Is this what the "separation of church and state" means to you?

Question

Here is what the Supreme Court said in 1947. I'm going to enumerate these sentences, which the Court itself did not do.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: (1) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. (2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. (3) 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. (4) No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. (5) 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.

(Two more sentences to come in just a moment. ......)

(6) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. (7) In the words of Jefferson, the clause against elstablishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' "

So, how many of those sentences do you agree with? All, none, or just certain ones?

And I forgot to give you my source. These sentences appeared in the Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

Okay, so wabbit isn't paying attention. I like the fact that some of you have chosen from the three possibilities that I mentioned at the end: All, none, or just certain ones.

Ah, good to see that you tackled this one, Elway.
How about Marsh v. Chambers 463 U.S. 783 (1983)? Agree or disagree with the Court?

Some good, thought-provoking stuff you've said too Elway. And I'll point out that you are being more consistent than the Court itself. I mentioned the Marsh decision in order to bring out the point that the Court is NOT being consistent.

Answer 1

All of them. I just used this 1947 USSC case to illustrate a point in my Fall semester research paper, which was, in part, about the principle of the separation of church and state. The USSC basically enshrined this principle into our system once and for all with this ruling. When people stubbornly claim the separation does not exist for this government, they do not ever want to talk about this, or consequent rulings, that uphold the notion. The First Amendment is tricky, but consistent. It not only protects the government from religious interference, it also protects the churches from governmental interference. Many want to see it one way only, for whatever purpose they may choose, but it protects in both directions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EDIT: Too long, sorry, but you got me interested now lol:

Not a law major, but I can give a very broad opinion of Marsh v. Chambers. I have to side with the dissenting 3 judges. The chaplain being paid from public funds could have continued forever until it was challenged and no one would have thought twice about it. The same goes for the phrase "In God We Trust" on our money and the addition of "one country, under God" in the Pledge. In the past, people who were not Christian didn't shout too loudly about Christians publicly lauding their majority over the rest of the religions with public declarations, statues, etc. They quietly went about their own religious/non-religious lives and if they ever thought about it, they didn't really take the time to complain. But now, it's a brave new world, and many people take offense at the notion that since Christians are the religious majority they should be allowed to display symbols of their religious beliefs on public property without equal representation from other religions. Many have grudgingly admitted, in the last ten years especially, that if we put a Jewish symbol, for example, on the front of a public building or on its grounds, as though it is a statement - in exactly the same manner as a crucifix or the Virgin Mary exists - there would be a forceful outcry immediately. Now that these differences are being openly discussed, it should be much harder today than it was in 1983 to uphold the same type of decision in favor of the religious aspect.

Sorry this was so long, but you got me thinking. I think there's a solution, but I don't know if the citizens would accept it. There could be a symbol designed to represent religious thought as a whole, without resembling or representing one religion over another, that could be displayed anywhere, including public buildings. It should represent the freedom of religious choice, which of course includes the choice not to choose any religion if one so decides. All parties are covered and this symbol becomes a universal way of stating that this country acknowledges one of its priniciple mainstays - true freedom of religion without governmental interference or special treatment.

Answer 2

"The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the first amendment to the USA structure, which reads, "Congress shall make no regulation respecting an institution of religion, or prohibiting the free activity thereof . . ." The state-of-the-art inspiration is mostly credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is as a rule traced to an 1802 letter via Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson observed the mixed influence of the establishment Clause and the Free exercise Clause of the first modification. It has when you consider that been in a couple of opinions surpassed down with the aid of the USA Supreme court docket,[1] though the court has not normally utterly embraced the precept." The federal govt can neither drive religious dogma on its men and women, nor promote one religion over an extra. It additionally can not preclude anybody from believing as they want. It may possibly enforce crook legal guidelines however, equivalent to homicide and sex crimes. This nation was based with the aid of individuals escaping oppressions of all forms, including religious. Wikipedia explains this well.

Answer 3

"The separation of church and state is a criminal and political theory derived from the first change to us of a structure, which reads, "Congress shall make no regulation respecting an institution of religion, or prohibiting the loose workout thereof . . ." the widespread theory is oftentimes credited to the writings of English truth seeker John Locke, notwithstanding the word "separation of church and state" is often traced to an c4ca4238a0b92382dcc509a6f75849b802 letter by using Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, the position Jefferson talked about the blended effect of the institution Clause and the loose workout Clause of the first change. It has when you consider that been in countless reviews exceeded down by using us of a ideally suited courtroom,[a million] notwithstanding the courtroom has no longer always totally embraced the most." the federal authorities can neither rigidity religious dogma on its people, nor promote one faith over yet another. It also won't be able to avert all and sundry from believing as they favor. it may implement criminal guidelines notwithstanding, jointly with homicide and sex crimes. This united states grow to be depending by using people escaping oppressions of all varieties, jointly with religious. Wikipedia explains this nicely.

Answer 4

The establishment claus has NOTHING to do with a "separation of church and state," not in the slightest. Even if put under an electron microscope, one cannot find it in there.

The establishment claus is within the First Amendment, and the First Amendment is within the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was written for the protection of the people only, not restrict people from influencing the government.

By the same token, Thomas Jefferson alluded to separation of church and state in a letter to a private congregation of worshippers, in order to assure them they could remain free to worship as they pleased. The "wall of separation" was understood as being one-directional.

Answer 5

I believe in them all, but I would argue that the current interpretation does not take into account that some people are getting rich (Pat Robertson and others) in hiding behind this wall. i say tax all profits, no matter the source of the original principle.


What the statements mean to me is that no church can force itself into my life and the government will not become a puppet of the church...it was to protect the churches, but it was also intended to keep the church from wielding power inside the government...part of it was to keep churches and personal faith where it belongs...in private...no one wants to regulate what a person believes or thinks (except a church, esp. the American Christian churches).

Answer 6

The seperation was meant to protect the church from the government. Most people get it confused and want to protect the country from the church and christianity taking over. This was not the goal.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

When America was founder, the founding fathers wanted to ensure they had a country not like what they had in England: where the government controlled thru the church and every aspect of it. Also, they wanted the liberty of their faith being excersised without interference of law and as a right, not as a priviledge granted by government.

There are many websites to visit to get this clear. One is below.

Answer 7

All but 5.

Answer 8

It means that the state had better get out of the areas where it has no constitutional mandate, for example, the schools. By the way, the Bill of Rights put all restrictions on the state, and none on the individual. That means that you can pray anywhere you wish, and the state cannot stop you. It also means that the state cannot compel you to pray.

Answer 9

Church and State is not to be in current times.. the church has no powers over that nor does the state. so I believe it is about a sovernity between states where there is an agreement between the people and for the people that would be binding and in agreement with the people in that sector.

Answer 10

I go back to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson where he said the phrase for the very first time.

'nuff said