What do the 9 Dem contenders think of separation of church and state?

I know the positions of only two: Dean seems to support, Lieberman opposes.

Since separation of church and state and atheists' rights are important to me, I'd like to know what the Democratic contenders think about those issues generally, and also about the following issues specifically:

- The Pledge and Newdow vs. Congress
- The national motto
- Prayer in school
- Atheists' rights (saying atheists have no morals, for example, falls under this category)
- The Ten Commandments in public buildings and Moore's infringement of a court order
- Paid chaplains in the military and Congress

I think it's fair to say that all the Democratic candidates are comparable, with the possible exception of Lieberman, in terms of respecting separation of church and state. I don't know that any of them will "go to the wall" on any of the issues you cite, particularly given this Congress, but they'll appoint judges that will respect the Constitution.

Dean doesn't seem to throw God around much (if at all) in his speeches, and I think that's consistent with Biblical teaching ironically (not to flaunt your religion, especially in a non-religious context). Sharpton (like Lieberman) are the two candidates quite different in that respect, but I think even Sharpton would enforce separation. (And he's entitled to flaunt a bit, since he's a professional.)

...do you know what Shaprton exactly says or does about separation? I know that Lieberman has said several outrageous things, which are reflected in his vote to condemn Newdow vs. Congress. I also know that Dean's "fairly secular," by his own admission, and that he's "tired of listening to fundamentalist preachers." I don't know anything close to that in the amount of detail about any of the 7 other candidates.

I found this interesting link on Sharpton's official campaign web site, detailing the strict rules on what churches can and cannot do to support his campaign, and the information is direct from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I think it's a pretty strong clue he's got the right ideas here.

Sharpton isn't my favorite candidate, and I think he's the ninth most likely candidate to get the nomination (fortunately or unfortunately), but I did want to try to represent his views on this topic since he arguably doesn't get enough attention.

Kucinich:
2002 - 100
2001 - 75

Gephardt:

2002 - 100
2001 - 71

for some reason they appear to not rate senators.

Moreover, the rating is easily impeachable. Both Kucinich and Gephardt voted in July 2002 to condemn Newdow vs. Congress. However, this vote of theirs is not reflected in their 2002 scores; therefore, either Americans United opposes Newdow vs. Congress, in which case it can suck my ass, or it doesn't regard the vote as important enough to be included in its rating, in which case it can suck my ass as well.

http://capwiz.com/au/issues/votes/

one explanation is that in 2001 there was a lot of crap about letting schools display "God Bless America from a quick glance."

I don't see anything about the Newdow v. Congress vote, but since only 5 Representatives voted no and only 4 voted present, they probably figured it would mess up the ratings if almost everyone got a no here.

Rather, it would show how the Republicratic party gives atheists the finger. Giving a candidate 100% when he deserves 50% in order to give someone 100% grossly distorts the results by making things look better than they really are.

Most major politicians support religion and, in effect, "give atheists the finger."

...that since atheists are only 14-15% of the USA, they don't deserve rights?

My points are that A) Most politicians just by doing the math are going to support religion or be religious and that B) They are going to support the majority so they get elected.

What was the purpose of Newdow vs Congress, and do you happen to have an HR number for it?

You've piqued my curiosity here, and I've never heard of this legislation before. With Kucinich being Catholic, and given his recent stances on issues the Vatican is decrying, I'd have to say he's not big on legislating spiritual beliefs into laws. Honestly, I suspect that's a big part of WHY he's altered his stands on abortion and homosexual rights.

because of the "Under God" part. The Senate then passed a resolution condemning it, 99-0 (Jesse Helms was absent, and we all know how he would've voted) and then passed the House with only 5 nay votes and 4 presents (listed below).

...Newdow vs. Congress only ruled the "under god" part unconstitutional, not the whole pledge.

Now there's a shocker for me! It IS unconstitutional, and it never should have been added to begin with. Damn I wish I could write to Kucinich, because I'd really like an explanation for that one.

ever senator voted to condemn including the most liberal ones like Boxer, Feingold and Wellstone and so did almost all of the most liberal Representatives. Even Cynthia McKinney bashed that ruling on her web site press release (I think she was absent for the vote though)

It's disappointing that none of them seem to admit they are atheists.

