So what if "the separation of Church and State" is not in the U.S. Constitution ...?

Question

The source of this idea is Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, where he states:

"I contemplate with soverign 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 and State."

Bascially there are two schools, and each argues a different view:

separationists: argue that Jefferson's letter reveals the original intent of the First Amendement clause regarding freedom of religious expression, and

anti-separationists: either claim that Jefferson's letter is irrelevant or say that it supports the guarantee that religion can exist without gov't influence, not separation

Just because this idea is not in the U.S. Constitution, does that mean that it is not one that we should follow?

If that's the case, why do we have laws beyond the Constitution (at Federal, State, and Local levels)?

Aren't laws, including the U.S. Constitution, supposed to be dynamic and interpreted?

Whatis: thanks for the reference. I will definitely look it up.

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (this "wall between church and state" phrase was influenced by President Thomas Jefferson's aforementioned letter.)

Answer 1

What the Bible-thumpers don't understand is that the clause regarding religion was put in the First Amendment primarily to protect the freedom of religion. As someone pointed out above, many of the founders of this country came here to escape religious persecution in the form of state religions being forced on them by monarchs. It would be bad for everyone, especially Christians, if our government enforced religion on us any more than it already has. For example, I'm a Protestant, and I would resent being forced to accept Catholic views with which I don't agree. I'm sure everyone of any denomination can think of other denominations with conflicting ideas. The whole point of freedom of religion is to be able to choose how to worship, and we can't do that if the government takes away that option to choose.

I don't see how anyone can read the first amendment and not see that freedom of religion is the same thing as separation of church and state. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, when it comes to religion the government can't tell you what to believe or what not to believe. If we lose that separation and the government starts preaching religion, or worse yet legislating religion, the freedom is gone because you no longer have a choice. That's why religion must always be kept separate from the government.

Answer 2

The separation of church and state was in the letter by Jefferson, But Madison wrote the Constitution. Why did the Supreme Court not use his letters to support their ruling? Or any of the other framers? The first amendment was drafted at a time when states had adopted a state religion. While all people should have the right to worship freely, they should also have the right to express their beliefs without interference from the courts. Court interference constitutes the establishment of atheism as an official religion.

Answer 3

Amendment 1 actually reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abriding 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."

This article was established first in order to clarify that the new country of the United States would no longer tolerate the restrictions made by one person over the many. In other words no King was going to continue taxing, requiring you worship only the religion the present King worshiped, or telling you who could or could not express himself in different opinions from the King.

Many of us if we take the time to research our family history as I have will discover that the majority of people came here just to get away from persecution by authorities over what church you could or could not attend.
In England depending on who was King or Queen at the moment during the 1400's through the 1800's if you were not the current religion than you could not own property, you could not marry, you could not be recognized by the government unless you began to publicly worship the current appointed Church. My family fled Ireland in the mid 1700's because they were not Catholic they were Protestant. My husband's family fled Austria because they were not Catholic they were Lutheran.
No where in this article does it say you can not have prayer anywhere you wish, nor does it tell you that you can not refere to God anywhere. It tells us that the Congress can not establish a State Church and require us to all bow down and worship that church only.

Answer 4

The way I understand the Constitution is, it doesn't place restrictions on people, but on the government. An example would be Prohibition of Alcohol. That amendment was found to be unconstitutional, by the same argument.

You could render the entire document silly, if you extend the argument to say, 'laws are unconstitutional', 'taxes are unconstitutional', etc.

People seem to forget the fact that 'Rights', are the logical extension of right and wrong, which were self-evident to the signers of the document. Civil Rights, redress Civil Wrongs. You can render the document silly, if you remove the religious aspect of 'right and wrong'.

Many people would love to disenfranchise groups of a religious nature, that actively campaign for Civil Rights, Family Values, etc. That would be wrong...

Answer 5

I surprise myself with my own answer because once I believed that separation was wrong, as in pray out of schools etc. But now I am not so sure. A good answer I've heard is "if islam were dominant would we want it taught in schools etc. However, this nation was built on the backs of Christians and their believe in the christian God. So I see nothing wrong with mentioning God. I ask why are nonbelievers so offended. We could take this offended hate thing to extremes in other areas so why give it a foot hold hmmm? And J T , are you serious? LOL

Answer 6

The Supreme Court made the separation of Church and State official and the final rule in 1948.. look it up

but never mind since when do CONservatives give a hoot about laws??

Answer 7

I find it rather odd that Christians who point out that it's not in the Constitution are ones who go on about the Rapture (which is a concept taken from a couple of verses in the bible, yet... it is Not in the Bible)... As well as the Trinity. They will not hold to their own religious book word for word, but add in concepts taken from only bits and pieces, yet when it comes to separating their religion from our secular gov't, they are the first one's to point out that it doesn't say that word for word in the Constitution.

They need to make up their minds which way they want to go and stick with it.

Answer 8

The establishment clause is part of the Constitution. It's in the First Amendment.

Answer 9

"Law" is whatever a court last said it was. In the case of the "separation of church & state," the Supreme Court traditionally waffles and does not make a conclusive determination.

But, now that the pope has managed to get 5 (of 9) Catholics appointed to the US Supreme Court, we can expect Catholic doctrine to become the "law of the land."

The pope controls US law thanks to bible thumpers.

Response to comment below:

Serious about what? 5 of the 9 US Supreme Court Justices are Catholic. 2 (Roberts & Alito) were nominated by George Bush.

Answer 10

it's so funny how people seem to forget that people from europe came to america to escape religious persecution and now, it's back to square one. people are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. the scary things is that the government is beginning to support this persectution.

i think that in order to be effective and representative, the governement needs to leave religion out of it. otherwise, where do we draw the line?

it's all so frustrating, especially being a lesbian. due to religion, we are being treated as second class citizens and the government supports this!

man... i think that i'm going to have to move back to canada!