Religious Equality in America

[perspective]

The following list outlines some of the religious affirmations we encounter in our American lives.

• "Under god" in the pledge
• "In god we trust" on our money
• "God bless our country and this honorable court"
• Benedictions at public events
• 10 commandment displays in public buildings

Many people claim that the concept of "Separation of Church and State" is not explicitly written in the Constitution. They claim that the following items are justly displayed and cannot be classified as "laws respecting an establishment" of religion.

I will agree that the affirmations above are not laws respecting an establishment of religion. I will also point out that the exact words "Separation of Church and State" are not written in the Constitution. I will agree that stretching the interpretation of the first amendment to that effect is a bit inexact. But I will not concede that this nation was founded on Christianity. The more important concept of the founding of this nation was that it was founded by people who knew what it was like to be told that their beliefs were invalid, abominable, or otherwise unacceptable. This American society at it's foundation is a free country - free in all basic human rights - but especially free in religious pursuit.

Any who do not agree with this basic assertion, please specify in your argument that you disagree with the basic premise of the debate: that religious freedom is not only the foundation of this country, but ought to be an inalienable right.

Questions to debate:
1. If you were/are on the opposing/conflicting side of the above listed daily affirmations, how would/do you feel? Be objective: If you are a christian, pretend that the pledge declares "One nation, under goddess", and likewise. Explain how these affirmations would make you feel.

2. If you see no injustice in allowing religious references into our governing branches, would you also see no injustice in allowing ALL religious references? Would you see no injustice in paralyzing our government meetings with 13 or 14 benedictions, one for each group who wishes to be recognized? Would you see no injustice in increasing taxes to pay for the additional ink required to print all the extra phrases on our money? Would you see no injustice in using up all the sitting space in the lobby of our courthouses for the display of religious statues?

3. Those of you who are offended by the request to remove such affirmations from our daily lives, explain why you view the requests as direct attacks against your faith. If you do, in fact, see the requests as attacks against your faith.


This is not the place to debate why the above mentioned affirmations deserve to be included. If you disagree with the basic premise of the debate, state that you disagree and please start a new topic to debate why you disagree. This thread assumes that you agree that people should be free to choose to follow whichever religion they wish. Again: basic premise of the debate: religious freedom ought to be an inalienable right. This is also not the place to debate whether or not the above affirmations infringe on the inalienable rights of others to practice their religious freedom. Stick to the exact questions or else post a disagreement with the basic premise and post a link to a new thread where you would like to debate the premise.

[otseng]

Good topic perspective.

1. If you were/are on the opposing/conflicting side of the above listed daily affirmations, how would/do you feel?

As a Christian, I probably wouldn't like it.

2. If you see no injustice in allowing religious references into our governing branches, would you also see no injustice in allowing ALL religious references?

I would have no problem, as long as the state doesn't force anyone to believe in a particular religion.

3. Those of you who are offended by the request to remove such affirmations from our daily lives, explain why you view the requests as direct attacks against your faith. If you do, in fact, see the requests as attacks against your faith.

I don't see the removal of such things as an attack on my faith. My faith doesn't rest on what the government says or not says.

But I will not concede that this nation was founded on Christianity.

However, Christianity was a major factor in the formation of the US. Many of the founding fathers were Christians. And it influenced the way they believed. From the outset, Christianity was mingled in with politics. It was part of the fabric of the government.

Though people of other religions might not like how much influence Christianity has on America, it is part of what this country is. Just like I might not like that I have black hair, but that was how I was born.

Furthermore, God was instrumental in the formation of this country. All the references to God is simply an acknowledgement to him in helping to form America.

[perspective]

1. If you were/are on the opposing/conflicting side of the above listed daily affirmations, how would/do you feel?

As a Christian, I probably wouldn't like it.

But I will not concede that this nation was founded on Christianity.

However, Christianity was a major factor in the formation of the US. Many of the founding fathers were Christians. And it influenced the way they believed. From the outset, Christianity was mingled in with politics. It was part of the fabric of the government.

Though people of other religions might not like how much influence Christianity has on America, it is part of what this country is. Just like I might not like that I have black hair, but that was how I was born.

Furthermore, God was instrumental in the formation of this country. All the references to God is simply an acknowledgement to him in helping to form America.

