What was the original purpose for the separation of Church and State?
94229
Well first we have to realise that there is no real seperation of church and State,  Read the real Constitutin, it only says that there will not be an official state religion and that the state can not pass any laws restricting religion.  It never says a world that the state is seperate from the Church, only the state can not interfere with a Church by passing laws effecting it.  ( and they look at all the church zoning laws, tax laws, minister requirements to do weddings and tell me they keep thier end of the deal)\n\nBut the idea of seperation of Church and State has been created from a speach made by Thomas Jeffereson to a religioius group and he was still refering to thier protection and rights.\n\nThe lie taught today is done to try and destroy the Christian teachings and Chrsitian hisotry of our nation.\nThat is the purpose of the teaching of seperation.
668234
HEY DUMMY (jake) - were you bible-home-schooled???\n\nThe "GUY" you are referring to who talked about church and state separation was THOMAS JEFFERSON.  (you idiot)\n\nIn the United States, separation of church and state is sometimes believed to be in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents interpreting that clause, some extremely controversial. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well, although it is arguable that this restriction on state and local government existed in Article VI of the unamended Constitution and that the Fourteenth Amendment was a clarification on the limitation of government power. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.\n\nThe phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state."\n\nJames Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."
404511
A previous poster was correct.  The Constitution does not state anything about a separation of church and state.  However, if we wish to have freedom of religion, it is in the best interest of all to have a separation of church and state.\n\nIf one religion became predominant and was adopted as an official religion... other religions would naturally face greater obstacles.  How would a christian feel if satanism was the predominant religion?  \n\nI am an atheist... I don't believe there is a god or gods.  I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong.  I believe firmly in freedom of religion.  We need separation of church and state if we wish to keep that freedom for all of us.\n\nI currently think that there are several religions (Mormonism, the Moonies, Christian Fundamentalists to name a few) that seek preferential treatment by the government over other religions.  I think a large civil divide is occuring over this issue.
963929
This is a very good point, and i have actually researched it before.  In the Freedom of Religion amendment, there are two clauses: the establishment clause, and the free excercise clause.  The establishment clause is the separation of church and state, or in other words, the government cannot establish or promote any one relgion.  In the free excercise clause, the government cannot ban any one religion.  Oddly enough, atheism is only considered a religion in the free excercise clause, and not in the establishment clause.  This is a sort of loophole that allows the religion to establish atheism in schools, without going against our rights to freedom of religion.  Pretty messed up, huh?
139068
The firs amendment is part of the bill of rights, which was ratified in 1791.  It protects the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition, etc.  The followinig sources are great for learning about the first amendment...\n\nAlso, check out this blurb.\n\nCONGRESS 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.
694516
The Cousins Wars, by Kevin Phillips. \nCovers the English Civil War, the Stuarts, the Glorious Revolution\nand on into the Revolutionary, War of 1812 American Civil War. \n\nPart of the reason why we HAD a separation between church and state has to do with the aversion many of the English colonists had with any kind of state sponsored religion and especially so if it is paired with a monarchy - in in particular a European monarchy.
675647
Just to get back to the principles on which our country is founded, here are a few quotes from Thomas Jefferson:\n\n"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425 \n\nJefferson strongly believed in freedom of religion, the right of every American to worship as he saw fit, and in keeping religion out of government and government out of religion. Here's another quote in which he says that ministers should not visit elementary schools:\n\n"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:419 \n\nPeople who think this country was founded as a "Christian country" should go back and read the founding fathers. They were revolutionaries who were trying to found a country that was different from the European countries and where there was no official religion.\n\nSay nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.\n-Thomas Jefferson
378017
Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  Although the clauses were intended by the framers to serve common values, there is some tension between the two.  For example, some people might suggest that providing a military chaplain for troops stationed overseas violates the Establishment Clause, while others might suggest that failing to provide a chaplain violates the Free Exercise Clause rights of the same troops.  I will, however, postpone discussion of how the two clauses ought to be reconciled, and begin with an examination of the meaning of the Establishment Clause. \nAt an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding.  It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general.  Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands.  On the other hand, persons seeing a far broader meaning in the clause point to writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggesting the need to establish "a wall of separation" between church and state. \n\nSupreme Court interpretation of the Establishment Clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of Education.  Voting 5 to 4, the Court upheld a state law that reimbursed parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools.  (It was clear from the various opinions in Everson that if the state had reimbursed the parochial schools for the cost of providing the transportation, that it would have been found to violate the Establishment Clause.)  Although in his majority opinion Justice Black wrote of the "wall of separation" that the Constitution maintains between church and state, Black viewed the aid in question of serving the state's secular interest in getting kids "safely and expeditiously" to schools.  The case is noteworthy for its extensive discussion of the purposes of the Establishment Clause, and for the fact that all nine justices agree that the clause was intended to do far more than merely prohibit the establishment of a state religion. \n\nSubsequent decisions make clear that a majority of justices on the Supreme Court view "the wall" separating church and state more as a shifting, porous barrier. Small factual differences in cases often produce different outcomes.  For example, in 1948, the Court found that the practice of inviting religious instructors into public schools to give optional religious instruction violates the Establishment Clause.  Then, in the 1952 case of Zorach v Clauson, the Court upheld the practice of giving public school students "release time" so that they could attend religious programs in churches in synagogues.  Writing for the Court in Zorach, Justice Douglas said the Constitution does not require "callous indifference to religion." \n\nThe question of school-sponsored prayer has, of course, proven highly controversial.  In the landmark case of Engel v Vitale in 1962, the Court ruled that New York's practice of beginning school days with a prayer drafted by school officials violated the Establishment Clause.  This is the case, the Court said, whether or not students are given the option of not participating in the prayer.  Following Engel, the Court has faced a whole series of prayer-related cases in the public school context raising issues such a prayer in special circumstances (e.g., graduation ceremonies), periods for silent meditation or silent prayer, and student-initiated prayer.
