Historically, bad things have happened when the two were integrated.

Yes. The government will Corrupt the Church and the corrupted Church will then further Corrupt the Government.

Let's see-let's look at governments that don't seperate church and state-like Iran-do people really want oppresive theoracracy? Seperating church and state guarantees the freedom of religion. Only the religious right want to end the separation of church and state because yes, they do want a theorocracy and yes,they do want to elimanate our liberties

You can't separate them. Government employees, from the president down, are human beings and have their beliefs which are protected by the constitution. Believers have the same right to be elected up to the very presidency in the government as any other citizen. It is not possible.

Unless believers are stripped from their civil rights to serve in the government and governmental officials prohibited from manifesting their personal religious beliefs. And that is spelled tyranny in my book.

Separate rather then suppressed, if you please. :P

Yes, no establishment should be the watchword. That does not mean secularization, however. France tried that and look at the result.

Yes, it absolutely, positively should be. The Separation of Church and State is not a "myth" as people would have you to believe. It's a political reality that is practiced everyday in our nation. NOWHERE in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence is there anything - not a single word - about the United States being a Christian nation. THAT'S the myth. Church/state separation, on the other hand, is what the First Amendment means. In case you haven't noticed, we're a culturally and religiously diverse nation. It would be wrong - and against the way in which the founding fathers wanted this nation to be governed - to claim that Christianity or any faith has or should have precedence over any other. It doesn't matter if a majority of Americans claim to be Christians. Majority rule, as I said in another review, can be as tyrannical as minority rule. If Christians have the right to freedom of religion, then it follows that other religions should have the same right. The First Amendment is not conditional. Some people might say 'but In God We Trust' is written on our money. Because it's written on our money and it's our national motto, it must be true! That's like saying that if 'the world is made of snow' was written on our money, that'd make it true. Perhaps, when our nation was first founded, we were a nation made up mostly of Christians. It's not true today. Does this mean that Christians should not have a voice in their government? Of course not; only extremists interpret church/state separation that way. Separation of Church and State also does not mean, however, that Christians with an agenda should be given the right to force their beliefs on us by fiat. You will find that when fundamentalist arguments against church/state separation are put under scrutiny, they do not hold up to logic. And it does not take a person who has taken political science or has been a member of a debate team to debunk their arguments; I am a computer programming major with no debate team experience, and I can slice their arguments to pieces like a hibachi chef. The proof is there; it is only too bad that the average American will simply believe fundamentalist Christians with an agenda without looking at the facts. I'd also like to address the points that a previous reviewer, kate18, mentioned in her review. She rightly claims that the government is supposed to be NEUTRAL towards religion, but then makes a strange leap of logic by saying that religious freedom doesn't apply to atheists. Does this mean, then, that because an atheist doesn't believe in God, their beliefs shouldn't be protected by First Amendment rights? That's ludicrous. She also claims that the Constitution provides additional protection to people of faith. I disagree. I think that the First Amendment was written - and should be interpreted - to mean that EVERYONE, regardless of religious belief or lack of it, should have equal rights under the law. There is no such thing as "greater freedoms for people of faith"; again, the First Amendment is not conditional.

The state could use a little church after all was this country not based on religious morals. When the founding fathers spoke about the seperation of church and state, they were saying that the state would not favor one religion over the other. It says In God We Trust on our currency I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers would agree as to how this one statement has been perverted to mean what so many believe it means today.

Yes. As a matter of Constitutional principle and common sense. Do we really want to be Afghanistan or Iran?

Don't kid yourself; they've NEVER been separated (too useful a tool to keep the masses fat and happy, which has kept this country spinning its mediocre wheels for far too long). As the United States becomes more polarized, you'll see it break away into smaller and smaller militias that'll increasingly work less and less together until two distinct countries can be hammered out. Growing pains....harsh, but historically evolutionary.

in a nation made up of people of all different faiths its important to keep church and state seperated. too much conflict arises when this doesnt happen, and anger and resentment seems to grow larger. ...and yea i can see how my wild, crazy, extreme views were found to be unhelpful...

