the separation between state and religion in the US?

Question

do you think it's a good thing? And above all do you think it's a reality?

Answer 1

Good thing, yes. But on the endangered species list. There are lots of fundamentalists who would seek to tie the two pretty closely together.

Answer 2

The first Amendment states, "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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The purpose of this is to protect the church from the federal governmant. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution several states had a state religion. This kept the federal government from stepping in on their religion. It also kept there being discrimination against those that belonged to a different church. This idea of seperation came from a letter by Thomas Jeffererson to a preacher. Referencing a sermon given by the preacher. In there it talks about a "wall of seperation" between the government and religion. The thing that was being protected was the "Garden of religion/God." Meaning that there was no desire to repeat the mistakes of a national religion (i.e. the Church of England), a corruption of the church for political means.

IN A NUTSHELL: The purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the church not the church out of governement.

Today, there is a different atmosphere. I am a Christian and if there was a return to true Christian ideals then no I don't have a problem with it. The issue is that we, as a country, have run so far from what the original framers of the constitution original meant, that I fear it on some level. For example, if prayer is allowed in schools then whose prayer is it? On Mondays do we pray to Christ, Tuesdays to Allah, etc.?

Answer 3

The term - separation between church and state - is not found in the US Constitution.

On the contrary, in the first session of Congress in 1792, (these were the people that wrote the Constitution ) Congress passed a resolution whicj states " It is reccommended that The Holy Bible" be used for instruction in all schools"

Because of the Revolutionary War, since trade had ceased with England, that same Congress appropriated money to have 100,000 Bibles printed by a printer in Philadelphia.

The historical background is that these men, who were primarily of English heretage, did not want the US Government to IMPOSE a religion on the population as was done in England, where a person could not buy or sell goods without being a member of the Anglican Church.

They did not intend that any mention of spiritual issues should be removed from the public discourse.

Hope that helps.

Clearly, the modern concept of the separation of church and state is not the same as the founding fathers intended.

Answer 4

I know this will start a huge debate and I say this with the utmost respect for other religions and the right to practice those religions, however this country was founded on God.

This country to this day has our president swear on a Bible before he is in office, not the Koran.

Our congress prays to God before a meeting not to an idol.

This country is now faced with changing the pledge of alligence because we are catering to the right to practice any religion and people who do not believe in God think their rights are being trampled.

This is Gods country!!

It says one nation under God, not budda and whomever you so choose. You have that right, don't get me wrong, but America was founded on principles directly related to God, even specifically named.

Why do we debate and argue over facts? You have the right to believe and practice what you want but why do we deny our own history?

You are talking about a time when they also put in place the right to bare arms . . . . . because you needed to go get a rifle and defend your family from being killed and loosing everything you had. . . . . not to mean any drug addict without an arrest record being able to go buy a gun at Walmart and that is a right that should be protected by the constitution.

We need to get real and stop trying to erase God out of this country, it will be our downfall.

I am sorry I am rambling . . . .

Answer 5

Reality, no, as it seems the Religious Right keeps winning elections for the likes of certain presidents.

Would it be a good thing, absolutely. For a country the size of the US to allow a single religion to influence them while they have so many differing religions within its borders, that is just a matter of time before something goes wrong.

Answer 6

Contrary to popular belief, there IS a separation of church and state and yes, it IS a good, even necessary, thing. Though the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't outright appear in the Constitution, it's implied by the First Amendment.

With the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit a person's right to believe(or not believe) as they see fit, including the right to worship(or not worship) as they wish. Faith and religion are very personal thoughts and feelings that each person has. To demand that a person NOT believe or think or feel the way they do is impossible.

Oh sure, a state-established religion can demand you go to church and pray and show faith the way it says you should, but it can't make you TRULY believe. My family forced me to attend church services for years. Did I? Sure. I went. I recited prayers and hymns. Did I believe? Nope. Not in the least.

