Isn't acknowledging the existence of God, as a state, a contradiction of the separation of Church and State?











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'm not an expert in politics at all, but I have been wondering about this for a while.



If Church and State are supposed to be separated, isn't it a bit of a contradiction to have "God" so strongly "embedded" in politics? I'm thinking of:




In God we Trust; official motto, printed on money.



[...] so help me God; president swearing-in.



[...] God bless America; pretty much closing every official announcement.




And so on.



How is explicitly acknowledging to believe in God, as a state, not being something that intrinsically goes against the principle of separation?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Tommy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
    – Alexei
    1 hour ago










  • Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
    – Thomas
    45 mins ago










  • @Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
    – Tommy
    37 mins ago










  • @Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
    – Thomas
    11 mins ago















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'm not an expert in politics at all, but I have been wondering about this for a while.



If Church and State are supposed to be separated, isn't it a bit of a contradiction to have "God" so strongly "embedded" in politics? I'm thinking of:




In God we Trust; official motto, printed on money.



[...] so help me God; president swearing-in.



[...] God bless America; pretty much closing every official announcement.




And so on.



How is explicitly acknowledging to believe in God, as a state, not being something that intrinsically goes against the principle of separation?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Tommy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
    – Alexei
    1 hour ago










  • Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
    – Thomas
    45 mins ago










  • @Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
    – Tommy
    37 mins ago










  • @Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
    – Thomas
    11 mins ago













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I'm not an expert in politics at all, but I have been wondering about this for a while.



If Church and State are supposed to be separated, isn't it a bit of a contradiction to have "God" so strongly "embedded" in politics? I'm thinking of:




In God we Trust; official motto, printed on money.



[...] so help me God; president swearing-in.



[...] God bless America; pretty much closing every official announcement.




And so on.



How is explicitly acknowledging to believe in God, as a state, not being something that intrinsically goes against the principle of separation?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Tommy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I'm not an expert in politics at all, but I have been wondering about this for a while.



If Church and State are supposed to be separated, isn't it a bit of a contradiction to have "God" so strongly "embedded" in politics? I'm thinking of:




In God we Trust; official motto, printed on money.



[...] so help me God; president swearing-in.



[...] God bless America; pretty much closing every official announcement.




And so on.



How is explicitly acknowledging to believe in God, as a state, not being something that intrinsically goes against the principle of separation?







united-states religion






share|improve this question









New contributor




Tommy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Tommy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









chirlu

3,82341428




3,82341428






New contributor




Tommy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









Tommy

1063




1063




New contributor




Tommy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Tommy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Tommy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
    – Alexei
    1 hour ago










  • Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
    – Thomas
    45 mins ago










  • @Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
    – Tommy
    37 mins ago










  • @Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
    – Thomas
    11 mins ago


















  • Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
    – Alexei
    1 hour ago










  • Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
    – Thomas
    45 mins ago










  • @Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
    – Tommy
    37 mins ago










  • @Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
    – Thomas
    11 mins ago
















Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
– Alexei
1 hour ago




Related: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8521/…
– Alexei
1 hour ago












Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
– Thomas
45 mins ago




Those examples don't specify which God is being referred to. I think that is accepted as good enough. Sorry atheists...
– Thomas
45 mins ago












@Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
– Tommy
37 mins ago




@Thomas which God doesn't really matter here, at least the way I see it.
– Tommy
37 mins ago












@Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
– Thomas
11 mins ago




@Tommy You may not accept it as good enough, but it seems that legally and politically it is accepted. For the most part "freedom of religion" has historically been about choosing between different abrahamic religions and atheism didn't really enter into it.
– Thomas
11 mins ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













No, it isn't. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:




It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.




People can certainly disagree based on opinion, but in context of politics and law, the mention of God isn't establishment of a state religion in the U.S.






share|improve this answer























  • Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
    – Martin Tournoij
    3 hours ago










  • Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
    – Burt_Harris
    3 hours ago












  • Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
    – jamesqf
    3 hours ago


















up vote
2
down vote













This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.



Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorses any group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.



Pragmatically, almost all of Americans are from a abraamic religion that share a root concept of god, they fell represented and will defend the use of this symbology, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it, as there is no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non christians/jews/mulisms, that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism", campaign actively against it, nothing would change.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Cochise is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.



    Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.



    There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.



    Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.






    share|improve this answer























    • The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
      – Martin Tournoij
      3 hours ago












    • @MartinTournoij edited.
      – Jared Smith
      3 hours ago











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Tommy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35719%2fisnt-acknowledging-the-existence-of-god-as-a-state-a-contradiction-of-the-sep%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    3
    down vote













    No, it isn't. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:




    It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.




    People can certainly disagree based on opinion, but in context of politics and law, the mention of God isn't establishment of a state religion in the U.S.






    share|improve this answer























    • Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
      – Martin Tournoij
      3 hours ago










    • Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
      – Burt_Harris
      3 hours ago












    • Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
      – jamesqf
      3 hours ago















    up vote
    3
    down vote













    No, it isn't. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:




    It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.




    People can certainly disagree based on opinion, but in context of politics and law, the mention of God isn't establishment of a state religion in the U.S.






    share|improve this answer























    • Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
      – Martin Tournoij
      3 hours ago










    • Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
      – Burt_Harris
      3 hours ago












    • Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
      – jamesqf
      3 hours ago













    up vote
    3
    down vote










    up vote
    3
    down vote









    No, it isn't. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:




    It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.




