i agree - i think the intention wasn't to exclude religion from government, but to keep government from interfering with religion.

Should we want the government to flourish, or the people of this nation to flourish? The federal governments sole duty is to product its citizens. The smallest government capable of doing this allows the most freedoms to its citizens. That is the difference between the ideologies of the socially liberal minded and the conservative minded. Socialists want to place their dependency upon some governmental entity and conservatives want to place their dependency upon the principal of self government and self dependency. The larger the government the more the chance of corruption, as demonstrated on a daily basis. The very idea that someones personal life can be separated from their public life is an idea based upon liberalism. Ones private life simply mirrors how they will act once in a powerful position, and should be open to everyone when they declare their ambition to hold "public" office, they give up certain rights to privacy, just as a soldier does when they enter governmental service. Usually the ones that complain the most about keeping their private life private are the ones in fact that have something to hide from the public they claim they wish to serve. Thus religion cannot be separated from public life, to claim to do so is simply an exercise in futility.

All our constitution guarantees is not a pure separation between church and state but rather the prohibition of a Centralized national religion controlled by the government and dictated to the public at large. It does not prohibit the government from interacting within each individual politicians faith, but prohibits the government from demanding a loyalty to any certain faith, thus it is not a restriction against all religion but rather a right guaranteed to choose to worship or even not to worship without fear of governmental reprisal. This nation was founded upon the principal of religious freedom, not freedom from religion, but freedom to choose religion or reject it, not a demand to keep all religion separate from the public domain, but rather a demand to keep public domain free from any one state controlled religion. If you want to keep all religion away from the government, you will have to look into the communist ideology of separation of church and state, as they indeed do have such a separation clause, that some want to post facto incorporate into our constitution by proxy of misapplying the 1st amendment. As all the bill of rights were made to place limits upon the central government, not vise versa, having the central government place limits upon its citizens. BD

this is what happens, sinik, when u are a moron

from the constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

clearly, it means both, explicitly in fact. thats what you get for talking out your ass instead of looking something up (or KNOWING THE FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT!)

Iraque? are you fucking kidding me

The separation clause was crafted and inspired by Thomas Jefferson who modeled it first after what they were doing in Virginia. It actually protects religion, and it protects the people from being subjected to one religion - especially a theocratic type of government. The lessons of history teach that religion cannot be mixed with the power of government. But, the republicans are NOT trying to inject religion into government. The secular types who are not religious often fantasize about the mind of those who have faith - still the republicans want the traditions of the country in regard to reverence for God to not be completely removed from the language of government. Noone wants prayer in schools for instance, but they do want the ability to allow students to maintain their faiths without harrasement from secular teachers, which really is the danger we face these days.

I agree gbig, though I would contest that the danger republicans face may be over exaggerated and trumped up, in terms of threatening children's ability to exercise their religion freely. Personally, I've been out of high-school for less than a decade, and I went to high school in Los Angeles. I imaged my high school experience was going to be more liberal than it was. My campus had several very active christian groups and even a group for jews, too. They had prayer meetings at nutrition sometimes, too, and no one complained or even joked about it. I personally feel that tolerance can and often does extend even towards the majority party, the white Christian males of the world.

the issue is that once our leaders' faith becomes such an issue we slowly begin to mix state and religion. same when we legislate morals because morals vary by each religion and at times by individuals.

Does your research lead you to believe they intended a connection to state from religion?

How a chronological history of how someone makes "personal" decisions should not be part of a "politicians" exposure is beyond logic. It is the very reason for presenting their life as an open book, to demonstrate how they have made important judgments in the past. As exampled by Mr. Obama, when he keeps presenting a platform of "change", yet some deem it an "invasion" for us (the public) wanting to know just what history qualifies this man to become the leader of the free world, as we simply ask about his beliefs, and a history of just where this man descends, as everyone is molded by the history of their personal upbringing. Thus, again it is demonstrated to be impossible to separate public service from the actual history of a personal nature. And again, if they deem this personal knowledge to be "off limits", the doors to our "public service" should be deemed "off limits" to those that wish to hold a public service position, without making known these important factors of personal history. As also demonstrated by the NY governorship scandal, if this man had been personally exposed as being a "sex addict", and presenting the public office of which he held as to be a position of black mail or worse, I am sure the "PUBLIC" would not have placed this man into such a "hypocritical" position of power in judging others for the same offense of which he was "addicted" . BD

There is so much garbage here I hardely know where to start....