Comparison Paper
First of all, there 's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about a separation of church and state. Secondly, no one ever told us that we couldn 't read the Bible in school. Thirdly they are allowed to teach other religions like Islam not to mention the fact that they teach socialist religions. Especially things that we don 't think of as religions such as atheism agnosticism socialism tolerance political correctness environmentalism Darwinism. And all the other corrupt ideologies of the new world order to brainwash us so we should be allowed to sue if Christians are being persecuted for many views the separation of churches and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens …show more content…
Constitution. But it seems to be such a popular arguing point of those who want to impose their morality on Christians. The meaning behind this phrase was never intended to restrict the free practice of religion nor was it designed to prohibit government leaders and elected officials from espousing it in their policies and daily functions. In fact, the founders had prayer meetings in the halls of Congress. To kill the "You wouldn 't like it if Muslim elected officials upheld their religious beliefs while practicing their governmental responsibilities" …show more content…
They said the same thing about the Mormons after the LDS Church supports for California’s Proposition eight back in 2008. There is no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution. There is nothing in that text that suggests that preachers are required to censor themselves. They have just as much right to state their opinions as anyone else. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It means the government can 't establish an official state church, the way many old-world European nations did. It means the government can 't outlaw religion, or prevent people from worshipping as they choose. Given how the IRS has now been turned into a political weapon, removing church 's ' tax-exempt status based on what the preacher says is a dangerous precedent. Whatever tax policy is applied to religious organizations needs to be implemented to all of them, across the board, equally. To do anything else is the government picking winners and losers, targeting some groups but not others. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. Leave the churches alone, even if they say stuff you don 't like. In this case, the cure is more dangerous than the
First of all, there 's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about a separation of church and state. Secondly, no one ever told us that we couldn 't read the Bible in school. Thirdly they are allowed to teach other religions like Islam not to mention the fact that they teach socialist religions. Especially things that we don 't think of as religions such as atheism agnosticism socialism tolerance political correctness environmentalism Darwinism. And all the other corrupt ideologies of the new world order to brainwash us so we should be allowed to sue if Christians are being persecuted for many views the separation of churches and state as required by the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only allows citizens …show more content…
Constitution. But it seems to be such a popular arguing point of those who want to impose their morality on Christians. The meaning behind this phrase was never intended to restrict the free practice of religion nor was it designed to prohibit government leaders and elected officials from espousing it in their policies and daily functions. In fact, the founders had prayer meetings in the halls of Congress. To kill the "You wouldn 't like it if Muslim elected officials upheld their religious beliefs while practicing their governmental responsibilities" …show more content…
They said the same thing about the Mormons after the LDS Church supports for California’s Proposition eight back in 2008. There is no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution. There is nothing in that text that suggests that preachers are required to censor themselves. They have just as much right to state their opinions as anyone else. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It means the government can 't establish an official state church, the way many old-world European nations did. It means the government can 't outlaw religion, or prevent people from worshipping as they choose. Given how the IRS has now been turned into a political weapon, removing church 's ' tax-exempt status based on what the preacher says is a dangerous precedent. Whatever tax policy is applied to religious organizations needs to be implemented to all of them, across the board, equally. To do anything else is the government picking winners and losers, targeting some groups but not others. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. Leave the churches alone, even if they say stuff you don 't like. In this case, the cure is more dangerous than the