As were the Founding Fathers.
Yep.
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
James Madison, Detached Memoranda ca. 1817 W. & M. Q., 3d ser., 3:554--60 1946
--http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.htm
Not in the same sense.
The Founders had zero problem with holders of public office whose religious beliefs informed their position on issues; that was to be expected rather than avoided, or prohibited. In that sense, then, one’s personal religious views would have a direct bearing upon matters of the state, and there was no expectation that one would act to mentally isolate the affairs of state from such influence. There was neither the merest suggestion that a devout churchman ought not hold public office, nor the contention his religious beliefs ought to be excluded from his official decision-making processes.
This is not the case, however, with some modern churchmen who think that a man’s religious veiws should have no influence on how he conducts himself in public office, nor how he votes on the issues set before him. This mentally contorted hypreseparation was not at all what the Founders had in mind.
What is most evident in the compiled documents of the men who established this Republic is that the idea of a “separation of church and state”, means strictly that the State shall not at any time fall under the purview of any established church, as was the case in many European nations. There was a strong intention to prevent there ever arising a case in America where the authority of a President would be either conflated with, or superseded by, the authority of a Pope, or other such religious leader.
The critical element of the lack of separation being barred is that of the heirarchical offices of some church taking on the legal power of government. There is to be no instance where officers of the law are equalled in legal power by memebrs of the clergy. There is to be no case where congressmen are equalled in legislative authority by officials of some church. There shall be no instance where the Pope and the President are the same man. All of this serves to prevent there ever being governmental power imposing upon the citizens a mandate to believe other than they choose to believe, or to engage religious rituals other than those they choose to engage.
Here is what is critical to grasp about that:
Saying that we are all free to believe as we wish, is NOT the same as tying the hands of government to legislate in concert with high moral values that are harmonious with the values of a particular religious faith. The government is not barred from overturning Roe v. Wade on the basis that overturning the Law would be “the Christian thing to do”. That a supreme value of life is a Christian value has no bearing on the constitutionality of government actualizing that value. What is prohibited is government putting a man on the rack for NOT sharing that value.
The Federal government adopting the motto “In God We Trust” is not Constitutionally prohibited, them forcing you to subscribe to that as your personal confession most certainly is.
This is why there is the huge argument about displays of the Ten Commandments on public property. One group contends that the mere display represents government imposing something upon them that they do not personally believe, the other recognizes that a display does not constitute an imposition of government force. The very idea is as patently absurd as you claiming that the bumper sticker on someone’s car is an attempt to force you to believe whatever it claims. A passive display — even on government property — is NOT tantamount to “force” by any stretch of the imagination, whether Conservative OR Liberal, and it certainly does not rise to the level of government establishment of a particular religion.
Opponents of such displays would have us believe that driving a single surveyor’s stake into the ground is “establishment” in every bit the same sense and degree as is the construction of a complete edifice. It is not. It is neither more nor less that the recognition of an historic landmark along the timeline of the development of the Rule of Law; one that ought rightly be memorialized in the public square, as it impinges daily upon public life.
Now, if agents of the government show up and imprison you for failure to assert a personal belief in the veracity and authorship of the Ten Commandments, THAT is when the Constitution will be thrown down, and we’ll have a real problem here in this Republic.