English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

17 answers

Yes, there should be no official state religion, including the religion of evolution.

2006-11-03 11:23:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Look it up, "the separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. The concept is that the Sate cannot control and name an official religion. Nor can the Religion play politics and run the state. This is what the USA is based from, If not then why are religious connotations all over our money and historical documents including the Constitution? ("In God We Trust", "...One Nation under God,....")

That being said, some who already answer have a very good point. How can someone who's religious, and have personal values based on that religion, not take those feelings to the polls. We vote for what we want or feels right. And for most everyone, that comes from a religious base.

Yes the church shouldn't run the government, and yes the government shouldn't control the church and our beliefs. but other then that, "the separation of Church and State" does not exist although some think it does. Our founding fathers main purpose was to crate a country to worship what ever God you wanted without fear of the government; and they did. Sorry, those are the facts.

2006-11-03 11:28:42 · answer #2 · answered by Coool 4 · 0 3

Yes, complete separation of church and state at least as separated as is possible anyway.

onelm0 makes a comment about evolution being a religion, it is not a religion or anything like a religion, evolution is scientifically proven and evidenced fact that can be witnessed in certain organisms as it happens.

2006-11-03 11:35:44 · answer #3 · answered by CHEESUS GROYST 5 · 2 0

Yes. There are too many religions for all to get equal respect. Besides its the job of your parents and church to nurture your religious needs.

2006-11-03 11:28:13 · answer #4 · answered by eric s 2 · 3 0

Yes, the government should be neutral in matters of faith. It should neither favor one faith over others nor interfere with any person's right to believe or not believe as he chooses. When belief turns to action, however, it does have the obligation to prevent one person from harming or abridging the rights of another.

2006-11-03 11:35:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Absolutely! The Founding Fathers put a LOT of thought into this concept...and they were mostly religious guys. It is a great idea and we should bring it back! Right now, we live in what is essentially a Christian-fundamentalist Theocracy!

2006-11-03 11:24:32 · answer #6 · answered by Gwynneth Of Olwen 6 · 3 1

Good.
Now go to the middle East and tell the leaders of the nations to have complete separation of church and state.
You will need a head..trust me.

2006-11-03 11:25:32 · answer #7 · answered by Roxton P 4 · 2 2

No, absolutely not! You will not find "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution. This phrase was given the the Supreme Court in the 1930's from misinterpreting what Thomas Jefferson meant in assuring Baptists government would not interfere with their faith.

Ask yourself this question: Why are we taking down Ten Commandments from public places that have been there for ages? When a change occurs society is moving from it's original foundations and, in this case, away from freedom of religion.

Also, the definition of religion needs to be properly understood.
The original 1828 Webster’s meaning of the word:

RELIGION. Includes a belief in the being and perfection’s of God, in the revelation of his will to man, and in man’s obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties... the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion. (30)

This definition makes five distinctions that would totally destroy the present day understanding of the First Amendment. Without these 5 distinctions there is not an establishment of a religion.

Finally, there are good reasons to have religion involved in governmental affairs. President Ronald Reagan said:

Without God there is not virtue because there is no prompting of the conscience... without God there is a coarsening of the society; without God democracy will not and cannot long endure... If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under. (Myth of Separation 249)

Abraham Lincoln also acknowledged the necessity of having laws conform to God’s will:

It is the duty of nations... to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord. (Myth 259)

The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen noted that the Declaration of Independence is actually a declaration of dependence upon God for our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
So, without God given rights we would be subjected to what man gives as rights with all the prejudices and biases that he imposes against us.

On November 20, 1772, Samuel Adams presented to the Boston town meeting a declaraation of righs. The following excerpts from this document state:
Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty, in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature as well as by the law of nations and all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights, when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are life, liberty, and property.

2006-11-03 11:54:23 · answer #8 · answered by Search4truth 4 · 0 0

THe wall seperating church and state should be absolute and eternal

2006-11-03 11:24:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Yes.

2006-11-03 11:23:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers