Separtation of Church and State?

Question

Im doing a report about the separation of Church and State ( meaning that any type of religion can't be taught in school). I would like your imput on this. Wether you support, against, or something else. Please support your answer.

Thanks

Answer 1

I think that there should be a seperation of church and state. If God is within you it doesn't matter if others think the same way. Anytime through history when the two have been mixed it's led to wars. Everyone should worship privately and in the way they choose. People judge you on what you do, not what you say. If you're worried they won't ever hear about Christ, then act Christ like and they will hear.

Answer 2

The concept of separation of church and state was based on some letters that Thomas Jefferson wrote. Some of the letters he wrote while in office, others were not.

The idea is that we will not have a state run religion, one that you must adhere to under penalty of law. In other words the intent is not to have the government start its own church and make it a law that everyone must be a member and adhere to its believes like they had in the in England.

It was intended to go no further than that. Why do you think that each session of congress starts with a prayer? Why are you required to swear on a Bible when you take the stand in a court room?

The idea that the ten commandments or a nativity scene can't be displayed on public property or that a kid can't say a prayer in school is just the clout of ACLU and accompanying pagans.

Answer 3

Separation of church and state is an invention of the courts. The US Constitution requires that no state religion be designated. At the time, Roman Catholicism was the state religion of France and Spain and one could not work for the government, etc, if you were of a different religion such as Lutheran (the Swedish state religion). Great Britain had the Church of England which persecuted many of the Americans prior to emigrating because they were Anabaptists and fundamentalists such as the Puritans. Russia had the Russian Orthodox Church. Basically, the country and their church were intertwined which greatly limited personal freedoms for many and scared the writers of the Constitution. I think the disconnect comes from the English language changing (as all languages do) over time. Religion has changed in the last 40 years so that now, a much broader concept like Christianity, something consisting of hundreds of separate Christian religions, is thought of as a religion. I guess judges are as lazy as most people and don't bother to study history to better understand their profession.

Answer 4

they should be separated as much as practically possible, and that is a lot of separation.
running a country by the laws of a church can end up making a national congregation with legal punishment for things like not saying your prayers, and there are a few examples of the worse cases around us. look at the stricter arabian countries where the mosque runs the country based on a version of the religion that is best adapted to the middle ages at times. drinking alcohol can get you flogged, women not covering themselves from head to toe are beaten up, etc. and it's enforced by law, because religion is law there. the whole concept of democracy with the nation being for the people in it breaks down to be replaced by a autocracy where the leader of a religious establishment gets to decide everything that happens in the country.
it's inhuman treatment all the way at times. tolerance is not a requirement for the enforcers. being of a different religion will make life almost impossible in such a country for most people. remember, there's more than one church, and history has proven how when given power one would love to get rid of the next. separation of church and state means avoiding that, not an argument about banning religion in schools.
separating church and state in it's essence means that neither should have control over the other, and without that you have problems. they have to exist independently as much as possible, but this does not mean that you can't teach about all religion in schools or that religion is banned. it does mean no one church gets to preach in all schools leaving no choice.

religion can exist, but it should have little say in the rule of a country.

Answer 5

I do not like the phrase separation of church and state and would prefer the language written in the Constitution's First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Congress cannot make any law which establishes a state religion or promotes one religion over another. Congress cannot interfere with a religious groups freedom to practice their religion. It is perfectly fine to teach religion in a public school, as long as it is done from a historical or comparative standpoint and not from the standpoint of conversion and preaching.

In fact, how do you teach history, music, or literature without talking about religion? These three subjects in particular are so influenced by religion that there is no way to avoid talking about religious issues in these subjects.

Answer 6

It's a constitutional requirement.

See link below for a long essay I wrote on the subject, including the origin of the phrase and how long it's been formally recognized by the US Supreme Court.

I also must comment about the people that seem to think the Founders of this country wanted it to be a Christian nation. Let's ignore for a moment the fact that most of the founders were Deists, not Christians. And let's also ignore the fact that the Constitution itself not only says nothing about God, but specifically says that religious qualifications are prohibited (Article VI). Not to mention the 1st Amendment.

The Treaty of Tripoli, written by the same Founders who drafted the Constitution, says ""the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion". (Article 11 of the Treaty). So, trying to claim "original intent" of the Founders goes against their explicit words.

Answer 7

Separation of Church and State does not mean that religion can't be taught in school. Its perfectly legal to teach about religion (ie: a course about world religions). Its illegal to preach. There's a difference between "about" and "fact".

Answer 8

In short: Our founding fathers didn't want a situation where the Church ran the government or the opposite, where the government runs religion. They didn't mean that you couldn't have graduation ceremonies in churches or that you couldn't pray in school. What they did intend is that state-run schools couldn't force a religion on you. Lastly, they didn't intend that freedom OF religion be misinterpreted as FROM religion.

Answer 9

I believe the separation between church and state has gotten out of hand.

I hate a strict constructionist approach to interpreting the Constitution. This means I look at it how I believe the fore-fathers had intended.

To me, when they said freedom of religion, they meant freedom or protestant religions from the oppression of the Roman Catholic Church. The separation was intended to keep schools from try to impose Catholic beliefs on protestants. I believe the fore-fathers fully intended this to be a Christian country with a shared believe in God.

Answer 10

"State" was brought up on religion. Our "Laws" were brought up based on religion, such as how we're not supposed to kill people! We're not allowed to curse in our schools, and we say the pledge of allegiance with "Under God" still in it. Seperation of Church and State is a complete oxy-moron and thereby should not be considered an actual concept.