favor or obstruct the free enterprise of any relgion.

 

The Bible is optional and a decision up to the individual, as is the addendum "so help me God." You could be sworn in with your hand on a copy of Penthouse. The decision not to is one of politics rather than a government mandate — they are not part of the Constitutional requirement of swearing the oath or affirming, the latter being included so one did not have to swear an oath to (or before) God.

[John Cuthber]

So, in order to testify as a witness in Arkansas I'd have to lie about my religious beliefs.

Brilliant!

[padren]

When they swear in the president they still use a bible. It is also used in the Judicial branch for swearing in witnesses. If the intent was to remove religion that would have never been part of the ceremony. The intent was not to separate symbols but simply not to create a church branch of government. Say we used one of the atheist bibles, when people swear to tell the truth, would this carry as much weight?

Swearing on the Christian Bible may carry more percieved weight by Christian judges and jurors, but honestly the only real weight comes from either ( A ) a personal sense of right and wrong (which does not correlate to religious beliefs) or ( B ) fear of exposing oneself to criminal charges such as perjury and the very earthly consequences that come with that.

 

Most people who would choose to lie under oath already have a reason to lie, are already aware of the impact that will have on those seeking the truth, and already have their reasons for believing they are justified in doing so.

[pioneer]

This morning I think I figure out the logic behind the separation of church and state. The biggest difference between the two is the state can use guns, swords and jails to impose it laws and views. The church is limited to free speech, since churches don't have armies, police or jails to impose its laws and views.

 

As an example, churches may collect tithes, which are like taxes. But they can only use words of appeal or words of guilt to get you to pay. If you don't wish to pay, nothing bad can happen to you. You can't be thrown in jail or you house looted by tithe collectors. The state tithe is called taxes. The state can also use words of appeal and guilt. But it also has the option of guns, swords and jails. With religion you can reason that you don't wish to pay the tithe and that is that. But try that with the state and see what happens. It has an extra option.

 

The separation of church and state places church first since the relationship is more like the underdog to the overdog and thereby helps to protect the underdog from a possible bully. The underdog can talk, using free speech, but the overdog can bring guns, swords and jails. You can't have a state religion since that would imply the religion would be given access to guns, swords and jails to become an overdog. It could then loot you to collect tithes.

 

But on the other hand, the state is not suppose to not use its guns, swords and jails, against the underdog, since the requirement imposed on religion is they can't have these things. If the state ignored that difference, it could reduce the dynamics between state and church to bully and victim. A state bully may decide he doesn't like the victim's glasses and use that as an excuse to beat him up. Free speech assures that the victim can wear his glasses and still not be a victim of a state bully who has access to guns, swords and jails. But if the bully is able to twist the state laws to allow this, the founding fathers added the right to bear arms, so the victim can have a defense. But churches don't condone violent conflict, since they hope the original mutual relationship of free speech is restored and guns, swrods and jails removed fromn their relationship of mutual respect.

Edited November 10, 2010 by pioneer

[Mr Skeptic]

Americans are largely religious (mostly some form of Christianity) and moral, and they hold their elected officials to high moral standards. So it make sense that they would want fellow believers in office ... especially in the Bible Belt states.

 

So then an atheist official that never had any affairs nor was involved in corruption, would get into office easier than a politician who was involved in corruption and had affairs but was a Christian?

[jackson33]

So then an atheist official that never had any affairs nor was involved in corruption, would get into office easier than a politician who was involved in corruption and had affairs but was a Christian? [/Quote]

 

Skeptic; That's not a very good analogy; Normally any person who had an affair or was involved in corruption, whether Christian or Atheist, would not get elected. On a level playing ground, as to character, if an Atheist runs as an Atheist the electorate will choose the non Atheist. Character does not requires being a Christian but people usually will respond to some personal connection or similarity to a candidate, religion, family persona, education and so on...

