Separation of Church and State

[FredFlash]

Religion and government must be kept separate. Religion must be a person's private beliefs. Religion is fine in the home, church, and on a street corner. Religious beliefs must stay out of public schools, courthouses, and all government buildings and property.

 

Separation of Church and State, and by this I mean James Madison's Perfect Separaton of Church, is the principle that religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and is exempt from the cognizance of the government. In other words, the government may not intrude its influence into a matter of religion where opinions differ. It does not mean that religion may not be discussed in public schools, but it does mean that the government should not make laws recommending that students affirm a belief in "one Nation under God."

 

It does not mean that religion must be exluded from the court house, but it certainly means that the government cannot advise the people to obey the religious commandment that God imposed on the Tribe of Israel, by displaying religious commandments in the court house.

[InfiniteNow]

I would like to see more seperation between church and stupidity myself.

 

 

Not that all religious people are stupid, but when you look at some of the things that are said and done by a majority of religious folks you will begin to understand the reasons for my statement.

[InfiniteNow]

Considering some recent discussion, I thought this post could use some dusting off. ;)

 

:cup:

 

Let me begin here with an apology for such a long post, BigDog just happened to present an opportunity to throw in my 2¢...

There is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the US Constitution. However, this does not stop even well educated people from making the claim that all aspects of religion should be barred from mention or visibility in any government matters. To me this is a highy radical view.

 

Why radical?

The religious beliefs have been part of the fabric of the US since its inception. And as such they done no harm to any individual's rights. With the swell of anti-religion in the US quite the contrary has been happening.

 

Long standing traditions are being redefined as forced religious ceremonies. Yet the recognition of religious holidays and significant events by the government is not in any fashion the same as making laws establishing religion.

But it is a respect or preference for theist belief as opposed to being secular. Use our currency for example. To place the words "In God We Trust" on currency the government is making an official statement that God exists, it is effectively an official endorsement of theism. View thsi in contrast to currency that makes no such statement. Such currency would not endorse or refute any theist belief, it would simply be neutral or secular. Some claim such money would be atheist but it would really need to endorse a disbelief in God to be atheist.

What is very interesting is that people on both sides of the argument use the same letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group in Connecticut, back in 1801 as evidence for their respective arguments. On the separate side people tend to quote one line from the letter saying...

 

... and taking that to mean that the government should have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

But when read in context to the letter he was replying to you find that he was not against being religious, or the governments recognition of religion at all. When the Baptists from Conneticut wrote ...

 

... Thomas jefferson was in agreement with them, and was assuring them that the first Amendment did indeed protect them from the State of Conneticut establishing an official religion, which was their concern.

 

IMO, both of these fall short of the truth. To really read what was said in context you must look at the whole picture, both the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association and Jefferson's complete, unedited reply to them. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted."

 

Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. Here are both letters in their entirety:

The Danbury Baptist's letter

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

 

Sir,

 

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express ou great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

 

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

 

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

 

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

 

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge

Ephraim Robbins

Stephen S. Nelson

Jefferson's Reply

Mr. President

 

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 & 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 & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & 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, and 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 and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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 and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

 

(signed) Thomas Jefferson

Jan.1.1802.

Note Jefferson's reasoning here in brackets. It was his opinion that the Executive branch could only perform acts that were approved by Congress and that Congress was inhibited from acts respecting religion. In the linked original, note that this section was stricken from his final letter so as not to offend members of his party in the eastern states. While Jefferson himself was undoubtedly a religious man in his personal life he felt there was an absolute wall that prevented him from performing religious acts as President. He not only demonstrates an opinion that the government cannot establish a state religion but also that the government cannot commit any acts respecting religion. This would include any endorsements of any particular religious belief over another including theism as a whole. Also note that just two days after issuing the Danbury letter he attended church services in the House of Representatives. He fully supported personal freedom of religion but opposed any official government involvement.

In typical activist style that bit of misquoting has been used ever since in an effort to change the meaning of the Constitution rather than amending the Constitution to mean something different.

 

So the political battle rages, and the secularists who preach acceptance and brotherhood and understanding systematically try to remove all religion from society.

And that is what is required to present an equal, unbiased, secular government to all, regardless of personal religious beliefs.

[TheFaithfulStone]

As a notary public, I am a commissioned officer of the State. I could arrest and punish my neighbor for mowing his lawn on Sunday under the jurisdiction of the CRA and I would be protected from any review, appeal, or writ of certiorari.....now that's a scary thought...

 

Could you arrest the senators for rendering unto Caesar that which is Gods?

 

Although I doubt if I'm of the same religious persuasion as FredFlash, he makes some pretty good points.

 

Separation of state and religion should be absolute. The way I read the first amendment (which is admittedly fringy) is that Congress should make no law about religion. I think, that this could be rationally extended to imply that the executive branch shall issue no "memorandum of understanding" or regulatory complex that is about religion either.

 

This means effectively that if they want to ad "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, they can't. Churches shouldn't be tax exempt unless they are also 501©3 organizations, and should have the same political restrictions as other organizations.

 

In their official capacity - government officials should simply not be able to participate in the (metaphorical) religious conversation in this country.

 

That's my feeling. So I guess I'm one of those radical secular humanists, right? I just go to church because I like the crappy wine and stale bread.

 

TFS

[charles brough]

Everyone is assuming that the separating of religion from politics means removing ideology from politics, but the fact is that our secular ideology is the belief system of our state. It, also, is an ideology. I make this point not to imply that belief or ideology is wrong; I point it out only to emphasize that ALL ideologies change with time. No belief system is the absolute "Truth". Secular Humanism has undergone a lot more change in the last half century than Christianity has in ten centuries. Consider it to be possible that the change may be flawed and may account for the resurgence of religion. It may account for old religion now infiltrating and further undermining the whole, and now old, Secular system.

 

After 9/11, all Pres. Bush had to do was say he was going to "eliminate evil" and the public stood behind him all the way for well over two years. They gave him the keys to our whole system to do with what he wanted. Now, we reap the consequences and it is not over yet. When we war with Iran, we may be better able to judge the results.

[Edella]

Everyone is assuming that the separating of religion from politics means removing ideology from politics...

Thats certainly not my assumption. I would venture to guess that very few who support separation of church and state believe it would remove (all) ideology from politics. It seems to me that all political parties and activist groups in fact base their operations around one or more ideologies.

[PetsTheCatfish]

I can't think of any "good" examples of a joint religion and state.

 

Main things that come to mind are Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Crusades...

[FredFlash]

There is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the US Constitution.

 

What is your concept of separation of church and state, Dog?

 

The Constitution established a limited government and granted it only those powers expressly enumerated in the document. I see no grant of jurisdiction over religion to the government. Nor do I see anything that suggests a union of church and state was intended.

 

It seems clear to me that the framers did not want the federal government to have any jurisdiction over religion. No civil power over religion is the fundamental principle of separation of church and state.

 

I am compelled by the dictates of reason to conclude that the Constitution commands us to separate religion from government.

 

To me this is a highy radical view.

 

I guess you consider Jesus to be a radical, because he ordained the separation of church and state in Matthew 22:21.

 

The religious beliefs have been part of the fabric of the US since its inception.

 

The only religious belief I see woven into the Constitution of the U. S. Government is the belief in separation of religion from civil authority, as ordain by the Lord Jesus Christ, in Matthew 22:21.

[TheBigDog]

I am trying to find the sourcing, but as I recall the Danbury letter was inspired by political movement in Connecticut that led the writers to believe that the state of Connecticut was going to declare an official religion. This would have been an issue of state vs. federal with the Constitution stating that the rules for Congress, but not for the state governments. Here is an interesting site regarding church and state. Samples...

 

"Every Person should go to church, Sundays and Holidays, or lye Neck and Heels that Night, and be a Slave to the Colony the following Week; for the second Offence, he should be a Slave for a Month; and for the third, a Year and a Day." Virginia Governor 1617.

 

"Senate. Provided, nevertheless, That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion...

 

House of Representatives. Every member of the house of representatives... shall be of the Protestant religion..." New Hampshire Constitution (1784). Language removed in 1877.

 

These are what construe official religion of a state.

 

Bill

[Buffy]

"Every Person should go to church, Sundays and Holidays, or lye Neck and Heels that Night, and be a Slave to the Colony the following Week; for the second Offence, he should be a Slave for a Month; and for the third, a Year and a Day." Virginia Governor 1617.

 

"Senate. Provided, nevertheless, That no person shall be capable of being elected a senator who is not of the Protestant religion...

 

House of Representatives. Every member of the house of representatives... shall be of the Protestant religion..." New Hampshire Constitution (1784). Language removed in 1877.

 

These are what construe official religion of a state.

Sure these are particularly egregious examples of "Establishment," but you have to recognize that Establishment can be both direct (e.g. "senators must be Protestant") as well as indirect. The site you link to here states:

...all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature.

Tax benefits, giving away land, use of public facilities, etc. all have the effect of "supporting" the receiving religious group. Thus its a gray area and subject to interpretation.

 

A legal convention has been built up around the notion that paid services from religious groups are acceptable if they contribute nothing to the "overhead" of the services and only the direct costs of the services themselves.

 

Its also amusing to see what the reaction is to exactly *which* religion is the recipient. There was a gigantic uproar--especially among conservatives--many years ago here in California when Narconon--which received lots of public money for running drug councelling services--was revealed to be owned and run by Scientology. I also like to point out that the Moonies and other cults can't wait to get into your kid's elementary schools: If you're going to allow Christian prayer, you're going to have to allow Krishna chants too or you're "establishing Christianity as the state religion."

 

Be careful what you wish for,

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

Be careful what you wish for,

Buffy

I wish I were big...

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

:)

[Buffy]

I wish I were big...

