Wrong and wrong. Within a civilization/nation such as the USA, rights exist. Question is who confers them? You want them conferred by those in power. I prefer to accept the premise they are not ABLE to be conferred upon me by someone else (namely government). What you refer to as preserving/enforcing your own rights is madness. In a civilization/society such as the USA, try to confer a right to murder someone upon yourself and see how far that gets you. Better yet, as a woman living under Iranian law try to confer rights upon yourself that don't exist. It won't work out very well. What the USA was founded upon made it clear that government RESPECT the rights conferred upon its citizens by God-that is, not man. Governments either confer rights directly or respect those which are inherent (life, liberty,etc). Basic rights that should not be infringed upon by a man-made government. When you refer to power overcoming these rights, that's just silly. Yes of course we could be overrun and invaded by an outside or inside force. But that is not within the context of an existing framework of a nation where we discuss rights. That is war. Rights tend to go out the window when that happens. With respect to your 'separation of church and state' reference you are once again misguided. There is nowhere in the founding documents where this phrase exists. NOWHERE. I challenge you to find it. The ONLY thing that exists is a restriction upon government to MANDATE a particular religion to its citizens. Which means that Christians and Jews, yes believe it or not-Have the same exact rights as a Muslim or atheist. Atheists or agnostics whining (like you) just don't like that. You want it eliminated altogether which was never the intent. In other words, you want your 'right' to not believe or know anything to be respected above everyone else's by removing any reference to a 'Deity'. Too bad. You lose.
Hardly. Let's start with your "God given" rights. If our rights were given to us by God and thus, "unalienable" and cannot be taken away, we wouldn't need a police force or a military to protect them. God would do it. People wouldn't be dying from hunger, because God would be protecting their "right" to life. People wouldn't be wrongfully imprisoned or enslaved. God would be protecting their "right" to liberty. The fact is, God doesn't guarantee you any rights, nor does he protect them. The evidence of that is all around you. Within a civilization/nation such as the USA, rights do exist, but they don't come from God. They're outlined in our Constitution, created by "We, the people" and not God. They're enforced by the courts, the police, and the military. Again, We, the people. Not God. Your comment: "That is war. Rights tend to go out the window when that happens. " Is particularity confused. If rights are "unalienable" how can they be cancelled by war? God gave me those rights. Unalienable means can not be taken away. Yet clearly they can be taken away and God can not prevent it. War is more powerful than God? Apparently so. Let's move on to 'separation of church and state'. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's known as the "establishment clause". The people who get to decide what that means is the judicial branch of government "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish...The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States" Article III, Sections 1 & 2 of the Constitution. The judicial branch, under their constitutional authority, has determined, based on the writings of the founders, particularity Jefferson, that what the establishment clause means is that Church and State are to be separate. By the way, there's no right to privacy or right to vote in the Constitution, but the court has determined that you have those rights too. Lastly, you seem pretty confused as to what I want. I don't want religion eliminated altogether. I want it kept out of my government. I'm not a big fan of religious law, Sharia based or Christian. That's part of my right to be free from religion. If you want to buy a piece of land and put up a monument to the 10 commandments, knock yourself out. It has no place in tax payer funded courthouses. If you want a nativity scene in your front yard. Go for it. They have no place in public parks. I am, however, willing to flexible about it. If one religion is allowed to do it, they all should be, but that's not the case. Christian fundamentalists insist on the exclusive rights to do these things. Freedom of religion means their religion only. Don't think so? Christian fundamentalists want to ban Shara law, but have no problem passing marriage and other laws based on the Bible. Hell, Herman Cain thinks we should be allowed to ban Mosques. Same goes for school prayer. Teachers leading Christian prayers in public schools are just fine. Say the pledge of Allegiance in Arabic though and they freak out. I can only imagine what they'd do if a Muslim teacher tried to lead a class in a Muslim prayer. Their heads would probably explode. Seen any Wiccan, Pagan, Buddhist, FSM worshipers, or Satanist monuments in any courthouse or state Capitol? I haven't. The Satanists have been trying at the Oklahoma state Capitol, but they can't get approval even though there's a massive monument to the 10 commandments already there. Go figure. Speaking of Wiccans, they actually had to go to court to get the VA to allow the Wiccan symbol on military tombstones just like the Cross or Star of David. So please, spare me the non Christians have the "the same exact rights" routine. Clearly they don't. At least not "God given" rights anyway. They have to go to court to get theirs and in many cases, they still haven't gotten them. The bottom line is, you're the guys who want your rights respected above everyone else's. Not me. I'm the guy telling you that you're not more special than everyone else.
