quote:

---

The 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, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "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." Letter to Danbury Baptists (1802)

While Jefferson's letter is often cited by separationists to prove that the original intent of the First Amendment was complete separation of church and state, anti-separationists either consider it irrelevant or might say that it supports the idea that the original intention of the First Amendment was to guarantee religion the freedom to exist without government influence, and say that it makes no mention of government being wholly separate from all religious activity. This is supported by Federal Government decisions on the
matter, such as Supreme court case Vidal v. Philadelphia, as well as Federal Government's past involvement in printing Bibles, and using the Bible as a textbook in public schools.

---

quote:

---

...At 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....

---

quote:

---

....that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own...

---

quote:

---

........on December 23, 1803, Jefferson's administration negotiated - and the Senate ratified - a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that stated “the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars for the support of a priest” to minister to the Indians.....

---

quote:

---

...And as President of the United States, Jefferson negotiated
treaties with the Kaskaskia, Cherokee, and Wyandotte tribes wherein he
provided — at the government's expense — Christian missionaries to the
Indians....

---

quote:

---

And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

---

quote:

---

I will agree that there needs to be a barrier between the two, however that barrier can not impede free exercise in any way.

---

quote:

---

Watch our religious freedom disappear before our ver eyes.

---

quote:

---

The beginning of the end of Christianity in this nation!!! The fall of great civilizations usually begin with one small event. This very well may be that domino.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dude

OI said:

quote:

---

I will agree that there needs to be a barrier between the two, however that barrier can not impede free exercise in any way.

---

So, your position is essentaily the same as almost every other person who posts here regularly.

The government should not interfere with religion, and religion should not interfere with government.

The only difference I see between you and I on this one is, perhaps, the portion of that we each give greater emphasis.

---

quote:

---

I see more harm from religious interference in government than the other way around. I think it is deeply wrong to bring religious concepts into political debate and processes.

I also think it is wrong for the government to interfere with people's religious beliefs, but this doesn't ever really happen anyway.

Government needs to base legislation and policy on evidence. Not on cultural and religious beliefs, or popular opinions.

The degredation of US politics since Reagan is a direct result of the neocon effort to manipulate the religious right into voting for them based on social and cultural issues while abandoning the true conservative value of an evidence based approach to government.

Government should, and must IMO, remain entirely secular. This is not a bad thing, because it allows all parties equal voice regardless of their religious beliefs. A "solid wall" between religion and government is the only way to maintain this.

---