Hardly. “the safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.” is basically just an elaborated retread of ‘In God We Trust’. The SC has already ruled the ceremonial deism doesn’t count as establishment of a religion.
That still doesn’t make it a religion.
No, system of beliefs != religion. Religion implies that there is a scripture, and some kind of organization/community. Something can be a religion and not be theistic, like Buddhism, or it can be theistic without being religious.
I think it makes more of a thunk than a poof, really.
Really? So the wiccans didn’t have a religion until they wrote the Book of Shadows, or whatever they have? The last Catholic standing will cease to be a catholic when his last peer dies?
We can both agree that the word is really poorly defined. I elect not to agree with your more limited definition.
No, it goes further than Ceremonial Deism (which is bullshit, theocratic judicial activism anyway). It makes a definitive statement of belief about a particular deity, and attempts to force others to acknowledge that belief as fact.
I don’t know the precise origins of Wicca but as I understand it there was no religion of Wicca until the twentieth century though they cribbed a lot of their beliefs from prior belief systems.
Ok. Maybe one of the forum’s linguists can weigh into this. As I understand it the root of religio has something to do with it’s social parameters.
From Wikipedia FWIW.
I don’t see how a scripture is necessary, even if that includes texts orally transmitted in pre-literate societies. And a single person can have religious beliefs, without sharing those with others and hence without being part of a community. (Did the Prophet’s beliefs constitute a religion before he converted anyone else to Islam?: I think they did.)
Atheism isn’t a religion either, but you would get very upset if the Government made an official declaration that God does not exist.
See post #37.
Wait, I’m confused.
Who’s Ed, and where’s he running?
It’s from a Latin word meaning to “bind, tie, fasten.”
Figuratively, it meant to be bound by a duty.
The language that Kentucky wanted to include, particularly the words “dependence” and “reliance” by the government of Kentucky on God indicate an interventionist God, not a deistic Divine Watchmaker. These statements more than imply that without a very specific Almighty God, Kentucky would not exist or be able to continue existing. Far more than a mere ceremonial slogan.
From M-W FWIW
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
IMHO theistic belief that includes a sufficient system of beliefs about the God to be able to distinguish him from, say, a hassock, would satisfy 4, and also 1b2. 2 also distputes that a personal set of beliefs is not sufficient.
Sure, it usually means that posse of peeps in that big building over there with the symbol next to the door. But not always, and certainly not enough to say I’m wrong in using it otherwise.
Talk about God outside of religion is like talking about a hamburger outside of a bun.
Mmm… open-face belief system…
Establishing ‘In God We Trust’ as the national motto.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.+Con.+Res.+411:
Yes, **begbert2 **and **Punoqllads **have it.
“God” is a religious concept because it is only due to a set of beliefs that the capital G is required. Having a Big G God means having a religion, regardless of the number of believers or their systematization.
This link is to a resolution, not a law. The House in particular passes all sorts of odd or curious resolutions all the time, precisely because they are symbolic and do not actually do anything. It certainly isn’t a stamp of approval from the Supreme Court that the “In God We Trust” means what the resolution says it means or that placing this kind of language in an actual statute that requires government actors to take make certain public statements is constitutional.
By the way, I’ve never quite gotten the proponents of ceremonial deism. Their side of the court cases seems to be a two-part argument:
- This is a vitally important issue - you’ll take our references to God when you pry them from our cold, dead hands. It is absolutely imperative that these references be protected to preserve, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!
and
- Meh, it doesn’t really mean much. Just an empty habit really.
At least the Kentucky fruit loops seem to be slightly more consistent fruit loops.
Care to point out why? Or is it just because you say so?
They mean the God in the Declaration of Independence, which most liberals have argued is NOT an endorsement of Christianity, but simply of a Creator God. and that God has been an accepted part of our government. Just look at our currency.