The Constitution does NOT call for the separation of church and state. What it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
There is no prohibition of allowing a pluralistic approach to religion in the public arena. However, there are those who believe that any mention of religion in a public/governmental arena should not be allowed.
2006-07-05 13:24:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by SPLATT 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The opposite to religious freedom while at the same time separation of state and church leaves the possibility of a theocracy. At the present time the world is involved in a war which is basically an anti theocratic war. Iran has such a gov't. as did Afghanistan (Taliban). The whole of Europe in the middle ages was virtually a church run entity. This resulted in the several religious Inquisitions which caused much loss of life in so called heretics.France was a virtual theocracy until Napoleon came along and greatly diminished the power of the church. The U.S. had a brush with what could happen with the witch hunts in New England in early\y times. It therefore behooves everyone, of whatever religious affiliation to ensure while free to worship, that there is a definite separation of church and state.
2006-07-05 21:30:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by gshewman 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Think about what you say, when you say "founded on religious freedom". That does not mean that everyone got together and decided they were the same religion so they could have their own country. I think there needs to be more emphasis on 'freedom' in that statement. The freedom to be whatever religion or not to be religious, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. That's part of the responsibility, just as I believe treating other people with respect is part of the responsibility, even if they don't believe just like you do.
The seperation of church and state is so that the government hopefully won't have a say in what other people do in their religious lives.
2006-07-05 19:50:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by merlin_steele 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not in the Constitution. The concept was in a letter Jefferson wrote to a contemporary. We were not founded on merely religious freedom, though initially, colonies were formed here by people who were escaping religious persecution in England and Europe.
We were founded (as in, what we are today) by people who felt it important for us to govern ourselves and not by a monarch who lives across an ocean. The meaning behind separation of church and state is that there is no State Church--i.e. no "Church of America" that is in anyway tied to a government position like the Church of England was at the time of the Revolution. This is largely because we do allow for anyone to worship who/what/how they choose (1st Amendment.)
Even if you take a look at the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and take it with separationist view, you're looking at two phrases in a much larger document. Hardly the founding principle of a nation, by any stretch.
2006-07-05 19:52:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by jayfer1976 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The first American colonists came to this continent because their government was forcing a religion on them with which they did not agree. That is precisely why freedom of religion was guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Religious freedom is not about the freedom of one particular religion to arrange things in this country to its satisfaction. Religious freedom is about the inalienable right of each and every American citizen to peacefully practice the religion of their choosing (or none at all) in the manner of their choosing without any interference or coercion from the State.
Our founding fathers would turn over in their graves if separation of church and state were revoked.
2006-07-05 19:59:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by nardhelain 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The country was not founded on religious freedom. What I think you are confusing is the groups that came to "the New World" fleeing religious persecution. Many of the founding fathers were Deists (look it up) and professed a belief in "the God of Creation", not Christianity. In establishing a republic (okay, I'll give you "representative democracy"...naw, it's still a republic) they felt that it was imperative to prohibit a state or federally established religion that would become the basis of power (e.g. the Holy Roman Empire).
2006-07-05 19:54:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by johngjordan 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Its easy look at the record of all countries based on theocracies. Countries like Iran or Afghanistan. Many people threw out history have died in the name of religion. The United States based its government on the separation of church and state and freedom of religion . Take care Jim M
2006-07-05 19:57:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by james M 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is just it. The country was found on relegious freedom because the countries our founding father came from the government controlled your relegious view. They wanted a government that would stay out of the relegious affairs of its people. Therefore they established a seperation of church and state. That is why you cannot have prayer in public school or relegious scripture in court houses. At that point, it shows the government is "sponsoring" one relegion over another. And since it barred by the constitution because our forfather had the forsight to know there would different relegious view in this country, these things have to be removed or stopped. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE RELIGION. They are simply stating that the government needs to follow the constitution and not "sponsor" a relegion.
2006-07-05 19:53:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
To protect religious freedom, as stated in the constitution that those who founded this country wrote. If the church was integrated to the state it would not be accepting or affirming of differing religious ideology.
2006-07-05 19:55:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by Redshift Agenda 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because some of care about the truth of the matter:
In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said, "Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:
Thomas Jefferson: I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. Jefferson again: Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.
More Jefferson: The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Jefferson's word for the Bible? Dunghill.
John Adams: Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days? Also Adams: The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
I couldn't have stated it better!
2006-07-05 20:02:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