Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mb2c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!mb2c!mpr
From: mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.religion,net.politics
Subject: Violation of separation church and state?
Message-ID: <162@mb2c.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 11:18:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: mb2c.162
Posted: Thu May 30 11:18:09 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 12:49:23 EDT
References: <1192@opus.UUCP> <2083@sdcc6.UUCP> <1702@aecom.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Michigan Bell, Southfield, MI
Lines: 32
Xref: linus net.legal:1384 net.religion:6593 net.politics:8550

> > 
> > 
> > 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