1117788
The separation of church and state is a total miscarriage of the Constitution of the USA. \nLawyers, not Christians, have changed the meaning of the clause. What is meant by the so called separation is not separation at all but that the USA is not to set up a state religion such as the UK has with the Anglican Church. \n\nThis is another example of the lies foisted on the American public to satisfy the NON Christian not the Christian. Go and actually read the Constitution and see what it says...90% of Americans have no idea what their constitution says....
341603
Actually no law was passed.  It is in the constitution.      * First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government.\n    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." \n\nSo the idea of seperation of church and state comes from the First Amendment.  There is nothing to prevent us from fighting in a religious war, even though the previous post was correct about the fighting in Israel. But we acually have no troops there, although we do send financial aid and weapons to Israel.
688037
We have a government that is supposedly "for the people, by the people". So I guess that if the majority of the people want religion as part of their government, it should be. We shouldn't seclude people of other faiths, though, and there is where the problem lies. Our founding fathers ensured us freedom of religion, and what that means entirely in the eye of the beholder-in this case, the eyes of the majority of American people and voters. It would eliminate alot of problems to completely remove all religious aspects from government, to completely separate church from state (including the "In God we trust"), but there are many people out there to which religion is a huge part of their lives and would hate that. I myself am a Buddhist in the Air Force, and I have to deal with Christian-specific prayers and events regularly, but I'm not very bothered by it, and consider it just part of our "Freedom of Religion".
1150474
^&^&^&\n\nIt is not specifically written, but it is guaranteed within the 1st amendment.\n\nIn the United States, separation of church and state is sometimes believed to be in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents interpreting that clause, some extremely controversial. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well, although it is arguable that this restriction on state and local government existed in Article VI of the unamended Constitution and that the Fourteenth Amendment was a clarification on the limitation of government power. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.\n\nThe phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson referred to a "wall of separation between church and state."\n\nJames Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."\n\nThe belief that religious and state institutions should be separate covers a wide spectrum, ranging between one extreme which would secularize or eliminate the church, and theocracy, in which the government is an affiliate of the church. Some secularists believe that the state should be kept entirely separate from religion, and that the institutions of religion should be entirely free from governmental interference. Churches that exercise their authority completely apart from government endorsement, whose foundations are not in the state, are conventionally called "Free" churches.
40450
The first part of the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"\n\nCongress does not have to pass a law explicitly delcaring a religion a 'National Religion' to establish it. You can establish an official religion de facto by banning the practices of other religions or favoring a religious belief above that of other religious beliefs for the purpose of promoting that religion.\n\nIt is a violation of the establishment clause (and the free exercise clause and the free speech clause of the 1st; and the equal protection clause of the 14th) for the federal government to favor one religious perspective over another unless it is for secular reasons. (like if one religious perspective is against murder and the other is for it) Madison, who is considered the "Father of the Constitution" and Jefferson called this principle the "seperation of church and state."\n\nSince the post-Civil War Amendments, all levels of government are held to the same standard of protecting rights as the federal government.\n\nAll it means is that the government can't play favorites. They have to allow everyone the same ability to express their opinions on religion in the same ways and the same manner. They can't let one group invite speakers to a University and ban another; let one perspective be promoted by government employees in public schools but not another; or erect a religious monument for one view but not another.\n\nMost of the legal debates over the "establishment clause" is whether or not a specific practice is for religious or secular reasons and whether citizens are given special treatment for certain religious speech but not others.\n\nSo the short answer is that if you entangle church and state, you have the government favoring certain religious speech and beliefs above other certain religious speech and beliefs, which establishes religion and impedes free exercise.
410898
Nowhere does it say (even though Jefferson said it in private or so called public papers)that church & state should be separated to the point where you remove any reference to God, the Ten Commandments, prayer, Nativity scenes, Christmas trees, etc. from all schools, government buildings, etc.  The meaning of separation is that the Federal Government will NOT force anyone to believe or practice the Christian religion, like if you don't want to pray while others are, or recite the pledge of allegiance saying "under God", fine.  You don't have to.  You can even leave the room & come back after they're finished.  But it doesn't mean the government should stop anyone from praying, displaying the Ten Commandments, pledging "under God", displaying Nativity scenes, showing Christmas trees, etc. You should also be allowed to wear any symbol of your religion while attending school--as long as it does not promote violence against others.  Just because you oppose homosexuality does NOT mean that you are violently opposed to it.  Also, homosexuals have no right to FORCE anyone to live their lifestyle or commit homosexual acts with them.
290147
It is my belief that the concept of "Division of Church and State" has been incorrectly interpreted and applied for many years. The founding fathers intended this separation to prevent things like a church being a branch of government (like the Supreme Court) which would have a final verdict on any law.
720222
Amendment I\nCongress 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. \n\nwhere does this say separation.\nWe are free to worship the god we want or no god at all.\nThe government can not state that my God is better than your god or no god is the right path. We must live with each other and let each other worship in there own way even if I want to pray to my big toe or no god at all.\n\n We do not have a secular government that would be given in to one side. What we have is a free government. In other words I do not care what you believe I may think your a fool for thinking that way. But I will fight for your right to be live it and stand by your side if any one wants to make you stop or force your views down.
34088
I don't quite know why you placed this in the government section, but the main objective of the Council of Trent was to settle disputes about doctrine in the Catholic Church. Its main point of contention was the rise of Protestantism, and in response to it, they solidified the sacraments and what was included in the Bible and the Mass. Some more detailed information is at the site below.