It's not!! Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter 14 years after the Constitution stating there is a need for separation of Church and State" to protect the Church. He didn’t want another Church of England. That’s to protect the Church!!
People need to put down there "People Magazines" and read some History. Get A Clue!!!! Knowledge is POWER!
2007-09-08 08:04:55 · 30 answers · asked by ublion 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The simple answer is that if a lie is repeated enough times, it will become "truth."
There is no separation in the Constitution and most of our Founding Fathers knew of the importance of religion as the backbone of civilized society.
The first goal of communism is to create a secular society so that people's loyalty to the government is not diluted by religion.
2007-09-08 08:32:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
While the exact words "separation of church and state" don't exist in the Constitution, it doesn't mean the concept isn't there. If this country supports or enforces a religion, it then establishes that religion. And if the Constitution allows the free exercise of religion it also allows others the freedom from religion. You really can't have one without the other.
2007-09-08 08:47:42 · answer #2 · answered by OPad 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is a rephrasing of the congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.
First sentence of the first ammendment.
The first ten ammendments are also known as "The Bill of Rights" and it is the part of the constitution that modern conservatives hate the most.
You will have to go to the supreme court site and search for 1st ammendment decisions to see how the courts have ruled on this issue over the decades.
2007-09-08 08:14:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
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.
The way you interpret it may be that way, but most everyone else understands what is meant in this phrase.
2007-09-08 08:17:48 · answer #4 · answered by suigeneris-impetus 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Last time I checked, it is a greater stigma to be an atheist than to be in absolutely any religion.
In this regard, you can keep your constitution. I declare my own freedom FROM religion and I don't need a legal document for it to be binding.
Try to stop me from not believing. You wouldn't know where to start, would you. Because what I believe is MY concern, and I could care less what the founding fathers, your pastor, or the damned cop on the corner thinks.
This is called real freedom.
2007-09-08 09:21:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Umm...maybe because that's how the Supreme Court has ruled.
Case in point: The Second Amendment doesn't say that Americans have the right to FIREARMS. It just says that we have the right to bear arms. So...this must be interpreted in a logical fashion by the Court. They have ruled that some firearms are fine, and others are not. A private citizen can own a shotgun, but not a tank. Why not? It's MY right to bear arms...right? ...Well...no. Not just any 'arms'.
This is common sense. The Supreme Court is here to mold a document that is over 200 years old to fit contemporary society. It's much the same as a Christian, who believes in the Ten Commandments, going to war and killing someone. His religious 'law' states that 'Thou shalt not kill'. But...he still kills, in defense of his loved ones. Is that wrong?
2007-09-08 08:19:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
You are right, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the law to be such. As the highest court in the land, they set this precedence for future law, which is where we get "separation of church and state." Remember, we have a system of checks and balances.
2007-09-08 08:27:01 · answer #7 · answered by Lydia H 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Anyone reading history knows that our founding Fathers did not want state supported religion like the Church of England, or the Anglican Church. They didn't think it was right for Government to tell people what church or religion to attend.
Today, thanks to the ACLU, it means city governments cant have Christmas scenes or themes in public areas because it "violates the separation of Church and State."
If this isn't aborting the intent of the Constitution, I don't know what is.
2007-09-08 08:13:39 · answer #8 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
the belief of separation of church and state exists interior the business enterprise clause of the liberty of religion magnificent interior the 1st substitute.the appropriate to a user-friendly trial exists interior the 6th substitute,i've got self assurance.i do no longer understand the place interior the form is the Separation of powers section.
2016-10-10 05:06:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you refer to Amendment 1 you will find that it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I agree with you, that doesn't mean the Church isn't important and that there should be a "separation", it simply says that Congress cannot establish a national religion, or prevent me from worshiping as I choose.
2007-09-08 08:23:25 · answer #10 · answered by Perplexed 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
People have a right to promote religious or family values with their vote. The opposition vote will control excesses. The only fear we should mutually agree on is having a State controlled religion which becomes indistinguishable from the government a la Islam.
2007-09-08 08:17:43 · answer #11 · answered by anteater 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