Jesse Ventura is pro-atheist, though. The highest office ever contested by an out-of-the-closet atheist was the California State Senate; Eddie Tabash contested the Democratic primary for a safely Democratic State Senate seat in Long Beach, and came in a close second. He lost mainly because many liberals, includign some atheists, refused to vtoe for him because he was a white man running against a Hispanic woman and two black men, all of whom were religious.

http://capwiz.com/au/bio/?id=494&congress=1081&lvl=C

he has his religion listed as "not stated" and voted present on the resolution to condemn Newdow vs. Congress.

...do you know anything about the religious affiliation of the 8 other Representatives who voted nay or present?

Nay:

Jim McDermott (WA) - Episcopalian
Pete Stark (CA) - Unitarian
Bobby Scott (VA) - Episcopalian
Barney Frank (MA) - Jewish
Mike Honda (CA) - Protestant

Present:

Gary Ackerman (NY) - Jewish
Nydia Velasquez (NY) - Catholic
Mel Watt (NC) - Presbyterian

Many Unitarians are atheists, so perhaps Stark is. Also Jerrold Nadler from NY originally spoke in favor of the ruling, but didn't vote nay or present, my guess is he was absent. He's listed as Jewish.

Also, do you know how many Representatives were absent? I was under the impression that all 426 who didn't vote nay or present voted yeah.

which is pretty standard for the House from some other votes I've seen.

Stark is from the 13th, which is mostly the eastern coast of San Francisco Bay, and a good chunk of Alameda county.

Some early Presidents were Unitarian but I don't thin the church was very atheist at the time.

Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-CT) (very socially liberal, I think I even heard her husband is an abortion doctor. That's why she's one of the 5 Republicans in the House who voted against the PBA ban this session.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) (yep, even in North Dakota of all places. Of course it's not exactly a fundamentalist state.)

Of course, not all Unitarians are atheists. Only 10% consider themselves Christians though.

Course he ran on the Green ticket but he showed up at the Atheist March in DC and everyone loved him.

of death for them to actually admit it. It may be disappointing, but in this religion-saturated country, it would sink a candidacy like a stone. No matter how many abusive clergy, ripoff preachers, or lying fundamentalists are uncovered, the citizenry still believes that "religious" means "moral." And "nonreligious" (or atheist or agnostic) means "immoral." And don't get me started on the number of people who think that anyone of a religion other than theirs is immoral, too. Sigh.

An atheist could save a dying baby on CNN live, and he'd still be thought of as an immoral weirdo.

it probably wouldn't in an ultra-liberal district but since anyone there would probably be harassed by the religious right, ect. most there probably stay in the closet too.

The serious candidates(Dean, Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, Graham, Edwards) all support seperation church and state in as far as wanting to keep religious values being forced on others. However, I seriously doubt they'd make a big deal out of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance or chaplains in Congress or the military. I think all of them, even Lieberman, opposes posting 10 Commandments in public or requiring prayer in schools.

He spoke out against Newdow vs. Congress even more loudly than Bush did.

Lieberman's stated on more than one occasion that he thinks freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. It's one of the two reasons I'll never support him.

...what? The war? His wag the dog tactics?

he also supports vouchers.

Do you have of this?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

Favors: YES on declaring that memorial prayers and religious symbols at sch

Voted YES on declaring that memorial prayers and religious symbols at sch.
Vote to declare that erecting religious symbols and praying on public school campuses as part of a memorial service does not violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, and to provide legal assistance to any government entity defending such a case.
Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-121 on May 18, 1999

Second of all GOD FORBID KIDS WANT TO RESPECT THE DEAD!!! Oh yes I can see it now...

*Kid says a prayer for his friend who was shot and killed

*Teacher hey kid you can't prey in school, you're suspended.

it just can't be organized. organized prayer and religious monuments have no place in it.

Organized by a teacher is VERY wrong... If students want to organize a small memorial service for someone, I don't see how that is wrong.

