Is the Separation of Church and State a legal thing?

Question

I cant find it in the constitution or any amendment i've read. The only place I can find it is a letter from T. Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, they were complaining that the poloticians were repressing their freedoms of religion. He suggested a separration of Church and state to protect the Chruch from the government.

That is it. As far as I can tell no law was written.

So Why do americains all refer to it if it doesn't exist?

Answer 1

long answer here but should give you the info you are looking for -yes it is legal though some question its' legality. If it was not legal, it would not be enforced.
A)
If It's Not in the Constitution, then it Doesn't Exist
Myth:
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution.

Response:
That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
There is nothing there about a "fair trial," but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

In the United States, separation of church and state is sometimes believed to be in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by legal precedents interpreting that clause, some extremely controversial. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (one of the Reconstruction Amendments) makes the Establishment Clause and other portions of the Bill of Rights binding on state and local governments as well, although it is arguable that this restriction on state and local government existed in Article VI of the unamended Constitution and that the Fourteenth Amendment was a clarification on the limitation of government power. Many other democratic governments around the world have similar clauses in their respective constitutions.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "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 and State." Letter to Danbury Baptists (1802)

While Jefferson's letter is often cited by separationists to prove that the original intent of the First Amendment was complete separation of church and state, anti-separationists either consider it irrelevant or might say that it supports the idea that the original intention of the First Amendment was to guarantee religion the freedom to exist without government influence, and say that it makes no mention of government being wholly separate from all religious activity. This is supported by Federal Government decisions on the matter, such as Supreme court case Vidal v. Philadelphia, as well as Federal Government's past involvement in printing Bibles, and using the Bible as a textbook in public schools.

James Madison, the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights, often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Walsh); "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.", and he declared "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate.".....
read more at the link below :o)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Answer 2

it is the comparable as with each and everything else approximately government, purely a money and capacity grab. it is why our founding fathers did no longer decide for a huge government. the bigger it gets the smaller our liberty's grow to be, until eventually the day while we are slaves (dependents) of the government. We ought to chop back our government or pay the outcomes. As for separation of church and state. it is not because of the fact the Democrats might have us have self belief, yet, what it is is this: the single shall no longer administration the different. it is not that faith don't have some area in government, how can a guy or woman separate what they have self belief from what they do? we won't, and every physique who says that they are able to and or do, is a liar! and would no longer be depended on.

Answer 3

It does exist in this constitution as follows;
The phrase separation of church and state is a common interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The phrase itself does not appear in any founding American document, but it has been quoted in opinions by the United States Supreme Court. (The first such mention was in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 in 1878.)

The Establishment clause was intended as just such an Amendment. Church members ever since have tried and contested this clause and it has stood the test of time and the high courts. George W. Bush has tried to remove all restraints to having a government of religion which would pull this country into a virtual civil war,
Article VI of the United States Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We believe that every citizen, no matter of what religion (or of no religion), must be equal before the law.

check these sites out for accuracy.
www.nashville-au.org(nashville chapter united for seperation of church and state.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States...
This site will explain the church view that the constitution left the church/state section or legallity up to the states. this isn't so.
christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html
The danger of allowing religion into goverment can be expalined in 3 ways.
1-If you allow the christians to bring their religion into the govement immediate lawsuits will force the goverment to allow all legal religions into schools, government, and all of our lives. Christians have always felt they would be the only group there but it would not happen. you wouold be forced ot allow, muslims, hindu, buddist, witches:):).
2-christianity has a bloody a past as does islam and immediate intermixing of the religions in school and gvernment would cause civil unrest and fast.
3- the Uted Sates is the greatest country on earth because it established a Goverment with out the restraints of religion.

Answer 4

"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. "
First Amendment USA Constitution

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

This is a primary ideal they established. The barbaric efforts by certain religious groups to seize control of governments had gone on for hundreds of years. People were tired of it.

Unfortunately, the USA government must now allow certain things that many feel are contrary to the spiritual health of the people and the world. How are issues such as these proven? I guess it would take an act of congress, probably voted in by the majority, to make any adjustments to this law or code.

Answer 5

Okay, here it is. It's part of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religion clauses.

This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

Answer 6

There is no separation of Church and State, that's an impossible thing in a democracy, because the governed are the governors are the church are the state. The thought that the state shall not establish nor prevent the free exercise of religion indicates a separation. It does not. Some would say that it means if you practice any religion you can NOT participate in the government. Obviously that is not what it means. It means the government can not compel you to financially support (taxation) some church, nor prevent you from it. It was written in response to King George and predecssors forcing all citizens in England to pay tithe to the Church of England even if they did not belong to that church.

Answer 7

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.

because by allowing one religion into the state you potentially prohibit the free exercise of other religions. History has shown time and time again when one religion is in power the others suffer.

Answer 8

U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights

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.

Answer 9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

It is in the First amendment of the constitution... There can be no preferential treatment of ANY religion... Neither a state nor the federal government can set up an official church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Answer 10

It is in the first amendment to the Constitution. When the constitution was written, all that meant was that there was to be no government-sponsored religion; that this country would not be an Episcopalian or Roman Catholic or Lutheran or a you-name-it country.
This amendment has been distorted by misguided people to mean that there is to be no mention of religion in the school or public places, no prayers in schools, etc.