To take unproven scientific methods that are taught in public schools requires just as much faith to believe as to believe in God.

The Separation of Church and State is pure deception and word twisting.

While no religion should be forced on anybody (it all comes down to personal choice/faith), nor should illogical scientific theories!

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution prevents the United States government from establishing a national church. It does not prevent the word God to be taken out of the public square. God should be left left on the money, the pledge should continue to be said in schools, and the Ten Commandments can be put anywhere that the people of that community would like. These Agnostics and Atheists can just get over it and return back to their pathetic, pointless, meaningless lives.

It's simple: "State, the Church is none of your business, leave her alone." The only way an effective separation of Church and State can be achieved is if each and every electable position in America, from the President to the local authorities are required by law to renounce any and all religious affiliation and practices. But then, it would be a direct violation of basic human rights and freedom of expression. See the stupidity? Saparation of Church and State is not Constitutional, therefore, violates the Constitution, especially the First Amendment.

This has been a sleeper issue that your typical American slob has ignored, mostly because most of your typical American slobs have been totally poisoned and mystified by their Christian gutter religion.  It's difficult to pay attention to this issue when you believe in a Fictional Character and an Imaginary Friend.  Handjob Bush has been able to foster his unconstitutional and unamerican "faith-based initiative" for years while the American public has had its attention diverted by that unnecessary fiasco in Iraq and the financial disaster brought on by the reckless and idiotic deregulation policies of the current administration.  It appears that the Handjob administration now feels it is legally justified in not only squandering the taxpayers' money in supporting, and thereby enfranchising Christian organizations, but also in making such establishment efforts toward organizations that do not hire prospective employees who do not practice its faith.  This is not only a misappropriation of government resources and a violation of the cornerstone laws of the land, but, is also our government endorsing and aiding discrimination.  This is just another compelling reason to string up Chimp Boy in the nearest oak tree and then have a firing squad take aim at his disgusting, twitching body.

Regardless the intention of our forefathers (keep in mind slavery/mysoginism was something acceptable at the time), religion has no place in any decision making in the country. It's unfair to the many who don't follow a particular religion or follow something else. It's always unfortunate to see someone in politics who deems it necessary to place THEIR beliefs above the people.

This country was founded of the principal beliefs of personal liberties and freedom. How procaliming any religion as a state religion upholds the values and virtues held so dear to our Founding Fathers is beyond me.

Contrary to popular belief this country was NOT found on Christian foundations and anyone who knows a bit of history would know that the founding fathers were in fact, deists.

Thomas Jefferson clearly said that it was too play no part in common law, yet here we are.

I am appalled as an atheist and a rationalist.

I'm amazed at how naive Americans are regarding the intent of this amendment. This country was founded on faith in God. It's in EVERY states preamble.

The first amendment really says nothing about separation. It says that government can't establish or supress any religion. The thing that gets everyone in a bunch is exactly what establishing and supressing religion really are. Some freaks decided along the line that neither can even look at each other funny and now we have a bunch of crap lawsuits as a result. To clarify things a tad with a choice example, kids can wear crosses, headscarves, and whatever else they like to school, yet their teacher cannot in a public school because they are an agent of the state. Is that so hard? Maybe another one will help. The government can give a grant to a religious based charity, but the money can't be used for ministry of any sort. Are things becoming clear now? Last one, I swear. The Ten Comandments can be displayed outside a courthouse due to their history as a law code!!!!! 

UPDATE: Read up if you happen to be missing the other side of the coin...

What part do those nuts in DC not get about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Too much influence by religious right radicals in Whitehouse. Curring favor!

One of the few issues on this list that was also around in 1776. The U.S. founders were, on the whole, stubborn agnostics who made little reference to divine ordinances. Jefferson famously pared down the bible to a 30-page booklet of useful ideas, taking out Christ and most of the silly OT stories. It's sad that this issue remains a matter of debate today, but this is the very reason the far right likes to exploit it: it's an issue they can't win in the United States, so they know that they can ride it to the end of time. From this basic fact arise several strands of fundamentalists: (1) the cynics, like the old Kevin Phillips, who see religion a la Machiavelli as an instrument of rule; (2) the masochists, like Pat Robertson, those who like to see themselves lose and the rest of us suffer in order to feed the sense of persecution they have inherited from extremist strains of Christianity; and (3) the theocrats, those like Bush, who would seem to prefer to live in a society like Saudi Arabia's; irony of ironies, the one electoral bloc that went unfailingly for Bush in 2000 was fundamentalist Muslims.