Oh Bill, you're totally Mr. Big in my book! :D

 

It's just a little bag but we'd feel naked in public without it, :)

Buffy

[C1ay]

....but you have to recognize that Establishment can be both direct (e.g. "senators must be Protestant") as well as indirect. The site you link to here states: Tax benefits, giving away land, use of public facilities, etc. all have the effect of "supporting" the receiving religious group. Thus its a gray area and subject to interpretation.

 

Establishment is also both a verb and a noun. There is the act of establishing and an entity referred to as an establishment. Some I have discussed this with contend that only the act of establishing is prohibited, that it is OK for the government to endorse one belief over another. It comes up quite a bit in debates on the Pledge since the phrase "under God" is literally and endorsement of theist belief.

[TheBigDog]

Establishment is also both a verb and a noun. There is the act of establishing and an entity referred to as an establishment. Some I have discussed this with contend that only the act of establishing is prohibited, that it is OK for the government to endorse one belief over another. It comes up quite a bit in debates on the Pledge since the phrase "under God" is literally and endorsement of theist belief.

I have always viewed that not as an endorsement, but as a recognition of the theist beliefs of the citizens.

 

I see a difference between recognition and endorsement, and it is one I choose to accept it as a valid compromise for the sake of resolving an otherwise contentious issue. The money is the same thing. If "God" has no meaning to a person, then "In God We Trust" has no meaning either. For a true atheist protesting "E Pluribus Unum" would be just as valid, since it is nothing but another meaningless phrase. Because atheists choose to only protest the mention of a God that is by their own account meaningless, they define themselves as anti-religion when they do not protest all meaningless words as fervently.

 

I personally don't care if "God" is on the money or not, or if it is in the pledge or not. I do enjoy Christmas, and I think that it is a great idea to have it as a national holiday, but we should not have to hedge about the reason - the vast majority of the country celebrates this holiday, therefore the government recognizes this holiday and closes. But I reject the argument that the mention of God in the pledge or on the money, or having a government holiday with religious roots (that can say so) is a violation of the First Amendment.

 

Bill

[C1ay]

Consider 3 coins, one with "In God We Trust", one without it and one that says "There is no God". Which is truly secular, neither affirming or denying the existance of any God(s)? Which is truly neutral?

 

As for the Pledge, the words "under God" were specifically added to the Pledge where no preference for theist belief or disbelief existed before. It was done with the explicit intent to recognize a deity, whether or not such a deity exists. The act of adding those words is a preference for belief in a deity when contrasted with the omission of the phrase clearly favors theist belief over secular belief.

[CraigD]

Establishment is also both a verb and a noun. There is the act of establishing and an entity referred to as an establishment. Some I have discussed this with contend that only the act of establishing is prohibited, that it is OK for the government to endorse one belief over another.

The peculiarly ambiguous language of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is enough to make one suspect the Framers of a perverse desire to sow uncertainty and perpetual debate! Though unrelated to matters church (at least most churches), The Second Amendment is arguable one of the most syntactically tortured sentence known to humankind

It comes up quite a bit in debates on the Pledge since the phrase "under God" is literally and endorsement of theist belief.

Though well known to most people with at least a college-level education in US history, it bears reiteration that the Pledge of Allegiance is little related to the Constitution and it’s Amendments, and in no way a reflection of the personalities and culture of the Framers and other early US politicians, such as Thomas Jefferson, author of the famous reply to the Danbury Baptists Association quoted and discussed in post #37

 

The Pledge was written around 9/7/1892 - nearly 100 years after the writing and adoption of the Constitution - by a Baptist minister working as a writer for a magazine which was also engaged in a commercial venture to sell American Flags to schools – it was, in essence, a Columbus day sale ad. It was much shorter than its current form, and contained no mention of God: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”. Coming as it did shortly after the American Civil War, it aimed not only to sell flags, but to heal the wounds of that war and improve the People’s sense of national unity. It was a instant hit, and by Presidential proclamation, was recited in schools in time for Columbus day, 10/12/1892, with the addition of one word: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

 

After a long, quiet period of general acceptance, particularly as a Columbus day observance, the Pledge generated controversy when, in 1940, and 1943, the US Supreme court first found, then reversed its decision, that students in public schools, even those with religious objections, could be compelled to recite it. Before WWII, it was traditional to place the hand over the heart, then extended to the flag, “Sig Heil!” fashion – a tradition that was promptly ditched when it became associated with the Nazis.

 

The words “under God” were not added to the Pledge until 1954, by an act of Congress. The politics of this act are too elaborate to expand upon in this post, but conventional wisdom holds that concerns about the influence of Soviet Communism in America, and the belief that mentions of God were a good deterrent to Communism, rather than purely religious reasons, were responsible for the change.

 

The politics of the Pledge continue to be complex and impassioned. The contention of some proponents for decreasing the separation of Church and State that the Pledge is as old as the Republic, and a reflection that most of the Founders and Framers shared their position, is clearly incorrect.

 

Source: Pledge of Allegiance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia