Role of Religion in U.S. Government
Add your examples below; the more controversial they are, the higher their credibility needs to be.
The example to the left is Andy G's, with this text:
Its interesting that the people we are voting for use religion to pull in those extra votes and once elected use a biblical quote in their inaugural speech. Figures that our heads of state wouldnt remain separate from religion at least during their campaign. Mr. Mike Huckabee feels he was scrutinized to much on his theological beliefs even though he brought them into his campaign
Reporter: Generally speaking, do you think it’s fair for people to take a candidate’s theological convictions into consideration at the polling place?
Huckabee: As long as everyone gets the same scrutiny. That’s what I don’t think is fair: I’ve been given an unusual level of scrutiny. No candidate gets quizzed to the depth that I do about faith.
May sound fair but not everyone gives their input on religion during their campaign why be scrutinize for something you didn’t give in put on
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200712/mike-huckabee-gop-republican-presidency
posted by erdecker @ 1:29 PM
28 comments
28 Comments:
"When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another."
-"In the Name of Politics"
by John Danforth
March 30, 2005
John Danforth is a former United States Ambassador to the United Nations and former Republican United States Senator from Missouri. He is also an ordained Episcopal priest. Pretty legit if you ask me.
"Democracy demands that the religiously-motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I can’t simply point to the teachings of my Church, or invoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those of no faith at all. Now this is going to be difficult to some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do, but in a pluralistic society we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves compromise, the art of what’s possible, and at some fundamental level religion doesn’t allow for compromise."
-Barack Obama (June 28, 2006)
This was taken from his "Call to Renewal Keynote Address" the full text can be seen at
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to _renewal_keynote_address.php
Dr. Dobson Helps Larry King Understand 'Separation of Church and State' 11-27-2006
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003215.cfm interview as seen on CNN.
KING: We have a separation of church and state.
DOBSON: Who says?
KING: You don't believe in separation of church and state?
DOBSON: Not the way you mean it. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. No, it's not. That is not in the Constitution.
KING: It's in the Bill of Rights.
DOBSON: It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called "wall of separation" was mentioned was in a letter written by (Thomas) Jefferson to a friend. That's the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be.
What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around, which is that church was designed to be protected from the government.
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore told CitizenLink that he shares Jefferson's perspective.
"The words 'separation of church and state' are not found in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of Confederation or any document of our history," he said. "The First Amendment to our Constitution basically embodies a concept of separation -- meaning that the state should stay out of the affairs of the church and of the relationship that men have with their God."
In modern law, he said, many use "separation of church and state" with the intent to separate God, moral values and Christian principles from the state.
"It means none of that," Moore said. "The way people use 'separation of church and state' is not historically or legally accurate. What it does mean is that the state can't interfere with the church and can't interfere with our mode of worship and our articles of faith. And that's what 'separation of church and state' means."
Jefferson and the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration and the Constitution gave recognition to God, he said. It's only been in the last few decades that God has been removed from the public square.
"Even the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist," Hausknecht said, "called 'separation' a 'metaphor based on bad history' as he urged his fellow justices to abandon its use in First Amendment Establishment Clause cases."
Instead of being reviled by the secular Left, he said, conservatives should be understood and appreciated as trying to restore the original understanding of the Constitution.
"We have let judges rewrite the First Amendment," Moore said, "to actually forbid that which it was meant to allow."
Such has become clear legally, historically and logically, he said.
"To let judges rewrite the First Amendment," Hausknecht said, "is simply to abdicate our own responsibility as citizens to ensure that the Constitution continues to say and mean what it has always said."
Full article found here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5068741
Rev. (Wallis) talking to radio host (Simon).
SIMON: When does an issue in your mind cross from being something that's considered in the political realm and what becomes to you not just a moral issue but a religious one?
Rev. WALLIS: Well, first of all, it should be said that religion has no monopoly on morality. We need a new moral discourse on politics, and religious values, moral values, spiritual values have a part to play in politics. We shouldn't be afraid of those values. We can't make a religious argument that we should do something because it's religious. We can be motivated by our religious faith to have a conviction about something, and then we have to win the debate. We have to persuade our fellow citizens of what's best for what we all call the common good. So in that sense, religion must be disciplined by democracy, by diversity, by pluralism. There's nothing wrong with saying, `My conviction is motivated by my faith.'
(The Rev. Jim Wallis is the founder of the Christian ministry group Sojurners.)
