Have you ever read the first amendment?

Question

"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."

No where in the amendment does it call for freedom from religion, actually it's quite the opposite.

So should religion play a role in politics? The constitution guaranties it.

Don't forget the second part - " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Answer 1

The historical evidence is abundant and clear.

The single most important element that has allowed one of the youngest nations on the earth to become one of the strongest and most moral in history is the freedom to worship and the separation of church and state.

Mess with it at your peril.

EDIT: "I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about the ascendancy of one sect over another"

Thomas Jefferson

EDIT FOR Happy momma
The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

He referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.
So the answer to the question is yes, and I read it probably before you or the asker were born.
Have a splendid day

Answer 2

Yes. Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

Answer 3

The "free exercise thereof" in no way implies that ANY one religion (ie, Protestantism) is the "official state" religion of America. All are equal.

And FYI, "free exercise" does not mean total license to get in people's faces and literally insult them "in the name of the Lord;" under the guise of "witnessing."

The courts have ruled on this.

Answer 4

"A nicely regulated defense force, being mandatory to the secure practices of a loose state" is in simple terms a purpose fact. It lays out the clarification why the wonderful of the persons to maintain and bear hands shall not be infringed. not something interior the wording of the modification restricts reported outstanding to individuals of the defense force; on the different, the words "shall not be infringed" are the main effective admonition interior the completed bill of Rights. As for the composition of the defense force, i'm going to guess that those adult men you point out are certainly seen area of the defense force under 10 USC § 311: (a) The defense force of america consists of all in a position-bodied men a minimum of 17 years of age and, different than as presented in area 313 of call 32, under 40 5 years of age who're, or who've made a press release of purpose to strengthen into, voters of america and of woman voters of america who're individuals of the national shield. (b) The instructions of the defense force are— (a million) the prepared defense force, that's composed of the national shield and the Naval defense force; and (2) the unorganized defense force, that's composed of the individuals of the defense force who're not individuals of the national shield or the Naval defense force. Oh, by using the way, the 2nd modification does not furnish the wonderful to bear hands, it recognizes this outstanding as preexisting. i might additionally recommend a verify out the 9th modification whilst i'm off in this tangent.

Answer 5

Yes I re-read the constitution and all the amendments yesterday. This nation has no established religion, many believe (incorrectly) that we are a Christian nation.

Answer 6

"..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the proof that religion plays an integral part in the US constitution and current governance.

That being said, it does NOT state that politicians may dictate their beliefs on society. Our laws are framed by religion if one took the time to read a bible. These laws are enough to make it unnecessary for politicians to preach from their seats in government.

Answer 7

I agree it does not say freedom from religion but it also does not say the opposite. It states that the gov't is constrained from passing laws that prohibit or require a person to practice a specific religion.

Answer 8

"Respecting an establishment" of religion can be read one of two ways. Either no laws showing respect or courtesy or special treatment to any religion, or no law allowing for one religion to establish itself as dominant.

Current interpretation is the latter -- no religion can become dominant as a matter of law. Meaning, that one religion cannot impose its beliefs on people by using the law to force conformance with those religious beliefs.

Freedom "from" religion would imply that religions are not allowed to express their own opinions -- and you are correct, the intent of the clause is directly opposite that.

But it is directly in harmony with that intent to prevent one religion from becoming dominant, by having the govt fund and promote that religion above all others. Such one-sided favor IS "respecting an establishment of religion" by definition.

See also Article VI "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Answer 9

You are right! Taking down the 10 commandments and putting up mosques, it's getting pretty crazy here. God forbid we hurt anyones feelings, unless you are a Christian, then no one cares.

JimSock, it does not state anywhere that there is separation of church and state, so your answer to whether you have actually read it would be "no."

Answer 10

Ummm yeah your right. But it's not freedom "from" religion, it's freedom "of" religion.