How do you justify the seperation of church and state idea?

Question

Now, to be fair, I want to say ahead of time that this is a loaded question. But that's what we do in the politics section.

I've always been curious how people justify "the seperation of church and state" calling it constitutional, simply because Thomas Jefferson ambiguously mentions it in a letter to someone. This claim is even more questionable when you consider certain phrases in the founding documents such as "that we are endowed by our Creator" and the fact that the date on the Constitution contained "the Year of Our Lord". Yes, all British official documents contained this phrase, that's true, but if the founding fathers were really wanted to break all ties between church and state, wouldn't removing that dating convention be an obvious first step?

So why did they insert that clause in the first ammendment? Because British law had alternated between mandating Catholicism and Anglicanism several times, and the founding fathers knew well the death and misery this caused.

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

--John Adams

“Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.”

--Sammuel Adams

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

I'm not trying to say that the founding fathers wanted a theocracy, only that it was never their intention to kick God out of government.

Here are some more interesting facts:

In February of 1813, congress passed "An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Phiadelphia" which aided the society in the distribution of Bibles.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed seperating the central government into three branches, an idea he claimed was inspired by Isaiah 33:22 "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king."

I reitterate that I am only questioning the legitimacy of attempts to remove God from all public places and government institutions, not making a case for a thocracy.

Perdendosi

That's precisely my point: the 1st amendment was designed precisely for the purpose of preventing the government from having an established defacto church. However, how do you go from there to saying that you should take out any reference to God in any public forum? Why should the government reflect the character and heritage of the people who comprise it? If the christian population of Alabama wants the ten commandments in one of their court houses, why shouldn't they? If it offends someone, tough luck. I think the whole idea of welfare and social security is unbiblical but I am compelled by law to participate in it. I am "offended" by the theory of evolution, yet law causes it to be taught in public school. If people don't like the fact that God is or is not part of the government then they need to get out the vote to change things, not use the ACLU to force their beliefs on others.

To quietranter:

Very well, I'll blame the Irish Catholics too.

Answer 1

You are absolutely correct. The idea of separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. Very few people seem to realize that the Supreme Courts interpretation of the First Amendment is totally wrong. The entire Bill of Rights place all restrictions on the state, not on the people. This means I can pray anytime I want to, but I cannot be compelled by the state to pray.

What the Constitution does specify, for example, is separation of school and state. There is no authorization for federal involvement in education, or energy, for that matter. And the Tenth Amendment prohibits any federal involvement in areas not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

The Constitution specifies that the federal government protect us from invasion, and this they refuse to do. That's why you have state and local law enforcement and the Minutemen enforcing federal law.

Answer 2

Well, here's what's clear: They didn't want an "established" church (i.e. a government-ordained, and taxpayer sponsored church) of the federal government. Why? It invaded the personal conscience (which was contrary to the natural rights theories that most of our founding father subscribed to) and it caused unnecessary interference by government in religion. So the Establishment Clause protected people from religion and religion from people.
Now, some argue (I'm one of them) that this was farther reaching than merely saying that the feds can't choose the Episcopal Church. Most of the state governments were eliminating their established churches, too, recognizing the same thing. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was drafted by many of the same of our founding fathers, is a good model.
And although I'm sure MOST of the founding fathers would not have read the Establishment Clause as far as it's read now, but most founding fathers would have recognized the religious plurality that exists in America that didn't at that time, and would recognize the fundamental ideas behind our Establishment Clause law -- that we don't want the government forcibly invading the moral conscience of a person as related to religion, and we want to keep the government out of monkeying around with religion.

For your text arguments-- remember, "endowed by our creator" is in the declaration of independence, not the Constitution. And "Creator" does not mean Christ. And "Year of our Lord" is "anno dommini," --this is how time was (and is) kept (until recently, where we have "common era" C.E. and "before common era" B.C.E.") -- you can't change A.D. in a document like that. And using a date reference or "in God we trust" is not the same as paying private religious schools vouchers, or allowing a teacher to preach at the head of his or her classroom, or putting the 10 commandments up in the middle of an Alabama courthouse.

There are simply too many arguments to make in this space, and the analysis of (a) how we encapsulate what the framers intended, (b) what the framers intended, and (c) to what extent we care what the framers indended is very difficult, especially in this context where the evidence is sketchy and spotty at best.
Send me an e-mail and I can send you some scholarship links.

Oh, Iraqisax, how does the Supreme Court have it all wrong? In what case did the Court ever say you couldn't pray? NONE. What the Court says is that the GOVERNMENT cannot compel or endorse a particular religion (and/or government must be religion neutral). Thus, you can pray all you want. You can't get elected city councilman and mandate that everyone at the meeting prays before you begin. You can go to church wherever you like; you can't be a teacher and tell your students that they should be Lutheran or Catholic, or Muslim.
You can put up whatever display you want; you can't be a city manager and use city funds to buy a nativity scene and put it up, alone, on city property.
You can scream about the 10 commandments all you want; you can't be a supreme court justice and place them in the middle of a courthouse rotunda as the pinnacle of perfect, theological law (where people come to pray).

Now, there may be some instances where the government has restricted religious practices (like smoking payote, human sacrifice, etc.) and the Court has upheld those restrictions when it's a facially neutral law that applies to all people, saying that the government does not HAVE TO, but MAY, give exemptions to religious activity. But that's under the auspices of the Free Exercise Clause, NOT the Establishment Clause.

Answer 3

The anti-establishment clause was there to prevent the government from establishing a church. The provision applied only to Congress. In theory, the states could have declared state religions. Two critical events ended that long after Jefferson wrote the letter with the phrase "separation of church and state" in reference to the anti-establishment clause. There was much more homogenization of the states after the Civil War. Before then you said, "The United States of America are..."; now it's, "The United States of America is...". Second, the admission of Utah ended any option for an individual state religion. The Edmunds-Tucker Act, upheld by the Supreme Court ended establishment at the state level. That was 1890. You can see how it set up the 20th century.

Answer 4

I justify the separation of church and state because the Constitution guarantees freedom of belief and equality before the law. That mandates government neutrality. Americans can be Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists, Moslems, or even atheists because it is their right, not some largess condescendingly conferred by a government dominated with someone else's religion.

The clause was not inserted into the Constitution. It was expanded by ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Constitutional rights were extended to the states. Church/state controversies didn't exist in 1800 like they do today. In 1800 there was an overwhelming Protestant majority. Church/state controversies only started occurring when significant numbers of Catholics and Jews immigrated to the US. Don't blame ACLU or Madlyn Muarry O'Hair for separation of church and state, blame the Irish Catholics who came to America during the potato famine. Did you know that in 1844 Catholic objections to Protestant Bible readings in public schools cause a riot in Philadelphia? Separation of church and state became a practical issue with the rise of religious pluralism. The Catholic school movement was started in response to Protestant domination of public schools. At the same time Protestants started questioning whether their hegemony might be replaced by a Catholic hegemony. This lead to separationism, as well as a watering down of public religion to make it more inclusive.

Answer 5

Conservatives makw a big deal of Original Intent. Well, the Supreme Court in the Reynolds case (1880) stated that Jefferson's opinion in the Danbury letter is pretty conclusive.
I
It's not a matter of Jefferson's "ambiguous mention". In addition, Madison (Father of the Constitution) used the phrase "separation of Church & State".

The Non-Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is taken by all legal scholars (except theocratic revisionists) to entail separation of church and state. This clause had precursor documents, such as the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance. I recommend that you read both.

And I would caution you that you cannot derive a constitutional principle from a figure of speech, such as "the year of our Lord". if they wanted a theocracy, they would haved created one. They wanted secular government.

Answer 6

The founders of the United States did not want to create a state such as those you find in now in the Middle East. Most had experience with the religious prosecution in Europe that prevented people from conducting their lives in a manner that agreed with their religion.

So they put in a clause that said they would not favor any religion over another by allowing the government to be involved with religion.

In my mind they have gone too far, trying to cut any mention of religion of any type from anything even remotely associated with the government at any level.

Answer 7

Our founding fathers were religious men... they never denied their religion.. the reason the Pilgrims came here was because the Church of England controlled everything.... if you missed Church you were imprisoned and fined... and they felt that Religion should be worshiped independently and that is why they came here and when our Constitution and Bill of Rights was created that was what they had in mind- they were not that far descended from the Pilgrims - they knew what they wanted and what they came here for- and Thomas Jefferson is one of the highly main influences on our Country and what he interprets as our Constitution and our bill of rights is where we stand
The reason for taking Religion out of Schools and other public places is the belief in what the Pilgrims wanted.. Religion should be worshiped independently and the Government should not have any effect of it, as well as Vice Versa...If something is independent. then it is one.. it is not as a whole.. so if one person worships doesn't mean that the mass has too.. I personally am not religious.. and I wouldn't want school to dictate whether or not we have to pray.. they have independent clubs for that.. and the freedom to do so, if you want but it is not mandatory for the mass, and should not be

Answer 8

The founding fathers did not want to create a Christian theocracy, contrary to the beliefs of a certain group of people today.

I think it came from the fact that the King of England is the head of both state and the Anglican church.

Answer 9

the twin-fact doctrine has no longer something to do with the separation of powers clause of the 1st modification. the 1st is mere philosophy, the 2d is political and social necessity. And the respond to your question is "the founding fathers of the USA."

Answer 10

Because religion and religious people suck.
Time for sane minds.
The founding fathers and other intelligentsia at the time were agnostic at most, and favored the masonic "great creator" instead of the christian god.