 

pioneer; Anytime you buy a product, your supporting the establishment you bought that product from and the manufacturer of the product. People that are religious support the place they worship, no less. Often these Church's, Mosque or others are also involved in some benevolent activity and those same people by CHOICE, are supporting those activities. As for Governments, people still have choice, by who they elect and the services they demand.

[swansont]

While courts can declare some law unconstitutional, they cannot remove said law from the books. Removing a law from the books is the sole purview of the legislature that created the law.<br><br>Now suppose you are a state legislator in Arkansas. Are you going to propose an act to revoke the law that precludes atheists from holding public office, working as civil servants, or testifying in court, or are you going to hold your nose and just let that law slide into unenforceable oblivion? If you do the former you have just given up any chance of being reelected. You might not know this, but every other legislator does; your proposal will never go anywhere.<br><br>States and the federal government have an untold number of ancient laws on the books that can no longer be enforced because the Supreme Court has found those laws to be unconstitutional.

 

 

 

Turns out someone tried to do this last year. The bill died in committee.

 

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HJR1009

[The Bear's Key]

So then an atheist official that never had any affairs nor was involved in corruption, would get into office easier than a politician who was involved in corruption and had affairs but was a Christian?

Skeptic; That's not a very good analogy; Normally any person who had an affair or was involved in corruption, whether Christian or Atheist, would not get elected. On a level playing ground, as to character, if an Atheist runs as an Atheist the electorate will choose the non Atheist.

But he did make a valid analogy. I believe Mr Skeptic's question is this: if the only two candidates running were 1) a politician exposed for corruption and having an extramarital affair, or 2) a politician of clean record who's atheist.....the voters' choice will be?

 

The answer itself exposes something: it's not just about the usual/personal likes or dislikes by voters, their reasoning approaches the extreme.

 

For the atheist is just a person who happens to not believe, rather than someone whose agenda is to further a political cause.

Edited November 11, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[jackson33]

But he did make a valid analogy. I believe Mr Skeptic's question is this: if the only two candidates running were 1) a politician exposed for corruption and having an extramarital affair, or 2) a politician of clean record who's atheist.....the voters' choice will be?

 

The answer itself exposes something: it's not just about the usual/personal likes or dislikes by voters, their reasoning approaches the extreme.

 

For the atheist is just a person who happens to not believe, rather than someone whose agenda is to further a political cause. [/Quote]

 

The Key; It seemed ewmon was making a different point, one I agree with and people (voters) relate to specific trait in candidates, to themselves. In that context I think there might be better ones, but there is nothing wrong with Skeptics general thought.

 

An example would be an honest, successful, with a reputation for being a good husband/father and responsible citizen with experience in Business and politics, that happened to be an atheist running against a person with a checkered past, a couple marriages, been involved in some corruption and somewhat polarizing in ideology but religious,which one would win, in the US.

 

Take the word atheist out, inserting Mormon and you have the Republicans 2008 Primary contest, McCain/Romney and throw in Huckabee a little overly religious.

[waitforufo]

I wonder how such a proclamation would be received today?

 

George Washington’s 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

 

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

 

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted’ for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

 

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

 

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

 

[jackson33]

waitforufo; I'd like to think it would be received in the same manner as it was then and throughout the years of this nation. What he proclaimed so long ago will out last any others since offered. Since it is thanksgiving, without comment, I'll offer you the two Obama proclamations (2009-2010)....for a comparison.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-thanksgiving-day

 

http://obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=2148

[nec209]

The Bible is optional and a decision up to the individual, as is the addendum "so help me God." You could be sworn in with your hand on a copy of Penthouse. The decision not to is one of politics rather than a government mandate — they are not part of the Constitutional requirement of swearing the oath or affirming, the latter being included so one did not have to swear an oath to (or before) God.

 

 

Your post is hard to understand has I do not know how this works .There is not more one book.

[ydoaPs]

Your post is hard to understand has I do not know how this works .There is not more one book.

Your post is hard to understand.

[swansont]

Your post is hard to understand has I do not know how this works .There is not more one book.

 

There is no requirement to be sworn in on a Bible.