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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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

How I wish people would understand.

[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".

[RabidGibbon]

Originally posted by Xiahou.

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".

Well as an ignorant foreigner confused by the right to bear arms bit, and at the risk of appearing facetious should the right to bear arms include a 155mm howitzer?

Whoops completly off topic, sorry.

[Papewaio]

The establishment clause is fast becoming "no mention of God or religion in any level of government".

Any mention of a religion would be showing favourtism.

Otherwise which god can you mention?

Hebrew, Chrisitian, Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrianism etc

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Any mention of a religion would be showing favourtism.

Otherwise which god can you mention?

Hebrew, Chrisitian, Muslim, Hindu, Zoroastrianism etc

All.

Also not allowing the mention of god is certainly showing favoritism

Although the founding fathers only recognised Jesus as god if they ackowledeged any. Again their main concern was christain abusing christian not some other religion.

[ichi]

The establishment clause is fast becoming "no mention of God or religion in any level of government".

This is an oft-used, but inaccurate, claim by the religious right. The recent Supreme Court ruling that stated that religious displays, where part of an historical or social context, are acceptable, while use of specific religious theories as guiding or overriding legal foundations are inappropriate.

The truth is that in the last 50 years, and especially in the last 10, we have seen a growing influence of Christian religions in government.

Yes, there are groups advocating the elimination of religious references in government, just as there are groups advocating establishment of a Christian government.

Prayer has been determined to be acceptable, when all religions are included. Religious displays are acceptable, except where it connotes establishment. We even take my tax dollars and give them to faith-based organizations.

Pretty much the fine line that the Constitution calls for, but some people want to continue promoting the idea that government is or is about to be purged of religion.

Far from it, thelikelihood is that Christian religious influence in government will grow, possibly to the point of establishment.

ichi

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Prayer has been determined to be acceptable, when all religions are included. Religious displays are acceptable, except where it connotes establishment. We even take my tax dollars and give them to faith-based organizations.

I'd bet that there are other things they take tax dollars for that people don't agree with...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This is an oft-used, but inaccurate, claim by the religious right. The recent Supreme Court ruling that stated that religious displays, where part of an historical or social context, are acceptable, while use of specific religious theories as guiding or overriding legal foundations are inappropriate.

Its legal in Texas but not in Kentucky. They couldnt even agree on two cases about the samething. Ths sets a very dangerous precedent. This court is a sham. Meanwhile the ten comandment are displayed twice in their own chamber.

[ichi]

I'd bet that there are other things they take tax dollars for that people don't agree with...

you would prolly win that bet

regardless, the fact that we give tax $$ to faith-based organizations is one clear indicator that religion isn't being purged from government.

ichi

[Gawain of Orkeny]

regardless, the fact that we give tax $$ to faith-based organizations is one clear indicator that religion isn't being purged from government.

That dosent mean their not trying. Theres been plenty of bitching from the left about this.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

regardless, the fact that we give tax $$ to faith-based organizations is one clear indicator that religion isn't being purged from government.

How far do we go in "purging" (not a great choice of words) "religion" (also vague) from the government?

[ichi]

That dosent mean their not trying. Theres been plenty of bitching from the left about this.

and an equal (actually a greater IMO) amount from those who would establish a form of Christianity as our national faith.

How far do we go in "purging" (not a great choice of words) "religion" (also vague) from the government?

We're at good place now, allowing reference to an unidentified supreme being and being inclusive of all faiths, allowing leaders to rely on their faith but denying them the ability to impose their faith on the rest of us.

ichi

[Gawain of Orkeny]

and an equal (actually a greater IMO) amount from those who would establish a form of Christianity as our national faith.

I dont know a one. Me thinks tho art mistaken. Ill bet there are more Muslims who would like to see some form of Islam as our national faith.

[ichi]

Just a few weeks ago the thread containing this link was locked, so I may be treading thin ice here posting the link again.

I know you saw the thread and that you are aware of these folks.

It contains a long list of influential people who wish to increase the power of the Christian churches in our government, often to the exclusion (as PJ has called for) of people who think differently than they do.

At any rate, there's as much effort being put forth trying to increase religious influence as there is trying to curtail it.

ichi

[PanzerJaeger]

It contains a long list of influential people who wish to increase the power of the Christian churches in our government, often to the exclusion (as PJ has called for) of people who think differently than they do.

Whoa, I thought I made myself clear when I said I do not support any sort of theocracy.

My fight is with liberals who are intolerant of religion. I really dont care if my elected leaders are Christian or not as long as they arent leftist.

[Papewaio]

What is so bad with the left?

Asked this question before.

Was Jesus a conservative or liberal Rabbi?

[ichi]

Whoa, I thought I made myself clear when I said I do not support any sort of theocracy.

and I saw where you wrote that, I was referring to your statement that some people should be excluded from any sort of power.

ichi

[PanzerJaeger]

What is so bad with the left?

Asked this question before.

Answered that question before (many times).

Was Jesus a conservative or liberal Rabbi?

The social and political nature of Jesus' world was so far removed from the modern world its difficult to compare.

I do not believe Jesus advocated moral relativity though.. but I could be mistaken.

[King of Atlantis]

jesus was certainly liberal.

Sometimes he seems like the first hippy to me

[Gawain of Orkeny]

jesus was certainly liberal.

Sometimes he seems like the first hippy to me

Just like everyone else both liberals and conservatives say god is on their side. Theres no right anwer to that question.

[caesar44]

What is so bad with the left?

Asked this question before.

Was Jesus a conservative or liberal Rabbi?

Jesus was a reformator ! He did not wanted the religious establishment between the commons and God , that was his main object , the irony is that his followers founded the largest religious establishment ever !

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Jesus was liberal for his time, just as the Founding Fathers of the US were liberals for their time. However, I suspect both Jesus and the Founding Fathers would shocked and outraged at the ways we've "progressed" today.

[Steppe Merc]

jesus was certainly liberal.

Sometimes he seems like the first hippy to me

I don't know. He certaintly wouldn't be for wars and the death penalty, but he also probably wouldn't have been for free love, or drugs. Which IMO, is a pretty important part of being a hippie...

[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.