" The US Constitution guarantees freedom of, and, freedom from, religion and more importantly religious ideology.

The 'holy books' of any religion have no place as 'authority' in secular government.

If there is a valid secular reason for a law then religious folks should be happy to frame their arguments for their position without appeals to theology.

Mixing religion and secular government turns America, a land that avoided all sorts of strife and murder into a countries like Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia where religionists kill each other and use the government to oppress minority faiths.

God save us from his 'followers'.

Keep religion out of government.

If you don't 'get it' - just imagine if the particular mix of government enforcement of religious ideology was being proposed by the religion you find most objectionable and intolerant.

For example would you want a law that forbids Christians to get married imposed by Muslims?

~Ruff "

" There won’t always be sources….there more than a few capable of forming opinions based on their own observations and personal knowledge…. "

" Wow, the same statement could be applied to the enviro-religious doctrines of "global warming"..er, "climate change".

..the public’s right to challenge arguments that cite "settled science" when the subject is public policy and those who argue from the authority of "scientific consensus" should expect such challenge and should be prepared to defend their views. Honest debate on public policy deserves scrutiny of the sources of both sides of the argument. "

" I'm happy to discuss both climate change and evolution as theories.

The scientific method works that way...

What doen't work is somebody saying 'God said so and that settles it'.

Keep religion out of secular government.

~Ruff "

" Even a casual reading of the important documents of our country's founding shows that a belief in God is not prohibited. Freedom of religion does not mean no religion at all. What the founders wanted was that there would not be a state religion, and no one would be persecuted for practicing their own religion. Those who twist the Constitution and Bill of Rights around to suit their agenda are often using that as a smokescreen to promote other ideas. To deny any expression of faith based on an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution or Bill of Rights is a massive leap of logic performed by those who fear or hate religion.

We see the same incorrect interpretations being promoted by special interest groups all the time. Shout it loud enough and long enough and some sheep are going to start believing it. No sources will be offered, and if they are, you better not scrutinize them.

This sort of shout it loud and long is used to promote global warming or climate change (it's global warming on a hot day, climate change when it is freezing). We are told by self-appointed leaders and some who post here that "debate is over". We are expected to believe in the religion of global warming without any further scrutiny of their science.

Well, here's a news flash for you: the debate is not over until everyone says it is over. Not just those who are filling their bank accounts with the bounty of selling credits to pollute (the concept is so wrong it boggles the mind that anyone could think it is reasonable). So get used to it because it's not over until it's over. "

" There is nothing wrong with religion in government. Sometimes religious sources have good ideas. Personally, I'm an atheist, but I believe that Christianity has some pretty good ideas for getting along with other people. So does Buddhism. So does Islam.

The problem is when DOGMA sneaks in. When we start making laws because is says so in the Bible or the Koran, then we have a problem. "

" I find myself very much in agreement with Ruff on this one. I am in a long personel exchange of emails with Arthur over the idea of debating the bible when used as a source for an opinion on government policy. While I can totally understand the desire to debate the bible's different tenets, I am just not so sure that the outcome of doing so will result in what he hopes it would result in.
I am having difficulty getting why this would be important or why we should apply this debate to secular government. People can form their ideas where ever they will. In our democracy we do not get to force our religion on governmental laws. When people feel as if this has been done, they have legitimate regress within our laws, and can ask that whatever has happened can be reevaluated. I trust our form of government to uphold the constitution eventually. We do not need to open a debate in regards to our governemnt around the BIBLE. It does not, and should not ever, apply. It also will not stay within the parameters many would hope it would stay in. Talk about opening a huge can of worms with little to be gained..... "

" "When we start making laws because is says so in the Bible or the Koran, then we have a problem. "
And , do you think this is occuring in America? Do you feel this is a real danger that will undermine our constitution? And if so, then isn't there legal means to fight it within our constitution?
I agree that most religions have some great ideas. I have no problem with people forming what they believe from any source they which to form it from. Of course people's beliefs will form their opinions. Debating the source of their beliefs is all well and fine, on an intellectual level, but how does this even enter the realm of OUR government?
Unless we truly felt that "theocratic thought" was going to take over the workings of our government, then I just do not get what all the fuss is about.
I do not see this happening. I see one or two questionable and debatable areas, but in this country we can address that through our constitution. "

" PPF- Nobody said belief in God was prohibited... nice try at a diversion. My compliments!

What is prohibited is a state sanctioned religion.

Our country was founded on the idea that no religion gets to take over the government and use it to dictate that all Americans have to follow their rules.

Murder, assault, theft, and a host of other crimes can be supported without requiring the use of 'holy books' as an authority.

So make a real argument about CIVICs and keep theology out of it.

An example of the basic problem so many religious 'enthusiasts' have is that they can't impose their sexual code on others without using their 'holy book' and that is what is driving this 'debate'.

The New Testament says that Christians should live in the world, but not be a part of the world. How on earth can that be construed to mean that Christians in particular should be involved in politically forcing people to do obey some particular church's teaching about anything.

Politics and religion mix like... gasoline and a match.

~Ruff "

" Actually, Sandra, I was just completing the thought, however, there are a few. Prop 8 is one. The whole evolution vs creationism in the classroom thing is another. It sneaks in from time to time. "

" "Well, here's a news flash for you: the debate is not over until everyone says it is over. Not just those who are filling their bank accounts with the bounty of selling credits to pollute (the concept is so wrong it boggles the mind that anyone could think it is reasonable). So get used to it because it's not over until it's over. "

YEAH! And the moon landing was staged in a warehouse in Vegas. And the Earth is flat and Elvis is alive and well... "

" Ruff-

How can you have honest debate when your very first sentence is false!

Let me help you.

Amendment 1

"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 right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances."

The first part, which you messed up a little, had to do primarily with the church of England headed by the King. Funny, it does not mention separation. it does not mention ideology, you got me there.


I keep a copyu of the constitution with me always. If I can help, I keep extra copies available. They are free at Heritage.org "

" Ruff-


What about the Ten Comandments?

Each one of the comandments acted as a foundation for the laws we enjoy today. Mixed in with the law was some morality, "Honoring thy Father and Mother" "Murder", the actual definition of the hebrew, not "kill", is a crime, so is adultery...they are all crimes.

Funny how our secular world has its morals and laws based in teaching from the Bible.

I pulled out my Hebrew Prayers, Blessings, and Hymns book from 1963, my folks got each of us one when we were little. Guess what the last entry is in this Jewish Prayer Book?????

Give Up?

The Star Spangled Banner, imagine that.

If anyone would like a reference, I am sure that I could give it to Bill K. at the NVR so you could see it. "

" Alex,
Thank you for supporting my letter "Questioning authority, in the spirit of truth-seeking".

It seems like a pretty simple, obvious point we're both making. I wonder why some people don't "get it"? Why do some people have a hard time understanding the reasonableness of and the need for examining any and all arguments made in the public square...? What are your thoughts on the matter? "

" Ruff,
Sandra seems to think she agrees with you. Does she? Do you agree with her? "

" Sandra, you ask,

"do you think this is occuring in America? Do you feel this is a real danger that will undermine our constitution? And if so, then isn't there legal means to fight it within our constitution?"

First, I know from your posts that you think Prop 8 was a travesty of justice, and that you are in favor of same-sex marriage. Well, Prop 8 changed our constitution to include something that you consider to be unjust discrimination.

What "legal means", exactly, are you thinking of when you say "there are legal means to fight it within our constitution". Could you clarify? What do you mean, specifically?

You say that you "just do not get what all the fuss is about". A change (in your view a discriminatory change) to the CONSTITUTION of the most populous state in the union, and the 7th largest economy of the world, containing the very HEART of the gay rights movement for the whole world--San Francisco? And you don't get "what all the fuss is about"?

And can you REALLY deny that one of the most influential arguments being used in public (in the newspapers, over the airwaves, on the internet) to sway voters on that issues was "because the Bible says..."?

Really? "

" and so it has the national anthem in the back of the book, freeport....btw where is the laws from the first four commandment ...like thou shalt have no other gods before me....or the prohibition against graven images... "

" Ruff and Sandra: how can you support any of our basic human rights without admitting that their roots have originated in some form of religious belief structure and/or dogma? No matter how much you sugarcoat it, when you boil it down to its purest elemental substance, it stems from one form of faith or another, which is what defines one's personal ethics and morals. Our country was founded on Christian beliefs by Christian men and women. We are a Christian nation. That does not mean that religion, including Christianity, should dictate what our government does or does not make law. Our nation's founders fully understood this and that is why they not only supported, but demanded separation of church and state. Many Christians understand this all too well, and are just as opposed to, actually terrified of, our government being controlled by any religious entity, including their own. Our constitution in no way states that our nation's citizens have the right to freedom from ever being exposed to religion, or coming into contact with a religious person, or even anything religious being present on public property or within public documentation. It clearly is meant to protect each and every one of us from being persecuted for practicing whatever religion we choose, or not practice any religion if we choose, and from our rights as citizens being determined by the faith we choose to follow, or not to follow. It is no more complicated than that. "

" Ruff-

Let me clarify your statement for you. No other Gods or graven images. False Gods, gosh that is so obvious.

