mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (05/30/85)
> > > > > > In article <1192@opus.UUCP> atkins@opus.UUCP (Brian Atkins) writes: > > > > I'd like to add an interesting tid bit to Brian's discussion > > of Curch and State. In an Anthropology class I once took we > > studied religion in the U.S., and we noticed that in EVERY > > one of the inaugural (sp?) speaches made by past > > Presidents, G-d was mentioned. In no way was it ever > > offensive, but It was another direct play with the influence > > of church and state. > > > > I too would like a discussion of this over the net. > > > > Let's not get involved in the 'in G-D we trust' on our money, > as we did a few months ago. > > Eliyahu Teitz. I do not see a violation of the Seperation requirement if a President uses God in his speech, if God is marked on a coin, or if a Priest makes the opening invocation at a governmental function. I would interested in knowing why readers on the net see such a conflict. One thing you must remember is that the Constitutional requirement primarily frowns on a Governmental intertwining with the Church. The mere allusion to a God or a Church is not unconstitutional. Mark Reina
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/31/85)
>/* mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) / 11:18 am May 30, 1985 */ >I do not see a violation of the Seperation requirement if a President >uses God in his speech, if God is marked on a coin, or if a Priest >makes the opening invocation at a governmental function. I would interested >in knowing why readers on the net see such a conflict. If a president uses god in his speech, and that speech is at a government function, that function is paid for by the government, his time is being paid for by the government, etc., then it is government acting to establish a religion. Mike Sykora