Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It means that literally, Congress cannot make a law. What type of law? Any law that establishes any religion as the government approved religion.

It does not say that a nativity scene cannot be put up on display on capitol grounds. It does not say that an atheist plaque cannot be put on display on capitol grounds. These are both fine examples of the “free exercise thereof.” It does say that Congress shall not make a law…”

In fact, Jefferson tried to include every aspect of other religions when he held church on government grounds. He did not establish a religion. In his roll as president, he honored all views, even those that he opposed.

It was his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association from which the words “Separation of Church and State” are derived from. Jefferson was opposed to the Danbury Baptists attempts in establishing our nation as a Christian nation. He wasn’t opposed to cutting religious ties. His own actions tell us that.

Where did that come from? The First Amendment? It has no words even close in meaning to the word “separate.”

Umm, yeah.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

together with

“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

both set the precedent that our government is to stay separate from religion.

What would you expect it to say?

Next, where do you get that I mentioned or hinted at our Founding Fathers believing in a religious theocracy? I never said that. If you are referring to my examples, they only point out that the Founding Fathers did not believe in the words “separation of church and state” as touted by the anti-christian/anti-religious groups do.

If they did want the government to keep their hands completely out of religion, then why did Jefferson and Madison support religion on state grounds?

Jefferson’s name is most significant because it was his letter to the Danbury Baptists that the words “separation of church and state” come from. Jefferson was not trying to remove religion from the government, he was trying to keep religion from controlling the government.

As a side note, I do not totally agree with the FFRF. But, they do have their right to post the plaque.

Can someone reasonably tell me why Jefferson AND Madison held church on government grounds if either of them meant for our government to have nothing to do with religion?

Even if the Founding Fathers believed in a religious theocracy, who cares? They believed slavery should be legal too, so should we still legalize slavery today? Last I checked, American democracy was not divenly inspired by God and inerrant. Do you think God is going to smite us if we don’t have a Christian theocracy? Some faith you have in God. Whether the Founding Fathers believed in a theocracy or not is besides the point. Theocracies were immoral then and they’re immoral now. Unless you want to argue that slavery should be legal because the Founding Fathers thought so, you can’t use the same reasoning for a theocracy. Besides, I thought the American government was founded by American citizens? Not Jesus, the 12 apostles plus government officials?

Our government is to be completely separate from any form of religion because the US Constitution establishes that precedent.

Where did that come from? The First Amendment? It has no words even close in meaning to the word “separate.”

Thomas Jefferson was the first to coin the words “Seperation of Church and State.” It was in reference to the Danbury Baptists whom wanted Jefferson to establish Christianity as an American religion. Jefferson said:

…legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State…

You can find more info on that letter here: Letter to Danbury Baptists Association

Many Supreme Court decisions cite this as a way to interpret the First Amendment. But they stop there and make no attempts to go any further.

Is that what Jefferson meant? A few Supreme Court judges would like you to believe so. When he wrote that letter, he had no idea of how much of a bearing it would have on this issue.

If Jefferson meant for our government to be completely separate, he would have done it that way. I think we all would agree on that. But he didn’t. In fact…

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House… were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary.

In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

Both of these can be found here for more reading… THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH: JEFFERSON AND MADISON
Can someone reasonably tell me why Jefferson AND Madison held church on government grounds if either of them meant for our government to have nothing to do with religion?

Why is it that people think our government should be completely separate from any form of religion? The US Constitution protects our choice of religion by not allowing the government to choose a religion for us. It is our choice, not the government’s choice.

You answered your own question with your second sentence.
Our government is to be completely separate from any form of religion because the US Constitution establishes that precedent.

Part of this freedom is that not everyone is going to like it. It goes hand in hand with free speech. Unfortunately, it will most likely make someone mad.

I do not agree with all of the Freedom From Religion’s ideas. But, I think that the Freedom From Religion Foundation putting their plaque on display is what freedom of religion is all about. I fully support it, regardless of my beliefs. I think that they should be both on display.

As thilina pointed out, if the government was promoting atheism by not having any religious icons up during Christians in government-owned buildings, why didn’t they take down the Christmas tree and keep up only the atheist sign? Answer the question.

NG, Jon won’t answer the question. He’s too busy playing word games and being an all-around troll.

You win by default. He refuses to answer the question (because it is reasonable, logical and disproves his entire point.)

Oh, and I still think it’s quite possible Jon is just an atheist’s sockpuppet that is put here to make fun of theists. Jon, if you’re real, PLEASE stick around. You make our points for us, brilliantly.

If you’re not for real, please cut it out. It’s an unfair debating tactic to masquerade as your opponent to discredit their position.