I'd say you are walking a fine line there.

--------------------

The First Amendment contains two clauses about the Freedom of Religion. The first part is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second as the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that will establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The courts have interpreted the establishment clause to accomplish the separation of church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of his or her religion. However, religious actions and rituals can be limited by civil and federal laws.

Religious freedom is an absolute right, and includes the right to practice any religion of one’s choice, or no religion at all, and to do this without government control.

This post was edited by Frickaline on Jul 16 2010 04:05pm

A religious guy can see no problem with God bless America, while an agnostic/atheist might feel offended.
As i know it, i daresay the number of atheists are increasing. Aren`t the politicians infringing a right by saying those ?
As i see it, they are.

Edit :

Thanks, that`s what i wanted to know. So i was rite

This post was edited by B4al on Jul 16 2010 04:05pm

Why would you be, Christian?

If you're insinuating that it actually does refer to the Christian god then you're wrong.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Jul 16 2010 04:06pm

I have a problem with it. It does mean that any god should never be mentioned. Mentioning god at all compromises the secularity of the state.

Nothing in here at all implies that public officials cannot (on their own volition) say "God bless America" in a speech.

This is ignoring that the 1st Amendment is incredibly limited in what it was meant to accomplish, it has only been judicial activism from there on out to expand it to where it is today.

AEtheric - No, it doesn't, not even how it is misinterpreted today. You want state-mandated atheism. Learn the 1st Amendment.

No, it's not state-mandated atheism. The state isn't saying "THERE IS NO GOD", the state is saying "WE DON'T TALK ABOUT GOD," and that's the way it should be.

Well first of all, you were talking about "in god we trust" on national currency.

Second, when the leader of the country attempts to impress his personal religion on society, there is a clear breach of the establishment clause. If it is a simple "god bless america", Americans will likely let it slide, seeing no real motive there. If it becomes more verbose, there would be an issue.

Think of it this way. If we elected a leader who was Jewish or Muslim or FSM (beloved spaghetti!), how would their religious references in state speeches make you feel? I'm guessing that it would depend on how far they went with it.

Ie. Mandating that God for all intents and purposes not exist. If a politician wants to talk about God he is well able to. He cannot press his belief on others, and he cannot mandate a religion, he can certainly give a blessing at the end of his speech.

Frickaline - Except no one is. And yes, Muslim references would be fine, the only thing the politician needs to fear is the public reaction.

He is able to in private life.
When he becomes the representative of 2-300 millions, he should not express any belief and disbelief on the matter. Expressing either of them would simply imply influencing people.

If I don't talk about god that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's just stupid. A politician or congressman or whatever, while representing the united states government, should not talk about religion whatsoever.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Jul 16 2010 04:47pm