Is recognizing God religion?

[Fun2BFree]

I tried to get some responses to this in another thread and got none- so I will try on its own..Bill O'Reilly, in attacking Michael Nedow's desire to remove "under God" from the Pledge, said that belief in God is not religion. Basically he claims that recognizing a Supreme Being (God) is spirtuality and therefore, not proscribed by the Constitution--definitely not something that the Framers wanted--he claims they wanted America to recognize the importance of spirituality and only were looking to keep the government from favoring certain RELIGIONS--but not wanting a nation without God.

So what is the case law here from the Supreme Court--it seems that the banning of even generic prayers from high school graduations and football games shows that the Court does consider the God idea as religion--or is it just Praying that makes it religion--to just demand that all citizens accept the existence of God apparently is not religion...there are several states as noted in the other thread that mandate belief in God to hold public office even though the US Constitution states that there should never be a relgious test to hold any public office anywhere at any level in the US...so again is mandating a belief in God a religious test as far as previous case law is concerned? Any lawyers out there know the answer? What about the Framers position--anything on this in the Federalist papers?

[Some Friggin Guy]

The question is moot, actually, since there are religions which have no belief in a god. Since there are atheistic religions, to require the recognition of a god is to exclude those who practice one of the atheistic religions. For that reason (among many others) O'Reilly shows that he has no idea what he's talking about.

[Yahweh]

Its plenty possible to have your own inner personal god(s) without having any religious beliefs.

In the instance of the pledge, it seems to me to be a promotion of religion.

[Stereolab]

Although I don't think that "under God" should be in the Pledge either, I feel obligated to mention that God is mentioned several times in the Declaration of Independence. I didn't see the show, nor am I a fan, but O'Reilly may have had a point.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Although I don't think that "under God" should be in the Pledge either, I feel obligated to mention that God is mentioned several times in the Declaration of Independence. I didn't see the show, nor am I a fan, but O'Reilly may have had a point.

Not this again! Man, it's trite.

The Declaration of Independence is not part of US law. It wouldn't matter if it had a blow-by-blow description of a deathmatch between Kali and Thor in it.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
The question is moot, actually, since there are religions which have no belief in a god. Since there are atheistic religions, to require the recognition of a god is to exclude those who practice one of the atheistic religions. For that reason (among many others) O'Reilly shows that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Yeah. Plus polytheistic religions. This is just so much more pabulum down the bib for O'Reilly. Which, I suppose, is what he gets paid for, and good for him, but little reason to take it seriously.

[Zero]

Originally posted by epepke
It wouldn't matter if it had a blow-by-blow description of a deathmatch between Kali and Thor in it. But, it would be a much more interesting read, wouldn't it?:D

Seriously, anyone who understands law agrees with the court's decision in this case. 'God' refers specifically to the Judeo-Christian deity, since other religions have different names for their deity(s). that is the common usage, that is how the majority of people understand it to be, and that is how the court sees it. In fact, if you listen to the defenders of government religious bias towards Christianity, you will see that most of them agree that 'God' refers to the Christian deity.

[Fun2BFree]

Well the Declaration of Independence was written 11 years before the United States government was formed so it is not relevant to US government law or policy. I am sure that mnay of the Founders did not see a problem with saying no religious tests at the same time requiring belief in JESUS or God--in fact some of the state Constitutions (Maryland) say there shall be no religious test, but every office holder has to believe in God...I think this just shows how narrow minded the founders were (hmm- not possible? Ask the woman and the Indian/native Americans and slaves of the time if they were)

That there are religions that do not have God does not mean that saying there is a God is "a religion." It is just taking a position that is not consistent with ALL religions--see the O''Reilly's who have the agenda of promoting a certain belief- want to narrowly define religion to mean certain sects...and they have some historical evidence that many of the Founders thought that way (not all).

