Where exactly does the US Constitution say "Seperation of church and state"?

[OneFollowingHim]

Most point to the First Amendment to make their case for the seperation of church and state. Here's what it says...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging thefreedom 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.

Does it say anywhere that the Supreme Court Justices should not pray to God before opening? Does it say anywhere that the United States should not have a National Day of Prayer? Does it say anywhere that U.S. Congress should not open session with prayer?

How can anyone say government or any public institution was intended to be totally devoid of Godly influence? The next thing to go is the Declaration of Independence. It starts like this...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

No atheist or no secularist is going to write anything even remotely like this. Those how founded the United States had something in mind other than avoiding the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They believed:

• in self-evident truth
• All are created equal
• All are endowed by their Creator
• in certain inalienable rights

Without God, none of these things are possible.

[Bob Jenkins]

The question " Where exactly does the US Constitution say 'separation of church and state'?" is very much like the question "Where does the bible say "Trinity?" I don't see any Christian having a problem with that article of faith.

[Solly]

As a Brit, and therefore something of a neutral observer, I would ask:

OFM, what would a nonSeparation of Church and State look like in the US?

And Bob, we would point to various parts of scripture and say, these add up to the Trinity, so where would you point in the Constitution?

[Bob Jenkins]

And Bob, we would point to various parts of scripture and say, these add up to the Trinity, so where would you point in the Constitution?

In the various opinions that comprise case law

[DunnySaze]

Most point to the First Amendment to make their case for the seperation of church and state. Here's what it says...

That phrase indeed does not appear, but neither does the phrase "Bill of Rights". It was first uttered by Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, explaining what was meant by the First ammendment (and the principle is also found in the document itself).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

This means government cannot support one religion over another, or support religion in general over none at all. At least this is the interpretation applied by the courts. It also means that one religion cannot influence the government, as that would simply reflect back as the goverment supporting one religion because the government makes laws for everyone, including those not of the influencing faith.

The next thing to go is the Declaration of Independence. It starts like this...

Unlike the Constitution, which is a legal document and in fact the basis of law, the Delaration holds no force of law.

No atheist or no secularist is going to write anything even remotely like this. Those how founded the United States had something in mind other than avoiding the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They believed:

• in self-evident truth
• All are created equal
• All are endowed by their Creator
• in certain inalienable rights

Without God, none of these things are possible.

But by all they didn't really mean all. They meant property owning white adult males. And again, the Declaration is not a basis of law. It's an emotional appeal for rebellion.

[Solly]

So the US uses similar means to the UK in determining constitutional matters, it's just that you have a written constitution with it?

[Bob Jenkins]

So the US uses similar means to the UK in determining constitutional matters, it's just that you have a written constitution with it?

From what little I know, yes. Precedent is used because it details the "logic" that went into the constitutional dertermination of previous cases.

[Noesis]

Separation of church and state is the best possible situation for both church and state and a wall between the two must be built high and wide and kept inviolate, for throughout history the two in combination have harmed the people and harmed the Faith, in that the codependency has:

- Corrupted the Church and corrupted the government
- Forced compromise on the Church where God has spoken clearly
- Secularized the Faith while embueing secular government with divine right
- Emboldened the greed of polticians in both the Church and government
- Tarnished the reputation of the Christian faith
- Brought shame upon the name of Jesus Christ
- Impeded the authentic message of the Gospel
- Encouraged tyrants and spilled the blood of innocents

From the dawn of the body politik until now, politicians have ever used appeals to religion and whatever god in the service of their pursuit of whatever goal they desired. In most of these cases the appeal is completely without merit and the actions taken have nothing to do with God, but scoundrels know that common folk are too easily ruled by emotion, too frequently characterized by shallow thinking, too often content in their ignorance, and too predictably responsive to imagery and icons in place of reason. Politicians use flags, religion and patriotism to stir our emotions and numb our brains, and never in pursuit of the Great Commission, most always in the pursuit of temporal wealth and power.

Church and State combined when Constantine wrested doctrinal and theological control from the peerage of Bishops and mde the church the proerty and puppet of the state.

Church and State combined when the Roman rulers made their bishop the political dictator of the church, something never contemplated by the apostles.

Church and State combined when excess unlanded nobles were given license to pillage, murder and plunder in the name of God, sacking the Holy Lands and even Christian capitals on their way.

