is the provision in programs restricting rentals to christians religions constitutional?
813706
Again, what rentals.....depends by who.  If it is say church housing, for rental by Christian followers, then yes, it's constitutional.
658977
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion. \n\nThe most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.
135276
Seperation of church and state only goes as far as the 1st ammendment specifies:\n\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\nSwearing on a bible is not a law made by congress establishing religion, nor is it preventing the free practice thereof.  \n\nBTW, It is well established that a bible need not be used. You can simply take the oath.
1021669
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791\n\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\nGiven the first amendment above, since Congress cannot make any prohibitions on the free exercise of religion any U.S. President certainly has not the right to do that either.  Also, if he goes so far as to kick Pagans or Wiccans out because of their religious beliefs that violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
211226
Nothing.  In America there is seperation of church and state as long as it is presumed that christianity will always be included.
137117
Within reason they should be able to follow the "laws" of their religion. less so, things which may just be custom. Certainly, a limit needs to be placed on anything which would place an undue tax burden on the taxpayer or create an unsafe situation. In the cases , where money is the issue, a religious charity organization could be appealed to.
1081483
Probably.  But what is wrong with that?\n\nAren't parents limiting their child's freedom by:\n\n1)  Telling them stealing is bad\n2)  Teaching them to share\n3)  Teaching them not to lie  etc...\n\nUltimately, it is the parent's right to mold their childrens opinions and behaviors unless it is abusive and harmful.\n\nBy the way, the freedom of religion that we enjoy is freedom from the government abridging religion, not freedom from brainwashing, proseltyzing, lecturing, etc... by individuals and private parties.
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.
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.
878862
Under what circumstances?  The answer is likely "no," but the body of law dealing with the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment (known by most people as the "separation of church and state") is extremely fact specific and under a greate deal of flux right now.\nIf it's explicitly Christian religious music, ordered to be played by school officials (and not the students) in front of a mandatory meeting of the student body, it's probably not constitutional (that would be an "endorsement" of religion, or "coercion" to a particular religion).  However, a slight change in any one of those facts changes the analysis.  \nFurther, the fact that you're talking about a university, and not a junior high or high school (where students are expected to follow orders, listen to their teachers, and have not had a well-developed analytical mind) makes a HUGE difference.  Generally, religious clubs, discussions, demonstrations, etc., are tolerated (and perhaps encouraged) at this level (although I'd say that a school-mandated prayer at graduation would probably still be unconstitutional).
107968
Yes!  Your right to practice any religion you want is protectected by the first ammedment.  If any government agency (a pulic school system, for example) bans the practice of a certain religion, you can sue them big time!
775823
I believe that this Act was inacted due to the fact that there was no monitoring on landlords. Someone that owned a property and wished to rent it out would have been able to only rent to someone that held their same race, religion or beliefs, hence, allowing for discrimination.
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.
552980
There's no rule that says I can't hang out anywhere on Y!Answers and I happen to like the Religion category.  It's true that I don't pay rent here; then again, I don't pay any less rent than the believers who seem to think that I belong somewhere else.\n\nSomeone called them GodSnobs -- I like that.
1055715
Yes, but not to the exclusion or detriment of any other religious belief, and purely on a voluntary basis.
1054486
Separation of church and state was adopted when our country was formed to prevent our governmet from sanctioning or adopting a particular religion as an official state religion. However, our constitution does make spiritual references. The fear at the time was that a government would do what England did in forming the Chrch of England. Religiuos freedom does not mean freedom from religion. Lots of our laws are based on spiritual beliefs (like the 10 comandments). If the overwhelming majority are  christian and opposed to gay marriage, they will elect representatives who will pass laws to restrict or ban it. If the constitution is strictly interpreted, there is nothig in there that makes a gay marriage ban unconstitutional. However, marriage in and of itself is a religious institution. If a religion is against gay marriage, does the government have the right to impose gay marriage on it? That may be protected in the constitution. I think the answer is civil unions. If the government performed and recognized civil unions and let churches and religious institutions perform marriages, there might be the solution. If you are Catholic for example, get married in a Church. As a Catholic you are married and seen as such by your relgion. Instead of a marriage license, you get a civil union license (which would be religion neutral) from the government. Then gay people can do the same. If they want to call themselves married, so be it. No religion is forced to adopt something against its beliefs and thegvernment separates itself from any religious implications by calling any legal union of 2 people a civil union. Just my idea though.
1162331
The wording in the constitution is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".\n\nThere is no statement about freedom FROM religion, with good reason.  One can imagine that one is free from forceful imposition of religion, and therefore can choose "no religion" as your set of beliefs; but we can't enforce a rule that one is free from encountering religion.  In other words, the U.S. government can't establish a church or restrict others from doing so.  It also can't inhibit others from expressing their religion legally, even if it offends others.  That's the nature of freedom.  It works the same way with free speech...we don't restrict it even when people are saying things we don't like.  \n\nFreedom is an incredibly valuable thing, and it is threatened by those who rank their own feelings higher than the principles the nation was founded upon.  Freedom FROM religion, if broadly defined, is a threat to freedom OF religion.  Freedom FROM speech is a serious threat to freedom OF speech. FROM gives authority to restrict speech or religion.  People who don't understand that will lose freedom rapidly.