Ramon F Banzon
I couldn't copy and paste the article because it is to long for the blog so here is the link
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html
Heres a link to a cartoon
http://www.tyeporter.com/PortersFTP/SeparationOfChurchAndState.gif
http://www.onepennysheet.com/category/religion/
Well I don't know how to put a picture in so above is a site that has some cartoons and articles on it. One of the cartoons is a picture of of a church and a state building separated by a fence with missing posts.
This made me think of the letter that Jefferson wrote about a wall of separation even though State and church are not completly seraparate.
"While Separation of Church and State is a major national issue, many local governments have a difficult decision regarding the placement of religious symbols at government sites. Many organizations such as the ACLU claim that certain groups may be offended by the placement of religious symbols on government property. One example of government and religion is the fact that Congress prays at the opening and closing of session. People are concerned about offending every other group. My concern is the group of people that are offended when governments are forced to take down religious symbols. Having a Nativity Scene is not endorsing religion; it is merely respecting the holidays.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, “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.”
Displaying a Nativity Scene in front of Town Hall is not establishing a religion it is respecting the true meaning of the holiday season. People have forgotten the real meaning of the holiday season. It is not about gifts or earning a profit, but about family. Again, Civil Liberty groups, attorneys, and governments are concerned about offending people. What about the groups of people who are offended by the forced removal of religious symbols? We do not seem to be represented. Political Correctness will be the death of this once great nation. Being polite to people of various races and creeds is one thing, but forcing people to abide by new rules that are designed to help certain groups move ahead is just another form of discrimination."
-Timothy Carroll November 26, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-15901-Lake-County-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d26-Separation-of-church-and-state
Bishop Thomas Topin, of Rhode Island defends his faith in politics in this video aired, ofcourse on my birthday nov 23 2009 on MSNBC. Topin has gone as far as to Ban Rep. Patrick Kennedy from communion due to his views on abortion.
Here is a link to the site with the video in it.
http://themoderatevoice.com/53985/on-church-and-state/
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_948
describes a case in florida where laws restricting animal sacrifice were determined unconstitutional by the supreme court. this was in 1992.
Dr. James Dobson and Larry King talking about the separation of church and state.
KING: Why is it a state institution rather than a religious institution? Why is the state involved?
DOBSON: Well, it's both. It is both.
KING: But we have a separation of church and state.
DOBSON: Beg your pardon?
KING: We have a separation of church and state.
DOBSON: Who says?
KING: You don't believe in separation of church and state?
DOBSON: Not the way you mean it. The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. No, it's not. That is not in the Constitution.
KING: It's in the Bill of Rights.
DOBSON: It's not in the Bill of Rights. It's not anywhere in a foundational document. The only place where the so-called "wall of separation" was mentioned was in a letter written by (Thomas) Jefferson to a friend. That's the only place. It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be.
What it has become is that the government is protected from the church, instead of the other way around, which is that church was designed to be protected from the government.
KING: I'm going to check my history.
...
"Most Americans do not realize that it wasn't until 1947 that the U.S. Supreme Court imposed that metaphor -- 'separation of church and state' -- upon the country as law."
The court actually lifted the phrase from an 1802 letter President Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. They had asked him to help protect the rights of religious minorities.
"Jefferson politely declined in his letter to use his office for such influence," Hausknecht said, "explaining that the First Amendment prohibited him from doing so because it had created a 'wall of separation of church and state.' Although it's not completely clear among historians as to the complete scope of Jefferson's meaning, because of the letter's specific historical context it's accurate to say, as Dr. Dobson did, that Jefferson felt the First Amendment protected the church from government interference -- not the opposite."
...
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore told CitizenLink that he shares Jefferson's perspective.
In modern law, he said, many use "separation of church and state" with the intent to separate God, moral values and Christian principles from the state.
"It means none of that," Moore said. "The way people use 'separation of church and state' is not historically or legally accurate. What it does mean is that the state can't interfere with the church and can't interfere with our mode of worship and our articles of faith. And that's what 'separation of church and state' means."
Jefferson and the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration and the Constitution gave recognition to God, he said. It's only been in the last few decades that God has been removed from the public square.
