Get these religious attitudes out of my Government, there is no place in American government for religion. Keep it in church, or keep it at home, I’ll believe my way, you can believe your way, so long as it’s not reflected by the government in any way.

Well folks, it is not my intention to come here and say anything derogatory about any religion. I am having a problem with this mindset that America is founded on religious values, and I’ll bet that someone like Thomas Jefferson an agnostic, would be spinning in his grave at this constant drum beat of the religious right thinking they can change the interpretation of the Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence or our Constitution, all secular documents.

For all of those people who think we are a religious country, I offer this challenge. Find anything written anywhere in our National documentation that refers to any church of any type in any positive way. It’s just not there, and it’s for a very good reason our founders omitted any reference to God or church, there is no place in our Government for any religion. All the hype about our country being founded on religious values is that , hype, nothing else, absolutely no basis in fact.
I’ll be back to see if anyone found a document from our founders to support this notion of our being anything other than secular.
We are a secular nation, and I will fight to keep it that way.

I agree with you 100% but I think we need to stop making this an issue. As long as we do, they (neocons) will keep on acusing us of being godless heathens. Its a non-issue that they keep using to scare those who can't think for themselves... Unfortunately, those people make up a majority.

Freedom of worship is garanteed constitutionally. If you chose to worship a tomatoe and brought your values with you on your election to an office,that is just the way it goes.While you could not enforce a strict tomatoe worshiping agenda, those that elected you would be fully aware of the effects of your religious leanings and the possible effects of them on public policy. The movement to ban religious agendas is fine. The bigger move seems to be to remove any religious influence, and that my freind is not only impossible, but unconstitutional. Freedom of worship as it is written, not only encourages freedom, it demands it. The fact that religions are codes of ethics,morals,and ways of life is therefore a logical and LEGAL way to use your religious background in decisions you make in not only your work, but your efforts to change public policy. This my freind is a constitutionally protected right, Bush or a tomatoe worshipper if elected can feel free to use their moral values in doing their work. They cannot make you a christian sir, But you cannot make them a tomatonian.

I have been trying to say this (not quite this way, I commend you on your originality and humor) for a long time to people here. By all means separation of Church and State. But let's not take this concept to absurd lengths.

I know some will probably be tired of me bringing this up again, but the Reverand Martin Luther King knowingly and explicitly brought his religious principles to bear when he became one of the key leaders of the civil rights movement. I'm not saying therefore you cannot criticize his religion, but can anyone criticize him for basing his views and actions concerning civil rights on his religious principles?

This post will be shredded. they will cut it up and call me a repub. They are wrong. i merely see this issue clearly. take out all the hot button issues, it boils down to this, Your free to practice religion or not. Your free to form your own moral standards based on anything you like. If elected your morals most definitly effect your thoughts, this is a fact, and it is protected by the same rule they use as a club to hit religion with. Freedom!! For all, even the religious. They choose to try deny the religious their freedom, yet want to preserve their own. I do not want a government telling me to be religious, by the same token, I do not want laws banning its influences either. You cannot ban people from using their morals(either formed religiously or not) in their decision making process. This is what they seem to want. It would be grossly against civil rights to force one to disregard their personal beliefs in any way.

I think that the logic behind your basic argument is unassailable. Of course anyone, religious or not, can still attack the religious Right for their support of inhumane, illogical, cynical and crazy views and policies. Freedom of religion is no cover for their twisted ideas (not that they don't have the freedom of speech). Some of us even use religious principles in attacking them.

The problem is the method of attacking right is often wrong. Both sides spout twisted facts.Neither side sees the others rights. Theres a name for it. Hypocrisy.
The smartest way to beat hypocrisy is to point it out. However I have noticed virulent opposition on either side to face their own distortions. Point out simple facts and they get angry. They refuse to "condone" anyone excersizing their rights unless they are of the same philosphy as them.

I meant the problem is the method of attacking THE right!! Typo there sorry!!

Heres the basic answer to the "rights people"

Freedom of worship is garanteed constitutionally. If you chose to worship a tomatoe and brought your values with you on your election to an office,that is just the way it goes.While you could not enforce a strict tomatoe worshiping agenda, those that elected you would be fully aware of the effects of your religious leanings and the possible effects of them on public policy. The movement to ban religious agendas isfine. The bigger move seems to be to remove any religious influence, and that my freind is not only impossible, but unconstitutional. Freedom of worship as it is written, not only encourages freedom, it demands it. The fact that religions are codes of ethics,morals,and ways of life is therefore a logical and LEGAL way to use your religious background in decisions you make in not only your work, but your efforts to change public policy. This my freind is a constitutionally protected right, Bush or a tomatoe worshipper if elected can feel free to use their moral values in doing their work. They cannot make you a christian sir, But you cannot make them a tomatonian.

