"Seperation of Church and state" isn't in the constitution

[Norsefire]

It doesn't anywhere say "separation of church and state"

It says congress shall make no laws for an establishment of religion, but there are probably loopholes around that if you think hard enough. Therefore teaching religion in schools isn't unconstitutional; it isn't establishing a national religion in the same way Denmark established Lutheran Christianity as "official"

[spidergoat]

Teaching comparative religion is allowed in public schools, but teaching any particular religion as truth is not.

[Norsefire]

Teaching comparative religion is allowed in public schools, but teaching any particular religion as truth is not.

Why not? As long as congress doesn't officially establish a state religion, technically we can use religion in government

[spidergoat]

They do have a prayer before the congress meets. Allowing the public teaching of any particular religion as truth violates the establishment clause.

[Norsefire]

They do have a prayer before the congress meets. Allowing the public teaching of any particular religion as truth violates the establishment clause.

No it doesn't as long as it isn't an "official" state religion, which it wouldn't be. Furthermore, creating religious laws doesn't establish a particular religion.

[spidergoat]

That is not the interpretation that the Supreme Court has understood. Establishment is interpreted broadly, not as specifically as you are doing.

[Norsefire]

That is not the interpretation that the Supreme Court has understood. Establishment is interpreted broadly, not as specifically as you are doing.

Then it's interpretation and subjective. I also really love the fact that people in the Bible Belt, where probably the majority do want the religion taught in schools, can't do so. Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? The people's will. The constitution limits the will of the people.

[CheskiChips]

Then it's interpretation and subjective. I also really love the fact that people in the Bible Belt, where probably the majority do want the religion taught in schools, can't do so. Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? The people's will. The constitution limits the will of the people.

Nah; they don't deserve that right. They only get the right to kill fetuses.

[Norsefire]

Nah; they don't deserve that right. They only get the right to kill fetuses.

What are you trying to say?

[CheskiChips]

What are you trying to say?

I'm saying; people think it's okay to kill babies, but think it's wrong to pray in school aloud.

[Asguard]

actually your right, the australian consitution was based on the US one and there is a similar claus here which says something like "the commonwealth goverment cant form a state religion". however this was never ment to be a seperation between church and state but rather that this power is belongs to the STATES to form an offical religion.

this was because it was belived that the states would probably adopt the church of england as an offical religion but they didnt take into account the number of irish imigrants who were catholic.

Of course now the states would never DARE exercise this power because they people wouldnt alow them to

[Norsefire]

In the US more people are religious than in Australia so it's more relevant.

[Asguard]

not really, you might be right that there are more religious people but there are also more RELIGIONS. which would they chose?

[Norsefire]

not really, you might be right that there are more religious people but there are also more RELIGIONS. which would they chose?

The majority, Christianity

[Asguard]

christanity isnt a religion, its a group of religions

[Norsefire]

christanity isnt a religion, its a group of religions

The majority demonination in the state

[Asguard]

so if we break down the percentages (this is just a rough guess because i dont know the exact numbers)

say 20% agnostic\athiast
10% muslim
10% jews
20% unaffiliated churchs
11% catholic
9% anglican
20% other

the "majority" is spread in churches which have no affiliation to eachother and are only aplicable to there own membership

the greatest "majority" would be catholisium but its only 11% of the population which means that 81% of the population OPOSE it

[Norsefire]

That's a plurality or something like that. In the US it's more like 75% are Christians.

[thoughtcontinuum]

well, congress is contradicting itself because we swear on the 'bible' to tell the truth and have 'in God we trust' on all our money and 'one nation under God' said every morning in schools and yet their against teaching anything about God or an 'intelligent designer'. and congress is trying to take off 'in God we trust' of all currency? the court swears in God yet wont put the commandments in every courthouse? whats wrong with this?????

[maxpayne]

yes i totally believe in separation between religion and state and only use the constitution that what make all Arabian countries suffer now because they put such Duran and this stuff in their regular business then they get backwards day after day

[SkinWalker]

The United States of America is a nation built with a "wall of separation between church and state" as a basic tenant.

