US constitution , $$$$ and God

[caesar44]

One of the most important thing in the USoA constitution is the absolute separation between state and religion , it is also a precedent (a good one) .
If so , how can one explain the known fact that in the $$$$ bills there is the famous sentence "IN GOD WE TRUST" ? (In the Israeli declaration of independents there is not even one mention of God , and we in Israel have some 30% to 60% "believers")

It is just a question , not an offence , not a statement , OK ?

[Divinus Arma]

If I remember correctly, I believe this was added in the 1950s. It is my understanding, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that the U.S. government's intent was to more distinctly seperate itself from the Soviet Union, which was considered a "godless" evil government.

[caesar44]

That is really news for me , I admit

[Divinus Arma]

Looks like I am wrong:

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...-we-trust.html

[Crazed Rabbit]

In 1954, the One Nation Under God was added to the Pledge (to seperate us from the commies )

But the Constitution doesn't say complete seperation of Church and State. It only says the gov't will not establish a religion.

Crazed Rabbit

[Divinus Arma]

This whole issue is a mess IMO.

[Xiahou]

But the Constitution doesn't say complete seperation of Church and State. It only says the gov't will not establish a religion.

Crazed Rabbit

Funny how those interpretations work isnt it? The establishment clause is fast becoming "no mention of God or religion in any level of government". While the right to bear arms now means "you can only have guns that the government approves of and you may only keep them with said governments permission".

[Redleg]

One of the most important thing in the USoA constitution is the absolute separation between state and religion , it is also a precedent (a good one) .
If so , how can one explain the known fact that in the $$$$ bills there is the famous sentence "IN GOD WE TRUST" ? (In the Israeli declaration of independents there is not even one mention of God , and we in Israel have some 30% to 60% "believers")

It is just a question , not an offence , not a statement , OK ?

Someone needs to read the United States Constitution. Where does it say absolute separation between state and religion.

It doesn't say that nor does it imply that.

IT states simply

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.

So Congress will not establish a religion nor will it prohibit the formation of religions by the people. That is all it says.

[caesar44]

Someone needs to read the United States Constitution. Where does it say absolute separation between state and religion.

It doesn't say that nor does it imply that.

IT states simply



So Congress will not establish a religion nor will it prohibit the formation of religions by the people. That is all it says.

Thank you for strengthened my point...

Btw , I sense some arrogance here ? I have read it , the question is , did you understand it ?

[Redleg]

Thank you for strengthened my point...

Your point is not strengthen because you have mis-understood what the United States Constitution states.

Btw , I sense some arrogance here ? I have read it , the question is , did you understand it ?

Some arrogance - try again. Your question and method itself shows how arrogant you are in assuming you understood what the constitution states. Accusing others of what you yourself demonstrated in your opening sentence. Yea right. (BTW - it wasn't some it was a whole lot.)

Sure I understand it completely - probably better then you can image. However you do not understand it or you would not have stated

absolute separation between state and religion.

Here is one that states it much better then I can. To say the constitution speaks in absolutes shows that you have not understood what the document is.

The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it [330 U.S. 1, 15] was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. 21 The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. 22 There is every reason to give the sam application and broad interpretation to the 'establishment of religion' clause. The interrelation of these complementary clauses was well summarized in a statement of the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 23 quoted with approval by this Court, in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 730: 'The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasions of the civil authority.'

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

Again nowhere does the Constitution state absolute seperation. It expressly states; 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.

And you might want to ask yourself - why churches are not taxed if there is suppose to be absolute seperation between church and state?

Then you might want to ask yourself about Thanksgiving Day which was done by congress. It makes for some interesting reading - and again goes to show that absolute seperation is not what the Constitution states.

Then ask yourself why there is a chaplin in Congress - or why a prayer is often spoken aloud prior to the beginning of the Congressional session for that year.

Once again when stating absolute you demonstrated your lack of understanding of what the constitution states.

