...separation of God and faith from our government and leaders, rather than the separation of a state-sponsored [set of] religion[s] that could lead to oppression. This in fact is what our ancestors were fleeing in Europe and the UK. I think alot of this confusion that many Americans, especially non-church goers, have with this issue, is that they do not clearly understand the difference between organized religion and a deep personal faith in God. Ultimately, our government (and society) seems to be simply abandoning God where public money is used on the grounds that our Constitution prohibits it, and our Forefathers intended it to be this way. I find that ironic in light of the deep faith G. Washington had in Christ...of his many public speeches referencing the Lord, now carved in our landmarks....Jefferson, too. What are your thoughts?
2006-09-05 04:56:15 · 25 answers · asked by BowtiePasta 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I tend to agree with this assessment. Even the term "Separation of Church and State" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. This concept has been co-opted by the extreme Left wing politicians as a means to justify attacks on others beliefs and faith. The government is not to sanction any religion (a practice that was quite common in Europe at the time of our countries foundation). It was to prevent persecution of people based on their beliefs. This is something that takes place in nearly any society that the government sponsors a particular religion. This is what the founding fathers were looking to avoid here. Not the complete and utter denial of the existence of god and faith in all aspects of government. Which is where many believe that this policy is leading.
2006-09-05 05:06:07 · answer #1 · answered by Spectral_one 2 · 0⤊ 5⤋
You should study a bit outside of your church and learn about what is termed as "The Age of Enlightenment" and try and get a sense of what our founding fathers really felt about religion. You will be suprised. While it is true that there was a time when people fled Europe for religious reason that was long before the United States was founded and religion had nothing to do with the American Revolution. Your "Jefferson" was a slave holder, adulterer and in general was everything you would think of as ungodly.
2006-09-05 05:05:09 · answer #2 · answered by sam21462 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think our forefathers were religious people who were persecuted for their beliefs in other lands. England, for example, has had the Church of england for ages and folks of other religions were persecuted for deviating from the national beliefs.
Seperation of Church and State was put into place so that no one would have to deal with that here. America was meant to be a place where each individual could worship as they please without government interference. That means no religious indications or prayers in school, courts, military, etc. The idea was that religion was a personal matter that should be taught in the churches and the homes and no where else should anyone be made uncomfortable with religious imagery of any one religion.
A lot of the religious symbols we see in our money, pledge of allegiance, our laws, etc. has snuck in from powerful lobbys - but only in the last 50-75 years. In God we trust on our money, for example, was not put there by our founding fathers (it was put there by folks scared half to death by the depression that they thought putting a blessing on money would protect them from such problems in the future). The Pledge of Allegiance was written in the 1950s.
God has so many forms, that it is not appropriate for any one version of god to be put forth in a country like ours - and it wouldn't be possible to represent all religions in the things we do - so we shouldn't put any version forth as correct or American. That is not abandoning God, spirituality or religion - it is honoring them all. The people who don't seem to really get this are those who selfishly (in my opinion) believe that yes, America is great and religious freedom is great, but they want society to mirror their own personal beliefs - and frankly I find this thinking more in church goers more than i do in non-churchgoers (and I think that is because Organized Religion is one of the largest and most powerful lobbies in our country and they are trying to mobilize their faithful to create a christian nation).
Peace!
2006-09-05 05:11:41 · answer #3 · answered by carole 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is not possible to have freedom of religion and at the same time have a national endorsement of religion. That's why it is wrong - both in the sense of immoral and in the sense of unAmerican - to have the words "under God" added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
I've heard complaints that liberals and atheists are trying to deny that the United States has a religious heritage. However, I don't remember hearing any liberals or atheists actually deny that. I never would - it's obviously true that religion played (and continues to play) a major role in society.
Similarly, I've heard complaints that liberals and atheists are trying to keep people from practicing their religions. But again, I haven't heard of any examples, other than scattered mistaken instances of teachers who were confused about what children can and cannot do in their classrooms.
There doesn't seem to be any liberal/atheist movement to restrict religious freedom. In fact, quite the opposite: there is considerable effort by liberals and atheists to prevent people from imposing their religions, for example as we attempt to ban organized officially-led prayers in the schools.
The problem that we face in this area is that members of majority religions have a sense of entitlement to have their beliefs override individual rights. It is not "militant anti-Christianity" - it is a militant patriotism in defense against the Christian right's attack on American freedoms.
