Amendment I\nCongress 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.\n\nIf I read that correctly, it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".\n\nEstablishment by definition:\n1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement\n2 : an established order of society\n3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established.\n\nSo to respect an establishment one (or one government) must pass a law mandating a particular religion. \n\nWhat is there to interpret?\n\nI don't think the government should force any religion upon us, however it says nowhere in the Constitution that religion must be outside of the government.
126620
"Wall of Separation" between Church and State\nThomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:\n\n"...I contemplate with solemn 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 and State..."\n\nDuring the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:\n\n"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."\n\nThe US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion.
671038
Yes, I think it's a big deal, and I am NOT offended to find those words on our coins.  It is one of the very few places that God is still honored in our country.  Should we invalidate the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights, because they make reference to God?  No!  This country was founded in Christianity, and although I do firmly believe in freedom from religious persecution, I think we've gone way too far on the other side... it is now the Christians who are persecuted, our prayers are not allowed, the very basic principals that this country was founded on are litigated, and all by people claiming to be offended by it... well, you know what?  In many other countries, being the "wrong" religion can get you jailed and executed.  We allow you the God-given right to disagree, but what right do you have to change  who we are?!?!  This country was founded on Christian principals, and you have the right to live here and not be a Christian (although I pray for those lost souls), but that does not mean that you have the right to interfere with my rights, either.  Keep God in all that we do, to honor our forefathers, and honor our FATHER.
120364
It's a terrible idea.  The founding fathers had not intentions of there being a nationally endorsed religion.  It would seriously trample the rights of others.  Look at what happened in Iraq, they have a national religion of Islam and a guy was going to be killed for converting to Christianity.  It also is a violation of the first amendment.\n\nQuotes from sources below:\n\n"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.\n\n"Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the  Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut  on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:\n\n    "...I contemplate with solemn 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 and State..."\n\nDuring the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:\n\n    "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."\n\nThe US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion."
189879
The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion.  A politician has the right to freely talk about the Ten Commandments.\n\nThe Constitution does not ANYWHERE separate church and state.  It just says not to have a state-run church, referring to the Church of England situation.\n\nThe Constitution is one of the most misinterpreted documents........
122574
It's one of the United State's most fundamental issues to protect each individual's freedom of religion.  Of course our government has no right to have any say in religion whatsoever (unless the religion requires others to be harmed like it said above).  It is even more important to note that its a FREEDOM of religion.  It should not be encouraged or discouraged.  Many politicians today quote biblical phrases and speak of their beliefs according to how government should be applied.  This is wrong, because there are those who do not believe in Christianity.  We have to remember the basis of this country.  The puritans came over here in the first place to escape religious persecution!
172131
"I will respect the right of any individual to chose not to believe in any form of divinity, without calling that person immoral, idiotic, illogical, or threaten them with any kind of eternal punishment."\n\n"I will respect the right of any individual to believe in any kind of divinity or deity they so wish, whether or not I doubt any such divinity or deity exists, and I will do so without calling that person illogical, idiotic or blind."\n\n"Furthermore, while I will stand up for my own right to believe or not believe in anything I so choose, I will not interfere with another's right to believe or not believe in anything they so choose, as along as they are not harming me or interfering with my rights." \n\n\n\nthe power of cut and paste i love it
178970
A previous poster was correct.  The Constitution does not state anything about a separation of church and state.  However, if we wish to have freedom of religion, it is in the best interest of all to have a separation of church and state.\n\nIf one religion became predominant and was adopted as an official religion... other religions would naturally face greater obstacles.  How would a christian feel if satanism was the predominant religion?  \n\nI am an atheist... I don't believe there is a god or gods.  I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong.  I believe firmly in freedom of religion.  We need separation of church and state if we wish to keep that freedom for all of us.\n\nI currently think that there are several religions (Mormonism, the Moonies, Christian Fundamentalists to name a few) that seek preferential treatment by the government over other religions.  I think a large civil divide is occuring over this issue.
404736
Very good question. I expect to be bashed for it but here it goes anyway.\n\nThere is no plan, no idea, no twinkling idea in our eyes of taking God, Jesus, Vishnu, Buddha, or anything else away from anyone. We only want the government to be neutral towards any religious views. Most of us are religious, and we respect and honor anyone's point of view.\n\nWe have no plan to remove churches, stop anyone from praying, remove bibles, religious displays, etc... on private property. We do object to overt religious displays that only show one religious point of view - on government property.\n\nMany of us are afraid that our personal religious convictions will be swamped in a government that promotes one religion over another, which is why the founders made the wall of separation between church and state. \n\nNow wait. Before you jump to conclusions about this, please consider the reasons the founders did this. At the time it was written, the constitution was designed to prevent the religious wars that had destroyed Europe several times over, because each nation had it's own official religion, and people get very passionate about their religious views, sometimes to the point of craziness. Witness the terrorists today. \n\nThe founders were close to England, some were born there, and most went to school there. The Church of England was the official religion and most of them didn't want the same kind of oppression the English practiced against non-members. It just made sense to them to create a government that wouldn't have those kinds of problems. \n\nSo to tie it all together, we don't hate or dislike any religion. We just want to practice ours, and you practice yours without having to have any problems with each other. It really is no more than that.\n\nThanks for the great question, please don't hesitate to post more like this. We want to clear this up as much as you do.\n\nAdd: I went back and read your question again. Honestly, there is no locomotive. Please don't take it that way. If you feel threatened by us I apologize. We are all americans, and if you've read my posts here you know I feel very strongly about our great country and what it stands for. Freedom. That we share equally, and I want to make sure we agree on that first. We disagree about Iraq, we disagree about how to fight the terrorists. None of us want to see any more american lives lost to them. We just disagree about how to do it. I hope you understand we would fight together with you if anyone came here to destroy or hurt us.\n\nAdd2: We share exactly the same fear. Neither of us want our faiths, or our right to freely practice them disturbed in any way. We both wholeheartedly believe the real danger could come from the government. That is why I hope we agree it should not be in government at all. I think the balance is delicate between the government staying out, but at the same time not disturbing our right to freely practice our faiths. The line is a grey area, and we may occasionally clash over where it is exactly. I sincerely believe it is in both of our best interests to respect that grey area and tread lightly. Agreed?
511343
You already know that the phrase does not appear, therefore the provocative "I'm waiting..."  You already know that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."  \n\nI'm also sure that you are already aware of the letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "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 and State."   You might also want to recall the Treaty of Tripoli, in which it is stated that "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."\n\nObviously, if the founders wished to create a government in which religion would hold sway, or have a formal say in civil law or liberties, they could have easily done so.  They did not create a theocracy, but a democratic republic.  All of the above has been primarily interpreted to support separation of church and state, and the Supreme Court has upheld this "notion" time and time again.  It never fails to amaze me how some people persist in believing the founders intended this country to be based on religious (Christian) tenets.  They weren't idiots - if they wished that to be the case they could have clearly laid it out as such.  Their personal writings and letters reflect controversy of feeling over the matter, and quotes can be found to reflect both positions.  The proof in the pudding is that they chose to erect that wall, and did not choose to install a government run by religious leaders, and made sure those would be leaders had no power to do so.  Considering that the founders had widely differing religious leanings and knew the pitfalls of a government led by the "church," it probably wasn't a hard decision to reach.  The difficulty most likely lay in the language to be used.  There were religious leaders of that day who wished for nothing more than a theocracy to be created.  The founders had to reach a consensus on how to word the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to please everybody, and that included the theocratists.  They did such a good job that we are still arguing over it today.  We trust our Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and they have done so time and time again, in favor of the wall.  It's an integral part of our government, this wall, and if it weren't the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps of our nation would be dictating our laws and civil rights.  A scary thought, that.
213481
True, it doesn't say verbatim "seperation between church and state", however that somes up the 1st amendment nicely.\n\nHow would you teach a specific religion in a public school and not consider that to be a favoring a specific religion above all others?
418589
The separation of church and state was a founding tenet in the Constitution because the founding fathers saw the abuses of the many religions when they held positions of power in the Old World. Many of our earliest immigrants came to this country to escape religious tyranny and oppression. It made perfect sense, in my view, that they would have included this amendment in the Constitution. This is especially significant, IMHO, considering many of the founding fathers were Masons.\nNothing has been miscontrued about the "intent" of the original amendment for 230 years. Now, all of a sudden, when theocratic radicals want to twist the original intent from what it was meant to be to their own narrow view of what it should be to them,  they scream that they alone know what the founding fathers intended and everyone else is wrong.\n I respectfully beg to differ.\n There is no surer way to fall into despotism than allow one religious group's views to be above another one's. All the theocratic radical needs to do is consider whether they would allow Buddhism, Islam, Hindu or any other religious sect have precedence over them. That is something I seriously doubt. Why then, would they expect others to accept their view as the only valid one? Hence, the reason for the second amendment.\n\nJefferson and Madison speak well for themselves:\n\n"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416 \n\n"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that '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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382 \n\n"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813. \n\nI believe Mr. Jefferson's intent is blaringly obvious in his own words. Transparently clear and to the point. As was James Madison's.\n\nJames Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention\n\n12 June 1788Papers 11:130--31 \nThe honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded--there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment--I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in suc
117652
Yes, the constitution does allow the rights of freedom speech, assembly, and religious practice in the 1st amendment.  But because these rights sometimes conflict with eachother (like in your scenario), its pretty safe to say that you have right and liberties as long as they dont interfere with anyone else, or cause other people malicious harm.
520865
False. \n\nThe Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from telling a religious group to stop holding religious services.\n\nHowever, the Supreme Court has held that if the religious services involve certain behaviors--like animal sacrifice or using prohibited drugs--the government is allowed to ban those practices, as long as the ban applies to everyone and is neutral with respect to religion.\n\nSo, if your religion says that everyone should smoke pot as part of a religious ceremony, the government cannot pass a law banning your religious services, but it CAN pass a law barring people from smoking pot.
73367
The Filipino Constitution III § 5 states, "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."  Wikipedia has an entry on the separation of church and state in the Philippines, along with references to commentary on the Constitution of 1987 and its intent.
674039
Here you go:\n\n"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. \n\nSection 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. \n\nSection 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. \n\nSection 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. \n\nSection 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "\n\n"The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on the 13th of June, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 25, 1866; New Hampshire, July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868); Vermont, October 30, 1866; Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868); New York, January 10, 1867; Kansas, January 11, 1867; Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Wisconsin, February 7, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, Ju
456692
It is practically impossible to answer your question because you do not have enough information.  What article, source, or amendment?  Are you referring to some type of statute?  Are you referring to a Constitutional Amendment?  An article of a statute?  \n\nYou don't have enough information here.  You should go to the library and speak to the librararians.  They will be able to assist you.
67895
You can most certainly NOT get arrested for doing so. There's an amendment protecting free religious expression, so long as no on is getting hurt.  You should feel free to pray in public if that is what you want to do.  Don't feel embarrassed.