# Seperation of church and state **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2003, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071 "2003-07-17T05:11:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/61 "2003-07-20T03:31:15Z")
**ronbo** , it is inconsistent logically for you to simultaneously have recursive (or even flawed/nonsensical, as shown by **Diogenes** ) “cites” and 'facts", while simultaneously requiring cites for anything you don’t know. However, in the interest of refuting your points for our viewing audience, we forge on: > [@](#): > > Cite? What harm? Can you prove it? Unless and until a valid cite is presented for the premise, the conclusion is false on the basis that it relies upon an unproven premise. Well, I suppose I could cite the whole “this government endorses christianity, and many christians have hurt me” argument, and further cite a testimonial of mine, but I’m pretty sure you’d call that anecdotal. I don’t have an academic citation to back up my claim of being hurt inasmuch as I’ve never been in one. However, the premise that “Pursuit of Happiness does not cause harm to anyone else, it should not be illegal” is unsubstantiated. IE just because you assert that something is valid does not necessitate its validity. > [@](#): > > “We hold these Truths to be self-evident”. Ah, good. You know how to type that phrase. Now show what bearing it has on the meaning you attach to it. I posit to you that the DoI is not commonly regarded as a higher power/god figure. It was the written establishment of our rebellion/separation from Europe. It is not a deity. > [@](#): > > I only regret that Jefferson was wrong Jefferson did not say “these truths are evident.” He said, and I quote: > [@](#): > > We hold these truths to be self-evident The two statements are NOT logically identical nor, for these purposes, conflatable. > [@](#): > > nodope posits: > But am I wrong in thinking that most all popular religions believe in “A” god or a “God-Like” person? If we were to use God in a general sence then how could it be monotheism? Many religions profess a faith in a singular deity. Many do not. If we use God in a general sense meaning a higher power (which is coupled with the meaning that it is a religious symbol, inasmuch as absent things like “goddamnit” and such, which have become commonplace to the point where many do not realize what they are saying, one does not reference God without intending to convey a religious/higher power definition), we necessarily use it in a religious fashion, unless you’d like to posit that there is a definition of God independent of a religious or “higher power” (which is a religious belief) sense. > [@](#): > > And for that matter how could we say using God in anything relating to the government(currency and pledge of allegance). In God We Trust is this country’s national motto, and which is printed on paper money (E Pluribus Unum [Out of many, one] is on coins). As of yet this has been held by SCOTUS decisions to be … what’s the term, nonspecific religious belief? The Pledge of Allegience was, interestingly enough, not originally written with any religious observation. “under God” was added to it in the 1950s during the second Red Scare because of the belief (at the time) that communists were also atheists. That these things exist and are permitted in this society does not necessitate the conclusion that they are based on an accurate reading of the law involved. > [@](#): > > And based on the def. ronbo gave, god “could” be used as a scientific “place holder” for the unknown creative force for humans and all things. **ronbo** did not define God properly in that he did not cite factual information proving his assertation regarding same’s said existence ( **Dio** posted in response to his creation bit and did a proper job, I’d say). He posted that because we exist now, God must have created us. This is fallacious argumentation, because he did not present valid premises that necessitate his posted conclusion. And I’ll ask for a scientific cite on the notion that God is a scientific concept recognized by the scientific community as the generally-regarded cause of the existence of all things (personal/religious beliefs are not a scientific cite; they are anecdotal information, which is not being requested. If I want to go looking for scientists who are Christian, I know where to find them:)). > [@](#): > > Then again I just have a high school education and don’t study anything on this subject, so can someone point out where I am wrong, or right? Not a problem in the least. Desire to learn is contagious and always good to see, and I personally (as long as you consider me anything of an educator;)) am flattered to be asked. IMNSHO, if you are able to keep your zeal for learning, your willingness to be corrected and accept correction, and your admissions of failure (which are nothing to be ashamed of in the least:)), you will find great success here. **Dio** , if’t seems I’m treading on your toes here sorry 'bout that. I think I have some points [b[ronbo\*\* (and **nodope** could do to see:) > [@](#): > > The Ideals of the Declaration of Independence are a “Self-Evident Truth”. See above re: "We hold these truths to be self-evident. [/quote] They believed they were. > [@](#): > > The Laws in the Declaration of Independence are not Self-evident to everybody, Relevant portion of the DoI: > [@](#): > > WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness… [Cite](http://memory.loc.gov/const/declar.html) They are truths, not laws. The only reference to laws in the entire document deal with the King of Great Britain, not the bit quoted above. I think you are making a scrambled argument. > [@](#): > > They have Moral Authority and they have the legal authority given to them by the Ninth Ammendment. The 9th Amendment and the DoI do not interrelate, at least not in this instance; that is, the one does not affect the other. The 9th Amendment: > [@](#): > > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. IOW, the constitution said nothing about walking on your hands at midnight in your own home. Per Amendment 9, its lack of stating such cannot be construed as refusal of permission to do so. The Declaration of Independence, to repeat, is and was a document announcing separation from GB (Great Britain) for reasons detailed and outlined in same document. It was written before the United States as it was known even post-Revolutionary War existed. They were _colonies_. It did not detail specific laws or rights except in discussing their inherent right to rebel, etc. More later if I am here. I must off elsewhere for now. ---
**Author:** ![nodope4us](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/278dde/32.png) [@nodope4us](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nodope4us)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/62 "2003-07-20T03:39:51Z")
Diogenes, I implied(although not as well as I entended after re-reading what I wrote) that some religions do not believe in “God” but in a “god like” person(i.e. buddhism believe in the teachings of buddha), I also said, “And based on the def. ronbo gave, god “could” be used as a scientific “place holder” for the unknown creative force for humans and all things.” I have NOT been able to find his deffinition of god. My statement was hypothetical. When you said > [@](#): > > Existence does not prove “creation.” . Did you mean creation of my by god, or creation of my through life bearing processes? ---
**Author:** ![nodope4us](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/278dde/32.png) [@nodope4us](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nodope4us)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/63 "2003-07-20T03:53:20Z")
I am in no way ashamed to admit my mistakes, I am not saying what everyone here is saying is the truth to the fullest meaning, I am taking everything, comparing it to what I hear and read from experts, and weigh the discussion. I am asking for everyones input, both sides of the argument because there are bound to be false statements on both sides.(intentional or not) My point of agreement with rondo was not that I thought he was right about everything, it was more of saying IF(the big kind) he was right then what? But I have not seen his definition of god ANYWHERE. I think “In God we trust” and “Under God” should stay out of tradition, and removing those from currency and the pledge would be a sad day for america. Oh and on my last post that my on the last sentence shouldn’t be there(if u didnt guess) ---
**Author:** ![ronbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@ronbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ronbo)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/64 "2003-07-20T04:20:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*All Quotes Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \*\* > It would be strictly constitutional (though obviously abhorent) to abridge or repeal the first amendment. Why would it be obviously abhorent? If this were done through “legal” means? What are you basing this on? You don’t believe in the Self-Evident Rights of the Declaration of Independence. You don’t believe in Science that says the Universe was “brought into existence” (created) in the Big Bang. You believe that the Grand Unified Theory of Physics is Monotheistic. I think maybe you argue just to argue. I think maybe its to my credit that you disagree with me. > [@](#): > > It’s easy. “Congress shall pass **no law** …” The separation is absolute. There’s nothing to debate. And yet if we repeal that Ammendment, then it is legal for the State to pass laws that sponsor a specific religion and you have no clue to the basis of why that is abhorent. > [@](#): > > That’s debateable as a definition (there are gods who are not "creators) but it’s irrelevant anyway since your definition still carries an implied statement of faith. Faith does not necessarily imply religion. I have faith in the Laws of Nature. Oh, I guess I can’t prove they exist either. I don’t have a cite. > [@](#): > > Your personal definition of God has