Remember the story of the golden calf while Moses was on Mt. Ararat getting the Ten Commandments from God. when Moses came back the people had built the Golden calf to worship. Moses got all upset and smashed the tablets.

Moses and God were upset because the people had lost their faith. The tablets were replaced and the Jews wandered the desert for 40 years to let the first generation die off.

You see it is a crime in Judaism to bear witness to a false God, a pretender, or false Messiah! "

" and where is the legal counterpart for that, freeport? you said "Each one of the comandments acted as a foundation for the laws we enjoy today".... "

" ruff that was no diversion. I don't need to do that. Re-read my post. Your view appears to be that no expression of religion should be allowed in government. I suppose that means you won't use US currency?

I am not suggesting that laws be based on biblical teachings, although the ten commandments come close to the only 10 laws we really need. Eleven with the golden rule.

But some want to have our laws guided by international opinion or law, and that would be a huge mistake. We absolutely cannot have some bureaucrat in Belgium or Belize dictating how we should live. "

" opinionator,
"how can you support any of our basic human rights without admitting that their roots have originated in some form of religious belief structure and/or dogma?"
I never claimed anything of the sort. I also think that is beside the point. You could also claim that some basic rights originated from philosophers. SO WHAT?
I think you totally miss the point of what I am saying. Because I know very well the history of our founding fathers and their motivation. I also have abosolutely nothing against people following any religion.
BUT, we are not a thocracy, and debating whether religion should influence government policy is out of the question in a secular government. In other words, it is not part of the equation. It is completely out of line to even entertain that possibility. That is what is done in theocracies. We are not, thank God, a theocracy.
Peoples opinions are derived from many sources. I could care less what the sources are. They will form opinions and we cannot control where or how they form them, nor should we.
Pretend we have no religion.... would the problems we have in the world be solved? Do you think people will then quit acting like humans and all get along? There will always be something else popping up to influence people in some way that others don't like.
So why debate whether religion should influence government policy? It is a waste of energy. "

" AMPS,
I believe we have regress through the courts on this matter. I would hope that after the latest decision that those fighting this fight do not give up and continue to appeal. And yes, there should be a fuss about this issue, if you view it as religion setting government policy.
But having a debate on whether religion should influence government policy? PLEASE, in my mind, and according to our constitution, it should not happen. This is not debatable unless you wish to become a theocracy, period.

People have a right to use the bible to form their opinions, but I'll be darned if I am going to debate whether they should use the bible to set government policy. Using scripture to set government policy is out of the question in a secular government.
I happen to think that Prop. 8 goes against our constitution, and takes rights away from a segment of our populace. There is valid reason to continue to fight it's passage on those grounds. "

" Amps,
I know you addressed it to ruff, " Ruff,
Sandra seems to think she agrees with you. Does she? Do you agree with her? "
But I feel compelled to point out that while ruff and I most of the time disagree, I think we both see the danger of allowing religion to form government policy. I think we both see where a debate over this will lead. It undermines our first amendment. A debate about whether religion should influence government policies, opens up the possibility that it SHOULD influence government policies. And even entertaining that idea undermines our first amendment. The only form of government that allows religion to influence government policies is a theocracy. We are not one.
We have a constitution that clearly states how we view religion in this country. What I think we have a problem with is the comprehension of some of our citizens, as to what it says.
There is absolutely nothing that Ruff has said in his first post that I disagree with. "

" Sandra,

Your last few posts are clearer than ever. Well done! That's one reason I like to encourage debate--when done well, and long enough, it clarifies things.

You said, "A debate about whether religion should influence government policies, opens up the possibility that it SHOULD influence government policies. And even entertaining that idea undermines our first amendment. "

But, Sandra, religion IS influencing our government, and always HAS influenced our government, and people DO have different interpretations of the 1st Amendment.

Therefore, debate on the role of religion in our national life (which in this country necessarily involves Christianity and the Bible) is needed; and will always be needed. For the issue will be understood differently by each generation.

You ARE debating it, right here, online. Thank you for following my advice... ;-) "

" The very public campaign against same-sex marriage specifically used "Biblical authority" as part of their argument.

Your counter-argument is that such an argument should not even be made.

But it IS being made.

