# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![ronbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@ronbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ronbo)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/121 "2003-07-29T02:32:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*All Quotes Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > **Name one law that is religiously based.** Blue Laws. Vice Laws. These laws are based on religious “morality”. That is why they have been given special names: to distinguish them from non-religious based laws. > [@](#): > > \*\*Atheists do not have any preconceived opinions except that no one has proven that any gods exist. they also do not ignore empirical evidence. Your analogy is not symetrical. \*\* Defs: [Agnostic:](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. [Atheist:](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. You’re posts strongly indicate that you have the preconceived notion that a Deity absolutely does not and cannot exist. It seems somehow threatening to you if there is even an implication that the government or even I endorse Theism. You deny that the word God can have a secular definition. Your posts acknowledge that your position is narrow and chauvinistic. (“ **…there are no other universes in this universe therefore alternate universes have no meaning or significance to us.** ”) Your posts seem to go beyond skepticism or disbelief to denial. That is why I consider you a fundie-atheist. ---
**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 29, 2003, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/122 "2003-07-29T03:06:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Blue Laws. Vice Laws. These laws are based on religious “morality”. That is why they have been given special names: to distinguish them from non-religious based laws. Cite? > [@](#): > > You’re posts strongly indicate that you have the preconceived notion that a Deity absolutely does not and cannot exist. It seems somehow threatening to you if there is even an implication that the government or even I endorse Theism. You deny that the word God can have a secular definition. Your posts acknowledge that your position is narrow and chauvinistic. (“…there are no other universes in this universe therefore alternate universes have no meaning or significance to us.”) Your posts seem to go beyond skepticism or disbelief to denial. That is why I consider you a fundie-atheist. Well there’s a swing and a miss. I’m not even an atheist, much less a “fundie”-atheist. I call myself an agnostic. In none of my posts did I ever say or even insinuate that a deity does not or cannot exist. I said only that it hasn’t been _proven_ to exist. That’s really a side issue anyway since what your argument has been about, in its rambling way, is an attempt to hang a non-supernatural definition on the word “God” so that the government can force people to “be under” it and “trust” it without violating the Constitution. Why is it so important to you to force other people to use the word “God,” even if you have to redefine it in the process? ---
**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 29, 2003, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/123 "2003-07-29T03:12:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Your posts acknowledge that your position is narrow and chauvinistic. (“…there are no other universes in this universe therefore alternate universes have no meaning or significance to us.”) Your posts seem to go beyond skepticism or disbelief to denial. That is why I consider you a fundie-atheist. I should address this more specifically. What I said in your above quote is an indisputedly factual statement. I think you may have misread it. I did not say unequivocally that there are no other universes _than_ this universe, I said there are no other universes _in_ this universe. That is a critically difference since logically one universe cannot exist _within_ another universe. Alternate universes, then, would have no interaction or meaning with _our_ universe and so are ontologically equivilent to non-existent. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/124 "2003-07-29T06:18:02Z")
**Ronbo** , since you seem to be arguing that God and belief in God can be divorced from religion, do you think that a law requiring all federal elected officials and office-holders to proclaim a belief in God would violate the Religious Tests Clause of [Article VI of the U.S. Constitution](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html)? ("…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.") ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/125 "2003-07-29T06:19:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ronbo \* > **There a question somewhere in that post?