Many people throw the words "separation of church and state" around, but I am not sure if they really know what they mean. This is written in the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Does "separation of church and state" mean that there should be no mention of God in the public forum? If so, wouldn't that violate the second part of the clause? If not, then what does "separation of church and state" mean?
2006-10-18 11:35:20 · 11 answers · asked by The1andOnlyMule 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Is putting the 10 Comandments on a monument on government property the same thing has congress making a law recognizing an establishment of religion?
2006-10-18 14:51:59 · update #1
It means that the church should not run the country, but that the state should pass pass laws regulating religion.
2006-10-18 11:37:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is not what that means. It means that you can say pretty much anything in a public forum, but the government can not play favorites on these issues. Hence the 10 commandments should not be on any government buildings. This shows favor toward the Christian and Jeudao faiths. Public schools are government funded and there should not be any praying or speaking of God in schools. Not everyone that is by law having to attend school a Christian, Jew or Muslim. Does this make any sense to you? What if you lived in a country where 95% of the people were Satan worshipers, you can't tell me that you would not be pissed off if you were made to say in Satan we trust everyday. Come on, try to look at it from everyone's point of view.
2006-10-18 11:42:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I take it to mean what you so precisely quoted here, that our government is forbidden to make any laws that either establish or prohibit the exercise of religion. That (to me) means that no US governmental body can tell me to pray or not to pray or even how to pray. It is my personal choice.
It is a very good law from the standpoint of an individual who wishes to be religious in a proper way. No person can force a genuine religious commitment from another person. A relationship with God is either a free choice or phony. By keeping the choice a freely made choice, our law allows people to be sincere about their religious beliefs. Religion that is forced upon people does not promote sincerity.
But there are problems with our law. The govenment can't tax religious organizations, so some opportunistic business people try to call their organizations churches to avoid paying taxes on their income. Obviously, to prevent this kind of scamming of the public (since we own our government) we have to be able to at least define what is and what is not to be considered a tax-exempt religious organization. So there are questions in which our government must seemingly violate its own standards to ensure that our Constitutional law remains valid and that it serves the intended purpose.
I have actually met people who try to pretend that their business ventures are religious organizations. I can't name names here. I can tell you that I see that kind of behavior as possibly damaging to an important Constitutional right and I've told these people as much. If they don't listen, I just smack 'em for endangering my rights. Barehanded.
2006-10-18 11:56:33 · answer #3 · answered by anyone 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The1andOn...,
I'm glad that some people are paying attention.
What happened in Europe with the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church was to be avoided here. There was no official government church. Otherwise the evil that men can do having that kind of power would once again happen.
That's another reason why Islam must be resisted, because they desire to have Shiriah Law instituted over the land.
2006-10-18 11:43:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I always thought it meant the state could not force religion or lack of religion on anyone. Essentially that Government is not allowed to interfere with or regulate religion.
Unfortunately, today people seem to think it is the right to enforce lack of religion.
2006-10-18 11:39:31 · answer #5 · answered by Shanna J 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It just means no State or National church.
2006-10-18 11:38:16 · answer #6 · answered by Nora Explora 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Separation of church and state meant something different when the founding fathers referred to it. They generally meant freedom of religion, not freedom from it. The PC version isn't what the writers of the constitution had in mind.
2006-10-18 11:43:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It simply means that religion can't dictate the way government affairs go. Government can't tell religion they have to change their doctrine. You can practice your religion as you'd like, but not if you're to endorse it in a government (or government derived) place.
2006-10-18 11:41:08 · answer #8 · answered by Alucard 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
that was written in a document by Jefferson.The Constitution says clearly the government is breaking the law by forcing athiesm on the US people.
2006-10-18 11:41:25 · answer #9 · answered by robert p 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It means the state should keep its nose out of religion.
That has yet to happen in human history.
2006-10-18 11:41:57 · answer #10 · answered by Tommy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