no bearing on the argument. The word is religious. Period. def:. [Religion](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion): A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. The fact that the Universe came into existance (was created) many billion years ago is not a set of values and practices. I concede that the definition of Religion in the First Ammendment is not necessarily clear. What is your definition and where is your proof that your definition is the one? > [@](#): > > While I may agree that our laws have become more evolved and enlightened, that is still an opinion, and moreover, it’s a state sanctioned opinion on a _religious_ statement, so even your disclaimer would be unconstitutional. Please explain how the disclaimer is unconstitutional. It neither establishes nor prohibits free exercise of religion. > [@](#): > > Why don’t we start by ceasing to inject theism into the government. I hate to admit it, but we do agree on something. How come **nodope4us** who only graduated high school and thinks he’s not necessarily intelligent gets it and you don’t? ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/65 "2003-07-20T04:21:59Z")
**nodope** , I believe we are in agreement about paragraphs 1 and 2 of your post. And I was a little bit confused in re: “my by God”, so it’s good to know I don’t have to try to make sense of that:D;) ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/66 "2003-07-20T04:26:19Z")
> [@](#): > > I think “In God we trust” and “Under God” should stay out of tradition, and removing those from currency and the pledge would be a sad day for america. With regards to “under God” in the pledge, those words were added in 1954. I’m hard-pressed to see what exactly is so sad about getting rid of the words, seeing as how they’ve only been there for 49 years. “In God We Trust” on the money did not appear until 1864. I suppose this can qualify as a tradition, since that’s a pretty long time ago. However, personally, I wish they would take it off the money. I think it’s somewhat sacrilegious to have it on there. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/67 "2003-07-20T04:32:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nodope4us \* > **Diogenes, I implied(although not as well as I entended after re-reading what I wrote) that some religions do not believe in “God” but in a “god like” person(i.e. buddhism believe in the teachings of buddha), I also said, “And based on the def. ronbo gave, god “could” be used as a scientific “place holder” for the unknown creative force for humans and all things.” I have NOT been able to find his deffinition of god. My statement was hypothetical.** Buddha is not a “god-like” figure in Buddhism. He was purely human. I think its a stretch to call “teachings” “God,” and how would the teachings of Buddha have any relationship to the meaning of “God” as it is expressed in western religion? Moreover, there are religions which don’t even have a figure akin to Buddha, no iconoc human at all. Taoism doesn’t. Lastly, even your modified definition of “God” still leaves out atheists, agnostics, and polytheists. > [@](#): > > \*\*Did you mean creation of my by god, or creation of my through life bearing processes? \*\* I don’t know what you mean by “life bearing forces.” “Creation” implies a conscious or deliberate act. There is no evidence that the existence of the universe is the result of a conscious act. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/68 "2003-07-20T04:39:35Z")
**ronbo** , I think you might be engaging in the debate equivalent of shadowboxing. I do not believe it to be correct that **Diogenes** is a creationist, for one, nor that he rejects Scientific theory regarding the Big Bang. Two points quickly, and then I am off to bed. > [@](#): > > Faith does not necessarily imply religion. I have faith in the Laws of Nature. Oh, I guess I can’t prove they exist either. I don’t have a cite. The laws of nature can be proven to be true through scientific research. That is not faith but scientific, observable and observed, documentable and documented truth. Faith in religion ultimately rests on belief in some truths, but it is not objective truth because it is within the confines of that religion. It does not mass muster in the same way science does. Thus your faith analogy is fallacious because the meanings of “faith” are not identical to each other in each statement. Your disclaimer: > [@](#): > > The Ten Commandments are a historically significant example of Early Laws. If they are placed on public property, there should be a disclaimer that our laws have Evolved beyond Religious laws to Enlightened laws. Firstly this directly implies that our laws were once religious laws. As we are not a country whose official government is a church, our laws are not purely religious in nature (some of them have root in, among other things, laws also found in Judaism and Christianity, but are not exclusive to those religions). I think you might find, if you stopped arguing using strawmen to prove your point, that you and **Diogenes** agree. The other possibility, given the at-times split personality quality of your posts, is that you are extremely confused (which meshes with your mistaken use of DoI and BoR). ---
**Author:** ![nodope4us](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/278dde/32.png) [@nodope4us](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nodope4us)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/69 "2003-07-20T05:32:07Z")
Bright, how do you find it sacrilegious? Diogenes, you are completely right about my usage. Life bearing forces such as the ones that made life appear from nothing. Creation only “Implies” a concious or deliberate act in one of its definitions; 1. The “act” of creating, but in another it isn’t implied, 2. Something that is created. 3. all things in the world. But if you would prefer I seperate my thinking of “creation” differently then how about, the coming of existance of life throught whatever means there were(long I know) and the “Formation” of the universe. Maybe I should start elaborating more. ---
**Author:** ![ronbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@ronbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ronbo)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/70 "2003-07-20T05:35:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Originally posted by BrightNShiny \*\* > Grand Unified Theory is not a “cause” for existence. If it is found, it will be (just like all other scientific theories) a predictive model of existence. Since we do not yet know the Grand Unified Theory, we do not know if it will tell us about the cause of the Big Bang, how our universe was created. > [@](#): > > If something did “cause” us to exist, then this thing is outside the physical universe. Science is only concerned with the physical universe. We exist. Are you saying the Big Bang happened without a cause? For no reason? That sounds supernatural to me. I believe that physical, natural laws existed “before” the Big Bang and caused the Big Bang and that someday we might be able to understand them. But I also know that we are now in the realm of speculation and hey, isn’t that actually what Religion is? I guess maybe that is my point. God: The Force(s) that created our existance. Religion: The speculation as to the specific and especially supernatural form of those Forces. The first ammendment speaks to Religion, not God. ---
**Author:** ![nodope4us](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/278dde/32.png) [@nodope4us](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nodope4us)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/71 "2003-07-20T05:39:52Z")
ronbo could you tell us where you got your def. for god? ---
**Author:** ![Wandering\_Agnostic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/cc9497/32.png) [@Wandering\_Agnostic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wandering_Agnostic)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/72 "2003-07-20T05:54:14Z")
Actually, as far as I know, religion is a set of teachings regarding (most commonly) an explanation of the afterlife and/or things that cannot commonly be described. In more simple terms, religion has tended to be a commonly accepted explanation for superstitions. I.e. Why does lightning come from the sky? Ancient Greece: Zeus is angry. Scandinavia: Thor is battling the Giants of Asgard. Things of that nature. May have the Giant world from Scandinavian myth wrong. Please forgive. Eastern religions are different from Western in a few ways. Western religions generally capitalize on fear and zealotry, whereas Eastern religions are generally more centered on ideas of peace and improving oneself. Another muddle. Sorry all. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/73 "2003-07-20T05:54:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ronbo \* > **Why would it be obviously abhorent? If this were done through “legal” means? What are you basing this on? > You don’t believe in the Self-Evident Rights of the Declaration of Independence.** It’s my personal opinion that it would be abhorent to repeal the first amendment. It is my personal opinion that freedom of thought (and the right to express that thought) is the greatest gift we have in the US Constitution. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it desirable…and no, I don’t believe in “self-evident” rights, necessarily. “self-evident” is in the eye of the beholder. That statement in the DoI is (as **punha** has pointed out) a statement of _opinion_ by the authors, not a statement of fact. It would not be proveable as a statement of fact It is an opinion that I _share_, but its an opinion all the same. > [@](#): > > **You don’t believe in Science that says the Universe was “brought into existence” (created) in the Big Bang.** When did I say that I didn’t believe in the big bang? I’m saying that there is no evidence that the big bang was an act of _creation_. Even if there was some causitive phenomenon behind the big bang, that phenomenon would have no meaning _within_ the universe. > [@](#): > > **You believe that the Grand Unified Theory of Physics is Monotheistic.