They claim that is says the there will be no official religion for the country while it actually says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which means that Congress shall not make any laws in favor of a religion, which means no laws are to be made just because someones religion thinks it should be a law.
2007-06-02 13:13:30 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If they meant it to mean there will be no state sponsored religion, they would have had it say: "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" and not: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Those two lines have two very different meanings.
2007-06-02 13:51:54 · update #1
Number of Times God or Jesus is mentioned in the United States Constitution
Zero, Zilch, Nil, Nada
It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should be involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
http://www.usconstitution.net/
2007-06-02 13:17:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 16⤊ 3⤋
The first part you are correct in. It also means there will be no state established religion, such as was the case in England where most fled to the New World from. Your last part of no law just because someones religino thinks it should be a law is partially right. Of course we don't take dictations from any religious organization, but things like laws against stealing and murder, etc are very based in religious beliefs. They are law because they promote the common good of society, not because some religion teaches them.
2007-06-02 13:28:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
You were doing good and got of course.
Congress shall pass no law concerning an establishment of religion means there is no official religion (Church of England being the dodged bullet of the day).
The Separation issue stems from a response President Jefferson made to a church group. Evidently Presidents Washington and Adams granted some holiday requests from churches. When Jefferson was asked he declined in writing that he believed a "Wall of separation" existed between church and state. He felt that granting a request from a church lent to the establishment issue and chose to avoid favoring one church over another. Imagine the requests had this continued! That letter written in 1804 led to the 1947 Supreme Court decision.
I could be wrong but your interpretation of "favor a religion" concerning a law may not be unconstitutional as it would not declare a single religion for us to follow. I would hope it died in committee.
2007-06-02 13:36:05 · answer #3 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
of direction you have the main appropriate to talk your strategies concerning the proposed mosque, and to have your speech look in print. i'm unsure that there's certainly any redress of grievances right here, through fact any harm is emotional, no longer actual, yet you had the main appropriate to attend zoning board conferences and volunteer notwithstanding motives you had to steer away from the positioning from being better through fact the proprietors want. They voted against your ingredient 29-a million and pronounced that shape would proceed. I further doubt which you have criminal status to pursue the problem in the process the courts. religious freedom and the equivalent risk-free practices clause are going to trump ethical outrage in this one. it's time to go forward and attempt to restoration the various very genuine and extremely pressing issues our total united states of america faces good now. This problem is a diversion to maintain us divided. the large money does not desire us thinking why the financial device isn't improving even nevertheless they are reaping revenue and bonuses or why we now ought to hold distinctive jobs with out advantages while one activity with advantages was adequate.
2016-11-03 11:27:05 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The faith based initiatives are a biased use of taxpayer revenues. Using tax payer revenues for church activities is one of the main reasons the pilgrims left Europe.
Eventually the five most dominant faiths control the state, and the people who are not made up of the five most dominant faiths get left out of any of the benefits so it creates prejudice. It is not based on equality but a persons faith. The state should have no place in the support or dictates of a persons faith.
2007-06-02 14:01:54 · answer #5 · answered by andy r 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Constitution of the United States and organizations like the ACLU are in the way of the real conservative agenda
Rights and protection for the privileged few, slave labor and minimal existence for the rest
It would take days just to write the clear examples of such just since the year 2000
2007-06-02 15:19:05 · answer #6 · answered by Peace Warrior 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
it protects us from a theocracy, but it does not say that we cannot incorporate our religious morals in our governmental decisions. many of our laws were based originally from religion, such as laws against killing someone --- anyone heard of thou shall not kill? if you want to get rid of all aspects of religion in our govt, than you cannot base any of your laws on religious morals --- the country would fall apart. so get off the separation of church and state argument --- this country wouldn't exist without christianity.
2007-06-06 16:05:28 · answer #7 · answered by Ted M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It Say's congress shall make no laws respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion...it doesn't say anything about an already established religion having no influence on law's..
2007-06-02 13:23:53 · answer #8 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 4⤊ 5⤋
No, you would be incorrect.
No laws establishing religion means no church shall run the government and the government shall run no church.
This does not mean that states cannot pass laws which might have a basis in religious conviction.
2007-06-02 13:35:13 · answer #9 · answered by Shrink 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
The first commentator lacks understanding of the Constitution to claim that its not incoporated into state. It has already been incorporated in several cases such as Lemon, Engele v. Vitale and many more
2007-06-02 13:18:57 · answer #10 · answered by ibid 3 · 6⤊ 2⤋