The Constitution says in the first amendment.
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
Note the wording. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This simply means that Congress can not make a law establishing one church as the state church, or prohibiting the free
exercise of one's religious beliefs. Why do atheists read this ammendment so that it says "the government shall have no part in any religion."?
2006-08-19 14:24:44 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Good question. I don't think you'll get a good answer.
2006-08-19 14:31:40 · answer #1 · answered by caylinn1996 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have the GOD Given Right to Believe in ANY God you want to.
Don't you think that some People in Congress Believe in a God?
I sure hope so, and the REAL ONE TOO!
Believing in False God's (there's alot of them) will get you into Trouble.
If you Believe in a God and are Part of the Congress, keep the Law Making out of the Religion's and don't hold a church service at the White House while in Session. Your suppose to be Making Law's, for America. Let the Pastor's manage the Religion's.
Hope this helps. Ditto.................
2006-08-19 21:44:07 · answer #2 · answered by maguyver727 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In respect (or regards) to religion, the United States Congress may not make a law. No laws funding/taxing or promoting/prohibiting any religion.
2006-08-19 21:40:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This constitution is important in that there is no heavy-handedness regarding these things. Such as not being Communist, a political organization that actually does restrict these things. It's like an umbrella sheltering the people from governmental persecution, and trust me, I lost a lot of ancestors to the Communists. You have no idea how blessed you are to have such an amendment. You would not believe how much bloodshed was avoided because of it. Millions of people in my ancenstral land died because they did not have this. Millions.
2006-08-19 21:37:01 · answer #4 · answered by Shinigami 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government cannot promote a religion without being in violation of this. Giving any religion special privileges is considered promoting it.
We are not a theocracy, and we are not founded on religion. The state is to remain 100% NEUTRAL when it comes to religion, so as not to promote any one religion.
Why do you think the government SHOULD have some part in religion? I see no reason for the two to be at all related.
2006-08-19 21:33:09 · answer #5 · answered by Elizabeth L J 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't matter. The government shouldn't associate with any religion. That is called bias. The government is supposed to be in place to protect all of the people, and their rights, equally. The government needs to focus on what will most effectively maintain our safety, freedom, and equality, and we have thoroughly demonstrated that it fails to do so, when religion interferes.
2006-08-19 21:35:35 · answer #6 · answered by Master Maverick 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bravo, not many realize this nowadays. Do you know the line of "seperation of church and state" is NOT a law or amendment but a line given in a speech??? Wish more people realized that.
2006-08-19 21:34:17 · answer #7 · answered by janedoe072005 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is a typo. It's supposed to say, "RESTRICTING", not respecting.
That is just an error.
Some idiot just didn't read that word in the constitution very well, when he was doing the type setting. His eyes just glossed over it.
In the real and original constitution, it says, "restricting".
2006-08-19 21:31:39 · answer #8 · answered by Molly 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They try to:
1 twist the meaning of words
2 alter history
3 lie
4 the end justifies the means
2006-08-19 21:40:45 · answer #9 · answered by Grandreal 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Selective interpretation. Besides that, we stopped observing our constitution years ago. Redress of greivances??? I don't think so. Look at the wethepeople.com site
2006-08-19 21:30:57 · answer #10 · answered by westgaliberty 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would call it misinterpretation of the first amendment by those individuals who wish it to be so. Much like misinterpretation of the Bible by so many different individuals. Same thing!
2006-08-19 21:33:58 · answer #11 · answered by Mamma mia 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