If our Founding Fathers wanted a TOTAL separation of church and state -Why did they allow God on our currency?
815984
The Founders did not intend a complete "separation of church and state."\n\nTheir concern was the state actively promoting or supporting one religion over the other. There is nothing close to this in the USA.\n\nThe ACLU and other groups, thru mountains of unnecessary litigation, have completely misread the Establish Clause of the First Amendment.  The mere mention of "God" for example, hardly favors one religion over the other. \n\nJefferson's phrase "separation of Church and State" was written to a group of Baptists to assure them that they would be free to practice as they wished. It appears no where in the Constitution.\n\nToday, however, this pseudo legal doctrine has been used as a sword to destroy even the most benign religious expression on public property. We are much poorer for it.
720688
Because they were the founders of the greatest nation on earth. \n\nBecause they were mostly Christian men of ethics, high morals and values, and established the fair and equal rights of men.\n\nBecause they established the first Christian nation. \n\nBecause the created and established the first Constitution of its kind, limiting the power of the central government to less than that of the individual States and communities.\n\nBecause they established the first nation in the world where you could freely worship any God you choose, any way you choose, as long as it didn't involve blood sacrifice.\n\nDo you know who the most powerful man in your community is? Nobody knows this answer, including your teacher. Most think it is the President, or your Govenor, or the Mayor, or the FBI, or the Police. Give up? Our forefathers set it up so that nobody from a thousand miles away could tell our community what laws to enforce. The most powerful person in your community resides at the County Seat. He is the Sheriff! Whoa, you say, that can't be true, the lowly Sheriff? Yes, the Fed has turned everything around so that "they" can be the most powerful, but according to our Constitution, the Fed is the least powerful. \n\nAccording to our Constitution, the Fed has no rights in your State or your County. We should lock them up and take their guns when they cross our borders without permits, or send them packing back to D.C. where there only lawful jurisdiction is.
175554
No.  Before 1963 the bible was even read in the classroom.  So, if up to 1963 the Bible was allowed and all the sudden is in violation of the the separation of church and state.  Which do you think the Founders intended.  Read the Federalist Papers, Read what George Washington said.  It's a statement that even goes to the heart of the Declaration of Independence where it talks about Our Creator
1142179
Because they do not read history.\nAnother reason is that if they believe there is no God, then they feel they do not have to pay the wages of their sins, which is death. (Death of the SOUL!)\n\nOH, and the seperation of church and state does NOT exist.  The Government can not tell you what church to belong to was the meaning fo that clause.  Church of England forced everyone to follow thier preachings.\n\nIN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776. \nTHE UNANIMOUS \nDECLARATION \nOF THE \nTHIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. \nWHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands, which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation. \n\nWe hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World. \n\nHE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. \n\nHE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. \n\nHE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodations of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyranny only. \n\nHE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures. \n\nHE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People. \n\nHE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in the mean Time, exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within. \n\nHE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising t
360060
That is a touchy subject, but I know one thing when I was in school we had prayer.  You didn't know who was against it or not, we just did it.  It seems like to me ever since they took it out of the schools there has been a whole lot of killings, stabbings, shootings, and disrespect for one another.  I think if we  bring it back it will make people think before the act, and maybe put the fear of God in some.  If they can keep it on our money, it certainly wouldn't hurt to put it back in the schools.  You don't hear the non-believer's complaining about take "In God We Trust" off our currency.  Why is that?  Moreover, money is the root of Evil.  I say we take "In God We Trust" of the money because it is not worthy to most who abuse it. Put it back in the schools with our children and let then decide.
215583
The words "separation of church and state" are not in the constitution.  These words are from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and are taken out of context by groups who want to eliminate the Judeo/Christian tradition from American life.  \n\nWhat the constitution says is that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion"  \n\nNot only is congress not allowed to establish an official national religion, but they are expressly forbidden from making any laws regarding religion.  \n\nThis amendment was not intended to apply to the individual states.  Until the fourteenth amendment, (the ratification of this amendment was on very shaky legal ground) individual states could and did establish official state religions.