** I was asking how you would feel in the situation I described.Judging from your response I think it is safe to say you could not answer and that you concede that “Under God” and “In God We Trust” are unjust. Except for the fact that you go meandering into the following tirade… > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m not in the pro-theocracy camp, so I did not respond. Please review this thread and show me the quote that says I support “In God we Trust/Under God”. \*\* Perhaps I mistakenly attributed an argument to you which was not yours(I will re-read the thread) but were you not arguing that the “Under God” bit was fair because secular thinkers could simply redefine or reinterpret “God” as something that had nothing to do with deities? > [@](#): > > \*\*It is clear from your post that you find the mention of God “downright insulting and exclusionary”, but that is not a question nor does it ask for a response. \*\* The question that you seem to have missed was :Would YOU not feel that “Against God” and “In reverence of \” was not insulting and exclusionary?What if our national motto was changed to “In reverence of James Randi” or somesuch? > [@](#): > > \*\*I am truly sorry that your self-image is such that you cannot smile and shake your head at those people that just don’t get it. (Then again, I have a hard time with that too.) \*\* I would have just as much trouble with adding a line to the pledge which was insulting or exclusionary towards blacks, hispanics or women.If some Klansmen somehow managed to get “without negroes” into our pledge then you are correct in thinking I could not just smile and shake my head at those folks and leave it at that. > [@](#): > > \*\*I cannot force you to agree that a perfectly acceptable use of God refers to “Nature’s God” (as in the Declaration of Independence) which is another way of saying “Natural Laws” (without implication of a Deity). If its good enough for Thomas Jefferson, its good enough for me. \*\* There are a lot of different types of gods which have been adn continue to be worshipped…the sun, YHVH, Zeus, Gaius Ceaser, Stalin, etc…Many of these gods are very real(e.g. divine emporers, the sun and moon etc.) and yet I remain an atheist.Is it because I do not think these gods exist?Of course not.In this regard _atheism_ means **One who does not willingly worship any gods**.As a friend over at B-net. often puts it ,worshipping insults any being who would deserve such and insults US when the entity being worshipped does NOT deserve it. Nature itself is not a god.Nature does not posess any individual conciousness or will and so worshipping nature would be like reciting poetry for an audience of rocks.Lacking a capacity to be aware of or appreciate worship excludes an entity from the “God club”. People who appreciate the awsome forces which led to our universe being born and do not think any “supreme intellects” are overseeing the whole shebang and do not willingly worship anything as a god are **atheists** even if they do not like the sound of the word or wish not to have rocks thrown at them. The point is that no matter which gods one thinks of when they read the words “Under God” in the pledge, those who worship NO gods are being sleighted in ways we would not dare to sleight other minorities. > [@](#): > > \*\*I find it downright insulting and exclusionary that you absolutely refuse to accept this as one of many definitions. > > Maybe you are the one doing the excluding. \*\* Well, since any word can be reinterpreted or redefined in usage and context why not replace “One Nation Under God” with “One Nation of Brights”.“Bright” can mean a lot of different things adn superstitious theists can simply assume it means “Intelligent God-worshipper” and they should not feel that skeptics/naturalists are being given preferential treatment or endorsement, correct? ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/126 "2003-07-29T06:51:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ronbo \* > \*\*Blue Laws. Vice Laws. These laws are based on religious “morality”. That is why they have been given special names: to distinguish them from non-religious based laws. \*\* Coincidentally I suppose, those laws that can be argued to derive from religious conviction are the most nonsensical, ineffective and downright oppressive laws which we have(prohibition laws). But that is beside the point. > [@](#): > > \*\* Defs: > [Agnostic:](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic) > One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. > > [Atheist:](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist) > One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. \*\* Rule # 7 of internet debate:When someone is handing you your ass, drag up erroneous or narrow definitions from the dictionary.The outdated definitions you drag up will likely support your position(which should include sweeping generalizations and bald assertions about those you are arguing against). Atheism is a Greek work meaning quite literally “without gods” or “without belief in gods”.NOT “in denial of gods” or “rejecting God” or any other such nonsense.Newborn babies, mentally handicapped, certain aboriginal peoples, most skeptics…all atheists because they do not(for whatever reason) believe supernatural gods exist and do not willingly worship ANY gods. Agnostics can be either atheistic(most are) or theistic agnostics.Agnostics believe that, even if God existed we could not KNOW God existed unless he became a part of the natural universe(and therefore not “Godly”) or we became part opf HIS reality(Gods ourselves). The common usage is erroneous, which does not matter since words shift meaning with context and usage but I bring it up to show that relying on what you believe are THE definitions of certain words to support your argument will get you nowhere. > [@](#): > > \*\*You’re posts strongly indicate that you have the preconceived notion that a Deity absolutely does not and cannot exist. \*\* If you want to quibble about whether it is correct to call something "impossible"which is as close to impossible as probabilities get, then why are you not out scolding people who say that Bugs Bunny or Santa Claus are not real?After all it is _possible_ that Bugs Bunny is a real rabbit who walks around