Separation of Church and State

Separation of Church and State

There appears to be a grave misunderstanding regarding religion and the government in the United state. Most rely solely on the phrase "Separation" arguing that the two entities must be separate, however that is not case, nor the intent of the founding fathers, the constitution, the federalist papers and the Treaty of Tripoli. 

The First amendment states,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." When this is read plainly, it shows that the government shall not partner with a specific faith and therefore make it the religion of that state. This would cause citizens to have to join a church based solely because the government chose for them. The first amendment does no refer to how religion can be used inside government, and according to the federalist papers, the fathers state that if there is no specific right listed in the constitution it is deemed that the government does have that right. So the interpretation that one cannot make decisions while in public office based off of religious convictions is not correct. 

Next, the Treaty of Tripoli. Very few have actually read the entire treaty or tried to understand the purpose and reason for the treaty. In the late 1700's, the US barely started to travel into the Mediterranean and had a number of issues with pirates. This forced a number of treaty's to be signed to protect the US. Many often refer to the 11th article for their justification for separation. However, that is not what it says, in fact it actually has nothing to do with religion in the US. The article reads...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The purpose of this article was to say "We will not break out in war against Muslim nations based on differing religious views. This treaty does not state that laws and policies cannot be made or enforced in the United States based off of religion. 

Religion can and should be used in all aspects of our lives, just as atheists are able to practice it in all aspects of their lives. No country, state or local governments  should ever partner with a church and declare that it's citizens will practice a particular faith. As you can recall, during the formation of the United States, Great Britain had the Church of England, which was a splinter of the Catholic Church. It was formed out of adultery when King Henry had sexual relations outside of marriage, was excommunicated from the church and therefore became angry chose to create this church with the ability to commit suchlike whoredoms legally. He therefore set off a chain of events that lasted for centuries of injustices against its citizens. Therefore, in the establishment of the United States, our founders wanted to declare that our President, or any Branch of government for that matter, shall never create a State Run church, like we would with Universities or so on. With a church run state, by not following the religious whims of government leaders, citizens would be exposed to tyranny, frustration and ultimately the darkness the comes from False Christ's and false Gods. I cannot find in any text where government cannot allow it's leaders to be influenced by religion, or God. Rather, the founding fathers were so interested in establishing a land for God to flourish that by creating a false sense of "Separation of and state" would defeat the purpose of this land. Let me even take a step further, the atheist left continue to promote this false ideal of Separation, desiring that all religious items should be removed from any public property, events or policy. Is this not the exact same course that King Henry took, except it is on the opposite side of the scale? Forcing all citizens to believe a certain way, under a tyrannical government? It is no different.