Seperation of church and state isn't at all constitutional. Nowhere it is mentioned in there. The way it came about was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. I think that what he meant by seperation of church and state was keep the government out of the church not the church out of the government. Why are christians not allowed to pray in public schools even though it is our constitutional right? Also what are the benifits and limits that the church should be involved in the government?
2007-05-17 01:02:04 · 10 answers · asked by World Security 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
We grew up looking up to, respecting somebody who believed in faith and family and responsibility, and having everybody get a chance to do what they're capable of doing, not just a few. That's what this is about for us. And for so many Americans, this campaign is about the future, and it's about restoring hope.
People are desperate to believe again that tomorrow will be better than today.
2007-05-17 01:28:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, you need to ask "which church" are we talking about. Churches have been the "backbone" in America since the Mayflower landed at Pilgrim Rock.
No, the church (Christian) should NOT be allowed in government business. When Churches get involved with government, soon the government changes from a free, secular government to a theocracy (Middle East countries).
One needs to be able to be completely honest about God in ones life. Not everyone believes in God. In fact some don't believe in anything that deals with a higher power.
Because of the fact of separation between church and state, is why Christians can't pray in public schools. The act of "praying" is offensive to some citizens. It is like this, you eat nuts, and bolts for lunch. How long will you be able to eat nuts and bolts for lunch before the cops take you in custody?You say it is our "constitutional right" to pray - yes it is - that is what is construed as "freedom of speech". Gathering for worship could also be construed as "freedom of (peaceful) assembly".
2007-05-17 08:23:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no need for the concept of "separation of church and state" since the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and forbids the establishment of a "state approved church". No particular religion is recognized as more valid than another. Since no two religions agree exactly none has undue influence over political decisions.
Most religions agree on the concept of right and wrong. It is the basis for all law. "Right" activities are legal, "wrong" activities are illegal. So, in a very real sense you actually do legislate morality.
Why is it illegal to park next to a fire hydrant? It is illegal and immoral to block access to a device that may be needed to save lives and property. Why is it illegal to rob a bank?
Morality has a lot to do with law. It is only in socialist systems where morality must be eliminated. It is done so by the use of relativism. Socialism abhors moral absolutism because they need to be able to do whatever they think is necessary. So if a socialist regime decides to euthanize the infirm it can do so without regard to and moral code.
It is this creeping socialist influence that causes people to question the value of religious belief in public policy. It hinders the socialists progress.
By the way, regardless of the voluminous vocabularies and long winded dissertations about moral relativism it basicly boils down to this: Moral Relativism = lack of morality. It is the validation of the politically expediant.
.
2007-05-17 08:44:06 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Amendment I
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.
We should all be allowed to pray whenever wanted, just not promote one religion. Christians have an enormous amount of political clout already.
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814
2007-05-17 08:11:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was to prevent the government the government establishing a government religion Both parties use religion to their advantage The Democrats go into Protestant church's and give political speeches and when a Protestant church backed a Republican candidate in I think it was the 2000 election the government revoked their tax free status.
2007-05-17 08:36:53 · answer #5 · answered by hdean45 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO... Religion does NOT belong in Government... if it becomes a part of Government then you are just a step away from a Theocracy... and THAT is what has happened no... too many Born Again working in the white house.
America is about freedom FROM religion as much as freedom OF religion.
Religion and politics DO NOT MIX.
2007-05-17 08:11:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
According to the US constitution: NO
The Supreme Court made the separation of church and state law of the land in 1948.
I don't know why conservatives work against the constitution.
The founding fathers like Jeffersonw ere atheists and often wrote about "the evils of religion" Madison despised "the clergy"
2007-05-17 08:05:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Since "separation of church and state" doesn't exist, yes. As well as we can see how Americas morals have declined since it has been removed.
2007-05-17 08:08:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The same church that created the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, killed people for saying the world wasn't flat, and helped Hitler?
No thanks.
2007-05-17 08:11:54 · answer #9 · answered by Isaac 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO!!!!
2007-05-17 08:04:44 · answer #10 · answered by Justified 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