You're at least somewhat reasoned in your arguments which is more than I can say for most. But you are confused on a couple points-now that you've articulated a bit more I can respond. 1. Inalienable rights. You're referring to a right being stripped of an individual. I'm referring to a right that is conferred upon an individual. There's a huge difference. When I discuss a right being conferred upon an individual it means, with respect to GOVERNMENT, that they cannot take it away. It is inalienable with respect to government, not inalienable with respect to the acts of human nature. So therefore it means I am born free with a right to live in peace (to the extent I stay within the framework of the law), and pursue my dreams and goals within the construct of Liberty. Again, this is all within the confines of government. It's insanity to suggest that because I have a God given right to live that I will never die. You've constructed a straw man-although I can see how U might not think it to be so. 2. With respect to church and state. The Establishment clause (as you correctly point out) refrains the government from having the authority to ESTABLISH a religion for the Nation. I agree with this. The problem with where you take this is that you apply it to the local level where it actually doesn't apply. This is the biggest problem with thinking these days-that is, that everything should be controlled at a national level. That's ridiculous and the exact opposite of the intent of the founders. The federal governments powers are enumerated. That is, very specific and limited. The power lies with the states. And it allows different viewpoints and thoughts to exist and even thrive at the state and local level. This doesn't happen anymore unfortunately. And it's leading to the demise of the entire nation all for the sake of 'striving for unity' and offending nobody. It's silly. How it should, and was intended to work, was as follows. If California, for instance wanted to be a state that was known for its atheism or agnosticism then they should be able to promote such an idea within the confines of the state-so long as it was done via the consent of the governed within that state. Similarly, if Texas wanted to be known for capitalism and Christianity based on the consent of the governed within that state, there should be nothing that stands in its way-specifically the federal government. This allows for the free exchange and actions of different ideas and people of like minds will flock to those states. Unfortunately the fed government trying to make us all uniform. By trying to please everyone they please no one and diminish diverse viewpoints.
I make no assumptions regarding faith, gods or the beliefs of others. I don't believe in a god but that's my choice I don't expect others to live their life by my morals and choices. Nor will I accept that someone with "faith" gets to tell me about my choices because they may not agree with the teachings of their divinity.
Ask any citizen of any totalitarian state whether they have been granted certain inalienable rights that a government cannot take away. If they are allowed to talk back without being punished, they may tell you differently. If a government may trample on these expected "rights", then they certainly were not inalienable. Even in the U.S., the government has, and continues to have, the ability to take away any number of "rights" of a citizen, including "life" and "liberty." We, the people, have set up a system of laws that hopefully restrict these intrusions to certain sets of circumstances. But the only rights we may have, are granted, protected, and enforced, by the government. Regarding the Establishment Clause, I would like to discuss your misconceptions on its application, particularly your failure to understand the interaction of the Constitution and state (in your case "local" law) when it comes to "fundamental rights." But I get the feeling it would be easier, and more productive, to bang my head on a wall for hours until over 200 hours of jurisprudence poured out my ears.
What difference does it make? The people vote in who they like. If a religious person is voted into office, their policy will reflect their believes anyway. You can separate church and state. Kind of. The institution of religion to some degree. Or the institution of the state in your religion. You can't separate people from spirituality/religion/church. If the government is functioning as intended, you can't separate the people from the government. There for the people in government will always reflect the people's religious believes while governing. If the nation is functioning as intended. That is democracy.
@ Joseph That's what "unalienable" means. Something that can not be taken away. And contrary to the Declaration of Independence, you don't have any unalienable rights. Every right you have can be taken away by someone stronger than you, "God given" or not. God doesn't guarantee them, nor does he enforce or protect them. People do. As for the 10th Amendment states rights argument, I'm a citizen of the United States and the constitution clearly guarantees my rights anywhere in the country. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment My constitutional rights don't depend on which state or what town I live in. My rights don't even depend on citizenship. It clearly says "any person within its jurisdiction". Any person in the United States, citizen or not, is entitled to due process and equal protection of the law. Regardless of what state they happen to live in. Let's look at the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The 10th Amendment comes from the Articles of Confederation, which said: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." Notice how the 10th doesn't have the word "expressly" in front of the word delegated like the Articles did? People tried to put the word in. They got outvoted. That's because the majority of founders knew that it'd be impossible to list every specific power the federal government might need to carry out its express powers and they weren't going to handicap it like it was under the Articles of Confederation. The AoC sucked, which is why they junked it in the first place and replaced it with the Constitution. Granted, the founders did differ as to whether we should have a strong federal government or a weak one, but that debate is over. The Civil War decided it. We have a strong federal government.
When enough of the nation isn't Christian. You all can decide to chisel God from the monuments. You can abolish organized religion maybe. Who knows what the future holds. Take it off the money! Until then the people still need represented. They will still choose Christian representation. Or should I say people who claim to be. That can be left wing or right wing in America. Since the voting blocks are mostly all Christian. According to Pew research 78.4% of American are Christian of some sort. 51.3% are Protestant, 23% Catholic. The rest making up a slim minority. 16.1% are unaffiliated. 1.6% Atheist, 2.4% agnostic. 12.1% just don't care. Nothing in particulars. So better get working on those demographics if you want to see any real change.
Let's take Mexico for example. Mexico migrants are scrutinized. Used and abused. But religious demographics in Mexico look like this. 80% Catholic, 9% Protestant. 7% unaffiliated, and 4% being other. Mexican American are becoming a huge voting block. African- Americans. The most religious of all the voting blocks. With 76% of African - Americans praying daily. 78% of them being Protestant. Christianity doesn't define political affiliation. With left wing and right wing Christians dominating the future voting blocks. A more liberal economic policy, but not a more liberal social policy. I don't think Christians have to worry. Especially the ones who put faith ahead of race/color/creed.
I'm curious on this point that if you are atheist, what does it matter that they choose to believe there is something that you don't believe exists? How does that threaten you? I don't mean this to be rude ... I'm simply trying to see another's point of offense.
Thank you for rightly stating that Jefferson coined the phrase "separation of church and state". Many people believe it is stated in the Constitution which it isn't. Also, you must remember the time period and context within which these original documents were written. They had fought for freedom from England which had a State Church at the time. Ironically, the Church of England was a break off from the Roman Catholic Church still had a say in who controlled the monarchy of European kingdoms. The young country of the United States didn't want the same control by any church (Catholic or Protestant). In the end, what things have churches dictated back to the government? Very little from what I understand. Yet the government dictates quite a bit back towards the church and clergy. (Even our own military chaplains aren't allowed to exercise their own faith these days.) Meanwhile, serious threats to our entire nation both externally and internally continue to escalate while we all bicker over gray areas and offended parties. When I allow what someone else thinks of me to offend me, I become captive to that person. Yes, my belief system is very personal, but someone else slamming it or saying their way is right and my way wrong doesn't change my beliefs. It's time for this country to stop wallowing in pettiness and preferences and get back on track with finding the common ground that unites us all as humans. Only them will we become the truly United States of America again. One Nation ... With Liberty and Justice for all
And somebody else posts another entirely too long statement full of patriotic ramblings. Humans do as they please, regardless of who owns the soil/sand they stand on. When "We, The People" start to draw the line in personal choice, where does it end?
In 1956 it replaced the unofficial motto E pluribus unum It does not separate State n Church nor states which God or why not Gods. Is that succinct enough?
We could start with their tax exempt status, lack of government regulation, and never-ending attempts to force their religious beliefs and ideas on the entirety of the U.S. (Anti-science creationism in schools, religious morals regarding women's and gay rights, etc . . . ). They have worked tirelessly to forcibly insert their belief system into the very fabric of all our lives as citizens, including adding the phrase "under god" to both the currancy and the pledge of allegiance itself. Even some of our now national holidays are recognitions of religious holy days. People of faith take for granted all of the benefits and concessions they have wrested from the government, and the sheer pervasion of the church's influence (speaking broadly as a whole). If you feel there is a finite amount of time to deal with the world's ills, or that we can only deal with one issue at a time, consider this: It is not the secular citizens who are wasting time by getting offended, it is the ever continuing onslaught of the churches, attempting to further impede on everyone's lives that forces a response. If the church would keep its morays and tenents to itself, and not seek to intrude into the government with legislation or demand special treatment (like having religious monuments on public grounds or religious indoctrination in our schools), we would have the extra time (and money) to more forcefully address the rest of the world's challenges. Edit to fix the quote.