The "separation of church/state" is unconstitutional. So why and how are atheists and liberals able to use it?

Question

It's not even in the Constitution? In fact, it's not found in any political document or legislation whatsoever. It was simply a quote from Thomas Jefferson. It reads:

"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 between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience."

Thomas Jefferson - Letter written to Danbury Baptists, 1802

So, how are these people who are attempting to rewrite history able to legitimately use this doctrine to support their cause?

cybersharque - They use it all the time. Just do a general search throughout Yahoo Answers and you'll see.

1st Amendment of the US Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Many atheists and liberals tend to only focus on the first part of this equation and not the second ; "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Raoul Duke - You shouldn't have wasted your time with all of the quotes. Much of what you have quoted has been distorted by modern day revisionists who are attempting to rewrite history. I can quote many forefathers who believed the Bible to be the governing authority of our country.

Answer 1

The suggestion of church and state goes back to when the church pretty much ran the state in Europe. Libs these days erase our history and never remember what really happened hundreds of years ago.

Answer 2

The function of that separation is to see that the United States never has a "national religion". Our founding fathers saw what happened when there was only one authorized religion in a country. So, any belief structure is allowed in the US, be it one of the various Christian sects, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology, Christian Science, Paganism or even Atheism. Each individual has the right to choose what religion he or she will practice, or to practice none at all. If Christians can put the 10 Commandments, or the cross, in a school building or courthouse, then there should also be a Muslim symbol, a Jewish symbol, a Pagan symbol and if they had one, an atheist symbol. Anything else would actually be forcing your religion on someone else. Having said that, most people in the US are some form of Christian, and if given the choice, would allow Christian symbols in schools and government buildings. If a town can agree on that, then they should be able to do so in their local buildings. It still cannot be done in federal building, though.

Answer 3

It is difficult to answer your question because you make overtly false statements. There is an insurmountable canyon between the statement that "'separation of church/state' is unconstitutional" and that it is not in the constitution. What is in the constitution is assertions forbidding the making of a law which "establishes religion." To quote from the first amendment: "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."

Now if one goes back to the founding fathers and interprets the constitution in light of their discussion, Thomas Jefferson's assertion tends to be the clearest statement of concensus. There were of course exceptions, but most of the founding fathers were Deists. That is they believed that God had created the world, set up the laws by which it operated and abandoned it to operate by those laws. There were exceptions who advocated the establishment of specific churches and some states did have semi-established churches. Even today one can argue that the Latter Day Saints have a privileged position in Utah.

Most of the debate of separation of church/state has not, until very recently, been between athiests and christians. Rather it has been between various christian--largely fundamentalist protestant groups--opposing federal government funding of catholic education or other catholic doctrine which they oppose. Few of these court battles were "liberal" vs conservative "christian" and your defining it in those terms suggests your political and religious agenda to overturn the disestablishment clause in a culture that is far more theologically diverse than it was even under the founding fathers. Only rarely has the separation clause been used by non-christians. However, as our culture diversifies and other religions have significantly larger following, one should expect them to be equally vigilent in protecting the imposition of disadvantages to their belief structures by the federal government. There is now a long trail of court rulings establishing separation of church and state under that came as a result of CONSERVATIVE churches struggling for political power against other conservative churches. Your assertions that this is solely a battle between atheists (liberals) and conservatives is a historical fabrication on the same level as the fabrication that the holacaust never happened. These princples are well established and not likely to be overturned because of the principle Stare Decisis--i.e. established law takes precidence over personal judicial legal opinion. That agnostics and alternative religions also use these same principle to protect their religious or non religious preferences apparently upsets you. But if you go back and study the history the "wall of separation" Jefferson and most others--excepting patrick henry--argued for protects us from full fledged religious wars between religions seeking to establish themselves. The fact is YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO REWRITE HISTORY not they.

Answer 4

I think it is a GREAT idea to mix church and state. It works so well in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. Just Kidding. Its a HORRIBLE idea! Look at the numbers--Islam is the fastest growing religion. It is inevitable, the way trends go, that Islam will eventually have enough voters to vote their religion into dominance, and then your kids will be getting taught to worship Allah in school, on your tax money. Maybe thats OK with you. I think not. Trust me--religion benefits HUGELY from separation of church and state. Here's how it works--once the gvt. favors one particular church, that means that all the others are unfavored. So if the favored church happens to be, say, the Catholic Church, they get the tax benefits and you as, just for example, a Baptist, don't. Its not fair to anybody. Religion does just fine in this country, it does not need to be propped up by Big Government!

Answer 5

Liberal is not a Religion, and Secular is not Atheist, If you have a Chess match, is the religion of the players or observers of any consequence at all? NO! That is why a Chess match is a Secular activity.

Likewise Secular Government is a case where any religion, no religion, or any variant, of that has no more place than the Chess match.

Individual players may pray for answers, or even root for someone they know is of a similar religion, but you can't decide that your Bishops can move the same as a Queen just because of your religion.

Those who lived at the time America was founded were all to aware of the problems of mixing religion with politics, as England had just gone through convulsions where first the adherents of one religion, and then another, stuck people in big wicker baskets and set them on fire! Just for being accused of not being of that weeks approved religion.

That awareness meant that Deism was the common religion of most learned men, and that most thinking folk that did practice Christianity, also were repulsed that one might seek political power in Christianity's name.

That is why America insisted on being the First SECULAR State, that any religion would be tolerated and practiced by a those who believed that way, as long as they did not impose their beliefs on others

In general that has worked out pretty well until a new Theofascist group showed up, that called itself Christian, but despised much of what Jesus himself said about everything from turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor, Doing unto others as you would have others do unto you, and most of the other things actually said by Jesus.

Having much more in common with Bin Laden than Jesus, they hate freedom, and democracy, and would institute a Totalitarian theocracy, with more thought crimes called than the Taliban, but where even the Taliban called only for beatings these nuts call for death by stoning.

To promote their insanity, they swiftboat anyone they disagree with, rewrite history that all the founding fathers were Christian instead of Deist, and try to put the Ten Commandments up in every secular location.

Notice that it is the much more Totalitarian Ten Commandments, that has the first four concerned only with enforced religion, and Not the Golden Commandment to" Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". If the one case it was given to a tiny tribe that needed cohesion more than anything, but by Jesus time there was thousands of tribes, many with very different traditions.

That is the new Covenant that Jesus announced to the whole world, that would allow newcomers, but not kill off anyone who was not a follower of Him.

Answer 6

incorrect. You connect non-religious holidays to atheism. Atheism has no dogma of the form. Atheism is basically the shortcoming of perception in a god. that is noted as Secular. SECULAR. do not attempt to make defective arguments such as you have. Separation of Church and State IS constitutional the two with the aid of being in the form, and suitable for function. with out separation of church and state, the product is the dark a while. And no, the court docket reveals atheism to be a faith of their eyes because of the fact that is an opinion approximately religious ideals. subsequently won't be able to "characterize it". and you're incorrect approximately them not representing the different area, the appropriate court docket has plastered on their partitions of their development the ten Commandments. And it is not separate yet equivalent, because of the fact a spiritual regulation isn't equivalent to our regulations. We could admire ideals and values, yet they are actually not equivalent. in any different case we would have extra of a topic on each little thing seen criminal and unlawful. If it replaced into "equivalent" or maybe "separate yet equivalent" then we would would desire to comprise faith INTO regulation, whether to admire it because it is going against a regulation of the country or not. which might recommend that the mother and father who prayed for his or her baby to get extra perfect as a substitute of taking her to the wellbeing center does not get in subject if we had to contemplate it equivalent. heavily, I recommend you do learn approximately your question. For that way we are able to respond to your question as a substitute of refute it for being an misguided one to ask. playstation : absolutely everyone who says that there is not any such difficulty as Separation of Church and State in the form. examine the 1st line of the 1st substitute: "Congress shall make no regulation respecting an enterprise of religion." Now, positioned that in the time of uncomplicated language.. it is going to not be that arduous. Congress isn't allowed to choose any faith. this implies regulations would be unable to be surpassed in choose of any faith. Which creates the divide between faith and u . s . regulation. Church and State.

Answer 7

What the founding fathers wanted to avoid was a government controlled religion like the Church of England. What we seem to have now are people who treat the political parties like a religion.

Answer 8

What was one of the major reasons for founding America? There's your answer. It's very common sense and our Constitutional Amendments supports that.

By the way, the idea is traced back to John Locke. It was his philosophy that was adopted by Jefferson and became the essence of our Constitution.

Answer 9

The constitution dictates SOME laws of the US, not all of them. If it's not in the constitution it doesn't mean it's not a good idea - it merely means that this idea is not sanctified by its position within the constitution.

And how, precisely, is the combination of church and state good for a nation? To have someone be able to justify his actions by merely saying "God told me to do it" is utter insanity, especially if those actions start wars, cause recessions or massive hardship.

Answer 10

um...
First amendment...
Bill of Rights...
Basic stuff you learn in high school.

No one is rewriting anything. In that letter, he used language that is exactly what was used in the first amendment.

have you taken a high school civics class yet?

and btw, separating church and state does not restrict the free practice thereof.