Why is it that those who cry out "Seperation of Church and State,"...?

Question

Tend to have personal problems when someone who is religious and holds a government office? Especially if they have, say, a picture of Jesus or a crucifix? If that is what others believe, who is to say that they have to take those down? Not to mention the phrase itself came from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to an aquantence of his. The Constitution only says, AND implies that no religion will be made the religion of the country.

ck4829, you need to learn something. A person's belief (religious or otherwise) is going to influence the person, period. I take it you also want to say, "It's implied that US citizens should not have guns," that is what happens when you try to put words into someone's mouth. It is implied, and I hate repeating myself but it seems I must, that no religion is going to be made the official religion. What should it matter to you if a person's beliefs are that?

scipro, I'm not saying the government should be promoting religion, what I am saying is that there are those that don't want religion of any sort (be it personal belisfs or otherwise) in a government office. Even if the only thing they are doing is having a little picture of Jesus on their desk, there are those that would try and take the matter to court for that one little thing.

Answer 1

First off, Separation of Church and State is IMPLIED. It's part of our country's tradition.

I am one of the people who cry out "Seperation of Church and State", and you want to know something?

I don't throw tantrums when I see what you described, the only people with personal problems that need to be addressed are the people who scream and throw themselves on the floor when someone says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Answer 2

I will put my two cents on the thing and my good grades in civics to the test. The US Constitution was made to state as I had quoted many times" Congress shall not make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof".

In a way as in may things I have read, some from the founding fathers, was they were afraid of a nation to be taken over by a religion, like France were the Church was basically a member of the French Government (the first tier). Their was also the fear of the government doing the same thing the British Government did to the Pilgrims and the Purists. That is way they made the first amendment, They wanted the nation not to be controlled but not destroy the believes of the people . That is the same reason that the government will not allow school-run prayers. They would have to decide on one of the many religions in the nation and show favoritism to the one or do every single one over the course of the school year. That would mean EVERY Christian denomination, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Satanist, and all other kinds. The government was set up to not take sides on ANY religion.

The main thing is that the US government needs not to care about the religion but what the people need.

Also I would like to say to you, the great and glorious chase. why do you keep asking the SAME question about the SAME thing, it is getting a little old.

Answer 3

I don't like to talk about separation of church and state. It shouldn't be an issue at all. We shouldn't be separating them, they shouldn't have been together to start with.

About the problem of a government officer (at any place) with a strong religious belief, my concern is that that person may make a decision that affects the life of millions based on his beliefs and IGNORING HIS DUTIES. Sorry about the caps but I want to be sure that this little detail is clearly understood.
I know that our beliefs (religious or otherwise) affect the way me make decisions. But if you take a job with a clear responsibility and clear rules to follow, you can't claim religion to decide against your responsibilities.
One small example, let's say that you're a religious person (whatever religion) and that your beliefs clearly say that sex out of wedlock is a sin and must be punished. The law, on the other hand, allows people to have sex outside of wedlock.
If a couple shows up in your courtroom, which criteria would you use to make your ruling?
If you use religion, you're unfit for the job. It's as simple as that. You were given that job to apply the law, from the Constitution down to the latest one. If you don't, you're not fulfilling your duties.

Answer 4

I don't know anyone who has a personal problem with someone who is religious being in public office. Most folks in public office have a religious belief system. The problem only arises when a politician attempts to create laws or propose amendments that are clearly rooted in and based on their own religious beliefs, and installing those beliefs as law violates or limits what other Americans feel are their civil or Constitutional rights. That causes a problem, to say the least. It's why the Marriage Amendment failed not once, but twice. Even conservatives are loathe to add discrimination to the Constitution based on what clearly boils down to a religious objection to same sex marriage.

You are interpreting the Constitution in a unique way that supports your own belief. Most lawmakers have, for decades, intepreted the Constitution as providing for separation of church and state. Those who support using religion as a rightful way to form law, love to say that the Constitution allows for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The fact is that one cannot logically exist without the other. But those who have no problem with religion infiltrating our laws take special care to deliberately ignore that logic.

The bottom line is that our founders had every opportunity to make this a Christian nation, with Christian based laws. They even could have made this a Christian nation with the provision of freedom from persecution for those who were not Christians. How hard would that have been? But they didn't do that. They chose to draft a secular document instead, making it clear that religion and the government should maintain no more than a nodding acquaintance.

And you are wrong about Jefferson. He didn't coin that phrase in a letter to an acquaintance, but in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

James Madison, who was the main drafter of the Bill of Rights had this to say: "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States...practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

Seems pretty clear to me, crystal clear. Thankfully, it remains clear to the majority of our lawmakers as well.

