How do Christians interpret the clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

Answer 1

Not being a christian, I see it as a show of respect to humanity that the founding fathers had for future generations to not be tortured by religious laws set up by various groups espousing their brand of banality.

Answer 2

There had been a time when I used to assert that the First Amendment does not include the words "separation of church and state" and so that expression has no relevance in interpreting the First Amendment, but the more time I spent studying constitutional law, the more I've realized why I was wrong. I do believe, now, that there needs to be a "separation of church and state" inferred from the Constitution, and it does not mean merely that "the federal government is not supposed to establish a state religion, nor endorse one." Yes, the federal government was the only government in the country that had to obey the First Amendment as an original manner, but the 14th Amendment requires that states also have to obey the First. And the "separation" principle is that no government in the country -- federal, state, local -- may get merged with any churches. Government is open to all people, not just religious people, and no governmental entity can transfer its governmental power to any church. I believe I agree with you in one respect: liberals oftentimes seem to be rendering "interpretations" of the Constitution that are not *objective,* they only seem to be designed to disempower conservatives.

Answer 3

Our interpretation doesn't really count, only the supreme courts interpretation does! However, I believe its stating that congress has no right to make laws over or regarding religious establishments. I agree with Andre, that this further emphasizes "separation of church and state" which originally meant freedom from a state sanctioned religion. I see where some could find the wording could be misleading though.
However, good question, you'll probably get a zillion very opinionated answers! haha!

Answer 4

How do atheists interpret it? Does it need an interpretation?

It seems pretty straight forward.

The US was founded by individuals who wanted to escape the government being run by the church. I'm a Christian and I'm not trying to make this country Christian by any means. One cannot deny the fact that the majority of those who established the country came from a Christian background, though...thus that rolls over into the laws and history of the US.

Answer 5

It goes back to separation of Church and State. The United States being set up not to take any particular side on any religion unless it is in violation with National Security or they are in major violation with certain laws. Christians depending on what sect that you talk to, will answer differently. If you want to Bible stand point, is that government is set up for all men and women. It is to treat all people equally not matter what they believe. Some people may say that is false due to the wars that the Israelites had with the people that were in Canaan. But don't forget about the many times that they were chastised and were told that if they would not keep the law of Moses they would be replaced. In general though, the gospel of Christianity is a very peaceful gospel, open to all people, and is not objective to other beliefs. Chistians should still stand strong for what they believe but should not persecute others for trying to live a good life. And government should be run the same way.

Answer 6

By the actual historical reason behind it which is England. If you look at what was going on when the constitution was written depending on who took the thrown determined what the chances were your family would be herded out in the streets and shot. There was strife between the Catholics and Protestants which is still going on today from what I understand. The establishment clause meant that there would be no Church of America which everyone would have to convert to or die. The founding fathers never intended for the government to be non-religious, they just wanted to make sure there was not going to be a way for the government to trod on its citizens.

Answer 7

It means exactly what it says.

It means that Congress cannot "establish" a national religion. It's what they were trying to get away from in England; a government mandated religion. So it makes sense for them to proclaim that the government could not establish a religion here.

I don't know why this gets misinterpreted so much. To me it's pretty clear cut.

Answer 8

The government is not allowed to mandate religious practice, and it is not allowed to restrict religious practice. How do non-Christians interpret the clause, "...or prohibit the free expression thereof"? Does that mean Congress cannot restrict a teacher from praying in the classroom?

Answer 9

I see it as saying: "The Feds shall not declare any particular religion the State Religion; they shall not give any religion protection or favors not granted to other religions."

The end of the clause is the flip side of the coin: "nor prohibit the free exercise therof". This means "The Feds shall not prohibit the individual citizen from freely practicing his or her religion, nor make any religion or faith illegal."

Just my opinion.

Answer 10

I interpret that to mean that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Some have bastardized that simple concept into the bizzarro interpretation that says "There shall be absolute and total separation of church and state at all times.," but, of course, the Constitution says no such thing.

Answer 11

This is to prevent the government to make a government controlled religon. It could have been the United Anglican States of America or United Catholic States of America or United Presbyterian States of America or United Baptist States of America. Fact is that it almost was one of these.