Other suggested reading is the Federalist Papers - which goes into more detail on what some of the intent of the authors of part of the Constitution and its admendments wanted. In these documents and some of the writtings of Thomas Jefferson you will find that some wanted a metrophocial (SP) wall put between Religious institutions and the Government.

[bmolsson]

Everyone knows that US is a theocracy.... Democratic one though.... Except in Florida where appointments are according to blood line.....

[caesar44]

Redleg

1. all your examples are not from the constitution !!!!!!!!!!!
2. Absolute yes - Do the church have any part in the political game , by the con' ? no
Do the church is one of the organs of the state ? no
Do the church management is mentioned in the con' ? no
Give one role that the church have in the con' ! nothing , nada , "0" , but you continue to argue with points that have no connection to my post , what do you expect , that the words "absolute separation" be mentioned just for you to understand ? and yes ' you are arrogant for saying that I did not read the con' just because you disagree with my post

[Xiahou]

1. all your examples are not from the constitution !!!!!!!!!!!
2. Absolute yes - Do the church have any part in the political game , by the con' ? no
Do the church is one of the organs of the state ? no
Do the church management is mentioned in the con' ? no
Give one role that the church have in the con' ! nothing , nada , "0" , but you continue to argue with points that have no connection to my post , what do you expect , that the words "absolute separation" be mentioned just for you to understand ? and yes ' you are arrogant for saying that I did not read the con' just because you disagree with my post

Huh?
Someone wanna translate that?

[Redleg]

Redleg

1. all your examples are not from the constitution !!!!!!!!!!!

Want to bet - the first statement is a direct quote of the 1st Admendment, the other quote is from a constitutional lawyer. The first congress passed the national holiday Thanksgiving, and the other two are currently done in congress.

2. Absolute yes - Do the church have any part in the political game , by the con' ? no

Again try reading the consitution - it does not say absolute

Do the church is one of the organs of the state ? no

That is exactly what the Constitution states - which I have shown with the quote of the 1st Admendment.

Do the church management is mentioned in the con' ? no

Actually it does not mention it the terms that you are thinking. It states that the government shall not establish a church.

Give one role that the church have in the con' ! nothing , nada , "0" , but you continue to argue with points that have no connection to my post , what do you expect , that the words "absolute separation" be mentioned just for you to understand ? and yes ' you are arrogant for saying that I did not read the con' just because you disagree with my post

Goes back to your first question and statments -

If so , how can one explain the known fact that in the $$$$ bills there is the famous sentence "IN GOD WE TRUST" ? (In the Israeli declaration of independents there is not even one mention of God , and we in Israel have some 30% to 60% "believers")

Its obvious that you are confusing what the constitution states from what you want it to mean.

And you haven't read the constitution nor have you attempted to understand what it actually states - your are assuming you know what it means. Which means that I am not the only one being arrogant in this thread. Just that I am man enough to admit it. The manner in which you began the thread shows an arrogance on your part. I respond to peoples posts exactly how I percieve them to be. And it seems several others also percieve the same problem of your question and your arguement on this subject as I do.

And then again your lack of understanding is showing - I was not talking about the church - I am talking about the United States Constitution and how it is applied to my country.

He , Redleg , was talking about the "church" , just look at his post

And then you might want to get your facts straight - your nation is not 3000 years old - its less then 60 years of age. The ancient nation of Israel ceased to exist over 1900 years ago.

[Franconicus]

One of the most important thing in the USoA constitution is the absolute separation between state and religion , it is also a precedent (a good one) .
If so , how can one explain the known fact that in the $$$$ bills there is the famous sentence "IN GOD WE TRUST" ? (In the Israeli declaration of independents there is not even one mention of God , and we in Israel have some 30% to 60% "believers")

It is just a question , not an offence , not a statement , OK ?

'In God we trust' on the dollar notes - I always thought this was a joke from the neocons to declare that money is their god