Which right is it? "The free expression of religion" or the "separation of church and state"?

Question

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

Which was the goal and which was considered the enabler? Which is generally local (community) and which is national (federal)?

How should this be clarified?

If I have a predominately Hindu community, and the school is within this community, can it be a Hindu school, if the school board wants it to be, and the taxpayers want it to be a Hindu School?

Answer 1

the two don't conflict , unfortunately the ACLU , the courts and the government are skewing the definitions and leading people astray to the place where we will no longer have the right to worship the way we choose. Separation of church and state simply means that the church cannot rule the government and the government cannot tell the people how , what and who to worship. This does not mean that members of the government cannot freely express their religious beliefs - a government for and by the people- it does not mean that religious symbols cannot be displayed on public properties, it just means that the government cannot force someone to worship in a certain way and they cannot prosecute someone for worshiping in a certain way. They came from a land where the king was held in higher regard than God and no one better say otherwise- we are heading that direction again unfortunately - because we keep allowing the minority to redefine the constitution and the intents of our forefathers.

Answer 2

The law in the constitution was made because:
In England, at the time the pilgrims left, the king had declared a Church of England and taxed the people for it whether they belonged to or went to that church. It was the main reason that they left England; they felt persecuted. Why should they have to pay taxes for a church they didn't belong to when they tithed at their respective churches.
This is why there is a seperation of church and state and that Congress cannot establish a religion (think Islam in many states in the middle east, it is the established religion). The forefather's did not mean it as it is interpreted nowadays.
And, if the school is a community (not public) or private school then it could be considered a hindu school legally.

Answer 3

Separation of church and state is a myth and doesn't exist. It wasn't intended nor can it be construed by the document.


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.

To make it short Congress can not establish by law, a mandatory religion. It does not say that the federal government can not endorse a religion or hang the ten commandments in a court house. It does not say that people can not pray in a publicly funded classroom.

Answer 4

Since any educational institution that is federally funded (be it state or national funding) is part of the 'state', then no, the school should not be deemed 'Hindu' based on that amendment. Also, it should be noted, that if even one family of another religion or one that has no particular religious belief has but one child in that school system, then the system cannot be deemed 'Hindu' as you would infringe upon the rights of that one individual. Whether it is one individual or one hundred, it is not acceptable. This is the reason for all the recent arguments for and against the 'flag' prayer in schools.

However, in a perfect world, if the system was privately funded and all attendees followed the established religious bias, then yes, it would be fine. You are not part of the state and all in attendance share the similar faith.

But would it work in this world? How often have we seen this kind segregation and how often has it failed with disastrous results to both society and the individuals in that society?

Answer 5

Well I believe they both work hand in hand. Christians who understand the prophecies in Daniel 2, 7 and 8 and also Revelation 13 and 14 will know that the upcoming conflict against the followers of God will erupt when there is a force false worship system being implemented. Either way it will have some backing from a church and the political club. It is right to have freedom of religion which will only happen when the churchs are separated from the political arena.

Answer 6

You can express your religion. If religion is let into the government, the government must let ALL religions in. Cross on public land? Ok, have a symbol for every religion there (including FSM, and any other thing that can be thought up). If you do not allow every religion, the government is discriminating against some. That is saying what religions are correct or not. That is establishing our religion. But then atheism gets screwed. If you must respect the rights of all groups, and one does not agree with the other you can not have both. So you must keep them separate, else it is a theocracy. There is no point to having religion in the government, just keep it in the church.

Answer 7

I think the idea is that the right of each individual to follow their own spiritual path would be greatly encroached upon if the government got involved in giving special priviledges or promoting any one religion. So it is freedom of religious expression for the individual but public spaces and institutions must try to remain neutral territories. Thus the freedom of the individual to put a cross, menorah, or pentagram on their lawn but the prohibition against the government doing the same thing since it would be excluding other beliefs if it hangs a cross in a public space. Thus the free expression of religion works on the individual/private property level but the separation of church in state applies to public/state facilities. Separation of church and state makes free expression of religion more feasible for us all, especially those who hold minority beliefs, faiths, or spiritualites, including no beliefs at all.

Answer 8

In the early times of our country, the church of england was the "state" church. Our fore fathers
wanted to make sure the government did not force
one particular religion on people.

It did not mean that the government could not
show any kind of religous sentiment whatsoever.
It is its own enabler, "congress shall make no law"

Technically a STATE could make a law haveing a state religon.

Answer 9

Good question. We were a country that people came to for religous freedom in the beginning and now we make a big huge deal about it. I just don't understand why their is a problem. We have the motto In God We Trust so as a country we must trust God. I think everyone wants everything their way and not letting people be their own person we have to do it their way. There are places we shouldn't focus on certain debates but I hate to say it the people that don't like our motto or our pledge there are many other countries to live in pick one.

Answer 10

My understand-how of the Universe is that "God did do it" and that interior the process no way interferes with my learn into the author's machinations, that's the interior workings or quantum physics for any pseudo intellectuals obtainable. existence is a secret to be lived no longer a topic rely to be solved, consequently mysteries are area of my existence. many things i'm no longer waiting to even understand, as my innovations does not have the ability. some subjects like non-very certainty, my innovations CAN conceptualize.i'd flow with to appreciate what god did that so enraged you. if god is each and each little element, he would desire to prefer to be of the dark ingredient too. without wars there could be no generals or courageous squaddies, no ailment? no scientific docs or right-huge-unfold surgeons, loss of existence and commencing up are in basic terms 2 aspects of similar coin,