Is the argument for the seperation of church and state legitimate? Why or why not?

Question

Seperation of Church and State is not a part of the US Constitution. The Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech...religion..." In other words, Congress cannot touch the issue of religion, no matter what.

Jefferson argued to a pure religion deviod of governmental interference, however, he also argued that government without religion lacks a moral compass.

It was the supreme court that first addressed the issue of church and state. Does anyone know what decision that was?

Answer 1

Originally, the concern about separation of religion and government started with Henry #8- he decided (or at least his advisers talked him into it) to change "doctrine" to allow divorce. There were some issues with his first wife....

Anyway, our Founding Fathers wanted to keep religion pure, they wanted to keep politics from messing around with religion. "Separation of church and state" was to protect religion, not to protect government. A little introspection (sponsored by any religion) has never hurt anyone...

BTW- Do you know where to find that term in the Constitution?...

The writer of the Wizard of Id comic strip once did one where a character drawn to look like Lincoln comes into the bar and tells the bartender that he'd read the whole Constitution repeatedly and couldn't find any reference to "separation of church and state". Wiz says something like, "That's because it's not there." Lincoln is surprised, and Wiz asks, "Would you like politicians in charge of your church?"

Eloquently put, I think.

(Answer to the question- look in "The Federalist Papers" supposedly written by Thomas Jefferson)

Answer 2

Very.

"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 history of the Amendment goes back to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson Penned the First draft of the 1st, and with talks with Madison, they decided that to ensure it got passed, it would be grouped with Freedom of speech and of the press (it was controversial at the time, as it is now.) It was passed, and Jefferson in letters praised it as a "Stone wall of separation between church and state" (yeah, that's where that came from....) and in leadership circles, it was respected.

more recently, it has been attacked by people who want to involve religion in politics, with charges that it's language does not ban Religion in politics (which according to the guys who wrote it, it does) and many other charges that rely primarily on a modern understanding of language, not the historical understandings that apply to the time it was written, despite the fact that it has never been re-written to a modern understanding of the English language.

In modern language it might read, 'The Government may not allow any endorsement of religion and may not base any laws solely on religion, nor may it pass any law restricting freedom of speech or freedom of the media, or the right of people to protest or petition the government to right any wrongs.'

Very liberal. but hey, we don't' listen to it anyway, why should we care?

Answer 3

It is a legitimate argument, but it is one which will never be resolved in a way that makes everybody happy. No matter how you look it at, there is always going to be someone who is unhappy about what relationship exists between government and religion.

Answer 4

Of course it is. Would you want a lobby or group of individuals making laws based on their religious activities. For instance, that would allow any religion with views not aligning with your own would have the power to dictate what could be said in schools, or government offices.

Answer 5

Absolutely. It might even be wise to ban religious people from holding public office. Every religious politician so far has been a hypocritical liar. Better if they stayed out of politics and stuck to running TV ministries, Like the Bakkers or Haggard.

Answer 6

Yes, it's a legitimate argument!
At least in my opinion it is!
Everytime I see one of these flag-waving Republican yahoos standing up and spouting gas about the Bible and family values and this and that it makes my want to puke.
I have nothing against the Bible and I have nothing against religion; but I do have a lot against the way these Republican-politicians use religion to get the Jesus-votes!

I don't need any Republican legislating my morality.

Answer 7

Absolutely it is legitimate. The government of the US does not sponsor any religion. Freedom of Religion is one of our most basic rights as US citizens.

Answer 8

If church and state were not separate, people would not be free to choose their religion. Religion must be freely chosen to be meaningful.

Answer 9

Personally, I think it stinks. Our country was founded on religious values and somewhere along the way, we've lost that and it's getting worse and worse. Gee, could that be why everything seems to be going wrong in this country??