What if it was the other way around? What if Wiccanism (Wiccans worship gods and goddesses) - was the major factor in the formation of the US. What if many of the founding fathers were Wiccans? What if it influenced the way they believed? What if, from the outset, Wiccanism was mingled in with politics. What if Wiccans claimed that their gods and goddesses were instrumental in the formation of this country. They claimed that all the references to gods and goddesses are simply an acknowledgement to the gods and goddesses in helping to form America.

Would that be a good enough reason for you, a christian, to pledge allegiance every day to "one nation, under gods and goddesses"? Would you feel that it was ok for our nation to include the Wiccan affirmations of faith simply because the founders of our country (who were very vocal about religious freedom and purposely did not mention anything about their Wiccan beliefs in the Constitution of the United States), were themselves Wiccan? As a Christian, you would not find the mentionings of Wiccan gods and goddesses cheapening, misplaced? Or you would just go along, and replace the words with your own terms? Would you try to pretend that the Supreme Court's declaration "Goddesses and Gods bless our country and this honorable court" included you? Or would you feel left out? Would you see 'historical acknowledgment' as a good enough reason to mingle church and state, if your church wasn't the one being acknowledged?

This isn't just directed towards Osteng - my questions are open to all Christians.

[otseng]

What if it was the other way around? What if Wiccanism (Wiccans worship gods and goddesses) - was the major factor in the formation of the US. What if many of the founding fathers were Wiccans?

I wouldn't like it. But, I would live with it. If Wiccans were able to create a nation of prosperity and to create the most influential country in the world, then I'd say they must've had something going for them.

Suppose I was born in mainland China under Mao where every single religion was wiped out. I wouldn't like that either. But I'd have to live within the system (or else move to another country).

[perspective]

What if it was the other way around? What if Wiccanism (Wiccans worship gods and goddesses) - was the major factor in the formation of the US. What if many of the founding fathers were Wiccans?

I wouldn't like it. But, I would live with it. If Wiccans were able to create a nation of prosperity and to create the most influential country in the world, then I'd say they must've had something going for them.

Suppose I was born in mainland China under Mao where every single religion was wiped out. I wouldn't like that either. But I'd have to live within the system (or else move to another country).

But what if this hypothetical country was a country founded on freedom of religion. What if even though the founders were Wiccan, they agreed that the government answers only to the people, it derives it's power only from the people. Would you see any reason to have Wiccan affirmations on money, in courthouses, in schools?

As a christian, would you feel like the will of the founders was being trampled? The founders were obviously smart people, and even though they were Wiccan, they wrote plenty of protection into the ruling text of our government for you, the Christian, and me the Buddhist, and Mike, the atheist.

Surely in a country built on religious freedom, you wouldn't expect to feel like an outsider who should have to "move to another country" if you didn't want the religious affirmations of others on the collective property of us all. Or is that how you feel? You feel that if you were in the minority in this country - that your tax dollars were being used to support something you were against with all your heart - if you didn't like it, you should just leave? Is that really what you would do?

Or would you fight for the equality that the founders intended, that you deserve as the member of a country founded on freedom of religion? And if you decided to fight, what would be your reason - your foundation - your justification for fighting? (Fighting doesn't necessarily mean violence)

[veritas]

1. If you were/are on the opposing/conflicting side of the above listed daily affirmations, how would/do you feel?

As a Wiccan, I really can't say that this confronts me all that much. Even if I were an atheist, I could point to the beliefs of our Founding Fathers as being a substantial part of the philosophy of our nation. It may be the optimist in me, but I feel that while organized Christianity (and organized religion in general) has not always done right by humanity, they've done more good than bad,.

2. If you see no injustice in allowing religious references into our governing branches, would you also see no injustice in allowing ALL religious references?

No injustice, though I do think it would be a bit silly. If one wanted representation of all religions, perhaps a rotating schedule...?

3. Those of you who are offended by the request to remove such affirmations from our daily lives, explain why you view the requests as direct attacks against your faith.

Well, I really don't qualify for this one.

