(1) As noted it does not exist in the Constitution. The term is "respecting an establishment of religion."
(2) It was used by T.J. as mentioned above in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and was referred to more extensively in relation to the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which predated the Bill of Rights.
(3) It was adopted in the 1940s by Justice Hugo Black in a Supreme Court decision relating to forced prayer in elementary school; thus, it became part of our legal lexicon.
(4) "Separation of church and state" no longer applies in modern Supreme Court doctrine. The current tests are whether a law is religiously "neutral" (but this is on the way out); whether the law "coerces" someone into practicing faith (Justice Kennedy especially); or whether the State "endorces" religion (Justice O'Connor and perhaps Justice Breyer) or a particular religion (Justices Scalia and Thomas, perhaps Alito and C.J. Roberts, we don't know yet). "Endorsement of religion" is a far cry from "separation of church and state," as nearly all Supreme Court justices today recognize that there will be come interaction between church and state.
(5) "Separation of Church and State" is used much more by political forces and the media as an imprecise reference to the rights guaranteed by the Establishment Clause -- but it's very hard to say 'Respecting an establishment of religion' in a sound bite, and it's hard to understand.
(6) "Respecting an establishment of religion" does NOT mean that the Framers were SOLELY concerned with whether the Federal Government could establish, or ordain, a church. There was also a concern that civil government, if too closely aligned with churches would TAINT AND HARM RELIGION. Look at Continental Europe and England, where most countries have/had established churches. They ended up weak, watered down, and powerless. Also, the Framers were much more concerned about government's coercive control affecting someone "freedom of conscience," (the real harm sought to be protected by the Establishment Clause), so it's not merely saying "this is the preferred religion" or "pay the preferred religion," it's the anti-democratic idea that the government will tell you what to think in relation to God. Now, of course, that covers A LOT more ground than just an established church, but can mean a variety of religiously infused activities.
(I could write a treatise here, but it's just too much to say.)
(7) This "Separation of Church and State is no where in the Constitution" argument is very, very tired. No respected scholars use the term, nor do judges, except in the most perfunctory, flippant manner. It does not add to or detract from the debate, because "respecting an establishment" can mean much more than 'separation of church and state' anyway.
As a person who believes in an expansive reading of the Establishment Clause (AND an expansive reading of the Free Exercise Clause), I detest when anyone uses the term "separation of church and state." But that's just the beginning of the argument, not the end.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
2007-05-18 10:29:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by Perdendosi 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The phrase was said by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists referring to the first amendment, "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State. "
It is found in no other founding documents including the declaration of independence.
2007-05-18 06:07:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by David G 2
·
4⤊
1⤋
you're genuine; the words "separation of church and state" at the instant are not in U. S. shape. despite if, you concede that they've been in a ultimate courtroom ruling. If that ruling nevertheless stands, the words nevertheless have the tension of regulation. My wager is that the final courtroom used those words as a results of fact they provide a handy precis of techniques that are interior the U.S. shape. TJ: "Thomas Jefferson -- who became an atheist." I agree. exceptionally profound indicator of what he had in thoughts for the U. S.. i'm happy you "agree".
2016-11-24 21:50:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It does not exist in any of those documents.
The original concept was a guideline for government not to create a national religion. It was never meant to say that the nation can not consist of religious peoples or preventing people from exercising their religion in public
Today it has become an artificial construct of the political left as a way to attack persons of faith. It is one of those 'Tell a lie long enough and people will come to believe it'.
2007-05-18 06:10:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Zee HatMan 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
The phrase "separation of church and state" appears in almost every legal interpretation of the 1st amendment. It is also known as the "establishment clause" which you listed in your question.
Be happy you live in a nation that allows you the freedom to follow whatever religion you so choose. Be is Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, or Atheism. I do not support the notion that the USA is a "christian" nation. In fact Jesus HIMSELF claimed that there is only one kingdom of god (heaven).
2007-05-18 06:00:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by truthspeaker10 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Thomas Jefferson has been mis-quoted by those who would take freedom of speech away! He meant that Government cannot intrude to tell the Churches what they could and could not say or do within Reason! There is No State Mandated Church. Our Constitution is in Fact a Secular document taken from the Bible, Hamerabic/Babylonian and Greek laws, when this Republic was Forged! In fact they invited Churches to participate in the governmental process as the conscious of government. Religious groups can also Redress government without fear of being arrested and convicted for expressing religious morality! Many of the Amendments to include the Abolishment of Slavery adnd Women's Rights are based upon Biblical principals that all mankind is created equal in the sight of God as we are made in His Image and likeness. Acts 10.
People are not tried in the dead of night without witnesses because of Matthew Chapter 25 -28! You are guarantted not to be searched and to be secure in your homes and persons, because of the Common Laws found in Scripture! The Authority given to government and police is found in Romans 13. and in Leviticus Chapters 16-19
Atheism has not dried one tear, nor has it protected not one person in TRUTH!
2007-05-18 06:23:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by ShadowCat 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
It was in the Declaration of Independence and also in the Articles of Confederation. It predates the Constitution.
2007-05-18 05:57:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by cyanne2ak 7
·
0⤊
5⤋