Seperation of church and state....

....doesn't mean a politician becomes an atheist in office.

Seriously, that's how proponents of separating religion from government often seem to treat the issue.. Everyone has to pretend they're an atheist, as any expressed religious views are tantamount to government promoting a religious view at the expense of other religions...

Which is just ridiculous. I'd expect a Christian, or one of Islamic belief, or Jewish, or a Buddhist, or any other faith out there, to maintain their faith in office, and for that faith to shape their public policy.. It's unreasonable to expect them to switch their faith off, just because they're performing government work.

I'm sorry, what world do you live in?

Politicians of all political parties in all Western nations constantly speak about their personal faith and its impact on their political decisions.

[QUOTE=13503086]Originally posted by cdtm
[B]....doesn't mean a politician becomes an atheist in office.

"Seriously, that's how proponents of separating religion from government often seem to treat the issue.. Everyone has to pretend they're an atheist, as any expressed religious views are tantamount to government promoting a religious view at the expense of other religions... "

Excuse my French, Cdtm, but that is total b.s.

Here in the USA you cannot begin to have a snowball's chance in a hot furnace of being elected without stating your religion and it had better be Christian if you want any votes. An atheist, agnostic, non-religious or person of a religion other than Christian can't even get a whiff at holding office in this country.

I wish we DID have true separation of church and state. We have "In God We Trust" on our money, our Congressional sessions open with a prayer, Govt. money even goes to some religious institutions and religious schools - that's taxpayer money from people that that particular religion may even condemn if those people are of some other religion, no religion, or homosexual, and we're constantly dealing with religion encroaching on our public schools and legal system.

to be fair, the "in god we trust" or prayer things aren't really that problematic...

separation of church and state, as cdtm says, doesn't mean that the elected officials can't behave in a religious manner, but rather, they cannot restrict the religious freedoms of people in the nation. Having the word God on money hardly does that, unless your religious freedom is somehow infringed by it being there?

separation from church and state means you don't have to be of a church, to be of a state. You can be either, both or neither.

the only people I can think of that might have a legitimate claim against "in god we trust" on money would be those like Jehovah's Witnesses, who, afaik, think even modest forms of idolatry are totally sacrilegious

however, if the state mandated policy in such a way that it didn't offend any religious traditions, that would be a specific violation of church and state. (forcing society to conform to specific religious traditions). For atheists, agnostics or non-believers to have a legitimate claim that the word "god" infringes on their rights, they would have to believe something akin to religion about the word itself. The word God on money is in no way forcing someone to accept that religious tradition, and the economy itself is such an areligious space that it would hardly matter if currency was covered in religious iconography.

The only possible exception I can see would be if it cost more somehow to put religious symbols on the money, so like, if the government were spending extra to have "in god we trust" there, which would mean your tax dollars are going to specifically religious things, rather than just money printing in general.

Originally posted by inimalist
to be fair, the "in god we trust" or prayer things aren't really that problematic...

separation of church and state, as cdtm says, doesn't mean that the elected officials can't behave in a religious manner, but rather, they cannot restrict the religious freedoms of people in the nation. Having the word God on money hardly does that, unless your religious freedom is somehow infringed by it being there?

Behaving in a religious manner by an elected official should be a private matter, not included as part of his/her job. We don't generally open the business day at our jobs with a prayer - but a session of Congress is. And when the President accepts his job - he's sworn in on the Bible - can you imagine being asked to do that at your place of work.

Having the word God on money infringes on those who don't believe in a deity, but personally it doesn't matter that much to me. And no, I'm not an atheist.

However, my main point was - in this country (USA) you HAVE TO HAVE some stated Christian faith or you can simply forget about running for office. A non-religious person would have no chance whatsoever of gaining public office. Want to get elected to Congress? House of Representatives? President? - then you'd better get your butt to a house of worship and become a member el pronto - and you probably had better plan ahead - because a quick conversion might not be believable to the voters.

Originally posted by CloverQuick
And when the President accepts his job - he's sworn in on the Bible - can you imagine being asked to do that at your place of work.

President's are only expected to swear on a bible, it's not required.

They can affirm rather than swear, and Theo Roosevelt and one of the Adamses didn't use a bible. Nixon used two bibles for some reason.

Originally posted by CloverQuick
Having the word God on money infringes on those who don't believe in a deity

It's hard to call it an infringement. An irritation to a few people, maybe.

Originally posted by CloverQuick
Having the word God on money infringes on those who don't believe in a deity

how?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nixon used two bibles for some reason.

Power swearing, man.

Originally posted by CloverQuick
Having the word God on money infringes on those who don't believe in a deity.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
When phrases like "God damn it" or "Oh my God" are said by people don't believe in a deity, it infringes on the rights of those who do.

that isn't what everyone else says?

If atheists were actually interested in the scientific method rather than just sperging out over creationism, they would accept racial differences in IQ.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
If atheists were actually interested in the scientific method rather than just sperging out over creationism, they would accept racial differences in IQ.

An Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress.
I guess Congress is God and it's own church

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
President's are only expected to swear on a bible, it's not required.

They can affirm rather than swear, and Theo Roosevelt and one of the Adamses didn't use a bible. Nixon used two bibles for some reason.

I am embarrassed to say I did not know that.

Thank you for the information, Symmetric Chaos.

Originally posted by alltoomany
I guess Congress is God and it's own church

LOL! They certainly act like they are sometimes!

LOL! I LOVED the cartoon, Lucius.

Originally posted by inimalist
how?

Actually Symmetric Chaos wording is better than mine - more an irritant than infringing on rights.