While the occasional reference to "god" might be harmless enough, the institutionalization of religious symbols on public property remains a constant danger and irritant. There is no reason why a dead man can't choose to put a cross on his own grave, but equally no reason why any elected official can endorse a particular religious figure like Christ in their courthouse.

Read the 1st Amendment...read it carefully. Note the word CONGRESS! There is nothing "implied" there- it says what it means and means what it says. There is no such thing as a "separation clause". 

Update: The legitimatacy of judicial review is an issue which has been hotly contested since the time leading up to our constitutional convention, a debate that led to Marbury v. Madison. While the debate continues in certain circles and on certain occasions, the USSC continues to exercise this power. There is nothing- no language whatsoever- in the US Constitution which gives the Supreme Court this power. That is a fact; but to leave it there would be to ignore a lot of history, the writings of our founding fathers, the Federalist Papers, etc. Close study of these illustrates the point that a certain (limited) power of judicial review was intended to be bestowed upon the high court. Similarly, to correctly "interpret" the 1st Amendment it has unfortunately become necessary to look beyond the simple language therein pertaining to government and religion in this country.

Among the founding fathers, no one is more often cited in this debate than Thomas Jefferson. Like the Amendment itself, Jefferson's writings make it clear that his concern was the prevention of government interference with religion. Unlike many people today, Jefferson knew the history of the formation of his nation, that people fled Europe and England pursuing the freedom to worship as they might choose. In his writings, Jefferson goes to great lengths to point out that this also includes the right not to worship at all. In short, the cause championed by Jefferson and the rest of our founding fathers was one of freedom from a state church, like the Church of England. That is iterated, very simply, in the opening text of the 1st Amendment.

The problem faced today is one of perversion by groups like the ACLU and certain judicial activists. Hamilton wrote, in the Federalist Papers, that the Supreme Court was to serve as an intermediary body- between the people and their elected representatives. It was never intended that the courts should or would actually make law; yet that is what we have seen, particularly in the last 30 to 40 years. Further, there is nothing in the body of the Constitution, the writings of Hamilton, Jefferson, or any other of our founders, that says or is indicative of a "separation clause" as it is speciously referred to today. If a group of people in Bumblefuzz, Mississippi want to put a nativity scene up in the local post office, that is NOT government establishing a religion. The presence of a statue of Jesus erected by some WW1 veterans in western California by a desert road- land now called "federal"...this is not government establishing a religion. Hence, all of this garbage, from "no crosses on federal land" to no "Christmas trees" at Macy's is, again, a gross perversion of the 1st Amendment. We all favor religious freedom. Only a certain agenda-driven minority favor a Supreme Court -led attack on Christianity in the US.

  Update 2:  "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle"...George Washington, from his farewell address.

Check the quotes I have posted in the comments section. Washington did in fact profess his Christianity publicly. This debate cuts to the core of the US Constitution, and there is a reason that the first amendment is FIRST. The attempt to call our founding fathers atheists, agnostics, Deists, etc., is an exercise in futility, and I have proven it. Our founding fathers wanted no established state religion. They wanted no government interference with the free excercise thereof (AS THEY WROTE).

A few reviewers below have got it right. The Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, does separate church and state, or, more accurately, mandates government neutrality toward religion. I think that's a good thing.

The term "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution. The only words in the Constitution that mention religion are found in the 1st Amendment's Religion Clauses: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first of those two clauses has become known as the Establishment Clause, the second as the Free Exercise Clause. Beyond the bare words in those two clauses, anything else that officially relates to the intersection of religion and government in this country are decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting what those bare words mean. For example, although the explicit language in the Religion Clauses refers only to Congress, the clauses have been interpreted as applying to the whole of the federal government, as well as to state and local governments.

