How we have changed in two centuries

[MikeBjerum]

http://news.yahoo.com/republican-perry-offers-prayer-america-rally-185522036.html

I grabbed and posted this without fully digesting it, because yahoo moves so fast I may not find it in five minutes.

I intend to fully go through this tonight when I have time, but on first blush I see a slant from yahoo and those they value of total contempt for the Christian Faith.  Sadly, this slant is not only from one or two media outlets, but our society as a whole has been moving deeper and deeper into a secular structure since the 1960's.  I recall my years of public education and years of personal study since of how deeply entrenched the Judeo Christian Faith in the formation and structuring of this great nation.

Feel free to proceed here without me, because I will not be back to comment until I get a chance to fully view and read tonight.

[Badgersmilk]

The boy has big hairy balls of hardened steel to combine politics and religion.  Whether its true faith, or more likely a ploy.  I'll give him credit for whipping them out on the table for the chopping!

Overconfident politicians...  Just seems like we've got our fill already  .

[Timothy]

Separation of Church and State doesn't exist in the US Constitution.

Regardless of what people think that terminology only exists in Jeffersons writings.  The 1st Amendment doesn't use those words nor should they be confused to mean anything but what they say...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Solus]

Separation of Church and State doesn't exist in the US Constitution.

Regardless of what people think that terminology only exists in Jeffersons writings.  The 1st Amendment doesn't use those words nor should they be confused to mean anything but what they say...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So then would you say that passing a law making a version of The Pledge Of Allegiance that contained religious the references the legal version violates the 1st Amendment?  Or does the 1A literally mean that the government can make any laws favoring a religion in any way as long as they don't specifically make it the countries official religion?

For instance, the posting of Sharia Law in courthouse or other public places would be acceptable?

[tombogan03884]

Imposing Sharia law violates the 1A.
Acknowledging that the nation is based on Judeo-Christian faith by putting "In God we trust" on our money, or a Nativity scene on the town square does not.
That is just one more manifestation of the killjoy atheist conspiracy to undermine the things that made us what we were as laid out by the Frankfurt school theorists after WWI.

[Sponsor]

[Timothy]

Personally, I don't think the Pledge of Allegiance is a problem, nor do I think that "In God we Trust" is a problem on US currency or the President ending his State of the Union address with "God Bless the United States of America!  

The 1st says the the Congress shall pass no law or prohibit the free exercise of a particular religion.  I DO NOT think that the 1st Amendment says that religion cannot exist in Government.  We are a nation that is founded on the belief in a power higher than ourselves.

Separation arguments have existed for more than a hundred fifty years.  Justice Black in 1947 was wrong in his assertion that it was the foundation of the 1st Amendment and it's meaning.

[tombogan03884]

The only way to keep religious beliefs out of political arguments is by electing immoral c*cks#ckers to office.
We seem to have perfected that.

Exhibit A

I rest my case 

[Solus]

I was getting at the posting of the 10 Commandments in a court house. 

But I agree that a politicians expression of his personal religious beliefs is not a problem...as long as he does not bias his judgment against those of other faiths.

I tend to believe you should elect folks based upon their character rather than how well they will bend to the whims of the voters, do they follow what they believe in or do they follow the changing winds of opinion.

However, to me, putting the 10 Commandments in any court of law, other than one convened by groups that follow that belief, is not to be allowed. 

"In God We Trust" as a motto on currency is such a small issue, it in no way infringes on the rights or imposes adverse consequences on anyone.  You can earn and spend the money without any active support of that motto.

However, "Under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance or spoken prayer in public schools both require a non-believer to avoid completely taking the Pledge as official sanctioned or to avoid joining in the school prayer, an act that will put them apart from believers, a state that can lead to problems for the non-believer.

   

[tombogan03884]

The words in the pledge indicate THE NATION was founded under God which is a simple historical fact. It has nothing to do with the person reciting the pledge.
If they have a problem with it, they could always leave.

[Timothy]

Are Supreme Court justices sworn in with a Bible?  The President?  Senators and Congresspersons?  Are not the appointed judges across the country sworn in with a Bible?  Governors?

The 10 Commandments and Sharia Law don't belong in the same conversation as far as I'm concerned.