Is there such thing as "Separation of Church and State" in the United States? - General

[QUOTE=R3mix;26345860]You realize you sort of contradicted yourself? The Founding Fathers were deists of their time, they weren't Christians. They didn't want religion involved in the Constitution and they wanted to keep it away for a very good reason. It may not be written as " SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH " but come on man it's heavily implied. If they weren't opposed to the practice of it within the government then why would they say don't deal with making laws on it? It's obvious they didn't want to touch on religion and they had a pretty damn good reason for it. The Framers of the Constitution weren't all religious like I said, most of them were deists of their time, and would be seen as Modern Atheists of today's society.[/QUOTE] Not contradictory, I was trying to make a distinction. What I'm saying is that the Founding Fathers were wary of the [I]institution[/I] of religion (e.g. the Protestant and Catholic Churches,) and thus put in place a barrier between the institutions of religion and the institutions of governance so neither could interfere with or corrupt the other. Where you and I disagree, I think, is whether the Fathers were opposed to the practice of religion itself. You equate the deism of the time with modern atheism, I beg to differ. True, they didn't practice Christianity devoutly, but few of the Founders, if any, were actually godless. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams often referred to God in their writings and letters. Granted, it wasn't the traditional vision of God, imagined by the Church, but a more naturalistic, ambiguous vision of God that was typical of the Enlightenment. The conclusion I draw from this is that they didn't like organized religion, but believed in the moral principles that formed the foundation of Judeo/Christian doctrine. Not enough to be considered an Atheist by today's standards. Of course, we could argue about the Founders' personal feelings on Christianity all day. The fact remains, though, that they ratified a constitution that explicitly protects an individual's right to practice his or her religion (a right which is natural and comes from a greater power), while ensuring a barrier between the Federal government and the Church. No such law exists that prevents a politician from practising Christianity, or making decisions based on religious principle. Therefore the separation of church and state (as far as the Federal government is concerned) exists between the religious and political [I]establishments[/I] and not the religious and political practises of politicians.

Well even if there wasnt its a rule now that government cant help a church

Alright so because apparently my government teacher is an idiot, I'm sending her this email: [quote]Mrs. Soldin, I distinctly remember a few weeks back you mentioned that there was no such thing as separation of church and state in the United States government. Which I took to be true simply because of your credibility. Upon further research I have come across two pieces of legislature that outline the basic forms of separation of church and state, one being a treaty, and another being a clause in the Constitution. First I have found the Treaty of Tripoli, which was a treaty signed by both the United States and the country of Tripoli on November 4, 1796. Here is an excerpt from the treaty: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." I have bolded the most important part of that section, which clearly states that the United States was never founded upon and kind of Christian religion. This text was not found in the translation given to Tripoli however it was read aloud in Congress and unanimously agreed upon. Next I have found the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which was a reaction to the Church of England after it was established as the official church of England. "The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." -Justice Hugo Black That is mostly original text from the clause, with some added comments by Justice Hugo Black. Again with the bolded part, it says that no laws shall be passed that aid any religion whatsoever. Meaning religion should not be influencing laws in the United States. Furthermore, "In God we Trust" was not on original printed money in the United States, it first appeared in 1864 on the two-cent coin. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until June 14, 1954 because of the scare of Communism in the United States. Maybe I'm totally off my base (it is 1:02am), but it seems to me like there is at least some form of separation of church and state in this country. -Tyler Neal [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Nation_Under_God[/url][/quote] Good?

One suggestion: for the sake of academic credibility, don't link to the Wikipedia pages directly as your sources. Instead, link to the individual citations that are found on the Wikipedia page. Most teachers don't take Wikipedia seriously.

When looking at whether or not America was founded on 'Christian values' I think it's important to realize that it holds absolutely no relevance to modern politics. Christian values are not some constant thing. They constantly change depending on the opinions of the age. Religion does not create shared ideals of morality, but rather shared ideals of morality create religion. Even if we were and (hypothetically speaking) still are a 'Christian nation' we're not the same Christian nation that we were 200-some years ago. Anyways, I would argue that we effectively hold true to the policy of separation of church and state. After all, none of our government institutions are so intertwined with religious institutions that it affects anything important. And, regarding how religion affects government official's opinions, even without religion they'd find some other way to justify their stupid opinions.

[QUOTE=advil0;26351837]Alright so because apparently my government teacher is an idiot, I'm sending her this email: [letter here] Good?[/QUOTE] Yup, just do as Mjolnir82991 said. [QUOTE=Mjolnir82991;26347089]Not contradictory, I was trying to make a distinction. What I'm saying is that the Founding Fathers were wary of the [I]institution[/I] of religion (e.g. the Protestant and Catholic Churches,) and thus put in place a barrier between the institutions of religion and the institutions of governance so neither could interfere with or corrupt the other. Where you and I disagree, I think, is whether the Fathers were opposed to the practice of religion itself. You equate the deism of the time with modern atheism, I beg to differ. True, they didn't practice Christianity devoutly, but few of the Founders, if any, were actually godless. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams often referred to God in their writings and letters. Granted, it wasn't the traditional vision of God, imagined by the Church, but a more naturalistic, ambiguous vision of God that was typical of the Enlightenment. The conclusion I draw from this is that they didn't like organized religion, but believed in the moral principles that formed the foundation of Judeo/Christian doctrine. Not enough to be considered an Atheist by today's standards. Of course, we could argue about the Founders' personal feelings on Christianity all day. The fact remains, though, that they ratified a constitution that explicitly protects an individual's right to practice his or her religion (a right which is natural and comes from a greater power), while ensuring a barrier between the Federal government and the Church. No such law exists that prevents a politician from practising Christianity, or making decisions based on religious principle. Therefore the separation of church and state (as far as the Federal government is concerned) exists between the religious and political [I]establishments[/I] and not the religious and political practises of politicians.[/QUOTE] My apologies, I didn't mean atheist. Meant to say [b]agnostic*.[/b] Politicians will also [b]never[/b] make a decision based on their religion unless it's the majority that speak for it. Otherwise, you're asking for literally, political suicide.

[QUOTE=advil0;26320119]My government teacher talked about this a week ago and I researched it a little. In the founding of our country, we were a Christian founded country, hence all of the God references in our social constructs (money, pledge of allegiance, etc). The idea of Separation of Church and State came from a letter written in the 1700s saying that there SHOULD be a Separation of Church and State, nothing however confirmed it as being a legitimate claim. However, in 1796, the Treaty of Tripoli was signed as a treaty between the United States and Tripoli. The majority of this treaty is irrelevant to this topic, but Article 11 specifically relates to it. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11[/url] People claim that this text is not in the Barlow translation of this treaty that Tripoli signed, but this passage was read aloud in congress and unanimously agreed upon. I leave this up to you guys, is there such a thing as Separation of Church and State in the United States?[/QUOTE] Oh hi, Christine O'Donnell!

Did anyone else read the title and thought of NOFX?

Another thing to take into account, many people colonized the new world to escape state run religion and persecution. Why would they then allow the very thing that many people had come to escape from?

[QUOTE=fingersticks;26364102]Another thing to take into account, many people colonized the new world to escape state run religion and persecution. Why would they then allow the very thing that many people had come to escape from?[/QUOTE] Actually the North East was colonized by the Puritans which were fleeing England because they didn't have any say in Parliament. Religion was the center of New England culture during colonization. The rest of the original settlements had nothing to do with religion, but they were economic settlements. Jamestown was created because of tobacco.