What is meant by the term "establishment of religion?" In interpreting it, judges sometimes disagree, even though they rely on history, the framers' other writings, and prior judicial precedent. Some argue that the term was intended to prohibit only the establishment of a single national church or the preference of one religious sect over another. Others believe the term prohibits the government from promoting religion in general as well as the preference of one religion over another. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the court stated: "The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force 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. . . . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson [in the private letter he wrote, referred to by other reviewers below], the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.' "

The "wall of separation" is in actuality a shifting, porous barrier. The parameters of the Establishment Clause depend upon the context and facts in a particular controversy. Small factual differences in cases often produce different outcomes. What has evolved as the guiding principle is government neutrality toward religion. Neutrality means not favoring one religion over another, not favoring religion over non-religious philosophies in general, and vice versa. [See this article, a good discussion of the issues. Wikipedia also has two decent articles summarizing the two Religion Clauses, here and here.]

The oppositional votes on this issue oftentimes represent ignorance - often willful - of the separation of church and state. Most people find that once they have fully examined the issue, they have more in common with someone who agrees with the notion of church/state separation than someone who doesn't. Not only is church/state separation a good idea, it's the way our system runs and has run for over two hundred years. The separation of church and state is found in the Constitution, where it is plainly written that "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION". In other words, the government will not establish religion on any kind in government. Period. Even if the phrase isn't explicitly in the Constitution does not mean that it is not an important part of the American system. The word "federalism" cannot be found in the Constitution either. The word "trinity" cannot be found in the Bible. Does that mean that neither idea exists? Of course not. I submit that there can be no religious freedom without the separation of church and state, because when the two are mingled, no good can come from the combination. Church/state intermingling damages the state because it forces citizens into a certain set of beliefs whether they agree with those beliefs or not. At the same time, it allows the government to define religion, thereby eliminating any hope for freedom of conscience and forcing the government into the role of enforcing religious belief. In other words, the government becomes a "nanny state" that micromanages religious belief. In our system, church and state are separated, thereby allowing the private citizen to figure out religious matters for themselves instead of the government making decisions for them. ALL religions are allowed to thrive in a government where no religion is established, instead of a certain religion to which the majority happens to adhere. There are many people who then claim that church/state separation is the same thing as disallowing religious speech in government or disallowing religious speech from those in the government. Although the separation of church and state has been used that way in some cases, that is not the purpose of it. The government, meaning the actual body of government and not those who work for the government, has no religious freedom. It does not have the right to establish a religion and force the populace into bowing their knee to that religion. Private citizens, on the other hand, do have religious freedom and can therefore believe whatever they so choose. They have that right thanks to the separation of church and state. To those who think that the separation of church and state is such a bad idea I ask: would you prefer a government that established the Buddhist religion officially? Would you prefer a government that endows Buddhists with special rights and privileges and ostracizes Christians from the political process (disallowing them to vote, run for office, etc)? Would you prefer a government such as some we see in the Middle East, where a certain set of religious beliefs are forced onto the citizens of a country regardless of their personal beliefs? The reason we don't see such occurrences in the United States is due to the separation of church and state. We can debate until Jesus comes whether or not the founders of our country were Christians. Incontrovertible is the fact that they created a country where EVERYONE'S beliefs can thrive - not just the beliefs of those who happen to be in the majority. That "phrase lifted from a letter by Thomas Jefferson" that is so criticized today is what protects your religious beliefs today, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Original comment on: 11-29-2005

 Can anyone tell me where in any of our founding documents you find the words, "Separation", "Church", or "State"? I bet you can't. Anyone who claims they are in there is a liar. You know why? They are not in The Constitution, The Declaration of independence, The Bill of Rights....especially the First Amendment that you probably hold so dear. No, these words are not mentioned in any of our founding documents for this great nation. They were never ratified, nor voted on by the original framers of our Constitution, nor have they ever been a part of any amendment since. The idea of separation of church and state was mention one time by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. In this letter, not a founding document, Jefferson was trying to sooth concerns among the Baptist about rumors of Congress acknowledging another Protestant denomination. They were worried that this would be a precursor to a state sponsored church such as they had left behind in England. Jefferson was only stating that there would always be a wall dividing government and the church. He never intended his comments to be used to misinterpret the First Amendment, thus causing the complete removal of all traces of God from society. Read the First Amendment again and see for yourself. 'Separation of church and state' is not mentioned there!!!

