What are your best "separation of church and state" arguments?

[CoffeeCat]

I really need help with arguing for the separation of church and state. I'm having
a heated debate with a tea party person.

She insists that this country was founded by Christians and that we are a Christian
nation. She also insisted that "In God We Trust" is on our money for a reason and
that prayer used to be in schools, in the 50's. She says that our country was always
a Christian nation and that only in the last few decades have the evil courts and liberals
decided to take God out of everything.

Of course, I reminded her of the "Congress shall make no law" clause in the First Amendment, but
she insisted that this mean that the government won't' mandate a religion. She went on
to say that the First Amendment doesn't say that there can't be any religion in schools
or Ten Commandments in the courthouse---just that the government can't mandate that
our country follow one religion.

I am trying to explain to her that we have to separate the two--to protect ALL religious
freedom. I asked her what would happen if Mitt Romney became President and decided
that we should all wear magic underwear and that all Mormon tenants should now be posted
in the courthouses? She went back to the point that Christianity is the majority in the
country.

I'm sure others could benefit from the wisdom and resources that others have used to
make this argument. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

Bottom line--these people are babies, in my opinion. I know that may sound simplistic
and even mean. However, what it seems to come down to---is that they feel that their
religion should be everywhere--regardless. It's not enough that they practice their religion--they
want everyone else faced with it on a daily basis, as well.

It's a hard issue to argue--because if these people are willing to ignore the Constitution
and rationalize unconstitutional behavior--it's hard to invoke reason or rational discourse.

Any suggestions?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. The Founders were not particularly Christian

They were, by-and-large, Deists - they believed that God exists, but had no particular stock in any particular version.

Check this out for more info: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

[CoffeeCat]

3. Thank you for the link...

I'll check that out.

[MH1]

73. You may want to ask her opinion on the Jefferson Bible.

That ought to spin her head.

[Irishonly]

106. Heads start to explode-

but be prepared for rationalization that will make your head explode.

[provis99]

2. look up the relevant supreme Court case:

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

using the Supreme Court's own arguments will wow them the best.

And if she thinks the country should be Christian just because Christians are the majority, ask her how she'd like it then when Muslims become the majority: does that mean they get shari'a law, then?

[CoffeeCat]

12. Yes, that is a great point...

Just because the majority think or believe something--does not mean that it is
mandated by our government. We live in a free society.

Not all Christians, or religious people, are like this person--but many are.

And if you try to argue for separation of church and state they probably assume that you are the devil. Doh!

[B Calm]

59. That should convince them. . They hate

mooslims. .

[napoleon_in_rags]

4. In my opinion, the best arguments are theological.

I believe in a God who doesn't need a government bailout; a God who doesn't disappear when the government stops supporting Him.

Tell the individual that he or she is thinking "pastors in office" when the reality of combined church and state is more often than not "politicians at the pulpit."

[elleng]

5. Bunch of quotes, including Jefferson and Adams.

and Justice Robert Jackson, Thomas Paine and Justice John Paul Stevens.
Have fun!

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes/agnostic

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. This nation was founded by persons seeking to escape the domination of the Church of England, IIRC.

They sought FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS PRACTICE. And for everyone to be able to choose their own religion and religious practice, or not. If one religion seeks to claim dominance, it should be looked upon as the very same problem the pilgrims sought to flee in the first place. Bullies interested in having their way and their way alone.

Also, it may have Christian values but it is not a theocracy.

And some pact was signed early on about just this, that this is not a specifically "Christian" nation. Cannot remember its name.

I'm not anti-Christian, I am for personal freedom of choice of religion, or not, as each so decides. To have any single religion demanding its practices be made a standard for all, inside AND outside the related churches, they're not adequately considering the freedom of choice of their neighbors. No one says you cannot have your practice in your homes and in your churches. So why do they act like that? Some want to force a theocracy. If the majority wanted that, it would already be so.

[CoffeeCat]

14. I think that is a very critical point...

The pilgrims/puritans were escaping here--to rid themselves of religious nut jobs who had
overtaken the government.

As you said, yes--they were Christians, but they also understood the importance of church
and government being separate.

And also--you used the word "theocracy". We would have a theocracy if the government
was in the business of promoting Christianity. Yet, these tea partiers don't see that if they
got everything they wanted--we would no longer be a free nation. We would be a theocracy.

They are basically arguing for a theocracy. I wonder if someone who was Jewish or Hindu
argued for a theocracy--with the US government promoting their religion--if these tea partiers
would then begin to see the point?

And I'm not anti-religion either. I think people should be free to believe whatever they want to
believe. However, to insist that the government be involved in it--and in promoting it--is
self centered and bizarre.

[Fire Walk With Me]

42. They could be comfortable and joyous in their beliefs and practice

and not have a problem with anyone who has a different joyous practice.

Freedom means having a choice. Dictatorship means someone tells you what you have to do. None of us wishes to be dictated to.

[starroute]

43. Separation of church and state was invented by Roger Williams

The Pilgrims in general thought it was the job of government to force people to be religious -- but Williams concluded that true religion could only be founded on complete freedom of conscience. That's what got him driven out of Massachusetts.

http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/globalrights/religion/williams.html

It is as a Seeker that he wrote The Bloudy Tenent in 1643, while in England attempting to win back the charter for Rhode Island, his enclave of religious toleration amidst the intolerance of the Puritans. Williams’ belief, and the main theme of The Bloudy Tenent, was that all individuals and religious bodies were entitled to religious liberty as a natural right, and that civil governments did not have the authority to enforce religious laws.

As the full title suggests, The Bloody Tenent is structured as a type of dialog between “Truth” (as seen by Puritans like John Cotton) and “Peace” (Williams’ view) over the issue of “Persecution, for Cause of Conscience” (namely, the issue of laws favoring one religion over another, and their validity from a scriptural point of view.) It was Williams’ thesis that these laws, or any use of secular authority to promote any religious sect, was contrary to the teachings in the Bible. . . .

Williams also drew upon the Bible for many examples to support his claim that the Church should not rely upon secular authority to carry out its commission to bring the gospel to the world. He pointed out that neither Jesus nor his disciples enjoyed the protection of the governing authorities of their day. In addition Williams noted that when Jesus sent his disciples into the countryside, he instructed them to take no food, or money, but instead rely upon God for their needs. In the same manner, Williams believed that the Church of his day ought to rely on spiritual authority, not secular authority. “God’s people...openly and constantly protest, that no Civil Magistrates...have any power over the Soules or Consciences of their Subjects, in the matters of God and the Crowne of Jesus.”

