Separation of church and state question. How do you interpret the First Amendment?

Question

The 1st Amendment says about religion that, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof:..."

Usually, only the first 10 words are quoted to support arguments that this establishes a Constitutional "separation of church and state." I think there should be a "separation of church and state," but aren't the next 6 words just as important in establishing an individual's (or groups) right to practice their faith anytime, anywhere, not just in the church, temple, mosque, etc.?

Too many people interpret the 1st Amendment to mean that religion has no place outside of the church, temple, mosque, etc., and I disagree with them. Do you agree with me?

To "worldstitis": honey, that's all the 1st says about religion. I can understand why you don't understand.

Answer 1

Being nonreligious, I am a big fan of the 1st Amendment. I certainly don't want the government supporting one particular relegion over another (which it would tend to do naturally since there are more Christians in this country). However, I do agree that it DOESN'T mean religion has no place outside of a church, temple or mosque. I don't mind Christmas trees in the mall - the malls are privately owned and I fully support individuals' rights to believe whatever they want to believe and proclaim it publicly. That's what the 1st Amendment is all about and I'm totally behind it. But I do think that the 1st Amendment prohibits religion in government organizations which means public schools (private schools are fine), government buildings and other government-supported organizations.

Answer 2

In simpler terms, the amendment says two things:
1) The government can't force religion on people
2) It can't prevent them from choosing a religion of their own
Any law passed for the purpose of enforcing religious beliefs or biases violates both parts. For example, there's nothing wrong with a student saying a silent prayer over his lunch, but if a public school teacher has the entire class recite a prayer together, that's a violation, because one person is deciding how all of them should worship. That's forcing a state-sponsored religion on them and it's insensitive to those who may have differing beliefs.

More examples:

Bush consulting with the Pope on stem cell research was a violation. This type of policy decision should be made on legal grounds, not religious grounds. Forcing Catholic views on the country violates those first ten words. By the way, Bush isn't even Catholic, so this was also an example of political grandstanding to impress the Bible-thumpers.

An amendment banning gay marriage would be a violation. What they do is not illegal; all objections are based solely on the Bible. Again, this would be forcing one narrow religous view on the whole population. I'm a Christian and I'm straight and I believe gays should not be deprived of the rights the rest of us enjoy. Amending the Constitution for the purpose of religious discrimination would be an abomination that would violate far more than just the first amendment. It would open the door for groundless discrimination against any minority, violating their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Posting the ten commandments in a courthouse may not be as blatant a violation as the ones above, but it looks bad because of what it implies. Courts should always make their decisions based on state and federal laws, not the Bible or any other religious writings. How would you feel if they hung the Koran on the wall?

The question we should all ask ourselves regarding separation of church and state is, "How would I feel if this was someone else's religion being imposed on me?" Even if it's true, as some have claimed, that the nation is 80% Christian, that doesn't make it right to force those beliefs on the other 20%. How would you feel if a Muslim president was elected and tried to convert everyone?

Answer 3

The first amendment has been twisted into something that it is not. THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE CONSTITUTION!! When the founders first drafted the first amendment, what they had in mind was preventing the establishment of a state sponsored or sanctioned religion like the Church of England. No where in the constitution does it say anything about government having to completely dis avow all religion. If people would like to gather enough support to amend the constitution to include such a ban, that's one thing. But as it is written now, it is NOT unconstitutional to have the Ten Commandments on display in a government building.

Answer 4

I agree. I feel that the government should have no religion that it sponsors, but even if it were to sponser something as large as Christianity, it would still be huge. That's why it can't. I don't see that the president saying "God bless America" is wrong, since anyone can interprit it to mean anything they choose. As far as people being censored, that's just illegal. I can see that if a school superindendant, principal, or school board member would want to not make any kind of religious comment, that would be fine, but if a student chooses to make a comment in a speech, that should easily be accepted, since to not let him or her say what she wishes denies him or her freedom of speech. The school neither has to agree or disagree with the student, and thus isn't endorsing or rejecting what is said, which really follows the 1st amendment right to the letter.

Answer 5

I agree with you, the amendment protects the free expression of religion and prohibits the government from establishing a national religion such as many Mid Easten countries have with Islam or even our friends the Brits have with The Church of England, which is what prompted the amendment in the first place.

Answer 6

I agree. I think is quite clear. I disagree with your thoughts after that. It is not a matter of separation but isolation. The writers of Article 1 were very clear in that they believed the government had NO responsibility or privilege to interfere, endorse or control the free expression of religion. For any one who is religious, they have the freedom to practice any where, anytime they want. This would also include schools, workplace, public ares, etc.. By the way, I am an Agnostic. Good post.

Answer 7

I agree with separation of Church and State. It allows everyone to have their religion and not have another forced upon them in the place where they are trying to get an education. Though I do not agree with them teaching evolution in schools because that goes against a lot of people's religions, therefore that seems to me to be going against the church and state law.

Answer 8

I agree with you 100%! "Separation of Church and State" was meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state. Our forefathers understood the importance of a good influence, such as religious morality, in the lives of people and the formation of a civil society. Unfortunately, too many anarchists today chose to reinterpret the "separation" so that they don't have any religious influence at all and don't feel they have to take responsibility for their actions.

Answer 9

That is the establishement clause

It has been interpreted so that the government cannot promote one religion over another

that pretty much means hands off all religions, but there are some narrow exceptions

Answer 10

Your phrase 'Too many people interpret...' is a straw man used by religious advocates. I'm an atheist and neither I, nor my contemporaries argue what you claim we argue.

Religion, due to it's non-negotiable and uncompromising manner, must simply not be used as an argument in matters of state. The First Amendment is just as important in protect all other forms of religious expression.

But please don't use that as a tool to support influence of public institutions by religion.