Was separation of church and state supposed to keep government out of religion, and not the other way around?

Question

Check out what someone answered to my question about the impact of religion on government:

"Oh, by the way, separation of church and state, if you were to bother to even read the constitution in the first place, was to keep government from interfering with religion, giving people the freedom to worship how they want. It wasn't designed to keep religion out of government, but rather to keep government out of religion."

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

That is exactly right

But somewhere along the way, some misguided "leaders" ( and I use that term loosely ) changed the meaning.

Now we have to fight for religious rights

Answer 2

The Religion from the Government
It is to separate the both giving, so that The Government cannot enforce 1 religion

And in the event that 1 religion becomes the strong hold {by this I mean only 1 religion, not different sects.}
it can not be forced on you by the religious Pope, so to speak, or rather the higher power of said religion

But you can look back in history and see this done, by the government and the religion itself

or the said religion can run the government, or vise a verse

Jeez, I'm going to bed, can not even answer one question without ramblings, blessings

Answer 3

There is no "separation of church and state" in the constitution or any other government documents that founded this country.

The government did not want a state religion as the only acceptable religion. It wanted all people to have their choice to worship whom, how or what they want. They did not intend the government to exclude religion, just not a state religion.

Answer 4

Most immigrants came to this country so they could worship the way they wanted to. Religion in Europe was government inspired and it told people how to worship and the Catholic Church pretty much ruled the monarchy.
They support the super rich, which the church leaders were a part of. So for someone who believed different in some cases meant death. So they left poverty and the abuse of power by the church. We see that to day in some of the other countries. Such as Mexico, the Catholic Church supports the super rich which they are. While the poor die of poverty and disease and starvation. In the Middle east the religious clerics live like kings with everything they need while they send young men to their death as a sucide bomber to support their interests. Don't we even see that in the US today. The super rich rule and raise their wages while refusing to raise the min. wage. Out sourceing is ok to the government with supports low wages.I would never buy a toy for my children made in China, by slave labor. Religion supports this and is a party to a government that supports this. Religion is so corrupt that it is in bed with the governments. The bible refers to them as a kingdom over the kings of the earth.

Answer 5

If you're referring to the United States separation of church and state is nothing but a slogan. The First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So long as the govenment doesn't establish a national religion and they don't interfere with yours the Constitution is satisfied.

Answer 6

James Madison's first draft of the religion clause of the First Amendment is as stated:
" The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief of worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of Conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."
That should make it clear to anyone who want to know the real truth that the Anti Christian society we have in force today is as far from originally intended as possible.It was VERY SIMPLY written because there were numerous Christian denominations and the Founding Fathers wisely built in safeguards so that no one sect could lord over others as the Catholics had in England from which they came.

For example in his Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story explained that because of the First Amendment...
The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and State constitutions.
Justice Story also said...
"We are not to attribute this [First Ammendment ]prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverance, than the framers of the Constitution)...Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragment from the state..."

Oh and you are absolutely correct that "separation of church and state" is not in our constitution. What gets me is that a phrase (taken completly out of context, by the way, ) from a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson, who WAS NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, has been used to attack Christianity in America for decades.

It should speak volumes as to the framers original intent that the very next day after the First Amendment was approved, passed an act establishing chaplains. They established chaplains for the Senate, the House , the Army, and the Navy. Did they forget the day after they established the so called "separation of church and state" that they had done so? No they never established such a clause. The only way that one can come to the conclusion that the Founders of this country intended a purely secular state, where the state is
" neutral" (translate "hostile") to religion is by selective History .They base their decisions on a FEW selective passages from our history and ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary.May the truth shine and put out the darkness of the lies! God bless!!

Answer 7

How can Church and State be separate if religion is a part of legislating? That person's answer is faulty in it's logic. There are many faiths in America and if one has many legislators in it's pockets others may not be objectively treated. The British Monarchy is the leader of the Church of England, we revolted from them because they thought they were a higher authority than the citizens who paid for their lifestyles.
Government needs to be objective and fair to all law abiding citizens. Pandering to religious minorities who know how to play the media endangers the hard won freedom of religious expression in this Country.

Answer 8

A bit of both.

However the Church is primarily a spiritual body but she is also a moral teacher.

If people are going to make moral issues into political ones then they should not complain when the Church uses its freedoms of speech and religion.

When you look at the 1.1 billion believers worshiping in over 200,000 parishes worldwide you can see that the Catholic Church is a spiritual entity.

However the Church is also a moral teacher and has been teaching the world what it believes God thinks is right and wrong for almost 2,000 years.

The Church looks to protect human dignity and human rights and does not for look for political power. Church leaders are barred from political office by Church law (not civil law).

Jesus said, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:18-20)

The Catholic Church has been teaching world governments what it believes is right and wrong since the ancient Romans stopped persecuting it and long before anyone heard of the freedom of speech.

The Catholic Church protested about the blood sports in the Roman Colosseum and they were stopped.

The Catholic Church supported the Polish Solidarity movement and the Soviet Union fell apart.

I don't think the Church is going to (or should) stop teaching the world governments what is right or wrong now.

Remember the Catholic Church proposes. It does not impose.

With love in Christ.

Answer 9

Well..... In a faint way they are right. It is okay for people to vote according to their religious principles, but the laws itself must be secular. So someone can say, "Because God says so, alcohol is forbidden" but the law can only say, "Because the people say so, alcohol is forbidden". The source of the law in America is the people. Where the people derive their sense of morality is irrelevant. So in a way religion can determine the laws of the government, in that this is a representative government where the laws represent the morals of the people, but still the law must be secular. The Founders realized that religion and morality went hand in hand, but they did not want the church to be a branch of government. The church is a private establishment.

Answer 10

No, actually the opposite. They didn't want one church become an official church or anything, so they decided religion would not be included in anything government. That way no one could use the government to persecute someone for their religions beliefs as had happened in Europe.

Fortunately, a side effect was that government could not interfere with religion either, (unless other people's rights were being abused).

Answer 11

the first amendment works as a two way street...the establishment clause keeps government from setting up or favoring any particular religion, and the free exercise clause keeps government from interfering with our right to follow our faith(s)...the bill of rights is not a list of what the people can and cannot do; rather, it is a guideline to show what the government may NOT do...