What's with the "separation of church and state" thing?

Question

It's not actually in the constitution. Follow this link and read for yourselves the first amendment if you don't believe me:

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/index.cfm?section=constitution&page=billOfRights.cfm


With that said, I again ask "What's with 'separation of church and state'?" All that stuff that the government decides about what religions should or shouldn't be allowed (and stuff like that) is just a load of unconstitutional crap!

mktk401: Maybe you should check your sources before you upbraid others (look it up in the dictionary if you don't know what it means). Wikipedia, as everyone who uses the internet should know, isn't the most reliable source; anyone can edit any entry whenever they want to.

Stormchaser: Could you give me a link or something to that quote Thomas Jefferson supposedly said?

No they did not, @mber_125. In high school, they taught me to think for myself, not to just accept whatever crap gets thrown my way.

Gilliegrrrl: Have YOU done YOUR research on the Constitution?

Thanks, Doc. Now you other people, read Doc's answer!

Answer 1

. as many have pointed out it is not found in any of our founding documents. it was in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists Pres. Jefferson was reassuring the chruch there is a wall between church and state and that the state could not regulate any of the church activity.the twisting of it came in court cases. many have twisted to mean the other way around . it is funny that our first right is the freedom of religion. here is part of the letter


Taken from Andrew Lipscomb and Albert Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol., 16, pp. 281-282.


Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Answer 2

Actually the idea of "separation of church and state" comes not from the Constitution, but from the Federalist Papers. At any rate, the original intent appears to be to prevent the government from establishing a national religion and not to create a secular, non-religious society. This is evidenced by the fact that those who drafted the constitution had no problem with public prayer, posting the Ten Commandments in government buildings, Christmas trees and religious music in government buildings, etc. Religion was a part of every day life for most everyone. They didn't promote the removing of religion. They promoted allowing multiple expressions of religion.

Answer 3

Actually, the phrase comes from the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Since Jefferson worked closely with Madison on the Bill of Rights, the phrase has worked its way into the legal terminology as part of the "intent of the Framers."

Bottom line is the Constitution forbids the Establishment of Religion. The courts do not require strict separation of church and state (and never have) but they have to varying degrees over time been suspect of government activity that seems to endorse or fund a particular religious belief. Similarly, the Constitution allows the Free Exercise of Religion. As such, the courts (again to varying degrees) have been suspect of legislation that seems to punish people for their religious beliefs.

Answer 4

Jefferson, Madison, Jay and Henry were all to write the Constitution. Henry wanted an ammendment requiring that all men belong and tithe to a given church in order to gain the right to vote. The others disagreed. They believed that such a law would make us no better than England where everyone was required to be a member of the Church of England. Henry would not let this one go. The others changed their tactic and seized the moment and got Henry to run for Governor for Virginia. He ran and was elected. This forced him to give up his seat in Congress and also any say in the writing of our Constitution.
All Jefferson (who wrote this particular ammendment) wanted was to guaranty that no man would be forced to worship against his will and that no one church would be recognized over any other by our government. While Franklin claimed "Enlightenment," all of the framers of our government were infact, God fearing (revering) Christians.
Seems some of our elected and appointed law makers have been swindled in both the letter and spirit of the law. There IS NO "separation of church and state." "In God We Trust." Taking it a step further, our laws governing this nation are founded on the Ten Commandments -- found in the Judeo/Christian Bible.

Answer 5

It's a quote from Thomas Jefferson. With the passing of the latest Hate Crimes Bills, 254 and 984 the government can now dictate to churches, mosques and synogogues what they can preach and possibly incarcerate them. Currently two elderly women are in jail for passing out tracts in Pennsylvainia under a similar State law. Sweden did that to a clegyman and he was later exonerated by their Supreme Court, calling the arrest unconstitutional.

What happened to separation of Church and State, free speech without being hindered Or abridged in expression by government? The Courts started legislating in Violation of that same Constitution and is a phrase coined by them for the benenfit of a few. Doesn't that defeat the whole pupose of the 1st Amendment?

Answer 6

Government cannot and will not tell any religion What it can or cannot preach or believe.

IN return: No church or religion can tell the Government what to do or preach.

In other words they stay out of each others business.