Church and State combined when the excess orphans of Europe were dispatched on a children's crusade, resulting in their deaths and enslavement.

Church and State combined in the Inquisition, the Witch Trials, the Wars of Religion, the European sack and slaughter of the New World, the Rise of the Third Reich, the Irish Troubles and tribal wars of post-colonial Africa.

And we could speak more on the combination of government and religion in places like Afhganistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.

The Church is strong and its purpose pure when it stands alone.

The Church is weak and its purpose corrupted when it serves and seeks political power.

The combination of Church and State destroys the Church and makes the government accountable only to a false god.

When Church and State lie down together, both are sleeping with the Devil.

[AtheistArchon]

- Noesis! That was stellar! Pearls to you.

[Solly]

Me too. Have some rp1

[Amazing Rando]

Yep- I just Dean's Listed it.

[themuzicman]

The separation of church and state was intended to keep the goverment from being taken over by a particular denomination or religion. The word "establishment" is key, here.

Recognizing the presence of religion and even the religous foundation of a culture is far from respecting the establishment of it. The writers of the constitution wanted to guarentee that the government would not mandate or establish a state religion. If we were to treat this properly, it would prohibit the government from passing laws or engaging in acts that exclusively established a particular denomination to the exclusion of all other.

For instance, it should not be passing a law to give money specifically to the Methodist church, for example.

One thing you ahve to take into account is the history which this phrase was written in. One of the major problems in England was that the state mandated that everyone be Anglican. There was no freedom of religion, and, in fact, there was no freedom to even be a Christian, if you disagreed with the Anglican church.

So, their intent was much narrower than the SCOTUS interprets it today.

Unfortunately, liberals and the ACLU, who constantly decry "slippery slope" arguments somehow argue that using a public park for a Christmas display is the first step towards the US government mandating that everyone be Roman Catholic, which, of course, is nonsense, and, in fact, they've used this ruling to push anything even remotely religous out of public view, thus respecting the establishment of atheism.

And now it comes to this: Even invoking the word "God" without context referring to any religion whatsoever, in spite of the fact that almost all religions have a god, is congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion.

How far must we fall into the fallacy?

Michael

[Amazing Rando]

One thing you ahve to take into account is the history which this phrase was written in. One of the major problems in England was that the state mandated that everyone be Anglican. There was no freedom of religion, and, in fact, there was no freedom to even be a Christian, if you disagreed with the Anglican church.

So, their intent was much narrower than the SCOTUS interprets it today.

Believe it or not Muz, I agree with you on this one. Maybe there's hope for me after all!

[themuzicman]

You're what we call a "LINO" (Liberal in name only.)

You'll catch on sooner rather than later.

[LGM]

- Noesis! That was stellar! Pearls to you.

I agree, everything you said was right on, except for this small quibble:

The Church is strong and its purpose pure when it stands alone.

This is far too broad and sweeping a generalization...

Again, I'm not sure how you are defining the terms "purpose", "pure", or "alone".

The moment you create any institution that requires you to swear to a creed that you can never question, and further threatens you if you doubt it, and then goes on to claim that those who don't swear to this creed are at best lost and in need of "conversion" to it, or at worse infidels in need of eternal torture, you have just lost all claims on "purity", AFAICS.

Religion, Politics, Nationalism, Gangs, heck even rabid sports fans, are all vestiges of our genetic and memetic tendency towards tribalism.

The first amendment is just one good example of one culture deciding not to allow religious tribalism to prevail at the creation of a new national tribalism. The reason we have it is only the result of some very determined and brave men who had witnessed and understood the history of what Noesis described so eloquently in his thread.

Once our species evolves to a point where we are able to look at each person as an individual and not a member of this or that "tribe", we will all be better off. Once our species can shake off its incredible anthropocentric hubris and look at ourselves as just another recently evolved biological life form, that must find a way to live in harmony and balanced equilibrium with our biosphere, all life and the planet will be better off.

No magical gods named YHWH, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, or L. Ron Hubbard can do this for us. While some of their examples and ethics may help, they must all eventually give way to a new shared ethic and spiritual reverence for the creation we all share, and the unknown creative force that has evolved a large brained social primate to appreciate its splendor.

LGM
...still searching for any hominid tribal organization which as it gains power and influence doesn't breed corruption amongst its leaders...a "stand alone" Catholic church in 2003, still covers for pedophile priests despite not having the political power it had 1000 years ago...