SoulPancake

Since I started meditating on this question, I've learned a lot about "the wall of separation of church and state" that people so often quote. I did not realize that this statement was never a part of the Constitution, but rather a statement made by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to Danbury Baptist Church in 1802. Here is an excerpt of that letter:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Judge Hugo Black was the first to add the phrase "separation of church and state" to the First Amendment in 1947, at the conclusion of Everson v. Board of Education. It is referred to as the "Establishment of Religion Clause."

According to a "wiki" search on the first amendment:

"It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century... Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that 'government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion'."

A definition of irreligion from wiki is as follows:

"'Irreligion' is an absence of religion, indifference to religion, and/or hostility to religion. Depending on the context, it may be understood as referring to atheism, deism, nontheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, antireligion, skepticism, freethought, or secular humanism. Irreligious people may have convictions equal in depth to those of religious adherents. For instance, followers of the life stance of Humanism may regard themselves as just as deeply believing in their life stance as corresponding to any religious belief."

Secular Humanism, while popular with intellectuals, is also a doctrine that falls under this definition. To replace all religious thought with secular humanistic ideas and doctrine is the same as insisting that all people believe and study only Christian, Muslim, or Jewish ideology.

So there is a pancake for thought. I learned a lot today. Thanks for the inspiration to do my homework, fellow travelers. ;)

love to all,
z

Religion inspires the fear that helps motivate people to do good during their lives. Each religion has a different punishment for bad behavior so fear of these punishments keeps people in line. Its like how they tell you if your not good around christmas santa wont bring you gifts, the kid is either being good cause thats the way he is, or cause he wants presents. Either way its better than him being bad cause hes got nothing to lose

I think that God gave us a choice of weather to do good or bad. Nobody should be forced into religion, the choice should be theirs to make.

not literally. we have to remember that the people that wrote these rules were old men who were unaware of a lot of things. but the basic ideas about doing good should be respected and followed. behind pretty much every religion it just tells you to be a good person. look at the big picture...not specifics.

America is a free nation. If it were a Christian nation, it would not be free. Imagine: we'd still have slaves, atheists, homosexuals, and people not of the over-powering religion would be brutally murdered, people would stone each other, women wouldn't vote, and our government would be based on the sole opinion of a religious leader so that there'd be no voting, no freedom. It would be a scary place. Look at Muslim nations. There's no freedom. Any religion put in power of a country would destroy the nation.

@lolagirl2009 Religions don't have a monopoly on morality. It existed well before the ten commandments were given to Moses. Before religion, people seem to have gotten along quite well with each other. That morality should be ingrained in Religion speaks of a transcendent morality in all humans (non-spiritual). I think the problem with religious laws is that they very often are positive laws (have to do this or do that) as opposed to negative laws (don't do this, don't do that). Like laws prohibiting women from bearing skin or prohibiting christians from lending money and taxing jews (all of these were once law in theocratic countries). All laws should be moral, no law should be religious.

@braxtonrob thanks, but I just speak what I know. haha. as far as what @Kira was saying, I don't know if there are that many problems with religious laws. I'm speaking of th laws dealing with morality of course, not the laws on cultural issues. What I mean is, what is wrong with "do not steal, do not lie, and do not kill" ?

@Kira Which ones of us are the designate philosophical genius's again? (I was late to the meeting.)

@lolagirl2009 Very nice; pretty AND smart!

We already do, to a large extent.

You'll notice, upon further study, that many religions have 'laws' that coincide with many existing 'societal' laws.

That being said, I don't believe in mixing Church & State. Ever heard of the Holy Wars!?!?