I have a question about separation of church and state...?

Question

From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong), the separation of church and state agreement was made to keep the government out of the church, so there would be freedom of religion, as there should be. Why does it now seem like it's keeping the church out of the government?

ramrod...it's reassuring to know other people feel the same way!:)

Answer 1

First of all the term "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution. It is implied due to the fact that the original settlers here were fleeing religious persecution in their home countries. That "separation" was to protect the rights of ALL people regardless of their religious background. There is no mention that the church cannot enter the government, the protection was to keep the government out of the church. The signers of the Declaration of Independence and the writers of the Constitution were all religious (Christian) men. Charles Carrol of Carrolington was the only Catholic, the rest were of other denominations, Anglicans, Calvinists, Quakers ect. It is in this century after World War II, that the move to remove any mention of God from public buildings, currency, schools has had full sway. As a result there are no longer any absolutes. You swear on no Bible in court, Schools have become battlegrounds and there is no respect or reverence of God to be found outside the private home or church. If you read thye writings of these men you will realize the changes that have been made to their original work have strayed drasticly from the original intent. They would be ashamed.

Answer 2

Based on some of the answers to this question, it's because there are so-called "Americans" who don't understand a thing about why this country was founded. Specifically, it was essential to the founders to prevent democracy from being used by the majority religion(s) to enact laws based on religious beliefs that may not apply to people who do not share that faith. England had a long history of monarchs who did precisely that, and the founders recognized that a church's influence on leaders with the powers of the state was a recipe for abuse and oppression.

That's why they enshrined the concept of the separation of church and state as the FIRST thing mentioned in the very FIRST AMENDMENT of the U.S. Constitution (the Bill of Rights). It's even mentioned before freedom of speech!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The first phrase is about keeping religion out of laws (church out of government), and the second phrase is about keeping laws away from religion (government out of the church). If anything, the founders considered the first even more important than the second.

Answer 3

There are two quite distinct clauses in the First Amendment pertaining to religion.

1. Establishment Clause: First, we have the Establishment Clause. That clause prohibits any law "respecting an establishment of religion." The main purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent government from endorsing or supporting religion.

2. Free Exercise: The second clause is the Free Exercise Clause. That clause bars any law "prohibiting the free exercise of religion." The main purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to prevent the government from outlawing or seriously burdening a person's pursuit of whatever religion (and whatever religious practices) he chooses.

B. Applicable to states: Both the Establishment and the Free Exercise Clauses by their terms only restrict legislative action by Congress. However, both clauses have been interpreted to apply also to the states, by means of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Therefore, you don't have to worry whether the government action in question is federal or state - the same standards apply to each. [599]

C. Conflict: Occasionally, the Establishment and Free Exercises Clauses seem to conflict on particular facts. That is, a religious group may be asking for some government benefit; if the benefit is given, there may be an Establishment Clause problem. Yet if the benefit is not gven, this may be a burdening of religion. When the two clauses seem to conflict, the Free Exercise Clause dominates. In other words, if a particular benefit or accommodation to religion is arguably required by the Free Exercise Clause, then when government grants that accommodation or benefit it is not violating the Establishment Clause.

Example: A public university makes meeting rooms available to all sorts of student groups. If the university allows religious groups to use the room, there might be an Establishment Clause problem. But if it doesn't allow religious groups to use the rooms, while allowing non-religious groups to do so, there might be a Free Exercise Clause problem. Consequently, it will not be an Establishment Clause violation for the university to allow the religious groups to use the rooms. [599]

Answer 4

First ( there is no speperation of Church and State in the Constitution) please read it. First it relations to the Federal Government

It mrely restricts the government from passing laws to restrict religion ( which it does anyway, look at the IRS rules on churches doing political lobby)

Next it says there can not be a National Relgiion, one denomination can not be prefered over another.

But it never says that the church can not or should not have some place in the government

Prayers when Congress starts, swearing the president in with the bible, paid chaplains in military, it is obvious they wanted or thought that the Church had a place in society
Next it does not allow

Answer 5

It was meant to work in both directions...but in the simple form of the government not endorsing any particular church or religion as the 'national' religion (like the church of England for example) and conversely to prevent a theocracy from taking hold within the government. The original intent was never to eliminate religion from public places, like schools, nor to keep religious people from high office. The extremes that have been imposed by the liberal left is way beyond the original intent and beyond the wants and desires of the vast majority of Americans....but unfortunately, it's exactly what the liberal activist judges want...and so it goes.

Answer 6

The first amendment of the US constitution says that the government may not establish an official state religion. It doesn't say that religious people can't be involved in the government. Doing so would disenfranchise the majority of the populace.

The key to how a democratic government works is that it allows every citizen to take part. Blocking the participation of a group because of their religious beliefs would be a first step towards destroying that democracy.

You may not like what the religious people would do if they gained control of the government. The process allows you to participate too, to counter them. If you don't take part, you forfeit your right to complain about it, and you deserve whatever government you get.

Answer 7

Mostly because people refuse to learn their history. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Part of the concern of the founding fathers was that people be free to participate in any religion they decided to without interference from the government. It had nothing to do with government not being influenced by participants religious beliefs.

As John Adams said: "…it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

Answer 8

Separation of Church and State (The Magna Carta) was designed to keep religion out of State politics. If you are referring to something else, an amendment in the constitution for example, that is different altogether.. the freedom of religion act is a newer concept than the Separation of Church and State. So, to answer your question, religion has no place in politics/state affairs, just like the state has no place in regulating religious affairs.

Answer 9

Do you really want more than half the world to go to war with America? That would be the likely outcome.

Why do some Christians appeared to want to dominate and dictate to non Christians?

Any politician is free to follow what ever religion he wishes but he is not elected for his religion but for his parties policies. He should therefore speak and vote honestly for his political beliefs but as in any high office this should be done with fairness to all.

Turkey was a disaster state when Islam ruled. Ataturk came to power and divorced religion from state and the result was a fast improvement for all.

Both Bush and Blaire already cause a backlash of invective from many other religious groups when they speak of their true faith etc. Therefore I would suggest that religion in government is already causing damage to America and Britain.

Would you perhaps accept it if a strong Jewish, islamic or Buddist party came to power. I strongly suspect not!!!

Answer 10

Because government cannot favor one religion over another.
Which is part of allowing people freedom of religion.
If the government favors one specific religion then the people under the government's control don't have full choice.