What does our own US Constitutionhave to say about religious tolerance?
150611
the constitution has provision to keep the government out of the church... but this regulates only the government's role in religion, this does not address the attitude that is tolerance and mass attitudes toward a particular religion-- of course hate crimes are illegal but beyond that the government is to stay out of faith, this may be more apparant in the writings of the founders than the constitution
389210
Well first of all, this country was not built on separation of politics & religion. It was built on : no state sponsered religion and equality of all religions. If you look at our founding fathers, they incorporated thier religious beliefs into many aspects of government and politics.\nSo in my opinion , on the religious and political front, our country is out of step with what the framers of the Constitution intended it to be.
209698
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution\n\n"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 grievances."\n\nFreedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly and right to petition.   Wow!!!!!!!!  Sometimes I forget how powerful and important those rights are!    To have our own opinions and be able to freely express them ! ! ! ! !  Wow! ! ! ! ! ! !
196295
Don't see that it does.  Actually, the Constitution doesn't mention religion at all.\n\nThe Bill of Rights, consisting of Amendments 1-10, says only:\n\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."\nAmendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. \n\nFull text of the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html\nFull text of the Bill of Rights:\nhttp://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
25584
Any religion depends on a sort of "mob rule", or the will of a majority to impose an artificial "moral" code on its adherents. It is primarily a tool for political power, especially in creating destructive and dangerous policies that, as you point out, contradict the very meaning of acting as free-willed, happy human beings.\n\nMorality is not found in religion, and in fact is often contrary to it. Morality is simply an objective standard that says, "I live for my own sake and happiness, I recognize that right in every other human being, and I will act accordingly." Thus mutually beneficial relationships arise to create a truly self-sufficient and moral society.\n\nThis is what the U.S. has gotten away from but what the Founding Fathers wished for. After all, our country is founded on principles of freedom and the right to PURSUE (not be given) happiness. Freedom of religion is among these, but not the IMPOSITION of religion. Any "decline" in our society is due to an INCREASE in religion, not the reverse.
895761
Yes, but it will be more up to individuals to enforce Constitutional standards rather than relying on government intervention.\n\nIn the past, "separation of church and state" was used to defend religious practice of a Christian group from imposition by government. Today it is used to defend secular beliefs from perceived threats to impose Christian dominance.\n\nThe real issue is not "separation of church and state" but "consent of the governed."  Regardless of religious or secular views, no groups or individuals want their "consent" to be violated by an outside group or authority.  So that is the real issue, not freedom of religion but free will in general.\n\nIf we interpret religious freedom to mean free will and right of consent, people should have the right to govern and to be governed as they believe, without infringement on personal security by threat of censorship or oppression, as long as everyone respects the same of others so there is peace and justice.\n\nSo by this interpretation, of religious free exercise as free will, this has always been the struggle of humanity, and will continue to surface again and again until this issue is finally addressed and resolved.  Freedom is no more or less important as it was in the past, but will rise to a higher level of understanding as a universal right that all people require by nature, regardless if they call it religious or political or intellectual freedom.\n\nIt is the same argument, reincarnated over and over, until we establish mutual respect across all institutions and nations.\n\nBy its very nature, "consent of the govern" cannot be imposed by government force, but can only be established by free choice.  \n\nOtherwise laws contradict themselves, as in trying to separate "church and state" when all laws are, in fact, a form of moral code that reflects individual or collective values and beliefs.  Again, the issue behind "religious freedom" is whether or not individuals consent to the standards enforced.
979993
"The 14th amendment to the US Constitution applies equally to both gay and straight citizens.  Thus, the government does not have the right to enact laws that ban marriage between individuals based on their sexual orientation."\n\nThe 14th also bans states from enacting laws that restrict civil liberties.  Many people argue that marriage is a civil liberty.  \n\nYou can continue with the fact that we do not live in a Theocracy and under the theory of separation of church and state within the Establishment Clause (1st amendment - US Constitution) the government also has no right to impose the Biblical will of the church on the citizenry.  \n\nChurches are free to define marriage within their own systems and can certainly decline to marry same sex couples.  The government should be required to maintain a non-religious marriage system that is open and applies equally to all.
643254
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.
375772
That's not what the First Amendment says.  The First Amendment keeps the government out of religion's business, not the other way around
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?
84332
People will say no, but I defy you to find anywhere in the Constitution that separates church and state.  The constitution gives you FREEDOM of religion instead of where they came from (England) where the government ran the Church of England.  They did not want that situation, so they said in the Constitution that the government won't set up a church.\n\nI am a teacher, and I talk about religion whenever it is part of my lesson.  I cannot teach about Bach, the most important composer in regards to our system of harmony, without talking about his church work.
48850
church and state were intermingled at the time of, and after, the writing of the constitution.  Obviously our forefarthers did not mean to have a God-free society like liberals would like to have.
1067836
"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 grievances."\n\nThere is nothing in the Constitution about a "separation of church and state." Congress is not allowed to pass laws forcing people to participate in one religion or another, and they are not allowed to stop people from practicing their religion. This does not mean that a politician can not use his religious beliefs to form his opinions, character, and doings.
23557
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.
720222
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\nwhere does this say separation.\nWe are free to worship the god we want or no god at all.\nThe government can not state that my God is better than your god or no god is the right path. We must live with each other and let each other worship in there own way even if I want to pray to my big toe or no god at all.\n\n We do not have a secular government that would be given in to one side. What we have is a free government. In other words I do not care what you believe I may think your a fool for thinking that way. But I will fight for your right to be live it and stand by your side if any one wants to make you stop or force your views down.
376587
No! That is what America is all about: religious tolerance and diversity!\n\nOur Flag unites us. Religious sectarianism divides us.
34869
The country does not deny the concept of God or gods, however the US Government is in an interesting position on this.  They have the first ammendment, which forbids congress from making regulations that favor any particular religion.  What this means in the real world is that state- an federel- provided education MAY NOT impose any particular religous favor, such as reuiring prayer in school assemblies, or teaching any specific relious doctrines.\n\nIn a sense this is odd because the country was founded by people who were, along with other respectable traits, very religious men indeed.\n\nHowever, these people came to America in search of freedom to practice their relious followings.  If the governemt were to pass laws in respect of religious beliefs, all of what America stands for would be gone.  People would begin to flee the country in search of freedom, and America would collapse.\n\nRegardless of whether you personnally support the religious climate of this country, it would do you good to remember that the US still supports a great deal of liberty that other nations, gradually, are begining once again to steal from their people.