cracking wise and wearing disguises to fool bald hunters, correct? In any case archtypeal philosophical atheists do not hold any such preconcieved notions as you ascribe to us.We have investigated and examined the matter and found god-claims to lack rational justification.Atheism is _localised_ skepticism. > [@](#): > > \*\* It seems somehow threatening to you if there is even an implication that the government or even I endorse Theism. \*\* The government?Yes. You?Could care less.I do worry that there are millions like you who do not understand the issue and would speak out in support of injustice applying fallacious logic and faulty reasoning. > [@](#): > > \*\* You deny that the word God can have a secular definition. \*\* Oh it _could_ have a secular definition in the right circumstances at a given point in history but at this time…no.Sorry but around 80% of the population here in the US worship a specific god NAMED “God” at this point in time.Nothing secular or good can come of “encouraging” school children and others to pledge fealty to this deity. > [@](#): > > \*\* Your posts acknowledge that your position is narrow and chauvinistic. (“ **…there are no other universes in this universe therefore alternate universes have no meaning or significance to us.** ”) Your posts seem to go beyond skepticism or disbelief to denial. That is why I consider you a fundie-atheist. \*\* You do not know what skepticism is then.WHen an existential claim is unwarranted according to rules of inference or by empirical evidence, a skeptic will most certainly say so, even when they wish it were otherwise.THAT is skepticsm(a.k.a. critical thinking). ---
**Author:** ![ronbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@ronbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ronbo)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/127 "2003-07-29T13:44:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\ ***Ronbo** , since you seem to be arguing that God and belief in God can be divorced from religion, do you think that a law requiring all federal elected officials and office-holders to proclaim a belief in God would violate the Religious Tests Clause of [Article VI of the U.S. Constitution](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html)? ("…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.") \*\* I am arguing that (some of) our Founding Fathers used the word God in the secular connotation: Nature’s God i.e. Natural Law. Belief in a Diety is by definition Religion and cannot be divorced from religion. Belief in Nature’s God: Natural Law, is Science and should not be construed as religion. Any law requiring a proclamation of a belief in God would violate the Religious Tests Clause. BTW GodlessSkeptic is absolutely right: > [@](#): > > “ **those laws that can be argued to derive from religious conviction are the most nonsensical, ineffective and downright oppressive laws which we have.** ” Earlier I stated that it was virtually impossible to totally separate church from state. I never said that we should not do our best to find the best compromise: To not establish and yet not prohibit free exercise of religion. In God we Trust does not alienate me because I do trust in Nature’s God, Natural Laws. Let the people define it however they wish, I will define it as I choose. If someone wishes to define it in a way that they feel is insulting to them, that is their choice and their problem. ---
**Author:** ![ronbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@ronbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ronbo)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/128 "2003-07-29T13:55:51Z")
My last sentence came off much harsher than intended. A problem for any one is a problem for us all. How do we deal with Political Correctness? It seems that anything can be offensive to someone. ---
**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 29, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/129 "2003-07-29T14:18:51Z")
> [@](#): > > I am arguing that (some of) our Founding Fathers used the word God in the secular connotation: Nature’s God i.e. Natural Law. Belief in a Diety is by definition Religion and cannot be divorced from religion. Belief in Nature’s God: Natural Law, is Science and should not be construed as religion. Incorrect. They were deists who used “God” to refer to a supernatural deity, albeit one who no longer interacted with the universe. They were also careful to leave any mention of God completely _out_ of the US Constitution. Please provide a cite for any of the FFs using “God” to refer “natural law.” That would be especially interesting since those two terms are decidedely not synomous in deistic thought. The laws of physics are not “God” and it’s silly to keep insisting that they are. > [@](#): > > Earlier I stated that it was virtually impossible to totally separate church from state. And you were wrong. > [@](#): > > I never said that we should not do our best to find the best compromise: To not establish and yet not prohibit free exercise of religion. Not “establishing” means not pasting supernatural slogans on money or shoehorning magical deities into jingoistic classroom chants. > [@](#): > > In God we Trust does not alienate me because I do trust in Nature’s God, Natural Laws. What the hell is “Nature’s God?” I don’t believe in “Nature’s God” or any other god and the government has no right to endorse the notion that any such thing exists. > [@](#): > > Let the people define it however they wish, I will define it as I choose. If someone wishes to define it in a way that they feel is insulting to them, that is their choice and their problem. Why should I have to “define” a concept that _you_ pulled out of your ass? “Nature’s God” is purely _your_ invention. I have no obligation to define your imaginary deities for you, nor do I have an obligation to pretend that they exist. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/130 "2003-07-29T15:07:40Z")