I have since found one case that seems to apply here-
Torcasso V Watkins (http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Torcaso.htm#F10) 1961 which was UNANIMOUS apparently 9-0 in ruling that requiring an oath that God exists is a violation of the religious oath ban. There are those who vehemently argue with this decision that the court totally and incorrectly interpreted the meaning of religious just as O'Reilly argues....but if precedent means anything I don't see how the court cannot find that the under God is therefore somehow religious and in violation of what they said : (emphasis mine)

"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and."
neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs

as O'reilly disingenously asks his guests; ..Or am I wrong?

[evildave]

Article VI of the Constitution, BTW.

Most people quote the first ammendment, but Article VI of the constitution its self has the most relevant constitutional text.


Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


This goes both ways. You can't require someone to believe in some oogie-woogie-hocus-pocus-magical-faerie-tale bull like Jesus & Friends, and you can't require someone NOT TO.

Office or public trust means there can't be a religious test (of any kind) to qualify for election, and you can't make this a qualification for appointed positions, such as appointments and JOBS for the government.

Naturally, anybody who's been fired or otherwise discharged from any state or federal position for believing in Islam has an iron-clad case of discrimination, and I hope that they pursue these cases to their utmost, just as various flavors of Christians have when the (far more common) Christian-vs-Christian religious persecution occurs. After all, it's all "atheists'" faults that people fight to protect their own rights and the rights of others from bigots who would blatantly and unconstitutionally abuse their position and use the government's legal power to do harm to the public.

Naturally, when politicians say they don't believe a non-believer should hold office, the immediate follow-up questions should be:

"Do you disagree with Article VI of the United States Constitution, then?"

[Fun2BFree]

evildave-

I have always thought Article VI was a slam dunk against this sort of thing BUT the religiousy types have long tracts on the internet and I am sure elsewhere claiming that it is no such thing...and they have some fairly convincing historical facts to back up the claim that at least some of the FOunders were a bit hypocritical about things or they did not consider belief in God to be religious...some of these guys voted for Article VI then went back to their respective states and wrote State Constitutions that mandated not just belief in God but in heaven and Jesus in some cases...but as I said there is that 1961 case that the Supreme Court felt that religious DOES include recognizing God and is not limited to just sect choices/ritual behaviours, etc...but in hte link I gave you can see a person has taken great issue with that 9-0 Court decision and said they have totally missed the TRUE MEANING of Article VI---

If I were a praying man-I would pray that Government drop all God business entirely and leave it to people only--but I am neither a praying man nor very optimistic that this Government of the religious people will ever be anything than for religious people in the main. We non-believers will be on the outside for a long long time

[Disbeliever]

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."

-Thomas Jefferson (letter to Archibald Stuart, Dec. 23, 1791, on the encroachments of state governments)

Straight from the horse's mouth.

[Zero]

People can debate what the Founding White Guys might or might not have intended...can't we think for ourselves?

[Disbeliever]

^ Exactly. What I think the ol' Tommy J. meant was that he'd rather have us have too much liberty, so our government can work it out for ourselves when the time comes. :)

[pupdog]

I thought I recognized God the other day, in the mall, but it was just someone who looked like him.

When you think about it, isn't the prayer of allegiance an expression of religion? Specifically, idolatry--committing oneself to a thing.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Zero
People can debate what the Founding White Guys might or might not have intended...can't we think for ourselves?

Of course "we" can...but religious thinking types look for Truth from Authority--and so it becomes the RIGHT thing is whatever the Constitution "says" and it says only what the Framers meant it to say...so it becomes important in the debate to have some sense what the Framers said to argue with these people---I would note that there are records of the debates over Article VI somewhere that I hve heard about that mention that they specifically felt that pagans and non-christians needed to have EQUAL access to holding government..- I ould loove to be able to actually cite those debates--and welcome any help out there from history buffs...

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by epepke


Not this again! Man, it's trite.

The Declaration of Independence is not part of US law. It wouldn't matter if it had a blow-by-blow description of a deathmatch between Kali and Thor in it.

Hey, it's my favorite swinging pseudo-skeptic again, who's recommended that everyone lump me in with the "mindless creduloid schmucks."

Anyways, sorry to bring that up "again." I personally have not seen it mentioned on the forum before.

I KNOW that the Declaration of Independence is not part of US law.

Which is exactly what Bill O'Reilly is saying, according to Fun2BFree's first paragraph.

Exactly what is it that I said that you are taking issue with?

(you people really must have sent me over the deep end...am I REALLY defending Bill O'Reilly in a debate?! I am a freaking Clinton Democrat)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Stereolab
Hey, it's my favorite swinging pseudo-skeptic again, who's recommended that everyone lump me in with the "mindless creduloid schmucks."

Got your goat! Got your goat! Got your goat! Glad I'm your favorite.

But anyway, my point is that I don't see how the Declaration of Independence is relevant at all.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by epepke


Got your goat! Got your goat! Got your goat! Glad I'm your favorite.

But anyway, my point is that I don't see how the Declaration of Independence is relevant at all.

According to Bill O'Reilly, God and religion were intentionally left out of the Constitution. Therefore, we can look to the Declaration of Independence, and its mentions of God, which do seem to indicate there's some truth to O'Reilly's claim that our forefathers did not want a nation without God.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
I tried to get some responses to this in another thread and got none- so I will try on its own..Bill O'Reilly, in attacking Michael Nedow's desire to remove "under God" from the Pledge, said that belief in God is not religion. Basically he claims that recognizing a Supreme Being (God) is spirtuality and therefore, not proscribed by the Constitution--definitely not something that the Framers wanted--he claims they wanted America to recognize the importance of spirituality and only were looking to keep the government from favoring certain RELIGIONS--but not wanting a nation without God.
It is okay to say that recognizing any god qualifies as spirituality, not religion. However, as soon as you try to assign any characteristics to the kind of god you can worship, then it becomes religion. If you said "one nation under Allah" during the pledge, you could probably get away with it. If you said "one nation under Satan", you would most likely be informed that Satan is "not God", and thus you would be starting to define what God was.

I'd love to ask B O'R if there are any limits to the kind of God I worship. I'm betting he would be forced to admit that he requires certain characteristics of a God in order to be acceptable.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Stereolab


According to Bill O'Reilly, God and religion were intentionally left out of the Constitution. Therefore, we can look to the Declaration of Independence, and its mentions of God, which do seem to indicate there's some truth to O'Reilly's claim that our forefathers did not want a nation without God.

That's just bizarre. Doesn't the fact that they _intentionally_ left God out of the nation defining document tell us anything? If they really wanted a nation with God, why did they go out of their way in the constitution to avoid it?

[Dorian Gray]

What if you don't recognize God because he is wearing a disguise?

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


That's just bizarre. Doesn't the fact that they _intentionally_ left God out of the nation defining document tell us anything? If they really wanted a nation with God, why did they go out of their way in the constitution to avoid it?

Fun2BFree's first paragraph pretty much explains it. Go read that, and then go read the Declaration of Independence, and see if you still think I'm being "bizarre."

[Fun2BFree]

Actually Stereolab-

I think you are being a bit something- I don't know if bizarre is the word..but think about it...they mention God all over the place--then later on they do not...I would tend to give more credence to their later position as to where they stood on the issue...after living for a while with the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation they chose to create a nation without God...THEY made that choice and somewhere out there are debates that may verify this point...there were those who wanted God in the document and others argued successfully that if they truly wanted FREEDOM of religious conscinece they needed to have a nation/government open to pagans and Musselman (Muslims?)-and I think even-Atheists!:jaw:

Looking for some historical help though to cite the sources..it is NOT in the Federalists Papers which I have scoured looking for it.