Link please...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

Favors
Parents Choose Schools via Vouchers
(7 points on Social scale) Neutral: Would advocate vouchers privately, but support Gore publicly
Favors: Supports charter schools, private education savings accounts
Strongly Favors: Choice won’t “ruin” schools; they’re already in ruins
Strongly Favors: Voted for vouchers; against block grants
Opposes: Offer every parent Charter Schools and public school choice.
Strongly Opposes: Firmly opposed to Bush’s voucher proposal.
Strongly Favors: YES on school vouchers in DC
Favors: YES on education savings accounts
Strongly Opposes: NO on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules
Favors: YES on Educational Savings Accounts
Opposes: YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors
Opposes: YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors

and I see NOTHING about vouchers.

because he knows his stance on the issue would be unpopular in the primaries. of course he didn't exactly flip since he hasn't come out against them, I can bet i (God forbid) he were the nominee he'd be all in favor of them again.

It ain't gonna happen. Bush has a Republican congress and he isn't even making noise about vouchers. Neither will Lieberman.

there was both bills in the Senate and House to set up voucher test programs. Both failed pretty badly though. But Lieberman voted for the Senate version: http://capwiz.com/cwf/issues/votes/?chamber=S&congress=1071&votenum=179&tally=1

As I understand the strict definition, atheists do not believe in any god nor do they entertain the possibility that one (or more) might exist. Agnostics differ from atheists in that they do entertain the possibility that a god may exist.

I'm somewhat puzzled by atheist thinking in that respect. Granted, the likelihood that there is one or more god could be on par with the likelihood that Julia Roberts would marry Pope John Paul II, but, strictly speaking, aren't most atheists really agnostics by definition? It's hard for me to believe that there'd be a lot of people who wouldn't keep an open mind on the subject. While being extremely skeptical, you can't objectively prove a negative (there is no god), can you?

One is this of a weak atheist, who believes that until god is proven to exist, it is rational to believe it doesn't exist (agnostics, by contrast, believe that it's impossible to know whether god exists). The other is this of a strong atheist, like myself, who believes that there is no god, period, for scientific or logical reasons.

I think we need better known terms, then. Here are the five categories, if I'm understanding correctly:

1. Strong atheist. "There is no god, I've reached that conclusion through some scientific and/or logical deduction that satisfies me, and I do not entertain the possibility that I'm wrong."

2. Weak atheist. "Until I see objective evidence otherwise -- and there hasn't been any yet -- there is no god."

3. Weak agnostic(?). "God may or may not exist. I just haven't seen any evidence one way or the other to know."

4. Strong agnostic version 1(?). "God may or may not exist, and it's never going to be possible to prove he doesn't."

5. Strong agnostic version 2(?). "God may or may not exist, and it's never going to be possible to prove he does or doesn't."

I guess it's #1 I don't get, because I don't see how you prove a negative when it comes to a concept like god, except perhaps through another belief system. (And there's nothing wrong with that, of course.) Anyway, don't mean to digress too much here.

The essential spirit of Agnosticism is that, absent any proof, it's ridiculous/arrogant/illogical/whatever to claim that there is or isn't a god. Your statement that Agnostics "believe that it's impossible" to determine is quite in contrast to the very spiritual nature of the beast. If you ask most of us, we'd say something to the effect of: "well, yeah, full revealing with miracles and a big production number with dancing angels and all that rot might sway me..."

Agnostics generally "feel" that there isn't any such thing (I think it's ridiculous, but unproven either way...) and "sit on the fence" either out of mealy-mouthedness or an ethical statement of not wanting to make pronouncements not based on proveable fact.

Athiests often dismiss or flat-out dislike Agnostics in much the same way activist homosexuals dismiss bi-sexuals as cowardly and self-deceived.

Regardless, the concept that we write off any possibility is truly contrary to the mindset.

Whatever. In my heart, alone in the dark, I truly feel that there's nothing there taking care of us and overseeing the whole thing. It makes me cherish life and our own need for efficacy more.

Do people choose candidates first, before they look into them all?