I think, at this point, it is time to define Nature’s God. [http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93\_1.html](http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html) [http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/deist.html](http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/deist.html) > [@](#): > > “In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient [ancient] philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, . . . . I should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark . . . that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers.” (Ltr. to Joseph Priestly, Apr. 9, 1803.) [http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2615](http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2615) Basically, Nature’s God is the God of Jesus, as revealed to Jefferson, as he wrote in… er, the bible he wrote, what was named The Jefferson Bible, as he had wrote it. (I know I stole that writing style from somewhere, but I’ll be dashed if I know who. Twain? Wodehouse?) At any rate, it clearly is, er, a God, and not a God of Physics, but a Ineffable Prime Mover God Of Religion and Revealed Belief. So, Ronbo, pick a new term, this one’s got a definition already. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/131 "2003-07-30T07:16:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ronbo \* > I am arguing that (some of) our Founding Fathers used the word God in the secular connotation: Nature’s God i.e. Natural Law. Belief in a Diety is by definition Religion and cannot be divorced from religion. Belief in Nature’s God: Natural Law, is Science and should not be construed as religion. > > Any law requiring a proclamation of a belief in God would violate the Religious Tests Clause. > [@](#): > > In God we Trust does not alienate me because I do trust in Nature’s God, Natural Laws. Let the people define it however they wish, I will define it as I choose. If someone wishes to define it in a way that they feel is insulting to them, that is their choice and their problem. So why couldn’t officeholders legally required to proclaim a belief in God just mutter under their breath “…of course, when I say God I mean Nature’s God, that is, Natural Law”? How is the state proclaiming an official trust in “God” _not_ a “religious” establishment, but requiring public officials to proclaim their trust in “God” _would_ be a “religious” test? > [@](#): > > I never said that we should not do our best to find the best compromise: To not establish and yet not prohibit free exercise of religion. No compromise is needed. Don’t establish religion. Don’t prohibit the free exercise of religion. If theists want to proclaim their trust in God (and Deists want to proclaim their trust in Nature’s God, and you want to proclaim your trust in Natural Law, which you idiosyncratically define as “God”), all of you are free to wear T-shirts; put bumper stickers on your cars; put up signs on the marquees of your churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and meeting halls; publish books; put up Web sites; buy ads in the local newspaper or on TV; broadcast radio and TV programs…heck, y’all can even scribble “I trust in God” on all your dollar bills, right underneath where somebody jotted down somebody else’s phone number. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2003, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071/132 "2003-07-31T03:16:09Z")
**ronbo** , you seem to be arguing that atheists should not be offended by the national motto “in god we trust” or the injection of the words “under god” into the pledge of allegiance. your basis for this argument is that one might use as a definition of “god” the laws of physics. if i have that wrong, could you please clarify. if not, let me address that. from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism): > [@](#): > > _atheism_ - > a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. > b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. it seems to me that an atheist, whose definition is lacking belief in god or believing in a lack of god, ought to consider this a breach of his religious freedom. to require a child to profess allegiance to a country “under god”, is unconstitutional. to claim that it should be overlooked because one person has his own secular definition of “god” is near-sighted and parochial. i would suggest that most theists and atheists do not share your definition of god. for most of us, god is a religious word. for the government to claim that we, as a country, trust in god is to me closer to the establishment of religion than i am comfortable with. i do not feel so free to define my way out of the problem. do you think there was nothing wrong with the spanish inquisition, because all those who were tortured could just have thought to themselves “well, my definition of god is different from yours, so i can claim i believe he will save my soul when i really mean ‘food can save me from starvation.’”? was that “their choice and their problem”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seperation-of-church-and-state/189071.md?page=6)