Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 8 years ago

the constitution of the united states?

why do politicians get away with violating the constitution[separation of church and state] by using there political appointments to push there religious agendas

3 Answers

  • Mark
    Lv 7
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm afraid that if you don't like the way the Constitution is being interpreted by any of the three branches of the federal government, then you'll have to get elected President yourself, and strive to make sure that, via some kind of magic, you get to appoint at least five of the US Supreme Court Justices, and that the people who you appoint will be immortal, staying on the Court for the rest of all time.

    In the meantime, you had better get used to the fact that not everybody interprets the Establishment Clause according to your own theory about what it means.

    And it's "their," not "there," in the context that you used the word. Also please learn how to use the shift key to capitalize letters, and use that function where it's appropriate.

  • Clive
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Because the constitution doesn't prevent them from doing that. All it does is prevent there being an official national church. That's all that separation of church and state means - the state doesn't approve of any particular church. The Founding Fathers knew all about that because England has an official national church. At the time they wrote the constitution, there were severe restrictions in England on any church other than the Church of England, and the Catholic Church was illegal.

    So to enable US citizens to have freedom of worship, they simply wrote into the constitution that no law can be made regarding establishment of religion. The Church of England is sometimes known as the "Established Church" in England because it is the official national church. There is nothing in the constitution to stop politicians pushing their particular views, whether they are based on religion or not. Who is to say whether their agenda is religious, and how would you define it in court?

    The results here in Britain have been interesting... having one official church effectively meant it turned into a "top people's club" and the working classes felt excluded. So they stopped going to church. The Methodist Church was born in England to give the working classes a church they felt more comfortable with - the story of John Wesley and how he created it by accident is a fascinating one (well, it is to me: all he ever intended to do was bring the Christian message to more people, but the C of E couldn't cope with all these new members actually interested in religion so Wesley set up an organisation of his own to cater for them, which eventually became the Methodist Church). But by then most British people had become non-religious and that's the way it is now. Moral of the story: if you want to kill off religion, have an official national church!

    By contrast, Americans have always had freedom of religion, which has made religion more popular, so inevitably politicians will play on it. In Britain, they don't, because they know we aren't interested and want to hear about actual policies. Any British politician who mentions their religion is thought of as slightly nuts by the voters.

  • 8 years ago

    You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. That is how this government works.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.