The Separation of Church and State.

Defintion of Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Therefore, it is undeniable that there will be an opposition to the beliefs set forth by this standpoint. We have many theories on the beginning of life, so religion is, by its very nature, controversial. I am not denying the rights of the people to have religious beliefs. However, we are talking about the church directly being involved with the policies and laws the gov't makes. There is more than one sect of christianity: catholic, protestant, lutheran, calvin, baptist, methodist, eastern orthodox, etc. Trying to find one bible to run off, which would then, theoretically, control a gov't is impossible. Now, most groups in the 17th-18th century came to America to escape religious persecution. Men like Thomas More, a statesman in 16th century Englad, were EXECUTED because he would not recognize the king as the head of the church of England (More was catholic). Furthermore, Thomas jefferson is quoted in his autobiography of 1821 as follows, " Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination." The president knew, all in all, that religion could not be a part of gov't. Yes, we were founded by christian men as a theistic gov't (in god we trust). However, it was and still is apparent that religion still must stay a private manner; at the very least, out of gov't influence, so the rights of all religious peoples may be respected, especially for those who are not religious, or athiest. The fourth word of the definition of religion: beliefs. Beliefs are subjective. They are, at best, guidelines for how we should live and interact within the world around us. On the contrary, what justifies a belief worthy of being made into law over every other individual, "To Hindus, the cow is sacred; to Muslims, it is dinner." Obviously, we need order to the chaos that is life. A set of principles distinguishes man from beast. These principles are important: and they should be developed by a philosophical means. This is the modern era: globlization is in effect and we need to take the lead as the only current superpower. If you want proof how dangerous religion in government is, look at the instability of Iraq in regards to Sunnis and Shittes, and the extremists in our country who, though rare, have killed doctors and bombed abortion clinics, "in the name of god." If you want proof from the Constitution of the United States of America, look at these three entries: ARTICLE SIX regarding "No Religious test to hold office or a public trust of the United State"; THE FIRST AMENDMENT, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"-point being that any law which pertains to establishing a national religion, which is what one does when they want a federal law that was prompted by the Christian faith, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And lastly, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You abridge the right of an INDIVIDUAL when making a law that is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. This is the reason why the Ten Commandments should not be in allowed in a court room: how can someone who does not believe in the ten commandments have equal protection under the law? There may be the APPEARENCE of equal protection, but the message is implied well enough to make a statement, as the court could properly and sufficiently function without the commandments. Bottom Line: the Church is for the private sector and public, as it can voice its opinion on any manner it wishes. Nonetheless, it cannot and must not be allowed to influence any actions the state may take, regardless of how powerful it is and how many people follow it. If we allow that to happen, there will be a substantial number of people and groups who will be denied, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If you want an example, look at homosexuals. Regardless of the issue of gay marriage, gays adopting, or civil unions, if fundamental christianity had its way, gays would be ostracized. The Nazis did that. Granted, we do not kill homosexuals as they did. But we do say they are "less" than other people by not giving them, at the very least, economic benefits married couples enjoy. Another topic, another time. We can get along fine without the church's involvement in the government. The Freedom of the people is more important than the chartering of a national religion through laws inside the government, which is what would happen if the Church ran things. If this argument is not substantial enough, I weep for the future of our country. Remember te phrase, "For the land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"? FREE i.e. FREEDOM is the key.