This was a phrase coined by one of our most influential Founding Fathers in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptists:
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

congress is contradicting itself because we swear on the 'bible' to tell the truth

"Swearing on a bible" was never a legal requirement nor is it now. In fact, nearly every "oath" in use with government entities like the military or courts includes "I swear or affirm" and laying a hand on a bible is not required if used at all.

and have 'in God we trust' on all our money

The introduction of "in God we trust" on U.S. coinage in 1864 but only in widespread use in 1956 when the phrase was made the official U.S. motto. This was a McCarthy period adoption, part of the cold war effort to demonize the Reds and elevate the righteousness of U.S. interests and policy.

The de facto motto of the United States until 1956 was E Pluribus Unum, which means "from many, one." This was approved in the 1700's for the official U.S. seal and makes far more sense than the much newer "motto" which excludes many rather than deriving from them.

and 'one nation under God' said every morning in schools

The addition of "under God" occurred in 1954, also a McCarthy period invention promoted by various religious cults like the Knights of Columbus and the Presbyterians.

From 1892 to 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance read: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

The prior pledge is more inclusive and less discriminating than the McCarthy era addition, but perhaps the fear-mongering of Eisenhower's era still lingers.

and yet their against teaching anything about God or an 'intelligent designer'

There's really nothing to teach about gods in public schools other than in mythology classes. I should think that churches, mosques, and temples would do a far better and more complete job of teaching about their gods to the children of their parishioners and adherents, so why not leave public schools to teaching secular topics (keeping in mind that secular does not equate to atheist) like math, literature, science, government, social studies, P.E., etc.

Furthermore, "intelligent design" is just religious superstition cloaked in pseudoscience and also has no place in public schools. No more place than astrology, holocaust denial, or wiccan magic.

The "Wall of Separation of Church and State" need not be seen as an insult to the religious or to Christians. Indeed it is not. It is a way of ensuring that all religious beliefs or lack thereof have equal footing in the eyes of the government. It is as much a way of defending religious belief as anything else since it not only protects the state from the influence of religion, it protects religions from the influence of the state.

Reference Cited:

Jefferson, Thomas (1802, Jan 1). Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html). Library of Congress.

[Vkothii]

Americans, like many religious types, like to have an acceptable way to delude themselves.

This is why they have a Congress that doesn't believe in religion as a state institution, but does believe in it as a Congressional ritual. No contradiction there. It's also why Turkey has such a fragile state, that requires an historical threat from the military to depose any founded on religious principles, to stop it happening.

[Read-Only]

Then it's interpretation and subjective.

How silly can you possibly be????:bugeye: The way courts interprets the law IS the law! That's the only thing that matters.

[James R]

Then it's interpretation and subjective. I also really love the fact that people in the Bible Belt, where probably the majority do want the religion taught in schools, can't do so. Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? The people's will. The constitution limits the will of the people.

The people have the power to change the Constitution if they wish.

Why not? As long as congress doesn't officially establish a state religion, technically we can use religion in government

This is not how the establishment clause has been interpreted by Congress and by the courts. And nobody is going to adopt your interpretation after several hundred years of legal history.

[Pandaemoni]

The phrase "law[s] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does not mean "laws establishing a national religion."

"[R]especting an" means the same thing as "relating to." When Madison as in the Virginia legislature he opposed a bill that gave special tax treatment to Christian churches (all Christian churches) on the grounds that the state ought not to meddle with that religious "establishment", suggesting that he viewed "all Christian denominations" as a separate "establishment" as against the non-Christian religions.

There are really two ways to read the Constitution, generally. The first is to take the text, try to summon spirits and read tea leaves to determine what the words "meant" in 1787/91 (under the, possibly dubious, theory that they had some fixed and universal meaning that all the framers would have understood and that can be discerned). The second is to attempt to summon spirits and read tea leaves to determine what the underlying purpose behind the words was, and to either (i) apply that purpose to the extent still relevant to the modern world (under the, possibly dubious, theory that there was a single purpose to the provisions that all the framers would have agreed upon) or (ii) update that purpose to make it relevant to the modern world (under the, possibly dubious, theory that that judges are capable of identifying the direction in which the document should evolve).

Your seems to ignore both the meaning and purposes as originally understood by the framers, and to rely on part (ii) of the second test in a way that I think almost no one would agree with...since even those predisposed to your outcome tend to prefer the first of the two tests, pure originalist textualism.

[Challenger78]

James, what about the Aus govt ? Don't we er, invoke god at every stage of office ?

[Asguard]

the unfortunate answer is yes, parliment opens with "the lords pray" however there is a strong push to change this (if only because of the number of jews and muslims in the parliment)

however this just requires a change to the standing orders not any sort of consitutional change or otherwise

[James R]

James, what about the Aus govt ? Don't we er, invoke god at every stage of office ?

Actually, I don't recall seeing the word "God" anywhere in the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia. I can't guarantee that it isn't in there, but I don't think it is.

Our courts are secular. I've done jury duty, and jurors and witnesses can opt to either swear on a holy book or just affirm that they will tell the truth etc.

[Nasor]

I like how Norsefire tries to argue that "seperation" of church and state isn't actually in the constitution, then goes on to argue that the establishment clause is talking about "establishing a state religion," which is a phrase that also doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution. But hey, at least he seems to have worked out his confusion about the constitution vs. the declaration of independence.

I also like how he seems to think that having it be official policy to teach a particular religion in a school doesn't make that a state religion. If the state's official policy is to teach that a religion is true, that is now the religion of the state. It doesn't matter if congress officially designate it that way, the effect is the same.

Finally, I like how he doesn't seem to understand that it's not necessarily okay to do something simply because the majority wants to. If you're an unpopular person it might be possible to get 51% of people in the town/state/whatever to vote to have you killed, but that doesn't mean that it would be acceptable. Similarly, it's not acceptable to force people to sit through religious indoctrination simply because most of their neighbors are members of that religion.

[synthesizer-patel]

Why not? As long as congress doesn't officially establish a state religion, technically we can use religion in government

even if that was the case why on earth would you want to?

would you want more of this type of lunacy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

[Challenger78]

Actually, I don't recall seeing the word "God" anywhere in the Commonwealth Constitution of Australia. I can't guarantee that it isn't in there, but I don't think it is.

Our courts are secular. I've done jury duty, and jurors and witnesses can opt to either swear on a holy book or just affirm that they will tell the truth etc.

Thank god./irony
Now I can sleep safely at night.

[Norsefire]

The people have the power to change the Constitution if they wish. Apparanlty the American people are ignorant of this fact. Regardless, I believe in localization...efficient absolute localization. Centralizations should be only for economic and national identity reasons, i.e, "one will"

However, as for lifestyle, I fail to see why a society is prohibited from its own will. If the majority wish to teach the Bible in schools, and I'm sure there are areas in the US where this is the case, then why can it not be done? The majority should be the only party; doesn't it make more sense for minorities to live with their own?:confused:

This is not how the establishment clause has been interpreted by Congress and by the courts. And nobody is going to adopt your interpretation after several hundred years of legal history.
I think, again, most American people are ignorant of their own constitution and legal rights.

[SkinWalker]

If the majority wish to teach the Bible in schools, and I'm sure there are areas in the US where this is the case, then why can it not be done? The majority should be the only party; doesn't it make more sense for minorities to live with their own?

That isn't the ideals that the United States of America were founded upon. The majority's rights aren't more valuable or inalienable than the minority's. It's this principle that finally allowed for the success of the civil rights movement of the 60s.

If the human rights of the majority were all that were all that mattered, ignoring the human rights of the minority, then women would not have the right to vote, blacks would be still be segregated from whites, and much of our religious diversity would be non-existent as minority faiths were excluded, absorbed and eventually rendered extinct.

The Wall of Separation of Church and State was well recognized as vital by our Founding Fathers and serves to protect the religious.

[Norsefire]

That isn't the ideals that the United States of America were founded upon. The majority's rights aren't more valuable or inalienable than the minority's. It's this principle that finally allowed for the success of the civil rights movement of the 60s. Of course, all rights are equal, and all men should have these rights. By "minority" I do not mean racial minority, I mean cultural or religious or social minority. It makes more sense for these minorities to live with their own and be allowed legislation than to force them on others' throats.

