Explain "Separation of Church and State" to me

8/23/03 | Vision

[Vision]

Vision

[Vision]

The "seperation of church and state" is not in the consititution. I'm under the impression the term is in a letter written by a founding father to a Baptist minister. The minister feared that some day, the state may try to remove religion from society. The founder wrote- something along the lines of- "there is a seperation of church and state, the state has no power over matters of religion".

Can someone explain to me where this vague "seperation" principle comes from that is being used to change the nature of our union? And why it is more powerful then the 10th amendment?

This is my first thread after years of lurking so be easy on me if I've done something wrong.

[netmilsmom]

btt

[krb]

I'm under the impression the term is in a letter written by a founding father to a Baptist minister.

Moreover, the founding father in question was Thomas Jefferson, who didn't have anything to do with the writing of the Constitution.

[Vision]

What does btt mean? Bounce to the top?

[nwrep]

Vision, it is explicit in the Constitution, just not ours. It is mentioned in the old constitution of the Soviet Union. See article 13 of the USSR constitution:

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/18cons01.html

[fporretto]

"Separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the Constitution, except by the interpretations of aggressive secularists. What the First Amendment prohibited was an establishment of religion, which was a well-understood phenomenon, deriving from the established churches of Europe.

An established church has legal privileges other churches don't have. For example, it can receive monies from the public treasury -- or it can levy enforceable taxes of its own. It can compel membership, or attendance at its services -- or it can punish heresy or apostasy as criminal offenses. The prelates of an established church often sit in the councils of the State, and thus can directly shape policy.

But worst of all, the State can use the Church as an instrument with which to bludgeon the people into submission psychologically. It's one thing for the State to say, "Do as we say, or we'll kill you"; they all do that. But when the Church says, "Do as the State says, or God will punish you," the subject is reduced to a form of bondage that transcends the material world.

Frank Herbert put it thus, roughly, in his novel Dune: When the Church and the State share a single chariot, we who must pull it are rendered something less than men.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

[Vision]

Can you point me to where it is in the Constitution? Even websites touting the "seperation" say it's not in there.

[rellimpank]

--as an aside, we all need to know the old school trick that there is "a rat" in "separate"---

[netmilsmom]

Yes. It marks the thread so it shows up in the "New Posts to you" and one can view it later.

[Vision]

You make a good point, but it doesn't seem strong enough to remove the 10 Commandments, etc.

[scan58]

nwerp just said it was in the old Soviet constitution, not ours.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The establishment clause is in the First Amendment.

[The Mayor]

On seperation of Church and State
It is impossible to build sound Constitutional doctrine
on a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history...
The establishment clause had been expressely freighted with
Jeffersons misleading metaphor for nearly forty years...
There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition
that the framers intended to build a wall of seperation
[between church and state]...
The recent court decisions are in no way based on either
the language or the intent of the framers.
William H. Rehnquist
1985 Assoc. Justice U.S. Supreme Court
Wallace vs Jafree

It cannot be emphasized to strongly or too often
that this great nation was founded, not by religionists
but by Christians, not on religions,
but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ
For this very reason people of other faiths
have been afforded asylum, prosperity,
and freedom of worship here.
Patrick Henry

The Bible
The more profoundly we study this wonderful book,
and the more closely we observe it's divine precepts,
the higher will be our destiny as a nation
President William McKinley, Inaugural address
March 4, 1897

[Batrachian]

There are two main reasons why liberals are interested in "separation of church and state". Reason #1 is that they can't stand the thought of any agency, i.e. God, standing higher than the government. Reason #2, and the more important one, is that they want to destroy this nation, and they will do so by attacking the basic institutions of our nation, such as the family, our language, our history, our culture, and, in this case, religion.

It must be admitted that they are succeeding on all counts.

[Pharmboy]

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.

The courts have interpreted the first part of the 1st Amendment to mean that ANY display having to do with ANYTHING re religion (esp Christianity and Judaism) are forbidden.

[NutCrackerBoy]

"Separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the Constitution, except by the interpretations of aggressive secularists

Your post was excellent. We who oppose aggressive secularization will do well, as you did, to be very clear about the pernicious nature of true establishment of religion.

[scan58]

nwerp just said it was in the old Soviet constitution, not ours.

I mean "nwrep". Here is Article 13 of the Soviet constitution:

Article 13. In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

[scan58]

The courts have interpreted the first part of the 1st Amendment to mean that ANY display having to do with ANYTHING re religion (esp Christianity and Judaism) are forbidden.

Yes, while the whole time absolutely ignoring the second part...
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

[conservativemusician]

Bump for later reading.

[MikeJ]

The first amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". This has been interpreted by the courts to mean, basically, that no favoritism is allowed. The government can provide no more support or encouragement to any one religion that it does to any other.

(One important exception concerns stuff like the phrase "In God We Trust" on our currency - this is considered "ceremonial deism" and is allowed. This is why you still see some symbolic evidence of religious preference by the government. It will be a long time before "Allah Akbar" appears on our coins!)

The more you examine this issue, the less clear the distinction becomes. Like lots of constitutional limits, the boundaries have been set over the years in a variety of court rulings and the end result is confusing, inconsistent, and not especially logical. The issue is made more difficult because religion and culture are so deeply intertwined, and our culture has a strong effect on our laws. Western culture draws strongly from Judeo-Christian tradition, which is why our laws are more consistent with Christian thought than, say, Buddhist thought. For example, many towns don't allow liquor sales on Sunday, and we allow men to marry only one wife at a time.

The borderline which defines the permissible intermingling of religion and government is always changing. "The seperation of church and state" basically means whatever the courts last said it means.