'Catholic' Democratic Contender Kerry Accuses Pope of "Crossing the Line" With Recent Document on Same-Sex Unions

BOSTON, August 6, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Democratic presidential contender John Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts and a self-described Catholic, accused Pope John Paul II of "crossing the line" by publishing the
Vatican's "Considerations" for Catholic legislators regarding same-sex unions.

"It is important not to have the church instructing politicians," Kerry said. "That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in this country. ... President Kennedy drew that line very clearly in 1960 and I believe we need to stand up for that line today. ... Our founding fathers separated church and state in America. It is an important separation. It is part of what makes America different and special, and we need to honor that as we go forward and I'm going to fight to do that."

Monsignor Francis Maniscalco of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops responded: "What one often calls separation of church and state guarantees the religion the right to express its convictions." Added former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Raymond Flynn, "I don't see it as crossing any line at all. Too many Catholic politicians want to have it both ways, they want the Catholic vote but then they go ahead and ignore Catholic teaching."

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/kerr08022003.htm

If Kerry suppots separation of church and state so much, why did he vote to condemn Newdow vs. Congress?

Anyway, I'm asking this question exactly because I want to know the facts.

With the possible exception of Lieberman.

Although, I'm an ardent supporter of the separation of church and state, this issue is a loser for Democrats. There is simply no (politcally) "good" answer to it. IMO a simple "I support the 1st amendment of the constitution regarding the 'establishment' and 'free exercise' of religion" would work. Anything else and they would get hammered with idiot questions about statues of Greek Gods in the Supreme Court and whether the North Turtle Butt elemenarty school can have a Christmas tree.

However, separation can and should be presented as the only way to conserve freedom of religion. "Under which god? Baptist? Catholic? Muslim? Jewish?" is a great slogan, IMO.

...That's good, because we need to be clear in how to explain policies to voters. Another way to draw a bright line on this issue is to hammer the point that America is successful precisely because of its diversity and the ability of its people to work and live together. Consequently politicians who, through their words or deeds, try to divide Americans from one another do not deserve your votes.

Improper use of religion in public life is yet another way to divide Americans: "believers" versus "non-believers," Jews versus Christians versus Muslims, sinners versus non-sinners. That's not our vision for America. Move to Kashmir or the former Yugoslavia if you want that nonsense.

How's that?

It depends, too, on your perspective on the separation. Or how you define "church." For me, church in this instance does not mean spiritual belief, but organized religion. The purpose being to prevent our nation from being owned, organized, or driven by one or any formal, organized faith.

I'm not even sure how I feel about your specific issues.

-the pledge? Newdow? I supported the pledge until it was mandated; then I quit saying it. I guess it depends on what the flag symbolizes for each; I won't set a piece of silk on a stick on an altar. For me, the flag represents our constitution, and I can pledge my support for that. Until someone mandates it, which violates the constitution.

-national motto...do you mean "In god we trust?" Not a problem for me until it's used as a tool by right-wing xtians. My issue here is the definition of god...the assumption that god always means the judeo-christian diety. I have no problem with acknowledging the possible existence of a higher power or intelligence, I just don't want it defined according to one group's archetype.

-prayer in school. What a red herring. Anyone can pray anytime they want. No one can stop you from praying. The issue is public prayer, which is a clear violation. You cannot mandate prayer. Mandating a "moment of silence" while everyone else is praying is an infringement. Why the hell should we not go on about our business while those who wish to pray do so?

-Do athiests have different rights than the rest of us? Saying athiests have no morals is the same as calling someone an infidel, a sinner, etc. Name calling and lying is not unconstitutional. It's just unethical.

-Ten commandments...I listened to Alan Keyes raving wildly on this issue Friday. Then I listened to my younger son's solution...take some large equipment, roll over the top of the demonstrators, and remove it. So simple. My older son offered to bury it in a mountain of artifacts from other faiths so that all were represented. I'll leave this one up to the judges, since it really isn't a president's choice or decision.

-paid chaplains...fine, as long as you offer chaplains from the actual faith of the service people, and various philosophers/counselors, or whatever for the agnostic/athiests. Serve/represent all equally.

Am I doing ok here?

For the record, the candidate of my choice is a very spiritual person. He embraces believers of all faiths or belief systems as worthy americans. Is all-inclusiveness a permissable stance on the separation of church and state, or does the candidate/legislator need to be an athiest to honor the separation?

First of all, it's a pledge to the wrong thing: the flag. It's not a pledge to the Constitution, and the word "Constitution" isn't even in the script.

Second, it's a pledge given by young minors who legally cannot consent to sex, liquor, buying real estate, most employment, enlisting in the Armed Forces, or anything else of even minor consequence.

Third, unless it's voluntary, it's meaningless. Real patriotism is given voluntarily, out of love for country (and its principles) rather than obligation or force. Dictatorships practice the latter.

If a teacher in a public school forces a kid to say the pledge they would get well a major smackdown per say. Personally I've been pledging to the flag ever since elementary school and proud of it. Kids shouldn't be forced to say the pledge (first ammendment) but they should have the option of being respectful to their country.

With your view of the pledge.

As a public school teacher, I am mandated to participate. I've always taught the pledge to my kids; they'll be saying it over and over throughout their lives, I think they ought to know what it's all about. So we discuss each phrase. I've never mandated reciting it. When my principal decided that the entire school would recite the pledge together every morning via the intercom, I quit saying it. We stand. Some of us say it, some don't.

I took a road trip last week; sometime during the 12 hour trip home, I heard on NPR that Texas is now mandating a pledge to the state flag as well as the american flag in all public schools.

for all school students and teachers.

The law was just suspended as being unconstitutional because of the teacher requirement.

The state is now working on a new version.

It was seen as a generic pledge across national lines, some of which had no written constitution. "I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty, justice, <"and equality" which was removed> for all."

the paid chaplains in the military.

Having a tax-payer paid chaplain in Congress is arguable, but are you saying the religious men and women in the military, especially those in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, with their lives in danger every day, should not have access to a chaplain?

I don't think that amounts to establishment of religion. I think it simply provides access for those who want it.

If the government began to require GIs to attend religious services, that may be a different story, but I haven't seen evidence of that.

Equal access to religious services for military men and women is what I favor, including services for atheists and agnostics if and as they want them. You can't fly soldiers back to their home churches from a war zone. There's also the issue of morale and fighting effectiveness. Like it or not, there are some soldiers who kill better with a little Jesus talk. :-(

On edit: Make that "fake Jesus talk." Somehow they skip the part about "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor." And conscientious objectors aren't exactly popular in wartime.

And on the issue of a chaplin in Congress:

1) The supreme court already ruled on that

2) It's an internal thing within each house of congress so it's pretty much their decission. Plus it only costs each taxpayer a fraction of a penny I'm sure. If you really wanna complain

By wanting the president to take a strong stance on these religious issues I think you are asking presidential candidates to make further seperation of church and state. Candidates appeal to religious groups only to get more votes to win an election. I doubt that most of them are actually partial to a certain religion. BTW I don't see why atheists can't win elections, except for maybe in southern ultra-conservative states (which you can't even win if you're not Christian anyway). I think the only reason they don't is that they are very few in number and therefore less people of a certain group = less candidates from a certain group = less people of that certain group winning elections. Besides, there's millions of Americans who identify themselves with a certain religion but rarely ever go to church/temple/etc. (myself being one of them) I'm sure that many of these people wouldn't even think about the fact that a candidate is atheist but just vote for them based on their platform and their merits.

I grew up as a non-believer from a believer family in a couple of very religious states. This is about the most hate-inviting personal choice one can make.

Lieberman is a fundamentalist, but he doesn't have a chance. I'm suspicious of Sharpton because he is literally a man of the cloth, but I trust him as a decent human being, unlike Quisling Joe.

Kucinich is much more religious than one would believe, but he's a truly ethical man.

I don't think we're in any danger of further encroachment of belief into government from any of the rest, and a rollback is simply not possible right now.

