Why do you believe there should NOT be a separation between Church and State?

Question

I see questions about this constantly. For those who believe the two should be joined...why?? I don't understand it. Your best arguments, please.

Not getting any good arguments for it. If you think there should be prayers in school, why? Why can't the parents pray with the kids before and after school? Why can't the kids say their own silent prayer?

Answer 1

There isn't a "separation of Church and State" in America.
Separation of Church and State comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.

What the Bill of Rights does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This means that America cannot make a law which would make any religion the religion of State, nor deny any religion from worshiping how they see fit. This is important if we are to remain a country where the voice of every person is deemed important.

I have no problem with school prayer, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of those who worship differently. I have no problem with Christmas displays in public buildings, as long as equal time and space are given for displays of other sects (Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Sun-Worship, etc.)

Remember that line: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The United States, while formed on Christian principles and ideals, is not a "Christian Nation". That term, which has been rallied around a lot recently, is insulting to those of other religions who have fought and died to keep us free.

lundstroms2004 nailed it down pretty well except for the fact that our rights come from "Nature's God" or "Creator", neither of which specifically imply a Christian God. As I've said before (and I'm a moderate liberal), I have no problem with with any public display of religion, whether through prayer or otherwise, as long as it is inclusive and non-discriminatory.

Answer 2

The phrase "separation of church and state" is itself the source of the argument, because people have chosen to use it in order to distort the history of the United States.

That phrase does NOT appear in our Constitution. The original source was a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.to the Danbury Baptist Association, in 1802.

There are two clauses in the First Amendment regarding religion, commonly refered to as the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. They state:

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

The common sense meaning of the establishment clause is that there can never be an offiicial Church of the United States, as there is a Church of England. The founders did not want the government to be able to endorse a particular belief or denomination. It's worth noting that before voting on the First Amendment, the Continental Congress prayed to God for guidance.

One should also look at the two clauses together. Clearly they require that a balance be struck.

The Supreme Court first used the phrase in Reynolds v. United States, in 1878, in a case regarding the establishment clause. That decision has been the basis of further rulings ever since, as atheists have used the court to chip away at the balance between the two clauses.

I do agree with the framers of the Constitution that there should not be an "official" U.S. church. I disagree with the extremeists who ignore the free exercise clause, who have managed to expunge almost all references to faith from the public arena. We've reached a point where children are not allowed to hear instrumental versions of Christmas carols in school! That is NOT an official endorsement of a church by the Federal Government!

Answer 3

The argument's based off of the idea of establishment clause of the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

"This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general."

Generally speaking, it's fairly limited in perspective and ONLY judicial activism attempts to expand the meaning. The actual term 'separation of church and state' came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote as a 'wall between church and state.'

The actually meaning behind Jefferson's view on this, and the current liberal interpetation of this is rather different. But I would suggesting anyone interested to read a lot about Jefferson to understand that. Nevertheless, Jefferson isn't the constitution, nor should all his words be interpeted as law. The man was a rough mixture of idealism, practicality and fantasy.

Answer 4

When the US Constitution was passed, every state in the Union passed legislation recognizing one church or another as its official state faith. The US congress opens, as does the Supreme Court, with prayer. Our founding documents recognize that rights come not from the people, or the government, but are innate to the natural existence of man as designed by God.

It is not an issue with a "joining: of the two, as no serious patriot would ever support such an endeavor. But there is a real difference between having any representation of faith in any form within the public sphere, and establishing an official church of the united states.

As a christian, and a patriot in the sense of Thomas Paine, I totally believe that students should be allowed to pray, and that there is nothing wrong with a coach leading his players in prayer. When that coach prevents a player from being on the team, it is not an issue of establishment of religion, but of discrimination of religion. "Feelings" are irrelevant. If you want to be an atheist, cool. But that does not mean that you have a right to prevent others from expressing their religious views.

Children not being allowed to pray at school, teachers not being allowed to keep a bible on their desk, people not being able to wear red and green to a "winter party" because of the x-mas themes are ridiclious.

In an attempt to prevent a single faith from establishment, liberals have created a religion of secularism.

Answer 5

Your republican acquaintances are rather close-minded. Separation of Church and state is a necessity. How might your friends sense if the gov't desperate to make Mormonism the nationwide faith. How might they sense if if the gov't reported you ought to no longer teach your protestant perspectives? possibly no longer too solid. the comparable rights that preserve them, preserve all people. Separation of church and state does no longer propose we can not have our religious perspectives and carry public place of work, or that we get rid of freedom of speech and are not allowed to communicate our religious perspectives. In different words, have self assurance what you like, yet do no longer stress your perspectives upon me. PAT, you're precise, it is not got here upon in the form. even nonetheless it is the chosen technique to be certain freedom of religion. It does propose that the gov't isn't meant to recommend any faith or attempt to regulate any faith. It does no longer propose the we've lost our freedom of speech. This creates an excellent line between a political parent claiming a definite faith and the administrative.endorsing a definite faith. additionally this creates an excellent line between the final public of folk desirous to declare positioned a manger scene up and the gov't endorsing Christianity over say Hinduism. it relatively is the place the controversy lies, nonetheless. The unimportant crap. positioned the manger scene up in a church for the Christain, or do no longer seem on the manger scene for others. it relatively is not a forcing of ideals, it relatively is basically nitpicky BS led to by human beings being too actually offended.

Answer 6

When the nation was founded, religious freedom was the cornerstone of the Founder's thinking. We had just broken free from a nation where the King had all power, political and religious. Take a look at Henry VIII and Muslim society for a glimpes of what can happen when gov't dictates what can and cannot be believed.

Absolutely these two entities should be separated.

Answer 7

If we joined church and state we risk having everyone turn on each other because we all believe in different religions. We're the land of the FREE, that includes choices in religion, which we would not have if Church and State were not seperated.

Answer 8

The Bill of Rights and the First Amendment have been controversial in the areas of free speech,, a separation of church and state provides assurance that Americans can't be forced by their government to attend religious services,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Answer 9

Thats not accurate. I was saying that they should be closer. Supposing you have a governing body that would see fit to miseducate and destroy you and yours for profit and your religion is the only thing that could pull you back to doing what you would need to do to get yourself to a position where youre not controlled by it. Its not about a joining of church and state but more a system of checks and balances.

Answer 10

Well, I don't think the two can ever be totally serparated. Who are the people that vote in a democracy? Religion would only be void from politics if those voting saw religion void from their lives and belief structures.