UPDATE: To SFALCONER in particular and EVERYONE in general- In God We Trust did NOT appear on US coins until 1908. It did not become an official national motto until 1956 and it did not appear on paper currency until 1957! Please, oh, please stop trying to use that to show a connection with the Founding Fathers because it only shows a connection to Jow McCarthy and anti-communist hysteria. ORIGINAL POST: Yes, the Founding Fathers were very clear on this point. The first Amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. This means that no State money can be spent on anything related to religion as it would constitute an establishment of religion, a state endorsed religion. They were wise, and they new that it is a slippery slope to religious persecution. Additionally, in the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), which was approved by a Congress in which many of the Founding Fathers sat and signed into law by John Adams, one can look to article 11 to see how they felt. It reads 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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen. It has nothing to do with atheist vs religious. It means that the state was intended to remain totally secular- not atheist! Point of fact a government can't be atheist! What would that be? Atheists don't have a religious doctrine! In Article I section 8 of the constitution it enumerates the Congress's sole control over the nations finances. The spending of ANY public funds on ANY religion, no matter how benign it may seem, is expressly forbidden by the first amendment. This would also apply to any assets of the country ie school, squares, etc. Probably the most bizarre reaction that I see so many having is that this somehow is discriminatory towards religious people. How? Not forcing kids to read prayer in school is not discrimination. Does everyone get that? Not having Christ or God shoved down peoples throat is not discriminatory either. If every morning you had to get up and pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the country for which its stands, under the sky because God doesn't exist- see that would be discrimination against religious people because then the state is taking a very clear stance on religion: God doesn't exist. But since this isn't the case, stop whining.

Yes, always.

Absolutely.Spirituality is something each person must define for themselves.If we are to live in a FREE Country,freedom of Religion mustn't be exclusive.If you like the idea of Government enforced Religion,join Bin Laden and the Ayatollah Kohmeini!

in matters of the political structure of the nation, sure. i dont think there should be a National Religion. the problems we are facing in terms of a separation of church and state relate more to a perdentage of the population wanting their religious beliefs to dictate national policy. this shouldn't be the case. what about the other half of the nation who do not believe in the faith-based policies presented? should they just allow for them to be passed and executed. I understand what someone like Mr. Political is saying when he says that some people believe their body belongs to god. the problem here is, just as many don't. i don't. therefore a lot of laws that that have a base in a judeo-christian faith should not be courted by the government. also, the United States government has never been in danger of turning Socialist or Communist, even during FDR's year. although i'd like to see the wealth spread around a little more. but like i've said, i dont care who runs the country. if someone took over America, a broke joe worker like me might have more of a chance than i do now.

Judging by the other posts and their length, I can tell that this is a topic many feel strongly about. However, what is meant by separation of church and state? Does it mean that the Christian majority should be made to feel inferior and constantly be harrassed by the ACLU? I think what it all boils down to is that many of the far left secularists think that if we simply allow Christianity to be practiced without a hassal, it will mean an end to all types of political correctness. Human beings that have a religion, especially Chrisitans, tend to believe that their body is on loan to the goverment and that they are ultimately responsible not to the Surpreme Court but to God. Thus, many Chrisitans support a less socialist form of goverment. And I think we all know what happens when socialism and communism takes over...at least, I hope.

The founders intended gov'mnt to remain neutral BETWEEN religions, not neutral between all religion on one side and atheism on the other. They did not try to protect the atheist or those of any specific religion from being exposed to or witnessing others exercising their religious faith - even publicly or on government lands. If an atheist is not being forced to practice a religion, his rights are fully protected and end right there. But the founders went further than that to protect the religious -forbidding government from interfering with the practice of religion as people chose to practice it. The restraints are ALL on gov'mnt, not the religious. Government may not officially ORDER others to pray or FORBID them from publicly praying either. A lot of people forget that government forbidding prayers violates the free exercise clause. The atheist or those who find the prayer objectionable may not be forced to say that prayer and his rights fully protected and end there. He may even leave if he chooses. There is no right not to feel offended by hearing someone else in the exercise of their religion. Feelings NEVER have rights in this country -only actions do. The right to publicly pray is constitutionally protected action. No person loses their rights to free exercise of religion just because they hold an elected office or are a government employee. ONLY officially GOVERNMENT ordered prayer in the form of an edict is forbidden -just as the government may not officially ban prayers either. But government employees may engage in public prayer on their own. There is no constitutional distinction made if that citizen is a government employee -or regarding government property. They continue to hold all the exact same rights. The claim that they are agents of the government and therefore banned from leading a prayer is wrong. As long as GOVERNMENT isn't officially ORDERING people to pray, it is constitutional. A gov'mnt employee may certainly exercise his faith and lead a prayer -because HE has the greater right, not gov'mnt which is restricted in this matter. It is GOVERNMENT that always has the restraints on it, not people. The Constitution provides additional protection for people of faith, yet atheists insist it was they given the greater protection that extends to removing all aspects of religiousity, including prayer and religious symbols from the public square entirely in order to not offend them or offend others of a different religion. No right exists not to witness the free exercise by others, no right not to be offended if one chooses to feel offense. Banning all or some religious symbols from government property is a violation since it alters our Constitution into reading neutral between all religion and atheism, when the neutrality is demanded BETWEEN the religions ONLY. Atheism is NOT a religion. Neutrality therefore is not achieved by ignoring all religions, but by including and aknowledging all. The separation of church and state (no part of the Constitution) was only discussed in a letter written by Jefferson to reassure the ruler of a Muslim country that our government policies were not mandated and run according to the dictates of a state religion -as was the norm in some European countries at that time. It did not say that our government was banned from encouraging religious faith, banned from honoring different religions with symbolic displays on their important days, or that government employees lost their right of free exercise upon employment. Our founders would be shocked to have their intentions misinterpreted when they intended very much for the population to be of religious faith. They considered a religious people the backbone of a decent society without which our nation would collapse into venality, immorality and wrongdoing -and specifically wrote that. One must read the other writings of the founders beyond the Constitution to understand their intent with regard to government and religion. They did not EVER intend a government that gave equal consideration to atheism as it did to those of religious faith -and wrote in additional protections for those ONLY of religious faith -protections that do not exist for the atheist or for any of a specific religion to be free from witnessing the free exercise of another religion. The intent was to make the religious a Constitutionally ultra-protected class. The intentions of the founders was NOT at all to relegate them to a nuisance class, merely to be tolerated.

The founders were actually very clear on their understanding of the separation of church and state. The CONGRESS (that would be Federal Government and not until the passage of the 14th amendment did this apply to the states, many of whom had STATE religions) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (note: they didn't say the establishment. This is consistent with their understanding that religious organizations could equally be represented); or the free exercise thereof (the secularists hate that second part because it doesn't forbid the exercise on public ground does it?) This statement was a consistent statement. The congress can't create a state religion or prohibit the exercise of anyone elses-anywhere. The radical secularists have over the last 50 years through tyrannical measures of the judiciary surreptitiously engaged in the moral deconstruction of this country's founding. These are now prominent in the ludicrous outcomes of court or school board decisions to exclude any notion of Christmas (a federal holiday), Creator or God (out goes the Declaration of Independence from HISTORY CLASSES) anywhere in the public square, but most notably schools. Scholar Richard John Neuhaus refered to this in his landmark book The Naked Public Square as the outlawing of the basis of law. It is a reality that this nation was founded on Natural Law principles and it's traditions are inherently Christian. Democracy is simply not the rule of the majority but the rule by the morally founded citizenry for common good. The attempts to invert the motives of the founders runs counter to the historical records and their actions. Even the statement the separation of church and state was coined by Puritan dissident and founder of Rhode Island Roger Williams, in the context of promoting a state that would not roil the purity of the church but not inhibit the believers in creating laws the reflecting their Puritanical Christian beliefs. Today the perverted statement is used by the radicals to discriminate against anyone of faith. In reality the essence of this argument is why the Democratic Party is shrinking generation by generation. The basis for promoting social welfare is that we as a traditionally caring people should assist through workable programs those in need. A blind system of procedural government ceases to make claims to such an argument and neuters those attempting to promote the concept of social welfare. Radical attempts by secularists to impose their minority views of freedom promotes individual nihilism that conflicts with the concept of public welfare and subverts the prinicples of democracy.******* Update: Natural Law principles were absorbed into Christianity through Judaism but they are simply universal. Our positive law as Abichara points out rests upon these universal principles. The exclusion of all moral truth is the establishment of nihilism as a religion- a directed violation of the amendment created to protect religious freedom. The intention of the founders was for the public square to be filled with an abundance of competing values through which a consenus could be reached for the common good. Man without a natural obligation to his other man is doomed to the Leviathan of Hobbes. Natural Law principles create the public square for which the discussions can be made. And our consitution was created to diffuse vice (basically isolated power to exercise vice) and promote public virtue (through democracy). Without public virtue there simple ceases to exist a concept of obligation and social welfare- the whole system collapses when radicals attempt to neuter (separate) law from the reason for law.

