“Capital Lawes

If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other God, but the LORD GOD, he shall be put to death. Exod. 22:20, Deut. 13:6 & 10. Deut. 17:2, 6.”

I found this in the Maine Legislative Law Library a few years ago and keep it around for chuckles.

#7) where in the US Constitution is the federal government authorized to own car manufacturers or the health care industry.

haha, trick question, the answer is NOWHERE!

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

That is the exact text from the First Amendment, just in case anyone here has forgotten it. Let’s break that language down, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion:
Basically, this is saying that our federal and local governments are restricted from declaring any given religion to be the religion of the state that all citizens are required by law to practice. Basically, this provision guarantees each citizen freedom FROM a state established religion. It can also effectively be argued that this provision implies that placement or display of religious artifacts, texts, and/or imagery from any one religion is restricted in that it could then be inferred that the government was endorsing that one religion. Let’s say that you put the Ten Commandments up in a state capitol building. This would be acceptable Only if you Also put up scriptures from many of the world’s other religions. The Ten Commandments by themselves would be an endorsement of only Christianity or Judaism.

prohibiting the free exercise thereof:
This part is saying that neither federal nor local governments can keep people from practicing their faith. If a person’s religion truly says that they are required to evangelize in order to be true to their faith, they cannot be stopped from it. However, I think it could be agreed that these people are limited in where this evangelizing can take place. For instance, I think all would agree that they don’t have the right to break into my home in order to try and convert me.

As far as separation of church and state, people are correct when they say that the Constitution does not state that. However, Thomas Jefferson, the chief architect of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, stated in 1802;
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 and State.”

So reading this, I submit that even though the specific wording in our founding documents did not say it, it was always implied that there be a separation of church and state.

The actual phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists (see www(dot)loc(dot)gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html), also the source of ‘wall of separation’

What they came up with for the constitution is actually the only references to “Religion” in the document and it is simply that the people should have “Freedom of Religion” explained as the freedom to adhere to the religion of your choice, or not.

But (in The Constitution, as distinct from The Amendments): Article VI:
[...] 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.

J/P=?

I understand what you are saying, I just remain unconvinced that religion does NOT play a role in politics. I do mean politics in general and not specifically the US, either.

Man, I refuse to trust Wikipedia for any information; so I looked on the interwebthingy and found a number of other references to the date and event so the info is verified as correct. Sorry, dude… hate Wiki, just they way it is.

Thanks for the added details! I knew someone would come along with the appropriate info.

@Roen

Te “under God” phrase was also added to the pledge at a later date (1954 officially, though in use unofficially before that, according to Wikipedia). Like the “In God We Trust” motto, Eisenhower was president and set the wheels in motion in Congress. In 2002, a suit was brought by Michael Newdow on behalf of his daughter, claiming that the phrase “under God” was unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit Court ruled in his favor, but the school district appealed to the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS rejected Newdow’s claim because he was not the custodial parent of his daughter, and they refused to rule on the phrase itself.

More info on that can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_the_words_.22under_God.22

The following is from a paper on just this issue that I did for a constitutional law class:

“One should not have to take extraordinary measures to avoid religious expressions or activities which one finds unconscionable, just as all citizens are free to seek out those religious expressions which are most congenial to their conscience. Entering into a house of worship, one knows what they are getting into and all are free to enter or not as they choose and the form of worship therein will be free from unreasonable (and in the opinion of some, even reasonable) governmental restrictions. In a situation like the one that precipitated Lee v. Weisman, the inclusion of religious elements in a civil, secular occasion in the name of, in Justice Scalia’s words “fostering respect for religion,” transformed a civil ceremony into an act of, at least partially, compulsory religious piety. In the absence of compelling arguments or evidence to the contrary, it is safe to assume that none of the devoutly religious attendees were in danger of being prevented of attending the house of worship of their choosing at their customary times, whatever they might be. If perhaps a substantial percentage of the community were Seventh Day Adventists and the commencement were scheduled for a Saturday afternoon, a case could be made for the school district being “unaccommodating,” but that is not this case, and that bridge will be crossed when society comes to it.
Under the interpretation presented here, the essence of the “free exercise” clause is to permit “free exercise” of religious belief by allowing citizens to seek out those forms of religious worship most congenial to their conscience and to avoid those forms that are not congenial to their conscience. By logical extension, that also means that if no form of religious worship is congenial to ones conscience, one is free to avoid them all or modify existing forms so that they are congenial to ones conscience, as numerous sects have in fact done throughout American history.” (Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), see: http://supreme.justia.com/us/505/577/index.html)

If I think all religions are stupid and wish to avoid them (which I do), then the most I should ever have do is never go into a place of worship, and nothing else. If you are religious, then you are free to go to whatever place of worship you wish and no one will stop you from doing so. However, that that is not what many of the religious in the U.S. want. They expect everyone else, even those that do not share their beliefs to pretend they agree, just so they can feel as though their cherished beliefs are not so preposterous and nonsensical after all.

“… one nation under God…”

So…

“In God We Trust”
“one nation under God”
Politicians declaring their religious leanings to get elected…

… are religious references and a pattern now emerges. It’s time for some to be more intellectually honest and realize that there are factors sewn into the inner linings of any government. Religious just happens to be a big one. Denying it even in text is not really honest in my opini0n. At least Iran is open about it.