1105868
Thank you. Hear that fundies? We're not picking on you, we just want things to be equal. And before someone says it, our founding fathers were not Christian. They were deists. \n\nhttp://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm\nhttp://dim.com/~randl/founders.htm\n\n"It was during [John] Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.'"
663084
Anytime the gov't tries to incorporate church and state. I can't believe how easily we forget that our ancestors came here to get away from just that. This country was built to allow it's citizens freedom to make their own religious choices. Yet we allow the gov't to sneak their christian beliefs into our laws.
672106
Make it optional, no need to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning at all, and make the "God" part optional when saying it.  I think it's more important for kids to understand the Constitutional principles for which this country is founded and is the LAW than some abstract references to what the "proper religion" was at the time of its creation.  I can't find a single reference to a "state religion" in that or any document, including all the articles of confederation.  All I see is that Congress shall make NO LAW regarding the establishment of religion or the free excercise thereof.\n\nMeaning to me that people are freely allowed to excercise their right or abstain from referring to God or Gods in a public forum.  On another note, I don't want any reference to religion in school, that's what the home, church, and parental responsibility are for.  If a religious group wants to meet after school, go for it, but don't make it compulsory or degrading.
802888
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
1150474
^&^&^&\n\nIt is not specifically written, but it is guaranteed within the 1st amendment.\n\nIn the United States, separation of church and state is sometimes believed to be in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents interpreting that clause, some extremely controversial. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well, although it is arguable that this restriction on state and local government existed in Article VI of the unamended Constitution and that the Fourteenth Amendment was a clarification on the limitation of government power. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.\n\nThe phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state."\n\nJames Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."\n\nThe belief that religious and state institutions should be separate covers a wide spectrum, ranging between one extreme which would secularize or eliminate the church, and theocracy, in which the government is an affiliate of the church. Some secularists believe that the state should be kept entirely separate from religion, and that the institutions of religion should be entirely free from governmental interference. Churches that exercise their authority completely apart from government endorsement, whose foundations are not in the state, are conventionally called "Free" churches.
927082
The most simple answer is the oft mis-interpreted separation of \nchurch and state.\n\n\nYou don't want religious influence on the government, you wont let religion be represented in government, but you'll take tax dollars from them?
911519
When our forefathers created our government with "seperation fo church and state", they were trying to PROMOTE religion! The idea was to allow people to believe in a faith of their choosing. (Keep in mind that back then, many nations, such as England, had a government endorsed religion.) It was never intended to prohibit religion.\n\nWe ARE one nation, under God. We have the freedom to choose how we believe and worship God, but God is central to the reason why our government arose in the first place. The pledge stays! Even if they TRY to remove it, we will be vocal and recite the original version with pride!
694761
You might do well to remember that the USA was founded on the separation of church and state.\nRemember this famous quote; "Freedom can be measured by the distance between the state and the church."
1179898
The phrase itself appears in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802. \n\n        The Baptist Association had written to President Jefferson regarding a "rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as the national denomination." Jefferson responded to calm their fears by assuring them that the federal government would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the National denomination. He wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State." \n\n        Notice the phrasing in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:\n\n\n        The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
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.
688037
We have a government that is supposedly "for the people, by the people". So I guess that if the majority of the people want religion as part of their government, it should be. We shouldn't seclude people of other faiths, though, and there is where the problem lies. Our founding fathers ensured us freedom of religion, and what that means entirely in the eye of the beholder-in this case, the eyes of the majority of American people and voters. It would eliminate alot of problems to completely remove all religious aspects from government, to completely separate church from state (including the "In God we trust"), but there are many people out there to which religion is a huge part of their lives and would hate that. I myself am a Buddhist in the Air Force, and I have to deal with Christian-specific prayers and events regularly, but I'm not very bothered by it, and consider it just part of our "Freedom of Religion".