i have no idea how to even begin to answer this. its supposed to be a multiple paragraph answer so if anyone can help me or give me some main points to hit, that would be great ! thank you!
2006-08-27 17:04:34 · 7 answers · asked by AT 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The constitution is a document that was written to be interpreted as it was purposely ambiguous. To me, I interpret the First Amendment to be the part where it separates church and state.
2006-09-03 08:23:16 · answer #1 · answered by magpieslover 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The literal phrasing "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution because the concept was so obvious to the Founders (and anyone else who has studied Constitutional law in depth) that it went without saying. But it's nothing new to Constitutional scholars.
The phrase was first adopted by the Supreme Court in 1878, who gave credit for it to Jefferson as the originator of the quote. According to the Court, the phrase should be taken "almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [1st] amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).
It's been US doctrine for almost 130 years, and was referred to in 1943 as "our accepted belief" and "cardinal in the history of this nation and for the liberty of our people". West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
I'm not sure which Great Awakening you refer to, but the period after the Civil War saw a significant change in the understanding of how government should work, and how much it can and should be influenced by outside interests, including religious interests. Don't know if that helps, but it gives you some background.
2006-08-27 18:27:47 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The great Awakening was before my time.
A nation cannot be ruled by religion since religion's point of reference begins in the hereafter, where no living person can become involved.
The two cannot rule at the same time. One can SUGGEST how we live and the other COMMANDS how we live.
Violating a religious order requires that the person has to die and be delivered to Judgment Alley for sentencing.
Violating a governing order results in a person appearing before a judge for immediate sentencing.
There is no question of receiving punishment for violating a government order. There will always be some question about violating a religious order.( except for some religions where their religion-leader has God-given rights to behead a violator )
It was necessary for the Founders to separate the two.
2006-09-04 12:38:53 · answer #3 · answered by Mr.Been there 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what great awakening
most people seem to be completely under the control
of the Illuminati and are hopelessly brainwashed.
totally unaware of what is happening now and for the last 6000 years
the church and the state are controlled by the same masonic elite and Illuminati any way,
always has been
2006-08-27 17:14:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did anyone think to ask the American Indians.
After all they were separated in one form or another be it Church state - country. Ask them you may be surprised with the answer, and its not a religious or colour thing either. They are very wise in ways we don't know about.
2006-09-04 16:13:43 · answer #5 · answered by aotea s 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like Dr. Coragraph answered and I urged you give him 10 points. Thanks
2006-08-31 19:00:48 · answer #6 · answered by ryladie99 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no idea what you are talking about.
2006-08-31 12:56:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