Same can be said of government. A theocracy and require church attendance, but it can't require you to stop having personal thoughts. Besides, just how WOULD the government police a person's thought's anyways? It can't be done, so thusly, this part of the First Amendment guarantees that there's no way the government can tell you what to believe.

Secondly, the government can't establish a state religion. Why? Because to do so would indeed be in violation of what I stated above. Say you're a Christian. You don't believe in Judaism. But the government states that you have to go to a synagogue every three days. If you don't go, you'll be arrested and interrogated. If you're found to be a nonbeliever or refuse to go to service, they'll execute you for heresy.

People like to live, therefore, they attend service out of fear whether they believe or not. I assume you'd like to keep living rather than die over something so silly, so I can imagine that you would attend service, even if you don't believe. But it doesn't seem fair, does it, to be required by law to attend services and pay respects to a religion you don't believe in?

Therefore, we have the second part of the First Amendment, to not only guarantee your rights to believe as you wish, but to protect that right by forbidding the government from ever establishing a theocracy that requires you to believe and worship otherwise. While atheism isn't an outright religion, it is the belief in no God at all, therefore, it's no more fair to require someone who doesn't believe, to believe, than it is to require a devout Christian to believe in another faith.

If we didn't have both parts of the First Amendment, there'd be nothing to stop America from establishing a theocracy and telling us we must be Catholic, Baptist, Hinduist, Pagan, or, yes, saying that we all must be atheists and have no rights to believe at all. The government can't tell us to believe or not to believe. It must respect ALL beliefs and nonbelief and stay OUT of the entire mess.

Besides, even if we WERE to establish a theocracy, how would that work anyways? Look at Iraq. We've got Sunnis and Shi'ites at each other's throats. Both are Islamic religions. They both want Islamic law, yet, each is a separate sect who wants their version to be in control. You honestly think Christianity wouldn't be the same way? Or any other religion, for that matter, who has various sects and degrees of orthodoxy?

We have your Lutherans, your Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Episcopalians, etc. If we WERE to make America a truly Christian nation and a Christian theocracy, just which of these would you like to be the religion of choice? And what do you think would happen to the others if we chose any one of them? What would happen if we chose the Methodist religion as our main Christian religion in this hypothetical theocracy?

If one can only be Methodist, what happens to everybody else who isn't? They'd have to convert, leave the country, or risk arrest and worse for heresy, wouldn't they?

So although the words "church and state" aren't outright said in the Constitution, the First Amendment clearly separates them. It leaves religion to be a choice of individual citizens, and protects that by prohibiting that the state(government) ever gets involved in telling people what they should or shouldn't believe. It's a reality, despite what some people might say, and it's a very essential thing.

Otherwise, we might all end up in prison for believing in the "wrong" religion.

Answer 7

It is a great thing. It lets us have an open mind to new things, which lets us grow. Is it complete realty NO! since Atheist or Agnostic will never be elected president. There are some dangerous also. Some evil people can also use freedom of religion to protect them selves. Can you think of a evil religion that is taking root? I have one scientology. Any others?

Answer 8

There is no "separation of church and state" written in the Constitution or any other document of law in the USA.

The First Ammendment protects Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion.

Things things are not apparent from recent judicial decisions however. How appalled our founding fathers would be at where we have fallen.

Answer 9

I as an atheist would love to see it dissappear, maybe then you would become a normal country like the rest of the first world where religion becomes less and less relevant.

Those countries that have a State religion tend to become more secular as a response.

Answer 10

The separation of Church and state isn't what we predict of of on the instant. maximum people have faith that Church could have no longer something to do with public products. (ie. colleges, Governments, so on and so on) yet what the separation of church and state reported grew to become right into a state ought to no longer elect what denomination or maybe faith a definite state ought to be.

Answer 11

If you are trying to say that separation of church and state are in the constitution, I don't think so.

I believe it's an interpretation of the constitution that has recently (last thirty years) become a point of contention.

I also believe in separation of church and state and saying the original pledge of allegiance.