A second and rarely discussed problem is the basic incompatibility between democracy and the notion of "revealed truth". Democracy's moral foundation is in the ability of the voters to participate in a free marketplace of ideas, in which the costs and benefits of various proposals are weighed in a rational manner by the various stakeholders, who then vote based on their interests. Some may be mistaken in their analyses, but because votes are decided rationally on the basis of evidence, in the long run overall, democracy produces good. Obviously when the voting population is largely people who choose revealed truth as their guide rather than rational self-interest, democracy has no chance of producing good, and reduces instead to "might makes right". As a few others here noted, it is fine for one's religion to guide one's own actions, but that religion is not a justification for forcing others to behave in a certain way. The only justification for that is scientific: an evidence-supported rational argument that does not depend on revelations or faith.
Faith can justify personal morality, but it cannot be the basis for a system of law for an entire society (unless everyone in that society were to happen to share the same faith).
2006-09-05 05:12:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most of the founding fathers were men of faith, but they also clearly believed that faith was a matter of conscience best left to the individual, and they put into place certain safeguards to keep it that way. The United States was never intended to "belong" to people of one faith. The founders respected differences of opinion and conscience. We should, too.
The founders knew what they were doing. The best protection for your right to worship or not worship in your own way is separation of church and state.
That said, all citizens, including those who hold government positions, have the right to hold and practice their faith or personal philosophy openly as well as in private. What they don't have is the right to try to force their beliefs on others or use taxpayer funds to support the faith of their choice or oppose those with which they differ.
2006-09-05 05:02:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think many confuse what separation of church and state is, including you.
The idea of separation of church and state was that government should govern and government should leave preaching to the churches. Government should not be promoting religious belief. Religions should not use government to push their beliefs.
Of course, people who run the government and the people who elect them have a wide range of moral beliefs. Those moral beliefs are not left at the doorstep when they vote to enact laws. Many base their moral beliefs on their religious beliefs. However, they should realize that not everybody holds the same religious beliefs that they do. Therefore, if someone wishes to pass a law, they should be able to explain how that law benefits the people without having to resort to the default position of "God said so". If you believe something is right or wrong, then it is right or wrong independent of one's religious belief. This is what the founding fathers realized when they decided to leave God out of the Constitution and guarantee that the government represented all people of all faiths. It is why our founding fathers chose our national motto to be "E Pluribus Unum" instead of "In God We Trust".
It's fairly simple, really.
2006-09-05 05:00:35 · answer #6 · answered by nondescript 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Leaders of this country are free to believe as they wish and worship as they wish. That right does not include forcing others to believe as they do.
The separation of church and state was originally intended to protect the church from an overreaching government. However, it has evolved into a protection of the citizens of our country from mandated, state-sanctioned religion. Spending government money on religious things or displaying religious symbols on government property is dangerous; breaking that boundary between our government and ANY religion could easily lead to government officials acting on behalf of that religion. I don't want to live in a country like that.
As for our forefathers: yes, many of them were Christian. Many of them were also slaveholders. They viewed women--at best--as second-class citizens and at worst as property. We can not continue basing modern society off of the ideals, education, and beliefs of men who died a long time ago, regardless of the part they played in founding our country.
2006-09-05 05:06:25 · answer #7 · answered by N 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think so. The issue most "non-church goes" as you described us have, is that Religioin is clearly and explicitly everywhere. If Bush wants to go to church every week, then congratulations for him, that's his right. But to enforce a saying like 'In God we Trust" on our money, or adding "Under God" to the pledge of allegiance in the '50s is wrong. My favortie thing, is when right wing Christians respond with something like," America loves God, and if you don't, then you can go to France!"
I'm in the military now, I have been for years. I love this country so much, why would I want any other country, when I have one right here, that guarantees me the right to freedom of or FROM religion?
The only problem with this country is all the right wing religious people that try to justify military and government actions with religion.
2006-09-05 05:03:01 · answer #8 · answered by TonerLow69 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps you might want to do a search on the term, "deism." The founding fathers were deists, meaning they believed, albeit some more loosely than others, in a supreme being, but did not believe in either the literal inerrancy of the Christian myths contained in the bible nor did they believe that a "god" was in anyway personally involved in managing the world or in guiding man towards some "ultimate destiny." By modern standards, they were agnostics with occasional lapses into superstition.
2006-09-05 05:03:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The separation of church and state should be absolute, says each and every of the founding fathers, including Jefferson Washington Franklin Lincoln all a thanks to Kennedy. All countries that positioned faith previous to state are doomed to fail, and positively they have. the u . s . a . shows appreciate for the agency of religion via granting it complete freedom, yet this replaced into not in any respect a u . s . that replaced into shaped on or via any faith. attempt to bear in mind that the first colonists were escaping non secular persecution in Europe and that has continuously been the objective of our human beings.
2016-12-06 11:02:25 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