[MNBrewer]

76. The Puritans WERE the religious nut jobs

They took over the government during the Commonwealth period. They didn't believe in separation of church and state any more than any other Englishman of the era. They wanted to dictate religion through the government as much as any other group. THey did come here seeking religious freedom, but freedom only for themselves.

Having said that, they do present a good reason for church/state being separate. Everybody is better off when the two aren't one and the same.

[PufPuf23]

89. Treaty of Tripoli

From wiki:

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in America.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The treaty is cited as historical evidence in the modern day controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.[3]

etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

[Fire Walk With Me]

99. That's it, thank you!

[The Straight Story]

7. Here is one simple thing:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

[CoffeeCat]

22. Thank you!

That says it all doesn't it?

I'll have to research that quote more. Thanks for posting it!

[Fire Walk With Me]

44. The Tripoli Treaty, that's the one!

[PufPuf23]

92. Ooops I hadn't read far enough in the thread re: Treaty of Tripoli

Somewhere we have lost our path regards to warfare with muslim nations, alas.

[valerief]

8. Oy vey, atheists are Americans, too! nt

[CoffeeCat]

17. I know...I just recently read that 20 percent...

...of Americans are either atheists or agnostic.

Many people don't want any part of any religion--so do those people
and their opinions not count?

That's what boggles me. Helloooo...not EVERYONE thinks they way that you do. Get over
yourself.

I know many Christians who are not like this--but the ones who do, are completely out of
control. They are convinced that everything that is wrong with this nation--is due to God
not being in the schools. It's so ridiculous. They've also been told, by Bill O'Reilly and
Sean Hannity--that liberals are evil and they hate religion.

NO, that's not true. But anyone who insists that their opinions become the law of the land--is
annoying and childish. I don't hate religion. I'm just a little fed up with people who believe
that their own beliefs (which are BELIEFS, not science) are superior.

[valerief]

81. I think most people are atheists. I know I was when I was younger but when asked for my religion,

I gave the one I grew up with. I think lots of people do that, because it's easier than trying to defend yourself when the asker is defensive. Tons of people I've known have said they believed in god but they never went to church or did anything religiony unless it had some social relevance, like a funeral or church wedding. They didn't/don't believe. They just went along with the flow. The ruling class depends on that. They don't want to lose their tool of religion that keeps us in line.

[CoffeeCat]

87. I agree with that...

I think there are many people in the pews who do not believe at all or believe in some
of it. There are many more people who are unsure or skeptical, but they remain silent.

I think that's the big secret of religion, that many question and wonder if it's all a farce.

I don't know where you live, but there is tremendous pressure where I live to attend
church. Admitting that you are an atheist would be social suicide. I live in a suburb in
the midwest. I tend to reject most organized religion--because most of it seems to have
so little to do with spirituality.

When my kids were babies, I joined a book club at a local church--to get out and to have some interesting discussions with adults. The book club turned out to be focused on reading religious books and discussing them. I didn't mind the books or the discussion. Most of the books were more philosophical and our discussions took us into politics, parenting and other subjects. So that was cool. However, I will say this--most of the women there were backbiting, two-faced gossips. I made a few very good friends--who have been friends for ten years now. However, 75 percent of these women were some of the most immature, mean-spirited people I've ever met. They seemed incredibly dysfunctional and in need of therapy.

I've said this before--not all religious people are crazy or dysfunctional--but the craziest and most dysfunctional people that I've ever met--were religious.

I do believe that we're spiritual beings. However, I don't believe that we can know ultimate truth. If there isn't some higher power, or other realms of consciousness--I'm ok with that. It's possible that there is something else. However, I don't think we can know or understand it, from where we are.

People point to the Bible, but that's where I totally fall off the joiner bus. Yes, there are some nice stories, good messages and uplifting passages. However, I do not believe it was inspired by God. I believe men wrote it, and all you have to do is look at the inconsistencies (two creation stories) and the bizarre punishments (stoning for adultery, death for wearing mixed fabrics) and the dated views (slavery was ok, treating women like second-class citizens, etc.)--to see that it is not totally imperfect and not some end-all-be-all book from an all-knowing entity. I find it incredibly bizarre that anyone would. All you have to do it read it to see that it is flawed!

I've rambled, but those are some thoughts. I wish Carl Sagan had a Church...I'd attend!

[MilesColtrane]

9. Tell them to read a little history.

There are state sanctioned religious wars a plenty that killed millions of innocent people.

[steve2470]

10. this: Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/salem.htm

[Muskypundit]

11. In god we trust was not put on the money until the 50's

So there was a good 200+ years of that not being christianized.

[provis99]

13. putting god on money is downright blasphemy, too.

about as respectable as the bumper stickers that say "Honk if you love Jesus".

[CoffeeCat]

19. I did not know that....

...thank you for that info.

[Muskypundit]

30. No problem. It was put on the money to thumb our noses at

The godless communists. That's the only reason.

The reason it stays is because.... Well. I can't imagine a politician that would touch that.

What do you mean you don't think puppies are cute senator?

[Bohunk68]

50. Not true

I have Morgan silver dollars from the 1880's and they have it on the back. Somewheres here I have a half dollar from just after the Civil War and that's when it began. I had this same argument with someone and said what you said, came home and checked my Morgans and discovered my mistake. The 1958 date came from the Pledge business of "under G-d". Hope that helps.

[Jamastiene]

41. The Pledge of Allegiance didn't have "under God" in it originally either...

even though it was written by a Christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22

"under God" wasn't added until 1954.

[Bohunk68]

51. Ooops

Sorry, I got the date wrong. Pulled it out of my butt. Thanks, Jamastiene.

[freshwest]

15. Bring up Iran. No separation of church and state there. Or the Protestant Reformation. Then bring up

Changing demographics. Use the bagger mythology against her. I'll go over the examples I have listened to from teapartyville.

They allege many people of other faiths are moving here, having a dozen kids, no matter what the cost, live twenty to a house, the kind of stuff baggers say about immigrants. In other words, they will soon be the majority, right?

Another of their myths is that Mexicans, etc. from south of the border are all Catholic. Does she want Catholics taking over the government and making her worship the Pope when they become the majority, you know that majority that she says are Christians now?

Hey, I'm saying play within their belief system. Just roll with it, that's what I do.

Okay, the other thing tbaggers are nuts about is the impending establishment of Sharia Law in the USA. Does the bagger lady know how many towns in the USA are full of Muslims from other countries and want to do things like they do in the old country? What if they become the majority, wouldn't she like to have something to stand between her and the burka?

Is that what she wants here, a theocracy? Okay, if she believes she can be assured of a nice safe Christian theocracy, what denomination does she expect? What if it's not hers and they make laws against her church, discriminate, etc?

Just a few suggestions. I believe that some of the separation of church and state has gotten out of hand but this lady is not going for religion. It's all political. And the reason she's being told that this is the only answer, is that someone is telling her she needs to hate someone. I hope that helps.

[CoffeeCat]

26. I agree with you that it is political...

...and right-wing radio hosts are convincing these people to view the world with an us/them mentality. Politicians benefit from this nation being divided and hating each other. If we were "one" and fighting against the real threat--corporatism and political corruption--our politicians would be out of a job.

So--they must use religion and other divisive issues to keep our county weak and divided.

Great points on many of their arguments.

[jberryhill]

16. Doesnt matter what you say

They only trust their own distorted sources

[CoffeeCat]

18. Right-wing talk radio sees to that...

Right-wing blowhards have convinced very naive people that Christians are
a persecuted class. Liberals hate them, don't you know? And liberals are all
evil. And liberals hate God.

There are so many assumptions that are made about liberals. Also also many
assumptions are made about people who do not participate in organized religion.

They assume that if you are not religious you are not a moral person.

I find that really audacious. Unless you belong to MY club, and belief what I believe--then
you cannot be a good person!

It's so infantile--it's beyond belief.

[Johnny2X2X]

20. James Madison

"I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." Madison

James Madison was the father of the 1st amendment. He is quoted extensively on what exactly his thoughts on the separation of church and state were.

Thomas Jefferson was the father of the Constitution:

"... 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." Jefferson

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. Your arguments are great.

I've often pondered that if Repukes (Teabag and others) were to chuck the whole Constitution and turn this country Christian, which brand of Christianity would be okay with them?

For example, Catholics (the religion in which I was raised) and Protestants have wholly different doctrines.

Catholics believe in faith WITH works. In other words, that not only must you profess to believe in Jesus Christ, but you MUST also DO GOOD. Without doing good, you cannot get into heaven.

Protestants, on the other hand, believe in the doctrine of faith WITHOUT works. In other words, as long as you go up to the altar and profess to be saved by Jesus Christ, and that will get you into heaven, even if along the way you 'mess up' by killing a few, being a complete asshole, stealing, cheating, committing adultery, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

So if Repukes had their Christian nation, would they also have to disallow certain types of Christianity???

And then also, even within Protestantism there are myriad differences. Which ones will be acceptable and which ones not?

[Populist_Prole]

23. K&R. Some great info here I could use too.

These people are quite literally insane and as such, utterly irrational, and as one poster so noted, will never believe any source of info that does not support their thesis. Kind of like reverse circular logic. The only way to deal with them is to hammer them into irrelevancy in the political world via the electoral process, and just let the viccissitudes of demographics take their course....viccissitudes that do not favor them. Feel free to needle them and piss them off while this happens though

[bhikkhu]

24. The Thirty Year War was one of the founder's main arguments

...as it throughly tore up the civil fabric of Europe and was the cause of death of more people there than the Black Plague, due largely to some nearly trivial religious ideologies and allegiances. Its very hard to summarize, but Wiki isn't bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War.

That was a turning point in the psyche of the continent, and in the aftermath political thought veered as strongly away from state enforced faith as it had veered strongly toward it before.

[Adsos Letter]

48. +1

[dballance]

25. The Tripoli Treaty is a good basis

Get a copy of the treaty we signed with Tripoli that explicitly states the US is NOT a Christian nation. It is signed by some of the founders so that that should take the wind out of her sails. The US is not and has never been a "Christian" nation. It is a nation of equality, laws, and respect for every person.

[Deep13]

27. No law means NO LAW.

It does not mean the state can impose religion a little. It means NO LAW. Pretty unambiguous.

Ask her for historical evidence for the founded as a Christian nation thing. Because the Constitution does not mention god. Remember, in Europe at that time, nations were officially Catholic, Protestant or Christian Orthodox. Also, the churches were official branches of government with their own temporal jurisdiction. The USA Constitution leaves all that out. The only mention of religion is Article VI which prohibits religious oaths for public office or trust and the 1st Amendment which guarantees both non-interference in religion and non-establishment (no law). That's "god" generically. There is no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. Likewise the DOI references divine providence once and "Creator" once. That's about as unreligious as you could be in the 18th century before we knew about evolution and modern cosmology. That language is consistent with deist non-religion. Again, no Jesus or references to ecclesiastical authority.

The founders were not especially religious, even by the standards of the skeptical 18th century. Of the four most famous founders, Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson, only Adams was an observant Christian. His last public service when he was over 80 years old was to lobby the MA state constitutional revision committee to grant absolute religious freedom for non-Christians. (He failed.) Franklin and Jefferson were openly hostile to religion. Washington had no tolerance for religious bigotry and declared he would do business with Hindus, Muslims or atheists if they were competent.

The religiousity of the much lauded Pilgrims may be overstated. About two thirds of the the 1620 Plymouth group were actually Pilgrims from the Leiden group in Holland. The other third--which include my ancestors--were replacements recruited by the ship owners for would-be pilgrims who back out of the trip. This was over the objection of the actual Pilgrims. The flexible Puritan values of of the 1620 group and the rigid values of the 1630 Boston group did not survive the beyond the first generation. The Mayflower group recognized an incomplete separation of church and state and considered marriage to be a secular matter.

[bemildred]

101. +1.

And they knew well back then why it was to be "NO LAW" too.

[SteveG]

107. Adams was a Unitarian

and did not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

[quote]Religious Affiliation: Unitarian
Summary of Religious Views:
Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but ultimately rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian. In his youth, Adams' father urged him to become a minister, but Adams refused, considering the practice of law to be a more noble calling. Although he once referred to himself as a "church going animal," Adams' view of religion overall was rather ambivalent: He recognized the abuses, large and small, that religious belief lends itself to, but he also believed that religion could be a force for good in individual lives and in society at large. His extensive reading (especially in the classics), led him to believe that this view applied not only to Christianity, but to all religions.

Adams was aware of (and wary of) the risks, such as persecution of minorities and the temptation to wage holy wars, that an established religion poses. Nonetheless, he believed that religion, by uniting and morally guiding the people, had a role in public life.[/quote]

source http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html

He was a member of a Church that was Unitarian in doctrine. But to call him an orthodox Christian is a real stretch.