    People can certainly disagree based on opinion, but in context of politics and law, the mention of God isn't establishment of a state religion in the U.S.






    share|improve this answer














    No, it isn't. This has been tested in the Federal Courts, see for example O'Hair v. Blumenthal, and Aronow v. United States. The basic reasoning is summarized in this paragraph from the Anonow case:




    It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency "In God We Trust" has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.




    People can certainly disagree based on opinion, but in context of politics and law, the mention of God isn't establishment of a state religion in the U.S.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 hours ago

























    answered 3 hours ago









    Burt_Harris

    1,6601226




    1,6601226












    • Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
      – Martin Tournoij
      3 hours ago










    • Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
      – Burt_Harris
      3 hours ago












    • Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
      – jamesqf
      3 hours ago


















    • Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
      – Martin Tournoij
      3 hours ago










    • Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
      – Burt_Harris
      3 hours ago












    • Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
      – jamesqf
      3 hours ago
















    Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
    – Martin Tournoij
    3 hours ago




    Or, in short, "separation of church and state" does not equal "separation of religion and state". Religion is an idea. The church is an institution. They are related, but not the same. As a comparison, the state might promote the general idea of healthier eating, but if it would only promote a specific brand of healthy food then there might be a problem.
    – Martin Tournoij
    3 hours ago












    Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
    – Burt_Harris
    3 hours ago






    Agreed, but that can be confusing because of the wording of the 1st Amendment's "establishment" clause. The basic intent of that clause is to disallow establishment of a state religion for the US. A state religion based on Christianity would be a church, like the Church of England. No equivalent to that in the US.
    – Burt_Harris
    3 hours ago














    Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
    – jamesqf
    3 hours ago




    Yes, it IS a violation, but since the majority of Americans at least pay lip service to the Judeo-Christian religion, the Court was afraid to rule against mottos &c.
    – jamesqf
    3 hours ago










    up vote
    2
    down vote













    This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.



    Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorses any group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.



    Pragmatically, almost all of Americans are from a abraamic religion that share a root concept of god, they fell represented and will defend the use of this symbology, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it, as there is no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non christians/jews/mulisms, that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism", campaign actively against it, nothing would change.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Cochise is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      2
      down vote













      This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.



      Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorses any group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.



      Pragmatically, almost all of Americans are from a abraamic religion that share a root concept of god, they fell represented and will defend the use of this symbology, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it, as there is no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non christians/jews/mulisms, that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism", campaign actively against it, nothing would change.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Cochise is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















        up vote
        2
        down vote










        up vote
        2
        down vote









        This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.



        Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorses any group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.



        Pragmatically, almost all of Americans are from a abraamic religion that share a root concept of god, they fell represented and will defend the use of this symbology, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it, as there is no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non christians/jews/mulisms, that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism", campaign actively against it, nothing would change.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Cochise is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        This is a rather principialist question, and politics is a much more pragmatic field.



        Philosophically, yes, a State should not acknowledge a god, there are religions without gods, agnosticism and atheism. As the State should not endorses any group, the god question should be absent from the State sphere.



        Pragmatically, almost all of Americans are from a abraamic religion that share a root concept of god, they fell represented and will defend the use of this symbology, even hurting the neutrality of the State. No politician would campaign against it, as there is no practical gain and a huge practical loss for them. Unless non christians/jews/mulisms, that are prejudiced by this "state monotheism", campaign actively against it, nothing would change.







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Cochise is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        New contributor




        Cochise is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 2 hours ago









        Cochise

        1213




        1213




        New contributor




        Cochise is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        Cochise is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        Cochise is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.



            Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.



            There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.



            Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.






            share|improve this answer























            • The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
              – Martin Tournoij
              3 hours ago












            • @MartinTournoij edited.
              – Jared Smith
              3 hours ago















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.



            Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.



            There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.



            Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.






            share|improve this answer























            • The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
              – Martin Tournoij
              3 hours ago












            • @MartinTournoij edited.
              – Jared Smith
              3 hours ago













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.



            Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.



            There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.



            Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.






            share|improve this answer














            The founding fathers were largely theists and largely Christian, but from various different sects of Christianity. A substantial minority like Ben Franklin were deists.



            Since they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity or even whether Christianity was preferable to a more generic deism, they put the separation of church and state provisos in to prevent one sect from taking over and banning all the others by government fiat.



            There was not likely any serious intent that the idea of God would be abandoned, as evidenced by the official language you mention in your question.



            Further more two of the largest groups to settle America (and have the first successful settlement) were the Puritans and the Quakers, both of which came here fleeing religious persecution. The idea of religious tolerance was probably a little more appealing in early America than most places.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 3 hours ago

























            answered 3 hours ago









            Jared Smith

            2,7192914




            2,7192914












            • The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
              – Martin Tournoij
              3 hours ago












            • @MartinTournoij edited.
              – Jared Smith
              3 hours ago


















            • The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
              – Martin Tournoij
              3 hours ago












            • @MartinTournoij edited.
              – Jared Smith
              3 hours ago
















            The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
            – Martin Tournoij
            3 hours ago






            The notion that this was implemented just because "they couldn't all agree which type of Christianity" is just flat-out wrong.
            – Martin Tournoij
            3 hours ago














            @MartinTournoij edited.
            – Jared Smith
            3 hours ago




            @MartinTournoij edited.
            – Jared Smith
            3 hours ago










            Tommy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            Tommy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Tommy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Tommy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.















             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35719%2fisnt-acknowledging-the-existence-of-god-as-a-state-a-contradiction-of-the-sep%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bundesstraße 106

            Verónica Boquete

            Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten