Why did early colonists want the separation of church and state?

Answer 1

The founding fathers did not want to create a tyrannical government, and they hoped that by separating the powers of the government into three branches, each branch would help to keep the other two branches honest.

Answer 2

The founders did want separation of church and state, but not in the way many people think. They did not want the government to be able to create a national church like there had been in England. By "separation of church and state" they did not mean that The Bible should be removed from public life. Rush and Washington even said that if the Bible was removed, our country would not succeed but would fall.

There is a great deal of scholarly material suggesting that the phraseology of the First Amendment was as it is to protect the rights of the states to have a measure of establishment of religion if they so choose, a subject matter about which the Congress could make no law. At the time of the framing of the First, seven or eight states had some form of establishment of religion, and there is absolutely no evidence that the current "keep all government out of religion" animus, the infamous "wall of separation" of Jefferson [who was not a Framer of the Constitution!], was intended by the Framers to obliterate that establishment. The confusion arrived during the incorporation theory era, when it was increasingly urged that the 14th Amendment was intended to make all/much of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, a highly suspect doctrine itself. The Framers meant to leave the establishment question up to the states about whether they did nor did not want, say, Bibles in schools or creches on public property, and those ignorant [or heedless] of that intention have construed the First 180 degrees off of that obvious intent.

First look at the text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"This doesn't say 'Congress can't make a state religion' or 'Congress can't take the Bible out of public life.' It says that Congress can *not* make a law that respects the Bible or the Catholic Church or any other Church, Synagogue, etc etc. It also can't prohibit the FREE exercise thereof. FREE exercise means in your home, in the street, at the mall, wherever. If you want to go say some prayers at the mall, go ahead! It's your constitutional right. If you want to say grace before your lunch at school, spiffy! However: the school cannot have a policy of grace, or prayer, or religion. That is public. That is *institutional*.

Answer 3

to keep the church from gaining too much power and control over government. perhaps the colonists were thinking of the crusades and didn't want the church ever having that kind of power again. look what they did with it the first time around - and in point of fact, the church is still wielding its power, only it's slightly more hidden from the public eye. also, the church kept knowledge hidden from the public at large - if churches had power over school systems, children would learn nothing useful or be able to advance to colleges and universities. the church doesn't like people who can think, because people who can think might come to realize that "religion" is myth. people may also come to realize that they can hold their beliefs of a religious nature with out the church - and there would go the churches' money and power. ultimately, the colonists realized that, to advance knowledge and escape superstition, to allow for education, the church should be kept out of government.

Answer 4

If only it had been...

Church and state should not be a single unit because religion is a matter of faith and interpretation, to which each man and woman has the right to their own. To implement one theistic belief into the sociopolitical governance of an entire group can only lead to war, persecution and greater division among it's members.

Religious perspective is a subjective matter, and has no place being forced upon others who might have an entirely different viewpoint.

Answer 5

Originally, the separation of church and state was meant to exclude any state religion; that is, one religion officially endorsed (and promoted) by the government. If you want to run a country which encourages diversity of opinion, you need one where people can practice their own religions. Having a state-sanctioned and -backed religion quickly leads to a country where there really is only one religion, and you've eliminated the positive benefits of having different viewpoints.

In addition, religious governments traditionally have not fared well, measured as how they treat their citizenry. Religions, by their nature, tend to be rather rigid and inflexible. Governments, on the other hand, tend to need a considerable flexibility to deal with the myriad of problems facing them. Nations where religion controls (or merely strongly influences) government tend to have a poor track record on their ability to get along with other nations (or with their own citizenry, for that matter).

Nowadays, the phrase "separation of church and state" has come to mean not just that there is no official state religion, but that the government should really make no religious associations whatsoever, possibly to the extreme that the government actively becomes atheistic (that is, religion of any sort is purged from the government). This may or may not be a bad thing; it is still up for debate as to how much "separation" is good, before the government begins actually persecuting all religions.

Answer 6

The emphasis is on the word freedom. Freedom of religion guarantees that religious persecution does not exist. At least, that is the ideal. The founders were aware that many came to North America to escape the religious persecution they were facing in Europe.

Answer 7

Cause he wasx gay