It already is and it is found in the Bill of Rights. Government cannot dictate to or persecute those who are religious or because they do not Practice a specific religion. Those who do have religious Values Have Free Speech and the Freedom to express it without Penalty///
While on the subject of Free religious expression...the Lone Atheist, his daughter and their Secret Backers are busily trying to stop Free expression in Illinois in not even allowing 15 seconds of silence.
Another lone Atheist is attempting to have God removed from all money because they find it offensive. It will cost about the same as several Countiries combined National Debt to change the money. Could that be Why all of them are running overseas and eroding the Borders? What they have Not said is that the minute the Suprme Court Signs it, It becomes Law and only one is a holdout. Sovereignty goes out the window, so does the United States Constitution, any rights you may have, your money worthless in your pocket and bank. Forget about retirement those IRAs and Secular Humanism Will be the New Religion without God.
2007-12-16 18:36:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by ShadowCat 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes. The mingling of the two, so far, has not borne well for any country, even in the US. Many have forgotten that immigrants came to this country fleeing religious persecution and that the the founding fathers never intended religion to play as much a part in politics as it is today. Even the words "under God" where not originally part of the Pledge of Allegiance [see http://www.legion.org, select "Americanism" and "History of the Pledge"].
I've digressed. The possibility of a theocratic government always begs the next question: which theocratic philosophy would the whole follow? Christianity itself claims to believe in the same God, yet it has many different branches with very varied beliefs. Muslim, Islam, Buddhists, all have it's own sects.
2007-12-16 18:45:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
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
where does it say that a government institution cant display anything religious. Its a protection of our rights, not a restriction on the government. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW establishing a religion that everyone must participate in. This interpretation that religion can not be displayed or a law cant be in agreement with the views of a religion is non sense.
2007-12-16 18:31:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Technically, Legalism isn't actually a religious doctrine, only a philosophical doctrine. It brings up the point about dangers of blind ideology even when there is no religion attached.
Either way, I don't see why anyone would say no to the separation of church and state. Well, actually some Christian fundies might, yet at the same time claim to be against theocracy, all the while claiming special victim status because there is no preferential treatment to their religious beliefs.
2007-12-16 18:29:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
this is ironic...the American forefathers fled to America seeking religious freedom...they wanted to have the right to practice their own...it's even in the first amendment...
the reason for separation of church and state was to protect both the state and the church...for those in religious life...when they became involved in politics...they lost sight of their faith and their duty to their religion...they tried to become politicians and that did not work well...for those that were politicians and tried to become religious leaders...they typically didn't have the understanding of religious doctrines and tried to use their religion as the reason for the their reign...corrupting the concept of religion...
but here's the clincher...look at american laws...or go further to societal law...when u compare american/societal law and religious doctrine...there r a lot of similarities...killing is wrong...perjury is wrong...steal is wrong...etc. etc....it seems that there simply is an underlying truth to law and religious doctrine that coincide with right and wrong being the same no matter what
2007-12-16 18:34:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by aquariushighlander 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Church/temple/mosque/etc and state definite have to be separate. Religions are for individuals' inner peace NOT for the whole country to abide via laws and policies. Definitely a no-no!
2007-12-16 18:38:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Russ 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The separation of Church is something that is concocted by the ACLU. Nowhere do you see any mention of separation of Church and State within the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights.
Remember this: this nation was founded upon Judeo Christian values.
2007-12-16 18:34:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Martinicus the mighty! 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes
2007-12-16 18:31:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Church and state must remain separate for the protection of both.
2007-12-16 18:24:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by N 6
·
5⤊
0⤋
Oh yeah, Definitely separate. You let religion in on governmental lawmaking, you're asking to be an Iraq! Religion has it's place, but not in government!
2007-12-16 18:31:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Thunderrolls 4
·
1⤊
1⤋