Isn't acknowledging the existence of God, as a state, a contradiction of the separation of Church and State?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm not an expert in politics at all, but I have been wondering about this for a while.
If Church and State are supposed to be separated, isn't it a bit of a contradiction to have "God" so strongly "embedded" in politics? I'm thinking of:
In God we Trust; official motto, printed on money.
[...] so help me God; president swearing-in.
[...] God bless America; pretty much closing every official announcement.
And so on.
How is explicitly acknowledging to believe in God, as a state, not being something that intrinsically goes against the principle of separation?
united-states religion
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm not an expert in politics at all, but I have been wondering about this for a while.
If Church and State are supposed to be separated, isn't it a bit of a contradiction to have "God" so strongly "embedded" in politics? I'm thinking of:
In God we Trust; official motto, printed on money.
[...] so help me God; president swearing-in.
[...] God bless America; pretty much closing every official announcement.
And so on.
How is explicitly acknowledging to believe in God, as a state, not being something that intrinsically goes against the principle of separation?
united-states religion
New contributor
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
– Alexei
1 hour ago
Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
– Thomas
45 mins ago
@Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
– Tommy
37 mins ago
@Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
– Thomas
11 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm not an expert in politics at all, but I have been wondering about this for a while.
If Church and State are supposed to be separated, isn't it a bit of a contradiction to have "God" so strongly "embedded" in politics? I'm thinking of:
In God we Trust; official motto, printed on money.
[...] so help me God; president swearing-in.
[...] God bless America; pretty much closing every official announcement.
And so on.
How is explicitly acknowledging to believe in God, as a state, not being something that intrinsically goes against the principle of separation?
united-states religion
New contributor
I'm not an expert in politics at all, but I have been wondering about this for a while.
If Church and State are supposed to be separated, isn't it a bit of a contradiction to have "God" so strongly "embedded" in politics? I'm thinking of:
In God we Trust; official motto, printed on money.
[...] so help me God; president swearing-in.
[...] God bless America; pretty much closing every official announcement.
And so on.
How is explicitly acknowledging to believe in God, as a state, not being something that intrinsically goes against the principle of separation?
united-states religion
united-states religion
New contributor
New contributor
edited 4 hours ago
chirlu
3,82341428
3,82341428
New contributor
asked 5 hours ago
Tommy
1063
1063
New contributor
New contributor
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
– Alexei
1 hour ago
Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
– Thomas
45 mins ago
@Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
– Tommy
37 mins ago
@Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
– Thomas
11 mins ago
add a comment |
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
– Alexei
1 hour ago
Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
– Thomas
45 mins ago
@Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
– Tommy
37 mins ago
@Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
– Thomas
11 mins ago
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
– Alexei
1 hour ago
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
– Alexei
1 hour ago
Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
– Thomas
45 mins ago
Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
– Thomas
45 mins ago
@Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
– Tommy
37 mins ago
@Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
– Tommy
37 mins ago
@Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
– Thomas
11 mins ago
@Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
– Thomas
11 mins ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
No, it isn't. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:
It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.
People can certainly disagree based on opinion, but in context of politics and law, the mention of God isn't establishment of a state religion in the U.S.
Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
– Burt_Harris
3 hours ago
Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.
Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorses any group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.
Pragmatically, almost all of Americans are from a abraamic religion that share a root concept of god, they fell represented and will defend the use of this symbology, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it, as there is no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non christians/jews/mulisms, that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism", campaign actively against it, nothing would change.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.
Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.
There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.
Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.
The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
@MartinTournoij edited.
– Jared Smith
3 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
No, it isn't. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:
It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.
People can certainly disagree based on opinion, but in context of politics and law, the mention of God isn't establishment of a state religion in the U.S.
Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
– Burt_Harris
3 hours ago
Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
No, it isn't. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:
It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.
People can certainly disagree based on opinion, but in context of politics and law, the mention of God isn't establishment of a state religion in the U.S.
Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
– Burt_Harris
3 hours ago
Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
No, it isn't. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:
It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.
People can certainly disagree based on opinion, but in context of politics and law, the mention of God isn't establishment of a state religion in the U.S.
No, it isn't. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:
It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.
People can certainly disagree based on opinion, but in context of politics and law, the mention of God isn't establishment of a state religion in the U.S.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Burt_Harris
1,6601226
1,6601226
Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
– Burt_Harris
3 hours ago
Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
– Burt_Harris
3 hours ago
Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
– Burt_Harris
3 hours ago
Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
– Burt_Harris
3 hours ago
Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
– jamesqf
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.
Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorses any group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.
Pragmatically, almost all of Americans are from a abraamic religion that share a root concept of god, they fell represented and will defend the use of this symbology, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it, as there is no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non christians/jews/mulisms, that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism", campaign actively against it, nothing would change.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.
Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorses any group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.
Pragmatically, almost all of Americans are from a abraamic religion that share a root concept of god, they fell represented and will defend the use of this symbology, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it, as there is no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non christians/jews/mulisms, that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism", campaign actively against it, nothing would change.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.
Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorses any group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.
Pragmatically, almost all of Americans are from a abraamic religion that share a root concept of god, they fell represented and will defend the use of this symbology, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it, as there is no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non christians/jews/mulisms, that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism", campaign actively against it, nothing would change.
New contributor
This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.
Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorses any group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.
Pragmatically, almost all of Americans are from a abraamic religion that share a root concept of god, they fell represented and will defend the use of this symbology, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it, as there is no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non christians/jews/mulisms, that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism", campaign actively against it, nothing would change.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 hours ago
Cochise
1213
1213
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.
Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.
There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.
Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.
The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
@MartinTournoij edited.
– Jared Smith
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.
Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.
There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.
Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.
The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
@MartinTournoij edited.
– Jared Smith
3 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.
Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.
There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.
Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.
The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.
Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.
There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.
Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 3 hours ago
Jared Smith
2,7192914
2,7192914
The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
@MartinTournoij edited.
– Jared Smith
3 hours ago
add a comment |
The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
@MartinTournoij edited.
– Jared Smith
3 hours ago
The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
– Martin Tournoij
3 hours ago
@MartinTournoij edited.
– Jared Smith
3 hours ago
@MartinTournoij edited.
– Jared Smith
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Tommy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tommy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tommy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tommy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35719%2fisnt-acknowledging-the-existence-of-god-as-a-state-a-contradiction-of-the-sep%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
– Alexei
1 hour ago
Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
– Thomas
45 mins ago
@Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
– Tommy
37 mins ago
@Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
– Thomas
11 mins ago