What did James Madison mean when he wrote his document, now considered to be part of our Bill of Rights? Was it to keep the Church out of Government, or the Government out of the Church?
2006-12-19 09:35:21 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The second one. All it says is that the government cannot establish a religion. It does not say that people should not be allowed to pray in public school if they want to.
Right now, the government is establishing a religion, ATHEISM. By telling people they cannot pray in public schools, even if they want, it is saying they cannot believe in God.
2006-12-19 09:38:18 · answer #1 · answered by i hate hippies but love my Jesus 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
It was meant to keep the government out of the Church. England had been restricting religious rights in the U.K. with even going as far as calling people demons and witches for their own furtherment.
When the colonies Declared their independence from England they wanted to be sure that the government would not be able to restrict their right to worship when where and how they wished... of course it has been turned around and now it is just the opposite
2006-12-19 17:51:40 · answer #2 · answered by knnykeith 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both.
"A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion." -Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
How can churches be effective in saving souls when they have conflicts of interest due to government goals and policies? And how can government establish fair & equitable laws for people of all faiths when they have conflicts of interest due to undue influence by specific churches/religions?
When churches and governments become too closely connected, the churches become slimy and hypocritical & the government becomes preferential and unjust. History has taught us that time and again.
2006-12-19 17:46:13 · answer #3 · answered by Dave of the Hill People 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It means the government cannot sanction one religion. Many people feel that displaying a religious symbol on public property without the display of other religious symbols is a violation because the government is, in effect, promoting one religion. I don't believe this is true because the government isn't sanctioning one over another by doing this. By government sanction, I mean disallowing other religious expression and/or symbols on the same land.
2006-12-19 17:49:44 · answer #4 · answered by Katie 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Both - keep the church out of government and the government out of church. He knew that it was fair to agree with both if you agreed with one, something that seems to be lost on some people now.
2006-12-19 17:41:51 · answer #5 · answered by Buffy Summers 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Christian militants insist on calling everything that competes with their beliefs a religion - having no religion is a religion, doing science is a religion because science is a belief and beliefs are religions, philosophy is a religion, heck, Wheel of Fortune is a religion, you name it.
And they like to imply that tolerating every religion is a persecution of Christianity. Keeping religion out of government persecutes Christianity. They have a right to practice their religion, and so when the government does not operate in accordance with its views and dictates, it is denying them their rights. Forget that a government that operates according to a religion has established a religion, which the Constitution forbids...you see how they try to stand the Constitution on its head.
2006-12-19 17:52:08 · answer #6 · answered by sonyack 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