How many times do I have to repeat this? The Constitution of the United States does not say Under God. The Constitution does not say we are a religious country. The Constitution does not say government shall be run according to the words of God. The Constitution is the document that this country runs on and as such we, meaning the government of the United States, does not have the right to force it's religious beliefs on anybody.

The question always comes down to this. If we allow religion into government, who's religion do we allow? There are religions in this country that are in opposition to each other. Who's religion is the right religion? The majority?

The Constitution is not about the majority. It is about the individual. If it was truly about the majority, then it would be a hell of a lot easier to change it. The Constitution made it difficult to change it's words and meaning. The Constitution made it possible for an individual to have a voice. The Constitution made it possible for the individual to have the same rights as the majority.

This country was not based on majority rules. If it did, then this would be a democratic government. We're a republic and for good reason. It's so changes are difficult to make because emotions are known to run wild at times. It gives the government a chance to do things in such a way that at some point, emotions are weeded out and reasonable people who are versed in the Constitution will have a chance to make sure a change will be good or not.

Not all decisions are majority rule as you well know. If the President wanted to go and bomb Iraq, he could go and do it without the majority of Congress behind him. If the situation ever presented itself, the President can push the button in his "football" and launch nuclear weapons without the consent of Congress.

Finally, people keep forgetting a thing called "peer pressure." It manifests itself in a homogenious group coming together to try to change, punish, or persecute those who the group deems different or unfit. If this wasn't a problem, we wouldn't have minorities ostracized, beaten, killed or their property vandalized or otherwise destroyed or stolen.

If a majority of a crown of white supremacists decided that they are going to lynch, beat up, or run out of town a black minister, does that make it right? Doesn't that black minister have the right to life, liberty and justice over that of the majority of the white supremacists?

Where would women be if the majority of men still believed that women didn't have the right to vote?

The Constitution protects the individual. It always has and it will always continue to do so. If we twist and destroy the Constitution, we will lose everything that we once held great about this country. Do we really want the majority to rule over all the minorities?

Go ahead and spread the word of your religion. That is your right to do so. However, it is not your right to force me to pay for anything to do with your religious beliefs. I can voluntarily do so, but I cannot be forced to. I am forced to pay taxes. I do not do so voluntarily, so I personally do not want any of my money to support some religions that I disagree with. Atheists don't want their money going to anything to do with God and religion at all.

I leave you with this question. If Christians believe there is one God and Jews believe there is one God and Muslims believe there is one God and Protestants believe there is one God and Catholics believe there is one God, why can't they all get along? The Jews and Muslims are always fighting. The Irish Protestants and Irich Catholics are always fighting. I don't get it. One God, but everybody is still fighting.

I'll let somebody else fight this battle in this forum. It's clear that I can't convince some people here that they don't understand the Constitution. They keep trying to say what was intended. They just keep ignoring what is stated. I can't continue to argue with people who can't understand something as simple as the Constitution.

It's funny. People are always blaming the liberals for whatever ails them. Little do they know that the Pledge they are fighting over was written by liberals.

 

BTW, see what happens when religion gets involved in government? Emotion takes over, reason flies out the window, and people get all hot under the collar. It's no wonder why the Constitution took great pains to keep religion out of government and in private hands where it belongs.

 

Well said Cowlady. You have a way of making things very clear.




So it is ok then for an atheist to go down and get a government funded abortion? I don't agree with their beliefs, yet I am forced to pay for an abortion? Or for a sexually permiscuous teenager to go to planned parenthood and get condoms or birth control pills, which gets a portion of their funds from tax dollars? Consider all the angles Dennis. This is not what America is about.

 

I never said the Constituition makes us a RELIGIOUS society. I said it PROTECTS our RIGHT to SAFELY & FREELY PRACTICE our religious beliefs as individuals or groups. Frank also raises a valid point - I too am anti abortion yet my tax $ go to pay for them everyday. I am not 1 of those hysterical pro lifers who believe 1 death justifies another & therefore supports the violence some of them employ to stop abortions. But, I also don't appreciate paying for them.
As for majority rules, that is how our elected officials get into power - right or wrong? Yes the Pres can declare any military action he deems is necessary - we do not vote on EVERY single issue but rather on the people we want to represent our interests. Can you honestly imagine how this country would come to a SCREECHING halt if we HAD to vote on ALL issues? I shudder at the notion!
Dennis, you asked if we want the majority to "rule" over the minorities - that is EXACTLY WHAT I TRIED TO EXPLAIN! I AM NOT SPEAKING OF ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS OR GENDER MINORITIES! When I use the term "minority" I am referring to those who are fewer in number be they black, white, Native American, Occidental or any other nationality. I am NOT referring to that group called a minority due to their birthplace, race, religion, sex or beliefs. Yes we DO go by "majority rules" in this country & I believe history supports that. A MINORITY of Brittish subjects broke away & left their homes to come HERE & in doing so became the MAJORITY! Yes we do rule by the majority but the Constituition allows the minority of the people to still be protected. Congress & the House vote by MAJORITY rule - not simply a whim or what the LEAST # of members want.
As for the Jews & Muslims or the Irish & Northern Irish fighting - those wars, those battles began over territory or ruling powers. Religion was dragged into it & that perverted everything. I agree - religion or faith should NOT be at the center of all conflicts but it would be nice if, by the practice of that faith, on individual levels, wars became obsolete & talking replaced weapons of mass destruction. In all honesty, that will never happen & I am not so naive as to think it could. It's just what I PRAY for instead.
Speaking of prayer - did you see the new section of the Pentagon which was rebuilt after 9/11/01? It now contains a MEDITATION ROOM - not specifically for prayer or any particular religion but a spot where a visitor can stop - throw aside all their other thoughts & remember in any private way they want, the victims of that day who did nothing worse than going to work or boarding a plane. If the Pentagon can ALLOW a spot fo rprivate meditation what is wrong with that?
I am including a link to ALL important documents for our country but here's the opening of the Constituition:
We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselvesand our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Now - WHOSE BLESSINGS are they referring to? The TAX COLLECTORS? The PRESIDENT? The MERCHANTS?
Here's an example of MAJORITY RULE:
The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. Seems that, in the event of a TIE, the VP casts the deciding vote which means the HIGHER # of votes wins - majority rule!
Here's a direct quote about majority rule:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a Quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
Finally, here is the First Ammendment of the Bill of Rights, GUARANTEEING FREEDOM OF RELIGION:
I 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.
Obviously I didn't write these passage but I support them & they support, protect & defend me & you & every member here & ALL people living w/in our borders. THIS is what I am talking about & I don't see any other way to interpret them. If you do, by all means go right ahead - I welcome - no, I RELISH intellihent & free debate. I will say I admire you & the rest who have responded to this post for feeling so strongly & for caring enough to respond to this post as well as others. I am always saddened when it seems apathy is running rampant - apathy is deadly when allowed to continue on.
Here's the link I promised:
http://www.dhq.nu/library/documents/revwar.html

 

...these excerpts from other important documents.
Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or give me death":
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it
will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
And the closing of same document:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Articles of Confederation closing - look at how they desigane the date:In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress.
Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day
of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and
Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

Declartion & Resolves of the First Continental Congress:
The good people of the several colonies of
New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York,
New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Newcastle, Kent, and
Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-
Carolina and South-Carolina, justly alarmed at these
arbitrary proceedings of parliament and
administration, have severally elected, constituted,
and appointed deputies to meet, and sit in general
Congress, in the city of Philadelphia, in order to
obtain such establishment, as that their religion,
laws, and liberties, may not be subverted:

Here is The Mayflower Compact in it's entirety:
THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the
Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the
Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender
of the Faith, e&.
Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement
of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and
Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern
parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and
mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant
and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick,
for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance
of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact,
constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances,
Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as
shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General
good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due
submission and obedience.
In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names
at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our
Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland,
the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth.
Anno Domini, 1620."
There followed the signatures of 41 of the 102 passengers,
37 of whom were members of the "Separatists" who were fleeing
religious persecution in Europe. This compact established the
first basis in the new world for written laws. Half the colony
failed to survive the first winter, but the remainder lived on
and prospered.

Fundamental Orders of 1639:
THE FUNDAMENTAL ORDERS OF 1639

January 14, 1639

For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise
disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of
things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor,
Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in
and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto
adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered
together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace
and union of such a people there should be an orderly and
decent Government established according to God, to order and
dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion
shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to
be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves
and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any
time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation
together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of
the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the
discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the
said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil
affairs to be guided and governed accordinbg to such Laws,
Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and
decreed as followeth:

1. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that there shall
be yearly two General Assemblies or Courts, the one the second
Thursday in April, the other the second Thursday in September
following; the first shall be called the Court of Election,
wherein shall be yearly chosen from time to time, so many
Magistrates and other public Officers as shall be found
requisite: Whereof one to be chosen Governor for the year
ensuing and until another be chosen, and no other Magistrate
to be chosen for more than one year: provided always there be
six chosen besides the Governor, which being chosen and sworn
according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have
the power to administer justice according to the Laws here
established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of
the Word of God; which choice shall be made by all that are
admitted freemen and have taken the Oath of Fidelity, and do
cohabit within this Jurisdiction having been admitted
Inhabitants by the major part of the Town wherein they live
or the major part of such as shall be then present.

My point in posting this is to show that, religious freedom, the right to believe & practice that faith is the VERY reason our country ever came to be! Had there been religious tolerance in England we'd all be saying blimy, drinking tea & looking at the Queen Mum! Our Founders BELIEVED in God - doesn't matter WHICH religion - God is GOD! WE WERE FOUNDED TO BE ABLE TO BE FREE TO PRACTICE RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES! Now that very same freedom is under attack again & I don't know of anyplace to go to establish a new country, based on the principles set forth in these very documents!

 

Frank, don't you see? If you separate religion from government, there would be no argument. Abortion isn't a religious act. Praying to God is religious. Praising God is religious. Casting out demons is religious.

If you are against abortion, then convince the majority that it's wrong and get the law changed. That's your Constitutional right. Don't go blowing up clinics and murdering doctors, their staff, and their patients in the name of religion.

 

Never have supported the injury/murder of abortionists. Other sane Christians don't either. My point is that atheism IS a form of religion.

Cowlady: Once again you are right. I had forgotten about the Mayflower Compact. What kills me is that atheists will not stop until every Bible is removed from society. I am not saying that Dennis is like this. But I am saying what I have been told by more than one person in, let's say, 'heated discussions'. Interesting how it is the Bible that is persecuted and not all other religious texts.

 

CL & others,

You're going off track. I'm only talking about the document that our country runs under. That is the United States Constitution. That document governs our government.

Religion is mentioned only twice in the Constitution and they are as follows with my comments in [brackets]:



Article IV. Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[I read that as an effort to keep religion out of government.]

Amendment I
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.

[A group of people far wiser than me have interpreted the First Ammendment to be what is popularly known as "Separation of church and state."]


As far as God is concerned, there is not a single mention of God in the Constitution or Ammendments.

The country may have been started with religion in mind and many have spoken about religion in the years when our government was being formed. However, when the Constitution was written, God and religion was kept out of it, hence the reason why religion is not a part of government.

If you believe in the United States of America, then you have to believe in the Constitution of our country too.

I've made my argument regarding separation of church and state and cited two instances in the Constitution that backs me up.

Your turn. Show me where it says in the Constitution that we're a nation under God.

 

Frank,

I did not mean to say you are a murderer in regards to what is happening with abortion clinics across the country. I should have been clearer in stating that the murderers are using religious arguments to justify their actions. That in itself is another reason why religion must stay out of government and laws.

Don't get me wrong. I defend your right to carry a Bible where and when you want and to do whatever you want with it. However, I also defend the Constitution which means I also have to fight to keep the Bible and religion out of certain aspects of our lives.

The argument I'm making is that to believe in this country, you must also believe in the wisdom of the Constitution. You are free to practice your religious beliefs so long as those beliefs don't infringe on the rights of others.

Don't let this devolve into a Christian Vs. Atheists argument either. Muslims and Jews don't see eye to eye, but they both believe in God. We're talking about what's fair for everybody, all religions, and the individual. That's what the Constitution is about.

 

Dennis - I disagree TOTALLY! The first quote merely states that they do NOT HAVE TO belong to any specific religion or faith - they cannot be discriminated against for believeing or failing to believe. That's pretty straightforward if you ask me.
The second quote GUARANTEES that EVERY person is FREE to BELIEVE, PRACTICE & OBSERVE the FAITH of their CHOOSING! It's not a separation - it's PRESERVATION of our rights! Don't forget - the Constitution drew upon the Bill of Rights as far as preserving what all men & women valued most - FREEDOM!
Now, if I were an athesist I'd "finagle" the words to take on whatever meaning suited me most. As a woman of deep religious convictions, someone who also respects EVERY OTHER FAITH & the right of it's members to practice that faith I do not agree at all with your interpretation. This is NOT a personal attack on your or your beliefs (for lack of a better word - I undertsand you do not ascibe to religious beliefs of any kind) but merely my views of what is very obvious.
I don't see what the problem is here other than we are all excersising our RIGHT to have a free opinion. That is also guaranteed by the same document which CLEARLY states we are free to believe, or not whatever we choose to believe in or don't.