[Quartermass]

28. If they would look at the Bill Of Rights

They would see that it's antithetical to Christian principles.

There is no right to free speech in Christianity. Blasphemy is a crime.

For example, you would not be allowed to state that "I believe that Jesus Christ was a homosexual man" without being put in jail for it.

There is no such thing as freedom of religion. one of the Ten Commandments says "Thou Shalt Have No Other God Before Me"

And if you were to examine the entire Bill of Rights, you would see that every single one of those rights breaks a Christian value.

So, if it's true that America is a Christian nation, why would we have a Bill of Rights that does not reflect Christian values in any way possible? In truth, I suspect that if America was truly meant to be based on the Christian religion, there would be no Bill Or Rights but instead America would have been set up to be a true Theocracy which would force all Americans to be a Christian of some sort.

I'm thankful that our Founding Fathers did have the foresight to not base the BoR on Christian values. Because then, what would be the entire point of America? We break off from one Christian oppression to just form another one? America would not be called The Great Experiment.

But this is an argument they all simply ignore and dismiss out of hand in favor of their revisionist dogma.

And of course, Thomas Jefferson out right stated it:


.. 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."

[Johnny2X2X]

29. Treaty of Triploi

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)

[Angry Dragon]

31. As far as religion in school tell her

that if religion is allowed in school then you have to let any and all religions in school.
Tell her if someone wants to have Islam in a school she has to kept her mouth shut because
it is allowed to be there. So a school may have many religions in it and she may not like them. Too bad.

Treaty of Tripoli section 11

Pledge of Allegiance did not ahve god in it at first

Ask her if christian was so important why it is not mentioned at all in the Declaration of Independence nor the
Constitution of the United States. The Creator is mentioned but not named. Chaos according to history was the first Creator.

[footinmouth]

32. I put it right back on them

If you're a true believer then you should be more secure in your faith. Why do you need constant public reminders? If you want to have a conversation with God, then you pray quietly, why is it necessary to have everyone else join in with you? Do you feel you'll get more attention from God if you join in a prayer from a megaphone at a football game?

Does Christmas mean more to you if there's a nativity scene on public property? Why not just put one on your own property, you can look at it whenever you want and nobody will complain or go to court to have you take it down.

If a store employee wishes you "Happy Holidays" does that really detract from your Christmas beliefs and celebrations? Perhaps that employee celebrates the Jewish or Muslim holidays instead of Christmas.

They usually don't have a quick answer for questions like that. No reason to mention the government at all - I just try to make them feel bad about being so weak about their faith. I doubt I changed any minds but they usually don't bring it up again.

[treestar]

65. This

Exactly. If they were so strong in their faith, taking "In God We Trust" off of the US currency would be meaningless to them. That would hardly be something such a faith was based on.

[DonCoquixote]

33. "render unto caesar"

"that whi is caesar;s, render unto god that which is God's"

Sounds like Christ separated church and state himself.

[Adsos Letter]

46. This. ^

[sarge43]

57. Jesus didn't approve of public prayer either

Matthew 6:6

[think]

78. That's a great passage

http://bible.cc/mark/12-17.htm

[csziggy]

34. If the State were to adopt a religion

How could she be sure it would be the one she wanted? The writers of the Constitution were well aware that many if not most of their ancestors had come to this continent because their particulars religious sects were not accepted by the governments. Whether it was French Huguenots, English Puritans or Quakers, German Protestants, they all believed in things the government sponsored religions did not approved of.

The separation was not to keep religion out of government so much as to keep government from interfering with individual choice of religion. They did not want the government of this country dictating to people which religion they must follow.

Back then they were more concerned with varieties of Christianity. Now in this country we have many more choices of religion but the idea still holds true. Just claiming that this country is Christian does not help.

Even if everyone agreed, which Christian variation would be the one the government would approve and allow? There are even more Christian sects now than in 1776. Even if they chose Baptist - which Baptist version, there are so many?

What about the Methodists or Presbyterians? Would the state sponsored Baptists allow them to attend their choice of churches or would they have to go underground with the Muslims and Buddhists? Would Catholics be allowed to worship? Jews? Scientologists (cause you don't want to mess with them!)?

And would those of us who don't believe in mythical sky beings be forced to pretend that we do?

[XemaSab]

35. Christian meaning...?

Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, or gnostic?

Reformed Baptist, AME, faith healing, 7th Day Adventist, Methodist, Anglican, or Lutheran?

Paedo- or credobaptist? 5 points? Works or grace? Gifts of the spirit? Original sin? 6-day creation?

Do they let women talk in the church or hold political office? Do they let daughters live and work outside the home before marriage? Should a father be the prophet, priest, and king? Are they headcovering?

Are unborn fetuses sinners?

Pre-, a-, or post-millennial?

If the United States is going to be a Christian nation, first we need to decide what kind of Christian.

[Jamastiene]

36. Ask them, "Do you want the government telling you who to worship and how to worship?"

Ask them that point blank. They will, most likely, say no. That is when you can point out that they should actually support separation of church and state, for that reason if for no other reason. They might like the idea now, but if Christianity ever becomes the minority religion and someone they do not like ends up in charge of America, they certainly will not want the government telling them what religion to follow, who to worship, how to worship, etc.

That, to me, should be the biggest reason both religious AND nonreligious people should keep church and state separate.

[upi402]

37. "What if a Muslim dominated government took over? Would you like it then?"

Jesus, save me...

from sooooo many of your followers these days.

[HuckleB]

38. State should be logical, focused on doing the right thing for all humans.

Religion can choose "right and wrong" via whim.

End of discussion.

[shraby]

39. My biggest arguments are Bloody Mary, King Henry the IIX, The Spanish Inquisition,

Witch hunts, the Taliban, the Ayatollahs. Nuff said.

[treestar]

64. Right, and which the Founders were closer to in time

And saw some history of it spilling into the colonies - they wanted to eliminate that kind of disruption of the peace.

[Irishonly]

40. Somehow the Founding Fathers have morped into evangelicals

Does your tea party person know that Jefferson wrote his own New Testament? He did not believe in the miracles or how Jesus was born. You can find it online. Most of the time it goes over their heads.

I have tried explaining prayer in schools was never taken out and that any student can pray silently. If Christian prayer was brought back in all religions would have the right to have prayers said. It usually doesn't make any difference nor does trying to explain "In God We Trust" has not always been on money.

There is no rational discourse or reason in talking to a tea bagger or a religious right person. They believe Fox News and what their preachers tell them. You could have multiple PHDs, be recognized as an expert in your field and it wouldn't matter.

