Do you believe in the concept of 'division of Church and State'?

Question

Why do YOU think that idea was put into the Constitution?

Does this division actually exist?

If yes, are you happy with that? If not, how do we restore it?

Answer 1

It was a critical flaw in the constitution. The constitution was written and based upon the religious freedom brought to Americans from England who were persecuted for their beliefs in England.

They wrote the text, the groundwork, and the morals through designing a country that was based upon their own religious beliefs, founded through religion. Having it be followed trough seperation of the two was contradictory to the nature of the design considering that for anyone to follow through with what was written they would have tobe of the same religious belief since it was all based upon a particular belief when it was written.

The real question of society should be "should there be a seperation/division of culutre and religion".

The entire country would have to be completely tore down and redesigned in a general text of laws and structures that had basic morals not based on any type of religion and demanding that all who live under the statutes follow the same cultural rules.  

Answer 2

The main idea in the Constitution was that there would be no nationally established "official" church, as Britain has, where the Queen [or king] is head of the Anglican Church as well as head of the nation.

It is an often overlooked fact, though, that until after the Civil War, when the 14th and 15th Amendments specifically extended the provisions of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, a number of states actually still had official, established churches!  In Virginia it was the Episcopal Church, I'm not sure about others.  

Make of that what you will.

Answer 3

I believe this was put into the constitution because of the growing diversity in religious belief within the country. With growing religious diversity, the need arises for some social mechanism to act a medium between and a standard of acceptable behavior. This institution is the law. And so if the law is based on any one religion it becomes a heavily biased standard that is grossly unfair to those that follow any religion other than the one the law is based on.

Laws are created by the State obviously so the State must separate from the Church and its standards in order to perform its responsibilities a a moderator between every individual and group within its jurisdiction.

Even though this may irritate some people because laws are passed that contradict their religious beliefs, I'm satisfied knowing that it's merely an effort on the States part to be fair and impartial  

Answer 4

There is slight seperation, but there should be complete seperation.

Simply becuz the government needs to make sound and logical decisions

Churches often times are not a logical organizations. And have been proven that way throughout history.

If the state had religious restrictions then where would we be?

  

Answer 5

Because some self righteous jerk thought it was best. The people didn't think it was possible for her to win her fight and  didn't put up much of a fight.

Yes in a way it does exist but today there are those that don't much care who it may or not pi** off.

Right now I'm just one person but where there's one there's got to be a hundred thousand. To change any law the people have to get the right people in office, and then address them with their problems.

Answer 6

the concept is good, i could believe it, but it necessarily does not prove anything when all i see in my country is the one always influencing the other or vice versa---philippines.

Answer 7

Actually, it isn't in the constitution. Never was.  

The concept of the Separation of Church and State was an offshoot of the 1st Amendment Right to freedom of Religion; and the doctrine was written by Thomas Jefferson in response to a letter he received.

Very likely, he was thinking to keep the state out of Religion, so as to NOT be a Church of England situation.  however, in the back of his mind might have also been the reverse- where a given religion is able to exercise such power as to in effect be a political power, perhaps thinking of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages wielding incredible power (and the Pope still had much say in TJ's day as he does today)

I think the state has stayed quite well out of Religion, however I think religion plays far too great a role in state.  And I am not talking about our money saying 'in god we trust', or the pledge of allegiance's 'one nation, under god'; or even the people who keep trying to get religious symbology & prayers back into schools and onto state & federal lands.  I am talking about this nation, and many others, has become prey to religious radicals.  How our presidential candidates have to wear their religion 'on their sleeves' to be elected; how they much be interviewed by religious officials.  

To me, a relationship with a deity is entirely personal.  It should not be something that is done in public for the press. If you must gather once a week in a special building, fine.  And we should not vote for a person because of religion; nor should we NOT vote for someone because of religion.  Vote for someone because they are the best choice for the future of the jurisdiction in which they are running- be it city hall or 1600 Pennsylvania ave.

Answer 8

i don't belive in the total divorce of church and state because the opinion of the church embodies the opinion of a section of the populace and all should have a voice.

i'm english and we have Bishops in the house of lords and i agree that the church is of high enough quality for it's representative to have a valid input in the affaris of state though despite it's power i do belive that religioon is a minority consideration in the running of a country overall so it should never come close to actually controlling the state just have a say which may or may not be judged of high enogh quality to become policy. .

Atheist