For this accommodation, the government will not tax any church or religion. They are free to make as many millions as they want (including their outside investments in Real Estate, Stock market, sky scrapers; what ever, and don't have to pay one single dime to the government. Local, state, or Federal. Of course the other hard working people of America must make up the difference.

Cool, Hugh?

Answer 7

"The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In the Reynolds case the Court defended marriage as between a man and a woman and denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory. The Court used the metaphor again in 1947 when it was used by Justice Hugo Black in Everson. The term was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. Since that time, the Court has distanced itself from the metaphor, often suggesting the metaphor conveys hostility to religion in contrast to Jefferson's original meaning "...in behalf of the rights of [religious] conscience." In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference-- a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life"--wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#History

It's more of judicial/liberal philsophy than an actual historical view of those accepting the Constitution. Conneticut legislator once official financed a particular church, and Congress often had sunday 'church' in CONGRESS.. in it's early years.

Not till around 47 did there appear to be such a dominant view on 'Separation of church and state'.

"The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case which dealt with a state law that allowed the use of government funds for transportation to religious schools. While the ruling upheld that the state law allowing federal funding of religious schools as constitutional, Everson was also the first case to hold the Establishment Clause applicable to the state legislatures as well as Congress, based upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The intent of this dual federalism was to leave it to a more local perspective. And for the most part this was done through state constitutions. Now people above me may say they know the law...but law isn't historal fact, it's appointed judges.

Appointed judges are like any other branch of government...they can make their agenda based on their values, while superseding their obligations. This is called judicial activism. It's origins are as early as our Republic.

I think the best way to indentify the arguement is:

"Many of these constitutional debates relate to the competing interpretive theories of originalism versus modernist theories such as the doctrine of the Living Constitution."

Is our Constitution 'living' or is it important to base our law upon the origin of those accepting it?

I believe you take a look at those making the changes and those whom created the laws; and I'll believe you'll find your position.

I believe these people whom pray upon modern law know little about history and they fail to understand how weak a system they praise:

"Critics of the modern concept of the "separation of church and state" argue that it is untethered to anything in the text of the constitution and is contrary to the conception of the phrase as the framers understood it. Philip Hamburger, Columbia Law school professor and prominent critic of the modern understanding of the concept, maintains that the modern concept, which deviates from the constitutional establishment clause jurisprudence, is rooted in American anti-catholicism and Nativism. The modern conception of separation was supported by Nativist groups, including the Know Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan, and in 1947, of the nine Supreme Court Justices who held that the constitution required separation in Everson v. Board of Education, at least seven were Masons. The author of the majority opinion was Justice Hugo Black, a former Klansman and Senator from Alabama who had made a name as a politician who, according to a sympathetic Klan leader, could “make the best anti-Catholic speech you ever heard.” . Briefs before the Supreme Court, including by the U.S. government, have argued that some state constitutional amendments relating to the modern conception of separation of church and state (Blaine Amendments) were motivated by and intended to enact anti-Catholicism."--Wiki

Hamburger, Philip Separation of Church and State (Harvard University Press, New Ed edition 2004)

In the end if the Constitution is so 'living' and apt to change, what then of the people. If everything is Constitutional as long as you get the judges to say so, then it's all for not. If the Constitution doesn't have basis in history, then it's nothing...just piece of paper. I would like to think the federalists that supported this piece of paper didn't think it was that.

While the system has imperfections don't look to judges opinions, look to history. Once our children are taught this, we won't be putting judges in that negate it.

Answer 8

Name me one, just one, instance in which the government has decided what religions should and should not be allowed? Anyone in America is allowed to belive in the mythology of their choice, no matter how ridiculous it may be.

The separation of church and state is intended to keep the government from forcing a particular religion down our throats. The First Amendment in combination with the Establisment Clause protects us from that.

Before you start going on about the Constitution, I suggest you delve further into it. The information is cleverly concealed in books.

Honey, I certainly have. It is my sacred text.

Oh, and the laws of this nation are not based on the Bible,Doc. You're just wrong. But then you're also biased, since you're a Christian.

Answer 9

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax dollars in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally, and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices not be restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the "separation of church and state."
Understand the law before you try to act like you know how to interpret it!

Answer 10

You know I just learned the other day that.
that the seperation of church and state is not in the constitution. I don't know exactly what it is. but when I asked my teacher if I could bring a bible to school, he said no, and blamed it on that.
SO, when you find out do let me know.