[Stereolab]

"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291

[Fun2BFree]

Stereolab-

I am not sure what your posts are supposed to prove..that Jefferson quote seems to me to be a non-starter--we know that the narrow view of many of the first Americans did not include the idea that people might not want to worship the Creator according to HIS will -note the capitalization of His means the Creator's will not the individual..I am looking for evidence of those who felt each should be allowed to worship according to his (lower case) will -again this gets to the question--is it ok to require BELIEF in God to be an American? I don't think it is something that has been settled... I know what I think is best for the government and all the people but I am looking for historical proof that this embracing of God by the government is a recent phenomenon (1950s?) and not something the founders wanted as part of the government.

[Stereolab]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Stereolab-

I am not sure what your posts are supposed to prove

I just agree with what Bill O'Reilly said (or your explanation of it, anyways--I didn't see the show).

I don't think it's OK to require belief in God to be an American. And you'll be able to find plenty of quotes about religious freedom from the founding fathers.

But, although references to God were intentionally left out of the Constitution, many of the other writings of the founding fathers stressed the importance of God in the new country. They wanted to keep religion out of government, but wanted to keep it in society.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I just agree with what Bill O'Reilly said (or your explanation of it, anyways--I didn't see the show).

I don't think it's OK to require belief in God to be an American. And you'll be able to find plenty of quotes about religious freedom from the founding fathers.

But, although references to God were intentionally left out of the Constitution, many of the other writings of the founding fathers stressed the importance of God in the new country. They wanted to keep religion out of government, but wanted to keep it in society.

Keeping "God" in the Pledge or the National Motto legistlation seems like including Religion in the government. Because remember, the Pledge and Motto are LEGISTLATION.

God has no secular definition that corresponds to Us

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Stereolab


I just agree with what Bill O'Reilly said (or your explanation of it, anyways--I didn't see the show).

I don't think it's OK to require belief in God to be an American. And you'll be able to find plenty of quotes about religious freedom from the founding fathers.

But, although references to God were intentionally left out of the Constitution, many of the other writings of the founding fathers stressed the importance of God in the new country. They wanted to keep religion out of government, but wanted to keep it in society.

Now I am beginning to see why and how we are talking past each other...you misunderstand what O'Reilly said or what I said...we seem to agree that belief in God should not be a requirement to be an American....what O'Reilly has stated indicates he thinks it should be a requirement-or at the least the OFFICIAL government position--that God does exist and that is the preferred belief---No way I agree with that nor do I believe the evidence supports the idea that this was the intention of the Founders---and if it was their position they were as wrong about that as they were about women, Indians and slavery...it seems that history indicates that the Founders were convinced for the most part that God existed and that good citizens would believe and should believe--(I think they were wrong) but nowhere do I see that they felt any need whatsoever for the government to take any position in the matter...The motto was "from many, one" in the 1950's some considerable time later it becomes "in God we trust" this God thing in government is a recent phenomenon -it seems--not in the lives of the men but in the official words of the government.

[Stereolab]

You're right. It is very clear that:

Founding Fathers had strong belief in God and that they were doing the right thing for God

Founding Fathers intentionally kept God out of Constitution, etc. and made it clear that no particular belief was to be forced upon anyone; everyone had complete religious freedom as long as they weren't hurting others

"Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge until the '60s I think??

And I don't like Bill O'Reilly, and I don't think "under God" should be in the Pledge either, so I have no idea why I was arguing over this anyway. Have a nice evening :)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Belief in mere God is not itself a religion, but in a certain context talking about God over and over can be scene as support for religious belief.


Someone doesn't have to basically put forth every tenet of a religion before he or she is supporting it. That would be like saying one does is not supporting Nazism by displaying a swastika, because just having a swastika does not make one a Nazi. Or that one is only supporting Nazism if one prints out in full Mein Kampf.

Likewise one does not have to print out entire texts of the Bible for something to be conveyed as support for religion, one can merely mention God, or Karma, or the Tao.

A lot of it depends on context.