We must win, and to do so, we need to personally grow up and take a few on the chin for the team. I hate guns, but I hope the issue doesn't come up. I totally support all gay rights and institution of specific equality, but I beseech my gay cohorts to take heart in the great strides made, see the obvious trend for the future, and take the hit for the moment while the very world is on the line. Medical Marijuana is another divisive issue that needs to be tabled for the moment. Anyone with me on these points?

I'd like reasoning behind you calling Lieberman a fundamentalist and why you think Sharpton and Kucinich (neither of which have a chance in hell of winning) are ethical and Lieberman is not.

Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew, and as such is a very strict adherent to a rigid religion. That is a fundamentalist. Although he supports certain traditionally Democratic planks, he's for massive censorship of the media, closer involvement of religion in government, blind allegiance to anything Israel wants and dangerous dislike of the Muslim world. He is in the pocket of the accounting industry and is very much responsible for quashing any Enron investigation. (Okay, I'm getting off the track here, you only asked about fundamentalism.) His screeching Quisling outcry against Bill Clinton was largely based on "moral" grounds, stemming from a traditionalist and extremist belief system. Fundamentalism is inches away from being synonymous with Orthodoxy, and he is of the same stripe.

I consider Lieberman duplicitous and bought by corporate interests. His moral posturing simply doesn't measure up to his opportunistic righteous dudgeon. Like many of religion, he seems to feel above the laws of comportment to which the rest of us adhere. His agenda is NOT what he represents, which is in itself the definition of untrustworthiness. Like Ashcroft, he wants us to believe that his personal tight-assed straight-laced views won't interfere with his "doing his job". That's all a load of crap; an Attorney General and a President don't just follow the laws, they PRIORITIZE what our energies will be brought to pursue. Hence, Ashcroft wastes money going after hookers, embarrassing statues, drug paraphernalia and pornography while corporate criminals steal us blind and our domestic anti-terrorism intelligence suffers. Much better that we should spend money setting up some pigeon for missile sales to grandstand to the people than actually do the damned job. But, once again, I've digressed.

Lieberman's agenda is to implement more censorship, and shove more religion down our throats. As he claims to want to solve international problems, what he really wants to do is guarantee Israel at any cost, even if it sets off WW-4 for real. That's a huge lie of misrepresentation. The man is a skunk, pure and simple. Just 'cuz he's not as thoroughly bad as a Tom Delay doesn't mean anything.

Sharpton is a bit of a huckster and rabble rouser, but he has a history of sticking up for the little guy. His race views, often a source of derision, are not that far off the mark. Whether he's honest or not is largely based on conjecture, but I have seen a habit of outreach as opposed to divisiveness, and he seems to be clear and consistent in his platform. I see considerable honesty in this man.

Kucinich is possibly too honest to even be in politics. His uncompromising nature shows a strong set of principles. The consistency of being a Catholic, being against the death penalty and abortion--whether I agree or not--shows a logical consistency and a courage to face the music. The fact that he's reneged on the abortion issue while still disliking the idea of it, shows a sense of moderation that is more in tune with that needed from a politician. My quibbles with Kucinich have nothing to do with his honesty; he's a truly trustworthy person.

Now, as you asked me, would you be so kind as to respond?

I'm firmly on the side of Atheists rights and the separation of Church and State, but I also draw the line at the padi Chaplain issue. That's mainly because I've been directly involved with the military all my life, and I'm convinced that spiritual leadership on the battlefield is a necessity for the morale and mental stability of those soldiers who do have religious beliefs they follow.

As in any profession there are some unscrupulous ones, the jerk who wouldn't allow soldiers to bathe unless they agreed to being baptised springs to mind, BUT overall they perform a valuable and needed part of battlefield morale maintenance. Also for the record, chaplains like the creep I mentioned here are few and far between, in my experience. The vast majority of paid Chaplains in the military have been skilled at counseling people without referring to religious doctrine for those who don't subscribe to it.

He did so to contrast the need for military chaplains (which fall under the can't-make-it-to-church group along with prisons and hospitals) with the non-need for chaplains in Congress.

The congressional chaplaincy issue falls solely in the jurisdiction of the Congress, however, as a separation of powers issue.