Is it legal because the government says so?

[Tassman]

You seem to have sidestepped my question by answering the one you wish I had asked. "What exactly was the "separation of Church and State" that Jefferson advocated?" What did he advocate? Here is the pertinent sentence in that brief letter.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State.

In other words what Jefferson advocated was exactly what the Constitution gives us. "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is nothing like what the activist judicial branch has given us today.

Yes it is, by definition. It is the role of the Supreme to interpret the Constitution and Jefferson's reference to a wall of separation between Church and State has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[seer]

All of which is irrelevant given that every ruling since the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman has confirmed, in the view of the highest court in the land, that the Constitution effectively created a separation of church and state.

Lemon, is not the Constitution and could easily be overturned.

[Jedidiah]

Yes it is, by definition. It is the role of the Supreme to interpret the Constitution and Jefferson's reference to a wall of separation between Church and State has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Still answering the question you would prefer I had asked. I asked what Jefferson's view was.

[The Thinker]

Lemon, is not the Constitution and could easily be overturned.

It cannot be easily overturned because it's a longstanding ruling on the interpretation of the 1st amendment.

[The Thinker]

Still answering the question you would prefer I had asked. I asked what Jefferson's view was.

Jefferson's view was that government and religion should be separate. Hence the wall between them.

[Jedidiah]

Jefferson's view was that government and religion should be separate. Hence the wall between them.

Jefferson's view was just what he said, the " . . . legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, . . . "

This is the wall he wrote of, why are you guys so afraid of that?

[Tassman]

Still answering the question you would prefer I had asked. I asked what Jefferson's view was.

I have answered the question according to how the Supreme Court has answered it on several occasions. It is the Supreme Court's role to interpret the Constitution, not yours.

[Tassman]

Jefferson's view was just what he said, the " . . . legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, . . . "

This is the wall he wrote of, why are you guys so afraid of that?

No the “wall” is what divides those freely exercising their religion, to which they’re entitled, from impinging upon the exercise of the business of state. The “free exercise of religion” does not mean carte blanche to run a theocracy.

[Sparko]

No the “wall” is what divides those freely exercising their religion, to which they’re entitled, from impinging upon the exercise of the business of state. The “free exercise of religion” does not mean carte blanche to run a theocracy.

It says nothing about stopping religion from interfering with the state, It clearly says that the state can't interfere with religion.

[The Thinker]

Jefferson's view was just what he said, the " . . . legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, . . . "

This is the wall he wrote of, why are you guys so afraid of that?

That is part of the wall, idiot. You are free to practice your religion - except when it violates secular law, because secular law takes precedent over religious traditions. For example, a Muslim can't marry a 6 year old girl because his religion allows it. Government shouldn't control religion, and religion shouldn't control government. They should be separate. It's a very simple concept even an idiot can understand. That's what Jefferson meant.

[Tassman]

It says nothing about stopping religion from interfering with the state, It clearly says that the state can't interfere with religion.

That's simply wrong. Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation clearly refers to Church and State being kept separate with neither impinging upon the other. This principle has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court in its rulings.

[Sparko]

That's simply wrong. Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation clearly refers to Church and State being kept separate with neither impinging upon the other. This principle has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court in its rulings.

No. He was assuring the baptists that the state would not interfere with them. Not the other way around.

Here is the letter:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

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, & 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 & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & 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 & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Please point out where he says that religion cannot interfere with the state. Or where it says that in the constitution.





And what he wrote them really doesn't matter. What is in the constitution matters. There is no "wall" there. There is just an amendment that says the state cannot establish a religion or make any laws against anyone's free exercise of their religion. That's it. Period. You can imagine all you want, but the law is in the constitution not your mind, or what you imagine was in Jefferson's mind. Jefferson was not the arbiter of the law. Even if that is what he meant, it doesn't matter because that is not what was written into the constitution. He was only one man among many to compile the constitution. It was a group effort.

[Jedidiah]

That's simply wrong. Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation clearly refers to Church and State being kept separate with neither impinging upon the other. This principle has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court in its rulings.

You are 100% wrong and Sparko is 100% right. You need to learn to read.

[Carrikature]

It says nothing about stopping religion from interfering with the state, It clearly says that the state can't interfere with religion.

I'm not sure I understand how anyone thinks we'll get one without the other.

[Jedidiah]

I'm not sure I understand how anyone thinks we'll get one without the other.

You are moving on to a new area. The topic is what Jefferson actually said and what he meant by it. How it may or may not work out in real life is a more difficult topic.