"Seperation of Church and state" isn't in the constitution

It doesn't anywhere say "separation of church and state"

It says congress shall make no laws for an establishment of religion, but there are probably loopholes around that if you think hard enough. Therefore teaching religion in schools isn't unconstitutional; it isn't establishing a national religion in the same way Denmark established Lutheran Christianity as "official"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Teaching comparative religion is allowed in public schools, but teaching any particular religion as truth is not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why not? As long as congress doesn't officially establish a state religion, technically we can use religion in government

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They do have a prayer before the congress meets. Allowing the public teaching of any particular religion as truth violates the establishment clause.

 

No it doesn't as long as it isn't an "official" state religion, which it wouldn't be. Furthermore, creating religious laws doesn't establish a particular religion.

 

That is not the interpretation that the Supreme Court has understood. Establishment is interpreted broadly, not as specifically as you are doing.

 

Then it's interpretation and subjective. I also really love the fact that people in the Bible Belt, where probably the majority do want the religion taught in schools, can't do so. Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? The people's will. The constitution limits the will of the people.

 

Nah; they don't deserve that right. They only get the right to kill fetuses.

 

What are you trying to say?

 

I'm saying; people think it's okay to kill babies, but think it's wrong to pray in school aloud.

 

actually your right, the australian consitution was based on the US one and there is a similar claus here which says something like "the commonwealth goverment cant form a state religion". however this was never ment to be a seperation between church and state but rather that this power is belongs to the STATES to form an offical religion.

this was because it was belived that the states would probably adopt the church of england as an offical religion but they didnt take into account the number of irish imigrants who were catholic.

Of course now the states would never DARE exercise this power because they people wouldnt alow them to

 

In the US more people are religious than in Australia so it's more relevant.

 

not really, you might be right that there are more religious people but there are also more RELIGIONS. which would they chose?

 

The majority, Christianity

 

christanity isnt a religion, its a group of religions

 

The majority demonination in the state

 

so if we break down the percentages (this is just a rough guess because i dont know the exact numbers)

say 20% agnostic\athiast
10% muslim
10% jews
20% unaffiliated churchs
11% catholic
9% anglican
20% other

the "majority" is spread in churches which have no affiliation to eachother and are only aplicable to there own membership

the greatest "majority" would be catholisium but its only 11% of the population which means that 81% of the population OPOSE it

 

That's a plurality or something like that. In the US it's more like 75% are Christians.

 

well, congress is contradicting itself because we swear on the 'bible' to tell the truth and have 'in God we trust' on all our money and 'one nation under God' said every morning in schools and yet their against teaching anything about God or an 'intelligent designer'. and congress is trying to take off 'in God we trust' of all currency? the court swears in God yet wont put the commandments in every courthouse? whats wrong with this?????

 

yes i totally believe in separation between religion and state and only use the constitution that what make all Arabian countries suffer now because they put such Duran and this stuff in their regular business then they get backwards day after day