No mention of deities in government

To promote religious freedom, there should not be any mention of any god(s) in government documents or government sponsored organizations.

Vote
92%
8%
Rating
Votes
38
Views
3743
Mark as inappropriate

15 Comments

  • Which document are you talking about, but please read it all first as you my be surprised that's if your from the US.

    0 0

  • @babelfish Some of the ones I can list are (for the United States) Declaration of Independence, Oath of Allegiance, Maryland's Declaration of Rights, and North Carolina's State Constitution. There are probably others that I don't know about.

    0 0

  • the constitution does not mention a god, its also what US governance is all about. the other documents are pretty meaningless other than the oaths of which where changed by religious minded politicians that still have no clue why the constitution did not mention god, within its political content. However I don't think that creating a democratic world governance should present any forms of religion not atheism with in a constitution or any form indoctrination. As a world governance would never get off the ground

    0 0

  • Please read the paper work on the left hand column especially "About this site" and "How it works"

    0 0

  • No but their dollar bill does have at the top 'In God We Trust.'

    0 0

  • Anonymous

    8 years ago
    This is the best idea in this catagory.

    0 0

  • Anonymous

    7 years ago
    I do not agree. This country was founded by men who trusted in God. God is mentioned in many of the documents because they put Him in those documents. 'In God We Trust' is on our one dollar bill. They prayed together. They sought God's guidance for this country but they also believed and upheld from this nation's birth, freedom of religion. If you take God out of everything you doom this nation. As you can see from our own history that this is the truth. They have taken God out of nearly everything and as you can see America has become corrupt, violent and immoral. Oh, and BROKE. If this nation does not repent and turn back to God, it will cease to exist. The ONLY true hope for America is God.

    0 0

  • Anonymous

    7 years ago
    * I think, initially, that the Name GOD, does not invoke the mystical..as, (the Great Spirit) and non-humanist, or personal, as (Zeus or...) However, To cite GOD, IS, a worthy ....thing to do..*humans, IMO, should NOT disregard the existence of Higher Power, or a stronger moral foundation than what we mere mortals could devise and present.. i say NO> do NOT remove God...>As Ben Franklin stated, the Founding documents, were MEANT for a GOD_FEARING body of constituents, and for any less, they would be wholly inadequate.. perhaps, those words will someday be twisted, to ...an easy excuse to remove the Constitution, and THAT would be wrong, AND scary...though, human beings always tend to find a way to out-smart ourselves, and the corrupt and privileged will always be LOOKING for (more power and more..._____) THIS WORLD NEEDS, God..and Men of Wisdom, who maintain TRUE BENEVOLANCE of character, for their fellow man...our problem, is our own immorality..human nature: to run wanton and reckless through the Lord's Creation. Careless, and always seeking to gather MORE unto ourselves. >> I fear the World, that will be left for our descendants...to salvage. >if even possible.

    0 0

  • I agree. Are we not passed putting faith in God like figures? why not put our faith in human existence. Religion still plays an important part in human society, however since there has been a general shift away from mass religious belief, perhaps now we should look more inwardly, take famous figures form history and display them as our GODS??

    0 0

  • I sure hope that this was a wise choosing of words because the mention of "deities" is far different than the mention of "god" because "god" is a general term who's precise definition is determined solely by the individual as it pertains to themselves.

    Now, while I understand the reasoning behind not mentioning any specific deities, government represents everyone, and "Democracy" is a "majority-rules" scenario meant to eliminate the ability of the few to dictate over the majority.

    The facts are, majorities all over the world are going to believe in specific deities, and legislation is going to have to deal with such things in a world-wide Democracy.

    The primary idea of freedom is that all ideas are given the same objective consideration. You cannot say to all Islamic communities of the entire world that you have no rights to have Sharia law because we've decided that it's the wrong choice.

    If that's what their majority wants in their communities, they have every right to that because this is a world-wide Democracy, not a national thing. A Muslim can simply move away from the U.S. if he or she holds to the opinion that our ways are detrimental to the well-being and development of his/her family. They can choose to leave and go to a nation that agrees with them. They have every right to believe the way they do, regardless of how erroneous we may believe them to be. The right to pursue happiness is not an idle concept meant to placate the masses, it is a fundamental foundational principle that our nation was built upon and that the left locks itself in bitter war against.

    Deities will have to be mentioned in order to grant the rights of majorities their rights to their own majority opinions in a world-wide Democracy.

    However, what should be done instead of banning the mention of Deities is a more broad thing such as no majority decision or law for any community is allowed to enforce it's will upon any individual who has made a decision to be released from its burden. For example, if a community, mostly of Muslims, decides to implement Sharia, they have every right to implement it because it's a Democracy and majority rules, but they have no rights to force any individual to be under that law who has decided to formally renounce and reject that law.

    It's not something we have not already dealt with. The Native Americans, many of the tribes have their own tribe-only governments and laws that the tribal members are required to follow. The U.S. government does not go in and force them to follow all it's laws. They have their rights to privileges of law that most Americans do not have, and this is a good thing because we took their land, it's the least we can do.

    Anyhow, the point is this, their people give their consent to follow those laws, and any of them that decide that they no longer wish to be under those laws have every right as a citizen to be freed from them.

    Now, of course those laws are typically easy laws to follow, I'd imagine, but the point is, they have their rights to follow their own ideas and ideals without interference except where the state or national government feels in prudent. For example, none of them are allowed be cannibals, and I realize that's a rather crude example, but the fact is, there were tribes that existed had such gruesome practices.

    My point is this majority-rules in each community as it sees fit thing is not something that we haven't dealt with. It's not something that we cannot make happen. It is something that we must make happen because all ideas and ideals have the right to be heard by the rational and vast majority of people in this world.

    0 0

  • I object because religion is not a drawer inside us. It is part of who we are, influences how we act in society. If a country has a majority in any religion it is a democratic right for people to show it.

    0 1

  • I object because i want to see islamic countries do it first

    0 0

Similar Ideas:

Instantly search any time by typing

Sorry, we couldn't find
"".