Why do theists think that Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between chruch and state"?

Question

should only work one way, keeping the state out of religion, but not keeping religion out of the state?

Answer 1

Because everyone's values are carried over into their work and politics.  People are subjective.  The law was meant to keep the government out of religion by preventing it from establishing or abolishing the practice thereof.  It was not meant to keep people's religious ideas out of government.  Afterall, all our laws are based on someone's morality and virtue, many of which have a Judeo-Christian heritage.

Answer 2

It is all very fine to let 'religion into the state', through so-called democratic means (like elections). But how fair is this to religious minorities in a democracy? And is the inevitable majoritarian rule, truly democratic? I strongly believe that religion has been mankind's most lethal invention, and we need to evolve out of this primitive need to believe in a 'supreme being' of some kind...

Answer 3

Where is that mentioned? Is it in the Constitution, or in any case law? If not, then, legally, it doesn't exist.

Answer 4

The rule is that the state cannot "pass laws respecting an establishment of religion."  This means that there can't be an official religion, and the government can't favor one over another.  There have been many arguments over interpretation of this, and probably always will be.  But it was never intended to mean that the way people vote or how they feel about issues should not be influenced by their religious views.  On the contrary, there was widespread recognition that this was unavoidable and for the most part, desirable.  The beauty of the democratic system is that it allows everyone's views, religious or otherwise, to be expressed without condemnation or prejudice, and to be given the same due consideration as those of everyone else.

Answer 5

Theists should be made to understand and they do - that IT IS stating keeping religion out of politics. Why do you think they are doing everything to change the status quo.

Amendment I>

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 Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

~ Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 - officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797

+ “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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

~ President Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, January 1, 1802

+ “This loathsome combination of Church and State.”

~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) to C. Clay, 1815

+ “Until this awful blasphemy [the Incarnation] is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”

~ John Adams, letter, Jan. 22, 1825, Works of J. Adams

+ “Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiment in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy which has marked the present age would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination, so far that we should never again see their religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”

~ George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, Oct. 20, 1792.

Answer 6

They think it because they don't know the actual history that brought it into being. It goes back further than our Founders, to the Renaissance writers like Locke.

Jefferson wrote, ""One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

He was pointing out that it could not prohibit the free exercise of any religion NOR establish a religion.

"Where the preamble [of the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom]

declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. "

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

The govt. can't protect them all if it establishes a religion.

"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

"Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1] was the seminal United States Supreme Court case in Establishment Clause law in the United States. In addition to incorporating the Establishment Clause (applying it to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment)...

"[Justice Hugo Black wrote,] '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.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._...

The Court, in a rendering of "Original Intent," used Jefferson's words to determine what the Founders were thinking at the time they wrote it.

Those words are not law, but are quoted as the intent of the law.

Answer 7

As both a "theist" (that is, a Christian) and a determined supporter of that "wall of separation," I suggest the reasons behind the wall (and the Establishment clause of the First Amendment which forms its basis) be considered.

Religious belief is concerned with the whole question of the relationship of human beings to each other, to the universe in general, and to God if any God exists. (I believe in God, but I am deliberately expanding the scope here to include the beliefs of those who do not; my reading of recent atheist literature finds an extensive foundation of unproven beliefs, just as much as I find in the Bible.) The scope of religious belief is, for practical purposes, unlimited. Any freedom with respect to religion is therefore the freedom to decide for oneself whether to obey its dictates.

Governments, on the other hand, rely on compulsion. Their business is deciding matters which cannot be determined (at least, not fairly) by individual conscience. Wars, taxes, building and zoning codes, safety and antidiscrimination laws, layout out and building roads--all these require the power to compel. Freedom with respect to governments consists in limiting their scope.

Now, if you don't care about individual freedom, this doesn't matter to you. I do care, and it matters to me a great deal. If you combine government power with religious authority, you combine the power to compel obedience with unlimited scope of concerns; any such entity becomes, eventually, totalitarian in effect regardless of the original intent. (In my view, every historical instance also demonstrates a tendency, so far invariable, to corrupt the religion as well.) Moreover, as was specifically pointed out by the Founding Fathers, such a monster of hybrid capacities tends to be incapable of coexisting peacefully with other nations, because an authority of unlimited scope has been given the capacity to make war in an attempt to impose that authority on more people.

It's often difficult to see where to draw the line. Certainly, since religion impinges on all activities, it has a legitimate influence on the participation of a citizen in civic activities such as voting and campaigning, jury duty, and fulfillment of the duties of public office. But the citizen must accept the bounds imposed on such participation: as an election judge, for example, I could not favor those of my own religion over other voters, even if my religion told me I should. Any such requirement would force me to choose between the dictates of religious authority and the responsibilities of the position I was filling. (I have no such conflict, actually.)

But applying similar compulsion to someone else's participation is always out of bounds. Those Roman Catholic leaders who withhold the sacraments from those who don't vote a certain way are attempting to merge religious scope with civic power (and essentially to control someone else's vote, which is a felony).

One of the essential limits on government power, of course, is the notion of fundamental human rights which are protected for all. Hence, the courts and the ACLU frequently involve themselves in attempts to use majority-rule government to vitiate those rights for unpopular minorities (say, indigenous Americans, homosexuals, or atheists).

Answer 8

well its a moot point because it didnt work. there is no true seperation on either side. religion has poisoned our government and through our government us.

Answer 9

Because to me, that is correct.  What it means is that the state should not be allowed to regulate religion, and that religious people are allowed to participate in government.