[Adsos Letter]

45. The English Revolution/Civil War. n/t

[UnrepentantLiberal]

47. Stop the Relgious Right

http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/

[krispos42]

49. If she things the government can't run human affairs too well...

...it's a pretty good argument to keep it out of the business of the eternal soul.



Out country was a Christian nation because, traditionally, government and religion were intertwined. The followers of the majority religion also ran the government, and they used their power to enhance the power and following of the majority religion. After all, they know the One True Path to Salvation, right? So if you wanted to be part of government, you generally had to convert. Member of Parliament, or to marry into the royal line, or whatever.

We followed in the grand old tradition... Protestant Christians in government power used government power to enforce Protest Christian ideals... swearing on Bibles, using the Bible as a basis for legislation (particularly morality, slavery, and female subjugation), government officials leading official services and proceedings with prayer, etc.

Ask her which flavor of Christianity she thinks should be taught by the government in school. Should it be a national standard? Or should it be by state, county, local, etc?

Will she be okay with school districts in Deerborn asserting that there is no God but God and Muhammad is His prophet? In Arabic? Having teachers, regardless of personal faith, being forced to write Arabic prayers on the blackboards, face Mecca and kneel and pray several times during each school day? How about an extreme lack of pork in the school cafe? Religious attire? If the local majority things that women should wear the "beekeeper" suits of strict Islamic interpretation, is that okay?

Will she be okay with school districts in NYC mandating prayers in Hebrew? Are they ready to have their cafeteria certified kosher? Have dozens of days off a year for the many Jewish festivals and religious days and whatnot?

Is she ready to have her federal and state taxes pay for non-Christian religious instruction in public schools? How about Christian but different? I'm assuming she's a Protestant... it she ready for pay for Catholic or Greek Orthodox teachings? Is she ready to tell her kids when they come home from school why the nice teacher is wrong about some aspect or another of religion? Will she be happy when her kids are lighting candles to Catholic saints and having communion? How about daily confession?

Considering the recent failings of the Catholic Church to deal with child molesters, I'd be ESPECIALLY worried about daily confessions in school!


Don't like that? Too bad. Go to a private school, home-school, or move. The majority has spoken, and we'll be teaching a faith that is sufficiently dissimilar to yours to make you unhappy.


There can be prayer in school. As long as there are tests in school, there will be prayer in school. However, the public schools are part of government, and for government to decided who is going to pray, who they are going to pray to, and how the prayers are going to be constructed and said, is not allowed.

Nobody gives a rat's ass if a student or a teacher prays in school. They start to care when the teacher decides, all on her own, to make the students pray in class. And they really start to care when the Board of Education mandates the teacher lead religious services.


The core issue here is that she wants to use government funding and government resources to back her faith, and she got cranky when taxpayer money stopped being used to put up Nativity scenes on public property and so forth. Prayer before football games and whatever. Oh, darn.

The side issue is how this affects the subjects being taught. When the science clashes with the religious text the school has adopted, who wins? Are we doing to learn that the Earth is 7,000 years old after all because the Bible says so? Is evolution going to be outlawed because God created everything to His specifications?

II Chronicles 4:2 says the value of pi is exactly 3, not the science-y 3.14159… . What do we do about that? How is that conflict resolved?



She's assuming that the prayers in school we be basically like the faith she has now... Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, whatever. However, it can be radically different. Hispanic-style Roman Catholic. Polish-style Roman Catholic. Italian-style Roman Catholic. Pentecostal. Mormon. Jehovah's Witness. Greek Orthodox. Russian Orthodox.

Ask her if polygamy is a state issue, a federal issue, or a local issue. If a man is legally married to two women because he lives in a polygamy-legal state, and he travels to a monogamy-only state with his wives and gets into a car wreck... can both wives visit him? If he's critically injured, which wife gets to make the decisions? If the man and the senior wife are both badly injured, can the junior wife make medical decisions for both of them? Just the man? Or none of them?

Should the states require religious compatibility when issuing licenses for marriage? If a Jew wants to marry a Muslim, and the government is a representative of not only secular power but of religious power, can the state refuse to issue a license until one of them converts? How about between a Catholic and a Muslim? Lutheran and Jew? Jehovah's Witness and a Mormon? Catholic and Baptist? Should the government seek approval from the governing board of both spouses' religion(s) before issuing permits?

Should divorce be illegal?



There's more to this than meets the eye.

[cbrer]

52. She is a moron.

The defacto motto of the United States is "E Pluribus Unum". Out of many, one. 174 years later Congress changed it to "In God we trust".

The original Pledge of Allegiance was written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy, and did NOT contain the words "under god" until 1954. Congress again...

The US didn't issue paper currency until 1861. "In god we trust" didn't appear on it for 96 years. (1957). Guess who?

These changes were fomented by fear generated during the Anti-Commie years. Sheesh, can she read?

The original constitution only had one reference to religion in it; "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". Article Six.

If she can't see that religion is a human creation, and that "god" was created in man's image, there's not going to be much you can say/do. "There are none so blind, as those who will not see".

If she can read you might point her towards Jefferson or Paine. This nation's creators/drafters were conspicuously careful to avoid (most of) the horrors of the land they left. Don't bother lecturing me about native americans, slavery, and "manifest destiny". Start another thread.

Merry Effing Christmas

[cbrer]

53. I sit corrected

The first amendment, as well, of course...

[JDPriestly]

54. The country was founded by Quakers, Christians of various denominations, Unitarians and Jews.

And the reasons the Founding Fathers wanted separation of church and state in my opinion were 1) many of the early Americans left England because their religious beliefs were persecuted in England (the Puritans for example); and 2) the Founding Fathers remembered the history of the 30 years war that took place about a century before men like Jefferson were born and which tore Europe apart. Those wars were fought over religion; 3) many of the Founding Fathers including John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison were men of the Enlightenment. They were "religious" but actually hated superstitions.

If you recall, Benjamin Franklin invented the lightening rod. Prior to his experiments, many people believed that they should do nothing to help people if their houses caught on fire because they would be interfering with God's will since a lightening strike was viewed as an expression of God's wrath. Benjamin Franklin's lightening rod showed what lightening really was. Benjamin Franklin went on to, among other things, organize a volunteer fire department (as well as a library that was a precursor of the public library concept and many other civic organizations).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
See also, Benjamin Franklin, And American Life, Walter Isaacson

The leaders among the Founding Fathers were anti-superstition. They read the Bible and used language that sounded like the King James translation, but they were also very often versed in classical literature -- Greek and Roman history -- and quoted it quite a lot.

