Obama Violating Separation of Church and State?

[East of Eden]

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/22/i ... obamacare/

In light of the above link, the questions for debate are:

1. Is Obama violating the separation of church and state?

2. Would it be OK if a Republican president urged pastors to work against same-sex marriage initiatives?

3. Aren't churches supposed to keep out of partisan political battles to maintain their tax-exempt status?

[East of Eden]

Not saying he is, just noting the hypocrisy of the left who are fine with this but criticize conservatives for doing the same thing with issues they don't like.

The separation of church and state inherently causes politicians to be hypocritical. They cannot make laws regarding the establishment of their faith or limiting the practice of faiths not of their own. So where then should they draw their support for creating law? What if it contradicts their faith? Should they not act to benefit the people if their actions would be contradictory to their religion?

If they value their identity as a politician over their identity as a Christian, the honest thing would be to repudiate their religion openly instead of trying to play both sides of the fence.

The ability to govern without the prejudice of ones own faith makes the perfect politician. The problem is they are thus hypocrites. But is that a bad thing? I would rather have a religious hypocrite running the country than a religious zealot.

Secular, atheist zealots killed far more in the last century than religion ever did.

Was ML King a religious zealot? William Wilberforce? They both created quite a stir in the political world due to their Christian convictions. Perhaps you would agree with Lord Melbourse, speaking in regards to Wilberforce's anti-slave trade campaign, who said, "Things have come to a pretty pass, when one should permit one's religion to invade public life."

Mao and Stalin.... here we go again.

Hitler and the crusades and the inquisition and on and on and on...

Must we degrade the discussion down to who kills more? Really?

MLK was religious... and so were the men he was fighting against. What of it? The people instituting segregation were just as religious. Violation of civil rights has been condoned by religions time and time again.

It is all a giant hot mess and our founder fathers got it right when they wrote into the constitution that religion needs to be parked outside.

Not quite what they said, they said Congress can't establish an official church. We have separation of church and state, not of faith and state.

[McCulloch]

Not quite what they said, they said Congress can't establish an official church. We have separation of church and state, not of faith and state.

The courts have ruled otherwise. Do you have any support for your interpretation from any recognized expert on US constitutional law or US legal rulings?

[East of Eden]

Not quite what they said, they said Congress can't establish an official church. We have separation of church and state, not of faith and state.

The courts have ruled otherwise. Do you have any support for your interpretation from any recognized expert on US constitutional law or US legal rulings?

Then why do we have congressional and military chaplains, why is our national motto as it is, and why does congress and the SCOTUS begin with a benediction? I could go on and on.

[Board]

Then why do we have congressional and military chaplains, why is our national motto as it is, and why does congress and the SCOTUS begin with a benediction? I could go on and on.

Because religious people have been advancing their own agenda in our government unchecked. Our "motto" was not instituted until what, the 1956?

from wiki answers

The Supreme Court ruled on this issue in Marsh v. Chambers[1] in 1983, finding that the opening prayer is not an "establishment of religion" prohibited by the 1st amendment, but merely "a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

Congressional and military Chaplains is something that has been controversial since James Madison first spoke out against it as an attempt to establish a state religion.

[East of Eden]

Because religious people have been advancing their own agenda in our government unchecked. Our "motto" was not instituted until what, the 1956?

What religious people, us? 90%+ of Americans believe in God, acknowledgement of God didn't come down from aliens from outer space.

The Great Seal of the US has been in existance since 1782. According to one of the Founders, "The Eye over it & the motto Annuit Coeptis allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause."

The Supreme Court ruled on this issue in Marsh v. Chambers[1] in 1983, finding that the opening prayer is not an "establishment of religion" prohibited by the 1st amendment, but merely "a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

In other words, we have no separation of faith and state.

Congressional and military Chaplains is something that has been controversial since James Madison first spoke out against it as an attempt to establish a state religion.

To a few, perhaps. We have 200+ years of established precedent in this regard. One of the first acts of the first Continental Congress was to establish a national day of prayer, so I doubt they would have a problem with chaplains.

[McCulloch]

Then why do we have congressional and military chaplains, why is our national motto as it is, and why does congress and the SCOTUS begin with a benediction? I could go on and on.

The justification for congressional chaplains is beyond me.
Military chaplains are there to provide a service to military personnel who have been asked by their government to be away from their homes and communities. It is not the establishment of religion.
Your national motto was only recently created as a reaction against the godless communists during the cold war.
As to the ceremonial use of benedictions for all three branches of your government, it is an anomaly, an anachronism, a meaningless ritual.

[East of Eden]

Then why do we have congressional and military chaplains, why is our national motto as it is, and why does congress and the SCOTUS begin with a benediction? I could go on and on.

The justification for congressional chaplains is beyond me.
Military chaplains are there to provide a service to military personnel who have been asked by their government to be away from their homes and communities. It is not the establishment of religion.
Your national motto was only recently created as a reaction against the godless communists during the cold war.

As I said above, the Great Seal of the US has had a reference to God since 1782.

As to the ceremonial use of benedictions for all three branches of your government, it is an anomaly, an anachronism, a meaningless ritual.

And you know it is meaningless to everyone else how? I think you're projecting.

[Wyvern]

The Great Seal of the US has been in existance since 1782. According to one of the Founders, "The Eye over it & the motto Annuit Coeptis allude to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause."

If the founders actually wanted to explicitely put god in the motto then they would have kept the original one which translated says god favors us forever instead of what made it as our motto which translates as he favors our undertaking. I think the real reason the motto ended up the way they were is because the designer of the great seal was more than likely reading or had just finished reading Virgil from which both mottoes in the seal come from. Also of course many of the founders were masons which is another reason for the iconography being as it is on the seal.

Congressional and military Chaplains is something that has been controversial since James Madison first spoke out against it as an attempt to establish a state religion.

To a few, perhaps. We have 200+ years of established precedent in this regard. One of the first acts of the first Continental Congress was to establish a national day of prayer, so I doubt they would have a problem with chaplains.

Just because it has been done a certain way for a long time does not mean that it should continue that way in perpetuity. The world has changed a lot in the last 200+ years and our traditions have to change with the times

[East of Eden]

If the founders actually wanted to explicitely put god in the motto then they would have kept the original one which translated says god favors us forever

That would have been illogical. God will favor us only as long as we honor Him. From a Christian perspective an argument can be made that our recent troubles (9/11, wars not going so well, terrible economy, etc.) are a result of our nation rejecting God, at least by some. The same pattern can be seen in the Old Testament nation of Israel that went though constant cycles of Godliness and apostasy, with the Godly parts being short-lived and exceptional. God used outside forces to discipline Israel and bring her back to Him.

As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.�

instead of what made it as our motto which translates as he favors our undertaking. I think the real reason the motto ended up the way they were is because the designer of the great seal was more than likely reading or had just finished reading Virgil from which both mottoes in the seal come from. Also of course many of the founders were masons which is another reason for the iconography being as it is on the seal.

And many were Christians who regularly and explicity referenced their faith.

Just because it has been done a certain way for a long time does not mean that it should continue that way in perpetuity. The world has changed a lot in the last 200+ years and our traditions have to change with the times

We have both an early and late example of God being referenced in a national motto. If you want to try and say most people now want to remove such references (not true, by the way), go ahead and try, but what I reject is the dishonest attempt to rewrite history and turn the Founders into some kind of ACLU wannabes.

[Wyvern]

If the founders actually wanted to explicitely put god in the motto then they would have kept the original one which translated says god favors us forever

That would have been illogical. God will favor us only as long as we honor Him.

Which does not take away from the fact that if the founders actually wanted to explicitly include a reference to a specific god they easily could have done so. Okay technically they did refer to a specific god just not the christian one since the motto is part of a prayer to Jupiter.

From a Christian perspective an argument can be made that our recent troubles (9/11, wars not going so well, terrible economy, etc.) are a result of our nation rejecting God, at least by some.

According to some christians such as Pat Robertson everything bad that happens anywhere in the world is caused by people rejecting god, except all the tornadoes in the bible belt they never mention those for some reason.

instead of what made it as our motto which translates as he favors our undertaking. I think the real reason the motto ended up the way they were is because the designer of the great seal was more than likely reading or had just finished reading Virgil from which both mottoes in the seal come from. Also of course many of the founders were masons which is another reason for the iconography being as it is on the seal.

And many were Christians who regularly and explicity referenced their faith.

Are you trying to say the eye in the pyramid is a christian symbol and not masonic?

We have both an early and late example of God being referenced in a national motto. If you want to try and say most people now want to remove such references (not true, by the way), go ahead and try, but what I reject is the dishonest attempt to rewrite history and turn the Founders into some kind of ACLU wannabes.

It is just as dishonest to try to rewrite history and turn the founding fathers into fundamentalist christians.