Justin


This is not the place to debate why the above mentioned affirmations deserve to be included. If you disagree with the basic premise of the debate, state that you disagree and please start a new topic to debate why you disagree. This thread assumes that you agree that people should be free to choose to follow whichever religion they wish. Again: basic premise of the debate: religious freedom ought to be an inalienable right. This is also not the place to debate whether or not the above affirmations infringe on the inalienable rights of others to practice their religious freedom. Stick to the exact questions or else post a disagreement with the basic premise and post a link to a new thread where you would like to debate the premise.[/quote]

[otseng]

Would you see any reason to have Wiccan affirmations on money, in courthouses, in schools?

If Wiccan belief were instrumental in the formation of the country, I would have no problem with it.

The line where it would get wrong is if the Wiccans in power said that I had to believe in the Wiccan belief system or else I will be breaking the law.

Surely in a country built on religious freedom, you wouldn't expect to feel like an outsider who should have to "move to another country" if you didn't want the religious affirmations of others on the collective property of us all. Or is that how you feel?

No, I'm not suggesting that you should move to another country.

What about the President saying "May God bless America"? Is that wrong too? There has to be some line drawn on the level of influence religion has on the government. And I think that was part of the problem the founding fathers had. They had to draw some line between being a totally atheistic state (France) and a religious state (England). The line that they drew was the First Amendment. And I think that's where the line should remain at.

You feel that if you were in the minority in this country - that your tax dollars were being used to support something you were against with all your heart - if you didn't like it, you should just leave? Is that really what you would do?

There are many things that I wish tax dollars weren't going for. I believe the use of tax dollars should be dramatically curtailed across the board.

The problem of tax dollars being used to fund things is not with what is being funded, but the tax dollars being used in the first place. I would be all for removing tax dollars from going to religous institutions and all private institutions. Now that is something I would be willing to fight for.

[Corvus]

Would you see any reason to have Wiccan affirmations on money, in courthouses, in schools?

If Wiccan belief were instrumental in the formation of the country, I would have no problem with it.

The line where it would get wrong is if the Wiccans in power said that I had to believe in the Wiccan belief system or else I will be breaking the law.

Why the distinction between those in power and those serving under them? As a democratic republic, the government is a representative of the people. As such, they should not be aligning themselves with any creed, should they?

I'm not entirely sure Christian belief was instrumental in the formation of America. By that I'm assuming you think natural rights is a christian concept. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man, for example, only has a token reference to the auspices of the "Supreme Being", a deist concept that was only introduced because the complete removal of religion met with resistance.

Surely in a country built on religious freedom, you wouldn't expect to feel like an outsider who should have to "move to another country" if you didn't want the religious affirmations of others on the collective property of us all. Or is that how you feel?

No, I'm not suggesting that you should move to another country.

What about the President saying "May God bless America"? Is that wrong too? There has to be some line drawn on the level of influence religion has on the government. And I think that was part of the problem the founding fathers had. They had to draw some line between being a totally atheistic state (France) and a religious state (England). The line that they drew was the First Amendment. And I think that's where the line should remain at.

God bless America is the president's personal blessing, not an official endorsement of God, isn't it? I would disagree with it being said by a president, mainly because I think he should affect a neutral religious image in public, and keep religion to his private life.

[otseng]

Why the distinction between those in power and those serving under them? As a democratic republic, the government is a representative of the people. As such, they should not be aligning themselves with any creed, should they?

I'm not entirely sure Christian belief was instrumental in the formation of America.

Many of the states aligned themselves with Christianity. And it was quite blatently mentioned in their Constitutions.

Delaware Constitution of 1776

Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:

" I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

" I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Maryland Constitution of 1776

That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.

Massachusetts Constitution of 1780

Article I. Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall, before he proceed to execute the duties of his place or office, make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

"I, A.B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth; and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right, of the property required by the constitution, as one qualification for the office or place to which I am elected."

New Jersey Constitution of 1776

That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.

North Carolina Constitution of 1776

That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

South Carolina Constitution of 1778

That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State.

Vermont Constitution of 1777

I _______ _______ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God (or I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God), that as a member of this Assembly, I will not propose, or assent to any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people; nor do or consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared in the Constitution of this State; but will in all things, conduct myself as a faithful, honest representative and guardian of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities.

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion.

[perspective]

It seems that you are trying to debate whether this country was founded on Christianity. Let's take that debate elsewhere. This thread is mostly interested in the answers to the questions regarding how Christians would feel if they were the minority. I know we could go on and on about whether or not the country was founded on Christianity - so it's better to keep the threads organized and do it elsewhere.