What is separation of church and state to you?

Question

Is it the establishment of laws to protect all religions (or lacks thereof) without promoting one over another?

Or is it completely eliminating religion where the government is concerned?

As most men have some sort of religious perspective on life, and freedom of religion is supposedly a right we all have, it seems to me that the separation of church and state should involve the protection of all religions, rather than their eradication from public life. It is possible for the government to acknowledge spirituality in general without creating strife among the religions. Today's version of separation of church and state does nothing but stir up antagonism between atheists and religious people, the way I see it. What do y'all think?

Answer 1

It means that the government shall not endorse any religion or faith.

The phrase "wall of separation" of church and state comes from a letter from Jefferson, who authored the First Amendment, to Chief Justice John Marshall, on the relation between government and religion.

.

Answer 2

To me it means the government cannot promote any religion over another. That would also conclude that any government sponsored events would not be displaying religious symbols, or sponsoring religious events. Now some celebrations, Christmas and such, are so ingrained in to society that it is expected that there will be trees and such at capitols and courthouses and schools and foolish to think there wont be, whether or not you call it a Christmas tree or Holiday tree or Yule tree or the cat scratching post. But as long as it isn't expected that the whole society needs to follow that practice that is fine.

It is when practices become obligatory. Reciting a pledge that contains under God is promoting the Abrahamic religions. Twist it all you want but that is what it means. so that should not be obligatory in schools.

That doesn't mean that free speech can be stifled. It is not freedom from religion. The fundamentalist that stands on the corner spouting verses has a right to be there whether or not you like it. As well Atheists can profess they don't believe in any gods and that belief in such is foolish. Public officials have the right to believe whatever they want - and if in doing so that is how they are basing some of their judgments that is still protected - as long as they don't insist that their constituents have to worship the same as they do.

Answer 3

the spirit of the original law was that religion was not to control government say like the Pope telling the president what to do. The ideas which later developed with regards to rights for those who were not Christians had nothing to do with what the founding fathers created the law for. I think probably that there should be separation between the atheist and Gov. since atheism meets all the qualifications of a religion. Atheist should not be telling others what they can and can not do anymore than Christians should be able to make others pray in school. Nobody should be able to say Christians can not express their beliefs where ever they want. What was freedom to worship has to some degree been lost and given to those who want the freedom not to worship whic is extending the freedom of one person right into the nose of others. The back lash from this got Bush elected so seems to me freedoms should be limited to actions that do not take the rights of others away. My freedom ends where your nose begins, which might give jews a little more freedom than the rest of us but I can live with that. For a population of one percent they sure seem to have a lot of power don't they.

Answer 4

There are two significant parts to the First Amendment: the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause. The Establishment clause means no public entity, at whatever level, has the right to favor one religion over another. That's why we no longer have Bible readings and out-loud prayers in public schools. I do wonder why we still have them in Congress, but no matter. A moment of silence for "prayer, meditation or reflection" seems in keeping with the Establishment clause.

The second part, the Free Exercise clause, is why the government has no right to tell your preacher what to preach, or to tell pagans they shouldn't be dancing naked in the moonlight (as long as others can't see them, and they are not violating nudity in public laws). It means anyone, citizen or landed immigrant or visitor, cannot be forced to practice a religion they don't believe in, or be held back from one they do.

The Supreme Court has carved out one exception which makes sense in certain places: If something is illegal outside the church, it is generally illegal inside it, too. So no sacrificing virgins, and no ganja. But there have been exceptions to this, too: when alcohol was outlawed, the only legal alcohol was in churches and synagogues for ritual purposes. Plenty of reason to allow the ganja and peyote, if you ask me. Nobody asked me.

Answer 5

I think it was meant to say that a particular religion could not be forced upon an individual. And that there would not be a state religion like in so many other countries.


Jeopardy had a question this week regarding Amercian history, and who said that there should be a Bible and a newspaper in every house. It was Benjamin Franklin. Several quotes of founding fathers regarding the Bible, God, and religion are listed here:

http://www.constitutional.net/qff.html

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
- George Washington


And here is the whole quote from Ben Franklin:

"A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district- all studied and appreciated as they merit -
are the principle support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty."
- Benjamin Franklin; March 1778

Answer 6

I'm not sure what you mean by "eliminating religion where the government is concerned." The constitution calls for the government to not promote any one religion over others. Therefore, I see no problem with the government giving religious groups tax breaks, so long as the breaks are given to all. However, anything that specifically mentions aspects of religion (such as "in God we trust") I believe are unconstitutional. There are plenty of people who do not trust in a being called God - they trust in no higher being at all, or they call their being by another name like Allah, or they trust in a variety of gods, none of which are named "God." Removing these mentions is NOT catering to atheists. It's simply being neutral by not mentioning religion at all. If the government was catering to atheists, they would have to specifically state something like "In God we do not trust," which no one is suggesting.

Answer 7

The Seth Material tells us that "Thought Creates Form".

There is also some information in "The individual and The Nature Of Mass Events" that talks about the government.

As I eat lunch everyday at work, it is company policy that CNN or Fox news be displayed in the cafeteria. So I see death and destruction every day as I eat my lunch. As I type this I can't help but think of that scene in "Hotel Rwanda" where the people are struggling to get their message on TV and when they finally do, the reporter tells them that the people that watch the message on TV will simply continue to eat their dinner just as I do everyday at lunch.

The Seth Material also tells us that "All things choose to live and die." This is important in many ways. There are no accidents and there are no victims. All people attract events to their own life. A man called me on the phone from the save Tibet foundation. I had previously donated $35.00 to the cause prior to reading the Seth Material. I asked the man why do these people continue to attract such horrible circumstances to themselves. I explained that I could no longer donate. Kind of like the parable of the man who catches a fish for a hungry neighbor one day. Catch a fish for them and you have to catch that fish for the rest of your life. Teach them to fish and they can catch their own fish.

The Seth Material tells us that the government and the outcome of wars are not neccessarily the true outcome that happens in non-temporal reality. Kind of like a parent who lets a child have their way just to get some peace and quite.

I don't think much about the separation of church and state and I don't worry about it either.

Change comes from the inside out. The Seth material tells us that we are coming out of a psychological dark age. Suffering is spiritual protest.

It is people themselves that must change. Everything else will fall into place when that happens.

As "The Cars" say - "You can twist it on the sideways down"

Answer 8

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. What is there is separation of state FROM religion. The state is to keep its nose out of purely religious matters, and show no official favoritism of one religion over another. Period. Which obviously means accepting all religions on an equal basis.

Answer 9

The constitution doesn't include separation of church and state, it says that congress can't pass any law regarding religion. That means that the states can do whatever they want. For instance, there's nothing stopping New Hampshire from giving tax money to the church or even Nevada illegalizing Islam if they want.

Answer 10

Separation of church and state means:

Government is not influenced by religion, or vice versa.
Government does not discriminate against or support any religion.
Religion is not funded by the government, in any way shape or form.