Political Crossfire Forums

When the Founding Fathers drafted the idea of the Separation of Church and State, what do you think was their intent? Was it to shield the state from theology or to separate the governing body from the influence of the financial institution? Churches back then were like the Wall Streets of their time. They don't do shit for the productivity of the state, but they tell a good story and make shit load of money. Monarchs in England were heavily influenced by the power of the church. At the time they had theological influence as well as financial influence. So, do you think the Founding Fathers were more afraid of the Church's theological influence in politics or financial influence?

I truly do think it was idealism. They had centuries of history at their backs that demonstrated undeniably the disaster of fusing the two institutions, and the practice was clearly antithetical to their concept of liberty.

So they said "eff that noise".

Oh gosh, they did it for a whole bunch of reasons, among them:

1. to encourage intellectual and religious freedom.
2. to make sure that a state church didn't rise as a political force.
3. to prevent conflict between religious institutions and the states that supported them.

The Founding Fathers did not intent for Church and State to be separate. The "separation" idea stems from a Supreme Court ruling decades later. The Founding fathers simply wanted for the State to be unable to force people to conform to a single religion. It says, "make no law respecting the establishment of a religion". In other words, no "Church of England" or "Church of America".

These were many of the very same people who wrote "When in the course of human events . . . the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them..."

The answers are all already here. The intent of "separation of church and state" is to remove church entirely from the state. It is not the intent of the constitution, which was simply to ensure that no particular religion could be persecuted by law.

So I'd say the answer is somewhere in the middle now. The answer isn't to create an atheist state as that becomes a different form of religious intolerance. The answer is to find those things that materially impact the practice of religions and focus on them. Those things that do not materially impact the practice of religions are not, in my opinion, relevant to the discussion.

Having the ten commandments on display somewhere does not infringe upon anyone's right to religion. Forcing people to put their hand on a christian bible to swear an oath does. Allowing people to have private prayer in a public setting does not infringe upon anyone's rights, leading a prayer of a particular faith can.