Doing God’s work?
Democrats and liberals constantly talk about the “separation of church and state” yet their politicians sound like my priest at Sunday Mass! Gov. Bill Ritter, in his recent inaugural, said government “exists ... to ensure we take care of seniors, that we take care of the disabled. It exists so we take care of those who struggle mightily for whatever the reason.”
I am new to Colorado, but does our Constitution really say that? My church and the Bible tell me to help those in need, but an amount is suggested and not withheld from my paycheck.
I am tired of paying my taxes so politicians can attempt to do God’s work — after they take their cuts off the top. I can only pray to God for some relief since voting sure doesn’t seem to help.
Jeff Tokarsky, Parker
My offer of $1000.00 still stands to any liberal that can find for me the phrase " separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. They say is is "implied" and that is what our Founding Fathers "intended". My, aren't they the psychic wonders!!! It is amazing how so many on the left see so much that is NOT in the Constituion, but fail to see and understand what is actually there.
Posted by Michael on January 29, 2007 06:40 AMI'll one up you, $1,000,000.00 to anyone that can point out the word "God" to me in the US Constitution, fyi I think its in the Iraqi's version of a constitution.
Posted by Jack on January 29, 2007 08:48 AMJeff, stunning, yes I know, but many of us "liberals" dont require our religion to be worn on our sleeves in order to live a moral life.
Posted by flimflam on January 29, 2007 09:14 AMThe clause of "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution but rather the term was coined by Thomas Jefferson. The basis of seperation of church and state derives from the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and is backed up by numberous Supreme Court decisions. It basically states that people are free to practice whatever religion they choose while the government cannot endorse anyone religion, even broad contexts such as Christanity, Islam, Judaisim, etc. The Founding Fathers wrote the Establishment Clause in part due to the religous wars that were raging in Europe for centuries as well as the religous persecutions enacted on certain religions by European rulers. So if you really want government to promote religion, ask yourself which religion specifically, and then look to countries such as Iran, Sauda Arabia, and Afganistan and see how that is going for them. Or perhaps you want the US to be like those countries except with a Christain twist.
Posted by Sean on January 29, 2007 09:44 AMThere are some Americans who would cherish the knowledge that our tax dollars are being spent with humanitarian and altruistic goals. Instead, all we ever hear is about cutbacks in education, health care, senior services, assistance for the mentally ill, while costs keep rising for the most basic services. Meanwhile, our taxes fund our country's almost perpetual state of warfare and bankrupt our coffers. Hawkish reasoning implies that it's acceptable for a designated amount be taken from our paychecks to kill people and destroy their countries, but not to care for our own citizens. Some brainwashed faithful spend too much time kneeling, genuflecting, splashing holy water, kissing sacerdotal rings, fingering beads, reading convenient parts of the bible, and listening to false prophets in robes to realize the illogic of preferring warfare over charity. We are the laughing stock and the object of hatred of the entire world because of this mindset.
Posted by Judge Joe on January 29, 2007 09:45 AMSean- that clause says nothing about government endorsing one religion over another. Our government has always done that. There is a huge difference between "endorsement" and "requirement." The government cannot require, nor prohibit, any religion, but it can most certainly endorse.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 10:08 AM"I can only pray to God for some relief since voting sure doesn’t seem to help."
I think you're on to something here. You should pray to your god and stop voting. In fact, all people who are tempted to pray instead of vote should make that switch. Let's see if God really does care more about killing people in the Middle East than helping people in America.
Posted by Greg on January 29, 2007 11:36 AMSome words from TJ:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Dear Michael:
The constitution does specifically prohibit the "respecting an establishment of religion", though it does not use Mr. Jefferson's specific phrase, the "seperation of church and state". However, if you need additional documentation, may I suggest the Treaty of Tripoli between the United States and the Berber princes of North Africa. The treaty does specifically state that the United States is not a christian nation. As this is sufficient proof of a seperation of church and state to any reasonable, objective mind please make the check for $1000 payable to the American Civil Liberties Union in the name of yourself, Otto von Feuer, and Thomas Jefferson.
Cheers
Posted by Otto on January 29, 2007 11:57 AMThe $1000.00 was for someone who could find that line in the U.S. Constitution. You cannot, so Michael does not owe the $1000.00. Saying the United States is not a Christian nation does not mean that there is a separation (notice the spelling Otto) of church and state. They have always been linked and there is no problem with that. The problem is in a state REQUIRING or PROHIBITING the practice of any religion. The state isn't required to stay away from anything religious.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 12:35 PMSo Mike, are you saying that a theocracy would be constitutional?
I dare you to back that up with facts.
We know from their writings that the founders were highly concerned with the power of the church impinging into state affairs and wanted to protect a single religion ruling the country.
So if you think we have this all wrong, perhaps you should publish something that shows how Madison et al actually wanted the state to be run by the church, and perhaps which church you think they wanted to run the state.
Funny, to me "honking sounds typically made by ducks" actually means the same as "quack like a duck" even if the sentences aren't spelled the same.
So what the constitution says about the state neither establishing nor prohibiting religion is equivalent to saying that there is separation of church and state.
Michael's wager is trivial since he specifies that the exact words would have to be in the text, which nobody disputes.
If he expands the wager to include the meaning, he would be out of money quite quickly.
So, if an employer neither requires, nor prohibits you from participating in a retirement program, then he cannot offer a 401K? He is required to totally remove himself? It doesn't follow, logically.
