jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (25 posts)

The Truth about The Separation of Church and State

  1. profile image53
    Mick Menousposted 6 years ago

    As far as this whole Separation of Church and State thing in the United States is concerned, I personally believe that it is necessary. For example, the words “Separation of Church and State” are not physically found in the US Constitution. Yet it does say that, quote:

    “No law shall be passed respecting the establishment of a religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    As we all know, most atheists in America only support this phrase because of the following false excuse:

    They ONLY THINK that it literally means Separation of Church and State.

    Apparently, they’ve misinterpreted it. What this phrase really means is that the US Founding Fathers didn’t want a single dominant religion in the United States, (which I too strongly agree with), NOR did they want any US federal, state, or local governments to stop any American citizen from joining a religion and to stick with Science, atheism, or secularism. The Founding Fathers were Deists, so they were very tolerant of all religions and wanted freedom FOR religions, not from religions. So really, the Separation of Church and State is indeed necessary because it should be used to protect religious people AND atheists in America from their government and other people telling them what they should believe in. The Problem is, though, there are most non-believers who want what I like to call “Total Separation” of Church and State. To them, it’s the more separation the better, and before you know it, we’ll have signs saying: “Secularist Restrooms” and “Religious Restrooms”; “Secularist Drinking Fountains” and “Religious Drinking Fountains.” Sound familiar? Its Segregation is what it is, and Segregation, as we all know, is un-constitutional.

    And as far as this whole “Freedom of Religion” is, quote: “the same as “‘Freedom from Religion’” is concerned, this is also NOT true. “Of” and “From” are two totally different words with two totally different meanings. In my opinion, personally, people should really call it “Freedom FOR Religions,” and, as always, “Freedom TO Worship"

    And THAT'S the real truth about the Separation of Church and State.

    GOD Bless America smile

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image82
      wba108@yahoo.composted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Fisher Ames, author of the first amendment of the bill of rights wrote an article in 1801 expressing his concern that by adding so many textbooks in schools that the Bible would lose its preeminence in the classroom.

      Jefferson regularly attended church services held at the capitol building with government paid chaplains. He also arranged for similar services to be conducted in the treasury and war offices of the executive branch. Jefferson used federal money to build churches and hire missionaries to promote Christianity among the Indians. He also felt that the bible should be the primary text used in public schools and used federal money to fund Christian schools.

      Jefferson’s Wall of separation was only intended to keep the federal government from meddling in church affairs and certainly not to prevent religion (specifically Christianity), from influencing the government and society.

      It’s difficult to understand why the left believes that America was founded a secular nation when US presidents George Washington to George Bush have affirmed the opposite- that America was founded and is a Christian nation! Barack Obama was that first US president to publicly deny this! Furthermore, the Supreme Court in 1892 and 1952 declared America a Christian nation.

      John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, concurs with Washington: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers”.

      The First Amendment was intended to promote religious liberty not to remove religions impact to our government and society. The Establishment Clause was to prevent a federally sponsored denomination as was the case in England. Religious affairs were to be decided by the people and their respective state and local governments

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I believe that you are mostly correct here.  That amendment was in response to states concerns that the federal government would require a specific sect of Christianity and the amendment thus prevents that.

        Our founding fathers were not perfect - they made mistakes just as you and I.  As you point out some of them used federal money to promote Christianity, some thought the bible was a reasonable text book for learning, some kept slaves and I doubt that any of them gave women the rights that we have learned they are entitled to.

        It is late in the game and has come far too slowly, but some of the egregious errors those great men made are being corrected.  Some folk are being drug, kicking and screaming, but we are beginning to enter the 21st century at last.  Freedom is beginning to mean something more that the right to force someone else to pay homage to the make believe gods of the majority.

      2. kerryg profile image90
        kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Bearing in mind, of course, that Jefferson's concept of Christianity bore little to no resemblance to the faith most people calling themselves Christian attest to today.

        For starters, he did not believe Jesus was the son of God and actually rewrote the Bible to remove all reference to that doctrine, as well as removing all reference to the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus and cutting out the entire Old Testament and all of the New Testament but the Four Gospels as irrelevant.

        The Jefferson Bible is available online, by the way. It's an interesting read.

        http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/do … eth_1.html

        1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image82
          wba108@yahoo.composted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Your right that Jefferson and other some high profile founding fathers had very unoxthodox beliefs. Its hard to determine private beliefs from public actions and words although I belief its safe to say regardless of personal beliefs the actions of the founders were driven in a large part by christian ideas and principles.

          Another important issue here is that the founders stated that the ideas in our founding documents were not thier personal beliefs but those of Congress as a whole as representatives of the american poeple. Many take the founders statements made well before or after the dates of the founding documents and read those ideas out of context, in to the documents themselves.