** No, I believe that the word “God” as it is stated in the phrases “In God We Trust,” and “One Nation Under God” is monotheistic. Your redefintion of the word is bogus. > [@](#): > > **I think maybe you argue just to argue. I think maybe its to my credit that you disagree with me.** I’m arguing with you to fight ignorance. You’re posting fallacious arguments. > [@](#): > > **And yet if we repeal that Ammendment, then it is legal for the State to pass laws that sponsor a specific religion and you have no clue to the basis of why that is abhorent.** What the hell are you talking about? I have very good reasons for thinking it would be abhorent. Please explain this question. I don’t believe there is such a thing as any absolute moral authority, if that’s what your getting at…at least not a provable one. Our morality is derived by popular consensus, for good or for bad. > [@](#): > > **Faith does not necessarily imply religion. I have faith in the Laws of Nature. Oh, I guess I can’t prove they exist either. I don’t have a cite.** Faith is belief without proof. The laws of nature are proveable (agai, as **Punha** pointed out. _No_ statement of faith, “religious” or otherwise, has any place in government, whethet it’s an expression of belief in God or belief in the Loch Ness Monster. > [@](#): > > def:. [Religion](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion): A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.\*\* That’s a very incomplete definition of religion. Not all religion requires a spiritual leader. Who was the spiritual leader for paganism? > [@](#): > > **The fact that the Universe came into existance (was created) many billion years ago is not a set of values and practices.** I disagree that the universe was “created” (that’s a fallacious assertion and you really need to quit making it) but I agree that it is not a set of beliefs and values, therefore it is ridiculous to call it “God.” > [@](#): > > **I concede that the definition of Religion in the First Ammendment is not necessarily clear. What is your definition and where is your proof that your definition is the one?** I think the word defies a decent definition. I don’t know the legal definition but I think that any assertion of a belief in “God” would qualify under _any_ definition. > [@](#): > > **Please explain how the disclaimer is unconstitutional. It neither establishes nor prohibits free exercise of religion.** It insinuates that the Ten Commandments are not “enlightened.” The state cannot comment on the relative merits of any particualr belief whether that comment is postive or negative. > [@](#): > > \*\*I hate to admit it, but we do agree on something. How come **nodope4us** who only graduated high school and thinks he’s not necessarily intelligent gets it and you don’t? \*\* There is nothing to “get.” You’re using a fallacious definition of “God.” Everything that proceeds from that fallacious premise is also fallacious. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/74 "2003-07-20T05:55:15Z")
> [@](#): > > I think “In God we trust” and “Under God” should stay out of tradition, and removing those from currency and the pledge would be a sad day for america. I _love_ tradition, but that is not a very good reason for continuing to have the words on currency or in the Pledge. Would taking that “under God” out of the Pledge change the truth in any way? Would it remove our nation from the power of the Divine – if that is what you believe? (I was a child of nine when the words were added. I resented the change; it just didn’t sound right. It wasn’t the tradition.) And as for “In God We Trust” – who is the _we_ referred to? Our nation does not hold a belief in God. Our government does not hold a belief in God. Belief is very personal. As far as I’m concerned, the claim is a lie. And what purpose does it serve? Do we really need to be reminded of our relgious beliefs every time qw spend money? Can’t we remember our beliefs without have a memo in the form of a quarter? Have you seen much evidence in the last couple of years that very many citizens of the U.S. actually trust God? If we did, we would “take no thought for the morrow” and thus we wouldn’t have to make pre-emptive strikes on another nation. It is as if we have become almost superstitious about the words. Some seem to believe, at least sub-consciously, that if we take them out of the Pledge or off the coins we will jinx ourselves. That kind of God is too small. The words have become more important than the fulfillment of that trust. The symbol is not the _thing_. ---
**Author:** ![nodope4us](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/278dde/32.png) [@nodope4us](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nodope4us)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/75 "2003-07-20T06:09:30Z")
Well seeing as the pledge has been banned from some schools for the term “God” and from what I have heard noone is proposing to have it returned to its religously neutral form. Like you said though, it sounds different, I grew up with the “God” in it. The only reason I think that it should stay on money IS just tradition, I don’t think I would be sad if it happened to be removed, but why change something that I think not many people pay much attention to. It isn’t important enough for people to get offending over keeping it or abolishing it, but those people are out there. ---
**Author:** ![Wandering\_Agnostic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/cc9497/32.png) [@Wandering\_Agnostic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wandering_Agnostic)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/76 "2003-07-20T06:13:20Z")
**Zoe** , I think you put it far better than I ever could… thank you. But I have one question for **nodope** and **ronbo**. How would you gentlemen feel if you woke up tomorrow to find that the laws of this land had been changed, and the Pledge now stated “One nation, under the Mother Goddess…” or “One nation, under Allah…” or “One nation, under Yahweh…” etc etc.? Would you object? Because the word “God” in its capitalized form implies to me the same meaning as one of those statements I made above would. “God” in its capitalized form suggests to me the Christian God, and not some abstract superior being. I have long wondered why the Buddhists, Shintoists, Muslims, Jews, etc. have not brought a lawsuit against the US Government as a violation of their First Amendment rights… but I won’t hijack this thread any further. ::grins:: ---
**Author:** ![Wandering\_Agnostic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/cc9497/32.png) [@Wandering\_Agnostic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wandering_Agnostic)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/77 "2003-07-20T06:18:18Z")
Sorry **nodope**. hadn’t seen your reply when I posted. My computer doesn’t like refreshing quite often enough. You can consider yourself free from answering my question if you desire. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/78 "2003-07-20T06:21:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nodope4us \* > \*\*Bright, how do you find it sacrilegious? > > Diogenes, you are completely right about my usage. > > Life bearing forces such as the ones that made life appear from nothing. Creation only “Implies” a concious or deliberate act in one of its definitions; 1. The “act” of creating, but in another it isn’t implied, 2. Something that is created. 3. all things in the world. But if you would prefer I seperate my thinking of “creation” differently then how about, the coming of existance of life throught whatever means there were(long I know) and the “Formation” of the universe. Maybe I should start elaborating more. \*\* Physicists just call it the beginning of the universe. In terms of pure physics, anything that “caused” the Big Bang (that is, anything that was not an all powerful, conscious “creator”) would cease to exist _after_ the Big bang. So a non-“supernatural” (for lack of a better word) cause (or “creative force” if you want) for the universe would not be something that could sensibly be referenced as “God” by human beings, as it would be a “God” which does not exist in such a way that we could “trust” in or be “under” it. The only meaningful definition of “God” in those contexts would be a supernatural deity. ---
**Author:** ![nodope4us](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/278dde/32.png) [@nodope4us](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nodope4us)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/79 "2003-07-20T06:34:41Z")
Lol thanks for letting the leash go, but allah does mean god. But I have a better line for the pledge straight from Robin Williams, “One nation, under Canada, and above Mexico…” well something like that. Although I do like the mother goddess thing, would you mind if I borrow it? Thanks for illustraiting the actual terminology Diogenes. Once again you helped me, quit making a habit of being right. Just kidding! I feel more and more like my points are being understood.(even the hypothetical ones) ---
**Author:** ![Wandering\_Agnostic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/cc9497/32.png) [@Wandering\_Agnostic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wandering_Agnostic)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2003, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/80 "2003-07-20T06:49:43Z")
**nodope** , I will give you that Allah does “mean” God. However, Allah is more properly a name for the supreme being which the Judeo-Christo-Islamic world believes created the Universe. One could theoretically claim that “Yahweh,” “Allah,” and “God” are synonyms…though I think that’s certainly oversimplifying it. You are most welcome to use “the Mother Goddess” in your Pledge to America if you wish. Personally, I would prefer to see the whole phrase in question stricken, but barring that I would prefer an even more general term which would be less offensible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071.md?page=5)