That line is not equivalent to saying that there is a separation of church and state. It simply means, the state cannot require, nor prohibit, any religion. You can talk about religion; you can even promote one religion, without requiring that people follow it, or prohibiting them from following the religion of their choice. Or, as in my case, not following any religion at all.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 01:27 PMMike, "establish" doesn't equate to "require" in this case, so your example is neither here nor there.
You seem to be endorsing a theocracy, or do I misunderstand you?
As a second question, do you really see no problem with the state "promoting" a specific religion, or are you arguing narrowly that you believe this to be what the constitution implies?
Actually, I do equate "establish" to "require". One of the things the founding fathers were fighting against was an established, state religion that they were required to follow. There was 1 religion; you had to follow it and no other. They set it up so any individual could practice whatever he wanted to; or not practice anything.
Yes, you do misunderstand me. I prefer as little religion as possible since I do not personally believe in any god, but I would never force my beliefs on another.
The state has always promoted Christianity above all other religions and that has never prevented any individual from practicing another religion. Christianity was never established as a state religion, but the majority of people in the U.S. then, and now, are Christians.
I've never understood how politicians taking their oaths on a bible, God being printed on our money, or Christmas decorations in a public park ever caused me any harm. I have never been forced to worship any god, nor locked up for not worshiping.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 02:30 PMJust as a personal preference, I would prefer politicians used less religious rhetoric of any kind. I have nothing against politicians talking about their beleifs, I would just prefer less of it...I would base my vote on the amount of religious rhetoric a candidate spewed, hopefully more people like me will show politicians that its not only evangelicals that get elected, resulting in a more varied cadidate pool (ideally).
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 02:44 PM"The state has always promoted Christianity above all other religions and that has never prevented any individual from practicing another religion."
You might consider rephrasing that before proceeding.
Posted by flimflam on January 29, 2007 02:51 PMMike.
Thanks for setting me straight.
Let me pose three scenarios, and then tell me if there is harm from your pov.
1. The head of a gov dept organizes morning prayer meetings and reads out of the bible to staff. (ala Ashcroft) How likely is it that you as a declared atheist can feel that your performance evaluations and salary or promotion opportunities have not been compromised?
2. You want to seek a political career and the government promotes and encourages Christian faith and specifically the Evangelical and fundamentalist Baptist form. How likely will this impact your ability to pursue your chosen career.
3. Given the government support in #2, you are arrested when a group of people are rounded up during a peace rally. The DA asks if you are also an Evangelical Baptist like him and the judge. Do you expect to get a fair shake from him when you declare that you are in fact an atheist?
Why? The founding fathers were Christians, the vast majority of our citizens are Christians, and Christianity is the dominant religion in our country. I only stated the obvious.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 03:08 PM#1 I'm not an atheist. An atheist denies the existence of God; I said I don't believe he exists. There is a difference. We have protection in the Constitution from discrimination based on religion. If I think I was discriminated based on that, I will try my luck in court.
#2 It would be one variable among many, but I don't believe our government would ever be that unified under one religion. While Christianity is the dominant religion, there is certainly room for other faiths. I believe that has been the case for a long time.
#3 I would never attend a peace rally.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 03:15 PMI too would prefer not to hear religious rhetoric from politicians. It is as though each politician thinks he has to brag about the fact that he is religious or believes in God. (I don't trust people who do this.) I've seen and heard of quite a few religious people entering (or trying to enter) politics only to discover these people are fallible and sin just like people in other occupations (politics, esp.) My pet peeve is the presence of the flag in church. I believe that religion should have no boundaries, either political or territorial.
Posted by Linda on January 29, 2007 03:19 PMI would suggest Mr. Tokarsky return to the country from which he or his ancestors immigrated in order to lessen his burdensome taxes,or maybe actually read the Constitution. He will find that the preamble sights all those reasons Liberals and Democrats espouse as valid reasons for writing a constitution in the first place. While our founding fathers were deeply suspious of any alliance between Church and State, they recoginized the benefit to society of certain Christian principles, and used those principles to justify the formation and continued existence of the United States. As part of the Enlightenment they were well aware that all religions, and in particular, Christianity have been used for the accumulation of power and money by various nations as well as individuals in direct contradiciton of its founding principles. Thus the first ammendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of every citizen to practice his or her own religion without any coersion by the State.and precludes the establishment of any religion by the State. This right includes practicing no religion if that is the citizen's belief.
Posted by Robert D. McDonough, Jr. on January 29, 2007 03:57 PMWow Mike: You are obsessed. I quit bothering to count the number of posts you made. Instead of berating my spelling typo, a mistake I freely admit, you need to look up the definition of the respecting. That is a synonym of the act of promotion, not requirement. Having that many posts in one day suggests two things. First, you are a fanatic incapable of reason. Second, you need to get a job and get off relief like so many other hypocritical right wingers. ex: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
Posted by Otto on January 29, 2007 04:09 PMA hypocrite is a person who is not himself on Sunday.
Posted by on January 29, 2007 05:33 PMOtto,
Once might be considered a typo, but twice is not knowing how to spell the word. Also, I base everything on reason; I never let emotion cloud my judgement as so many people do when it comes to religion. I am gainfully employed and not on "relief" as you put it. I'm curious as to what that link has to do with the argument here.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 06:21 PMLet's just install Anton LaVey's Church of Satan as the official state religion and end this whole separation of church and state argument.
Posted by on January 30, 2007 02:27 AM