Well, Jefferson coined the phrase in writing to a group of Christians (Baptists, I think) who were worried that another denomination would come to power. It wasn't an unreasonable fear, even in the New World -- Virginia, afterall, had laws in the 1600s mandating not only church attendance, but specific church attendance. The militia was authorized to enforce it.
But, until an interpretation of the 13th Amendment, the phrase, "Congress shall pass no law", only applied to Congress. That's why the states did still have some unification of church and state.
So me it's mostly a historic phrase. I actually think the phrase, "respecting an establishment of religion" has *more* teeth than the phrase, "separation of church and state."
Two entities can be separate, but still do business together. The phrase, "respecting an establishment" is much broader, and that's what I'm more interested in.
2007-09-12 10:45:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Here, I'll copy it down for you:
"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 regress of grievances."
Anything having to do with the wall of separation between church and state is either a part of "no law . . . establishment of religion" or "the free exercise thereof" or if you don't think it quite fits there, it can be covered by free speech and the right to peaceably assemble.
It basically comes down to a wall of separation between rendering to Caesar and rendering to God. However, since we do not specify which religion, and that illustration comes from the Bible, let me put it more generically: You do what you want about spiritual matters and let the government stay out of it. You do what you want about voting, and let the spiritual leaders keep out of it.
That's why the Supreme Court has ruled that there should not be displays of a religious nature on government property, no reading the Bible in public schools, no vocal prayers (although a moment of silence is OK, because it does not specify what to do with the time). It means preachers should not tell you how to vote, and politicians should not tell you how to pray. Or even whether or not you should pray.
2007-09-12 10:51:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by auntb93 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The government needs to stay out of religion and the government should not claim one denomination as the official church of the USA.
It is not a law but it is mentioned in a court ruling.
More importantly it is not part of 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.
This does not limit religions from making political speeches nor telling their parishioners how to vote.
I PERSONALLY would not go to a church where they told me to vote a certain way -- but there is NO LAW that can restrict them from doing it.
Religions can be political -- politicians can be religious -- the government cannot interfere with religious practices nor establish a religion of the USA.
D
2007-09-12 11:07:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dionysus 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
"The separation of church and state is a criminal and political concept derived from the 1st exchange to america shape, which reads, "Congress shall make no regulation respecting a company of religion, or prohibiting the unfastened exercising thereof . . ." the widespread concept is normally credited to the writings of English reality seeker John Locke, however the word "separation of church and state" is normally traced to an c4ca4238a0b92382dcc509a6f75849b802 letter via Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, the place Jefferson mentioned the mixed results of the enterprise Clause and the unfastened exercising Clause of the 1st exchange. It has considering the fact that been in numerous opinions exceeded down via america very superb courtroom,[a million] nonetheless the courtroom has no longer consistently completely embraced the concept." the federal government can neither rigidity non secular dogma on its people, nor sell one faith over yet another. It additionally can't forestall everybody from believing as they need. it may enforce criminal regulations whether, such as homicide and intercourse crimes. This u . s . a . grow to be based via people escaping oppressions of all types, including non secular. Wikipedia explains this properly.
2016-11-15 01:49:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The phrase "separation of church and state" only means as much as the powers that be decide that it means.
2007-09-12 10:43:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by H.I. of the H.I. 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
It was meant to mean that government would not decide what churches do and churches would not decide what government does.
Church is about religion, government is about running the country, thus no laws should be penned in accordance to any one religions moral or ethical stance.
2007-09-12 16:00:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Black Dragon 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
It means that politicians have to learn that minority faith groups should not, ever, hold enough sway to have bills and laws passed that appease their beliefs and no one elses.
ie : catholics/christians + anti-abortion laws = NON-separation of church and state.
I believe Abraham Lincoln said "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people". Not "and that government of the bible-bashers, for the bible-bashers and everyone else can shut up".
Unless there's a part of the Gettsburgh Address that accidentally had coffee spilt all over it.....
Thank you. And Good night.
2007-09-12 10:46:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by allusian_fields 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
It means that Church law has no jurisdiction when it comes to State matters.
2007-09-12 10:43:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
To an extent it is the replacement of Theocracy with what is known as Common law. The major difference being crimes are individually put to vote. And pretty much everything is put to a vote of some kind.
2007-09-12 10:43:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Link strikes back 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The state will not sponsor one specific religion.
2007-09-12 10:43:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by Yahoo Answer Angel 6
·
0⤊
0⤋