How do you feel about separation of church and state?

I like it in terms of not forcing people to choose a religion or letting one religion control the government, but i dont like it in terms of making the country think in atheist ways and discourage religion altogether.
I'm all for it.


Answer:
The U.S. Constitution states in the 1st Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...' As Gregory said, nowhere in the Constitution does it make a provision for the separation of church and state per se. No one should be forced to worship in a way they do not want to, but should be free to exercise their religion in the way they want to without being forced not to by the government.

If someone wants to pray in public, or conduct any other religious act they should be allowed to as long as it does not affect another's rights. That's the 'free exercise' clause of the First Amendment. Just because one may be 'offended' by the sight of someone else praying, this does not mean that their rights are being affected. If a child wants to pray in school, then he should have that right. But no child should be forced to pray if they do not want to, or in a way they don't want to.
God Bless America
....God shed his grace on thee
...one nation, under God
And this be our motto, in God is our trust......
......and the whole truth, so help me God
Hello Shannon (nice answer to the band equipment question).

Well, I don't live in the USA, so I won't continue the running commentary regarding that country's constitution. In Australia we have no bill of rights, so in effect there can be a merging of Church and State if someone wanted to get on a religous band wagon.
We do have a constitution, and I believe it has something in there about freedom of religion.. but I'm not entirely sure.

I can tell you the right-wing Christian lobby have got a representitive in the Senate (upper house) of Federal Parliament. Mr Fielding (of the Family First party) held some sway for a while due to having (with some other minor parties) some deciding votes.. But now Howard (the Liberal party) has a controlling majority in both houses.. that doesn't count as much.

Certainly the Family First party did push for some laws with regard to 'the abortion pill' debate.
So with enough political will, a lobby group supported by a 'Church' based agenda can get into power here. Fortunately it's not a big possibility in the short term.

Cheers,
Julian
I think we should have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

I think the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to that church was saying that one religion shouldn't be promoted by the government over another.

Remember, the Bible was a mandatory school book during Jefferson's time. Also, church services were held inside the White House.

The separation we have now is not what they had back then

**Reply to email: I am not going to force you to join any sect against your will. Actually, Christianity in and of itself is very divided. BUT several laws we abide by are Biblical. What's wrong with love thy neighbor, do not kill, and etc. Did you know the phrase 'of the people, for the people, by the people' came from a famous KJ Bible? So anyways, I'm not saying we should force any religion over another. I am saying the separation we have now is not what they had back then. I will not deny our history to appease an atheist and I don't hold the same beliefs of our founders either.
pro secularism all the way!
My favorite type of separation, I'm all for it.
'Separation of Church and State' is not a constitutional mandate. Had the drafters of the Constitution meant for that phrase and/or concept to be embodied in the document, they could have included the phrase, but they did not.

The reason is that they sought to prevent government compulsion of religious observance and government interference with religious observance. They did not seek a 'high and impregnable wall' of separation between the two. That Jefferson may have wanted that is not dispositive, as he was merely ONE person, not the whole.

That said, 'separation' is a decent catch phrase for the idea that government should not compel observance nor interfere with it. The problem is that the concept is badly over applied. Nevertheless, if one is to err between too much or too little government/religious interaction, I would say that it is better to err on the side of too little interaction between government and religion. As an example, I'll cite the Taliban.
Separation is perhaps the fundamental Western achievement after Martin Luther and the like reformed the Church. We ought to be cautious in interpreting what exactly separation means, as the founders were indeed religious people (although many were Deists and not Christians); the same founders who passed the Bill of Rights opened up their session in the House of Representatives with a prayer. So therefore we should not be apt to favor any particular religion or faith at the expense of others. Nor should we make any restriction or regulation with respect to where, when, how, and with whom free people practice their religion. The day after Thomas Jefferson wrote the immortal phrase, 'a wall of separation between Church and State', he attended a church service in the then-House of Representatives chamber (today called Statuary Hall).
Great idea, so why do we let Church's get into politics and NOT tax them??
I think after more than 200 years, this country should have cemented the separation between church and state.
It protects us all. (Look around lately, it does protect us all)
an important concept that should be diligently practiced