The Separation of Church and State

[Tigermike 3,717]

Input from all wanted and needed.

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 a redress of grievances.

Does the 1st Amendment establish the separation of church and state? It seems to me there are many differing opinions "out there". There are those who interpret the 1st to be freedom from religion and are working fervently to that end. There are those who perceive almost a sense of persecution because of activist judges and the goals and lawsuits of activist organizations and PC Police. We have seen in the appointment of federal judges, almost a litmus test concerning abortion and other issues (gay rights maybe).

So what does it mean? How do you all see this? Personally I don't want the government telling me what to believe, how to believe or where to worship. Nor have I ever felt pressure from the govt, neither when I was running wild or after I was saved. On the other hand I don't want The Southern Poverty Law Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State or the Freedom From Religion Foundation determining the conscience of America or dictating the future of America.

I believe that America was built on a moral and religious foundation that has served our great republic well since we have been a country. I also believe that foundation has in recent years been seriously attacked and undermined.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

I feel this clause has been misinterpreted to the extreme. In fact, let's break it down:

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

First of all, this refers to the US Congress, not a state legislature, or a city council, or a county school district.

Secondly, it specifically deals with laws that said Congress would pass. It's not dealing with whether or not someone can pray before a football game, have a bible club at school, sing "God Bless America" at a school musical, or allow parents to use vouchers to, of their own free will without gov't coercion, send their kid to a private religious school.

Thirdly, the phrase "establishment of religion" meant something very specific and concrete to the framers of our constitution. They came from a country (Britain) which had an official state church: The Church of England. This wasn't some vague 20th century liberal notion of tangential connections to religion by the state being contorted into an "establishment."

Finally, they also say that freedom to practice one's religion is paramount.

So the proper interpretation of this clause should be: The United States Congress cannot make any laws that either create an official state church or religion, or prevent someone from living out their chosen religion in any realm of American society...whether it's the business world, the political arena, the school environment, or whatever.

This stupid notion that any government involvement with religion in any respect is "establishing" a religion is nonsense.

[CShine 0]

First of all, "separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution. The idea comes from a now-famous 1802 letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. You can google it if you care to read what Jefferson wrote. "Separation of church and state" is an oft-quoted term, but it has no standing in constitutional law. No Supreme Court case in the history of the nation has been decided on the grounds of "separation of church and state."

Secondly, TitanTiger is wrong. State court decisions ARE required to abide by the U.S. Constitution. They ARE bound by the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 6 of the original Constitution ratified in 1789 states that...

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Furthermore, the binding precedent in all cases regarding religion in the public sphere flows from the Supreme Court decision of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). In that decision, the court laid out the specific grounds for determining whether a religious practice is acceptable in at either the federal OR the state level. It has become known as "The Lemon Test" and here is what it says.

1. A statute or public policy must have a secular legislative purpose

2. The principal effect of the statute or policy must neither advance nor inhibit religion

3. The statute or policy must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion

Lemon v. Kurtzman remains as binding precedent and has not been overturned at any time since its rendering. Because Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution binds state courts to the dictates of the federal constitution, this test is binding on all federal and state courts. Any law school professor will tell you this.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

I know what the precedents are CShine. And I know that our courts today see them as binding. I contest that the "Lemon Test" is not the proper way to discern the intent of the establishment clause. Particularly egregious is the 3rd part regarding "excessive entanglement of government with religion". That is bogus. I do not believe that a reasonable person can read the text of the Constitution, or the contemporary writings of the time, and truly believe this is what the Framers intended with the 1st amendment.

And while there is some merit to the Article 1, Section 6 argument you make, it still does not support the extreme interpretation of what constitutes a government "establishment" of a religion. Yes, the states were not allowed to have "state churches" either. But no mention is made about any of the matters I mentioned, which is how the clause is most often abused.