https://padlet.com/gbeckham/kfhisfl2oeuz en-us 2018-09-16 22:09:04 UTC 2025-09-24 08:41:58 UTC hello@padlet.com gbeckham https://padlet.com/gbeckham/kfhisfl2oeuz/wish/282045076 Something that I agreed with in this article was when it talked about the wall between Church and State going one way. The wall was originally created to protect religion from the government so we can have the freedom to practice any religion we want. It was not created to protect government from religion. So much of today's politics is driven by people's political agenda and when the "wall" is used to restrict people's religious freedom to fit those agendas then it is going against what the founders intended it for.  

In the article it talks about how many of the people who signed the Constitution said that religion in government was necessary and it would lead to political prosperity. Now that is not something I totally agree with but I understand the point they are trying to make. Politics today is very corrupt and driven by selfish motives. What the framers of the Constitution are saying is that when the government is lead by people who do believe in some type of religion that encourages morality and being a person of integrity then the rest of the nation will follow that. Not follow the religion but follow the ideas of morality and integrity.

Now I do not believe you have to believe in some type of religion to be a leader in the government. I don't think it directly correlates to being a successful political figure. Because there have been a ton of people who did not believe in a religion and still lead this country in a great way. But since so many people in charge do not have a belief system the government has restricted some of the religious freedoms this country was built on and that is where the wall was not built to go both ways. One fact in the article was that there have been over 6,000 court cases that have challenged religious practices in public settings. One of the examples used was that public schools are no longer allowed to have verbal prayer time even if it is denominationally neutral. Now I'm not someone who thinks because the founding fathers wrote "One Nation Under God" we need to have religion in every aspect of our lifes and every single person need to practice it. But I do think that is something that we should have the freedom to decide and it shouldn't be left to the courts to tell us what is allowed and not. 

I think this article did a great job of showing the founders intent for the "Wall of Separation Between Church and State" and shows that it is not about shoving religion into people's faces but having the wall to protect religion and not push political agendas. ]]> 2018-09-16 22:13:05 UTC https://padlet.com/gbeckham/kfhisfl2oeuz/wish/282045076 gbeckham https://padlet.com/gbeckham/kfhisfl2oeuz/wish/282051912 2018-09-16 23:09:19 UTC https://padlet.com/gbeckham/kfhisfl2oeuz/wish/282051912 gbeckham https://padlet.com/gbeckham/kfhisfl2oeuz/wish/282052211 2018-09-16 23:11:39 UTC https://padlet.com/gbeckham/kfhisfl2oeuz/wish/282052211 gbeckham https://padlet.com/gbeckham/kfhisfl2oeuz/wish/282052443 2018-09-16 23:14:04 UTC https://padlet.com/gbeckham/kfhisfl2oeuz/wish/282052443