See this poll on: https://poll.fm/7391273/embed
Give others the chance to vote.
Share this poll, because the more votes the better.
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
There is no clause in the constitution for separation of church and state, it isnt there no matter how hard the right twists the first amendment. Although the US was founded upon christian principles, the founders were not expressedly christian and in fact most were either atheists or agnostics and some were deists and I don't think that their idea was for the radical christians to get inside our laws and re- write for their benefit as is happening in todays America, so yes- I believe a true separation amendment should be considered. About 70% of the US population identifies itself as christian but yet they always are talking about being discriminated against. Huh? Why are they not concerned with the other 30%? Because they are only christians when it is to their advantage when it is not then the beome mean, nasty and biggots but yet they want everybody to be just like them- sheeple. Not happening, I will pass. This amendment needs to move forward so the 70% quit dictating the agenda of everybody else.
I am not a student of the Constitution and I am not sure it specifically demands a separation between "church and state". I do not believe the fist amendment insures this. "Interpreted" to say is not the same as "stating". I believe in order to guarantee it a statement such should be made.
I hit reject, we already have a Constitutional Amendment for seperation of church and state. There doesn't need to be any further clarification than what has already been written.
The Federal government is prohibited from establishing a religion upon the country. To my knowledge, it has never tried. Government has no business restricting displays of any religious belief anywhere, or displays of agnostic or non-religious belief anywhere. To enforce this understanding, all tax-exempt status should be removed from any and all religious entities.
Religion has no place in politics. That said, religious people themselves should be free to hold office. However, decisions should never be made based on scripture. Or what their cleric wants them to do.
The decisions should be based on what is the best option in the real world, not based on appeasing some fictitious invisible dictator in the sky. They seem to forget they're there to represent the interests of all people. That includes various different beliefs, and non-beliefs.
If you were your religion on your sleeve, as basically every single politician likes to do, then it's fair game for journalists to scrutinize them.
I don't want some doomsday seeker (who believes that Jesus is due to return sometime before 2040 and can't wait for the world to end so he can be in heaven with his master) with his finger on the button.
We had that with George Bush, and look where that got us? Obama's not much better either.
There is no need to change the Constitution's provisions. The First Amendment clearly states that you cannot force any religious beliefs upon the nation and that also means you cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof by any citizen!
Rubbish. The 1935 Constitution of Joe Stalin had a provision for the separation of church and state. It was a stupid idea then and an even dumber idea now.
Government has no business meddling in the affairs of religious institutions. Check.
Government should not respect one religion over all others so as to make a national religion. Check.
What more would such an amendment do except suppress religion and/or prohibit people of faith from participating in government. See? That's why Stalin put it in HIS 1935 constitution of the Soviet Union and why it has NO PLACE in the constitution of a FREE people.
Of course, atheists would love to be free FROM religious people, but that is just a form of religious repression.
This proposed amendment provides inadequate protection - well, NO protection - for the free exercise of religion, which is already under heavy attack from the secular Left.
The founding fathers were very clear on the First Amendment. Having lived under the oppressive crown who outlawed any other forms of religious belief or worship, except for the crown approved and sanctioned religion.
The founding fathers were very clear. They did NOT want to see a STATE mandated religion that everyone had to believe, instead man was free to worship or not worship. Free to choose when and where to worship. Free to profess their religious beliefs to anyone who will listen.
Just because you hate religion does not grant YOU the authority to change history, to change how and WHY our nation was founded. Free is Free.
If you don't want to listen to a person proselytizing, then walk away and ignore them. You are Free to do that. You are even Free to tell them to go pound sand or take a hike. If that person is a politician expressing his or her beliefs.. vote against them. I vote against the pagan tree, hugging nature worshippers. Who by the way force their "religious" beliefs on people in the form of laws and regulations. Are you opposed to that form of religious separation? Because it is a form of religious belief. They just swap GOD and Nature.
The First Amendment tells you exactly what the "Separation of Church and State" means. It does not say YOU cannot believe or express your religious views, it does say the State shall NOT dictate a religion to believe.
Democrats have brainwashed a lot of people into believing two lies. One is the Separation of Church and State and the other is called "Climate Change" which ironically a lot of ignorant people do not realize they are worshipping a religion.
the problem is the interpretation of the first amendment by religious people. they think that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are tied together for their benefit. that they are free to be whatever religion that want seems to give them the idea that they can profess and push their religion on anyone who happens to be near by, and if you don't like the way they do it, you're prejudiced and biased against their religion. it is pretty clear what is meant in the first amendment, but as far as education goes, people cannot read and interpret the true meaning of anything anymore, so a new amendment that would make it easy for a third grader to understand my be what this country needs to get religion out of politics.
