One nation under God?

Are we? No, we aren't. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. We are also guaranteed separation of church and state. We should understand that the government should not act in the interest or disinterest of religion.

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States all presidents have been White Anglo-Saxon Protestants except Kennedy. One Nation Under WASPS. Approximately 80 percent of the population was considered Christian in 2001.

Now that I've bored you with statistics, let me say that I have previously had no problem with George W. Bush following his heart (so to speak) and allowing his trust in God to lead him. Why? I guess I thought of it as proving he had morals. I wouldn't want an amoral leader.

Come with me now into the land of "let's pretend." In our pretend world, our leader/president/governor has had a religious change of heart, and become Hindu/Buddist/Muslim. It could happen. He (or she) has the right to whatever religion he/she wants. Now he says, "I am going to attack nation X because they insult my god." Or perhaps he says that "I am not going to attack nation Y because they worship the same god as I."

Suddenly I am not comfortable with the mix of religion and politics. Suddenly I stand up and demand that church and state be separate. I find myself in the less than enviable position of saying that I don't think I minded George W. mixing political decisions and religious ones because he believes in the same God that I do.

I understand that someone's religious beliefs are so much a part of him that he would not be able to totally seperate them, but I want my leaders to try. I want my leaders to represent the voters of the United States, but not to the point of acting in the interest or disinterest of religion.

Sandy, I think you make an excellent point!

There is nowhere in the Constitution that guarantees us a seperation between church and state. It is mentioned nowhere and was never set up that way. Quite to the contrary, the founders embraced their religion and injected it into the government to make it better.

Are you saying that you wouldn't trust a leader because they have a different faith? In typical fashion a president has neither the time nor inclination to change their faith. Especially considering that they have to pander to constituents.

The Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment I; Freedom of Religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Ratified December 15, 1791.

Sandy concludes "I want my leaders to represent the voters of the United States, but not to the point of acting in the interest or disinterest of religion."

Agreed.

As a nation of immigrants, the religious makeup of our population is bound to change over time, not unlike many other great countries in the world. Shoot, the greatest Christian nation in history was poly-theistic, before some emporer converted to Christianity. Meanwhile, our beloved democracy is a Greek idea - from a time far prior to the birth of Christ.

I think the comment "Quite to the contrary, the founders embraced their religion and injected it into the government to make it better," is at least as much an inference as any about a strict seperation.

The founders of this nation were products of a philisophical movement best known as "The Enlightenment." One of the goals of enlightenment philosophers was to replace "divine right" rulers with those who reflected the will of the people. In that context, the idea of a seperation becomes likely reasoning behind the First Amendment language.

Also, remember that the First Amendment also protects speech, the press and the right to assemble peacefully. All of these point to a "freedom of thought" that was a cornerstone of the Enlightenment.

Thank you for that Patty, I will assume that was directed at me...Let us dissect this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

Very straightforward. Congress will not choose who you worship.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

Congress cannot tell you who you can't worship.

I am still looking for "Congress shall make no mention or vague statement, implied or otherwise, as to religion" in the Constitution. To date I have not found it.

OK, if "Congress will not choose who you worship," is it constitutional to put God into the Pledge of Allegiance? Some atheist in California alleges that the mandatory recitation of the Pledge in schools is forcing religion on his child. Is that right or wrong?

Independent of that particular case, why can one not pledge allegiance to a nation without getting God involved? If I'm Hindu, should I specify "one nation under Ganesh" or "under Shiva" or another god? Or would I have to pledge to "one nation, under a Judeo-Christian-Muslim god, indivisible?"

Maybe that last is close. "One nation, under the God of Abraham, indivisible." It has a nice ring, doesn't it?

Well, first off the "atheist" is not required to recite the pledge, or the words "under God." No one is. However you are mistaking the Pledge of Allegiance's "under God" for the establishment of a religion. The use of the word God does not in and of itself establish a religion. But if you do believe that the founders intended the government to be absolutely impartial, please note who penned this line:

"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."

I think that you hit it perfectly. As long as our leaders are "like us," then it is OK to have religion. But what if they had a different religion? Would you feel the same way? I don't think so. I think of this as the long range view. Thanks for being less short-sighted than some!!

I'm not sure that I follow your point, Ken. Also, keep in mind that the founders lived in a time before Darwin, when people couldn't imagine a possibility other than Creationism and/or 'Intelligent Design.'

In the end, the arguments that Jack makes about the Enlightenment carry a lot more water than selective quotes mentioning a higher being. I notice that, so far, nobody has rebutted his post.

bsimon, his thoughts are refuted in the Federalist Papers. A counter to his arguments is rooted in that, they state the exact opposite of his assumption of the founders.

Ken, the way you simply state lies as facts with impunity is amazing. The Founding Fathers wanted to inject religion into politics to make it better?

The same Founding Fathers who said:

"A lighthouse is more useful than a church." (Ben Franklin)

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Each [church] accuses the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." (Thomas Paine)

"During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." (James Madison)

I could go on Ken, but I'll give you some time to make up a new argument and try it out for a while.

Ken, The United States' Constitution was written in 18th century English. So, let's dissect that passage one more time.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Many people read it this way:

Congress shall pass no law with respect to any religious establishment.

Ken, I admit I'm a little rusty on the Federalist Papers. Can you give me/us which specific paper rebuts my earlier comments?

Tim, thanks for the quotations.

I was intrigued by Ken's certainty and went looking for information on religion in the Federalist Papers. I'll be honest, I couldn't find anything that supports claims that no seperation was intended. In fact just the opposite seems to come out.

The feeling of the Federalists seems to have been that the prohibition on religious oaths as a condition for holding office was enough to establish the freedom of religion that was required by many. It was the vagueness of this guarantee and others which fueled the Anti-Federalist push for a Bill of Rights.



Here are two links to pages (same site) I found on this topic, and one of the things that struck me was how often the term freedom of conscience comes up in the ratifying conventions. I'm more convinced then when I posted my first comment that the First Amendement is a freedom of thought protection.



A Big Fuss Over Nothing



No Power to Congress Over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and the First Amendment



I welcome links or other references to contradictory interpretations of this material.