Aren't the two great things that separate the United States from Europe: first, that the founding fathers didn't want us to have a king and second, that they wanted us to have freedom from religion? That's what makes our country special! Our leaders aren't born into the presidency and we are free from god! I mean honestly if you really have to have a king and a god why don''t you go to England where the king is the "defender of the faith." Sickening if you ask me!
Now here is the problem...If we have freedom from religion why is it that the president worships in the national cathedral, swears his oath on the bible, and worse of all congress opens with a prayer? Isn't the president supposed to set an example? Am I missing anything here?
2007-05-28 05:16:24 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
There will be no laws to inhibit the free exercise of religion. That is not freedom from religion, it is freedom of religion. What they wanted to ensure that we could worship any way we saw fit. Europe required that people be this religion or that religion. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure that ALL religious faiths were represented in government. This way a Jew, Protestant, Catholic, Druid, or what ever would have the freedom to worship the way of their tradition without fear that some dictator would come to power and say you cant worship this way.
In other words our founding fathers wanted to protect us from you. To protect me from people coming in and saying that I cannot wear my Yarmulke. From saying that if I celebrate Passover it is a crime etc etc etc
2007-05-28 05:24:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Read something historical and factual, not hysterical and fictional.
I recommend starting with the Preamble, then the Constitution and Federalist Papers. Our country is based on Freedom OF Religion. The original settlers came to America on the Mayflower to have the right to practice whatever religion they choose. The President and the Postman all have the right to choose whatever religion they want and have the right to practice said religion if they so choose. Our country in particular would not exist if it weren't for Christianity. Democracy as we know it would not exist if it weren't for Christianity and the United States of America. Democracy is based on a wide range of freedoms though without religion democracy wouldn't be where it is today.
This will really upset most people that hate religion and want to change it's historical significance in the world though give the Bible a read. In this context I'm suggesting this from a historical and legal point of view. If you read the commandments you can clearly see where most modern civilized democracys received their foundation.
If you want to completely eliminate Religion, which usually eliminates the moral code that goes with religion then look at the meaning of life in countries like China. The Chinese communist party, Khamer Rouge, Po Pot, there are a lot of fine examples of countries that have chosen Freedom FROM Religion or what that usually means is we'll kill you if you believe in or worship anything except the communist party. I hope no country ever goes down that path though we can start with the incorrect arguement that we should have Freedom From Religion.
If you are so inclined I would appreciate knowing why you feel the President shouldn't have the right to worship how he so chooses? If that is your goal please explain why this communist idea is a good one.
2007-05-28 12:46:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The phrase is freedom OF religion, not FROM. There is a huge difference.The primary thing the founders didn't want was a national religion such as Anglicanism in England. But did you know that almost half of the original thirteen colonies had a state religion? Did you know that the building that the House of Representatives originally used was also used for church services?
I suppose what gets your goat the most is that no matter how hard you and others may try to get Him out, that God is still there.
2007-05-28 13:45:59 · answer #3 · answered by mikey 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
When it came time to write the Constitution, those asked were, Madison, Jay, Henry and Jefferson. Henry wanted desparately to include a law requiring that every man allowed to vote, pay thithing to a given church -- thus ensuring that only God fearing Christians would have a say in our democratic process. As the others saw it however, such a requirement would mean a state sponsored religion/church -- just as the English have with the Church of England. That being the case, why break from the homeland?
Henry would not let it lie, nor would he accept the reasoning of the others. As it goes, he was presented the opportunity to be Virginia's first Governor (talked into it by the others no doubt). He ran, was elected Governor and gave up his seat in Congress, also giving up his right to a say in the writing of the Constitution.
So, the intent was to not allow the government to have a state run church. You have the right to vote without first having to pay homage or allegience to a given church (of the government's choosing). Thus "Freedom OF Religion.
Did they not teach you this in school? Whatever ARE they teaching our young and impressionable minds these days? Pitty. Our tax dollars hard at work with a "Universal" education system
2007-05-28 12:45:39 · answer #4 · answered by Doc 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No Max. It's Freedom OF religion....not from! Meaning the founding fathers wanted people to be able to worship in whatever way they chose or not worship at all. They did not want a government enforced religion, such as England had in those days. You probably should go back and read some more history books. By the way, separation of Church and State is NOT in the constitution. Look it up!
2007-05-28 12:22:23 · answer #5 · answered by Cinner 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sort of misguided. Freedom of religion not freedom FROM religion. The founding fathers were all very religious and believed that their faith in a higher power is what kept them strong. They just didn't want anyone telling them how to practice their own beliefs. President Bush is exactly the kind of guy they were looking for. A strong leader who has a good moral compass and strong religious convictions to guide him. Not a man so hungry for power that religion will not serve him at all. All of these ceremonies are based on tradition and are supposed to serve as reminders that no one man is all powerfull, and that we all serve under a higher authority. That is all, it is not intended to tell all americans they have to go and be a protestant to live here.
2007-05-28 12:25:46 · answer #6 · answered by BRAD H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The founding fathers of this country just so happend to do it based on Christian principles.
So what if the president worships? He's obviously a religious man. You, on the other hand, seem to have a problem with religion. Don't like it, don't practice it.
2007-05-28 12:19:52 · answer #7 · answered by ☆Bombastic☆ 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of religion applies to everyone, including the President, so he IS setting an example by worshipping as he sees fit. I don't like our President, but I have no problem with him practicing his religion as he sees fit, as long as he doesn't tell ME how to worship.
2007-05-28 12:27:53 · answer #8 · answered by redhairedgirl 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not freedom from religion but freedom OF religion. Every president has recognised and thanked God in their inaugural addresses. The founding fathers had faith in God themselves and founded the nation's laws on Christian principles. It's what has made the US so prosperous and successful.
2007-05-28 12:19:18 · answer #9 · answered by sonfai81 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Actually that is not entirely accurate. They wanted to free from taxation from the Church of England. They never wanted this nation to not be led by Christian leaders. That is why the principals of our laws are based on religious beliefs.
how about the phrase ... "..and that he is endowed by this Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
2007-05-28 12:22:00 · answer #10 · answered by Bill in Kansas 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