Seperation of Church and State in the US Consitution

[Rich]

My question is: Where is it?

The supposed political philosophy is said to be taken from the first amendment to the Constitution, which states:

"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."

It says that Congress can't make a law pertaining to religion or to the free exercise thereof, so tell me: How does it mean that certain religious influences cannot be show by people who hold government office?

I'm not trying to say that the church should start meddling in the affairs of the government, nor am I saying that removing religious influences from government affairs is a bad thing, my point is: Is it even in the Constitution to begin with? If not, should it be added, or should we leave the Constitution as is and allow more religious influence in the government?

Thoughts, or comments?

 

[evil_kenshin]

while this doesn't affect me since im not american, it seems pretty clear to me

it says they can't make a law to suit a particular religion, and since hardly any religions agree (and even with those that do there are differences), they can't make any laws at all for religious purpose's

 

[Doctor Manhattan]

Although I agree with this, there is a serious violation to this.
-Presidents, Governers, and Witnesses get sworn on a bible.

Now tell me there arent Jewish or Islamic or Hindu governers

 

[Rich]

Last time I recalled, being sworn in with a Bible isn't a law, I don't think. Congress shall pass no law.

 

[var1ables]

There should be no influence on politics, and many things have been over turned(IE the pledge of allegiance, and soon the motto of america) because of that clause.As i love my country's constitution, i think that it should stay the way it is.

 

[Rich]

Yeah, but why should we be enforcing something based on the Constitution that's not even in the Constitution?

 

[var1ables]

^^It's not enforce, quite the contrary, if enforce, the school can be shut down. I love supreme court cases.

 

[Shadukai X]

I think it's found in the Bill of Rights, but then again, I might be wrong.

 

[Rich]

^^It's not enforce, quite the contrary, if enforce, the school can be shut down. I love supreme court cases.

Wait, what? xD As far as I know, it's overenforced, to the point at which it's gone too far.

And Shad, the 1st amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are the "Bill of Rights"

 

[Cache]

Now tell me there arent Jewish or Islamic or Hindu governers

There are, and frequently people of varying faiths are sworn in using whatever text is holy to them. There are even situations in court where a Wiccan has been sworn in on a Book of Shadows using the appreciation that it is a very personal text to them. America being a predominantly Christian country--whether active religious or passively environmentally so--it stands to reason that most of our representatives would use the bible to reflect the seriousness of their oaths.

Now what that means to a secular humanist... there you've got me.

 

[violent_anger]

personally, despite being catholic, i think church and state should be seperated, sort of, simply because raving about your religion gets nowhere. I'd prefer a rational debate, possibly with religion as the reason.

but thats not the point of the thread, is it? now then, why should religion ahve no less influence int he government then the way a government official's parents raised him or her? if say, the president was raised by his/her parents to value hardwork above shortcuts, why should his/her parents views be able to ahve such influence?


i know i put that horribly, but i think you get the idea.


edit: swear them to oath standing over their grandmother's grave

 

[Phoenix]

but thats not the point of the thread, is it? now then, why should religion ahve no less influence int he government then the way a government official's parents raised him or her? if say, the president was raised by his/her parents to value hardwork above shortcuts, why should his/her parents views be able to ahve such influence?

What if the guy was raised with war movies, and think all war America wages must be for the greater good, and thinks America has the right to interfere anywhere in the world? Should Americans allow this kind of influence in high positions?

 

[violent_anger]

^why would/should the constitution allow those war movies to influence america, but not religion?

 

[Phoenix]

Again, they both *should* be kept to the person.

 

[Straw_Hat]

but thats not the point of the thread, is it? now then, why should religion ahve no less influence int he government then the way a government official's parents raised him or her? if say, the president was raised by his/her parents to value hardwork above shortcuts, why should his/her parents views be able to ahve such influence?

this doesn't seem to be the point of the thread either....

Raito: you've found good evidence supporting the idea that it is not found in the Constitution, or rather, at least not where it is said to be found. I don't have the time to search the entire constitution right now, mind you, so i can't say for sure if it is or is not mentioned in there

 

[square-enix]

My question is: Where is it?

The supposed political philosophy is said to be taken from the first amendment to the Constitution, which states:

"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."

It says that Congress can't make a law pertaining to religion or to the free exercise thereof, so tell me: How does it mean that certain religious influences cannot be show by people who hold government office?

The bold is open for interpretation. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not mentioned in the Constitution (Don't know who told you that) but it was coined by Lincoln. When I read it, I think, "don't pass laws that are religiously influenced." Example, gay marriage. Congress shouldn't be allowed to pass a law that bans gay marriage because Bush uses the Bible as his basis for the law. He's favoring Christianity so that's out.

Can you restate your question? I believe I'm reading it incorrectly.

 

[Rich]

The bold is open for interpretation. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not mentioned in the Constitution (Don't know who told you that) but it was coined by Lincoln. When I read it, I think, "don't pass laws that are religiously influenced." Example, gay marriage. Congress shouldn't be allowed to pass a law that bans gay marriage because Bush uses the Bible as his basis for the law. He's favoring Christianity so that's out.

Can you restate your question? I believe I'm reading it incorrectly.

I was more asking about the philosophy of separation of church and state, not the actual phrase itself. I know that the phrase itself isn't found in the Constitution. :3 And as a matter of fact, the phrase was not coined by Lincoln, but by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison, stating his opinion on the 1st amendment. His comment read as followed:

"I contemplate with sovereign 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."

One point that I probably should have made in the first post is that it was originally intended to be a law protecting the church from the state, not the other way around.

One thing that needs to be considered is everyone has their own personal views, and everyone's own personal views are going to effect how they run this country.

 

[square-enix]

And as a matter of fact, the phrase was not coined by Lincoln, but by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison, stating his opinion on the 1st amendment. His comment read as followed:

Whoops, my fault.

One point that I probably should have made in the first post is that it was originally intended to be a law protecting the church from the state, not the other way around.

Can you elaborate?

One thing that needs to be considered is everyone has their own personal views, and everyone's own personal views are going to effect how they run this country.

Well, that's the thing. I would much rather prefer those that can reasonably and logically present their side of the argument. I don't think anyone that pays to politics enjoy men such as Ben Bridges, Warren Chisum and Virgil Goode in positions of power.
Even in elections, there's no reason to announce your faith. If anything, it's just to gather more supporters.

and allow more religious influence in the government?

Why?

 

[Rich]

Can you elaborate?

Many people and immigrants had come to America to escape the religious persecution in Europe. The governments of Europe were able to pass laws reflecting religious beliefs, and people were not allowed to worship as they wished. Therefore, when the Bill of Rights was drawn up, one realization was that freedom of worship needed to be protected. The government shouldn't be able to pass laws that force people to worship in other ways than their own personal beliefs. Hence, our lawmakers should not be able to make laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Well, that's the thing. I would much rather prefer those that can reasonably and logically present their side of the argument. I don't think anyone that pays to politics enjoy men such as Ben Bridges, Warren Chisum and Virgil Goode in positions of power.
Even in elections, there's no reason to announce your faith. If anything, it's just to gather more supporters.

While it's true that your faith should not be the main reason for people electing you, your core worldview and religious beliefs are going to effect your decision making while you hold government office.

Why?

Some people hold the belief that a religious backing provides more structure and support in society, so that could be one argument. Though, do realize I was stating that question for those who think there should be more involvement. I, personally, don't think that our government needs anymore religious involvement. It was just a thought.

 

[Phoenix]

While it's true that your faith should not be the main reason for people electing you, your core worldview and religious beliefs are going to effect your decision making while you hold government office.

And as such, you risk having warmongers in power.