Putting forward a view point... please feel free to respond... my views are not yours n visa versa... There are some that think this means NO religion allowed in Government in any form. When I see this I find myself thinking they were probably cheated when they were given an education by their educators. This cheating involves both U.S. and world history. The framers and founders of our Constitution did NOT create our system of government in a vacuum. They were fully aware of the world around them as it was in their time. They were also fully aware of the religious wars that had been so terrible and vicious in Europe, if no where else. Over there, far too often, the people were REQUIRED to become a member of whatever religion the rulers of their country chose for them or followed themselves. No other religion or sect of that religion was allowed in some case on pain of death. The no religion people point at a letter written by Jefferson. Thing is if you read that letter all the way through you come to understand a good deal more. The letter was an answer to a question from a religious group that feared they would not be allowed to worship as they believed. They feared they would be required, as in Europe, to worship as the state decided. Jefferson answered them in that letter. His answer was no you will NOT be required to worship in any manner but that which you choose. Some of the founders were not religious in that they did not believe in any specific religion, near as I can tell from what I have read. But also near as I can tell they all believed we had a creator. And that is where the separation comes in... Best way I've seen it put was the following... "It is not for priest or pastors or presidents or kings to compel belief, for to do so trespasses on each individual's God-given liberty of mind and heart. If the Lord himself chose not to force obedience from those he created, then who are men to try?" From American Gospel:Faith and Freedom by Jon Meacham Thinkin it would be good to include judges or lawyers in the above as well. What we have here, seems to me, is a religious group tryin to force their beliefs on all others IMHO. Questions: Is this religious group required to pray at a sporting event? Are they required to pray at an inauguration? If the answer is no then that suggest they are somehow offended that anyone would not believe as they believe. As a result they wish to force everyone to do as they wish them to do. So it seems in their minds that their way of believe is the only acceptable believe. Since when does this allow them to stomp all over the beliefs of others? Since when does the religious beliefs of one group rule over all others? OK... I know many have different views on this subject... so... have at it
I wrote a paper touching on this soooo many years ago and got an A. It comes down to separation of Church and State means, like you said, the State will not dictate religion thus giving it's charges free will to worship how they please. The State is however decidedly Christian as evidenced by "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" being just a few slogans adopted on currency and official documents. Just my 2 cents.
How does believing and trusting in God have anything at all to do with being a Christian? It does not say "In Christ , We Trust". It does not say, "One Nation, Under Christ". That's being pretty damned presumptuous, to assume having faith in God has anything at all to do with being a Christian. Being a Christian excludes ALL other folks that believe in God; Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, everybody that wasn't indoctrinated towards Christianity.
Wasn't a real problem back then, Jewish, Christian, Deist, all shared a common belief in some creative force and an acceptable code of conduct. None were willing to let the others trample over them, but did not want to trample over the others rights either. Now the thought police want to control everything and some groups say they have Allah's word that they don't have to play by our rules. May not end well for somebody. Now we add in people who have a different code of conduct and it gets a little sticky that while it isn't a religion per se it interacts with some of our beliefs and code of conduct and they are not satisfied with our tolerance of their beliefs, they want us to believe as they do, and codify it into the "official" law. .
Think I have to agree with Seacowboy here... a belief in God does not mean a belief in Christ. That said... I agree the the U.S. is founded on many Biblical principles... there is a tie in there... and mainly Christian it would seem...
"Freedom OF religion" does not mean "freedom FROM religion". I don't want to force my religion on any one else to make them worship as I believe, nor do I want anyone elses' forced on me to be worshiped as they believe, even if that is not to believe or worship.
I'm a little fuzzy on what is the real question here? Is the question concerning 'separation of church and state' or are we discussing the 'intent of the law vs. the letter of the law' (interpretation) concerning as what has been played out with the removal of any reference to God in courthouses/courtrooms, money, pledge of allegiance, etc...? I also agree with @Seacowboys interpretation of 'In God We Trust' as it does not specify any particular deity which again shows the genius of the founding fathers. Freedom of Religion whatever your God and indeed "In God We Trust." Personally, it gets on my nerves when atheist friends get upset about these things and demand to strictly abide to the 'separation' so much so to demand removal of these references that are historical, traditional and also harmless, in my opinion. While I personally distrust religion(s), I am most definitely not an atheist, believe in God in my own way, something close to a deist, and believe that "one nation, under God" is far better than a nation without God(s), like Stalin or others would have it. But, that's my opinion...
The Founders of this Country (USA) were "God Fearing" Folks... There intent (If you care to actually do your own research) was to operate the Country, WITHOUT a State Religion. (i.e. Different than The English, who previously Ruled the Land) It was NEVER intended to be Freedom From Religion... It was intended to be "Freedom to choose, whatever Religion, or NO Religion at all... Just because a certain Religion, or Ceed had similar Religious Statutes, as the Founders setup as our Governing Statutes, does NOT make them Religious Tyranny, as some would have you believe. We never allowed Murder, but in the past, we did allow Slavery, and Indentured Servitude. We never allowed Theft, but we did allow for invoking GOD (Universal Creator i.e. Allah, Elohim, or whom-ever) to Bless our .GOV Meetings and give the Founders Guidance. The trouble comes in when Folks start to get PC (thin skinned) about this, and minorities get Super PC, and picky about the verbiage... As we added more Statutes, there wasn't a lot of discussion about these Separation Of Church & State Questions, among the population, and the legislators. Leave it to the People to screw up a perfectly GOOD Setup, in 200+ Years.....
Articles of Confederation - AP U.S. History Topic Outlines - Study Notes In 1786, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson, enforced the separation of church and state in Virginia. The statute stated that “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry…nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief…but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” Although the Congregational Church continued to be legally established in some New England states, the Anglican Church, tainted by association with the British crown, was humbled; de-anglicized, it reformed as the Protestant Episcopal Church. The struggled for divorce between religion and government was hardest in Virginia; it was prolonged to 1786 when Thomas Jefferson, his co-reformers and the Baptists, won a complete victory with the passage of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. In matters of religion and government, the path toward cementing moderation and also maintaining stability as well as escaping tyrannous oppression must start with very clear and concise reasoning. We exist in the future, where it is easy to make claims about the "intended purpose" of any writing or belief of a personage in any particular time in the past; the real motive behind the acts themselves may prove beneficial if we only choose to see without confirmation bias. For example, it is natural for a religious mind to want to find support for their individual beliefs, just as it is natural for an atheist to seek out the works of Thomas Paine to support their own claims. Nevertheless, we still have a very unique situation within the American withdrawal from the tyrannous leash once held tightly by the British. In times of great adversity and societal upheaval, religion can prove to become a very useful weapon for those who seek power or hold it. The separation of church and state, therefore, is a preemptive measure in an attempt to eliminate the use of religion as a means to control. We should also try to remember that, previous to the establishment of the "United States", the individual states were sovereign and held far more power than is currently perceived in this age. Once the States were "united", the arm of the Federal Government consolidated powers and the dream of sovereignty, both that of the State and individual, soon evaporated. The concept of religious freedom and the separation of church and state can best be characterized by witnessing the struggle of the Colonies, especially that of Virginia in the period leading up to 1786.
Religion pro or con and abortion pro or con guaranteed to start arguments.. Mix in alcohol fights often ensue..
