The constitution is not taken on its exact wording. It was written, purposefully, vague because our fore fathers understood that they could not predict where America would be in 200 years. That is why the Supreme Court can hold many different situations to be a part of the Interstate Commerce clause etc... I believe that the "Separation of Church and State" was written in to the constitution, at the time, to stop from having a nationally instituted religion, but I also believe that our fore father wouldn't disagree that the greater the distance between religion and government, the better off everyone is. Add: As for the "In God We Trust" on the paper money, I have no problem with this because 'most' religions have a god/or gods and therefore it can be said as "all encompassing". Prayer in school, congress, inaugeration (sp?) etc... it shouldn't be allowed and if it is, it should be balanced with prayers from other majority religions or just a simple moment of silence. Ten commandments in a state courthouse, which is tricky. The ten commandments are believed to be the first 'written law', and therefore important in this aspect. But in a court house situation, it gives the appearance of bias, so I would have to say it is against the interpretation of the constitution in this decade.
yes, prayer is what religious people do to communicate with their god. it is a primary part of religion and as such has no part in government. what you do not understand is that the lack of prayer in government is not an endorsement of my beliefs. i explain it over and over but you dont catch on.
You accuse me of not understanding, I do understand, I just don't care WHAT YOUR BELIEFS are anymore than you care what mine are, the fact of the matter is, the constitution has NO "seperation of church and state" written anywhere in it. The constitution has mandated that the govt. cannot form its own church or religion and then try to force you to join. I understand you wanting the govt. to be as far removed from religion as possible, and thats your opinion, it seems the supreme court has tended to agree, but they also condoned slavery at one time. Things change, and I believe you will start to see in the not too distant future, the PUSHING back that was mentioned by someone earlier.
not only that, but they are not supposed to even "respect an establishment of religion" it seems pretty apparent having prayer as part of a public service is respecting an establishment of a religion (theism). non-theists dont get a statement of non-belief to be part of public ceremony, so why should theists get their perspectives advanced by the government?
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" It is frequently said that the clear intent of the First Amendment was to protect a religious people from government, not to protect government from a religious people, OR that the clear intent of the First Amendment was only to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion. ยง15:41 MODERN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Neither the Supreme Court nor legal scholars should be very dogmatic in asserting the intent of the Framers on any aspect of constitutional law. For one reason, the ratifying conventions are reported in such meagerness as to throw very little light on the intentions of these persons who were primarily responsible for the adoption of the provisions. A long study into the intention of the persons responsible for the First Amendment should encourage caution and humility in asserting what they meant in anything other than the broadest perspectives.(13) Again, after monumental research into the intent of those responsible for the Fourteenth Amendment, as requested by the Supreme Court, the court could but observe: "Although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive . . . ."(14) So, indeed, will be most attempts to psychoanalyze "the Framers." The Constitution will always operate on many matters on which the Founding Fathers could have had no intent.
The constitution is interpreted in 2005, not read for face value. The first amendment is an avenue not a one way dead end.
It's late and you can have the last word, but "respect an establishment of religion" is not to be found in the constitution. I would also suggest that a non-theist run for and win the presidency and have his non-belief be part of his ceremony. (Hell, have it be the main topic of his campaign, see how far that gets him)
thats true, i should not have used quotes, it actually says "respecting an establishment of religion" so i screwed up the tense. my mistake.
rickyd is dodging the fact that the constitution doesn't have to have something 'explicitly' written in it, for it to be interpreted as such.
I think it's only fair that we use the words of the architects of the Constitution, itself, and not from some 21st century preachers. We've already seen Jefferson's words, wherein he tells you EXPLICITLY of a separation of church and state. Now let's hear from Madison: "The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state." James Madison, 1819 "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison, 1803 Wording that would have restricted the First Amendment to merely prohibiting the establishment of a state religion was specifically VOTED DOWN at the Constitutional Convention and replaced with a MUCH BROADER RESTRICTION: government can not only not establish a single state religion, it can not endorse religion in general. The wording is quite clear on that point... the First Amendment does not say "a state religion" or "the state religion" or even "a religion"... it says RELIGION, general. You people who keep saying that separation of church and state is a myth need to start getting your history from honest historians, and not from the pulpit. And before you run off saying that "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution I'd like you to show me where "trinity" is in the Bible. One other thing... if you think you can have freedom of religion without having freedom from somebody else's religion, well... let's just say you can't, and you're being absurd to think you can.