*UPDATE* Mainly in response to ProgrammerRingo's comments.

It was Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who first used the term "Separation of Church and State" in his 1941 majority opinion of Emerson vs. Board of Education. He said, " The First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State." This was his OPINION and NOT taken from the Constitution.

While the First Amendment does recognize a differentiation between church and government, it does not mean that they cannot cooperate with each other.

In 2005 The U.S. Court of Appeals 6th circuit in a ruling wrote..."The ACLU's argument contains fundamental flaws. It makes repeated reference to the 'separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall between church and state." --To that I say bravo!!!

Government needs to butt out when it comes to how I choose to practice my religion. I will pray when I need to, read my Bible where I want to, and be a witness through my daily life every single hour I'm up and running.

Update: The US Constitution's Establishment Clause only states that the government will not advocate one religion over another (e.g. "official religion" policies or similar), or restrict the free practice of religion by individual citizens. What the "separation of church and state" doctrine tries to do is restrict where people can practice their religious beliefs in violation of the Establishment Clause.

As I have stated in other posts and I repeat now, at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment, some states had established churches. Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish its state church and that was in 1833. The First Amendment was ratified, I think, in 1791.

I am against established churches, but I am also against mindless, ignorant blather such as you encounter on this issue.

"The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and adding his own thoughts, writes: "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."

 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish a state religion or prefer a certain religion (the "Establishment Clause"), prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."  Wikipedia®

This country was founded in the belief of God, it is sad to see what has happened to this country.  This issue needs to be dealt with but I fear it is being dealt with in the wrong way.

Separation of state and church is a great thing. I don't think the state should discriminate against anyone for not believing in God. Religious organizations are in complete disagreements about many of their beliefs. Forcing people to follow rules of a God they don't even believe exist is not the right way to govern. Histrically, that approach has never worked in any society.

No establishment of religion means let's not have "Church of England" in America. This is a good thing. Who wants to fight a war over which sacraments people are to recieve? Seperation of Church and State is a logical step from this.

I don't think I could disagree more, bluetarbaby. Let me tell you a story. Where I live, there is a Catholic School, a Lutheran School, and a Public School. Guess what, our Catholic School, the one I attended, recieved the highest grades of all the Schools in town. Give me a break, that's an accomplishment in itself. Christians are people too, and I think that's something to look in to. What if government supported this school? Not only would we do even better academically, but the school would even stay up. Knock off the crap bluetarbaby. It's a pity that we have to pay so much to get this kind of education.

The fact that this has even become an issue, is sad and angering. A very important issue at that, when you think of all the scenarios and consequences of where we're headed. Which is why we need to get a Democrat back in office. Because right now, the church is indirectly or directly effecting every government issue. Of course, Dems are influenced by them as well, but this is ridiculous. Hell, we'll all be Quakers ina few years the way things are going. I have many problems with the church being involved in government. Perhaps most of all, Censorship. Some people don't get why censorship is such a major problem. UPDATE: Really, the church is a major part of almost every issue on this list. Whether it's directly or indirectly.

This shouldn't be a major issue, but there are some people doing their best to make it one. Some are just ignorant and have no idea what Separation of Church and State actually means. Others are well aware of what it means, but will manipulate anything they can to push their agenda. Still others are just media-whores and want to get thier name in the paper and their ugly mug on TV.

Quite important. As the quality and level of education goes down in this country the rise of religiosity has (predicatably) increased. I am a Republican, and even for me it is difficult to fully grasp that there is more than a small number of yahoos in this country who seriously want to overturn Roe v. Wade, teach a warmed-over version of Creationism in public schools and place the 10 Commandments in public buildings. It's really phenomenal ... and in the 21st century yet! In some ways, a portion of this country is reflecting a lot of the values represented in the enemy we are currently at war with in the Middle East.