          Congress as a whole and the American poeple as a whole probably had more oxthodox Christian beliefs than the small group of the higher profile founders who as generally credited with writing the founding documents

      3. Ms Dee profile image87
        Ms Deeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        What you report here, wba108, is very much in line with what I have seen in my study of the documentation provided by our Founders. Well said, and thank you!

        1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image82
          wba108@yahoo.composted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks alot, the academic and political community have greatly distorted this issue. If you read the federalist papers in its entirity i'm told there isn't a single reference to thier greatly esteemed notion of separation of church and state.

    2. Ms Dee profile image87
      Ms Deeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Your information, Mick, is in contradiction to our historical documents. The Founders documented their intents and actions very well, and what you say does not fit with that documentation.

    3. profile image55
      wayne92587posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Wayne wrote;

      The purpose of the Rule of Law is to prevent the enslavement of the people of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave using the Moral Law, the Self-ish Righteousness, of the Church; it has nothing to do with preventing anyone to worship as the please, whatever God, Religion that they choose to believe in.

      Morality Inhibits Freedom while the, "Rule of Law" enhances Freedom.

  2. profile image0
    Deb Welchposted 6 years ago

    In answer to your question - I thought in regards to Churches marrying Homosexual couples and some Church Leaders refusing to do this ceremony because it goes against Scripture and their Belief about what Marriage is to represent.  Civil Ceremonies would be the perfect choice as it still is within the realm of Separation of Church and State.  Why should Church leaders be forced to marry Homosexuals if it bends the rules?
    There are many kinks in this new idea of marrying Gay couples -
    new forms at City Hall have to be made and so on and so forth.
    When the US Constitution was written - they could not imagine any
    possibility of what is happening in the world we live in today.
    So - that is food for thought - too.

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image78
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    You misquoted the Constitution.

    Here's the REAL quote:

    "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 grievance"

    Notice how the OP "casually" took out the "Congress" part.

    There's a reason he did that. This way he was able to "divine" what the founding fathers "intended".

    The Founding Fathers intended what they wronte: CONGRESS shall pass NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof..."

    That means that states can still pass religious laws, and so can cities. But Congress (the federal government) can not. The federal government can not aide in establishing a religion, nor can they prohibit individuals from expressing their own religion.

    Thus: claims like "the separation of church and state" are nonsense. AND claims like "this is a Christian Nation" are also nonsense.

    God bless the skill of reading.

    1. thisisoli profile image74
      thisisoliposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Do you think the limitation of Congress amy have been placed beecause mant states would have seperated form the union if they were told religion could have no impact on their government, since many early settlers were highly religious.

      This is just a though, have not researched if this could be true or not, just based on what I already know.

      Would be interested on what people think and if anyone does want ot research this.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        It seems to me that that is exactly why that amendment was written.  As you say, early settlers were highly religious.  The reasons for the first settlements were probably not forgotten (running from religious persecution) and they didn't want anyone mucking around with their religion.  They fully expected to maintain religious control over their respective peoples and had no intention of giving it up. 

        Don't forget that these states were, in a manner of speaking, countries in all but name.  About the only thing they had in common was an enemy.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Actually, the Bill of Rights was passed AFTER the Constitution was approved (much to the chagrin of Hamilton). Although, the Constitution was passed with the understanding that such a Bill would later be written.

        But, indeed, the states didn't want their Federal Government to dictate how they could deal with religion.

    2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image82
      wba108@yahoo.composted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I think that depends on how you define a christian nation. If by christian nation you mean that the government coerses poeple to become christians or that by law you must support a certain church, than no we were not founded a christian nation. But I think its fair to say that we were founded a christian nation in the sense that our laws and institutions were largely influenced by christian values, ideas and principles.

      As far as the federal government goes its debatable what is meant by religion in the first admendment. From the research I've done it seems to support the idea that the federal government could support non-sect specific christianity or the general principles of christianity.

      Jefferson regularly attended church services held at the capitol building with government paid chaplains. He also arranged for similar services to be conducted in the treasury and war offices of the executive branch. Jefferson used federal money to build churches and hire missionaries to promote Christianity among the Indians. He also felt that the bible should be the primary text used in public schools and used federal money to fund Christian schools.

      Jefferson’s Wall of separation was only intended to keep the federal government from meddling in church affairs and certainly not to prevent religion (specifically Christianity), from influencing the government and society.

      George Washington said this in his farewell address “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

  4. profile image0
    jerrylposted 6 years ago

    Church and state are involved in at least two ways.

    Tax exemptions  and churches having to register with the state.

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Jerryl,

      Religion in America is a Business, which is why it's suppose to register. It receives money. wink

      1. profile image0
        jerrylposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Cagsil, This is why I don't believe that there is a true separation of state.

        Government doesn't want religion to stick their noses into government doings.  This is one of the very few places that the discontent of the people could spread fast.  Not too many places that large numbers of people gather on a regulat basis. NOt too many in the clergy will talk about politics during their Sunday service.

