why do atheist always use the battle cry separation of church and state?

Question

we all should know by now unless your just starting 9Th grade that there is no mention of this in the Constitution at all or the bill of rights. it comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a friend and this is what it said." Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

as u can see here is isn't worried that church is going to take over. but what is happening today the fact that the supreme court and radical atheist groups are using the government to get rid of god off of all government things.

sorry i forgot to say i'm all for sepration of religion and state but just not as far as they are taking it today. know what i'm saying? to me it means that we shouldn't have one central church like the rcc was

Answer 1

The issue of prayer in school and so on is actually about tax dollars. It's not that people are anrgy about anyone praying to their god. It's just that they don't want public tax dollars to be spent in direct support of it, because that's unfair.

Answer 2

Look you believe very strongly in a god that may or may not exist, what if the us was built on the beliefs of satan or jehovah, you as a christian would fight to put a stop to the association between that and the government because you do not agree with it. Many people do not believe in god by the name of god or even in a god at all because they feel that it has not proven its existance beyond a reasonable doubt. By bringing the words god into a government action or paper or general thing, it tends to show that the government supports christ following religions above other religions which at this point is true, however to bring equality among the government support of all religions it is an easier step to try and rid things of the word god, rather than set protest against the banning of abortion and the support of the christian rite because people like slow change, we evolved slowly so we like slow change. Atheists do not want to have to follow a government decision that they do not feel comfortable with because it does not allow them the freedom of following their religious beliefs. As it is now the impending ban on abortion is a christian thing, and if it goes through and an athiest who has nothing against abortion needs to get one because they are going to die, the baby will be still born, or they were rapped then they will be forced to keep going through with the pregnantcy, though they do not find any moral or religious problems with ti thus prohibiting the freedoms allowed within the athiest religion/ belief system.

We should worry about the church taking over because bush is very very influenced buy the fundimental christians in creating a backwords society in which women once again become property and have no choices over their bodies

Answer 3

I'm not an Athiest, but I agree with seperation of church and state and actually they did think the church was going to try to take over. At the time when U.S. was formed the Christian church ruled the world. People tried to step up to the church, but were destroyed fast. It wasn't until a guy by the name of Martin Luther stood up to the church that the church lost it's power. Yes, even in the U.S. the Christian church ran things. If you need an example I can name a few, however I will only name one to prove this point.

Salem witch trials

Now as for why church and state should be seperated completely; it's easy.

First your religion should never be on trial; do you agree with this.

Then how can you make somebody swear on a Bible which they do not believe in? If they say they don't believe in it; then it is putting religion on trial. Some of the jurors can easily say the person is guilty because they think it is related to guilt. If you are on here long enough this point proves itself. Some people think all Athiests are evil.

My second point would you want me to put up signs on federal buildings saying how great Satin is and how evil God is. There is a religion that believes this.

My last point goes to the heart of church in schools. If intellegent design (GOD) was taught in schools it would have to be taught as a therory. To me this would be worse then not teaching it at all. Yes there is a therory that God exsists however it might not be true. It might be all made up by ...... If I had kids I would not want a teacher telling my kids anything like that would you.

The truth is this country was founded on freedoms; this includes religion.

I would be upset if my tax dollars went into a poster of Satin being good wouldn't you. So why is it different for a non believer to be upset at what we ourselves would be upset about.


added it is o.k. for a buissness to do whatever it wants to do, however our tax dollars don't build new Walmarts.

Answer 4

The only radicals right now are in the White House and Congress...doing everything they can to make this country into a God-fearing theocracy. There must be a barrier between religion and government. Government for the real world, religion for the spiritual world. When things overlap we've always had serious problems. Usually wityh a lot of people getting killed along the way.

There was a time when the Chruch dominated the State. It was called the Dark Ages. I wonder why...?

Answer 5

After the announcement of Independence, 14 states had their very own constitutions by utilising 1791, and out of the 14, 7 states had specific provisions for training. Jefferson believed that training could be under the administration of the government, unfastened from non secular biases, and available to anybody irrespective of their status in society. Others who vouched for public training around a similar time have been Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Robert Coram and George Washington. It became nevertheless very confusing to translate the assumption to prepare via political upheavals, great immigration, and financial ameliorations. subsequently, even for many greater an prolonged time, there have been many inner maximum faculties, and charitable and non secular establishments dominating the scene. for sure Jefferson, between others, did. whilst are you going to surely %. up a historic previous e book and study IT???????? extremely of coming up it look like the way you state it may be the way it became reason... properly... YOU pronounced SO. *rolls eyes*

Answer 6

I am so tired of hearing the argument that the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. As a Christian, I believe in the trinity, even though the word "trinity" never appears in the Bible. Why? Because the concept is there. The same is true of separation of church and state in the constitution.

Those people who do not support the separation of church and state have never studied the history of the alternative. The history includes execution of Christians who did not follow the government's definition of Christianity and the Spanish Inquisition to name a couple. Not to mention the fact that Nazi Gemany arose out of one of the most Christian nations in Europe.

Visit the website below to read some Christian perspectives in support of Chruch/State separation.

Answer 7

Let me show you why it must be separate.

If one religion is let into the government, and not separated, all must be let in. On court houses, and class rooms. If one religion gets in, they all have to. So any religion anyone makes up must be represented (ex: FSM, and satanism). If that is not done, the government is discriminating against religions, and in doing, saying what is correct, and not. That is establishing a state religion. When you do that, it is not a democracy with freedom, but a theocracy, like Iran. It is impossible to include all religions, and you can not include some. So if all other arguments die, this is still the case.

Answer 8

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, congress is not going to protect that which has anything to do with religion (10 Commandments in a Gonvernment building, etc.) but it will also not prevent any U.S. citizen from practicing his religion.

Answer 9

The point is that the nation state does not consist of one ethnic or religious group. It has to represent all sections of society.
To have religion involved in government would lead to one religion becoming dominant over others, so that citizens would be under pressure to 'join' that religion. This would not be a free expression of faith.
Also, people of one religion (or ethnic group) do not make up a political entity. Political representation is usually by geographical district.
Secular government allows for people to follow the faith of their choice.

Answer 10

You bring up a point, but the first ammendment DOES prevent the state from acknowledging an official religion (and some other things related to it) so while there's no "Seperation of church and state" there's a bunch of things that relate directly to it, and by and large every motion that is seperation of church and state is supported by the constitution.

Besides, the "In god we trust" and ten commandments outside the building were only last century during the communism scare.

Answer 11

Legislation is usually accompanied by 'articles of consideration', which provide an expression of the 'intent' of the legislation. That is a more or less 'recent' custom. Since Jefferson was the primary architect of the First Amendment, his letter is regarded by legal scholars as fulfilling the same function as 'articles of consideration'... i.e., a clear expression of 'intent'.

What people are concerned with is having religious beliefs or practices thrust upon them via the coercive powers of the state... and that includes schools.

It probably be a good idea for you to look up 'tyranny of the majority'... an 'Age of Enlightenment' idea that the first amendment was designed to prevent.