If the human rights of the majority were all that were all that mattered, ignoring the human rights of the minority, then women would not have the right to vote, blacks would be still be segregated from whites, and much of our religious diversity would be non-existent as minority faiths were excluded, absorbed and eventually rendered extinct. Who said anything about taking away human rights? We wouldn't even take away civil rights; I'm simply saying, social minorities are in the wrong place. It makes more sense socially and politically for socially alike people to be with their own. "Diversity" in this sense causes problems with government.

[Vkothii]

It makes more sense socially and politically for socially alike people to be with their own. "Diversity" in this sense causes problems with government.What a totally fucked-up point of view. It doesn't make any sense at all..?

The majority wouldn't exist if there were no minorities, you silly pea-brained person. How do groups in a society "live with their own"? Are you saying there shouldn't be any groups, no religions, no political parties. No gatherings at all unless everyone agrees to think the same things? These "rights" that are all equal, are they also the same rights for everyone, or are you also saying the majority has more rights (you certainly seem to be), in which case you just contradicted your statement about "equal" rights, didn't you?

How does a majority make decisions if there isn't one? You should move to China, or better, North Korea should have the utopia you're dreaming about.

[one_raven]

The people have the power to change the Constitution if they wish.

That's a bit of an oversimplification.
No process exists in the US to allow a referendum at the federal level.
"The people" can not change the constitution within the current legal framework.
Their elected officials can, if pushed by the people - and they respond to that.
If they do not, the people will need to be able to band together cohesively enough to demand the NEXT candidates will be willing to attempt to make that change, stick by that collective conviction AND THEN, if the candidates keep their word, something may be attempted, it has to pass each house by 2/3 vote, THEN be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
Even then, the amendment would be strictly limited by the current framework.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

In reality, it is nearly impossible for the electorate to ammend the constitution - short of revolution.

[Asguard]

its slightly different here. I dont know if anyone can DEMAND a referendum of the federal goverment but if a referendum is called its the people who decide if it passes or not.

to pass it needs a majority of people in a majority of states to pass and they rarly do pass

[one_raven]

Referendums here are only allowed on the local and state level - the representative democracy level.
The federal government is a republic, therefore there is no mechanism for referendums - they are disallowed.

[Asguard]

its the oposite here, a plebisite is a non binding referundum which can be conducted by a local council, federal goverment or state goverment.

local councils fall under the power of the states and can be fired, removed, merged or whatever else by the state goverments. The state consitutions are just acts of parlament an can be changed by an act of parlament.

The commonwealth consitution on the other hand can ONLY be changed by the people

[Norsefire]

What a totally fucked-up point of view. It doesn't make any sense at all..?

The majority wouldn't exist if there were no minorities, you silly pea-brained person. How do groups in a society "live with their own"? Are you saying there shouldn't be any groups, no religions, no political parties. No gatherings at all unless everyone agrees to think the same things? These "rights" that are all equal, are they also the same rights for everyone, or are you also saying the majority has more rights (you certainly seem to be), in which case you just contradicted your statement about "equal" rights, didn't you? I don't know what else to call it. However, I think you understand what I mean. With significant ideological and cultural differences, government would become a problem because there's always going to be someone who is uncomfortable or unhappy. Doesn't it make more sense for different cultures to, for the sake of government, live with their own?

[geistkiesel]

It doesn't anywhere say "separation of church and state."

It says congress shall make no laws for an establishment of religion, but there are probably loopholes around that if you think hard enough. Therefore teaching religion in schools isn't unconstitutional; it isn't establishing a national religion in the same way Denmark established Lutheran Christianity as "official"
Why look for a way around a clear understandable constitutional provision?

If you cannot stomach living under a constitutional form of government there is abundant alternative regimes that make up the rules at the whim of the current tyrant. Try arguing your religious theses with some corrupt government of your choice - there are many to select from.


You have a slight error in your statement. The constitution says that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; ...

Congress cannot pass laws that respect any already established religion, and/or cannot pass laws that establish [a new] religion.

