Misconception Of The Separation Of Chuch And State

[JenniferB]

The misnomer of this declaration is that it is in the Constitution which is not the case, although I believe it should be included. What is in the Constitution is the establishment clause. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". What this means is that the government shall not establish a religion to dictate the laws in the country, similar to what Iran does right now.

The Separation of Church and State (which I believe in) was said in Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson meant the establishment cause, although I believe the statement was profound and has meaning today. The letter had to do with Connecticut and how they were discriminated by the government and the Establishment Clause

Here is the Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Letter to Danbury Baptists

If I am missing something or misquoted, please right me. I definitely want to see the truth.

Jenny

[JJ]

Thanks Jenny. Political science was one of my dual majors and I hadn't come across that information!

I love the things I learn on Laura's!

Hugs

John

[Guest KimberlyF]

Jefferson has always been an enigma and if you don't like his position on an issue, keep digging, he prob took the other side too.

The separation of Church & State is one of those hypotheticals coming from a body that gives tax breaks to churches, campaign excessively in churches and have started official state functions with a prayer from day 1.

Kim

[Guest ChloëC]

I've thought about that clause off and on for some time, and while I believe in a strict sense it means specifically that the Congress of the U.S. can make no laws that would in some manner establish a religion, I can also see it because of its brevity as being open to a lot of interpretations.

Now some people can suggest that this means Congress can still regulate religions as long as nothing causes the establishment of a specific religion and others take it to mean that since the Founding Fathers were Christian that while they could not establish a very specific sect (as in denomination, I find denomination very PC, they are really sects because that's what we call the difference denominations of every other religion in the world), that Christianity itself should be considered the over-riding religion.

The above is often used as an argument that non-Christian religions can be somehow regulated or even banned if need be, just so long as no one Christian sect is established by law at the national level.

And of course, the 9th or 10 Amendment to the Constitution (Bill of Rights) says that powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the States. So, technically, with a very precise reading of that clause, it appears each state unless their own constitution prohibits it, could in fact establish a state religion and technically the Supreme Court or Congress could not stop them.

However, I suspect that if certain religious sects (non-Christian) were ever tried to be established that the Supreme Court would strike it down. Just an opinion.

It is interesting to note that Jefferson was a Deist and not a Christian, Adams was declared Unitarian which is technically not Christian, Washington's religious affiliation was basically unknown, and Madison was an Episcopalian (Church of England roots) - and he was the most devout of the belief in total separation of church and state. None of the big 4 were very devout churchgoers. But most were Freemasons - when that meant a lot more - especially in bigotry - than it does now. Go figure.

And it's interesting to note that while 'God' is referred to or mentioned in many Governmental writings, Christianity and Jesus are specifically not. The Founding Fathers understood that Christianity was the major religion of the new country, but to me anyway also understood that no one religion should ever be recognized by the federal government. And they were quite wise in having a very futuristic view, even if they could not possibily even dream of what would happen.

Hugs

Chloë

[Guest Barbie]

I wanted to add something here. It was suggested that the 10th Amend. gives the states the possibility of passing a state sponsored religion. This needs clarification, because it was true to a point.

The vehicle that binds the first 10 Amends. to the states (or specifically what binds the states to follow the 1st Amend.) is the 14th Amend (1868). However, no state could try do an end run around the 1st Amend. beginning in the 1890s when the United States Supreme Court took on a series of 1st Amend. cases which built case law stating that states were also bound by the 1st Amend. via the 14th Amend.

Notably, Gitlow v. New York (1925) which states that the 1st Amend. applies to the states and to local goverments, as well. There is no legal authority that allows a state to pass a law that outlaws (or advances) a religion.

However, government can and does regulate religion in some ways. Or at least supports it in a tangential manner. The government will vaccinate children in religious schools for free for the greater good (just as parents have the right to refuse vaccinations). But, if the parents have no objection, the child can receive a vaccination paid for by the government.

[Guest Barbie]

Here is the Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Letter to Danbury Baptists

Jenny

At the time the letter was written, the states did have more latitude to interfere in religion. The 14th Amend. had not yet been conceived which, by my other post, is the vehicle which obligates the states to adhere to the to the 1st Amend. Though not in the body of the Constitution, the "establishment clause" is the 1st Amend. of the Bill of Rights.

