Were our founding fathers wrong when they strived to set up a framework that had separation of church&state?

Question

Bush and his gal pals Harris and Coulter and all the religous right zealots feel that our country should only be guided by Christian principles.

I'm sure many don't realize why this could prove to be the downfall of our country now but shouldn't acknowledgment be paid for the value of this concept or is it too late?

Answer 1

When they say Christian principles which ones are they talking about? And, what about people not of Christian faith? What will happen to non-Christians?

Do we take a Baptist approach to Christianity, Unitarian, Mormon, Catholic, Presbyterian, Dominionist, Evangelical, Pentecostal, or some other form? Which one's the right interpretation of Christianity?

The danger of having a religious dominated society is that religion isn't carved in stone. People interpret religion differently, even within the same religion.

Our Founding Fathers realized that for us to have religious freedom in America, we have to keep religion out of government. This doesn't mean that politicians can't be religious, it means that the US doesn't force a religious doctrine on anyone.

Coulter, Harris, and Bush are wrong to suggest otherwise.

Answer 2

Actually. the founding fathers did NOT try to set up a framework separating church from state. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution is there anything written regarding the separation of church and state. There is only a provision prohibiting government from creating a mandatory, or state, religion.

The only mention of separation of church and state written anywhere is in a letter from John Adams to his wife, Abigail, written at about the same time as the constitution was being framed.

Answer 3

The founding Fathers had the example of the Church of England which was part of the Government .
They were against the establishment of a State Church not religion .
We don't have a State Church but we do have moral guidence and need it .
You are free to worship or not , nobody is forcing you .
If dancing naked around an Oak tree, under the moon light is your thing , go ahead , but do it in private and no human sacrafice .

Answer 4

Well yes and no. The first thought is having zealots having control but this would not happen as it comes down to majority vote.

So now we have no moral law except your own personal standard.

Than we must ask well should my moral laws be policed? Would I really be a moral person just cause I was being policed? Well yes since it creates a standard just like the law.

Now you see as phone taps etc are using loop holes and maybe is we had moral law policed this would not have been a thought.

Yet Bill Clinton was booted for breaking moral law.

However this country was founded and designed on values of other things so does it matter? Israel doesn't police moral law like Islam yet they have a higher standard than the USA so this says something about us. :(

Answer 5

The founders intended this to prevent there being only one church and one religion, like where they came from, the Church of England being the one at the time.

They did not intend for the mention of God to be removed from the public, nor the Ten Commandments.

The bastardization of the Constitution began with O'Hare the Dems darling atheist, and the socialists, who despise any mention of God, took the crack in the constitution and ran with it, which is what you have today.

"One nation under God" It means something, even if you are not religious and to try and alter the Constitution because it does not fit into your socialist world view is wrong.

Do you know why Americans hate socialism? This is but one of the many reasons.

Now you know why socialists hide behind labels such as liberal and democrat.

Answer 6

Of course they weren't wrong, look at places like Iran. That's the type of country the religious zealots on the right want to create. Iran's laws in regards to stem cell research are more liberal than the US's. That's Geo. Bush's name! Religous fanaticism, intolerence, and the end of American Democracy for a religious oligarchy is what the Republicans are after.

Answer 7

You obviously NEVER have read the constituion! It only states that the government will NOT establish a state religion (like in IRAN). It gaurantees us the Freedom to believe AND worship as we feel guided. It does not give commie left wing wackoos the right to keep us from doing so. The down fall of our country will come from poor, misguided souls such as yourself who are unable to accept the fact that there is a Higher Power. Isn't it strange that the US didn't have any problems with the world until a unusually vocal few began to attempt to turn us away from God? Wake up and wise up.

Answer 8

so which you think of people who have not got self assurance in God (and that i might decide to appreciate who gets to make the yank definition of "God" for the entire united states), might desire to do what? settle for 2nd classification status with constrained rights? bypass away? no remember what their ideals, the founding fathers went to super lengths to no longer tension them on absolutely everyone else, and that's the way it could possibly be for this to be a very loose united states. Edit: you're speaking approximately "forcing" God out of government, the place God has no commencing factor with, because of the fact that's the additionally the govenment of people who have not got or want a God. you start up off down the slippery slope to theocracy once you ignore with regard to the rights of those human beings to no longer have God backed by ability of their tax funds. Re-edit: i might additionally decide to show out that those costs are approximately very own ideals and weren't lined in expert government information specifically to offer a separation of church and state; which became additionally Thomas Jefferson's theory.

Answer 9

No, they weren't wrong. Buy many people today have perverted what they originally meant. They meant we should not have a mandatory state church like the Church of England. They were also very adamant that the state whould not interfere with the FREE EXERCISE of religion. They never meant there should be no public reference to religion. Quite the opposite.

Answer 10

From the beginning there should be separation of Church and State. Otherwise, religion will become the government's policy making body rather than the Senate, President or Judiciary.