Freezer writes:
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 redress of grievances." this does not mention separation of church and state as we know it or even imply that concept. the phrase originated from a letter from president thomas jefferson to the danbury baptist association in response to their fear that there would be a national denomination. that is when jefferson assured them there wouldn't be one and that there would be a wall of separation between church and state.
The exact phrase "separation of church and state" can be traced to Jefferson, but it was also used by James Madison. An earlier version can be found in the writings of Roger Williams and, arguably, has biblical support.
...and let's remember that historically the Bible was used as a textbook in our public schools. also, congress passed a resolution in 1789 asking george washington to proclaim a day of fasting and prayer on september 25, 1789.
Let's also remember, first, that the Bible used was a Protestant version -- the refusal of Protestant school officials to even allow Catholic public school students to bring their own Bibles led to widespread riots, the abuse of Catholic students, the deaths of many Catholics, and eventually the creation of the Catholic school system in America. Using Protestant Bible translations in public schools was a blatant violation of the rights of non-Protestant Christians, never mind non-Christians, so to cite that as a reason why the separation of church and state doesn't "really" exist is exceptionally obnoxious and likely a product of exceptional ignorance.
We should also remember, secondly, that the Supreme Court was very clear about why the practice of Bible readings needed to be struck down as unconstitutional: whenever the government singles out a particular religious text for endorsement, it communicates to those who don't accept this text that they are political outsiders, unequal and less worthy in the eyes of the law.
This is why people like "Freezer" are so very wrong when they claim that the "separation of church and state" is not implied by the First Amendment. The only way to ensure the existence of religious freedom is to ensure that the government does not have the authority to make religious decisions or take sides in religious disputes. This, in turn, is what is meant by the separation of church and state: separating religious from civil authority. Religious leaders have whatever religious authority given to them by their followers, but absolutely no civil authority (to issue fines, set zoning regulations, etc.). Civil leaders have whatever civil authority comes with their office (whether elected or appointed), but absolutely no religious authority (to declare the existence of any gods, to tell people how to pray, etc.).
Freezer lists a lot of quotes from WallBuilders, an organization known for using false or out-of-context quotes, but it ultimately doesn't matter. Many early American politicians were no friend to the separation of church and state -- just as they were no friend to the abolition of slavery or the free press. That doesn't mean, however, that such things aren't implied in the language of the Constitution. It isn't that hard for someone to set down a group of political or ethical principles that they aren't entirely able to live up to.
The fact of the matter is, once the government starts taking sides on religious issues to endorse or support certain positions at the expense of others, real religious liberty is at an end. At that point we will already be well along the way to some sort of theocracy. I think that critics of the separation of church and state recognize this -- that's why when you see them supporting the state endorsement of religious beliefs, they only do so in the context of their religious beliefs. As soon as there is even a hint of the state endorsing any other religious beliefs, they are immediately up in arms and screaming bloody murder.
I’ve heard it argued that, when written, the US constitution only prohibited the federal gov’t. from endorsing or otherwise supporting religion. The statement that “Congress shall make no law….” is very specific. Because some of the 13 colonies were founded upon a particular belief and it was a contentious issue, the men who wrote the constitution decided to leave that issue to the states. So, until the 14th amendment passed, states were free to endorse or support a religion if they chose to do so.
Any comment?
Paul, don’t forget Section 10 of the Constitution itself. That had some limits on the states as well. And it is now accepted precedence that no state can override the Constitution.
Larian,
Of course, no state can override the constitution. Section 10’s prohibitions are very specific, however, and have nothing to do with religion.
Also, the 10th amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So, according to the argument, a state could favor a specific theology or church without violating the constitution.
Then, the 14th amendment says (in part): “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So, if a state’s religious favoritism “abridges the privileges or immunities” of its citizens, or denies a citizen “the equal protection of the laws,” then it’s unconstitutional.
Paul is right. Prior to the 14th amendment, states were not subject to a separation of church and state, and in fact, there was a long history of religious discrimination in and between the colonies. In Virginia, they persecuted puritans and quakers, and in New England they persecuted anyone who wasn’t puritan. A good history of early colonial religion is “Albion’s Seed” by David Hackett Fischer. He discusses much more than religion, but it’s a great overview of America’s religious underpinnings. In grade school I learned that the puritans came to the new world to escape religious persecution. What they forgot to tell me was that the puritans were full force fanatics and they set in motion the religious zeitgeist that is unique to this country and that still plagues us today.
Actually, I’ve read that the US has always suffered from the tension between the Puritanical view and that of the Enlightenment-infused Deism. I don’t think that tension has ever been resolved. Both views are part of our heritage as Americans.
paul and robin are both wrong, the state of massachusetts was banned from forming the church of massachusetts, so you both have no idea of what your talking about!!
Christians are NOT special and deserve NO special rights, its time for all you nancies to grow up and except the fact that your childish faith deserves nospecial respect, you hold dear a faith originated by retarded slaves taken up by their masters so that they might subjecate the world, and you nancies keep trying pretend you didn’t give these monsters their power by holding onto your faith in slavery!
and thats correct folks, your church was the slave master for almost 1000 Years, and you morons want to bring that hell back.
the true fact is that fundies should be considered retarded and have their human rights removed and have their butts put in mental institutions!!
Well Dave. Some of what you say is correct, some is wrong, and some shows that you hate knowledge.
Indeed, Christians are not special (except in the eyes of God). They deserve no special treatment. But they do not deserve the discrimination that you give them.
Your ad hominem attacks show immaturity, and your knowledge of history seems to be bred from hate.
If you believe that the Roman Catholic church represents the church of all christians, then you are sorely mistaken. The Roman Catholic church is a terrible mixture of christian and jewish historical figures mixed with Babylonian paganism. Many Catholic beliefs are completely against New Testament scripture.
Why don’t you say something credible? People might listen.
We have an interesting debate going on this topic at the following link:
http://www.surveymagnet.com/2010/07/does-separation-of-church-and-state-really-exists/
Come join the discussion