Do religious types not understand that the separationof church and state gives them the privelege of...?
493619
They deny that even exists and profess we are a "christian' nation.
1012826
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.
741930
In a theocratic government, there is never the freedom of faith. In most of the Islamic countries, no other religion than Islam can be freely practised.
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.
414831
I don't understand how this country (US) could be founded on religion when the 1st amendment guarantees the separation of church and state. Politicians who seek votes by professing their religion don't look like idiots to me. To me they come across as being anti-American.
1110304
First of all the term "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution. It is implied due to the fact that the original settlers here were fleeing religious persecution in their home countries. That "separation" was to protect the rights of ALL people regardless of their religious background. There is no mention that the church cannot enter the government, the protection was to keep the government out of the church. The signers of the Declaration of Independence and the writers of the Constitution were all religious (Christian) men. Charles Carrol of Carrolington was the only Catholic, the rest were of other denominations, Anglicans, Calvinists, Quakers ect. It is in this century after World War II, that the move to remove any mention of God from public buildings, currency, schools has had full sway. As a result there are no longer any absolutes. You swear on no Bible in court, Schools have become battlegrounds and there is no respect or reverence of God to be found outside the private home or church. If you read thye writings of these men you will realize the changes that have been made to their original work have strayed drasticly from the original intent. They would be ashamed.
837922
There is no such separation. It's not then the Constitution, the ESTABLISHMENT clause is. That prevents the Government for creating a church or saying this is the church of the United States.\n\nIf I remember right it was in the papers of Thomas Jefferson that first brought up the separation of church and state, I may be wrong, you can look it up if it's important.\n\nBut lets say a church does want federal money to provide a service to the community, say Meal on Wheels and do it at loss. That's to say the money they receive wouldn't cover the cost of the program. They decide that they would do it for their fellow man. A lot of people would say NO,  separation of church and state. I would say as long as they don't discriminate, don't discuss religion, don't wear their church uniforms if they have one, deliver the meal in an plain car marked with only Meals on Wheel, and agree to some, not a lot, of over site why not? Church's have almost always been able to deliver more aid cheaper then the government.\n\nA lot of people have taken this way too far. First it not in the Constitution and second if the rules are carefully written and any church is willing to follow them why not let them provide the service and fill the need?\n\nJust something to think about.
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
384475
No. Religion is seperate from State, and it's not the State's business which religion I belong to.
537013
Separation of church and state.  In England, the ruling monarch is also the head of the Church of England.  Sometimes different religions fall in or out of fashion, and this meant that it could suddenly be a crime to belong to a particular religion.  Throughout European history, many countries had official religions that were either Catholic or Protestant (non-Catholic), which was really a problem for the Jews who until the creation of Isreal, never had a place where they could go and not have to worry about being outlawed at some point.  If you are going to be Protestant, it's also helpful if your particular brand of religion look and sound like all the others, which became a problem for the Quakers who didn't have services and churches that looked like all the other non-Catholic types.  It was assumed that since the business of churches is the business of salvation, by not taxing the churches, you could help ensure religious freedom because you couldn't shut them through economics.  The Church of Scientology had a problem because they didn't sound or look like any type of previous notion of a religion, yet they claimed to be a church and wanted the same tax exemptions that other religions enjoyed.
836238
The problem today is many people interpret the first ammendment to say there is a seperation of church and state.\nHowever you cannot read that in the 1st ammendment.\nThat came from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists basically stating that we are not a theocracy, but a secular government based on laws of men and not laws of God.\nAll that may be true, but our laws were patterned from the Bible whether people like that or not.\nAren't there laws against stealing, murder, rape and the like.
92500
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, guarantees that:\n\n1. individuals will have freedom of religious expression; \n \n2. the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism; \n \n3. the government and its agencies will not promote religion above secularism or vice versa. \n\nThis is what the Constitution guarantees. I agree with a lot of the current decisions out there that separate religion and state. Granted we maybe a majority Christian country, but one of our rights as a US citizen is not to be forced to partake in those cermonies. I do believe in tolerance for religion though. I believe that anyone can practice their religion in public as long as they do not force anyone else. And as long as no government official or program explicitly promotes any religion. The first amendment forbids that. You can read it below. Along with a quote written by a Supreme Court Justice.\n\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." (First Amendment)\n\n\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.
843227
I'm not sure what you mean...Democrats can be Christians too.\n\nAnyway, as a Christian, I believe that religion should be kept out of govenment. Why? Because I don't want a Muslim president or Congress (or any other religous persuasion) outlawing my religion.\n\nGod grants choice, and so should the government.
939867
There is no such thing as separation of Church and state in any government documents....that phrase originates with liberal media types over the last few years to try to remove Christianity from our heritage as a nation.....all the founding Fathers prayed and even had services in the Capitol Blgd. often.
1160287
The separation between church and state was never meant to eliminate the church. the point was that the church and the state were to be separate entities, no single religion was to have control of any government body. It was not the point to say that the two could not be related, actually the idea was to govern in an ethical and moral manner.At the same time no single church would have any control over government, this was to eliminate the problems that King Henry the Eighth had with the Catholic church, they had too much sway in the dealings of governments.
989258
You are comparing a theocratic state and secular states. In United States, push from Christian groups are there to teach Christianity in schools. However, US laws strictly separates the church and the state. Any fedaral funded school or institution cannot teach religion - they can teach it from a cultural aspect but not the religious texts directly. The biggest thing is that the west has gone through dark ages and renaissance where people started empowering themselves. It has not happened in any third world country. Reforms and chages are put on people who are not reformed. That is why culture, religion and state are in a mess.
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.