The First Amendment needs no further interpretation other than what it has already clarified from the original Constitution. Although I am an atheist (only so far as some definition of my stand on the whole god/religion issue is concerned) I do not hold that the Constitution forbids the exercise of one's personal beliefs in a religious context in a Public office or institution. Whilst Government applies this NON-interference, nonetheless, religious organizations, in particular their clerical representatives, do NOT seem to accept that it is equally binding upon them to not impose their particular religious practices on the State. We are a Nation of diversified peoples coming from all religious and non-religious backgrounds, which, I might add, INCLUDES MUSLIMS. If you have an invocation to ANY god the representative presupposes, no ASSUMES, that all in attendance would say AMEN to said prayer. Invariably, this would no doubt be awkward for those who do not believe in that particular god. However, in a secular setting much can be proposed as to the NON theological roots of such a ceremonial tradition. Therefore, my view would be more of an acceptance of the ceremony as being nothing more than symbolic and "generic" in nature. Nevertheless, I would insist that what is fair in this setting is that you would give ALL clerics of ALL possible faiths, including "atheists" if you will, an equal opportunity to give the "prayer".
Since the Boston Marathon bombing, I have not been able to make a decision as to which religion I want to join. I am more afraid of the people who let the killers pass through. I used to be catholic but they
are still having problems so I will not go back at least until they are solved. I might die old and alone
because of this indecision. But anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, I always thought that Congress could add
a clause to an amendment for the SAFETY of the MAJORITY of the people. For example, the Syria crisis
or any at home here where religious organizations misuse their powers and occupations to kill people
or make them do things that they don't want to do. I am new to this website, but after reading the First
Amendment, I am so confused as to where religious powers begin and stop according to people's
choices. I don't want to go out one day and have one follow me home!
one of the major reasons this nation was formed was because of religious freedom. religious beliefs are no different that say political beliefs. So if we start shutting down and cutting off things just because you don't like it, then you have corrupted the entire reason this nation was exceptional
I'm pleasantly surprised to see this vote as close as it is. The pessimistic side of me expected the Approval votes to be overwhelming. The single biggest misconception of the first amendment always seems to be that religion is forbidden in government. There are countless readings of the founders own words that very clearly state morality, religion, even Christian beliefs specifically, should be considered for elected officials. Of course, there was no official litmus test, as there shouldn't be, but it should never have become a knock against someone. Just like there have been some Presidents that, although they tried, I believe, to do what they thought was right, failed at their job, there have been many Supreme Court Justices that failed as theirs. Interpretation is never subjective, and somewhere along they way, Presidents like FDR filled the bench with some not so impressive jurists, and words out of context (e.g. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists) created a ex post facto law of the land. Teaching of the Constitution shouldn't be limited to one day in the school year, it should be part of the core curriculum, and it should be taught by Constitutional experts, not teachers that ingratiate their personal beliefs on our children. Happy Constitution Day to all!
The biggest problem is that most people do not understand that the separation of Church and State does not mean that Government entities or officials cannot quote Religious beliefs or literature. It means that the Government CANNOT dictate which Religion you will practice. I think the U.S. Population needs to be better educated on the meaning of the Constitutional Admendments before they start changing them or suing Jo Smith because she is a Christian who has a Biblical quote on her office wall.
The Constitution needs to stay as it is!!
The 1st amendment already covers this.
Just use the First Amendment... 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. THE RESTRICTION IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ELECTORATE, NOT CONGRESS. The people may establish what they wish, it is not up to lawmakers to restrict ANY religious organization. Period. For those who seem upset when people of a religious nature (Christians) are involved in the political scene, get over it. No one, but NO ONE complains when voters place a Muslim or Jewish person in office. If you want a Godless society, then win the political discussion in the arena of ideas. Otherwise, deal with the fact that in election after election, voters voluntarily elect candidates who at least profess to holding Christian attitudes. Those who want to keep people of all faiths out of the political arena, are hoping to establish their own "religious" government. That is, the religion of atheism or agnosticism. For the littany of bad choices made by a majority of voters time and time again, we simply have to trust the voting public. Peace.