Do we actually have separation of church and state in the US?

Question

Okay, so I'm trying to figure out if this is true or not. We ave freedom of religion in the US, that is for sure. But do we really have separation of church and state? Religion is always involved in politics. There were always debates going on about stem cell research because the Catholic church opposed it, we have debates going on about affordable contraception because the Catholic church opposes it. And we even have debates about whether or not evolution should be taught in public schools because the Catholic church does not like to believe in it. So it sounds like we do not have separation of church and state.

Answer 1

The government of the United States of America is, in no sense, founded on the Christian religion.

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11. Ratified unanimously by the senate and signed by founding father and second president, John Adams, in 1797.



“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries”. -

James Madison



I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death. George Carlin



But the reality is that when the constitution is breached for a religious purpose nothing is done about it!



George W Bush started FIVE wars in less than eight years stating each time that it was his "God Given Duty” and on September 16th 2001 even called it a Crusade!



Not his duty to the electors!



Not his duty to America!



Just his duty to keep slaughtering heathens for his god!



Causing trillions of dollars of national debt that will take decades to repay and 46 MILLION Americans living below the poverty line. We are all still paying for it!

Answer 2

No, you don't.



Let's look at what the 1st Amendment actually says. Freedom of religion is in there, absolutely right. But the key point is the line "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". To understand this, consider what the Founding Fathers knew. They knew England, which DOES have establishment of religion, they saw the results of that, and they didn't want the USA to be the same.



At the time, England had (and still has) its official established Church, the Church of England, and all others were prohibited or restricted. This meant the C of E was far too closely associated with the state, and you couldn't have a government job or go to university without being a member of the C of E. Paradoxically, England is mostly non-religious now because of it - joining the C of E was necessary to "get on in life", and meanwhile, ordinary people saw religion as being a top people's club and didn't bother with it. England has freedom of religion now, but from the point of view of anyone religious, by the time that was put into law, the damage had been done. The upshot is that less than 10% of the English (or indeed British) population regularly attends any church, and British politicians do not talk about religious reasons for anything because most of the people don't see what that has to do with it.



That's what "establishment" is all about - a better way of writing it would be "Congress shall make no law to make any particular Church official". That's all it says. In no way does it prevent anyone arguing from their religious view in political debates, and voting according to what they believe.



By the way, the Catholic Church is actually more advanced on science, and accepts evolution as possibly being the way God used to create the huge variety of life that there is. It's evangelical Protestants who object to it and insist that God must have created everything all at once as it is now.

Answer 3

No, not the way you are presenting it. The language is quite specific and clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".



The US Supreme Court has clarified even more explicitly in it's recent Ruling Galloway V the Town of Greece what the state may or may not do:



1. The state may not compel or coerce one to engage in any religious practice or ritual.

2. The state may not interfere with any individuals voluntary engagement in any religious practice or ritual.

2. The state may not endorse any specific religion religious practice or ritual.

3. The state may not disparage any specific religion, practice or ritual.



You bring up debates about moral questions - which do not include and specific religious practices or rituals. What about the examples of the state engaging in or compelling specific religious practices or rituals?



Feeding, sheltering and clothing the poor are explicitly called for as part of the practice of Christianity. I notice you are not complaining about the food stamp program, or welfare, or section 8 housing or any of these other Christian practices government is involved in.. Why not if you are a staunch advocate of separation of Church and State?



Honor they Mother and Father (take care of your elderly parents) is one of the 10 commandments. I notice you are not complaining about Social Security compelling people to obey this commandment.. why not if you are a staunch advocate for separation of Church and State?



The Christian Religion is explicitly against racism and sexism. (Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, Bond nor Free, Male nor Female but Christ is all and in all). So why are you not up an arms about all the laws against discrimination when that an explicit Bible teaching?



Seems to me you have no problem with the government engaging in religious practices (and compelling the tax payer to pay for those practices) when you agree with those practices. You only have a problem when you don't agree with those religious practices... If you were truly committed to your version of Separation of Church and State you would be staunchly opposed to Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, Social Security, Desegregation, Equal Rights laws, tort laws, adoption laws and many other Federal and State laws which are found in the Bible some of which are specifically religious practices!



Since you are not rising in opposition to these laws which can be pulled right out of the Bible or are actually part of religious practice but you happen to agree with, then it is clear your Separation of Church and State objection is not about the principle of Separation of Church and State but about you using the argument selectively for those things you don't agree with.

Answer 4

1) We do not have "freedom of religion" in the United States Constitution, we have the "freedom of religious expression", and those are two VERY different things.



2) The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that the government shall not establish a church, nor shall it pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another, This amounts to (in the words of Thomas Jefferson) "A wall of separation between church and state".



Furthermore, legal precedent upholds the establishment clause as applying to both the federal and state governments. The right to freedom of religious expression ends at another citizens right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Answer 5

We are supposed to. The first amendment states, "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." This means that establishing laws based on one particular religion that members of other religions might oppose is blatantly unconstitutional.

Answer 6

yes we do have separation of church and state



congress can make no law favoring religion



opposing immoral actions is allowed by religious people in the government



where do you get the ideal that a religious person or organization can not oppose something the government wants to enact if the person or organization thinks it is immoral?



religious people have a say so on what laws congress and the president choose to enact.religious people are not excluded from asking government questions about their laws or voting just because their religious.

Answer 7

No. We have no religious leaders automatically given government posts. We have no government officials who automatically have religious posts. If we did then there would be no separation.



People are involved in both politics and religion. Some political ideas are expressed by people in religious language. Religions do not vote. People do.



To suppress the political activity of people who wish to use religious language is to exclude a group of people from society. That would be a bad idea.



When you speak out against the government, those who disagree with you can have your speech banned as religious and have you excluded from society. Unfair? Unfair sounds like a religious idea to me. You?

Answer 8

On paper we do but in reality the US has a population that is majority Christian and Christianity heavily influences our politics. Many people are totally unable to separate their religious values from their political views and therefore argue from the perspective of their overall worldview and value system instead of thinking about what is best for the country and fair for everyone.

Answer 9

Yes, we have separation of church and state. Is it perfect? No. Can we improve it? We are, slowly. I think we will reach a tipping point when white evangelical christians are a voting minority, and politicians don't have to pander to their agenda any longer, in order to win elections.

Answer 10

No. In the bible false religion is depicted as a harlot (Babylon the Great) riding on the back of the wild beast ( world political nations). Eventually the wild beast turns on the harlot and destroys her.

Answer 11

You wouldn't know the difference either way so don't worry about it

Answer 12

no