This argument is based in our strong democratic priciples and our constitutional rights. To deny it would deny your own rights.

ITA! I wonder how Christians would feel if we elected a Jewish or Muslim President? If politicians can't rule by the law alone, I suggest they find another line of work.

How can we not make this an issue, when it's thrown in our faces by the Bush supporters all of the time? They're the ones that claim the moral high ground here. The funny thing is , I have yet to see one moral thing come out of any of this Administrations policies. I don't want the likes of Jerry Falwell , shaping our government policies.

May i ask you a question? Do religious people have the right to govern? And if so do they have the right to use their moral and or ethical standards as a tool in doing so? Im not saying make everyone read the bible or follow Christian ethics. I am saying let people (who were elected) use their entire lifes experience and values to govern. If you get elected the people choose you and the things and or issues you stood for. And is it not then legal and required that you follow the morals/ethics/issues to their fruition? This is not only protecting their rights, its protecting yours. Im staying off any hot button issues to keep this as a rights issue only. I cannot demand that I get my rights, without granting others theirs. Its a hard thing to do, But we must do it. These are basic constutional laws being applied here. If you do not like the present leadership work to change it,not by siliencing it or making biased arguments, but by your votes and others like you.

Of course they have a right to seek any kind of employment they desire, but I strongly believe in a separation of church and state. Just like if my child attended a public school , I wouldn't want his teacher talking to him about his religious beliefs. People who support politicians speaking about their faith, would be singing a different tune, if the politician said they believed in worshiping the devil. You can't have it both ways.

We have seperation that is not the issue. The issue Im making is in response to those who are confusing seperation with elimination. Theres quite a difference.
seperation and freedom from opression means you cannot be required to be religious there can be no laws telling you to be religious or act in any certain way.
Elimination is being advocated here in a way. The title is of this post GET RELIGION OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT!! That is absolutely advocating violations of civil rights to practice ones religion isn't it? I do not want this post shut down or silenced, this is a very important issue. The anti-religous sentiment , though understandable, Sometimes crosses civil rights lines itself.

We have a case in Houston right now. It's front page news, and on all the TV stations. People are holding rallies and preaching etc. Of course they are holding flags and calling the whole thing an attack on Jesus and Country. We keep falling into the same trap over and over.

I get accused of being a bad Christion all the time. Why? Because I think that the Bible should be moved to a non government space. It should be moved, but now the neocans have "Proof" that the godless hordes are trying to take the Bible away. It makes for great TV news ratings, but IMO it causes so much backlash that it hurts the cause of freedom.

This will be the only discussion allowed on this subject. Please keep in mind that no attacks on beliefs of any kind will be tolerated. State your point and PLEASE point out what is the best way to keep both Church and State PROTECTED FROM EACH OTHER.

Theres a middle ground, but its never going to be taken till either side stops the accusations and does exactly as the constitution says. You have the right to be religious or not, you have the right to make your decisions in a manner that is supportive of your stance. Your practice of religion or athiesm is your right. You cannot force it on others, but you may use your ideals/morals or ethics in any position you hold elected or not.

I think the author of the post is talking about religious extremist within our government who are influencing policies. One extreme example is The Justice Department issued guidelines for the treatment of rape victims by law enforcement agencies. http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/viewpoin...pevictims.shtml
I don't care who worships what, I just want them to follow the law. Governor Cumo is a Catholic, and he said as long as abortion is legal he's not going to oppose it and he's not going to let his religious beliefs affect his decisions.

This is not abortion issue, its freedom of religion or use of morals issue. Everyone has the right to their opinion.Coumo is a catholic and the death penalty is a law and he opposes it on MORAL grounds, Do we now take him less seriously on those grounds?

I am a Christian. If the Jew or Muslim elected president had good moral character, was competent, had good values, supported good, reasonable, humane policies that I supported, then I would be absolutely overjoyed.

What rational reason would make me feel otherwise?

I agree, there is no reason why the Bible has to be displayed on government property. This IS a separation of Church and State issue.

Again My problem is with the religious extremist within our government who are influencing policies. By the way if they're in fact keeping woman from getting the morning after pill after they were raped, it is an abortion issue. Why would they be opposed to giving victims access to that pill?

I don't want Jerry Falwell shaping our government's policies either, and not because he is "relgious".

On my list of complaints about Falwell, religion is very low on the list.

My problem is with religious exteremists and the exact opposite of them "rights activsts" that choose to try to silence, degrade, and distort anyones words. The freedom of religion thing applies to both sides. The few on either side that want to selectively enforce their own personal morals on others are misusing the constitution. If you are elected on a certain platform, you have the right to try to bring it about. Makes no difference if your christian, muslim, athiest or philosophically based in your ideas. If you want change work for it not by trying to restrict others veiws, but by expressing yours. Its democracy at its best.

I agree, as long as they didn't shove in my face, live and let live.

