Do you really a religion (any religion) to dictate the laws of the country?  Do you really want to do away with the separation between church and state?
128730
Only if I get to be GOD.\nJK.\nNo way...too oppressive.
612468
That is really interesting!  In a way, this seems to prove that there can't be seperation of church and state.  Basic laws were founded on the Ten Commandments and church and state just can't be seperated to have an orderly country.
497683
Well said.\n\nI'm not a religious person but damn it, our country is traditionally christian.\n\nI respect your tolerance.\n\nSo should others.\n\nGod bless.
565073
Our nation was founded on the premise that government should be separate from religion.  There's a very important reason for this.  Religious decisions are not necessarily rational, intelligent decisions. That's the reason for all the wacky ideology the Bush administration has given us.\n\nIf you want a country ruled by religion, why not just move to Iran?  Do you propose to turn our country into a Christian Iran?
386807
I am democrat. I believe in freedom! Plain and simple. America is about: Freedom! Choice! Rights!\n\nAll of these have been dwindled under republican rule. Yes, im a Christian, but I dont think that church and state should intermingle...separation of church and state is what this country was founded on, and i needs to stay like that to be solid.\n\nRepublicans think they can push THEIR morals onto other people...totally bypassing what america stands for...Independance!
538450
This is a very good point, and i have actually researched it before.  In the Freedom of Religion amendment, there are two clauses: the establishment clause, and the free excercise clause.  The establishment clause is the separation of church and state, or in other words, the government cannot establish or promote any one relgion.  In the free excercise clause, the government cannot ban any one religion.  Oddly enough, atheism is only considered a religion in the free excercise clause, and not in the establishment clause.  This is a sort of loophole that allows the religion to establish atheism in schools, without going against our rights to freedom of religion.  Pretty messed up, huh?
316270
Absolutely not. \n\nLet me put it this way. Who's religious belief is right? \n\nIf you can answer that question, then we can have prayer in schools. If not, then you can begin to figure out why there is no prayer in school. \n\nSee, if the state begins to determine what prayers can be prayed in public school, then the state makes an endorsement of a particular religion. From there, the state gets more involved in the politics of religion. \n\nNow, the last thing you want is the government telling you how you should or shouldn't pray, right? \n\nLet me go a step further. Let's say we go with the fact that 90% of Americans believe in God. So, you say "Hey, we can just pray to a generic god. Then nobody's discriminated against." (Except the 10%, of course.)\n\nExcept, praying to a generic god is a sin. You pray to the one true god, otherwise, you're really ticking god off. Besides, Christians are pretty fond of Jesus and would get really ticked at keeping him out of prayers, don't you think?\n\nSo, we have to make a choice. Who's religion is the right one? Well, Christians outnumber everybody else by a wide margin in the US, guess we'll make Christiantiy the de facto religion of the US. (85% of believers are Christians of some form or another in the US. So we take 85% of the 90%)\n\nExcept, which version of Christianity is the right one? Do we have Catholic mass? Do we have have Baptismal hymnals? What about those who refuse to engage in the prayer? Will there be repercussions? (You bet there will be by those who do pray versus those who don't.)\n\nOK. You might say I'm complicating the problem, but I'm not. Essentially, we have a separation of church and state to avoid internal conflict in the country over who's religious belief is the correct one. We also, don't want a government telling us who to worship and how to worship. (Living in a religion dominated society is called, theocracy. See the Middle East for what our lives would be like if we had a church dominated government.)\n\nKeeping prayer out of schools and government allows us to live in a country where we have religious freedom. The freedom to worship as we choose of our own free will.\n\nIn other words nobody is penalized for not being of the "correct" faith. Everybody has the freedom to worship without government oversight and being bullied by social pressures. Nobody is at risk of the majority telling them how to live. \n\nAmerica is about freedom. Freedom from government endorsed religion is a good thing.\n\nHope that makes sense.
8718
In America, the "separation of church and state" is a concept expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution:\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."\n\nAt the most basic level, this means that our government cannot make any law requiring you to belong to a given religion, nor prohibit you from exercising your religious beliefs.  In Europe at the time, people were required to be of a certain religion; to profess another religion could be a death sentence.
571106
I really do not believe you can separate the church and the state. People are part of the state and they are also members of their respective churches. \n\nJust go to a church whose beliefs and teachings you are most comfortable with.
