Fundies Push for Inclusion of God in EU Constitution

[Cromag]

OK lets clear a few things up....

First of all the term "Separation of church and state" is not a part of any US Document. So many cling to this statement as their basis of argument, when in fact it is not even a factor.

True, but IIRC, one of the authors of the document (I believe it was Jefferson) has stated in those exact words that it was the intent behind the 1st amendment.

This entire discussion about the US is based off of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

<snip the bit dealt with above>

First of all THis amendment declares that the state is to show no predjudice or favor to any religious belief. This amendment has been cited to remove the act of prayer in public schools. Now I can understand, there are those that would take offense (those of non-christian ideology) if forced to pray as part of a daily school routine. Ok but what about those that feel that prayer is an intregral part of Daily routine? Isn't that prohibiting free excersize there-of? Considering that School time is regulated and structured, by not providing time to freely excersize a religious act that is as equally a violation of the first amendment as forcing prayer.

Being public schools, there should neither be a sanctioned prayer time nor school policy against prayer. The school should remain completely neutral in the matter. Religious expression in school isn't against any instituted policy, like some of the chain emails I've received seem to imply, it simply isn't addressed in policy at all. In other words, it's neutral to religion.

If a student's praying happens to be disruptive to a class, I think a teacher has every right to ask them to save it for, say, lunch period, but that doesn't mean he/she is enforcing some anti-religion school policy.

This amendment is not meant to protect the state from religion. It is meant to protect religion from the state.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that the 1st amendment sets up some sort of conflict between Church and State, when its intent was for government to be fair to all its citizens and be neutral towards religion.

If you can consider that aethism is a religion, as a "collection of beliefs", by allowing my religious beliefs as a christian to be supressed in a public forum to respect the beliefs of another group of beliefs. Well then How is this constitutional?

Nope, sorry, atheism fails the test as a religion because of the lack of any supernatural elements, the lack of any "spiritual leader", and it isn't a cause in the usual sense of the word. It simply is the lack of belief in any governing supernatural being. With your definition, "collection of beliefs", so many things fit that category as to make the term meaningless.

The rest of your point is moot, as there is no public policy supporting atheism.

Next is Cromag's mention of the Declaration of Indepance.

Mention of Nature's God is Still a mention of religious context.
Endowed by their creator.-Religious context.

Yes, but the specific context is Jefferson's belief in an impersonal god that leaves us to our own devices. A far cry from religions like Christianity and Judaism. How this helps your case is unclear.

The Declaration is a document of religious context and NON-Specific religious context is not viable means to negate it's involvement. The bill of rights included that statement to declare that the US Goverment would not declare and allegiance to support a specific religion nor deny ones right to practice that religion.

It's actually very specific, it has to do with Deism. The Bill of Rights makes no mention of any god. Only the first amendment has anything to do with religion and, as stated above, it establishes that the government shall remain neutral on the matter, making no policy that supports one above any other nor prevents the free practice thereof.

As far as the EU constitution is concerned. The beliefs of the majority will govern it's path.

Doesn't mean that the decision would be the best one. Propping up any single religious figure over others is just a bad idea, period.

Remember, Democracies nor Republics, make EVERYONE happy, just the majority of them, or those that voice their opinion the loudest (voting)

Nor were any of us naive enough to think so, but when it comes to something as sensitive as religion, no government should take up a position that excludes a significant portion of its constituency.

If you're actually interested in continuing this discussion, I'd suggest another thread, as this one is supposed to be about the EU's inclusion of the Christian God into their Constitution.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I'ts a good thing America wrote it's constitution in secret 225 years ago. No fundies were telling them what to put in it.

Anyway, for a multicultral place like Europe, mentioning of one specific god in a government document would be quite one-sided.

[Andrew J.]

How many countries would support this kind of thing?

[Durandal]

OK lets clear a few things up....

First of all the term "Separation of church and state" is not a part of any US Document. So many cling to this statement as their basis of argument, when in fact it is not even a factor.

But it's mentioned numerous times in quotes and letters by and from the founding fathers. Their intentions were clear.

This entire discussion about the US is based off of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

See the statement of "Separation of church and state" is a loose Generalization of that amendment... The first part of this amendment is generally the support advocates of this separation. But most choose to ignore the second part, and all of them distort its purpose.

Putting your religious beliefs into law is not free exercise. It violates others' freedom from religious persecution.

First of all THis amendment declares that the state is to show no predjudice or favor to any religious belief. This amendment has been cited to remove the act of prayer in public schools. Now I can understand, there are those that would take offense (those of non-christian ideology) if forced to pray as part of a daily school routine. Ok but what about those that feel that prayer is an intregral part of Daily routine? Isn't that prohibiting free excersize there-of? Considering that School time is regulated and structured, by not providing time to freely excersize a religious act that is as equally a violation of the first amendment as forcing prayer.

So each school should provide a time set aside for Voodoo-practicing students to sacrifice chickens?

This amendment is not meant to protect the state from religion. It is meant to protect religion from the state.

The government does not have freedom of religion.

If you can consider that aethism is a religion, as a "collection of beliefs", by allowing my religious beliefs as a christian to be supressed in a public forum to respect the beliefs of another group of beliefs. Well then How is this constitutional?

Is the state saying that atheism is the one, true way? No. Allowing prayer in public schools, however, says that atheism is wrong.

Next is Cromag's mention of the Declaration of Indepance.

Mention of Nature's God is Still a mention of religious context.
Endowed by their creator.-Religious context.

So what?