"We have let judges rewrite the First Amendment," Moore said, "to actually forbid that which it was meant to allow."
oh, this is from Oyez, a project "devoted to the Supreme Court and its work."
here's their about page:
http://www.oyez.org/about
This site is really useful for finding old SC cases.
this is a VERY LONG link to a pretty funny cartoon (even though it is not accurate because the seperation of church and state was in a letter not the constitution)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/political-pictures-founding-fathers-church-state.jpg&imgrefurl=http://punditkitchen.com/2009/09/14/political-pictures-founding-fathers-church-state/&usg=__nPv2FC1c4P-fwgdKdk3R6UW21R0=&h=330&w=500&sz=34&hl=en&start=26&um=1&tbnid=gZeRtvleqG1AEM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcartoon%2Bseparation%2Bof%2Bchurch%2Band%2Bstate%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D21%26um%3D1
"We Americans--almost all of us--can be quite inconsistent in our views of how and when religion should influence politics. Many who welcome the prophetic role of the churches in movements to abolish slavery, promote civil rights, and secure social justice are skeptical of applying religion's prophetic voice to matters such as abortion, sexuality, or family life. Many who welcome the second set of commitments can be just as wary of crusades rooted in a social gospel."
"What's God Got to Do with the American Experiment?"
Magazine article by E. J. Jr. Dionne, John J. Jr. Diiulio; Brookings Review, Vol. 17, Spring 1999
I found an interesting website that had the opinions of some well-known Americans. It showed the American’s opinions (pros and cons) of how religion should be involved in government and how it should not be.
This letter is from President James Madison. Madison was very against having religion and government together.
"[T]here remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government & Religion neither can be duly supported... the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against.
Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance... [R]eligion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together...
We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without then with the aid of Govt."
July 10, 1822, Letter to Edward Livingston
Let it be henceforth proclaimed to the world that man's conscience was created free; that he is no longer accountable to his fellow man for his religious opinions, being responsible therefore only to his God. (John Tyler, 10th U. S. President [1841-1845], as quoted by Caroline Thomas Harnsberger, Treasury of Presidential Quotations [Follett, 1964], p. 38, according to Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, compilers, The Great Quotations on Religious Liberty, Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press, 1991, p. 94.)
The Gallup polls are always fun to read for those people who like staring at columbs of numbers.
Here's one about a particular 10 Commandments issue.
While not directly related to the government, this poll is a nice source of data on the influence religion has on public opinion.
While a dry read, here is a rare, rather clean-cut Supreme Court case which is hardly controversial at all.
- Thomas D.
Wikipedia on the Separation of Church and State.
Also, there's Engel v. Vitale, a court case which declared it unconstitutional for public schools to require students to recite an official prayer, even if the prayer is neutral. Just read the first little part and the end which quotes various presidents.
Joe Biden talking about stuff related to this topic.
Excerpts from an article by Darrell English about the founders fathers' religious views:
Many seem determined to baptize our Founders as evangelical Christians when in reality they — and the established churches of that day — were deeply immersed in deism, “in the laws of nature and nature’s God.”
Deists did not affirm — nor do any of our founding documents — the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — and as we gentile Christian add — the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Deists thought of god as some abstract cause that started all this and then set it aside as a clock on the shelf.
One of our Founders did claim that if we were angels there would be no need of government. I
do love the cartoon of the colonial damsel addressing the colonial gentleman, “But, Tom, if these truths are self-evident why do you keep harping on them?”
Give churches a choice: give up tax exempt status or give up lobbying
"For far too long many religious groups, most recently and most visibly the Catholic Church, have tried to have it both ways. They avail themselves of the constitutional separation of church and state to avoid paying taxes on their secular investments, and then violate the separation of church and state by maintaining a strong lobbying group in Washington to influence legislation.
Recently it became known that the Catholic Conference of Bishops was instrumental in authoring the anti-abortion amendment attachd the to House health care bill, a clear violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. And its a perfect example of a religious institution trying to have it both ways.