Why is this even on the radar screen? We've got a tenuous relationship with the rest of the world, we're feeling the aftereffects of a disastrous invasion, terrorists are attacking London on a bi-weekly basis, etc. and people are worried about the Ten Commandments being hung in a courthouse in Alabama? Wow.

While I admit that some of the controversies surrounding the separation of Church and State may seem a little extreme (e.g. is it really so bad for a teacher to a lead a class in a morning prayer?), I believe that this issue is critically important. For all of the good that religion does in the world, I do not think it should have ANY role in the governance of people. It has been my experience that religious beliefs tend to make people feel and act more passionately (and less logically) than they otherwise would. For rule of law to work effectively, those writing the laws and those enforcing them must be able to separate reason from conviction. For example, I see the decision of lawmakers in Alabama to consider banning books written by gay authors from school libraries to be a good example of what happens when you try and mix religion and law.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802 Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787 History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion Tripoli Treaty, 1796 Notice, no mention of Jesus or Christianity in the Constitution. Not to mention most founding fathers were deists. Christian revisionist history is as bad as afrocentrism.

Update this comment is to Ignatius-J-Reilly:You are arguing the wrong topic bud! Yes the founding fathers did give us freedom of religion so people could believe whatever they wanted, and they put that into affect so when people like you came along and want to pull religion out totally you wouldn't be able to. You contradict yourself with your facts if the founding fathers put freedom of religion in the constitution to keep church seperated from government why was church and state joined all the way up into the 60,s. It seems to me if the founding father intentions were to seperate church and state they would have done it then. but church and state didn't get seperated in fact in tell the 60s. Dude check your history book -(and not the liberal addition)Update to metal666: Tell me something why should your unbelief be forced on me? And no one is shoving religion down your throat! Hopefully in the future you will leave a abjective opinion to back your beliefs up other than imature personal wise cracks!Anyone thats says the founding fathers were not christains did not get that from the history book. It is FACT that the founding fathers were chirstains !!This country was Founded on God. Thats the reason this Nation began and if you think different you need to grow up and ignore your bias and do a little bit more research in history. History dosen't lie people( these are facts) GEORGE WASHINGTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, SAMMUEL ADAMS ,First Cheif Justice JOHN JAY , names synomnous with the spirit of our country founding fathers of the USA. Over 200 years ago they shook of the chains of trynne from great Britan by divine call. Citing 27 bibical viloations they wrote the delcaration of Independence with Liberty and Justice for all but something happen since jefferson called the bible to cornerstone for American liberty that put it in our schools as a light or since Give me liberty or give me death Patrick Henery said our country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We eliminated God from the equation of American life Thus, elimanating the reason this Nation first began. From beyond the grave I hear the voices of our founding fathers plead, WE Need God In America Again! Of the 55 men who formed the constitution 52 were active members of their church , founding fathers like Noah Webster who wrote the fist dictionary could literly qote the bible chapter and verse. James Madison said we staked our future and our ability to follow the ten commandments with all our hearts. These men believed you couldn't even call yourself an AMERICAN if you savert the word Of God. In his Farewell address Washington said you cannot have National immorality apart from religious principle and it's true because right now we have nearly 150,000 kids carring guns to these war zones we call public schools. In the 40s and 50s students problems were chewing gum and talking in the year 2005 rape and murder to the trend the only way this Nation can even hope to last this decade is TO PUT GOD IN AMERICA AGAIN! Abe Lincoln said The philoshphy of the school room in one generation will be the philosphy of the Government in the next. so when you eliminate the word of God from the classroom and politics your eliminating the Nation that word protects. America is now number one in Teen pregnancy, viloent crime number one in,ilitercy , druguse and divorce, Everday a new holocost of 5,000 unborn die while pornoughry floods are streets like open sewers. America's dead and dying hand is on the threshold of the church while the spirit of Soddom and Gommorh affects us all. The judgement of God is about to fall. If there has ever been a time to rise up church it's NOW! and let the blood bought saints of the living God proclaim thats it's time to sound the alarm from the church house to the white house and say WE WANT GOD IN AMERICA AGAIN ! I beleieve it's time for America to stand up and proclaim that ONE NATION UNDER GOD is our demand and send this evil lifestyle back to satan where it came from and let the word of God revive this dying land. Astrology won't save you, your horsopes won't save you the bible says these things are all a farse, if you want to be saved stop looking to the stars for you answers and look to the very one who made those stars , history tells us time and time again to live like theres no God makes you a fool , if you want to see kids live right stop handing out codoms and start handing out the word of God in our schools! America Again by Carman.

