Hello Everyone, Mitt Romney once said, "The separation of Church and State has been taken too far in America and religion should be restored to public life." Where as President Obama said, "I have a job to do as president, and that does not involve convincing folks that my faith in Jesus is legitimate and real." James Madison, the father of the United States Constitution, once observed that, "The [religious] devotion of the people has been increased by the total separation of the church from the state." The separation from church and state is an important thing in our American culture. But if the "religious wall" is still prominently there, why are people still deciding on government officials based on their religion? http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt...n-of-church-and-state-has-gone-too-far-2012-8 http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/separation_cs_primer.asp
People choosing as voters to vote for someone based on religion has nothing to do with separation of church and state, people have a right to vote for anyone they want for any reason they want. If they were not allowed or were forced to vote for someone based on it then it's an issue with the constitution. Many people vote on politicians with stupid reasons it doesn't make it an issue though. You could also personally believe as a politician that people would be better off believing in a religion but as long as they don't implement legislation based upon it then it's a non-issue by the constitution and normally by me, now you could have a problem with it and not want to vote for that person and that would be your choice.
You have twisted the 1st amendment completely. This is a more complete quote from Madison: "It was the Universal opinion of the Century [1600s] preceding the last [1700s], that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, & that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government...functions with complete success; Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." He is not talking about erasing religion from the public or private sphere---he is referring to an official Government Church-such that England had. It has nothing to do with voting or the criteria of how people should choose their politicians.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/history_of_the_separation_of_chu.htm "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. - Benjamin Franklin: in letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780"
Separation of church and state is not about deciding how people vote. It's about making sure that religion is not the basis of law, and that the government does not dictate religious belief.
Freedom of choice. There are many reasons to vote for a politician, and religious beliefs or the lack there of are one of many reasons to vote for or against someone. Personally I could care less what religion or lack there of a person does or does not belong to... I vote on issues. I think some vote for someone who shares their religion because they think the person has the same values as themselves and will vote like wise.