413322
No the entire country is not of my faith. Besides this is a democracy not a theocracy.
611923
I will fight this "theorcracy" all the way.\n\nI don't want a.....\n...christian nation.\n...atheist nation.\n...hindu nation.\n...muslim nation.\n...agnostic nation.\n...deist nation.\n...any religious nation.\n\nI DO want a.......FREE nation.
568052
I don't think anyone ever said that you can't talk about religion.  You are not supposed to make laws based on religious beliefs.  If we did that, very little would have changed in our country's history.  I agree with you on the Ten Commandments thing.  I think you may be preaching to the choir, so to speak.  But as they say, "The sqeaky wheel gets the grease."  That doesn't make it right, though.  I don't see a question here, so don't be surprised if you get reported for ranting, because you aren't really supposed to do that here.
410609
Yes.  The government should get out of the business of marriage and look at only those relationships that can be governed legally.\n\nLook at it this way, if two people (man and woman) get a marriage certificate but don't get married by a preacher/priest/rabbi/etc. are they married in the eyes of the church?  If they never said their vows to God, probably not.  But by the government's standards, they still have the same benefits and liabilities.  Or look at it the other way around, if two people marry in a church but don't get the license, do they still get the tax benefits?  No, because to the government they're not married.\n\nAnd you want it this way.  Do you want the government telling you what a valid marriage is?  Or do you want your church to give you the rules for marriage?  Isn't marriage between two people, not two people and the government?\n\nAlso look at it on the back end, if the government says what a marriage is, it can also tell you when your marriage is over.  So if I'm Catholic and get a divorce through the courts, am I still married according to the church?  You bet you are.  You have to get the marriage annulled or you can't get married in the church again.  But if the government says you aren't married, why can't you get married in the church?  Because the church doesn't care what the government says, they make the rules for marriage.\n\nKeep them separate.  It makes it a lot easier.
84957
The US government claims to be separate from religion. IF that was true -\n\nWhy would there not be a civil legal arrangement (civil union, domestic partner, marriage, whatever) available to anyone who wanted to create a household?  Or - if these special relationships are solely for the care and protection of children, then change the rules so that only those intending/capable of parenthood are allowed to participate.  \n\nLeave a religious sacrament of marriage to the tenants of each individual faith.  As it is now, the government is treating different christian faiths differently, based on which ones they like.\n\nIn my opinion you can't have it both ways - either it is a religious sacrament and the government should have nothing to do with it OR it is an arrangement under civil law - in which case it should be open to all regardless of their religion. I suppose there is one more option - change the official statement about the separation of church and state and openly admit that our government DOES support one or more religions to the detriment of others.
203495
George Washington said "“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”\n\nI've never heard the quote you talk about. That being said, we have a "Christian" in office now, and look at the condition our country is in. I use the quote around "Christian" because I believe he is a false Christian. The last true Christian we had in office was Jimmy Carter, who is a great person, but a poor leader. True Christians do not have the pride, greed, or lust to be President.\n\nThe seperation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, wrote of a "wall of seperation between church and state" in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. The Constitution states government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
549143
You infer correctly, and bravo for pointing this out.  People insist on it because that is what they want to believe, whether it is true or not.  They will insist that this is a "Christian" country, simply because Christianity is the main religion of the people.  In reality that doesn't mean squat to our Constitutional principles or freedoms.  If the founders wished to create a Christian nation they had the perfect opportunity to do so.  They chose instead to create a democratic republic in which religion has no say.  This fact gets conveniently ignored by fanatical Christians who think they automatically have the right to run everyone's lives.  They'll quote scripture as though it is civil law, but have little clue what the meaning of separation of church and state is at all.  Better education in our schools could help dissolve their ridiculous notion.\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nAce?  For every quotation from a founder supporting the role of religion in government, I can produce two from the same founder speaking against it.  This debate went on for quite some time and the founders wrote and spoke about both sides of it extensively.  The proof in the pudding is that they had a chance to install a theocracy and chose not to do so.  They chose to keep that distance between church and state in the end.  How can you even argue with that when they didn't take the opportunity to create a theocracy?
471036
Don't be silly......They may not agree with your religion, but they would never ban religion.......Its protected by the constitution....