Answer 5

Someone who understands. The Constitution and the founding fathers didn't want a 'national church' like the Church of England to be created. For the time period such thinking really was revolutionary and what many need to remember today.

I have no problem if an elected official wishes to pray, wear a cross, put up a Christmas Tree, or a Menorah etc. To me how an elected official does his job is much more important.

Answer 6

I'm not aware of anyone who has a problem with people having religious materials on their own desk. I'm sure there are a very few who do, but i doubt it is enough for you to make as big of a deal as you do about the situation.

It is implied in the constitution that the government will not promote religion. If you don't understand this concept, you should probably retake every history class you have ever attempted. If it is in a government building and someone defaces it, they will still be charged with destruction of government property, which is making the law promote a religion.

Sounds to me, that you have a problem with the government not promoting your ideologies.

As a scientist, I defend religion a lot from what I see as an unethical act of using science to attack faith. People like you make me question defending you. BUT I'm going to star you anyway, because even though you are going a bit overboard with the idea, you make a valid point in reference to a person's own personal space and items they purchase themselves.

Answer 7

I think there is a total of one admitted atheist in our entire federal government, so the idea that we freak out about religious politicians is a little silly.

I want people governing my country based on the laws and foundations of the United States, not based on the laws of someones personal religion. I dont have a personal problem with someone being religious or practicing his/her religion, but it becomes an issue for me when they start to blur the line between biblical law and the law of the United States.

Ive posted this before, but seperation of Church and State is just as much about protecting the Church. Do you want the government in your religion?

Answer 8

The Catholic (widespread) Church is the only Church widespread by using Christ on the commencing place of the Apostles, possessing the fullness of the ability of salvation which he has willed. superb and finished confession of religion, finished sacramental existence, and ordained ministry in Apostolic succession. exterior the Church there is not any salvation. EDIT.."Catholichism isn't Biblical"? It replaced into by using the Apostolic custom that the Catholic Church discerned which writings have been to be secure interior the record of the Sacred Books. this finished record is talked approximately as the Canon of Scripture. It includes 40 six books for the previous testomony, and 27 for the recent testomony. The Catholic Bible is the only real Bible of the word of God. All different Bibles are corrupt in one way or yet another.

Answer 9

I don't see that happening. If a person wants a religious symbol in their office that is their business and not mine.
Here are points where I will object:
If they place the religious symbol in my office.
If they use tax funds (my money) to purchase the symbol.
If they require me under some penalty to honor their symbol (which is not the same as my obligation as a considerate human being to respect it).
If they demand that my symbol from my office that I paid for and placed there must be removed.

Other then those, I maintain that what someone chooses to believe or honor is absolutly their business and absolutly NOT mine. I don't think it is too much to ask for others to give me the same consideration.

Answer 10

i feel like i've already answered this, major deja vu here, but here goes again...

the answer to your question may not be good, or even right, but i believe that beliefs should not influence policy when it comes to government. the leader governs FOR the people, not just OVER them. therefore, when i see Obama or Bush or some other politician espousing their religious beliefs to gain popularity and votes, it makes me sick, using what are supposed to be social entities of hope, peace, truth, and love in the convoluted corrupt mess that is politics. politics - we cant live with it, we cant live without it; representative democracy's classic paradox.

basically, when making decisions of a political nature in the name of a varied diverse group of people of all faiths, ethnicities, political and sexual orientations, and genders, please leave God, Allah, Jehovah, Krishna, Moses, Muhammoud, Jesus, whoever OUT OF IT! FOR THE GOOD OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! THANK YOU!

otherwise, i do not care what religious things they do, as long as it does not impede their service and performance to the USofA

and if i get thumbs-down for giving my view of things, well, that's just peachy

Answer 11

The first Amendment only says, congress shall make NO LAWS regarding religion. Anything short of making law, is constitutional.

A president can constitutionally lead a nation in prayer, or display religious symbols as he sees fit. As long as (for example) he makes no law that you MUST display those symbols.

A religious symbol in a state building, has NOTHING to do with a law, and is therefore constitutional. Those symbols could be christian, Muslim, Hindu, bhuddist...Whatever...

What is odd to me, is while many Christians are passive about religion (don't go to church but identify themselves as religious), those without a religion (atheist) are VERY outspoken and confrontational about the subject. The odd thing is many in my experience have been outspoken at the same time to defend the Muslim religion lol, funny isn't it.