UPDATE: Nnnooooo, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment OF religion, or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof. The separation of church and state is not a constitutional concept. The US Constitution limits (LIMITS!) the powers of the government to interfere with the citizens of America. It doesn't call for or necessitate the abolition of religious expression. It specifies that the rights (endowed by their Creator) are inalienable, then specifically enumerates those that the government CANNOT ALIENIZE, or take away. The Constitution doesn't separate church and state. ORIGINAL COMMENT 9/30/04:Is atheism a religion? If not, then the US is evolving toward being atheist, or anti-religious. If it is a religion, then the US is evolving toward IT as the state-endorsed religion. I hope that that is ok with everybody. I was on a high school football team and our coach, as an inspirational gesture, led the team in the Our Father on the field, before the game. Public high school. He was told by the administration to stop the practice. Somebody might be religiously offended. That was 1970.

Yes, church and state should be separated. Societies which are lead by religious authorities do not encourage freedom of expression which at the end of the day is the engine which drives society forward. This doesn't mean that we should restrict people's rights to practice a religion. The founders established this right to permit the free practice of religion. When the ACLU and other like minded organizations sue over public displays of religion, they are subverting peoples right to express themselves. A person right not to practice is not being subverted either A belief in God or a higher entity doesn't mean you're endorsing a specific religion. The question is not directly related to invoking the deity in public, rather it has to do with the state sanctioning a specific religion as being legally tied to the state. The founders realized that Europe had been ravaged by 200 years of intermitent religious warfare; they knew that making up an official church linked to the government would divide the country. Centralized authority is never a good thing. Look at what the establishment of a religious state did to Iran, a fairly Westernized nation? They fell behind 30 years with the advent of theocratic leadership. That regime hasn't fallen only because high oil prices have been able to keep their economy afloat, barely. Indeed Islam fell behind during the middle of the last millenium primarily because they began espousing a more Platonic world view that is more top-heavy, but that's for another topic. A theocratic society is not desirable. The reasoning behind the separation of church and state was to allow for freedom of religion. This is a simple fact that is ignored in America today where the culture wars have led to the polarization of social policy beyond comprehension. Can't we just say that we respect each other's beliefs and that's it? UPDATE: Both sides to this debate, which is at the center of the so-called culture war, has elements that are rather disquieting, especially the secularists. Lance is correct when he insinuates that our country was founded on the basis of natural law. Indeed our entire legal system, which is expressed through positive law, cannot violate fundamental natural law, which is universal in scope. This is what gives the law legitimacy to pursue justice and preserve freedom by limiting governmental power. Church and state was separated to preserve the sanctity of religion and away from worldly matters. Those who seek to take God out of the public square are undermining the very essence of our legal system that provides us with freedom. It is a very delicate balance that I believe is being disturbed by partisans within this debate.

Yes.

Christians everywhere should speak up and start standing for what you belive in in my opinion i think that the Church and state should NOT be seperated we should be a christian nation even if it means protests outside of schools and atests having problems. becouse or counrty was found UNDER GOD! and the reason why we have this great country today becouse of GOD so christians stand up for yourselfs where the 10 cammandment on your shirt to school STAND UP CHRISTIANS AND TAKE BACK AMERICA!!!

Yes it should we dont want to look like communists do you.

Do people really debate this? There is one wonderful example of what happens when Church and State are together - The Taliban.

They already are separated (in the USA). There is no official state religion here as there is in the UK - the Church of England - or in some other countries. In some places, the official state religion still allows otheres to worship more or less freely, whereas in other countries (Saudi Arabia, for one), there is zero tolerance for the practice of any other religion. But, back to the US - there are some liberals who either fail to understand the situation, or who do, and are bent on politicizing it for their own reasons. Even though this country was founded on, or guided by, or inspired by (or however else you may choose to define it) Judaeo-Christian philosophy, nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other law or statute that I am aware of does it mandate the practice, observance, or belief in Chistianity. Freedom of religion (even if that means not believing in religion) is what is allowed. All of this hoopla about the phrase under God is wasteful of time and energy - God can be interpreted to mean Allah, Jahweh, or whatever other supreme being one may believe in, and again, if you don't want to believe in any supreme being, it's your right. I defy anyone to cite one instance where the government in the US, at any level, has forced anyone to state that they have to believe in God, let alone one that is associated with any particular religion.