Put yourself in the position of a Jew in Hitler's Germany. You'd hear the Bible referenced as supporting the idea that Jews were "Christ-killers"; and you'd hear arguments based on some of Hitler's own writings (e.g. Meing Kampf).

How can ideas be dealt with if you cannot mention their sources, or deal with their sources? It is the perceived authority of the source itself that provides much of the "persuasive power" behind the argument.

To ignore the sources of ideas being debated and promoted in the public square is simply irrational. If the Bible can be shown to be inconsistent in its portrayal of "marriage", for example, then the arguments against same-sex marriage which appeal to the Bible's supposedly "consistent" standards of marriage lose some of their persuasive power. And THAT is an important gain for "our" side.

I realize you think that this is giving legitimacy to the idea that the Bible SHOULD influence governmnet policy, and that you would prefer that we never "even entertain that idea".

But I see the reflexive (and ill-informed) use of the Bible as a kind of virus in our collective consciousness, and it is worth "examining"--in order to become better-informed, and to remain vigilant...

For whether or not you would prefer that it not be "entertained", it IS being entertained.

So, let us debate, and examine. And your voice for a strong view of separation of church and state is an important part of that debate. "

" Amps,
I absolutely am not debating the tenets of any religion.
I debate actions taken, not the ideas that formed the actions.
There is a HUGE difference. "

" I happen to think that Prop. 8 goes against our constitution, and takes rights away from a segment of our populace. There is valid reason to continue to fight it's passage on those grounds. "

Sandra wrote on Jul 9, 2009 10:05 AM:
" Amps,
I absolutely am not debating the tenets of any religion.
I debate actions taken, not the ideas that formed the actions.
There is a HUGE difference. "

Bravo. I will continue to fight it as will many others across our state and nation, even when we are tired, even when people within our own community tell us to give up. I too know that it inherently goes against the constitutional protections and that in that atrocity we will find a way back to justice and back to love. "

" Sandra,

So, you won't fight racism, sexism, and homophobia? Those are IDEAS, Sandra.

It's just plain silly to say you won't debate ideas. That you'll only debate "actions". You can't debate an "action". You can only debate the action's correctness, the constitutionatity, the validity, the soundness, etc. etc. And that is to debate IDEAS. And you cannot rationally debate ideas without reference to the worldviews which inform and define those ideas.

Ideas matter. And the sources of those ideas matter. They cannot be separated.

More specifically, when a religion makes its tenets part of the public debate, and puts forth its tenets as "facts" or as "arguments" designed to affect public policy, then the religionists have stepped out of the sphere of private religion and into the sphere of the public square.

To allow such "facts" and "arguments" to go unchallenged in the public sphere is to abdicate the responsibilities of citizenship. Even if it is only to do what you are doing, namely, to say that such "facts" and "arguments" should not even be "entertained" in the public square due to the secular nature of our republic--even THAT is to do exactly what I am advocating. See?

So, again, thank you for following my advice. ;-) "

" Amps,
I know you do not understand what I am saying. You have made that very clear. I am beginning to think that having an understanding of what I am saying is just not possible for you. But if it makes you feel better to lump me into what you advocate, then you may do so, no matter how wrong you are. I cannot control this.
In fact it illustrates the futility of trying to “debate” you away from a mind set that is your “basic constitution”.
BECAUSE, you original premise said, "The nature of the Bible and the role it should play in our national life should, therefore, be a subject of open national debate and collective investigation.”
I have a problem with the phrase, “The nature of the Bible ..” I have no issue with debating actions taken that affect others, and whether they are legitimate, or justified. I have issue with debating the “basic constitution” of this book, because I think it is a useless undertaking. I think you would have better results banging your head against a wall.
I also think that in trying to debate the basic nature of the Bible that you become emeshed in detail and lose sight of the issues that need addressing. I have said in the past, that while it may be intellectually stimulating to have a debate on the nature of the Bible, when applying this debate to current issues you most likely will become lost in the forest..... "

" Sandra,
It's not that I don't understand you.
It's that I disagree with you.

We do agree on one thing: we both think the other is constitutionally unable to understand our point of view.

I don't see any point of furthur discussion with you on this topic.

I look forward to discussions on other topics, however! "

" amps,
I agree with the last post. If you understood this, then why did you on two ocassions insist I was following your advice? I cannot follow advice I disagree with. It would be stupid on my part. I will get to the 2 emails you sent. I've just been real busy...haven't even had the time to read them....lol, they are REALLY long....I need all my wits about me to digest them. "

" My advice was to DEBATE the issue. You have DEBATED it. Therefore, you have followed my advice. "