ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE) (06/01/85)
In article <162@mb2c.UUCP>, mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) 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 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 > What about those of you out there who are "GODLESS" ? Do you feel alienated by this guy who was just sworn in, and made reference to a deity whom you cannot see, touch or feel? A deity whose disciples have T.V. shows in Orange County whose net revenues exceed operating costs by 75 percent? A deity who only published once? And who made some awfully unscientific remarks about the origins of life? Whither rational thought on this net? Might I be so bold as to posit that there are some who might like no mention of such a deity, in the affairs of state? Can you say "moral majority?" I knew you could... ATV would like no mention of