Equal not Biased should drive this policy for the world view of the united States. Being represented by the policies of a religion that is not my own has an influence on how I will accept the policy. Religon has no place in politics.

The Founding Fathers, who were in no way christian, knew what they were doing when they put that little baby in the Bill of Rights. Protecting us from the government and guaranteeing our rights to ignore the religion of our own choosing. UPDATE. A few more thoughts on this one. Let's take it back to that little Massachusetts Bay Colony of long, long, long ago. Until about twenty years ago, we Bay Staters were still subject to these wacky things call the Blue Laws. They prohibited stores from opening on Sundays, prohibited alcohol sales on Sundays, etc. Actually, the alcohol sales law was only repealed last year. Why were these on the books? It goes back to those wacky Pilgrims, with their silly shoes and funny hats. You see, the Pilgrims were an ultra-conservative religious group. When they got here, it was a punishable crime to do any of the following: swear, blaspheme, fail to attend the Sabbath service, work on Sunday, drink on Sunday, cross-dress (just seeing if you were paying attention), among other things. Why were these illegal? Because Sunday was the Sabbath, and the Bible was the law. And that, my little chickadees, is what we in the Constitutional law business call state sponsored religion. So, when you want to put a copy of the 10 Commandments on your front lawn, the government can't stop you, but when that wack-job Roy Moore wants to put a 4000 lb. copy (and have you seen it? It's one ugly piece of rock) in the lobby of a state building, it is the state sponsoring a religion. It is not unconstitutional for history textbooks to deal with the historical impact of different religions, but it would be to have that textbook advocate one over the other. It is not unconstitutional to use the Bible or the Qur'an in a school as a historical or literary document, and there are even courses in state colleges and universities on the historical/literary aspects of different religions. That's where the difference lies. UPDATE REDUX: It's almost humorous that those who claim most vociferously that the Founders were some kind of devout christians have never read their writings. They more often referred to themselve as Deists. Read Jefferson's quotes; he stands up against established Christianity very strongly. In a letter to Thos. Jefferson, John Adams wrote: I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has persevered -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced. Finally, go look at all of the public letters of Washington. While he refers to Providence in the Deistic sense of the word, the word Jesus never appears. These men were not christians, and our country is a better place for it. UPDATE OF THE QUESTION VARIETY: Wetsack, I am very interested in your thesis. Could you explain it in more detail? Could be interesting!

I really really dislike it when people try to force their religions on me and others and that is why we have separation of church and state wich, unfortunately in our day is waning. I totally disagree Mr. Evangel. More religion is the last thing we need. Religion although teaching kindness, also causes war and hate.

I defy anyone to find the term Separation of Church and State in the Constitution.

two corrupt and pointless organizations. maybe the should be joined. would make more sense.

Actually,this country was founded by people RUNNING AWAY from religious intolerance.The problem was,as often happens-they themselves became intolerant( the Puritans).Many of our Founding Fathers may have been Christian-but they were much more like Secular Humanists idealogically.They wisely built the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE into the very foundation of our Government,to protect our citizenry from the dangers of being overtaken by Religious Fanatics.If you think that Religious SECTS- Christian or not- should run our Government-you are a victim of the very same mindset as those who flew the airplanes into the twin towers on 9/11.If you want to live in a Country run by ZEALOTS you have a lot in common with Osama Bin Laden and very little respect for the ideals of FREEDOM.