Included in the last article, VI, is the phrase,

" ...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Members of Congress can pray all they want, they can assert themselves as the God's right hand man, that can walk around in priestly garb, make speeches and arguments and they can introduce legislation that is attempting to create mandatory prayers in all schools and even in the homes of the public, but they cannot pass those laws.

The matter of "majority rule" must be looked at through the limiting and prohibiting provisions of the constitution. The 14th Amendment, for instance provides that no state shall deprive any person of due process of law ,or deny any person equal protection of the law. This mean,m in other words, that a majority cannot pass laws that disenfranchise a minority group, racially or otherwise. A majority cannot, by legislation, deny any person due process of the law, person or persons that is. A majority of a religious bent cannot pass laws that impose religious tenets and rules of conduct on the public -majority or minority, they are both prevented from sticking their moral noses in other persons butts whose actions are contrary to a particular religious belief.

Whatever you want to believe about Roe V Wade, it is a fact that "Pro Life" is a pure and simple religious tenet that states that "life begins at conception". Ask the Pope, he'll tell you right out. The law as developed over the centuries states that a human being [referring to a fetus] that is the object of the laws protection, or recognized as a "human" with all the rights as all humans, must be "viable", meaning that it must be capable of exhibiting life such as breathing and able to exhibit a blood circulatory system.

In other words, if an abortion is performed (the fetus is destroyed) at 81/2 months there is a very certain probability that a charge of murder will stand against doctor and would be mother, assuming proof that the fetus was viable at that moment. There is no scientific observation, nor any casual observation that a female egg newly impregnated by a male sperm can ever be deemed "viable", no matter how disgusting it may seem to self righteous Papal dogmatists.

The rational form the "viable" standard is not arbitrary. Should the rule be that life begins at inception, thereby making any abortion a homicide, abortions would continue and like so called "illegal drugs" abortions would be conducted beyond the scrutiny of the law that would result in untold tragedy inflicted to mothers and fetuses alike.

I say, tell the Pope, and his pedophile priests, bishops, cardinals to take their 'holier than the rest of us' and shove it.:shrug:

[superstring01]

It doesn't anywhere say "separation of church and state"

It says congress shall make no laws for an establishment of religion, but there are probably loopholes around that if you think hard enough. Therefore teaching religion in schools isn't unconstitutional; it isn't establishing a national religion in the same way Denmark established Lutheran Christianity as "official"

Why not? As long as congress doesn't officially establish a state religion, technically we can use religion in government

Wrong, Norse.

The term "separation of church and state" as a collective colloquialism to encompass the First and the Fourteenth amendment. While it never appears in the Constitution itself, it is an accurate description of the intent of these amendments (and was coined by Thomas Jefferson).

While you are correct that the First Amendment does not prohibit the states from combining religion and politics (in fact, they originally were encouraged to do so by many early founders), with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, the states were officially bound by this "firewall" of separation that constricted the movements of the Federal Government.

Originally the "Bill of Rights" only applied in the relationship between the individual citizen and the Federal Government (unless mentioned specifically). Each state was allowed to adopt its own constitution that enfranchised rights as it saw fit.

First Amendment:
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 a redress of grievances.

Fourteenth Amendment:
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

SECTION 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, [being twenty-one years of age,]* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

SECTION 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

If you read the portion that I bolded in Section I: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." you will note that the states were officially bound by the strictures of the Bill Of Rights as equally as the Federal Government. This was both the intent by way of the letter of the law and by spirit of the law. There is, in other words, no getting around it. Separation of church and state thus became the supreme law of the land in all areas of government.

~String

[Roman]

Isn't this supposed to be a democracy?

No.
Go back to high school.

[Roman]

well, congress is contradicting itself because we swear on the 'bible' to tell the truth and have 'in God we trust' on all our money and 'one nation under God' said every morning in schools and yet their against teaching anything about God or an 'intelligent designer'. and congress is trying to take off 'in God we trust' of all currency? the court swears in God yet wont put the commandments in every courthouse? whats wrong with this?????

Which God though?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Then it's interpretation and subjective. I also really love the fact that people in the Bible Belt, where probably the majority do want the religion taught in schools, can't do so. Isn't this supposed to be a democracy? The people's will. The constitution limits the will of the people.

You often exibit a desire to limit the will of the people.