Do you support the separation of religion and Government??
115193
More than ever.  The debackle in Iraq is a perfect example why religion has no place in politics.  The Iraqi people  will not succeed in having an effective government until they employ this theory. Religion kills more people in the name of war than any other single factor, this is especially true in most Islamic countrys because anyone who wishes to interpret the Koran can do so, and many will do it to achieve their own objectives.  Look at Turkey, this is an Islamic country that has acheived much success because thet do seperate church and state.
802493
Religion and politics are a BAD combination! You should keep the two as separate as possible as often as possible. No church should have an official political stance. If it does, it should lose its tax-exempt status.
978285
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?
446792
Of course... I'm a republican, and although I have a strong personal faith in God, I don't care much for organized religion because they go too far and judge people... i'm also very supportive of gay marriage because I have a friend who is  gay. Most republicans are like me... it's only the few that make the news that are right-wing extremists... most are right of center like me.
909289
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.
66898
The following is text of the letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut: "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." It is true that the Constitution never states the phrase "seperation of church and state", but it is hard to play semanitics on such plain language and infer that this is not what the founders had in mind. So there is a legal obligation to seperate church and state. Congress can not choose a favorite nor limit any religion from practicing its beliefs.
1080150
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.
329646
The United States is currently going through a time where it is not sure of it's religion.  There is supposed to be religious freedom, but it is a Christian country.  I personally am a Christian and I think that is should be part of our culture as a Christian nation.  I'm sorry ur show isn't on.
784204
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?
1077753
The government is not going to take the words "under God out of the Pledge of Allegiance.  At least not right away.\n\nThe Humanist (Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Unitarian, whatever) groups want the words removed from the pledge.  The belief in God by the majority of Americans interferes with their (the humanists) religious beliefs.\n\nThe "wall of seperation between church and state" is a non issue.  It is not in the constitution, and is a phrse taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson who was not even a framer of the constitution.  Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from exposure to religion.
1002780
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?
834738
an encroachment on the separation of church and state =)
286046
I do consider their religion when I vote only in the sense that they allow their religious institution to influence them. Otherwise, what their actual religion may be is not really the reason I vote for them. I listen to their views on different issues and their ideas for resolutions to problems on the various issues. If they say that their religion is "blank" and then say that their religion helps to guide them in the decision making process, that does not necessarily make me go "Oh no can't vote for you". Instead what I look at is how close their ties are to their religious institutions and whether they say things like "Well my religion tells me......and therefore this is how I will vote on that issue". In fact, the more they bring up "what my religion tells me" the more likely I am not going to vote for them. Reason...I've found that politicians that use the phrase "My religion tells me" are often the same politicians that are very closely tied to their religious institution and therefore what their religious institution is advocating, well it is them, not us the electorate, that they represent and listen to. If they say "Well I believe..............and I got this from what my religion teaches about............and the lessons I learned from that teaching helped me with some aspects of my plan" well the key words are "some" and "believe" and "teaches" and "lessons". The politicians like this usually hold strong beliefs, but if you look over their plans you'll see that they are not framing their religion into law, but instead have considered that others might have a different perspective. These politicians, while religious, often also do not always agree with their religious institution and will often outright say so on the areas where they disagree.
345915
No, but I think religion should be a personal practice and have NOTHING to do with the government at all. Until that happens, yes it should be repressed from all governmental function.
404511
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.
162484
Of course not!! In the United States to do so would make our country run by religion.  That in itself is wrong from any perspective.  Those countries which have such laws are going down a slippery slope that is detrimental to individual freedoms.
777437
I certainly can, in our civil society religion shouldn't matter.  In fact however, it does and I prefer to know not so much the religion but how devout the politician is--the more devout, the less I like them because the more likely they are to let their religion color their decisions.  I don't want anybody forcing their religion or the implicit results of their religion on me.