get rid of seperation of church and state and put into action seperation of church and state?

Question

they way seperation of church and state was written it was ment not to allow the church to run the goverment or vise versa as was happening in england. so i propose we get ride of current ideals of sepperation of church and state the way they are where the church can have no represntation in the goverment and allow for the church to be allowed representation in the goverment and goverment officials to have religious ideals or background. and limit the seperaration to be not allowing the church to run the country and vise versa.

Does anyone support this idea?

Answer 1

The "establishment" clause of the 1st Amendment says, "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

You are correct in your interpretation...the clause specifically addresses laws that Congress may consider. Congress has made no law establishing an official religion. But, court cases have interpreted certain actions as *inferring* such an establishment because those actions involve government land and/or personnel.

In my opinion, those interpretations have gone way way overboard and need to stop. I believe the Founding Fathers did not intend to erase religion or religious references from *all* aspects of our lives...which it seems some organizations (like the ACLU) wish to do.

Answer 2

Government officials, as citizens, have the right to religious ideals and background. However, they are not representing their religion when they are working. They are representing their own moral values to the extent possible, and that is to the good, but they do NOT represent the religion. And that is also good.

The separation of church and state as conceived in the First Amendment is not merely a reaction to the state-supported Church of England. It only started there. The founding fathers were, many of them, Deists. That is, people who believe in God but not in a particular religious denomination. And they recognized that people who have different religions will tend to try to boss each other around, especially among those religions that proselytize. They saw this in the colonies and they determined not to allow it to become a problem in the States. So they wrote the First Amendment (and put it first) to ensure that the private conscience of each person is more significant than it had ever been in any other country throughout history. And to ensure that a minority religion would not be dominated by the majority. I also feel they would want to protect the atheist, but I know a lot of people distinguish between freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. I say atheism -- the affirmative belief that there is no god -- is itself a belief, in a way it is a religion. It is a belief that the Throne of Heaven is vacant, not merely that we cannot see the face of the one sitting there. (Metaphorically; how literal all this is we will have to wait and see.)

I do not understand what it is you want that we do not already have, but I say do not mess with the Constitution. It has served us well all this time, and become a model for many newer countries. It is good to keep religion and politics separate, and thereby keep both as clean as possible.

Answer 3

i imagine possibly i favor to bypass slap some historic previous instructors stupid. The announcement of Independence replaced into AFTER the Salem Witch Hunts with the help of basically a pair many years. all the signers were alive on the on the spot. The Salem Witch Trials established how authorities run with the help of religion would nicely be manipulated right into a miscarriage of justice and persecution of harmless human beings as flase costs of "witchcraft" were taken heavily and extra about executions. If someone did not factor this truth out, they failed you on your education. If, understanding this truth, you persevere in not getting the point, then i will't worry to waste extra time on a fool. some human beings imagine different religions attempt to brainwash their little ones and that non secular cliques are peer pressure sufficient with out the administration cramming it down all of us's throat. If anybody says a prayer, do you may if we are all forced to desire in course of Mekka? i'm not prepared on it both. So the meaning replaced into under no circumstances twisted, yet curiously a good many instructors did not completely conceal this significant topic. Even my ancestor, Richard Henry Lee, a dedicate Christian, understood the meaning I defined. How all of us can screw it up so badly over 2 hundred years later... that's embarassing. I blame your elders for his or her lack of understanding.

Answer 4

Of course I support separation of church and state...should there be political activities occuring at churches. No. But, go watch the Borat movie and you will see a judge and a congressman both giving speeches. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. You should not have tax-free status while furthering political agendas. Our forefathers are probably turning in their graves.

Answer 5

I think I follow you but with so much bad grammar and misspellings, ............................................

I think I basically agree with you in terms of how the Constitution should be interpreted. And if there are still too many people who don't get it and who still disagree with your interpretation, then a constitutional amendment would need to be proposed and ratified. That, however, is not going to happen at all.

We are, as a nation, quite permanently stuck with a basic disagreement about how to interpret the Establishment Clause.