Separation of "Church and State"?

Question

Can anyone tell me where this exact phrase is in the consitution or any of our founding documents? "Seperation of Church and State"?
If you look at the first amendment it says, "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. "
-Now the part about religion. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." It does NOT say the seperation of church and state. So where does this phrase come from? When our founding fathers wrote this they meant that congress cannot establish a state sponsered church. Like back when our country was founded there was the Church of England which was the offical goverment church in England. Congress wrote the first amendment to stop a state sponsered church, not to completely ban religion from government.

If anyone can find the phrase "separation of church and state" in our Constitution I will give them one million dollars. I'm not kidding. Go ahead and find it for me.

I'll even give you a link to look for the phrase "separation of church and state"

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Ok if it also says "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Then why does the goverment make so many laws restricting our religious freedoms?

Answer 1

"And upon them that are left alive I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaking leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth" Leviticus 26:36
Christians have become so worldly that this prophecy is being once again fulfilled. We have nothing to fear but fear it's self. We believe anything they tell us and just keep our months shut. It used to be the Lions who had to keep their mouths shut, but now its Christians. I'll let you read the rest of the chapter to see what needs to be done. God Bless !!

PS. There is nothing in the constitution about separation of church and state. And if its a court decision then its unconstitutional.

Answer 2

Nobody has *ever* claimed that those exact words "separation of church and state" are in the Constitution. The phrase "right to privacy" isn't in there either, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as addressing these specific concepts.

The exact term was used by Thomas Jefferson in a well-known letter to the Danbury Baptists. And it has appeared in key decisions by the Supreme Court.

"Congress wrote the first amendment to stop a state sponsered church, not to completely ban religion from government."

What kind of religious activity would you think a government can perform without being, in effect, sponsoring religion?

Look, if you want to understand what the First Amendment is about, stop assuming for the moment that your religion is the majority. Imagine the a surge in population and conversions (nothing else) makes Islam or Scientology the majority population in this country. And now imagine that judges want to have marble monuments with the Quran or Dianetics in the court steps. That each session of congress starts with a prayer or a reading from L. Ron Hubbard. That every morning kids recite a pledge of allegiance that says "One nation under L. Ron", or "One nation under Allah."

What stops that from happening? The First Amendment.

Answer 3

It isn't. The 1st amendment says:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

You are 100% correct!

Answer 4

There is no such phrase in the Constitution. The Constitution states that the federal government shall not choose an official government religion but it does not say that religion shall be null & void from government life. Most of the Founding Fathers were profoundly religious men and believed in the moral strength of religion in public life but they did not want a single religion endorsed by the federal government such as England had.
The individual states could have an endorsed religion if they so chose, and I believe some states did in the very early years of the union.
This phrase is used by those in this country that want no resemblence of religion in the public square at all and this is not what the Founding Fathers intended, nor is it what they put in the Constitution or any of the other founding documents of this great country. I hope this helps. You should do more research on this topic and catch up on your history. You will find some amazing things that the mainstream media and most of our educational institutions will never tell you.

Answer 5

It's not in the Constitution. It's a holding by the US Supreme Court.

Look at both parts of the 1st Amendment as they apply to religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting the Establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In a nutshell, this means that the Government cannot tell the church how to function and the Church cannot tell the Government what to do. So where do people get the idea that church and state must be separate?

Because neither is allowed to control the other. Neither can compel the other, or control the other. Therefore, they must be separate. Not separate as in in "can't talk to each other" (isolated) but separate as in "not the same thing" (distinct). That's what is meant by "separate", as in distinct; independent; not combined; one not supporting or enforcing the other.

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, who credit it to Thomas Jefferson as the originator of the quote. According to the 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, 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).

Answer 6

Most Americans have been conditioned to believe and to assume that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a “wall of separation between Church and State.” This concept is seldom challenged today . . . but it is not actually a part of the Constitution or any of the Amendments; it did not exist until well into the twentieth century.

The establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment state: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The meaning was crystal clear to Americans and American jurisprudence for generations. Very simply, the federal government was prohibited from establishing a single national denomination above all others (a state religion—endowed with public funding, special privileges, and penalties on other faiths that reject its doctrines—as Great Britain had) and secondly, the federal government could not interfere with the individual's right to freedom of worship.
The purpose of the First Amendment was not to protect Americans from religion, it was to protect religion from government intrusion. The intent of the First Amendment could never have been to separate church and state. Virtually all state constitutions of that day required their elected officials to affirm belief in the Christian faith. Not one of the states would have ratified the First Amendment in violation of their constitutions had its purpose been to separate religious principles from public life.