        I believe that the churches tow the line for fear of losing their tax exempt status, and the government keeps tabs on how much they are taking in.

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          That has nothing to do with separation of church and state/federal government. It's a "business". It's treated as one. It received donations and those donations must be accounted for, especially if via actual cash or currency.
          There is a reason for it.
          Could. Doesn't mean it will.
          Of course not, religion created politics centuries ago.
          This statement I agree with. The church of whatever religion has to be careful.

  5. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    There must be a verifiable mean called truth the means of which is science, although they are subject to faith based theory as well. Faith based religion can only be fascist, because faith without
    evidence must be a forced agreement.

  6. kateperez profile image72
    kateperezposted 6 years ago

    Interesting concept. 

    Fascism and religion in the same sentiment.  I had not thought of that.  I am not a religious person, but I do not fault those who are.  If one chooses to believe that Sarah Palin would make a good president, more power to them.  if they believe that global warming exists, I hope they're prepared. 

    if someone believes (or does not believe) in a deity, then it is their right.  What is NOT their right is to force their ideals on others.  If someone wants to pray, even if it is the Governor of Texas, then who in the heck has the right to tell him he cannot pray.

    Simply put:  if you do not want to hear a prayer, cover your ears.  Your views are valid, but they are your views.... if they are offensive, who is the blame for the offense?  the sensitive offended, or the insensitive offender.

    Much like any offense, there must be someone offended.  Everyone should just realize that whether they do or do not believe something, others are entitled to their views as much as the next guy.

    Separation of church and state is pretty clear-cut.  Individuals have the right to their beliefs without induction or command of the federal or state governments.  That is it.  You can believe or *not* believe.   No official can tell you otherwise.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Prayer.  Yes, the Governor of Texas may pray.  To himself.  Quietly.  Anyone taking offense to this is looking to take offense.

      However.  That same Governor may not stand in a busy intersection, stopping traffic while he prays.  He may not use a bull horn to inflict his prayer on everyone within a hundred yards.  He may not temporarily shut down government operations every day for his personal plea to his God.

      These things actually are offensive, whether it be from the requirement that everyone else in the neighborhood stop what they are doing for that prayer or simply for the noise pollution it can produce when shouted to the rooftops.

      1. profile image55
        wayne92587posted 3 years agoin reply to this

        The concept of separation of Church and State is not understood even by the Justices of the United State Supreme Court.

        The Separation of Church and State is to prevent the enslavement of the People by the Self-Righteousness, the Moral Law of the Church; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

        The Jews fled Egypt not because they were physically enslaved by the Pharaoh, but because the Jews were enslaved by the Self-ish Righteousness of the Pharaoh, the Moral Law, Righteousness of the Pharaoh.

        The United States of America was founded upon the Idea of Personal Freedoms; the Moral Law of the Church being replaced with the Rule of Law to govern the People; the Rule of Law being based upon a consensus.

        1. profile image55
          wayne92587posted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Mick Menous wrote:
          the US Founding Fathers didn’t want a single dominant religion in the United States,

          Wayne wrote;
          the Rule of Law has nothing to do with anyone not wanting a single dominant religion in the United States,

          The purpose of the, “Rule of Law”, is to prevent the enslavement of the people of the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave using the Moral Law, the Self-ish Righteousness, of the Church; it has nothing to do with preventing anyone from worshiping, as they please, whatever God, Religion that they choose to believe in.

          Morality Inhibits Freedom while the, "Rule of Law" enhances Freedom.

          Deb Welsh wrote;

          “In answer to your question - I thought in regards to Churches marrying Homosexual couples and some Church Leaders refusing to do this ceremony because it goes against Scripture and their Belief about what Marriage is to represent.  Civil Ceremonies would be the perfect choice as it still is within the realm of Separation of Church and State.”

          Wayne wrote;

          Under the, “Rule of Law”, No One, Not the U.S. Supreme Court, Not even God, can require the Church to oversee the marrying of Homosexual couples, however the Church, Moral Law, does not have the right to prevent the marrying of Homosexual couples in Civil Court.

          1. profile image55
            wayne92587posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Moral Law is a dismal failure in its attempt to bring the Chaos to Order.
            Morality is an, Abomination; would that I could I would destroy Moral Law, by creating a Separation of Church and State, by creating a State that is governed by the, " Rule of Law".

            Kathryn L Hill posted 7 months ago

            “It is important to note that a democracy REQUIRES morals in order to maintain it”.

            I wonder what Benjamin Franklin meant by this?
            "He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world." - Benjamin Franklin


            Wayne wrote; Moral Law is an Abomination.

            Benjamin Franklin knew nothing of the Moral Law of Islam, Sharia as Interpreted by the Self-ish Righteousness of the Fundamentalist Muslim, Isis, the False Phophets of Islam.

 
working