Do you agree with this definition of "the wall of separation between church and state" ?

Question

Here is the way that the Supreme Court explained it in a 1947 case called Everson v. Board of Education. I am going to enumberate these 7 sentences, which the Court did not do in 1947.
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.

To be continued, .....

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 establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between Church and State."

So, my question is, do you agree with any or all 7 of those statements? If you agree with only some of them, please explain which ones.

Actually, cvq, I do have in my Yahoo accounts, a long essay that I have composed which discusses in detail what was going on "behind the scenes" in the Supreme Court when those words were written. I composed the essay because I was feeling rather peeved at certain things I heard in a Fox News Channel program dealing with this subject. If you want to get that essay, in its current form, you can contact me and I'll give you my email address then I'll send you my essay.

Answer 1

now all we have to do is end
Faith-based initiatives
Tax subsidies in the form of exemptions on church income and property
Forced attendance at AA meetings
otherwise I hope to see the day when religion as government policy is ended and that right SOON
The co-optation of government for religious agendas must be reigned in....Jefferson et al saw the dangers but greedy hypocrits saw religion as a remarkable device for socio-cultural manipulation...The policy of Manifest Destiny is rooted in christian doctrine as was that insane period called prohibition then there is the counter-productive, deadly corrupting Drug War(Prohibition taught US NOTHING!!)
all in the name of religion
and like any charity whatever portion of income goes to actual charity is tax exempt

Answer 2

) Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Ans: Yes.
2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Ans: Yes.
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. Ans: Yes.
4) No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. Ans: Yes.
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. Ans: Yes.
All those good things but where is the good question for tolerance to people of other faith?

Answer 3

I agree with all of them. This is probably the best explanation of the founders intentions.

I am a Christian, by the way. I would prefer that the government stayed out of my religion and my religion stayed out of the government (#6). Once a Church starts professing it's preference for one candidate (or party) over another, it stops doing it's duty to it's parishioners and should be taxed as a PAC, not a church.

And yet, in this country, we have the tax dollars of Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and Wicca going to support "faith-based" (Christian) initiatives in clear violation of #5.

I, for one, would love to read that essay.

Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Answer 4

I absolutely agree. It would be nice if these were actually stated in some official document, which would give our cause greater weight.

Yes, it's true that neither the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution (that was James Madison's baby, by the way) mention the words "separation of church and state," but Jefferson made his intentions clear in his copious writings.

And yes, Bush's Faith-Based Initiative clearly violates number 5, as does the principle of churches being tax-exempt.

Answer 5

I couldn't agree more. In fact I didn't know the SC laid it all out like that, but I couldn't have put it better myself.

Jefferson is a great hero of mine and I've read quite a bit by him. He explained his idea of the of separation of church and state in considerable detail. It seems clear to me that what he was worried about was not religion corrupting politics but the other way around.

And now that the wall of separation is crumbling, you can see that he was right. Politics is affecting religion much worse than vice versa. Powerful religious leaders are becoming corrupted by politics much worse, much more dangerously, than politicians are becoming corrupted by religion.

Answer 6

So far so good. The separation between church and state exists to protect both. Politicians really have no business legislating morality, because they're underqualified. At the same time, the church can easily be corrupted by power, as has happened in the past. Keeping the two distinct keeps both cleaner.

Answer 7

I agree with those rules but I have no real issue with 'tax exempt status' for churchs. churches and charities are often connected and both recieve TES.

on number 2 I'd add in the term 'hinder' or 'obstruct' along with aid. you can argue that passing a law against one religion isn't aiding another. or that while a law may share the views of a religion that they are seperate (for instance we outlawed murder because its universally wrong, not because of any one religion). a law could be passed that benefits one religion and hinders another.

Answer 8

In terms of policy, I "agree" that we should abide by the language and meaning of the First Amendment, which was agreed to by the people acting through their representatives.

I'd like to see what the sources of the Court's edicts were.

Answer 9

I agree with all of them, religion has no place in government. No fictional story should ever be able to dictate what people in a free society can do, only the government should be able to dictate what is morally exceptable for its people, without the influence of "god's word".

Answer 10

Yes. I totally agree with all 7 principals, but obviously they have not been followed. If they had been followed Middle East policy would have been neutral and political candidates
and office holders would not have been allowed to hobnob
with clergy and accept their financial support.