The Declaration is a document of religious context and NON-Specific religious context is not viable means to negate it's involvement. The bill of rights included that statement to declare that the US Goverment would not declare and allegiance to support a specific religion nor deny ones right to practice that religion.

As far as the EU constitution is concerned. The beliefs of the majority will govern it's path.

Remember, Democracies nor Republics, make EVERYONE happy, just the majority of them, or those that voice their opinion the loudest (voting)

Ah, OK. So black people should have remained slaves because it would have kept the majority of people happy?

[UltraViolence83]

Pardon my ignorance, but how exactly does the EU function? Is it like NATO, only with trade agreements, or does it function like the US (i.e., numerous states contribute to a larger federal govenment)? If the latter is true, does it aspire to become one big nation, with places like France and Germany in a "state" relationship to it?

[Exonerate]

I was for the EU because it would hopefully have the guts to standup to the US...
However, with fundies behind it, I'm not so sure I want that to happen...

Idiot fundies trying to force their views on us.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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.”


Whats so hard to understand about this? Why do people keep insisting that the 1st Amendment isn't meant to keep religion seperate from government?

[Colonel Olrik]

Pardon my ignorance, but how exactly does the EU function? Is it like NATO, only with trade agreements, or does it function like the US (i.e., numerous states contribute to a larger federal govenment)? If the latter is true, does it aspire to become one big nation, with places like France and Germany in a "state" relationship to it?

The interaction has nothing to do with NATO. We even have the same currency, as you must be aware. All the main economic decisions are taken by the central government (ran by a chanceler) chosen by the E.U parliement.

The differences to the U.S are two: firstly, the central government receives less money than in the U.S. Secondly, the political moves must generally have the consensus between all member countries.

It's going more fed, it's inavoidable. At this point, the countries are really little more than states.

About the Constitution and God: It's not going to happen, as I've said before. Stop worrying. Nobody's taking that purposal seriously. Most governments are currently ran by parliements with conservative tendencies, but the left wing is too strong on Europe, and even the right wing is a lot more moderate than in the States. France and Germany are strongly against the idea, as well as my country and most of all the others.

The polish may want it, but they're not even a member yet, and will be in minority (and a newb state, wanting nothing more than to gain the maximum money to recover to E.U wealth levels, so not intersted in creating waves). The only other country I can think of favourable to the idea would be Ireland. The numbers in favour are insignificant.

[Hendrake]

The polish may want it, but they're not even a member yet, and will be in minority (and a newb state, wanting nothing more than to gain the maximum money to recover to E.U wealth levels, so not intersted in creating waves). The only other country I can think of favourable to the idea would be Ireland. The numbers in favour are insignificant.

And Italy, whose moronic gov tried even to pass a law saying that every public place should have a cross. Luckily it did not pass, but they will try to push for inclusion of God in the EU. That is the price for housing the bloody Vatican.

[Colonel Olrik]

And Italy, whose moronic gov tried even to pass a law saying that every public place should have a cross. Luckily it did not pass, but they will try to push for inclusion of God in the EU. That is the price for housing the bloody Vatican.

That's the price for electing Berlusconi. The man is a clown with fascist tendencies. But in a democracy (specially in the italian democracy) governments don't last long.

[Lord Pounder]

The polish may want it, but they're not even a member yet, and will be in minority (and a newb state, wanting nothing more than to gain the maximum money to recover to E.U wealth levels, so not intersted in creating waves). The only other country I can think of favourable to the idea would be Ireland. The numbers in favour are insignificant.

And Italy, whose moronic gov tried even to pass a law saying that every public place should have a cross. Luckily it did not pass, but they will try to push for inclusion of God in the EU. That is the price for housing the bloody Vatican.

Simple solution then. Move the Vatican out to an uninhabited island in the Pacific or something.

[Illuminatus Primus]

On the other side, as much as the Founders were Semi-fundies, they knew enough to institute a separation of church and state BECAUSE of their experiences with European christianity and religion. Many Americans came here fleeing religious persecution at home, Europeans being the persecutors don't have alot of experience with this, thus separation of church and state does not seem to be as important for them as it is for us. I happen to think that its VITAL if a nation is to be truly free...but thats just my two cents.

Stravo you're clueless and have been brainwashed by Liberman and Bush's dumbshit.

Most of the key founding father were deists or agnostics. Washington never went to Church. Jefferson insulted Christianity. Thomas Paine was a downright atheist.

They put those statements in there (and the Declaration is not a governing document, and the comparison is incorrect) to appease EIGHTEENTH CENTURY fundies.

Your comparison is futile.

[Stravo]

On the other side, as much as the Founders were Semi-fundies, they knew enough to institute a separation of church and state BECAUSE of their experiences with European christianity and religion. Many Americans came here fleeing religious persecution at home, Europeans being the persecutors don't have alot of experience with this, thus separation of church and state does not seem to be as important for them as it is for us. I happen to think that its VITAL if a nation is to be truly free...but thats just my two cents.

Stravo you're clueless and have been brainwashed by Liberman and Bush's dumbshit.

Most of the key founding father were deists or agnostics. Washington never went to Church. Jefferson insulted Christianity. Thomas Paine was a downright atheist.

They put those statements in there (and the Declaration is not a governing document, and the comparison is incorrect) to appease EIGHTEENTH CENTURY fundies.

Your comparison is futile.

Considering that I retracted this statment IN THIS SAME THREAD your critique seems a little...late. Or maybe just malicious.

[Julhelm]

Send up a thermonuclear warhead to god.