My reading is that the Baptists had a fear that Connecticut would tax them out of existence by using their taxes to support Congregationalism. Until the Supreme Court cases of the latter 1890s and early 1900s, Baptist would have had good reason for concern. As another poster suggested, but impossible today, there was no certainty that a state could not interfere in the workings of religion -- and tax them to give the revenue to support another sect.

I think of Tudor England and all that came afterward -- where state-sponsored religion changed with each change of monarch. Where churches and clergy were taxed out of existence, where adherents and leaders were executed, where forced conversions were by the sword, where practice had to be in secret if at all, and all this to change when a new monarch took reign.

Once begun, it was a short step to persecution and division within sects of a faith. I'm sure this is what was on the mind of the Danbury Baptists.

[Guest TracieV3]

The above is often used as an argument that non-Christian religions can be somehow regulated or even banned if need be, just so long as no one Christian sect is established by law at the national level.

Presently, for the last thirty years, the "Separation Of Church And State" has been used mostly to silence Christianity in the U.S.

Atheists, such as those in the ACLU, are the worst offenders in using the courts to censor Christianity.

All the while, these same groups that silence Christians turn a blind eye towards other religions. You will find they will allow any other religion to be government sponsored in this nation EXCEPT Christianity.

And if you are wondering, according to the U.S. Federal Supreme Court ruling, Atheism is consider a religion, as a paradoxical as it sounds.

Most denominations of Christianity will admit there are bad apples.

And even if you loath Christianity, you should at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of this situation.

It is a back and forth reactionary fight, the more one group seek to silence to silence another group, the more that other group will seek to silence the group censoring them.

Tracie

[Carolyn Marie]

Funny, with all the Christian cable programs, Christian right wing T.V. and radio talk show hosts,

and Christian politicians (some of whom publicly state that the only constituents they serve are other Christians), I hadn't noticed that they were being silenced or prevented from airing their views.

If by silenced, you mean that required prayers in public schools have been ended, well then I guess its true. However, no one is prevented from praying silently to themselves, and I;m certain that many school children do just that right before a final exam. But I draw the line at being forced, or

having my child forced, to openly pray to Jesus or any other deity or be ridiculed for not doing so, while attending a public school.

I don't agree with all of the positions the ACLU has taken, but overall, their work has stood the test of time. We are better off as a nation for what they have stood for. Just my opinion, and of course I respect anyone's right to differ.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest ChloëC]

Tracie, I do happen to agree with Carolyn, I think the ACLU does get a little carried away, but at the same time, they are consistent in their beliefs. They will defend anyone, conservative or liberal (and I've seen both), where they feel that person is being denied their rights. It's hard to fault them when they do that, especially since we're a country supposedly built on the belief that all people are innocent until proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they are guilty. So often we read the news and assess guilt immediately based on somebody else's statements.

To me it's a real shame that people who should really know better, find it so easy to make blanket accusations against people of a different color, or a different race, or a different religion, or a different belief system.

Considering that ALL churches are tax exempt, that practically all ministers have been given the government right to sign marriage certificates (which are recognized as legal documents) and that people are free to attend whatever place of worship they want to, besides all the tv channels devoted to religious teachings, I do tend to disagree that there is somehow a concerted effort to silence Christian teachings. Actually I think there is more an attempt (based on current events) to silence Muslim teachings, which have exactly the same protection (or should) that any other religion should have. You might want to go to the nearest mosque and ask the people there if they feel they are not being persecuted to some extent. You might be surprised. Go to Utah and ask the same question of LDS church leaders.

Part of the problem is that all religions seem to have people who claim to be adherants and yet speak of hate for those who don't belong. I wish all church leaders would address their own membership to demand that they either remove the hate or remove themselves from membership, so that the world would know that each religion does stand for peace and brotherhood. But that's just a dream. <sigh>

Tracie, I do appreciate reading your views. I doubt I will change them, like yours may not change mine, but if discussion leads us both to better understandings of our own beliefs and beliefs of others, then something good is being accomplished.

Hugs

Chloë

[Guest Barbie]

Presently, for the last thirty years, the "Separation Of Church And State" has been used mostly to silence Christianity in the U.S.

Atheists, such as those in the ACLU, are the worst offenders in using the courts to censor Christianity.

All the while, these same groups that silence Christians turn a blind eye towards other religions. You will find they will allow any other religion to be government sponsored in this nation EXCEPT Christianity.

