No 'seperation of church and state' in the Constitution?

Question

After my last question about Christian morals (apparently we don't have any) in the Constitution, several people pointed out that 'seperation of church and state' is not found in the constitution. That is correct - it was in a private letter written by Jefferson. However, the First Amendment DOES say, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

This phrase means that the gov't shall not recognize any religion officially or endorse any religion. It also means that it won't get in the way of religion (as long as the free exercise of religion doesn't violate other parts of the law, including the first part of that sentance).

So while the PHRASE 'seperation of church and state' doesn't appear in the constitution, it is clearly the IDEA behind the first sentance of the First Amendment.

Do you agree? Disagree? Why?

Bonita, I'm finishing a Ph.D. in astrophysics. Arguing religion and politics is what I do for fun.

Answer 1

It was intended to protect us from a state-sponsored religion, not for the govt to suppress prayer in school.

Answer 2

Ideas are open to each persons own interpretation. I could interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to mean that it's unconstitutional that the government now has a law that says my children cannot freely exercise their right to pray in the public school that my tax dollar helps pay for. Based on your explanation how would I be wrong in believing that is what was meant? How can the law against prayer in school be upheld? And considering it's not even in the constitution and yet it's the very thing people are first to yell whenever religion is mentioned within the context of government I hardly see why it's debatable at all. We don't follow "suggestions as written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson." We live by the Constitution. If it had been so important it would have been included.

Answer 3

The First Amendment did provide a Separation of Church and State in the federal government, and it wasn't until the 14th Amendment that gradually the First Amendment applied to the states. When Jefferson wrote his 1802 "Separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, Connecticut had an established church. Massachusetts had a state religion until 1833, over 42 years after the First Amendment and 31 years after Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" letter. Connecticut kept a Christian-state government until 1818, 16 years after Jefferson's letter to them. Vermont had a church establishemnt until 1807, five years after Jefferson's letter. New Hampshire had a state religion until the late 1960s (yes, no more than 40 years ago). New Jersey had a state religion until 1844, 42 years after Jefferson's separation letter. Maryland had a state religion until at least 1810, 8 years after Jefferson's letter. Delaware had a state religion utnil 1792, three years after the First Amendment. North Carolina granted religious liberty to all believers in God 1868, 66 years after Jeffersons letter (and it would be even more time before Atheists could have religious liberty). South Carolina had religious establishment until at least 1790, a year after the First Amendment.

In 1833 Chief Justice Marshall declared "These Amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments"

Justice John Catron declared, "The Constitution of 1789 makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective states in their religious liberties; this is left to the state constitutions and laws; nor is there any inhibition imposed by the Constitution of the Unite States in this respect on the states"

But I strongly disagree with theocracies, they destroy true religion. I hate the notion of theocracies so much I dislike any government now really. I'm a bit of an anarchist now. Have you ever noticed how anarchist looks so similar to antichrist? Hmm. Random thought. Sorry about that.

I'm a strong supporter of Separation of Church and State, I just dislike it when people try to say the First Amendment sealed the deal, because it didn't. The First Amendment was a step, and the Treaty of Tripoli affirmed that the federal government would not officially endorse Christianity as the nations in Europe had...... But religion kept ahold of the state governments for some time, even 260 years after Jefferson's Wall of Separation letter.

Answer 4

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

That OBVIOUSLY means THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT TO MAKE THE COUNTRY ANY SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION.

It has nothing to do with the people being free to talk or teach any religion or religious thought.

We are arguing semantics needlessly.

Maybe this should be made a special EDICT approved Unanimously by both Houses and the Office of the Pres.

Answer 5

I agree that there was an original intention on the part of the founding fathers to separate church and state. Where I believe we have misunderstood their intentions is that the founding fathers envisioned a nation where state did not interfere with religion. If you will look at the writings of our founding fathers, though, I think you will see that they highly supported the necessity that Christianity be involved in the formation of our national laws and customs. So I believe the founding fathers envisioned a ONE WAY wall that kept state out of church but did not keep church out of state. It was our supreme court that first formulated the idea of a two way wall. But then an activist supreme court has done a pretty good job of creating law in many cases. They have forgotten that creation of law is to be in the hands of the LEGISLATIVE bodies.

Answer 6

damn. that is like an essay. yet in spite of the stunning length, you managed to coach your factor truly nicely and that i under no circumstances detected even a contact of rambling. nicely performed sir. nicely now that i have thoroughly congratulated you, I guess you want me to respond to the question. So right here it is going: in the start, I completely accept as true with you. I recommend, the important reason u . s . a . replaced into colonized (a minimum of interior the eyes of the colonists - the British were all into mercantilism on the time) replaced into for human beings to have non secular freedom. Christians won't be able to use that only for his or her personal benefit. It is going both procedures. they could't say that they have got the liberty to coach their faith in peace and under no circumstances enable others to coach their personal besides. because which could be proscribing a persons' rights. And, I promise you, that's unconstitutional. yet basically so that you recognize, there actual is a verse interior the Bible that tells them to "stick their noses into human beings's organization." i could not inform you the position that is, yet i have heard my dad communicate about it plenty. It says some thing about them having to talk the truth to all of us who will pay interest (so by some ability they translate that into forcing their faith onto those who do not choose it and little ones who're too youthful to appreciate it). that's absurd how they administration issues to point some thing thoroughly diverse than what replaced into initially meant. that's extremely insane.

Answer 7

The original intent...and the only intent by the Founding Fathers, is as you said....that the government shall not establish an official church that everyone must be a part of (they ran away from that in England) nor will the government interfere with our freedom to worship as we see fit for ourselves.

That is all our Bill Of Rights and Constitution say on the subject.

Answer 8

I feel that anyone should be allowed to exercise their religion in whatever way they see fit. If that is by saying "under god" in the pledge or by choosing individually to omit that term or by putting up monuments to the ten commandments, i don't care. Just as long as no one is forced to believe the religions, it doesn't matter.

People should stop getting so mad over what other people do to support their own religions. A guy was on here the other day complaining about people singing "God Bless America" at a baseball game... I feel like it was the right of those singing it to do as they pleased, and seeing as baseball is not part of the government there is no problems whatsoever. I think people are taking freedom of religion too far these days. Separation of church and state was meant to avoid situations created by institutions such as the Church of England and the Catholic Church that ended up causing crusades and religious persecution. These days people get mad if you sing "We Wish You A Merry Christmas" (yes, I have known people who got mad because they were another religion.... ) it's ridiculous.

Just as I respect others rights not to believe in my religion or to believe another religion, I would like others to respect my right to express my own religion.

Answer 9

I totally agree!!! There are so many laws about me praying at my child's school with him, what would the makers of that constitution say about that?? Only new age, or yoga, or Tau teachers are able to teach at schools? That offends me, but what can I do about this since congress keeps taking away my rights as a follower of Christ? I guess this country has fallen spiritually, and you know what they say...let them have an inch, they will take a mile. Keep praying, unless the liberals take that away from us and then we are the same as China, where free religion is a crime.

Answer 10

Agree. Going back to England previous to the glorious revlution in 1789, the Catholic church was responsible for the government, and basically, created huge challenges... that would never had existed if the gov't was a seperate body. Jefferson knew the implications of having an endorsed and supported religion- and was wise to be a proponent of the full seperation of the gov't and the church...

that's my stance.

Answer 11

It is a hard issue to back either way. I don't want the Church playing politics. But, you cant say they doesn't have a right to have an opinion. Also, Many people don't want them to back Christianity but by enforcing some of their non belief issues of separating the state they are backing the religious beliefs of atheists. So, it has become a battle of what religious belief is the strongest. Christians or atheists