No. Our country and our Constitution was founded UNDER GOD!

I think to control abuse, there should be no national church and everyone should have freedom of religion, but as for removing prayer, GOD, bibles, ten commandments, from public places, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. America and its laws are founded on freedom of religion an the ten commandments. The idea of the forefathers was to make sure that everyone could pratice their religion freely. I think it is a shame the teach 6 year old sexual positions and how to use condoms but a child can't mention GOD or pray in school. Stupidity.

(revised on March 12, 2004) YES! The Separation of Church and State is one of the most important American ideals. America is a country founded not on Christianity or any other faith, but on the ideas of liberty, democracy, freedom, and justice. There should be a thick wall between religion and government, and nothing, not even the word, God in the Pledge of Allegiance, should cross. If you study history, you can see what connecting matters of politics and religion has done, leading to many deaths, and certainly not free countries. Many of the founding fathers, including Thomas Paine, were not very religious. James Madison, the chief author of the U. S. Constitution, supported the Separation of Church and State. Religion should not be a way to judge people, and the government should not promote it. As Thomas Jefferson said, It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg. America is governed by the Constitution, not the Ten Commandments or the Bible. America's Founders were advanced thinkers of the Enlightenment, not religious fanatics.

Well, let's look at some glowing examples of places where they were not. How about: Spain at the time of the Inquisition (the glowing was the embers of Jews, Moslems, heretics, and old women with Alzheimer's burned at the stake); Iran, from 1979 to the present day, a truly wonderful place to live; Rome, during the persecution of the Christians, and then after Constantine, during the persecution of the non-Christians; the German states, during the Thirty Years War, during which time one-third of the country was depopulated; England, prior to the time of Elizabeth, when hanging was the second leading cause of death, often enough for heresy or apostasy; --do you REALLY want to go back there?

I don't believe in organized religion. You could call me an athiest, but I think of myself as just an independent secular humanist. Personally, I don't care if you want to pray to God and Allah. Go ahead and do it. I'm not going to force others into saying what you should worship. But when people bring God into politics, That's where I draw the line. If you bring up God/Allah/Buddha/Krishna/Merry Meet/Satan/whatever into our political debates, I will not be the least bit moved or pursuade. Since I do not believe in religion, I will not consider your argument. But if you leave God out, Then I'll listen openly to what you say.

There should not be a state sanctioned church/religion, which is the idea behind this topic. But the state should never in any way prohibit anyone from practicing their religion. These laws about no praying in public places or schools, not displaying the ten commandments, etc. are unamerican and sickening.

Yes. As for the issue of practising religion in public places, no problem as long as it's not disruptive or mandatory. As for displaying religious paraphanelia in public places, absolutely not, unless an equal amount of space is given to every belief system. Why do people need these fake religious displays to remind themselves that they're x religion anyways? Belief and faith are intrinsic things that nobody can take away from you no matter where you are and true religious people do not need to show off for the benefit of their neighbors. As for the 10 Commandments being the basis for our legal system (sure, we didn't take anything from English common law, right?), this country is far different and much more diverse than what the founding fathers envisioned and it's time to accept that.

A better way to put it is to say that PROPERTY and State shall be separated. Private individuals owning private property can worship or not according to the wishes of the property owners. When the government owns property, what you end up with is the idea that the Church (and individual ideas) shall be separated from those who would use public property. This achieves the opposite effect of what the separation of Church and state implies; it opens the door for the state to control what people on state property think. The state shall not control the thoughts or ideas of it's people was the intent of the Founders, however at the time Religion was the dominant apolitical line of thinking for most Americans, so the verbage of the time was used in early Constitutional laws.

It depends on to what extent. I for one, am completely against any government form forcing religion onto others. However, you cannot forget that our country is based on Christian values and texts. The constitution is based on the Christian Bible. However, many liberal arguments against Christians are just prejudice and ludicrous. Such as the 10 Commandments in Alabama. That is not forcing a religion onto you. You do not have to look at it. By the way, the place where the Commandments were was in a courthouse. The Commandments are used to base our founding country and constitution. Banning the commandments was like banning the constitution. Disgusting.