No official seperation of church and state, you really think so?

Question

Because the first amenment clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". So, no laws can ever made that have to do with religion. So for example, Gay marriage, don't like it because of your religion? This means that the government doesn't care. You think they should allow more Christian values into government? Then you think your religion is better than anybody else's and you're a bigot. And if you think they should enforce laws based on your own religion then I guess on top of being a bigot you're also a fascist. So my question is how do you justify this without bigotry and how does it feel to be fascist? (Not generalizing, many religious people are worthy of anyone's respect and are not bigots or fascist at all).

PS
Morals have nothing to do with religion. Religion is a synthetic thing and is made to enforce the morals we have as human nature.

Excuse a few spelling errors I was in a rush. Such as the "d" left out in amendment.

I refuse to believe that man would be an emotionless robot without morals without religion.

RandyGE what are you saying? It says they can't make LAWS redpecting religious establishment. I'm not sure what you mean. And if you're religion tells you to get involved with the government that's great but as soon as it tells you to push it on other people it's more of a cult and still has no place in government no matter what you say, sorry.

Just David obviously read nothing about what I said about having morals seperate from religion.

Answer 1

Your argument, although coming a across a bit hostile and derogatory, is valid. However there is one problem and I think a lot of none "religious" people have trouble understanding this.

Religious people can't just separate their religion from their morality they are intertwined. I'm going to attempt a crude analogy to explain this to you.

When it comes to laws in our country the Constitution is the top law in a sense. Lets compare this to the basic understanding of right and wrong that is the same among all sane people. Now this basic understanding really isn't enough to make every moral decision in life. Just like the constitution isn't enough to govern all matters of running a government. This is why there are federal and state laws to supplement things

In the case of morality everyone pulls their own thoughts and idea's that fill in the gaps of our basic understanding of right and wrong. We get these thoughts from our own experiences, which is where religion comes in if you believe certain things to be true about this world then you see your experiences differently which cause you to developed a different sense of morality.

So a Christian who is against gay marriage isn't just repeating rhetoric ( as it might seem), they truly believe it's wrong just as much as you believe murder is wrong ( I'm not saying murder is just as wrong has homosexuality, I'm saying I believe it's wrong on some level as confidently as I believe murder is wrong at a much more serious level). You may disagree but it doesn't negate their right to feel that way or even to vote in accordance with their convictions.


Hope this clears it up a bit.

Answer 2

You Said: Then you think your religion is better than anybody else's and you're a bigot. And if you think they should enforce laws based on your own religion then I guess on top of being a bigot you're also a fascist.....

I Said: your views are stated as being the only right views, as better than anyone else's. Your whole write up was bigoted, or don't you see it.

By the way, the goal was the free expression of religion. Separation of church and state was not the goal. It was the enabler at the national level, so that at the local level, people could freely believe in the religion, or lack or religion of their choice.

Answer 3

I am a Christian and I am quite happy we have a separation of church and state. I do not wish to make other people abide by the same morals and values that I do and I really don't want to be subjected to anybody else's. I am a strong believer in the Constitution - it is a fantastic document.

As for the Gay Marriage thing - I personally don't have any problem at all in people of the same sex having the same good benefits and the same restrictions that I have as a married woman. Marriage is a complicated thing and if two people are ready to go for it then who am I to stop it.

I think that too many politicians are being influenced by the extremely conservative religious group's causes and not paying enough attention to what all their constituents want.

Answer 4

The amendment put forth at that time was a response to a request to make a religious holiday a national holiday... something they have done anyway (such as Christmas). Nobody objects to that because they all love having Christmas off work, even if they don't celebrate it in the Christian way.

It did NOT say that we totally had to keep anybody's religious values OUT of the constitution. In other words, lawmakers DO have the right to vote their conscience, and if they happen to have religious and/or morality basis for them, that is their business. Nobody can tell them they have to pretend to be an atheist when voting in Congress.

The thing to keep in mind is that, as you said, morals have nothing to do with religion.

SO... just because lawmakers happen to have those standards which make them feel it is right to make laws enforcing morality as they see it... that does NOT mean they have those standards because they are Christian-- or any other religion for that matter.

In FACT... many Christians do not have a problem with gay marriage, premarital sex, or any of those types of things. Stop blaming Christianity for all the moralistic attitudes in this country.

And... there are legal objections to gay marriage that have nothing to do with morality; one being the administrative nightmare of same-sex marriages which would make it impossible to sort out "partners" from "roommates."

Personally, I'm not for it or against it.
This is just the way I see it objectively.

Answer 5

"So, no laws can ever be made that have to do with religion" doesn't at all follow from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Also, the idea that religion can't enter in to people's decision making process in voting for laws doesn't even follow from your first, false, conclusion, never mind the constitution. You should consider taking a class in logic.

Answer 6

Having a preference does not make one a bigot. The coincidence of morality happening to be good for a society does not make it religious.

For example: The fact that Christianity and Judaism prohibit murder, does that mean society should adopt no law prohibiting murder, because it would be a "religious" law?

I believe the society should adopt laws that are good for the society, regardless of its religiosity.

The fact that my religion happens to be loaded with terrific ideals for society should not make those ideals off limits to the government.

My religion also has some maxims about helping people who are in need, about obeying the government, about being good to other people, about not stealing and murdering. Should the government be prohibited from enjoying those philosophies because my religion authored them?

What dismal hell hole would you have us live in to satisfy your hate against people who want to help other people?

Answer 7

They (the Christians) use a loophole, which is that government can endorse a "generic god" which can apply to any religion therefore the government is not endorsing a specific religion. It's a technicality that enables (the Christians) to put their god on my governments cash, pledge, and on some state and federal monuments and public land.

Our Christian forefathers understood the importance of keeping government out of the business of religion "generic god". Religious persecution is what led pioneers here in the first place.
Modern day Christians do not understand this.

Religion and belief in gods belong in private homes, churches, and those fanatics on the street corner with a bull horn. Not in my government.

Answer 8

First of all, that statement regarding the wall of separation between church & state is not in any official documentation. It's in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams.

Secondly, the First Amendment was never intended to keep religion out of government. It was intended to keep government out of religion. Unfortunately, it has been twisted by others until the public view of its definition has changed. The original thought behind it was to keep Congress from barring any religions from practicing in America. Everything except the Anglican (known as the Episcopal in the US) church was barred in England, so the pilgrims left to establish a country where they were free to worship God as they saw fit.

Answer 9

I agree. I wish more people (citizens and government officials) could understand this. It is possible to have morals and a lawful state without religion. And that is the way it should be.

Answer 10

All right dude: first of all, your premise is false. "Establishment" is not the same as making "no laws related to religion." Otherwise, you could not make any laws stating that religion cannot be in public schools. Cuts both ways, doesn't it? Anyway, the Founding Fathers all believed in the Judeo-Christian ethic; this is easily verifiable.

Answer 11

Your absolutely right. I think its deplorable the way people are so arrogant as to shove their beleif systems down other peoples throats. Any ban on Gay Marriage is an exercise in extreme hate and bigotry plain and simple. It means you don't value their happiness or their love. It means you don't care that their needs as a family are met.

I am not Gay, but this issue hurts me deeply to see so many people baring their hateful notions at the idea of love.