Thread: President's Speech

And your country's founders took great care to make a separation between church and state.
I am not afraid of people mentioning God, but I am convinced religious leader are extremely unqualified to be political leaders. They also tend to be bad at actual practical problems.

Originally Posted by Bruno

And your country's founders took great care to make a separation between church and state.
I am not afraid of people mentioning God, but I am convinced religious leader are extremely unqualified to be political leaders. They also tend to be bad at actual practical problems.

I agree. The idea of having a religious leader become a political leader actually scares me. Religious people tend to be rather intolerant of difference. They tend to see themselves as right and the ones that do not follow their own opinions and ideas to be wrong. This sort of dogmatic approach to life is the foundation of every dictatorship ever experienced in our civilization. Intolerance is not acceptable in democracy - in fact, democracy is the only way of excluding intolerance as a true power of decision.
Now picture this: your new leader (political and religious) is say... a moderate anglican. Cool, level headed, tolerant. Nice: political guideance and moral guideance as well. But what about a bible bashing redneck that wants to burn the Koran and invade Islamic countries and declare war on the infidel? Is he not a political leader that guides you towards YOUR Lord Jesus Christ?
I have nothing against political leaders being religious people. But I have everything against the merging of political and religious leadership in one person. Politicians tend to be arrogant for themselves. Imagine one that imagines being in the right by divine inspiration... A "French Revolution" would be in order.

Originally Posted by Bruno

And your country's founders took great care to make a separation between church and state.
I am not afraid of people mentioning God, but I am convinced religious leader are extremely unqualified to be political leaders. They also tend to be bad at actual practical problems.

The words "separation of church and state" does not appear in the US Constitution. What it does say is that the US shall establish no religion. People use the words "separation of church and state" as a club against Christians here.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. I'm getting sick of the anti-religion movement. It doesn't seem to apply to Muslims.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The words "separation of church and state" does not appear in the US Constitution. What it does say is that the US shall establish no religion. People use the words "separation of church and state" as a club against Christians here.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. I'm getting sick of the anti-religion movement. It doesn't seem to apply to Muslims.

Actually it does apply whenever one Religion is pushed as "The Religion" There shall be no "State Church" each individual in the US is afforded the RIGHT to practice any religion they so chose and the RIGHT to not practice any.. But in reading the OP's first post to this thread the "Shall not Establish a Religion" clause in the US Constitution would kick in and apply in this case...

It is a actually a Double Edge Sword not a club, and if wielded correctly it stops ANY religion from pushing their beliefs through Government in this country, but remember anytime one religious group asks for an exception, that exception applies to all religious groups..

I think most people are good at heart. It doesn't take religious teachings to make a person good. Your natural ability to put yourself in the other person's shoes makes you good. There have been studies with children that show that almost all of them will share what they have with others that have nothing.

On the other hand people that are unable to empathize turn out to be the ones that become merciless killers. Time and time again it has been shown that serial killers simply can not understand another person's pain.

At the same time I think a religious background tends to teach kids the difference between right and wrong in situations that have nothing to do with emotion.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The words "separation of church and state" does not appear in the US Constitution. What it does say is that the US shall establish no religion. People use the words "separation of church and state" as a club against Christians here.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. I'm getting sick of the anti-religion movement. It doesn't seem to apply to Muslims.

“"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....... is this what your referring too?

Its not that cut and dry , people love to spout the "freedom of religion" well its that and freedom from religion ....now before you tell me "it doesn't say that",b eliefs are one thing, attempting to remove or create mandated law that applies to all people of this nation are another.

If religion X says (insert desired law change) and that change would cause issues in religion Y's ability to practice it (or force non-religious to participate) then you have the establishment clause ( and free exercise clause ) to step in and say the government cannot make a law respecting a religion ( religion X in this case) or prohibit the free exercise thereof (religion Y) so you have freedom FROM religion X's proposed law ...

So although it does not does not say it....gssixgun nailed the response i just had to chime in

What I am referring to when I say freedom from religion.

Saying it is illegal to have a cross as a war memorial on public land because it violates church and state is ridiculous.

Saying it is illegal to say "in God we trust" on money and in the Pledge is ridiculous.

Neither of those is the government establishing a religion.

This issue with a cross on public land is that it implies that everyone that died serving is of the religion that cross represents .... and it being on public land, it should abide by the establishment clause, specifically because its taxed/publicly funded. I don't see how that is ridiculous.

Edit because i missed it...."Saying it is illegal to say "in God we trust" on money and in the Pledge is ridiculous."

Is the statement "in god we trust" not a direct indication to indicating what specific deity the "country" believes in? What if it were chaged to "in allah we trust" tomorrow ?? would you still feel the same ? im asking honestly out of curiosity

Originally Posted by WishinItWas

This issue with a cross on public land is that it implies that everyone that died serving is of the religion that cross represents .... and it being on public land, it should abide by the establishment clause, specifically because its taxed/publicly funded. I don't see how that is ridiculous.

Edit because i missed it...."Saying it is illegal to say "in God we trust" on money and in the Pledge is ridiculous."

Is the statement "in god we trust" not a direct indication to indicating what specific deity the "country" believes in? What if it were chaged to "in allah we trust" tomorrow ?? would you still feel the same ? im asking honestly out of curiosity

The monument I was talking about was erected decades ago. It is under attack by atheists in another state using law in a way that was never intended. Their argument isn't that it is about a specific religion, but that it is any religion at all. The Constitution says nothing about freedom FROM religion.

Yes, I would have a problem with Allah, but not because I have anything against the Muslim religion. I have a problem with any Muslim insertion into our government government because thay want to institute Shariah Law in the US. They are already getting this done in some locations. IMO Shariah Law goes against everything US Law stands for now. Everything about it is cruel and unusual. It is UnConstitutional and absurd for our courts to even consider ANY foreign law when deciding cases.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

The monument I was talking about was erected decades ago. It is under attack by atheists in another state using law in a way that was never intended. Their argument isn't that it is about a specific religion, but that it is any religion at all. The Constitution says nothing about freedom FROM religion.

Yes, I would have a problem with Allah, but not because I have anything against the Muslim religion. I have a problem with any Muslim insertion into our government government because that want to institute Shariah Law in the US. They are already getting this done in some locations. IMO Shariah Law goes against everything US Law stands for now. Everything about it is cruel and unusual. It is UnConstitutional and absurd for our courts to even consider ANY foreign law when deciding cases.

I know that specific incident you are referring to, with the monument, and I agree with you in that regard. I believe it was even put there for specific people, who are named on the monument, that is a fight that should be left alone. My original point still stands in the case of a "generic cross" or religious symbol being erected on public property.

As to the comment (repeated) about the freedom from religion I think myself, and a few others have already made strong points proving that it exists with out the direct verbiage , please read the previous posts.

I will rewrite your last part and see if anything clicks....

Yes, I would have a problem with god, but not because I have anything against the christian religion. I have a problem with anychristian insertion into our government because that want to institute biblical morality Laws in the US. They are already getting this done with tax freedoms, changing the countries motto, infultrating the court system, fighting equal rights(gay/interracial marriage) etc. IMO biblical Law goes against everything US Law stands for now. Everything about it is cruel and unusual. It is UnConstitutional and absurd for our courts to even consider ANY foreign law(2000 yr old books are ok though?) when deciding cases.

oh and quickly adding ....no one is "infiltrating" our country with shariah law......i mean ...seriously