BTW, I am a non-theist… no, not an atheist, a non-theist. Atheists are far too aggressive for my taste and I believe in both freedom of and from religion. Really it’s a personal choice and should never need to be made public, let alone directly referenced on official documentation.

As for the whole “freedom of religion” versus “freedom from religion” ballyhoo, for any of us, as citizens of the United States, to have “freedom of religion,” we must have freedom from the religion of others. For atheists, that includes freedom from all religions. If this is not the case, then both statements, “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion,” are meaningless.

The phrase to have “freedom of religion,” we must have freedom from the religion of others is a non-sequitur and simply not true. It is quite possible to have “freedom of religion” (i.e., being able to believe and practice what you want) without it being restricted by someone displaying a Christian symbol in their shop window. Your statement For atheists, that includes freedom from all religions essentially equates atheism with religious belief, which will probably not sit well with them.

What you have described sounds like a religiously intolerant society. For a recent example, see the Soviet Union.

Ah, the phrase that was added to the currency, in violation of the Constitution, back in, IIRC, the 1950s?

Extract from Wikipedia:

In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States and the U.S. state of Florida. The motto first appeared on a United States coin in 1864 during strong Christian sentiment emerging during the Civil War, but In God We Trust did not become the official U.S. national motto until after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956. It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, which provides: “In God We Trust is the national motto”.

History
The motto E Pluribus Unum (“out of many, one”) was approved for use on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782. It still appears on coins and currency, and was widely considered the national motto de facto. However, by 1956 it had not been established so by legislation as the official “national motto”. The Congressional Record of 1956 reads: “At the present time the United States has no national motto. The committee deems it most appropriate that ‘In God We Trust’ be so designated as U.S. national motto.”

[...]

Adoption as national motto
A law was passed by the 84th United States Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956. President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved a joint resolution declaring In God We Trust the national motto of the United States. The same Congress had required, in the previous year, that the words appear on all currency, as a Cold War measure: “In these days when imperialistic and materialistic Communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, it is proper” to “remind all of us of this self-evident truth” that “as long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail.” [ ]

Legal status
Use of the motto on circulating coinage is required by law. While several laws come into play, the act of May 18, 1908, is most often cited as requiring the motto (even though the cent and nickel were excluded from that law, and the nickel did not have the motto added until 1938). Since 1938, all coins have borne the motto. The use of the motto was permitted, but not required, by an 1873 law. The motto was added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.

[...]

Todd W.:

I believe a suit was brought to remove it, but the courts ruled that it was just an expression with no religious meaning. Uh, yeah.

The first case regarding the inclusion of “In God We Trust” on US Coinage was Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th cir. 1970). In that case, Aronow challenged the constitutionality of the motto and its placement on U.S. currency and coinage.

In 1970, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled:

It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency “In God We Trust” has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.

The monarch of England is not a sort of Anglican pope. Neither is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I suggest you get your knowledge of the Constitution and its history from somewhere else besides your pastor, Rush, or Hannity (especially Hannity–he was a college drop-out). A good source is at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html#2002.

Credibility FAIL!

Give up?

The later has reality on his side,,,

mocked by a bunch of self-righteous, smug “progressives”,,,

Love the verbal assault. Keep it up and maybe someday, you too can be elected to high office in Wonderland,,,

GAry 7

As for the whole “freedom of religion” versus “freedom from religion” ballyhoo, for any of us, as citizens of the United States, to have “freedom of religion,” we must have freedom from the religion of others. For atheists, that includes freedom from all religions. If this is not the case, then both statements, “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion,” are meaningless.

And rightfully so.

However, I sincerely doubt that this is the case, hence all the fuss, and hence the fundies tried the very same thing a few years ago – and lost.

>>>”it ESPECIALLY wasn’t meant to set up proudly religious people for being openly mocked by a bunch of self-righteous, smug “progressives” like phil plait.”

You sound like these people are to be admired. These aren’t “repressed” Christians fighting the “establishment” for the right to express themselves. They already have that. But these particular Christians are attempting to introduce “POOF! GODDIDIT!” as a biological explanation of the existence of wild animals, which are currently represented at the zoo. If that’s allowed, then my alternative explanation should be placed right next to the creationist display – that the Flying Spaghetti Monster when eating a bowl of Spaghetti alla Bolognese was playing with His food and made lots of funny shapes, and He decided to magically poof them to life with His Noodly Appendage. These became elephants, giraffes, ducks, kittens and platypus etc, and that is how the Earth became populated with all the animals we know and love today.

If you think the creationist display at the zoo is acceptable, but the Pastafarian display would not be, then you’re a hypocrite.

No-one is attempting to “eliminate all traces of religion” from public view. Public displays are allowed, as long as ALL religions are allowed. But the fact that the creationist display is specifically being endorsed by someone running for mayor as an example of how she will “serve” (for lack of a better term) then that already places the display on legally dodgy ground.

However, one can still put up a public display, as long as it isn’t seen to be publicly endorsed by any governmental/legislative affiliation, you can pray in public, hire a hall, go to church, build more churches, even stand on a street corner and sing: “PRAISE THE LORD! HALLELUJAH!!!” Unfortunately, there’s always some people (like one or two posters here) who like to completely miss the point, put their hands over their eyes, bring out the good old Christian fundie martyr complex, pretend they’re in the lion pit and start whining about being “mocked” by them evil, mean, nasty Liberal God-haters!!!

if you don’t believe me, try reading about it from individuals outside of the liberal echo chamber.

or, you know, just think what you want and block out the rest.