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to President Thomas Jefferson. They were alarmed about a rumor. Was a national denomination soon to be established? Jefferson responded by letter on January 1, 1802, assuring them that there was no basis to the rumor. He said, “I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

The Danbury Baptists were apparently satisfied. They understood the “wall” to be one-directional, protecting them and other churches from possible discrimination and harm by means of a “governmental-favored denomination” status. Nevertheless, Jefferson's eight-word phrase, “a wall of separation between Church and State,” has become the defining metaphor for today's misinterpretation of the First Amendment.

Obviously, Jefferson's letter and this phrase are not part of the First Amendment and it appears far-fetched legal “reasoning” to give it the force of law or to infer intent by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Interestingly, and significantly, the 1990s have seen more and more court decisions based on the original intent of our Founding Fathers. The Supreme Court ruled in 1990, for instance, that it is permissible to have prayer and Bible clubs at public high schools. The justices also decided in another case that premarital sexual abstinence programs, while religious in nature, can be taught in public schools. The tide appears to be turning back to our traditional, Godly American heritage.

Answer 7

I recently turned down a management position with a company. One of the reasons was because it had union labor, and most of those laborers were Muslims from Africa (Somalia). It was in the union contract that the workers could leave their workstations 5 times daily, at unspecified times for unspecified durations to pray to Mecca, outside the building. The company built a sink in the ground outside so they could wash their feet before stepping on their little prayer rugs. The workers were obviously abusing the privilege.
Point being, how much will it cost taxpayers to install several sinks in the ground at every school, public building, and publicly financed establishment in this entire country because you want to mix church and state, not to mention public employees leaving work at any time to go pray? Just one small example of the mess we'd create.
Obviously, you only want Christianity to be exempted, right?

Answer 8

Find the word "democracy" in the constitution and I'll give you a million dollars. If this was to be a democracy, how could it slip their minds to not put it in? The fact is the phrase "seperation of church and state" is not in the constitution at all, but was a quote used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a friend describing the role of government in religion. The legal interpretation of the first dictates a seperation of the two, the phrase is just as simplified way of stating that interpretation. And how is religion persecuted, I might ask?

Answer 9

interior the form you reference, we typical a ultimate courtroom to interpret the regulation; to assert if some thing is or isn't Constitutional. the belief became first placed forth via between the Founding Fathers, a framer of the form and President of america, Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist affiliation of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-a million. It includes the 1st favourite connection with the "wall of separation". The essay states in part: "...I evaluate with solemn reverence that act of the entire American people which declared that their legislature ought to 'make no regulation respecting a company of religion, or prohibiting the loose workout thereof,' subsequently construction a wall of separation between Church and State..." The word "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of business enterprise Clause jurisprudence in Everson v. Board of training, 330 U.S. a million (1947). Justice Hugo Black wrote, "Neither a state nor the federal government can, brazenly or secretly, participate interior the affairs of any non secular businesses or communities and vice versa. interior the words of Jefferson, the clause against business enterprise of religion via regulation became meant to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" So now you have a ultimate courtroom determination, which, in finished compliance with the form, interprets the 1st substitute and makes use of the words "separation between church and state." No, it is not interior the form, yet making use of the form, that word has been upheld and is an precise description of the point of the 1st substitute. it rather is the version between the letter of the regulation and the spirit of it. So, in case you have faith interior the spirit of the regulation, i will take the $10,000 (or you could donate it to the ACLU). yet whilst it rather is the letter of the regulation that concerns, you will possibly be able to keep the $10,000.

Answer 10

The phrase "separation of Chrch and State" was coined much later--as a shorthand for the concepts expressed in the First Ammendment. In effect, it's an updating that more closely reflects the meaning as we use language today. The meanings of the words used in the text of the Constitution have shifted in some cases over time--this is one example.

Bear in mind that originally the First Ammendment applied only to actions of the federal government--but was extended to the states and all other governmental bodies via the 14th ammendment (due process clause)--which is complicated, but one of the most thoroughly established points of constitutional law. That being said. . .

There are two parts--the second being "no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof"--which people often overlook--but it is equally important, especially to understanding what the Framers meant.

The government cannot make any law that favors or grants special status to ANY religion. At the same time, the government cannot restrict the legitimate practice of any faith. "Legitimate" here ismy term--the state can step in in certain instances (e.g. to save the life of a child whose parents deny the child life-saving medical care for religious reasons) but generally must keep hands-off.