Financially, the church for years has operated like a huge multinational corporation with extensive real estate holdings, stock holdings and other secular investments generating huge income streams for which they pay no taxes. Exempting religious organizations from taxes on contributions and donations is one thing. Exempting them from capital gains taxes on secular stock investments is another. But the church as do other religious institutions, claim tax exempt status based on the doctrine behind the First Amendment establishment clause."
the rest of the article...
http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m11d21-Give-churches-a-choice-give-up-tax-exempt-status-or-give-up-lobbying
an interesting website came up with a quick 1-m google search. www.au.org (au = Americans United), a "nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans". In their "pressing issues" section, one of the things that struck me was the sheer amount of rhetoric on the site. The pressing issues page was practically a dictionary of pathos-loaded words. "...by forcing all taxpayers to subsidize indoctrination..." "The Constitution bars government from meddling in religion..." "The so-called “faith-based” initiative is a euphemism for taxpayer-supported religion. The initiative funnels taxpayer dollars to religious social service providers without adequate safeguards to prevent proselytism. In addition, these groups seek to discriminate in hiring based on religion even though their programs are publicly funded." "Pulpit-based electioneering not only violates federal law, many believe it corrupts the true mission of our faith communities." If the majority of Americans agreed with their cause, why would the site need such harsh and provocative rhetoric? linky to the site in my name at the top of the post.
This is an article from: www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_churchnstate.html
A Divisive Spirit Reigns Over National Day of Prayer Ceremony
MUNCIE, Ind. — For the last decade, Rev. William Keller has stood on the broad steps of City Hall on the first Thursday in May — with city officials, local judges and a police chaplain at his side — to pray in the name of Jesus Christ.
He planned to mark the National Day of Prayer the same way this year: A welcome from the mayor, a fervent plea that God guide civic leaders to act wisely, an echoing choir of "Amen" from the crowd of several hundred gathered.
Then Keller was asked to share the microphone.
A Unitarian Universalist minister wanted to speak at the Day of Prayer ceremony, to offer an ecumenical "meditation" on leadership. A leader of the small Muslim community here requested a chance to pray aloud to Allah. A Jewish rabbinical fellow said he, too, would like to address the crowd.
Keller turned them down. Anyone of any faith could come listen to him pray. But he would not listen to them. "I'm busy with my faith," he said in an interview this week. "I don't believe in other gods."
From a 1 May 2003 news item
in the Los Angeles Times
Things like this happening are probably one of the best reasons for a seperation. If Keller had allowed the other religious leaders their time, in my opinion, nothing would be wrong with it. This is just a really rude example of favoritism for one religious sect.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_s2.htm
this website has information about a lot of the court cases surrounding the separation of church and state.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_s2.htm this website has information about a lot of the court cases surrounding the separation of church and state
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/i-believe-license-banned-by-judge/?scp=1&sq=separation%20of%20church%20and%20state&st=cse
This is the link to an article in the New York Times written by Richard S. Chang on November 11, 2009. It discusses how a religiously themed license plate was ruled as violating the First Amendment. Federal District Judge Cameron Currie stated in his decision that “The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.”
the law by consistently opening its meetings with sectarian prayers.
In a letter sent today, attorneys with Americans United say Cleveland officials have misconstrued court rulings in an effort to continue the constitutionally problematic practice.
“Cleveland officials are clearly endorsing Christianity through their actions,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “They appear to be knowingly violating the law, and it’s time for them to stop.”
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/11/cleveland-city-council-should.html
"On Wednesday March 1st 2006, at a hearing on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Jamin Raskin (AKA Jamie) a professor at AU was asked to testify.
At the end of his testimony, Republican senator Nancy Jacobs said: 'Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?'
Raskin replied, 'Senator, when you took your took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.'
The room erupted into applause."
This was taken from http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/raskin.asp which is a quotes website. Obviously he believes in a definate separation between church and state and agrees with James Madison who said
"there is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion" and that "this subject is, for the honor of America, perfectly free and unshackled. The Government has no jurisdiction over it...." http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate101/tp/MadisonMemorialRemonstrance.htm
They are just a few politicians who would definately say there should be a wall of separation.
hollister, chi flat iron, nike air max, reebok shoes, mont blanc, ghd, converse, soccer jerseys, nfl jerseys, abercrombie and fitch, wedding dresses, asics running shoes, insanity workout, longchamp, nike huarache, mcm handbags, timberland boots, p90x workout, north face outlet, hollister, nike air max, baseball bats, converse outlet, lululemon, ralph lauren, vans shoes, instyler, gucci, bottega veneta, mac cosmetics, beats by dre, new balance, babyliss, nike roshe, jimmy choo shoes, north face outlet, herve leger, vans, hollister, louboutin, iphone cases, ray ban, celine handbags, giuseppe zanotti, valentino shoes, birkin bag, soccer shoes, ferragamo shoes, oakley, nike trainers
وجهات
شقق فندقية في تبوك
فنادق تبوك 5 نجوم للعرسان
Post a Comment
<< Home