And if you are wondering, according to the U.S. Federal Supreme Court ruling, Atheism is consider a religion, as a paradoxical as it sounds.

Most denominations of Christianity will admit there are bad apples.

And even if you loath Christianity, you should at least acknowledge the hypocrisy of this situation.

It is a back and forth reactionary fight, the more one group seek to silence to silence another group, the more that other group will seek to silence the group censoring them.

Tracie

I would like to add a bit of background. A prisoner wanted to have an atheist study group, as other prisoners are allowed study groups in various subjects (mostly religious). He was not allowed and sued. The 7th Cir. found that he lost on the "free exercise clause" of the 1st Amend. but won on the "establishment clause" -- not that it was a relgion but "as" a religion. Atheism has equal protection with religion. This was based upon a USSC ruling in 1985 that, in sum, said that we are free to embrace "any religious faith, or none at all." There is an actual "test" set in 1971. This test can be found in a case called Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). It's a good test of whether or not the government's actions are violative of the 1st Amend establishment clause.

However, I do agree that the ACLU does not always stand to protect Christianity (and one group in particular) as readily as it takes on the more controversial or contrarian positions.

And though I consider myself more spiritual rather than religious, I am offended that we can turn a blind eye to public displays of ridicule, as expressions of free speech, where such expressions would be totally inappropriate in any other circumstance. Even when the law protects such expression, it does not speak for all of the population.

[Guest Barbie]

When they take out the "Under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance and stop printing "In God we Trust" on the money, then I'll feel like I have religious freedom. This country is so steeped in Christian beliefs that it can be oppressive to those who are not. I personally feel that more needs to be done to create a climate of respect for all religions and atheists - the ACLU needs to do more!

Love, Kat

These freedoms are interpreted as freedom "to" and not freedom "from"; it's not interpreted to eliminate all references to religion (freedom "from") but to be inclusive (freedom "to"). Case law protects atheists as well as the many numbers of religions that make up this country. Atheists are free "to" not believe they cannot be persecuted, discriminated against or forced to "believe."

However, there's no law, case law or interpretation that says we are to be protected "from" any and all forms of relgious reference or display.

Respectfully,

b

[Guest ChloëC]

While we're talking about freedom from, I want freedom from excessive and overly loud commercials, I want freedom from stupid drivers on the highways, etc., etc. Oh, wait, nothing protects me against the freedom froms, does it.

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to live with the freedom to express my opinions, to sit on juries, to read independent newspapers, to not have to go to church on Sundays (or sit in a pillory if I don't), freedom to church or pastor shop, or decide how much money I WANT to give to the church, or freedom to be able to send my kids to public schools because they actually exist here, and take all comers.

Some small prices to pay for those freedom froms I'm having to live with. (this is slight sarcasm). Crying because I don't have new shoes, when so many in the world can't walk, is a little fatuous. But that's my opinion.

Hugs

Chloe

[Guest April63]

"freedom from" doesn't exist. You can't guarantee that you won't be bothered by something. The world would be way too chaotic with people suing each other for knocking on each other's doors. By giving freedom from something, you are not giving another person the freedom to perform it.

[Guest Barbie]

"freedom from" doesn't exist. You can't guarantee that you won't be bothered by something. The world would be way too chaotic with people suing each other for knocking on each other's doors. By giving freedom from something, you are not giving another person the freedom to perform it.

My response only referred to the topic here of religion and the "establishiment clause" (specifically), and only as interpreted in the 1st Amend.

b

[Sally]

OK, I am going to try something different - I will keep this answer short and simple.

When the pilgrims left from England they came for two main reasons - to avoid religious persecution in England and to be able to own land (they were the second or third sons and primogeniture left everything to the first born male).

The separation of church and state idea was very limited and again a reaction to what had happened in England - Henry VIII set himself up as the head of the Church of England, the Pope ruled more than just the Catholic church for centuries with Spain and France consulting with their Arch Bishops before doing anything - they did not want that, they wanted more control.

So here is the short and simple part - they came over Christians without land or much control over the direction that their church or government went so they rebelled.

Love ya,

Sally

[Guest April63]

But even if we are only talking about religion, you cannot have "freedom from religion" while guaranteeing the right to practice religious beliefs. Freedom of religion allows you to have any beliefs you want. If you choose not to believe you can. That is the closest you can get to "freedom from" without taking away religion from others.