PlanetFur
2003-08-28 03:57:04 UTC
"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
todefence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the BLESSINGS of Liberty
ourselves..."
Blessing should be removed for its religious undertones.
Blessing has several Judeo-Christian tones, but the entymology of theBlessing should be removed for its religious undertones.
word comes from one of its truer meanins, to sanctify.
Bless comes from bloe(o")dan, blood, and came into Anglo-Saxon
terminology from PAGAN sanctifications, not Christian.
So even if some of the meanings have manifestations in faith-related
terminology, it also has non-religious tones, and does not always
indicate a promotion of any faith or religion.
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient
forthe Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of
America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our
Names, "
In the Year of our Lord should be removed since this word when capitalized
refers to a religious deity and not a human being.
Except that the Year of our Lord refers to anno Domini, reflecting theSame.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of
America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our
Names, "
In the Year of our Lord should be removed since this word when capitalized
refers to a religious deity and not a human being.
calendar
year of the Christian calendar rather than other forms of calendars. Anno
Domini
literally means "in the year of our Lord". Since the Christian calendar is
what most
countries, including the US, uses, why not keep in its era, whether it be
Year of
our Lord or anno Domini?
No Article in the Consitution of the United States provides for the
separaction of church and state.
Nor do any protect us from prosecution for having any religion, nor do anyseparaction of church and state.
guarantee us to a trial for any crimes for which we may be accused. This is
why the Constitution has been and can still be amended.
The Founding Fathers were agnostics and freethinkers, believe it or not.
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin especially did not subscribe to
any organized or recognized religion.
The US Pledge of Allegience "..one nation, under God" should be striken
frompublic statements.
Especially since the phrase was added by a Christian group in hopes ofpushing
Christianity into schools. The original Pledge *DID NOT* include this
phrase.
And there is a stayed decision in which the phrase *does* promote a
religion.
The slogan "In God we Trust" should be removed from all government legal
tender.
Legal tender did not always have this phrase. For a while, it was e pluribustender.
unum (check old currency). It wasn't until about the Civil War when
religious
groups, hoping to promote their own agendas and wanting to prevent further
wars with the ignorant idea that religion could do this, pushed to have God
on
everything they could, including currency.
The slogan "God Bless America" should be stricken from public discourse.
Yes, it should. However, if someone independent of holding a public officeor
speaking on behalf of someone in a public office wants to say it, that right
is
guaranteed. People who serve the public should *NOT* do so under the guise
of the law of a religion rather than the law of the land. And these people
should
not be changing the law of the land to the law of their religion.
Remember that more than one of ten people in this country does not believe
in
a god, and another one out of ten are not judeo-christian. That leaves under
80% of this country either Jewish, Christian, Catholic or some form or
another.
And that number is *DROPPING*, not rising.
All of these examples would be taken out of US historical context since
thisnation was obviously not founded on by religious principles and men who
didnot want to establish a nation were the freedom of religion could be had
byall since their original point of origin was established in religious
oppression.
If you read the Federalist Papers, it was evident a few of the Foundingoppression.
Fathers
rathered organized religions remained OUT of the government. However, there
is much belief that the Constitution was written so that the government
could not
establish or promote any religion, but that separate regions and states
could.
However, since this is not in the Constitution, and SCOTUS decisions have
said
this is now impossible, no religion should be promoted or endorsed by any
government in the US.
"Article [I.] (See Note 13)
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. "
The Bill of Rights Ammendments of the Constitution of the United States
doesCongress 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. "
The Bill of Rights Ammendments of the Constitution of the United States
not provide for the separation of church and state.
Quite simply, it does. The Amendment states that the Government of the US,the federal level (Congress) shall make no law respecting any religion over
any other. Since Congress is the only one able to make laws for the entirity
of the US, this means that there is a separation of Church and State. Don't
forget
that the First Amendment doesn't state that you can't yell "Fire!" in a
crowded
theater when there is no danger of any fire, yet this is speech and the
Amendment
says that you have the freedom to do so.
The Supreme Court has upheld that while the Constitution does not
specifically
state many laws or abilities, they must be interpreted with the purpose of
the
Article or Amendment.
In this case, speech is only protected if it does not cause irreparable harm
or
chaos to the public or society. As such, religion should not be respected or
endorsed in law or in public areas of government buildings.
The concept of the separation of church and state came from Thomas
Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of
Virginia. Though the concept isn't what you may think that Religion should
never interfer with the State, but in fact that the State should never
interfer with a person's decision on how to follow their religous beliefs,
be it for or against. It goes as the following [This was the draft, the
final version can be found here
But also, the State should not follow only one set of beliefs. LawmakersJefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of
Virginia. Though the concept isn't what you may think that Religion should
never interfer with the State, but in fact that the State should never
interfer with a person's decision on how to follow their religous beliefs,
be it for or against. It goes as the following [This was the draft, the
final version can be found here
can go home and pray or not pray all they want. But I certainly wouldn't
want my lawmakers in my state telling me my Sunday should be a
Sabbath, or that wanting my next door neighbor's wife will get me life in
prison. There's only so much one can attribute to Christianity, as well
as other religions and agnostic/atheistic/freethinking beliefs that are
mostly
or completely shared. Beyond that, you start getting into telling people
their
religion is no longer valid.
A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom
"SECTION I. Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on
their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their
minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his
supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether
insusceptible"SECTION I. Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on
their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their
minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his
supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether
of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments,
orburthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of
hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy
authorhypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy
of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to
propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
butpropagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,
to exalt it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption
of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being
themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the
faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as
theof legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being
themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the
faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as
only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on
others,hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of
the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelievesthe world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support
this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of
the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular
pastorthis or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of
the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular
whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most
persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those
temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal
conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours
forpersuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those
temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal
conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours
the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on
ourreligious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry;
thattherefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by
laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and
emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion,
islaying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and
emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion,
depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in
common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends
alsocommon with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends
to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage,
bybribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will
externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are
criminalsexternally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are
who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who
laythe bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of
civilgovernment, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil
magistrateto intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the
profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill
tendencyprofession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill
is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions
thebecause he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions
rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as
they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for
the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere
whenthey shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for
the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere
principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and
finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she
is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear
from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural
weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it
isfinally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she
is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear
from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural
weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it
permitted freely to contradict them.
"SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man
shall"SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man
be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of
his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
profess,ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of
his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and
thatthe same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
capacities.
"SECTION III. And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the
people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to
restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal
tocapacities.
"SECTION III. And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the
people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to
restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal
our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no
effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights
hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act
shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its
operation,effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights
hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act
shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its
such act will be an infringement of natural right."
And so as it says, people shouldn't be forced to have a Judeo-Christianbelief
right in front of them when they walk into the courthouse, at least in
Virginia.
And this is exactly what the court in Alabama has decided to do.
What I can't fathom is why religious people WANT to push their religion on
others, as though their beliefs were too fragile, and they need more people
believing in it to strengthen it.