 

Dennis: The laws in this country are founded on the Ten Commandments. As Ted Koppel once said,"They aren't the ten suggestions". How can one say that now we don't need morals? If that we're so, it's anything goes. We could all become armed robbers, stealing what we wanted, banging each others' wives with no punishment. All I'm trying to say is that without the Christian values this country is founded on, we are no better than a 3rd world country. Even if I were an atheist/agnostic I would see this fact and appreciate the laws we have based on such.

 

Since it would be frowned upon if I said AMEN I'll just say BRAVO FRANK S!
Okay - religious zealot, cafeteria Catholic or ardent agnostic/aethiest - we can ALL agree on this - this country is getting ridiculous!
The permissiveness that permeates the world today is TOO much! Heck - kids today are doing things that I was not lonly forbidden to do at their age - I STILL don't do it & I am a tax paying, law abiding adult! Getting condom vending machines IN SCHOOL? Being able to get birth control w/o my parents knowing? NOT!
The violence & promiscuity on TV, in print & on the radio (Howard Stern) are offensive for many adults but DANGEROUS when heard/viewed by CHILDREN! It gives them the idea that anyhting goes - they have NO responsibility for their actions & they owe NOBODY any respect, including themselves! Their parents should be arrested for allowing this to go on. "I won't punish/ground little Johhny or Jane - it will stiffle their creativity" is BS - plain & simple! I was never hit by either of my parents but just the idea of making them angry kept me from purposely disobeying, at least until I was WELL in to my teens & of legal age! I STILL "listen" to my Mom who has proven over & over that she IS wiser than me - I'd be a fool to ignore her!
FrankS is right - a person need not have any specific faith or any at all to see the values of those who gave up everything to come here & found a better world for them & their heirs have been thrown over in favor of a "ME, ME" type of mentality.
Is my life perfect because I believe in God? Of course not BUT it is bearable. Am I nicer to strangers because of my faith? I'd like to think so. Do I pray for my enemies? ALL THE TIME! Have I prayed for those who don't have faith? EVERY MORNING & NIGHT! Yes Dennis, I pray for you & others w/o faith that at the very least, you still are able to be the good, upstanding citizens you seem to be & by example, will show those who are less than civilized the way a decent person should behave.
I hope it doesn't offend you but that's me - good or bad in your eyes.

 

Are you trying to tell me that atheists, Buddhists, and agnostics have no morals and can't be trusted to be fair and know right from wrong? Hmmm.....

Answer me this. How come the Constitution doesn't have the Ten Commandments quoted in it? How come the Constitution does not mention God even once?

 

My end of this conversation is over D. You can't be reasoned with without insulting ones inteligence.

 

Oh great. Now Cowlady is trying to tell me that cultures who were brought up without benefit of religion don't know right from wrong and if anybody knows right from wrong it's because of religious people.

Sorry, I don't think the majority of this world thinks that at all.

CL, you should spend a day or two with a Constitutional lawyer or and afternoon with a civics professor or student and discuss what the Constitution means.

I hate to say this, but I think you're getting emotional and not seeing the words. You're trying to read meaning between the lines when there really isn't anything to read other than what is written for all to see.

Let me ask you this. If the Constitution and this country is religion based, why is it not stated so in the Constitution in language we can all understand? Did I miss learning some hidden language in sunday school 40 years ago? If men in our history were so religious, why didn't they make it evident and clear? If the majority were Christian religious God fearing people, why didn't they state it blatantly in the Constitution?

What I'm saying here is nothing new. It's been said since the Constitution was written. You can't blame what's been going on in this country on the so called liberal interpretation of the Constitution. If that were so, how come priests and ministers who say they talk to God get arrested for crimes they commit? Don't they represent the church and God? How come the prisons are filled with Bible carrying Bible quoting criminals?

Think about this last thought from me for the night. I bet that in a lot of your minds, I am now your enemy because of my views on this subject. You think I'm the enemy of all your religious causes and that I'm the cause of the downfall of this country. Some of you may now actually hate me. You may deny it, but can you honestly say that you don't thnk less of me now?