First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.
We have a freedom of religion. We also have a couple clauses (copied from Wikapedia);
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.
Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.
Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.
Check out similar cases related to Engel v. Vitale that deal with religion in schools and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
It was Thomas Jefferson who quipped the statement attributed to common misnomer,
In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
So, why was this an issue in the first place? Because the tyranny being escaped by our founders. England endorsed a nation church as well as Germany. And, let's not get started on the government influence of the Roman Catholic Church.
What puzzles me today is this; how is it that we have come to a point that we now think the government has to be void of religion. Why do we feel that praying at school violates the First Amendment? We have a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. Consider the 10 Commandments in courtrooms. What religion owns the 10 commandments? Christian? Jewish? Muslim? Don't all three of these worship the God of Abram? Didn't Abram have lineage to Moses?
If I told you, "I've got religion." What would you assume?
Now, if I told you I just bought a new car, would you know what kind? What if I told you it was an American car? A Ford? Rear wheel drive? Do you know what kind of car I bought yet? If I have religion, in my life, do you assume I'm a Bible Thumping Baptist? A Radical Muslim? A Hassidic Jew?
I've got Religion. I am a believer of Christ Jesus. I believe in the Virgin Birth, The Ascension into heaven, The holy trinity,... Have you figured out I drive a Mustang GT to the United Methodist Church? And just because I am a member of that church, do I have to agree with all their principles? Or even all my fellow congregation? Goodness no. Some of the folks at my church are democrats!!!
Almost all religions bring people together under general moral guidelines which follow a good vs. bad generality. A moral code that understands murder id BAD, Stealing-Bad, Rape-Bad.... Sharing food-good, helping each other-good, love and compassion-good. Our government benefits from this foundation. It is when religion is used to enforce influence and power that we need separation.And, religion in general, does not do that. When a Church is founded on religion, and then uses it's own dogma and (mis)interpretations to suppress or spread hate, that is a secular church. Weather it is the Klu Klux Klan or ISIS, it has departed from the foundational principles of it's religion.
So having a religious foundation within our government is actually good. Freedom OF religion is as fundamental as freedom of Speech! The two are not in contrast.
Our Government, and our constitution ensure I can select any of these. Or none of these. As long as it does not harm the greater public.
A separation of Church and State protects us from a government dictated belief structure and all the dogma of that belief. That is different from separation of religion and state.
Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.
Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.
Check out similar cases related to Engel v. Vitale that deal with religion in schools and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
It was Thomas Jefferson who quipped the statement attributed to common misnomer,
In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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.[20]Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to fear government interference in their manner of worship. The Bill of Rights was one of the earliest examples in the world of complete religious freedom (adopted in 1791, only preceded by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789).
So, why was this an issue in the first place? Because the tyranny being escaped by our founders. England endorsed a nation church as well as Germany. And, let's not get started on the government influence of the Roman Catholic Church.
What puzzles me today is this; how is it that we have come to a point that we now think the government has to be void of religion. Why do we feel that praying at school violates the First Amendment? We have a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. Consider the 10 Commandments in courtrooms. What religion owns the 10 commandments? Christian? Jewish? Muslim? Don't all three of these worship the God of Abram? Didn't Abram have lineage to Moses?
If I told you, "I've got religion." What would you assume?
Now, if I told you I just bought a new car, would you know what kind? What if I told you it was an American car? A Ford? Rear wheel drive? Do you know what kind of car I bought yet? If I have religion, in my life, do you assume I'm a Bible Thumping Baptist? A Radical Muslim? A Hassidic Jew?
I've got Religion. I am a believer of Christ Jesus. I believe in the Virgin Birth, The Ascension into heaven, The holy trinity,... Have you figured out I drive a Mustang GT to the United Methodist Church? And just because I am a member of that church, do I have to agree with all their principles? Or even all my fellow congregation? Goodness no. Some of the folks at my church are democrats!!!
Almost all religions bring people together under general moral guidelines which follow a good vs. bad generality. A moral code that understands murder id BAD, Stealing-Bad, Rape-Bad.... Sharing food-good, helping each other-good, love and compassion-good. Our government benefits from this foundation. It is when religion is used to enforce influence and power that we need separation.And, religion in general, does not do that. When a Church is founded on religion, and then uses it's own dogma and (mis)interpretations to suppress or spread hate, that is a secular church. Weather it is the Klu Klux Klan or ISIS, it has departed from the foundational principles of it's religion.
So having a religious foundation within our government is actually good. Freedom OF religion is as fundamental as freedom of Speech! The two are not in contrast.
Our Government, and our constitution ensure I can select any of these. Or none of these. As long as it does not harm the greater public.
A separation of Church and State protects us from a government dictated belief structure and all the dogma of that belief. That is different from separation of religion and state.
