Separation of Church and State. Why do folks keep thinking this is a real law and not just a catchphrase?

Question

There is no mention of separation of church and state in the bill of rights or the constitution. The closest thing is an agreement to not ban churches nor to force folks into a church. Why do folks keep citeing a non existant rule?

Answer 1

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Two parts. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Clause is not really in play here. The "separation of church and state" (first mentioned by SCOTUS in 1878) is based in the Establishment Clause.

Whether or not the Establishment Clause supercedes the Free Exercise Clause is what the issue is really all about.

Just a little clarification for those unaware.

Answer 2

Game, I suggest you brush up on the Constitution...

The exact 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.


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.

Answer 3

In addition to RjM's excellent summary of the Supreme Court holdings related to the Establishment Clause, I would add the following:
(1) Supreme Court holdings ARE law; just a different form of law. The requirement that police give Miranda warnings to a suspect before engaging in interrogation is the LAW, even though the words "A suspect who shall be subjected to custodial interrogation shall be advised of his Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent and to have an attorney prior to said interrogation" are not in the constitution.
(2) I agree that it's "sloppy" for people to refer to the "separation of church and state," rather than the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Because "separation of church and state" does not really encompass what the Establishment Clause is all about. More recent Supreme Court cases HAVE recognized that, inevitably, church and state will overlap (such as whether religious groups may use public spaces just like other public groups, or whether we can have "in God we trust" on money). Modern-day Supreme Court jurisprudence talks about whether the governmental activity is "neutral" to religion, or whether the government is "endorsing" religion (or a particular religion) or whether government is "compelling" practice of religion. But, since not everyone has 3 months to study the nuances of the Establishmet Clause and how it affects public life, politicians and other lay people use the term "separation of church and state" as a proxy. And although that term WAS used by Jefferson and WAS quoted in a Supreme Court case over fifty years ago by Justice Black, it really isn't the law today. However, it is still an important principle, and probably the best way to articulate the Establishment Clause rules (with the best way being "state interaction with religion where the state does not act neutrally to religion, endorces a particular religion, or compels a particular religious practice, depending upon the scenario" -- but that doesn't roll off the tongue too well, does it?).

Answer 4

It should be called a separation FROM church of state because that is what it is mostly about.
Not only do they not want to believe in God, and not want to worship and serve the Lord but they want to force their disbelief and disapproval towards God and towards God's Word on others.
I can understand and accept that there are those who chooses to disbelieve in God and are too weak to resist temptation of sin and that is OK with me because that is between them and God,I have no say so about it but what puzzles me sometimes is the fact that people who accuses Christians of forcing their beliefs on them (shoving the Bible down their throats) are no better than the Christians because they are doing the opposite of the exact same thing when they use that non-existing clause of which they use to abuse the legal system and bully those who are Christians,believers or who are repectable & tolerant towards Christianity.
Now, even though it is true that the government is suppose to remain neutral and refrain from recognizing or favoring a religion however when employers intimidate,manipulate or restrict their employees from saying Merry Christmas,when the Atheists and the ACLU bullies and threatens public,not government,schools into not allowing prayer and disacknowledge God that is when they go too far with the separation of Church and State.

Their is a difference between making sure that our government remains neutral from religion and forcing one's disbeliefs on others or being an advocate towards those who disbelieves in God.

People,we need to draw the line of what is Separation of Church and State and what is not Separation of Church and State.

Meaning,there is nothing wrong with having prayer in school.
If a teacher or the principal wants to have prayer during a school ceremony like graduation or Home coming then they should be allowed to and the students,faculty and parents can either partcipate in prayer or be respectful enough to remain silent until it is over because it won't take very long and you can resume to enjoy the ceremony,in other words stop making such a big deal out of it.

Let people pray when and where they want to and let people say Merry Christmas during the Christmas Holiday,I'm pretty sure that you will live through it.

Answer 5

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish a state religion or prefer a certain religion (the "Establishment Clause"), prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Answer 6

An instructor of mine once said that if you tell a Lie long enough you and those hearing it will finally believe it! It does hoever allow the church to be the church without the government telling it what it can and cannot say or teach! HR Bill 254, that is presently in Congress will Do just That! Abridge Free Speech in teaching in the churches as a Hate Crime!

Answer 7

It has been part of the leftist agenda, and they have slung the phrase around so much they con ignorant people into believing it is in there. Anyone who has really read and/or studied the constitution knows that that phrase is not in there.
The original intention was to allow freedom of religion by banning the creation of a state religion, such as the church of england or the way catholicism was in earlier times such as in Spain. It was to protect religious rights and freedoms.

Answer 8

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.


Interpeted by the following court cases:
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.



So yes there is a law and the Supereme Court says there is a Seperation of Chruch and State

Answer 9

It's not a fact of what you are stating. This is an ongoing debate. Just like in the debate over the right to bare arms. The Constitution has continually been debated over to suit the needs of those arguing their case.

Answer 10

Because the media and advocacy groups like the ACLU keep citing it like it is a rule. You're right, it's not a law, it comes from personal correspondence between a couple of the Founders, and in reality was meant to protect the Church from the State, and forbid a state-sponsored DENOMINATION of Christianity, as was the case in Britain at the time