Is anyone anti separation of church and state besides me?

Question

It's not in our constitution, it was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a certain church while he was away in France. When he wrote it, he ment for state to stay out of the church.

If you say I'm wrong, back it up with evidence.

Answer 1

I've been saying the same thing for years. It kills me when I hear some idiot say it's written in the constitution. Obviously those people haven't read it. It clearly states that the government may not establish a religion. Meaning America should not have an official religion such as "The Church of England". It DOES NOT MEAN THAT RELIGION SHOULD BE BANNED FROM ALL PUBLIC PLACES!!!!!!

Answer 2

The exclusion clause says that the government shall remain neutral in matters of religion. This implies that there shall be a separation between the government and churches. The government shall neither establish a religion nor put one above another. A portion of the letter is here:

"Sowing Useful Truths and Principles": The Danbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson, and the "Wall of Separation"
DANIEL L. DREISBACH

On New Year's Day, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson penned a
letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. In this letter
he used the celebrated "wall of separation" metaphor to describe the
constitutionally-prescribed relationship between church and state. Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his
God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the
legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate
with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation be-
tween Church & State.

The missive, he said, provided an occasion to articulate his views on
church-state relations and, in particular, to explain to critics his reasons

• DANIEL L DREISBACH (B.A., University of South Carolina


I am with Jefferson, allowing all religions to flourish or fail equally, without government intervention or opinion on any of them, is the only fair way to do it. And freedom FROM religion is also a valid choice.

Answer 3

If the state gets involved, they'll want to tax every darn thing within the church. The way it is now, everything is tax- exempt within the church. The only reason USA is a superpower at the moment is beause of all the taxes Americans pay for everything, including USED CARS. If we were like other nations like Canada (national health care) we wouldn't have BILLIONS to go fight a war ir IRAQ while BIN LADEN is still alive and well, because the money would be spent inside the country for American's benefit, such as health care. American Gov't loves you for taxes pal, and when you die you even pay a DEATH TAX. But when you're alive and you lose your job- the Gov't and their cronies don't care about you. When you have no health care and you're in the hospital getting your triple bypass heart surgery- you're coming home looking forward to receiving a bill from the hospital for $75,000. Plus you got the bill collector's after you. Now where's the Gov't? And you thought they actually cared- they care about getting your tax dollars. That's it. Why is it that USA Gov't can blow BILLIONS and BILLIONS on a B/S war, feeding everyone around the world, and our econonomy sucks, home foreclosures are at an all time high, jobs going overseas, corporate greed, Gov't scandals, Bush/Cheney scandals, homelessness is on the rise, poverty, crime, robberies, we are spiraling down hill so fast and you want the Govt to get more taxes, what rock have you been living under lately?

Answer 4

The idea that the the Founding Fathers or at least the most prominent ones were not for a separation of Church and State in that America would have no official state church is just ridiculous. They were Enlightenment intellectuals, not fundamentalist-like Christians. (No mention of Jesus anywhere in the Constitution). All of them were very aware in a way that Americans today are not of the dangers of a state church. When one Christian denomination was in control, as in the case of European countries, all other Christian sects were persecuted by these Christians.

If you're not willing to read objective biographies of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and the rest which clearly show these people to be men of reason first who looked to the pagan civilizations of Greece and Rome for inspiration rather than the Christian kingdoms of Europe, I don't believe any reasons I would have to offer would persuade you otherwise.

The funny thing about Christians who want no Church and State separation is that they don't understand how bad it would be for their religion. Who decides which kind of religion is sanctioned in schools and in other public places? Would Protestants be comfortable with a Roman Catholic state religion or vice versa? How about a liberal form of Christianity vs a conservative creed? And why not a non-Christian religion being State sanctioned? What about the 1st Amendment and the guarantee for all Americans to have freedom in religion? How are you going to avoid compromising Constitutional rights in the name of abolishing separation of Church and State? The problems become endless when you start to think of them.

In the end, it serves Americans of all faiths better to have Church and State separation, in that they are not forced to adhere to other people's beliefs.

Answer 5

Like most anything anymore, it gets twisted and/or taken to extremes.
The Constitution clearly means that the government should NOT make decisions about religion. The colonists had just broken free from a government that only allowed one church in the entire country, the Church of England. If you lived in England and wanted to go to a church, that was the only choice you had. That was the result of Henry VIII, if I am not mistaken.
On the other hand, religion should NOT be a prerequisite for any government position or program. It never was in the history of the country. In fact, prayer in school, prayer before ball games, prayer at graduation, the 10 Commandments in court rooms, and all those things never caused a problem all the way from the 1700s until sometime after about 1970.
The constitution says it will guarantee Freedom of Religion, NOT freedom from religion.

Answer 6

Federalist Papers also deal with the subject. The point is that the Constitution does not guarantee freedom FROM religion.

When the Founders dealt with these religious matters, it was common for the State (usually the King or Queen) to determine what the dominant religion should be. Millions died throughout Europe and England every time the State religion changed.

As a secular-humanist Goldwater Conservative, I deeply resent the attempt of the Marxists to make their statist values the dominant religion of the country. The US has had tremendous success in it's history because of the mutual respect and tolerance that people of all faiths have shown to each other. The Marxist's attention to pettiness and the ACLU's lawsuits are merely an attempt to divide and conquer.

Screw them.

Answer 7

Our system of government allows for evolution over time. Whether there is explicit support for the separation of church and state in the Constitution is not the only question to be asked. Our Supreme Court has the job of interpreting laws and the legislative intent behind those laws. The Constitution is among the legislative documents they Court reviews in its rulings.

The "founding fathers" knew what difficulty had grown out of mixing Church and State in Europe. They certainly weren't keen to recreate those problems here. Also, most favored a weaker, decentralized gov't that would mind its own business and not interfere with state level administration. The notion of a "national" religion or that the gov't would sanction one religious group over another, runs counter to the other discussions of the day.

Answer 8

Please don't get silly. Jefferson also meant for the church to stay out of the state, so that a particular religion could not dictate law.

I am a Christian, Conservative, and an indelible patriot, and I know that the separation of church and state is a good thing. It's just when taken to absurd extremes that it becomes a bad thing.

I understand what you were saying, but it was not stated well.

Answer 9

yupchagee. is right, the gov, is not to recognize any one church as a state church , that does not mean we haft to keep the church and state separate, as long as the gov, doesn't try to force one religion down any ones throat or establish a gov, religion, this nation was built by men who had a rifle on one shoulder and a bible under the other, and no one has tried to force anyone to join any particular church , or any church at all if they choose, but our laws were based on christian principles , because christian principles are the most decent and practical principles available, for a free and democratic society, you are free to believe what you want , but tell me a better way of life or rules for a society,
and don't come up with this B,S, of what you think happened hundreds of years ago, lets discuss here and now,and the last 200 years

Answer 10

You're right.

Orthodox (and I don't mean Russian or Greek Orthodox, but merely standard or usual) Christian belief outside of the US normally believes that God places requirements not just on the Church but on the State and that both the Church and the State are answerable to God for the way in which they discharge the responsibilities He's laid on them. It's known in the outside world as "the Establishment Principle"