The Treaty of Tripoli leaves no doubt that we were not established as a Christian country.

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in America.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The treaty is cited as historical evidence in the modern day controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

If you separate church and state, you do not waste your blood and treasure fighting about the semantics of religion.

Here is information about the Thirty Years War (1618-1648):

The origins of the conflict and goals of the participants were complex, and no single cause can accurately be described as the main reason for the fighting. Initially, the war was fought largely as a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire, although disputes over the internal politics and balance of power within the Empire played a significant part. Gradually, the war developed into a more general conflict involving most of the European powers.[9][10] In this general phase, the war became more a continuation of the Bourbon–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence, and in turn led to further warfare between France and the Habsburg powers, and less specifically about religion.[11]

A major impact of the Thirty Years' War was the extensive destruction of entire regions, denuded by the foraging armies (bellum se ipsum alet). Episodes of famine and disease significantly decreased the populace of the German states, Bohemia, the Low Countries and Italy, while bankrupting most of the combatant powers. While the regiments within each army were not strictly mercenary in that they were not guns for hire that changed sides from battle to battle, the individual soldiers that made up the regiments for the most part probably were. The problem of discipline was made more difficult still by the ad hoc nature of 17th-century military financing. Armies were expected to be largely self-funding from loot taken or tribute extorted from the settlements where they operated. This encouraged a form of lawlessness that imposed often severe hardship on inhabitants of the occupied territory. Some of the quarrels that provoked the war went unresolved for a much longer time. The Thirty Years' War was ended with the treaties of Osnabrück and Münster, part of the wider Peace of Westphalia.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

I have also read that James Madison represented a constituency that included some Baptists who wanted to have an assurance that he would work toward religious freedom. At that time, as I understand it, the majority was Anglican and the Baptists wanted protection as a minority religion. We have always been a country of people who viewed themselves as diverse with regard to religion.

Some of the Founding Fathers are suspected of having been deists. Many of them were members of the Masons.

The Founding Fathers did not intend that our country establish any specific religion. This post is terribly disorganized, but I hope you get some ideas from what I have said. I could write a book, but I think there some good books on this topic out there.

On edit, I suggest you read biographies on Madison, etc. And if you have time, the best source is to read the letters and writings of the men themselves. Madison and Jefferson were particularly wary of the adoption of religion by the government.

John Adams was a Unitarian. This is a pretty good description of his view of religion, government and public life.

Adams was raised a Congregationalist, but ultimately rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian. In his youth, Adams' father urged him to become a minister, but Adams refused, considering the practice of law to be a more noble calling. Although he once referred to himself as a "church going animal," Adams' view of religion overall was rather ambivalent: He recognized the abuses, large and small, that religious belief lends itself to, but he also believed that religion could be a force for good in individual lives and in society at large. His extensive reading (especially in the classics), led him to believe that this view applied not only to Christianity, but to all religions.

Adams was aware of (and wary of) the risks, such as persecution of minorities and the temptation to wage holy wars, that an established religion poses. Nonetheless, he believed that religion, by uniting and morally guiding the people, had a role in public life.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html

I would describe the American tradition on religion to be that individual Americans are generally religious and our public lives reflect their religious beliefs, but our nation is not founded on any religion or even the idea that individuals should or must be religious.

[quaker bill]

60. Let me add a little

The religious refugees in the colonies did immigrate to avoid persecution. They were largely from diverse forms of the Christian faith. The had been persecuted by Christian governments where Church and State were closely wed. They persecuted one another between the colonies when they arrived here. The Quakers for instance formed portions of New Jersey and eventually Pennsylvannia to escape persecution and occasional hangings in New England. There was a "Quaker Act" passed against them in Virginia (for their tendency to preach equality and free slaves and indentured servants).

The point of all this is that First, the anti-establishment provision was a negotiated settlement to prevent the national government from adopting a religion that would conflict with the various religions adopted by the various colonies and imposing it on them. The session to approve this language was boycotted by the VA and portions of the MA delegations, because they wanted a religion adopted. Patrick Henry was one of the luminaries of the enlightenment who boycotted.

Second, the Quakers had modeled non-establishment in the colonies for nearly 100 years by the time of the constitutional convention. The convention was held in Philadelphia because the representatives of the various colonies could attend without concern, as it was religiously neutral turf, as there was no law against any religion there.

Finally, non-establishment was adopted more to protect the fledgling government from religious squabbles more than to protect the Churches. The government being created was small and weak. The established Church - States in the colonies were vastly stronger, and these were the terms under which they could agree to get along.

[JDPriestly]

100. Thanks. Very interesting post.

[Sherman A1]

55. I would simply ask her to prove her points with suitable references

she may believe the country was founded by Christians, however as earlier posts point out it was not. I also believe there was a treaty signed during the Jefferson Administration (Jay Treaty?) that as it is a ratified treaty does have the force of law in this country with a clear statement on this in one of it's articles. I apologize for not having it handy, but it's very early AM and I'm a bit foggy right now.

[cbrer]

56. And let her start quoting the bible?!

I believe there is no reasoning with a person who is firmly convinced of their own correctness. A closed mind is a terrible thing...

[Sherman A1]

82. She can quote the bible all she likes, however

it is not the Constitution of the United States nor any of it's code.

[cbrer]

97. Right on Brother

But we're not dealing with logic. Obviously...

This argument is faith based. Ya' gotta' BELIEVE!

[dimbear]

58. Take a world globe and a magic marker. Check off the countries that are extremely religious.

Then check off the countries that are screwed up.

Should sink in eventually.

[Historic NY]

61. "E pluribus unum" was hijacked as our unofficial official motto it remains on our nations seal.

The replaced it with In God We Trust..........in 1956.

[treestar]

62. Some thoughts:

I have relatives who do this too and it really is hard because they are irrational

- Christians might not be the majority one day. Even though they may now be, their freedom to practice Christianity is because of the freedom of others to practice their religion.

- They don't need prayer in the schools and In God We trust on things. That is taking the most dead parts of the religion and elevating them to necessities. Are they saying Christianity is that weak? If government removed all of the dead bows to religion, the churches would still exist.

- The government is secular. Even if most people in the nation are of a given religion, the government stays out of it and lets each person practice whatever religion they want. That doesn't harm religion, it helps it.

[no_hypocrisy]

63. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and interpretation thereof.

The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ” Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof&quot , these two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

Both "religion" clauses were drafted to protect minorities from being marginalized, persecuted, and prosecuted by religious majorities.

The Establishment Clause is supposed to prevent religious groups/churches/associations from either individually or collectively attacking or suppressing the fundamental rights of those who are not associated with their groups. The Establishment Clause also is supposed to prevent those groups from using the government to attack or suppress the fundamental rights of those minorities. On the flip side, government cannot "reward" or recognize any religion in a public forum generally, thereby marginalizing a minority.

The minority groups include unaffiliated, secular associations.

Without the Establishment Clause, if you're not affiliated with either the Catholic or Protestant religion, your tax dollars could be siffoned to their parochial schools where your children don't attend as they're private and religious. Public schools could be utilized to prosthelytize and/or convert your children to the "popular" religion being sponsored. If you speak up in protest at a public meeting, you and/or your family could be attacked without assistance (perhaps at your home) metaphorically or physically for not being "one of the them".

The general principle of separation of church and state is prevent a balkanization of our society along religious line, starting with children and ending in our public institutions and to promote diversity among ourselves.

The "sister" clause, Free Exercise" Clause prevents the same religious majorities from preventing or punishing those minority religions from practicing their religious tenets and/or using the government to accomplish the same goals of prevention and punishment.

[steve2470]

66. This thread demonstrates to me, once again, why I come here so often

So much intelligence and learning here, it's wonderful.

[Motown_Johnny]

67. Equal protection under the law

If you combine church and state then anyone who does not hold those particular religious beliefs is not treated equally.

Ask this person how he/she would feel living under Sharia Law. Once they stop freaking out then point out that everyone who does not hold the State's religious beliefs would feel the same way about their theocratic regime.

It won't do any good, you can't argue with a closed mind, but you asked for my best argument and there it is.

[Creideiki]

68. God is still in the schools

I taught math for two years in two different schools. Both had after school Bible Study groups (one had two). What is not mandated is one person with authority mandating the prayer made. Hanging signs of the Ten Commandments is difficult because different Christian groups break up the Commandments differently--so who decides.

There's a really good 3-part Frontline podcast "God in America" (done cooperatively between Frontline and American Experience). In the 2nd part, they go through the struggles of the new Catholic immigrants in New York getting their religion taught in the public schools, which failed. The result is the Catholic school systems throughout the country. So again, who should decide which prayers are read? I grew up in a historically German suburb of Chicago with a moderate-sized Latino community. Germans already fought the Thirty Years War between the Catholics and the Protestants; and we lived the aftermath 350 years later--all it would have taken was either a Lutheran or a Catholic Principal deciding that they were going to force their particular religion on everyone...

Now, it's possibly worse with many Evangelicals proclaiming that Catholics aren't really Christian. So, what? We should reintroduce Evangelical Fundementalist Christianity only? That's usually what people mean when they say they want God back in the schools.

[Norrin Radd]

69. "She insists that this country was founded by Christians"

And women did not have the right to vote or run for office at the founding of our country. Ask her if we should rescind those rights.

[MedicalAdmin]

77. Look her dead in the face and say that you agree.

And of course she shouldn't be able to vote or own property and should shut up in a mans presence.

If she want to turn back the clock to a fantasy land that never existed 235 years ago then she should understand what that means.

And then if she has daughters offer her money for them.

[elehhhhna]

70. Don't bother. Prideful ignorance will not be moved. Ever.

lost cause dittohead ya got there. Give up.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. The history of european civilization from around 300 CE forward.

Your bagnut is right about one thing: the white men who wrote the founding documents were all at least nominally christians. Quite a few of them were also Deists, but that is going to be over your bagnut's pay grade so it won't help. It might help that Jefferson was attacked for being an atheist when he ran for president and authored two versions of the new testament, versions in which he removed all of the magical supernatural nonsense, leaving the non-magical life and social philosophy of one jesus of nazereth.

All of which is irrelevant. The founding document, the constitution, is explicitly secular, both in its establishment clause (1st amendment) and on its prohibition of religious qualifications for office. The fact that the authors of this document were Christians does not make this a Christian State anymore than the fact that they were all white makes it a White People's Nation, or that they were all male a Mens Nation.

The bagnut's argument is stupid and dishonest.

This is a standard rightwing talking point argument that falls apart on examination. However as your bagnut has heard it repeated ad nauseum, the bagnut will not be open to evaluation of the relevant facts.

[PurityOfEssence]

72. Very clear in the First Amendment

It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It DOESN'T say that Congress can't make a law respecting the establishment of A PARTICULAR RELIGION, it's talking about the very concept of religion itself, and the framers were clear about this.

This is a bullshit distortion that's repeated so often that it becomes recognized as fact; it wasn't that the founders didn't want any particular sect to have ascendancy, it's that they wanted the very question of religion to be off the table.

The strict letter and spirit of this law is that Congress shall remain silent on the subject of religion. To say that "their is a god" is specifically forbidden. The very concept of endorsing the supernatural in any form is forbidden.

In God We Trust was put on money during the Civil War, when we were fighting a domestic enemy that continually cited the almighty as justification for its actions.

Cede no ground to these idiots; the very first words out of the mouths of the framers when the Constitution was sent back unratified due to its lack of clarity on personal rights was to flat-out guarantee that the government would take no stand whatsoever on religion.

Washington was a Unitarian, Jefferson was rather undefinable, but certainly NOT a Christian. Madison only became a Christian in very old age. Franklin was Franklin.

[bluethruandthru]

74. So many people are all for combining religion and government...as long as it's THEIR religion.

Don't let her off the hook on the Romney example. Send her to Utah...not Salt Lake City, which has become much more diverse in recent years...but send her to a small, isolated Utah town and see what it's like. In Utah, everything is about "The Church". She'll get a small taste of what it's like living where there is no church/state separation.

[GreenPartyVoter]

75. You can try some of these links. A few may still be active:

http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=29

[TexasProgresive]

79. A lot of good stuff for you to process here

My take as a Christian is there has never been a "Christian Nation" much less the United States of America. While some Christian principles may filter into their laws for the most part they do not govern by the principles of Christ. It is much easier to spout things like: America is a Christian nation, Keep Christ in Christmas and so forth then to actually be a Christian person who follows the Way, the Truth and the Light.

Sorry to get so preachy but these people really get my goat.

The best thing that happened to the Catholic Church was to lose its secular holdings and the best thing to happen to the U.S.A was and is the separation of Church and State.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

80. Suggestion? Don't argue with her. Remember: Don't try to teach pigs to sing. It annoys the pigs +

it's a waste of time.

