No separation of church and state in the Constitution?

Question

This idea was presented in a LETTER by Thomas Jefferson regarding politics in the pulpit, but was never present in the constitution itself: "The Sixth Circuit's judges tried to put the hinges back on by bluntly reminding the ACLU-affiliated attorneys of what is, and what is not, in the Constitution. "The ACLU makes repeated reference to the 'separation of church and state,'" said Judge Richard Suhrheinrich, who wrote the appeals court decision. "This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

I would like someone to tell me WHERE this is in the Constitution, because, well, it's simply not in there. Prove otherwise.

Answer 1

As you well know the only reference is the statement that no law shall be made abridging the free practice of religion. There is no prohibition of religion in public; no prohibition of religion by students in school. It is all an invention of atheistic judges trying to force their own religion on the citizens.

If someone doesn't like the open practice of religion, they can go home and shut the windows.

Answer 2

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. But it's nothing new to Constitutional scholars.

The phrase was first adopted by the Supreme Court in 1878, a century before Suhrheinrich took the bench. Yes, Thomas Jefferson was the originator of the quote. And according to the Supreme Court, the phrase should be taken as "an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [1st] amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878).

It's been US doctrine for almost 130 years, decades before the ACLU was ever imagined, and was referred to in 1943 as "our accepted belief" and "cardinal in the history of this nation and for the liberty of our people". West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

So those who missed it must not have been paying attention.

Besides, you are mis-using the word "separate". Two things are separate when they are distinct, different, not the same. The point of the 1st Amendment (and the "no religious oaths" clause in Article VI) was to guarantee that religion did not control govt, and that govt did not control religion. Thus, the two are distinct, not the same, separate.

{EDIT}

There's also nothing in the Constitution that says the police cannot search your car at whim, or that you have a right to post a website. A website is not "speech", it's electronic signals. So, by the literal text, it wouldn't be protected. Nor is there anything in the Constitution that requires Miranda warnings, or guarantees you an appointed attorney if you cannot afford one. Those are all Supreme Court interpretations of the text. Just like the 130-year-old ruling that the Constitution requires separation of church and state.

Answer 3

If what you say is true about that sixth-circuit court judge, then he doesn't know what he's talking about or else he's a Clarence Thomas radical conservative who uses the text of the Constitution as his personal doormat, and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about. The separation of church and state is part of the Constitution because the Supreme Court has said that this is the proper interpretation of the First Amendment. And they're right, of course. To say any different is to deny the Constitution any meaning at all.

Answer 4

What you fail to understand is that while it isn't in the Constitution, it is implied. One of the reasons why the Founding Fathers declared independence was for the freedom to worship as they saw fit. That is why they wrote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Which is something that most christians take for granted AS LONG AS IT IS THEIR GOD WE WORSHIP!!!

I loved in a mormon town where I was discriminated against because I'm an agnostic. Mormons got credit for what is essentially a study hour, whereas non-mormons couldn't. I know of guys who took this class so often that it accounted for 16 of the 48 credit hours they needed to graduate. It was also accepted by most mormon colleges as college credit. Our graduation prayers were mormon, which made a lot of people uncomfortable. I had a teacher try to flunk me because I wouldn't convert to his religion. This was a PUBLIC SCHOOL! My friends and I started a law suit against the school district, and was soon joined by lower classmen as well. Things like this happen. We need to guard against it. I didn't mind that they were mormon, but those of us that weren't were punished for our religious views. Something that does go against the Constitution.

Answer 5

It isn't in the Constitution and all that mealy-mouthed crap such as it's "implied" or "goes without saying" is pure nonsense. According to its own tenets, such Law would be unconstitutionally vague. It is a Supreme Court created "doctrine", pure and simple. Leave the innocent Constitution out of the discussion.

Answer 6

no, but a supreme Court Mandate did.

ANd I agree.

In a country where I am free to practive my religion, I cannot have things forced on me.

Answer 7

Thumbs up to coragryph

Answer 8

What's the question?

Answer 9

lol