Where in the Constitution does it require the Seperation of Church and State? (Exact words please)?

Question

Other then the Jefferson Papers, where is the phrase of seperation of Church and state found? Isn't this nothing more then the Athiest taking over the Government?

So far you are showing me the clause that keeps the Governement from telling the church how to function and the Church from telling the Governtment how to function.
Where is it that we can not have anything religious on governmental grounds? Where is it that we are not aloud to espouse God's name in Government?

Answer 1

I believe your correct Lancelot. Here is : AMENDMENT1 (congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free excercise thereof.or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.) No where is it written "The separation of church and state" in our constitution. This phrase changes the meaning.

Answer 2

You said it yourself: "the clause that keeps the Government from telling the church how to function and the Church from telling the Government how to function."

Because neither is allowed to control the other, they must be separate. Not separate as in in "can't talk to each other" (isolated) but separate as in "not the same things" (distinct).

The purpose was never to have religious people be unable to influence the government as individual people. The point of that clause was to ensure that the government wasn't taken over by any one religion, and thus doesn't start enforcing religious laws on religious grounds. That's the essence of the Establishment clause -- laws cannot be enacted solely to enforce religious morality.

If you can give a valid reason for a law that doesn't depend solely on religious grounds, then go for it. Just because it may also be wrong as a sin doesn't mean that it can't be made illegal. But it can't be made illegal solely because it is a sin, without any secular purpose.

The other half of the separation is in the Free Exercise clause, to ensure that the government doesn't go around saying what is or is not a valid religion. Most organized western religions operate on a One True Way mentality, which says their religion is correct and anything that contradicts it is wrong.

The Free Exercise clause is there to ensure that people are not made wrong (punished) for their religious beliefs, even if those beliefs happen to contradict the majority viewpoint. Because the government cannot tell someone their religion is wrong, the government cannot establish one religion as more valid than any other.

That's what is meant by separate, as in distinct; independent; not combined; one not supporting or enforcing the other.

The literal phrasing isn't in the Constitution because the concept was so obvious to the Founders (and anyone else who has studied Constitutional law in depth) that it went without saying.

--------

BTW, if the government were Atheist, it would be actively saying that religions are wrong. It would be directly pushing as fact that there is no such thing as God, and that anyone who believes in God must be delusion. It's not. The Constitution requires the government to refuse to take part in the religious debate. It can't say what God is or isn't; it can't say that God should or should not be worshiped; it can't tell you that your religious beliefs are wrong. But it also can't tell you that your particular religious beliefs are more right or more preferred than anyone else's, even if you happen to be in the majority at the moment.

Can you really not see the difference between an atheist government, who takes a affirmative stand to say all religion is wrong, and a non-religious government, who won't take either side of the debate?

Answer 3

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." This was written to keep the federal government from forming a state religion such as in England, or some of the individual states. There is also a clause in the Constitution forbidding religious oaths as a requirement for holding office.

Answer 4

I don't know the exact words, but the seperation of church and state is contained in the seperation clause of the first amendment of the constitution. It basically keeps religious hoopla out of people's lives and guarantees freedom of religion (freedom to choose). It was a response to the way in which the church of england ran rampant over politics in great britain. I guess it's a way to keep the church loonies out of the government (can you imagine what this country would be like with a bunch of pedophile priests at the helm?)

Answer 5

How could anyone who claims to be an intelligent, educated person think that the government should support anyone religion. That means by putting things like the Ten Commandments on government property, putting the word God in the Pledge of Alligiance or having prayer in school.

It may not be in the Constitution, but you know well that we can't have a free and just nation if the government supports any one religion.

Those ideas are dangerous and are leading us to injustices for people who don't believe what the government supports.

Answer 6

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

— U.S. Constitution, First Amendment

Establishment of religion

Main article: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is commonly interpreted as prohibiting the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another (or religion over nonreligion). Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, and for 57 years thereafter, the courts took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine," certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to restrict substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.")


Free exercise of religion

Main article: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

The Warren Court held that this meant governments must have a compelling interest before passing a law that unduly burdens the practice of religion. Later court decisions retreated from this standard, permitting governmental actions that were neutral to interfere with religion, but Congress attempted to restore it by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which the Supreme Court held was inapplicable to state and local government actions, albeit applicable to federal action. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)

Answer 7

I like all the quotes "congress shall make no law...bah blah blah" of course that is NOT the question you are asking. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state such separation nor support of a government absent of religion.
So lets say that there is such a separation, How than can the courts, a branch of the government, hear any cases based upon religion? Should they recluse themselves as agents of the government from hearing any case? Furthermore, since the courts now have precedent on separation, way is the religion of atheism immune to such separation?

Answer 8

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, no establishment of religion and no prohibiting its exercise... (or lack of exercise)....its not Atheism... its freedom from a government established religion...or requirement to be religious... its freedom for and freedom from...And therefore, it does establish a seperation of church from the state (government therefore)

Answer 9

Any true Christian, reading and understanding and actually following the teachings of Christ wouldn't even be asking such a foolish question.

Try practicing the teachings, unless of course you are without sin and can cast all the stones you want.

(PS. The United States was founded by free-thinking, idealistic men who wanted to live in a world where every point of view was equally respected and honored, whether you were a Christian nor not.)

Answer 10

I see no reason such secular activities might want to operate any sort of prayer. this is no longer a religious service. this is paintings. If board individuals favor to desire silently, they're welcome,. if a collection of them favor to have a private prayer gathering before, this is genuinely their proper. yet there is not any reason to have prayer has part of the assembly. contained in the U. S., faith is meant to be own. the authorities might want to no longer be endorsing or condemning any non secular theory or practice. the answer of having many diverse prayer leaders would not fix something. this is awkward and unusual. the unique criticism became that non-Christians experience alienated even as the prayer is continually Christian. properly, in case then you herald a Wiccan, you're going to alienate each of the non-Wiccans, which will be pretty a lot each individual. Spreading around the awkwardness is an ***-backward answer. get rid of the awkwardness totally, and, to me, the problem is solved.