the Constitution has no such thing but says simply "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"
In other words, for those of you that say "Seperation of Church and State!", they will not make any religion the main one of the US. That is why the US is not a Chrisitan Nation even though the majority is Christian. It says nothing that people cannot be religous upon entering the office, or going by their own personal beliefs when passing laws and such.
2007-11-16 15:59:54 · 14 answers · asked by Chase 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is a wise choice:'Separation of Church and State'.
2007-11-19 09:30:41 · answer #1 · answered by chanljkk 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You stated in your question that the Constitution does not declare a separation of church and state and then you follow it with the excerpt in which the Constitution declares a separation of church and state:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." (state matters are free from religion) "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (religious matters are free from the state [provided they do not interfere with peoples' rights]).
That's it. That's it right there.
You have to keep in mind that the framers were very cautious about what how they spelled out powers of the state and rights of the people in the Constitution. Granting too specific powers to the state might allow too stringent interpretations that infringe on peoples' rights.
As far as office goes, the point of a representative democracy, the main concern of the framers was that they did NOT want to establish a government in which the majority rules. Politicians are supposed to protect and support the interests of the people, minority groups included. Politicians should not vote on legislation based on religious, or really any personal influences if doing so contradicts the interests of the people. Of course this happens anyway, but that wasn't the point, and the founders did try to establish a system which prevented that.
2007-11-16 16:14:40 · answer #2 · answered by Frannie 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
If Congress WERE to make a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof, then it would be showing favor towards a particular religion which WOULD be co-mingling of church and state.
Thus a statue forbidding this prevents a collusion between church and state, thus it DOES advocate separation of church and state.
Nobody said a person can't be religious when holding public office. But they certainly can't pass laws favoring their own religion above others or forcing people to recognize that religion as somehow superior to others, even if that religion is practiced by a majority of society.
2007-11-16 16:05:53 · answer #3 · answered by soupisgoodfood 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
No one expects anyone to lose their religion when they enter office. But Americans do expect that elected officials, especially our President, not insert their own religious beliefs into legislation or law as they have a responsibility to ALL their constituents, not just the ones that believe exactly like them.
The Establishment Clause was indeed written to protect government from religious interference, and vice versa. It doesn't work if it only goes one way. It's a very clear clause that is very easy to understand. Usually, the only people who try to torment this clause into meaning government has to stay out of religion, but religion has a place in government are fundamentalist Christians who would like nothing more than to turn our secular democratic republic into a Christian theocracy. Most other folks seem to understand it just fine.
2007-11-16 17:10:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The term "seperation of church and state" is a shorthand for the concepts stated in the Constitution. Which anyone who actually knows anything about the Constitution--even from a high-chool civics course--already knows.
The term also reflects how the idea of freedom of religion stated in the Constitution has worked out legally in practice. Gnereally, this is that most court rulings have taken the view that the state, or its facilities, my not be used to promote religion. Note--the concept refers to actions by the state, not to actions by private individuals, as you state.
A short phrase is a lot easier to use tan explaining all of the above every time someone refers to the concept--which is why people use it frequently.
2007-11-16 16:08:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
you are correct in that there is nothing barring a person of faith from holding office; indeed, the constitution specifically prohibits religious tests of anyone holding, or wishing to hold, public office! which must mean, for those who have, rightly or wrongly, decided that 'implication' is part of the constitution, that being a person of faith-even a dreaded 'fundie', cannot disqualify one for public office...that said, do you think that the founders were so ignorant that they did not grasp the fact that one's 'religious beliefs' would inevitably play a part in one's political stances as well? the remedy for those who fear that a 'fundie
will set up a theocracy? there's the ballot box, as well as the fact that there are 100 senators and over 430 members of the house; no one man or woman can pass a law-there is also the veto process, as well as supreme court-level challenges to federal laws...the sky is not falling! any public official who can look me in the eye and tell me that their 'personal beliefs' play NO part in their decision-making process is too skilled a liar to be trusted!
2007-11-18 11:36:16 · answer #6 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our forefathers didn`t want the government
to tell its people what kind of religion they had to follow.
They wanted the people to be free tofollow their own religious beliefs.
In the early sixties, satan decieved some people into thinking it ment something different. These people decided that the words MENT that the government should be seperated completely from anything concerning God. More weakminded people
started talking the same way and soon it
was believed by many who didn`t know or care to read the Constitution. Now even high school and college students will tell you that it says Seperation of Church and State. And they will not even know any better. Just what they hear others say.
2007-11-16 16:16:31 · answer #7 · answered by Blessed 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ever heard of the word IMPLIED??
But your are right, it does not state someone cannot be guided by their own faith, when making decisions. It implies that they can't make other people live by a decision that is wholly resitricted to a certain religion's faith, or public monies be used in order to promote such an action.
2007-11-16 16:05:39 · answer #8 · answered by Boss H 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
It is implied, just as much as the Second Amendment. Conservatives cannot have it both ways. If it is NOT implied, then Conservatives cannot "bear arms" unless a Militia is made.
By the way, government believes it is implied as well. If not, then why doesn't established churches PAY TAXES?
2007-11-16 16:12:23 · answer #9 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.
2007-11-16 16:14:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"
what if my religion is to have many wives
or marry gay
or abortions
or to love my enemy and turn the other cheek
2007-11-16 16:06:00 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