What is your opinion on the concept of separation of church and state as expressed in the 1st Amendment?

Establishing a "state" religion through financial support of _a_ church, denomination, or religion. For instance, England collects taxes from its citizens to support (give) to the Church of England.

Having public education classes that include religion, such as comparative religion, social impact of religion, or religion in history, is not the same thing as teaching a specific religion. For instance, it would be difficult to teach a history of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, without mentioning the Mennonites, Amish, and their place in the county.

Giving tax vouchers for people sending their children to private schools (religious and otherwise) is also not the same thing. If the tax vouchers were given only for religious schools, then there would be a problem. Not all private schools are faith-based or religious.

In other words, the principle is to not favor any religious group over others or over the general population. The idea is that the government and laws are to remain neutral toward religion, but there are limitations, just as there are limitations to other "rights" in the Bill of Rights.

(Added: This non-support of religion extends to observing religious rites, such as prayer and thus, it is not permitted for a (added: publicly supported) school to observe a prayer (universal or not) as part of the curriculum. Although it is not enforced, the same would be true of prayers offered during commencement or graduation ceremonies (added: at a publicly supported school). Even the "National Day of Prayer" and "Thanksgiving" is in violation of these principles. But there is wisdom is allowing people to observe their religious rites because the same amendment talks about laws not _prohibiting_ the free practice of religion.)

Added note: Your complaint to Choko is over semantics, but the comment was made to better understand the meaning of the amendment. Our language has changed over the course of history and "with respect to" means essentially the same thing as the original writers meant when they used the archaic meaning of "respecting".

Contrary to popular belief, it does NOT mean that there should be NO religious involvement in government, nor that religious people can't hold office. It means that the Federal government cannot establish an official state religion (such as claiming America is a Christian nation), nor require government officials to be members of a certain religion, nor can the Federal government restrict citizens from the free exercise of their own chosen religion.

[quote]

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) held that governmental action must have a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting religion, and must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion. During recent years, the Court has modified the Lemon test to include consideration of whether a law constitutes an endorsement or disapproval of religion or whether the government has coerced anyone to support or participate in religious activity.

[end quote]

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/first-amendment-to-th...

Religion and government are separate entities. Back in the old days (I'll leave it to you if it were good or bad), there was the concept of a State Church in England. If you were not part of that state church, you were shat upon. This amendment prevents the government from imposing religion upon you, be it through a state religion or laws forcing a particular faith.

The meaning of it has further been expanded to complete separation of church and state. where no religious displays can be placed on public grounds, schools cannot have school directed prayer, or things of that nature. And I agree with it. When churches start paying taxes, I'll think it over again.

Well, if I am a person who comprehends the meanings of "establishment" and "Make no law:" then it is glaringly obvious. Congress can't pass any law that effectively creates a national religion of any kind. Doing this would make it mandatory for everyone to obey this law which would then violate this Amendment. Separation of church and state is fabricated from out of the wording of this amendment when in fact nothing of the sort can be done.

Everyone shrieks about Congress making Christianity the official religion of America when, in fact, Congress's actions have effectively made atheism the official belief system of the entire country. Banning prayer from the public place, from Congress, from the Supreme Court, from graduation ceremonies, from public school property, and elsewhere has been a grievous violation of Constitutional rights and has caused the government to become embroiled in the private lives of its citizens.

Trying to enforce "separation of church and state" ends up violating the right to freely express your faith in any religion, and also the pursuit of happiness right. Curtailing the right to pray effectively punishes Christians across the board while affecting no other religion. A time at the beginning of every school day for students to silently pray to themselves does not violate anyone's rights. Whatever your religious belief, you can pray quietly to yourself. It makes everyone happy, or it ought to.

That church and state are on different dimensional planes ...

Religion doesn't have the right on jury duty ... and jury duty does not have right in religion ...

Basically, we all like to go to work (be for the money, interaction with others, sense of accomplishments) , yet when we come home, like it to feel like "home" ...

Thus requires a separation ... the true division Jesus mentions in scripture ... and yet One Nation under God (whether believer or non-believer) !!!

The church of church can give an opinion on who they'd want you to vote for ... but should free your mind to allow you your own choices ...

The state can run campaigns to tell you who to vote for, but don't have the right to manipulate priests or ministers ...

And mind you, I believe even religions to be a heirarcy towards God ... the Heirarcy should be respected!!! beyond race, creed, code or gender ... The government has their marriages, just as the "churches" have theirs ... There really is no reason for argument ...

they understand each other -> se entienden mutuamente

comprensión

kɒmprɪˈhenʃən

Jesus example is the one that should be followed. When they tried to appoint him king over the jews, he retreated. Why? His authority to rule as king is within Gods kingdom. God's Kingdom is a government that has been established with Christ as its king since 1914. Jesus also made this statement: 18 If the world hates YOU, YOU know that it has hated me before it hated YOU. 19 If YOU were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because YOU are no part of the world, but I have chosen YOU out of the world, on this account the world hates you. John 15:18-20.

Christ was never involved in politics, neither should true christians who claim to follow christ. There should be no mixture of religion and politics!

I think the government needs to stay out of the business of making rules for the church.

The church is like every citizen only in respect to giving advice. The church should not corrupt itself by taking part in government.

The government can choose to give a tax exemption to Christian churches that provide good ethical and moral guidance to people. Such as "Love your enemies" and "do good to those who persecute you."

Churches or religions that think they should be running the government or have ambitions beyond doing good in the community should be heavily taxed.

Just my opinion

Where do you see the words "separation of church and state". I see CONGRESS and ESTABLISHMENT. I don't see church, state, or separate. You left out an important part: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Do you realize a church can lose its status as a church if the preacher says the wrong thing from the pulpit? That's here in the good ol' USA. Is that free exercise?

I see a lot of religious issues coming from the government to keep us fighting each other. For example same sex marriage and abortion. These are both issues that have more to do with religion and moral beliefs than they do human rights. As long as we are separated we don't do anything to stop the real criminals in D.C. from doing business as usual

That distinct line is growing thinner. More problems arise then that idea can deal with. There has to be some unifiying agreement between them. If not, then a sort of Congress of Religions should be established. (Still seperate from the Gov't.)