But--and here's where "hands-off" really means "HANDS OFF!"--the simple concept that the government cannot either endorse or restrict any religious practice is pretty clear in theory--but gets very complicated in practice. There are endless cases dealing with "gray areas"--which is where all the controversies come from.

In general, the courts (including the Supreme Court) regard the freedom of religion as a "fundamental liberty"--a term that means that the state is presumed to have no interest unless it can be proven in a specific case that their is an overriding reason (as with the sick child). Otherwise, the courts tend to "draw a brightline"--meaning that the state must keep entierly out of anything to do with religion under all normal circumstances. Because religious freedom is a "fundamental right" the state has to steer clear--it cannot (except n those rare instances-above) do anything that bears on religion. Its on that basis that many seemingly ill-advised--or even petty--restrictions are made. Here's how it works in one issue: prayer in schools (BTW--I have no problem with children praying, on the contrary, I'm a Christian--I think they should. But we are talking abot the law here)--and why it is the way it is).

Traditionally, schools--including public schools--had required prayers --at least at the beginning of the school day, sometimes more). When this was challenged, the arguement was that the public school is clearly an agent of the state, and by requiring prayer, clearly violated the "no law respecting" part--and to the extent that prayers were faith-specific, violated the "free exercise" part. The Court also found that the "free exercise" clause also meant the freedom NOT to engage in religious practice--which required prayers clearly do. Note--this applies ONLY to state-owned/run entities. Never to private ones.

The next problem arose out of a more subtle problem. Many people--quite sincerely--said, okay, we'll drop the requirement to pray. but there's nothing wrong with encouraging prayer, as long as it's voluntary. Not an unreasonable idea, obviously. The problem comes when you realize that we are dealing with children who are not mature enough to make decisions for themselves. Thus, if the teacher says its time for those who wish to pray--and all or most of the students do--the occasioanal child who does not shaare this desire is going to feel a great deal of pressure--either to pray, or to say prayers that are not part of that child's religion. So--in several cases--the courts have ruled that such prayers, though well intentioned, have a de facto effect of the state endorsing/requiring religious practice.

There is a process--having a moment of silence for reflection (during which students may pray silently if they choose)tha tthe courts do allow.

But--what about"faith-based" groupsthat wish to pray on their own? The rulings on this--and on religious-linked organizations as part of programs of extracurricular activities--and some other things--get mixed rulings. But the court's rulings are not arbitrary--they aremade on the basis of that "bright line" If the specific activity is conducted in such a way that a reasonable person--even an impressionable child--will not feel pressure from the authority of the state (the school) the courts generally allow it. Otherwise, no.

With variations, that's how the situation is handled with all situations, not jsut schools. The courts draw that "bright line"--and the state must stay on its side of that line. That's what "seperation of church and state" means.

Of course, the system isn't perfect (name me something that is!)--and there is always someone testing that boundary. Sometimes it's a substantial matter (efforts to put "Bible classes" in schools--which the courts subject to the highest degree of scrutiny. Other times, it's quite frankly petty--some people objecting to "under God" as part of the Pledge of Alligience. Either way, when these cases come before the courts, they have to make rulings. And whatever the issue--serious or petty--they try to follow that strict standard.

One last point--clearly, from a "common sense" standpoint some rulings dont seem to make sense--for example, hanging the 10 commandments in a courthouse is hardly a real hreat to anyone's freedom of religion. But here's where the "slippery slope" (a specific concept in constitutional law) comes in. The idea is that if you grant what amounts to an exception (to that "brigt line") you establish a legal precedant that will be used in future cases to open the doore for more--and more substantial--exceptions. The concern is well founded. A classic case is abortion. Roe v. Wade did NOT allow unrestricted abortions--it specifically allowed the states to restrict abortions after the first trimester. But that opening (whethere you agree with it or not is irrelevant--it shows what happens) created by Roe opened the door to an incremental broadening of the "right to an abortion" to the point now that we are having a debate over partial birth abortions--a liberalization of the law the Court never envisioned in Roe--and clearly contrary to the intent and the text of the Roe decision. Much the same thing happened after the 1898 Plessy decision that allowed 'separate but equal" schools based on race. That ruling became the basis for the entire structure of "Jim Crow' in the first half of the 20th century. That sort of thing is why the courts are so adamant about that "bright line"--its not the commandments on a courthouse wall they care about--its the consequences of allowing a foot in the door we will face 25 years from now.