English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Regarding the establishment clause:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Why do people limit this to Government endorsement? What it does not say is "congress shall not establish religion". If that is what they meant they would have said it.

Regarding free exercise, what is so hard to understand about prohibiting free exercise of religion is not allowed?

One more thing, why is the moron who spells your, "ur" lecturing me on English?

2006-07-10 14:37:26 · 8 answers · asked by δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

8 answers

no, it refers or was to refer, since the government has broken it many times. even during the Revolutionary war.

But the federal government can not make any laws that regulate religion ( any part of the federal government) And it goes on to say there shall be no national religion. Since government, they mean the congress, and the president, and anyone in any federal office. ( remember this was to regulate the federal government) it was written when the states still have all rights they did not give the federal government

2006-07-10 14:47:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

These questions and many more present themselves whenever someone investigates what the founding fathers "actually meant". Well, in order to create a religion you must also endorse it. On the converse however you do not have to create a religion in order to endorse it. For example, if Congress passed a law requiring all non-christians to pay an extra tax, that would be an endorsement without creating one. Now that simply isn't fair so the founding fathers put a stop to it by making an all inclusive clause rather than one that limits the freedom of its citizens.

The only reason that I can imagine people quoting letters by Jefferson is because he wrote the Declaration of Independence and was a key player in the development of the Constitution.

2006-07-10 21:50:59 · answer #2 · answered by Omega_Red9 3 · 0 0

The Supreme Court believed that, since Jefferson was an author of the Constitution, he would be well acquainted with its interpretation. Jefferson's response to the Danbury Baptists in 1801 is where "separation of church and state" came into existence.
The Danbury Baptists (D.B.) wrote Jefferson and were giving them thanks for winning in office and their letters seemed to indicate an "upper hand" when it came to possible promotion for their belief.
Jefferson needed to correct this, using the separation of church and state as required to prevent him from promoting a "national religion." By this statement, Jefferson was worried that, as president, he would endorse the Baptists over other religions, thus going against the First Amendment. Never did he mentioned that government could have religious issues or solutions, nor where church had governmental standings, but to prevent the government from making rules over the church and vise versa.
Does anyone find it amazing that people believe in free speech but have problems when Christians voice their word?

2006-07-10 21:51:17 · answer #3 · answered by n9wff 6 · 0 0

First Amendment from Wikipedia states:

Main article: First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment addresses the rights of freedom of speech and the press; the right of peaceful assembly; and the right of petition. It also addresses freedom of religion, both in terms of prohibiting the establishment of religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Jefferson, not a member of the Constitutional convention, insisted on the bill of rights. That is why people are referring to his letters.

The bottom line: You need to take class on the US Constitutions with its supporting documentation.

2006-07-10 21:55:12 · answer #4 · answered by J. 7 · 0 0

The Constitution is primarily a restriction on the power of Government. Very little has to do with the restrictions of the individual. But if your exercise breaks a state law, woe unto you! I would point to the Mormons, as the exited the State of Illinois. Bigamy is against the law, regardless of religion. Go west young man, and we don't mean tomorrow!

2006-07-10 22:01:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Constitution is just a piece of propoganda. What difference does it make what it says, if there is no real mechanism in place to enforce it? Revolution is the only real mechanism, and that possibility exists even if the Constitution didn't. It's only power resides in the willingness of law makers to abide by it voluntarily. Hah! Good luck with that.

2006-07-10 21:53:35 · answer #6 · answered by lenny 7 · 0 0

Because you asked about ``separation of church and state´´,
phraseology directly and originally derived from Jefferson's letter?

2006-07-10 21:55:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

As Forrest Gump's mother said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

2006-07-10 21:43:03 · answer #8 · answered by In Honor of Moja 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers