Who believes separation of church and state is imperative? Who does not and why?

Question

The separation of church and state is one of the principals our country was founded on. How can anyone oppose this and call themselves an American? I would appreciate rational, thoughtful answers.

Answer 1

The separation of church and state was a founding tenet in the Constitution because the founding fathers saw the abuses of the many religions when they held positions of power in the Old World. Many of our earliest immigrants came to this country to escape religious tyranny and oppression. It made perfect sense, in my view, that they would have included this amendment in the Constitution. This is especially significant, IMHO, considering many of the founding fathers were Masons.
Nothing has been miscontrued about the "intent" of the original amendment for 230 years. Now, all of a sudden, when theocratic radicals want to twist the original intent from what it was meant to be to their own narrow view of what it should be to them, they scream that they alone know what the founding fathers intended and everyone else is wrong.
I respectfully beg to differ.
There is no surer way to fall into despotism than allow one religious group's views to be above another one's. All the theocratic radical needs to do is consider whether they would allow Buddhism, Islam, Hindu or any other religious sect have precedence over them. That is something I seriously doubt. Why then, would they expect others to accept their view as the only valid one? Hence, the reason for the second amendment.

Jefferson and Madison speak well for themselves:

"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

I believe Mr. Jefferson's intent is blaringly obvious in his own words. Transparently clear and to the point. As was James Madison's.

James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention

12 June 1788Papers 11:130--31
The honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded--there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment--I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution, and it is sufficient to authorise a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest.


The Founders' Constitution
Volume 5, Amendment I (Religion), Document 49
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions49.html
The University of Chicago Press

The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962--77 (vols. 1--10); Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977--(vols. 11--).

Answer 2

Actually, the initial intent was that the Federal Gov't wouldn't establish a state church -- compare with Germany's Lutheran church, or the Church of England.

The original intent never every mentioned that such relationships would not be acceptable by the States, and in several cases there was a very cozy church-state relationship in the States when this amendment was written.

Certainly, the founding fathers never thought that this would mean "Freedom FROM religion" or a complete and absolute sterile atheist government.

So, I support the idea that the Feds shouldn't have a "state church" but do not support the rulings that support the idea that there can be no church-state interactions.

Answer 3

It's part of the US Constitution, so it doesn't really matter what one thinks.

The issue is how the term is defined. I am concerned that the liberals have distorted the intent of the Doctrine.

The church cannot run the government and the government cannot run the church. No more, no less.

Answer 4

The government could invade religions as easily as religion can/does invade government/governing. Melding church w/state makes as much logical sense as melding fraternal groups w/state (ie the seperation of the Elks Club and the State). Sadly, the churches seem terribly interested in lodging their dogma into local, state, and federal laws ... while less and less Americans are so inclined. And too, the "track record" of "religious leaders" is as poor as that of politicos ... witness this week's: Ted Haggerd!

Answer 5

No... the principal was not to have a State Religion like England did (and does)...and that people would be free to worship in what ever religion they chose. (they weren't in England) That said, there is *NO* prohibition in the constitution against people of faith participating in the political realm... or, for that matter, using the principals of their faith in formatting laws. It is only severely out of wack PC that has made it so in today's world.

Answer 6

I've heard many people say they are against stem cell research, etc. because their priest or pastor has taught them well about the evils of it.

Even my church, the pastor makes comments about how we are to vote. I've quit going very much.

Southern Baptist churches tell you how to vote and it is republican.

In our small town, I've discovered the churches here are having declines in attendance in all but one church. This one church is the fastest growing church around and has the largest congregation in the town. It is a protestant church. The pastor never speaks of politics in church. He believes each person should make up their own minds. All political parties can be found in his congregation.

I think that proves why people are quitting churches and morals and Christian beliefs are being questioned. Politics have entered churches more and more since the Christian right has let themselves become a pawn for the republican party.

Answer 7

Separation has always been considered important. Bush engineered his Faith Initiative Cabinet position for votes not balance of power. It should be abolished.

Answer 8

Gee, I wish I could give Ruth 4 or 5 thumbs up. She gave my answer outstandingly well.

Will you tell us exactly what you think "separation of church and state" means so that we know how to answer your question?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApakMuGu0fShSP9PCXfDMfzsy6IX?qid=20060901161101AAaUOMJ

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkvvBKe8ttLlydN4dYpgAPPsy6IX?qid=20061016165903AAIVLJ3