A politician's beliefs are relevant to the extent that they influence his or her views and policies.

If your "devil worshipping" politician was a religious Satanist who had good values then I might think the religion odd but still support him or her. If "devil worshipping" meant an explicit endorsement of evil or a belief that good and evil were meaningless concepts then I would not support that politician.

With most religions, spiritual belief systems and atheist thought systems such a quandry would not arise, I would have no problem with any of their practitioners based on their beliefs alone. I would look at how they implemented their beliefs in terms of their values, policies and views and moral character.

All I can say is thank God for rights activist. If It weren't for them I wouldn't be able to vote, or have control over my reproductive rights.

I disagree. They should just follow the rule of law. Just like a juror can't reach a verdict based on emotion.

A politician's beliefs are relevant to the extent that they influence his or her views and policies EXACTLY....and if elected by the public that is informed of this politicians ideals(which is the case presently) to then come out and deny his right to let his moral and or ethical codes effect his service is just unconstitutional and impossible. Everyone is effected by their own veiws, to ban them from serving because of their veiws would BAN you or others like you. The argument your using requires we have NO leadership. No one is impartial enough to govern . You have the right to your veiws and use of your moral standards and so do they.

I would shudder at the idea of a politician without some deep emotions like sympathy for the suffering. A cold hearted machine who is mechanically devoted to "the law"? No thanks!

I agree , yet those character traits don't have anything to do with religion.

I would not vote for politicians who did not have at least some conformance to my views, moral and otherwise, as they would affect how that politician would discharge the office and policies supported. I would not expect perfect conformance nor apply a religious test, unless we are talking about some really bizarre religion that influenced that politician to hold really bad ideas as they pertained to his or her actions and positions.

Yet there are religious politicians that draw on their principles to strengthen good qualities that would affect the kind of politician they are. No religious test though, the question is the bottom line of what they would achieve.

I just want people with good character to be in office, regardless of their religious views.

Yes and at times it feels as if the activists want to interpret seperation of church and state to mean only athiesm and its ideals can be truly nuetral or worthy of governing. This is not what forefathers intended, The intended any and all peoples morals/ideals/and wishes to be respected and have a chance to flourish here. A government of the people for the people, not a government of the athiests for the people. I do not here republican conservatives saying athiesm in our government should be banned. I would rise to that contention too. The seperation is not elimination, Its just being mis used that way by some.

The Right has attacked the Left for being secular as if being secular is a bad thing. People just don't want to feel imposed upon. I don't care if you worship a cow, sheep, or dog. Just don't try to influence me with your religious views.

I also think politicians should rule by the law not their beliefs. I'm not saying they should disregard their faith, but the law should always come first. Can you Imagine what this country would be like, if the Supreme Court made rulings based on their religious beliefs rather than the law? That's not the America I would want to live in.

I'm concerned about the spirit of this thread. We have to be careful that in the process of separating church from state that:

1) We don't separate target='_blank'>church from church
2) We don't become overly materialistic
3) We don't become target='_blank'>Religiophobes

You have to be careful of how that sounds. There is a place in American government for religion. It is the hearts of legislators, not the laws themselves.

The source for what we call morals has deep roots in religion.

Secular doesn't mean no religion. It just means not from religion.

You will not find anything because that would be a violation of freedom of religion. Ben Franklin united the churches of the day. He didn't talk them out of religion.

Secular can co-exist with religion. You can even follow both secular and religious doctrine.

Bush and the Lord
Wednesday, Jan 12, 2005; 12:47 PM

President Bush told the Washington Times yesterday he doesn't "see how you can be president without a relationship with the Lord."

"I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit," Bush said.

"That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit.

"On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord."

Bush has often said that he is a religious man who supports freedom of religion, but yesterday may be the first time he has so clearly suggested in his use of words that he harbors the feeling that these two principles are to some degree in conflict.

You don't use the "other hand" construction for two concepts that complement each other. And his suggestion that someone is not qualified to be president unless they are religious is sure to spark some further discussion.

There's another enigmatic quote from the same interview:

"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person," Bush said. "I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is."

James G. Lakely has those quotes and others about Bush and religion in his story in today's Washington Times, one of three articles arising from Bush's 40-minute Oval Office interview yesterday with reporters and editors from the conservative newspaper.

Joseph Curl leads the Washington Times with his story on an issue that is a particular hot-button one for conservatives: Bush's immigration proposal.

"President Bush yesterday said he plans to spend political capital this year to force a debate in Congress on his immigration-reform proposal, and boldly predicted that he will prevail," Curl writes.

" 'You're probably sitting there saying, has the guy bit off more than he can chew? The answer is, we will work as hard as we can to get as much as we can get done, as quickly as possible,' Mr. Bush said."

Bush also notes that he has the power of "the bully pulpit, which I use and like using, frankly."

Curl describes the scene: "The president, whose second term begins in just eight days, was relaxed and confident throughout the 40-minute session. At times he grew animated, gesturing to make a point, as he laid out an expansive agenda in a brief opening statement before taking questions."

Rowan Scarborough and Joseph Curl write in the third Washington Times story: "Despite extended tours of duties in Iraq for soldiers and an Army examination of women's roles, the president told editors and reporters of The Washington Times yesterday in an interview in the Oval Office that he has no intention of sending women into ground combat, a mission for which they are banned under Pentagon policy."

Most of the time, Bush is not particularly forthcoming when he meets with reporters, preferring to take a defensive course in which he relies heavily on statements recycled from prepared scripts.

But it appears that he's a little more relaxed and loquacious when he talks to the Washington Times, the newspaper widely considered conservative in outlook and founded in 1982 by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a self-proclaimed messiah.

Another example, which I wrote about in my May 10 column, was when Bush spoke to Washington Times reporter Bill Sammon with unusual bluntness about how his father had "cut and run early" from Iraq in 1991 -- and how he wouldn't make that mistake himself.

ABC News's Note reports that Bush's next interview comes this afternoon, when he and the first lady sit down with Barbara Walters. It's Bush's first broadcast interview since the election, and will be on ABC's "20/20" on Friday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/polit...ion/whbriefing/

Often the people of good character are people who sincerely try to enlighten and improve themselves through their religion. Not that you cannot have atheists with a humane philosophy do the same thing, only with that philosophy. George Orwell comes to mind. I don't think if Orwell came to America in this time that I would have any problem voting for him.

Make no mistake, I make no bones about claiming that following Christ is the better way to go, BUT, I am not going to argue that here, I've always felt that would be inappropriate in this forum. Anyway, that is just MY belief, I would not try to shove it down anyone's throat, and there happen to be people of very different beliefs for whom I have a lot of respect. And just because this or that religion or atheist philosophy may be "better" (at least in one's opinion) does not mean that people of dramatically different philosophies and/or religions cannot be very worthy, admirable and moral people. I give no preference to Christians in my voting. If the Democrats had nominated a Muslim, Buddhist or atheist with views, experience and character similar to John Kerry I would have voted for that person against George Bush without a second thought.

As far as the question of the law, no one should let their personal views of any sort, religious or otherwise, interfere with any obligation to follow or enforce the law.

Thanks for the post. I tend to be more careful than a lot of people here in attacking Bush's character (not that I've ever had a very high opinion of it) but this certainly attests to narrow-mindedness and hints at grandiosity.

Can you rule by law, while using your moral beliefs to help you change laws?? YES!!

Good point.

You can have faith without legislating faith.

I don't think anyone truly has a problem with someone in leadership having deep religious (or non-religous) values and allowing those values to influence views provided the degree of influence does not become excessive to the point that the legislative repercussions do not include forcing those without the same religious views to live in accordance to them solely due to your religious beliefs.

For example, if our devotee to tomatoism decides to enact legislation against the use of tomato based food products because their religious views include the belief that tomatos are sacred and that belief cannot be substantiated by anything other than religious based arguments.

A site dedicated to separation of church and state issues. Well written position statements, legislative action area, etc.

"Americans United for Separation of Church and State"
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues

If the public agreed to it in a majority way, then democracy would take its course.The simple fact is murder may be said to be bad in someones eyes and good in anothers. A moral decision right? Thankfully 99.9% of americans agree. Murder is illegal. To those who disagree, you must follow the law. Statements like get the religion out of my government, are based on what? That persons beliefs!! He has no right to enforce his completely atheistic veiws on me, or DEMAND a secular government, all the while instating his beliefs. Athiesm is a form of beliefs too.A kind of anti-religious religion. Its fine to vote in the ones that agree with you, but If you losein a democracy, themajority rules. And thank God it does, because in a few years, certain overly conservative on moral issues types will be out voted. Religion is a FORM of morals. It is not a dirty word. If you use any type of Morals, you are as guilty as the religious of enforcing your will on others. To reject the publics elected officials policies simply on the basis of their religion flys in the face of true democracy and rights activism. BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY.

Amen

Example:

I am against the death penalty because God says "thou shall not kill", no line crossed.

target='_blank'>Faith Based-Initiative, line crossed.

Or being against death penalty due to religious or moral beliefs? Its ok, but according to what Im hearing in here, it cannot be ok on other issues. Thats simply unbalanced!! If you ban religion or its influence, then I propose we ban all moral beliefs>So as not to infringe on anyones rights.

Why is it wrong to deny rights? Because its wrong. How do you know its wrong? Because you have morals!! Get your morals out of my government? No way. I want everyone included. Its OF THE PEOPLE, not of the people who agree with me. Each side needs to face that fact!!

Amen \o/