UPDATE: You're not guaranteed freedom from religion by the US Constitution, the federal government is prohibited from setting up a state-sponsored religion. Wetsack, I don't really believe it's necessary. Ringo, the Ten Commandments pre-date the birth of Christ. They were given to (or made up by) Jews. Ralph, what is it the Jesusists are bullying you around about? And, Zacharius, how has the Vatican voted recently. Were they on board when we invaded Afghanistan? Iraq? Where are they on Roe v. Wade? ORIGINAL COMMENT (7/25/04): This is a hot issue? Sorry, but I don't see any religious organizations lobbying Congress to establish THEIR religion as a national religion. That is what is specifically addressed in the constitution. Nothing else. Separation of church and state? Nope, not mentioned. Plaques of the Ten Commandments in courthouses? Nope, not here. Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Not mentioned. Oh, you mean they meant to include stuff like this in their vague wording? Wow, that is some magnifying glass you've got there for reading between the lines. They did specifically state that anything not directly addressed should be left to the discretion of the individual states. Us religious weaklings would like to get the government out of the religious abolishment business.

Seperation of church and state are necessary for capitalism to flourish.

This is the only time I agree with ralphthewonderllama! He hit it right on the head! When it's coming to laws vs. the commandments, Then yes, We do need complete seperation. Our laws cannot be the same as the ten commandments. Why, you ask? Well, for one thing, One of the ten commandments states we all have to worship the same God. Our country was actually founded by those who believed in religious tolerance. There also should be laws that nobody should be forced to go into a church by their parents once they are above the age of 11. I hated having religion shoved down my throat. I prefered to have my own individual beliefs. I don't believe in organized religion.

I believe separation of church and state is a great concept. Religious freedom should be welcomed with open arms. But, the issue of separation of church and state has been so utterly misused. The government should not have the right to impose a national or state religion, but should that prevent those who are religious from using religious doctrine or religious material in the public sector? Elitists and secularists go to great lengths to keep religious dogma/doctrines out of the public sector but what they do not realize is that it hurts the morality of our country. Separation of church and state does not prevent religious material from entering the public sector yet elitests and secularists often misuse the term in this aspect. Who would it harm if the bible was used in a classroom to prove a point? Its not imposing or forcing a religion on anybody, but simply providing moral guidance. Secularization is where religious ideas, institutions, and interpretations have lost their social significance. Meaning, a person may claim to be religious, so long as they keep it in the private and do not bring it into public divisions. Secularization will unmistakebly hurt the morality of our country if it is allowed to take its toll.

There really isn't a big seperation of the two seen as how the Vatican votes for some of the laws. But as the dumb get dumber and the smart get smarter the distance between the two get bigger. You Know.

I'm all for healthy doses of separation of church and state. However, I believe that the zeal of the secularists is hurting their cause. I'm not religious, but there's no reason to remove the phrase Under God from the Pledge. Other than an occasional Jehovah's Witness, I haven't had religion thrown into my face.

I'm not really objecting to getting rid of religion except that this probably won't work. You can't really force people to stop believing in something no matter how ridiculous. But getting religion out of the policies of the State would help a bit and that was the point of this thread anyway.