[Johnson20]

83. Medieval Europe and England

[jmowreader]

84. Bring up Sharia

Sharia is what happens when church and state are not separated.

The Christian Right really fucking HATES Muslim Sharia, but when it comes to Christian Sharia they seem to be all for it.

[ThomWV]

85. That debate ended over 200 years ago. Time to move on.

[Demonaut]

86. More the "separation of Mosque and State"

I don't want Sharia law trumping "Gods Law" anymore

heavy dose of sarcasm to be applied above

This is what I think when RW fundies push their beliefs onto me and those like me

[One of the 99]

88. Render therefore unto Caesar...

the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 22:21]

[BootinUp]

90. "In God We Trust" was adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956

One of the problems is that people don't even know about the history. I feel pretty informed about politics but I know I am ignorant of many things. I had to google the info in my title for instance.

Start by telling this person to make sure of her facts and that she might find the following info interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

[Bigmack]

91. Which church.... great "prayer in schools" story illustrates the problem...

Dear John,

As you know, We've been working real hard in our town to get prayer back in our schools. Finally, the school board approved a plan of teacher-led prayer with the children participating at their own option. Children not wishing to participate were to be allowed to stand out in the hallway during prayer time. We hoped someone would sue us so we could go all the way to the Supreme Court and get the old devil-inspired ruling reversed.

Naturally, we were all excited by the school board action. As you know, our own little Billy (not so little, any more though) is now in the second grade. Of course, Margaret and I explained to him no matter what the other kids did, he was going to stay in the classroom and participate.

After the first day of school, I asked him "How did the prayer time go?"

"Fine."

"Did many kids go out into the hallway?"

"Two".

"Excellent. How did you like your teacher's prayer?"

"It was different, Dad. Real different from the way you pray."

"Oh? Like how?"

"She said, 'Hail Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners...'"

The next day I talked with the principal. I politely explained I wasn't prejudiced against Catholics but I would appreciate Billy bein transferred to a non-Catholic teacher. The principal said it would be done right away.

At supper that evening I asked Billy to say the blessings. He slipped out of his chair, sat cross- legged, closed his eyes, raised his hand palms up in the air and began to hum.

You'd better believe I was at the principal's office at eight o'clock the next morning. "Look," I said. 'I don't really know much about these Transcendental Meditationists, but I would feel a lot more comfortable If you could move Billy to a room where the teacher practices an older, more established religion."

That afternoon I met Billy as soon as he walked in the door after school.

"I don't think you're going to like Mrs. Nakasone's prayer either, Dad."

"Out with it."

"She kept chanting Namu Amida Butsu..."

The following morning I was waiting for the principal in the school parking lot. "Look, I don't want my son praying to the Eternal Spirit of whatever to Buddha. I want him to have a teacher who prays in Jesus' name!"

"What about Bertha Smith?"

"Excellent."

I could hardly wait to hear about Mrs. Smith's prayer. I was standing on the front steps of the school when the final bell rang.

"Well?" I asked Billy as we walked towards the car.

"Okay."

"Okay what?"

"Mrs. Smith asked God to bless us and ended her prayer in Jesus' name, amen just like you."

I breathed a sigh of relief. "Now we're getting some place."

"She even taught us a verse of scripture about prayer," said Billy.

I beamed. "Wonderful. What was the verse?"

"Lets see..." he mused for a moment. "And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God."

We had reached the car. "Fantastic," I said reaching for the door handle. Then paused. I couldn't place the scripture. "Billy, did Mrs. Smith say what book that verse was from?"

"Third Nephi, chapter 19, verse 18."

"Nephi what?"
"Nephi," he said. "It's in the Book of Mormon.

The school board doesn't meet for a month. I've given Billy very definite instructions that at prayer time each day he's to go out into the hallway. I plan to be at that board meeting. If they don't do something about this situation, I'll sue. I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to. I don't need schools or anybody else teaching my son about religion. We can take care of that ourselves at home and at church, thank you very much.

Best Wishes Always,

[avebury]

94. LOL! nt

[Jamastiene]

104. Have they programmed bookmark into DU3 yet? I want to bookmark this one.

[justiceischeap]

93. I always find the following argument shuts them up about prayer in school

"So, if we allow open prayer in school, you want your Christian kids to participate in Muslim prayer, snake handling, Pagan rituals, Voodoo, etc."

Seems to shut them up every time because they then have to argue that only Christian prayer be allowed and then you have a point to argue Sharia law is the same thing as condemning other religions.

I think the points being made about how quickly Islam is spreading in the world are good ones. That we may not always be a Christian nation and if you argue for following one religion, eventually that religion will be the minority and they'll have to start practicing Islam.

[bemildred]

103. “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do."

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen F. Roberts

But seriously, I'm not an athiest, but I have a great deal of skepticism about the idea that there is some infinite deity somewhere who sits around and worries about my activities.

[meow2u3]

95. Religion practiced best is practiced freely. In fact, God gave us free will!

Forced conversions, official state religions, and other coercive methods to enforce religious participation only result in reluctant, grudging observance on the surface and seething resentment, which leads to anger boiling over and a full-blown rebellion against religion.

When fundamentalists and other religious fanatics gain power, they start to think that they can impose their beliefs on the entire population, not just their followers. Religious tyrants, in the name of God, pick fights with people of other religions, which end up blowing up in their faces by turning others against religion--because they do evil in the name of good.

So it's best to get--and keep--government out of religion and refrain from politicizing religion.

[rhett o rick]

96. You shouldnt even try. There is no hope to convince someone that most likely has been brainwashed

since childhood.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

98. Just remember how terrible the government is!

They ruin everything!

Or more eloquently religion corrupts government and government corrupts religion

[Hugabear]

102. You mean the same "Christians" who embraced slavery and segregation?

"prayer used to be in schools, in the 50's"

That's a pretty piss-poor argument. We also used to have segregation in the 50s - does that mean that we should return to segregation? (I'm sure that many who embrace school prayer might say 'absolutely')

[Quantess]

105. For me, it's about Freedom.

Freedom of Religion. In my mind, it's like, what more do you need to say? Apparently that isn't convincing enough to some really closed-minded, authoritarian types.

One basic thing that we know the forefathers wanted, from the very beginning, was the freedom to practice whatever religion one wants, including the freedom to not practice any religion at all.

I'm guessing someone like her won't respond to any wise reasoning, though. It's just one of these blatantly obvious things that if someone doesn't get it, they probably never will. No harm in trying.