Why do people believe "Seperation of Church and State" is in the Constitution?

Question

Please only answer if you have actually read the Constitution. In truth the constitution demands that religion have freedom from Government interference. What has caused people to believe the opposite of what it actually says? Take special note of the "free excercise" clause. The first amendment reads as follows:
Amendment I

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

Please only answer if you have actually read the Constitution. Do not tell me about Jefferson's letter. Just because a president writes a letter about his wishes does not mean it is constitutional law.
In truth the constitution demands that religion have freedom from Government interference. The establishment clause is that you can establish any religion you want without government interference. What has caused people to believe the opposite of what it actually says? Take special note of the "free exercise" clause. The first amendment reads as follows:
Amendment I

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/...

I am not endorsing any religion. Just stating that Government may not make any decision regarding it.

Answer 1

To answer your question, I don't know why people believe what the believe. Until I read your question, I thought it was in the first amendment too. But you are correct.

I think the hard part is determining where one freedom ends and another begins. Many people use their "freedom of religion " to discriminate and that infringes on someone else's freedom. My dad always uses the analogy that your right to swing your fist anywhere you choose ends at the tip of my nose. Sort of a violent analogy, but fits the situation.

Answer 2

The term "Separation of Church and State" was used by founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Masidon to describe their ideals that created that restriction, first in the Virginia constitution, then in the first amendment. I take note of the free exercise clause, but you should take note of the anti-establishment clause. This clause originally only restricted the Federal government, however, by the time the fourteenth amendment came around and codified its application to State governments, no states had state churches.

Now you can interpret "establish" to mean, "finance and run the Episcopal Church of the United States", or you can interpret it to mean "Favor one church (or atheists or Moslems or Zeusists) over other churches", which has how the term has been viewed.

If you use the narrow definition, the Government could do all sorts of things to, for example favor Baptists over Mennonites, to the extent that the "right" has no meaning. If you use the broader definition, you generally end up with the separation of church and state. Why? Because just about everything the government does these days favors one group over another. That is why we have so many lobbyists. The best way, and possibly the only way, to follow the law is to keep government out of religion and religion out of government.

I can see how one can take the Constitution, absent the history of court cases, and say that it can be interpreted differently than it currently is,but I don't see how you can say "Separation" is the *opposite* of free exercise and anti-establishment.

Answer 3

Maybe if you researched the origin of the phrase ``Separation of Church and State´´ you would realize why it is associated with the Constitution.

Your interpretation, ``demands that religion have freedom from Government interference´´, is actually the same kind of re-interpretation as ``SoCaS´´, except that it is wrong in two respects:

.| Respecting is a reciprocal word, which means that not only does Congress have an obligation to allow freedom of religion, it has a responsibility to be neutral in it's official capacity, or at least in the laws that it makes.

..| Specifically Congress is not to make such a law. Does this mean that we should interpret the unsaid as we will? Should the executive collect up all muslims in the US, as long as congress doesn't pass a law? Should the courts let their religious preference dictate their legal decisions?

To determine the intent of the ``CSMNLRaEoR´´ wording, you might be tempted to look at the historical context in which it was written, and at the courts' interpretations over the past 200+ years, Those might mean something y'know?

Answer 4

Key word is here:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

No laws that respect a religion. This is interpreted to mean that the state should not recognize any one particular religion over another, nor should it endorse religion (with respect to the irreligious).

This interpretation has been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court and by most lawmakers.

Also, we see some of the Founding Fathers making note of the Separation of Church and State in government:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptists.


If you want more information on the Separation of Church and State, take a look at the below links:


EDIT: You are allowed free exercise of Religion, however this means that others must have free exercise of religion as well. Mixing one religion in with others will disturb other religion's free exercise and mixing general religion into State activities will disturb the free exercise of the irreligious.

That's why there is a wall.

Answer 5

it was "integrated into the U.S. Constitution with the passing of the Bill of Rights containing the First Amendment. The clause of the First Amendment that adopted the founders' principles of separation of church and state and freedom of religion is known as the Establishment Clause. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Answer 6

The Constitution prohibits the government interfering with religion (free exercise) and religious doctrine interefering with the government (establishment).

The ONLY way for BOTH sections to be EQUALLY enforced is a seperation of Church and State. The phrase does not have to appear--it's existence is implicit, and it has been legally upheld numerous times.

In addition, you can't have "free expression" unless EVERYONE has free expression. Allowing (for instance) Catholic doctrine to inform legislation would by definition deny a muslim, buddhist or athiest their EQUALLY protected right to free expression.

In summary, the phrase doesn't have to be there in words--the concept behind it is absolutely necessary to protect the words that ARE there.

btw:

The Constitution also does not contain the phrase "innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law", nor "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", but that does not mean that the concepts are not present in the Constitution as part of "due process of law".

Answer 7

You have read it. Your interpretation is arguable.

The fact that the Congress is forbidden to interfere with the practice of religion has no bearing whatsoever on "Seperation of Church and State"

The United States was founded as a nation without an official religion, because it was respectful of minorities - in light of its immigrant population with varying denominations. This was not written into the constitution, merely discussed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in their writings. They wanted a secular government.

The guy below me has the best answer.

Answer 8

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801.. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

Answer 9

It says it in the first line, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Which means that religion and government should be seperate. Seperation of church and state isn't some crazy left wing idea like you are trying to make it, it is a fundamental part of the founding of this country.

Answer 10

That clause you mention in your notes states that government won't include religion in its own make-up and will not stop people from worshipping in any way they want. "The Separation of Church and State" is just a coloquial way of saying the same thing. And why would religious groups want it any other way? Most religious groups are only a small percentage of the greater set of groups. If one of those was chosen as the official denomination of the U.S., then there would be a lor more losers than winners.

Answer 11

to add onto car_craze_girl:
the quote, by Jefferson himself, went something like this (I can't find the book). "The first amendment has set up a wall of seperation between church and state. (those who want God out of government stop here, but Jefferson continues in his letter) This wall is a one dimensional wall that keeps the government out of the church but ensures that God will always be involved in government"
Notice how the amendment says "Congress shall not". It doesn't continue to say "The church shall not". Look at american history. The buildings in our capitol were designed with God in mind. State preambles. Congress has always begun in prayer. It is documented on how they used to get stuck on issues in congress and call for a day of fast and prayer. Pretty awesome. Yet there are some who say that God doesn't belong in government. I say, why ruin a good thing? Oh, we have already begun.
Good book that weaves the influence of christianity and american history is: Under God by Toby Mac and Michael Tait.