Some people actually think that separation of church and state is actually in the constitution! I was shocked to find that out so I thought everyone should know that its not and in fact it was quoted in a letter only so that the state would not decide what religion should be its official one and also so the state could not interfere with the churches teachings. [Sound like any amendments you've heard of recently?]
25 comments
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." only law-making body in the Federal government, despite what Bush thinks) can not in any way financially support a national religion, which was how it was done in many European nations. It is less clear if the original intention was to deny the government to right to support
Christianity in general, but the original intention of the framers is actually irrelevant at this point since the establishment clause has been refined in it's interpretation over the years by the Supreme Court, and the decisions of the court are binding under the law.
In 1947, the Supreme Court actually upheld a law (Everson v Board of Ed.) that allowed the state to reimburse parents for the costs of bussing their children to parochial schools. The Courts decided this was not, in fact, "support" of a religion, but rather support of the children.
In 1948, however, the Court ruled that inviting religious teachers into public schools to offer voluntary religious instruction did violate the establishment clause, but later in 1952, the Court ruled (Zorach v Clauson) that allowing student release time to attend the exact same kind of classes in churches and synogogues did not violate it. The line was being defined.
In 1962 the practice of school-sponsored prayer was ruled in violation of the clause (Engel v Vitale). After this case, the Court has faced a whole raft of prayer-related cases and has generally proved itself very willing and ready to strike down any practice or tradition that might be perceived even slightly as being coercive or as state-sponsorship of religion. The line has become more solid and defined.
Today, the legal stance set by the Supreme Court of the United States, the last and final authority on what the Constitution means, is that the government can not permit any practice that could in any way be viewed as "sponsoring" or "supporting" any religion, Christianity or otherwise, no matter how harmless, uncontroversial, or how much the local community may desire it.
It frankly does not matter what you think the establishment clause means, or even what the original framers intended it to mean. All that matters is what the US Supreme Court has declared it to mean.
I don't know, but that sure as hell sounds like "seperation" to me.
everyone should know that [separation of church and state is not in the constitution] and in fact it was quoted in a letter Actually, the "wall of separation between church and state" was given, in that letter, as an interpretation of what's in the constitution. So, in a very real sense, the separation is in the constitution. In regards to the "wall of separation," we know it's a good interpretation because:he certainly is an authority on the bill's intent!) For example, he tried to prevent Congressional Chaplains from receiving any federal money. In his opinion, that practice is unconstitutional even if they represent a variety of faiths!
Alternative bizarro universe. Can you explain again, what the first amendment is?. Because it´s clear THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. That people are free to follow whatever religion they want, or none, is not the state business. In fact, how is it possible that there are 26% of catholics, 2% Jewish and 1% buddists and moslems?, and some 13% of atheist, who have their posts with all the quietness and a comunist party that existed even in the dangerous MacArthy era?.
Many people are gratified to find that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. Folks, neither does the phrase "Speed Limit 55." This is not terribly significant. The "separation" observation was employed by Jefferson in a letter, and intended to characterize the intent of the First Amendment. Get a grip, huh?
LOL none of the comments are from me. I've wanted to respond to some asshat on Myspace a few dozen times so far, but every time I do I remember that I would have to "register" with Myspace.register there would lead to the first human-computer divorce in world history.
And I'm afraid my comp would get custody of the porn collection.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
