Does anyone that supports less separation of church and state ever fear being the minority?

Question

I wonder if those that support a more theocratic government ever fear that someday you may be in the minority, with your beliefs no longer the favored set. E.g.: If the changes you hope for come to fruition, would you make them permanent, or allow for change in the future if the people favor a different belief system for some reason?
I hope this makes sense - I am basically asking, if we can vote to "favor" christianity, so to speak, what's to stop us from favoring Islam if that's the way of the future? Would you mind?
I ask this because I think that keping government as secular as possible ensures that everyone starts with a neutral position. You may not mind seeing the ten commandments in court, but would you feel a little funny if you had to go to a court where you had to swear on the Koran? You can't possibly represent every belief system, so why not just leave it out completely?
P.S. Don't mean to pick on Christians, just an easy example. This applies to everyone.

Did I imply that the constitution mentioned "separation of church and state"? It did not. That said, I believe it is worth noting that in the 1780's, James Madison, in response to Patrick Henry's attempt to assess a tax on Virgininans for the "support of teachers of the Christian religion", told the assembly, "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizent to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establisment in all cases whatsoever?" This killed the bill, and increased support of Jefferson's Virginia's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. This act formed the basis for the secularist provisions of the constitution. Jefferson said...

Jefferson said the act "meant to comprehend, within its mantle of protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination." Jefferson was very careful to include the word infidel, as he was particularly sensitive to affording rights to this group, having been considered one himself. This tells me the framers of the constitution must have shared Jefferson's concerns enough to want to use Jefferson's model.

Answer 1

I fully support separation of church and state. I completely agree with you, if you have a theocracy, you run the risk of your particular belief system falling out of favor and being persecuted.

I also think however that as far as education is concerned, all major religions should be taught. Not necessarily as gospel truth that you must adhere to or be lost, but as part of a well rounded education. What good does it do to have your religion and know of nothing else? Shouldn't we study a broad base of beliefs so that when we communicate with people of different beliefs than ours, we can express ourselves with compassion and understanding rather than condemnation and anger?

I think this would be a neutral, well rounded stance.

As far as voting for laws in our country, I would say that we should not vote a particular religion into power. Religion is a personal belief system, and should not become associated with a political party. We have had too many examples of why this is a bad idea. England of the Renaissance and Iraq of the present just to name two examples.

Answer 2

Conservatives are NOT in favor of creating a Theocracy in the United States.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is itself however, a major source of confusion , 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

If there's a separation between church and state there should not be one. the place in the form does it say that? It says there could desire to be no rules organising a faith because of fact the religion of the state. They needed to verify this government did not do what England did and make the Anglican church the respected faith. One can not and should not divide their being between their non secular ideals and their daily activities or state/civic usual jobs. One could desire to hold their non secular ideals everywhere they bypass incredibly for the reason that those ideals are the inspiration of a civilized society, a minimum of coming from the judeo/christian attitude by ability of which the form grew to become into framed.(some say masonic ideals)

Answer 4

I for one wouldn't see too much of a problem with that, though that being said I don't currently swear on anything.

That being said I don't know how I would feel if I heard that my children were learning pastafarianism in science class...

What I think is important to remember is that seperation of church and state is to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.

Answer 5

Well I'm certainly not in the majority now...hm, now that I think about it, most EVERYBODY who wants separation of church and state (or a lot of them anyway) are in the minority. Funny, that! Gosh, maybe they notice something that the majority doesn't seem to notice, or to care about...

I like your way of thinking. It's just such a shame that the majority of Americans seem to think that just because they are MANY they are also RIGHT.

Answer 6

I'm atheist so I definitely fear a theocratic government. Government neutrality is the best option.

Answer 7

freedom of religion is a necessity unless your religion isn't christian. if it is, you're supposed to show, or else.

Answer 8

church and state should not have anything to do with one another.

Answer 9

i wanna be the minority...
i don't need your authority...
down with the moral majority!
cuz i wanna be the minority!!!!


sorry, couldn't resist...