In the Context of the 1st Ammendment you can't have an establishment of religion without a law. Read it again. No religious activity is can be PROHIBITED or DEMANDED by Congress, or by out of control judges usurping the power of same.Jefferson and Madison both used the word "separation" in reference to the Constitutionally defined relationship between religion and government. For over one hundred and fifty years, the Supreme Court has consistently supported their definition. Any preference by a government entity for one faith or group of faiths over others constitutes a prohibited Establishment.
For example, while Moore was Chief Justice, he could go to church all he wanted. He could post the Commandments in his home, on his lawn, or in his private office. All this was done as a private citizen.
I think we can all agree that he would be forbidden from lecturing a defendant about behaving in an "unchristian" manner, or urging them to pray, while sitting on the bench as a judge. Such would be Establishment.....a clear indication that the Law favors one set of religious beliefs over others. Our point has always been that for Moore to post the Commandments (indeed a specific version of them) in the courthouse and refer to them as the "Laws of God" was the same thing: an entity of the government endorsing one particular religious belief. Moore's comments during the debate only made it clearer that that was his intent.
It seems that some deeply religious people feel that recognition of a Supreme Being is not a religious belief in and of itself. It is. Conversely, a failure to mention God under any circumstances is not an implicit endorsement of atheism or even agnosticism.
-Eric
Yes, so they did. Here is the only statement in the Constitution that covers that "separation."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...That's it and that's all. It says nothing else, it authorizes nothing else, it prohibits nothing else. Anything else that Madison or Jefferson said about it can not expand the power of the Constitution beyond that statement. Whatever else they said about it is just rhetoric.
For over one hundred and fifty years, the Supreme Court has consistently supported their definition.
Could you cite some references? After all the Supreme Court supports the notion that sucking a babies brains out as it's being born doesn't violate its Right to life so it would be helpful to know the context and details of their 'support of Madison and Jefferson's positions on "separation of church and state."'