Many claim so. Their argument is based on the explicit principle that it requires the existence of some god and that the country as a whole is entrusted to it. It is also implied by usage and history that the statement refers to the Christian god specifically.
However, these arguments are not likely to be considered, simply because the majority of policy-makers are Christian themselves, as are many of the populace.
The American revolution led to the separation of Church and State.
The Paris Commune
I am wondering that myself. I am presuming that it can be both depending on certain factors which is why we are wondering this??
Mr. Armstrong has described himself as "middle to left". He's pro-choice, "not keen on guns", against the Iraq War, and for separation of church and state. By standards of his home state of Texas, he would be considered a Democrat.
All the founding fathers were actually looking for changes and were the facto liberals. All the founding fathers wanted a clear separation between state and church, making them liberals. So you could assume they were Democrats ... However, the main argument for separation was that they were upset to pay taxes to the Great Britain, who was looking to tax the colonies. This alone, the fact that they didn't want to pay any taxes, makes them Republicans. But over the years, even the Republicans and the Democrats values changed. Today's Democrats are the old Republicans, and vice versa. The best way to honor your founding fathers is to vote and encourage the separation of the church and the state, encourage liberal values while respecting the conservatives who protect your gains, in a small government environment.
wersesersre
This has been answered many times by the courts: Church Schools that receive no state (government; state or federal) funding do not violate the separation of church and state. Further, no classes held in a church (that do receive government funding) violate the separation clause as long as the 'church' and its religious edict (teachings) is left out of the curriculum.
Church officials are not allowed to endorse any political candidate, as that would violate the separation of church and state.
strengthening of the principle of separation of church and state
A water board can meet in a church and not violate separation of church and state laws as long as they are only conducting the meeting there and not worshiping there at the same time.
the principle of the separation of church and state being inviolable is implied from the constitutional prohibitations that "no law shall be made respecting an estasblisment of religion . the principle simply means that the church is not to interfere in purely political matters or temporal aspects of man's life and the state,in purely matter of religion and morals,
No. They are preventing drinking generally on Sunday. The state has the right to regulate bars and drinking. Religion has nothing to do with it.
recitation of prayers in public school
recitation of prayers in public school
separation of church and state from jorgito :)
No, there should be a mutual respect for each religion, and don't violate those beliefs. It is called "separation of church and marriage."
No amendment. It's claimed to be violating the principle of separation of church and state, by having a government agency hosting a Christian rock concert.