This is a hugely important issue because liberals are trying to impose a new religion- the religion of radical liberalism on the rest of us by rooting out any semblence of competing moral values. Lets be honest, no one is supporting nihilism for public ethics. As a matter of fact liberals are very clear that they have a code of ethics to follow; Ethics that are anti-democratic and structured upon rights legislated from the judicial bench and imposed on the majority by the force of the federal government! (Sounds like tyranny no?) What happened to no legislation without representation? I definitely know that was a tradition. Gay marriage is favored by less than 40% of Americans but is imposed by the bench. Murder of the unborn? Yup, not favored by a majority of Americans either but is protected by fabricating rights. Hell, murder of the unborn the day before birth has been called a right by the 9th Circuit Court. This is a religion in and of itself: the religion of liberalism that has been established in direct violation with the first ammendment. When they make the comment that your religion should be left at the doorstep of public discourse while discussing abortion, gay rights or hanging the ten commandments ask them what is their argument for Medicade or Medicare? It's a moral argument of course... we shouldn't morally let people die but weren't we leaving morals at the public doorstep? Food stamps? We morally need to feed the needy. Why? Who says? That right isn't enumerated in the constitution OR part of the bill of rights. People who make the argument that Christianity needs to be removed from all public life are simply clearing way for their new religion. They know this of course and simply lie about the historical context of our founding (either that or their ignorant of history and they need to hit the books). Ask them about a topic like abortion and they'll say it's a woman's choice but what if all women as matter of religious conscience vote to outlaw that choice? Adherance to the new religion is a first priority that not even democracy overrides! The constitution was simply a structure enumerated powers set atop norms and traditions that had been held 300 prior to its creation. This country was founded by Puritan dissidents for those of you who don't remember. (Our declaration mentions 8 times by Whom we are endowed our freedom and it wasn't the supreme court!!) All other powers not named in the constitution were left to the state. The original draft didn't have a bill of rights primarily because the enumerated powers were already laid out. The argument was made that the federal government could only do these things- why is there a need for a bill of rights Madison and Hamilton argued? The bill of rights was only added as a concession to states rights advocated who worried the federal government would have too much power! Madison in Federalist #10 structures the argument for defending liberty and the common good by evoking a vision of republican government that devolves factionalism to minimalize its negative effects while those of traditional morals and norms (yes they were Christian!) can discuss the course of government for the common good. States actually HAD established religions and kept them until the 14th amendment was passed. Tradition of separation? Are you joking!? The statement separation of church and state was ACTUALLY coined by Bay Colony Puritan Roger Williams who felt the state should not run churches as not to roil the integrity of the church. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! The concept was not that church going individuals should be restricted in anyway whatsoever in bringing their religious beliefs into public life. The position of separation today is ass backwards and has left a void that has been filled by those who have a secularist vision of the world where all freedom extends from human desire- where man has become a God in and of himself; And if you disagree you will be separated from all public discourse- leaving none to be had.

Very big. Jefferson knew it- it took him years to push freedom of religion through the Virginia political body. He didn't believe in Christ any more than the Easter bunny and he wanted to make sure it didn't ruin the future of America. You bible thumpers like to believe that the Founding Daddies slept with their bibles- but they were far more interested in (1) their personal freedom and (2) protecting their personal property (i.e. slaves) Nothing wrong with religion at all- but it can't make for policy in America. Oh, don't forget- there are shining examples of places that don't have seperation of Church and State- Check out Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Religon is for weaklings and this country was not founded on christan princples, it founded on making money so it should stay that way.

This is not an important issue. America is not a theocracy. We have a tradition of separation of church and state. Let's keep it that way.

The words a wall of separation between church and state are contained, in a personal letter President Thomas Jefferson, wrote in a reply to a letter that the Baptist Association wrote to him. If you read ALL the letters in context, you get the full meaning of those words. President Thomas Jefferson, attended Church. He was a believer in Jesus Christ, not a perfect man, just like Everyone else. The First Amendment says: 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. The Men who wrote the Constitution, made their intentions very clear. The founding Fathers, wanted to make sure, No majority Church group, be allowed to make a total power grab, for our Government. The Church being THE government was abolished. The writers of the Bill of Rights, never intended for our acknowledgment of God, His existence, or His Laws, be removed. This is about people removing God, and any and all proofs of His existence, from the public arena. Taking God completely out of Public schools and the History books, so children will not see the weaving of a living God, in History. They like to show them dead god's, while telling children they are Animals. They Removed the true meaning of Christmas from children, Why? They remove crosses off of everything. They Hide the ten Commandments from our view, Why? This is discrimination. Next, maybe it will be the Washington monument. Which includes a plaque from Chinese Christians, also at the very top, says Praise be to God? Next it will be Abraham Lincoln's, Gettysburg address, and his acknowledgment of God's existence. This is nothing less then discrimination. The extreme left liberal Judges, punched a hole in the first amendment.

A good idea in general;generally a bad idea when enforced by groups like the ACLU,who recently tried to have biblical placques removed from the Grand Canyon.

Religeous beleifs can't be agreed upon entirely by everyone in state. However taking God out of the pledge of alligence has nothing to do with religeon. Even across the seas MOST have or believe in a God. The only poeple this should concern is those who beleive in nothing. In that case it doesn't matter anyway. If they don't beleive we have a God then they shouldn't beleive in our nation. How far are we really willing to go. What is our nation's shield? When we take that shield away, we'll be vulnerable to more attacks.