Separation of Church and State in the US Constitution

[McCulloch]

It has been asserted by various Christians that there is no Separation of Church and State in the Constitution of the USA. The Supreme Court of the USA, who's job it is to authoritatively interpret the constitution, has ruled that there is separation of Church and State in the constitution.
At issue, I think is the interpretation of Amendment I of the Constitution which states

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.

Here is a document, FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION AND EXPRESSION from the US government's Constitutional information web site which provides more detail on this issue.

Not until the Supreme Court held the religion clauses applicable to the states in the 1940s did it have much opportunity to interpret them. But it quickly gave them a broad construction. In Everson v. Board of Education, the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that aid one religion or prefer one religion over another, but also those that aid all religions.

It is interesting to note that the Court had no dissent on this point.

In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build a wall of separation between Church and State. In Reynolds v. United States, 18 Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment. In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jeffersons metaphor for substantial guidance.

Questions for debate:

1. Have the constitutional experts been misleading us all along and the separation of Church and State is not supported by the US constitution?
2. Is separation of Church and State a good thing? Should modern states establish religion? Should modern religious organizations exercise political power?

[micatala]

It seems to me that the Founding Fathers were displaying their humanity in that they were unable to act in a manner completely consistent with their stated principles.

Clearly they were religious men, and although their was a great diversity in beliefs among them, these beliefs probably did have a substantial effect on their lives including their actions in founding the country.

On the other hand, they were well aware (see for example Madison's statements above) that people acting on their religious beliefs often acted in oppressive and other non-productive ways. They would have been aware of the history of religious conflict in Europe and the fact that many of earliest setters of the area were fleeing religious persecution of one sort or another. They were explicitly hoping to avoid these types of problems in how they addressed religion within the constitution. I think this showed good sense and a lot of foresight.

However, we should not idealize them and think that there foresight was so great that they were incapable of acting inconsistently with their own stated policies. It is also probably true that others in the country did not share these concerns, at least to the same degree, and so did not feel compelled to follow the spirit or even the letter of the establishment clause. Even many at the convention may not have agreed on what the policy implied. Some may have agreed to it as a matter of compromise fully intending to ignore it when possible.

The fact that there were state religions that continued after the convention does not imply that these were intended to be allowed under the constitution. It may have been the situation that the nascent government found it politically unpalatable to make an issue of these state churches.


After all, consider the famous 3/5ths clause relating to slaves. Surely many at the convention would have seen the existence of slavery as completely counter to the ideals of freedom and equality that they wanted to promote. However, because of politics, they engaged in this hypocritical compromise as an expedient. I don't think we would conclude based on this hypocrisy or inconsistency that we should apply the constitution the same way today as they did then.

[4gold]

The fact that there were state religions that continued after the convention does not imply that these were intended to be allowed under the constitution. It may have been the situation that the nascent government found it politically unpalatable to make an issue of these state churches.

This is a moot point, but the First Amendment was ratified two years after the Constitution was put into effect.

Is it your contention that it was politically palatable to pass an amendment that would make those state churches unconstitutional, but it was politically unpalatable to enforce that constitutional amendment?

I think a more reasonable answer, and I think legal experts agree, is that the First Amendment applied to the national government, not the state governments. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was ratified that the Bill of Rights applied to all state and local governments. This is why you always see state religious lawsuits being filed under the 1st and 14th amendments, but federal religious lawsuits are only filed under the 1st amendment.

[AClockWorkOrange]

The religiousness of founding fathers is very arguable, considering that a large bulk of them were either deists or atheists.

The purpose of the supreme court is to maintain the constitution and to allow it to evolve.

I see no debate here, as no law shall respect any religion.

Regardless, the supreme court maintains a seperation in order to protect civilians natural rights.

[micatala]

The fact that there were state religions that continued after the convention does not imply that these were intended to be allowed under the constitution. It may have been the situation that the nascent government found it politically unpalatable to make an issue of these state churches.

This is a moot point, but the First Amendment was ratified two years after the Constitution was put into effect.

Is it your contention that it was politically palatable to pass an amendment that would make those state churches unconstitutional, but it was politically unpalatable to enforce that constitutional amendment?

I was merely suggesting it as a possibility. Consider the cases where the Federal Government passed anti-discrimination laws but they went essentially unenforced in any meaningful way for years. Even in the 20th century, the Federal Government had great difficulty enforcing civil rights laws because of the intransigence of the local population including the authorities. This was a very powerful Federal Government. The nascent Federal Goverment would have been impotent in comparison.

At any rate. I must admit I am speaking more hypothetically than anything.

I think a more reasonable answer, and I think legal experts agree, is that the First Amendment applied to the national government, not the state governments. It wasn't until the 14th amendment was ratified that the Bill of Rights applied to all state and local governments. This is why you always see state religious lawsuits being filed under the 1st and 14th amendments, but federal religious lawsuits are only filed under the 1st amendment.

I have heard conflicting opinions from the legal experts on this, but I think it is certainly at least possible you are right. However, even assuming this, I don't think this means we are or should be stuck with that interpretation today. I certainly would not want to go back to the day of offical state religions.

I also think that many statements made by a number of the founders clearly show how concerned they were about possible abuses by official religious bodies having the endorsement or power of the state. That is the main reason for having any kind of establishment clause in the first place, and that rationale holds today just as clearly as it did then.

[arayhay]

I will also suggest an additional question for debate, as I think it will come up anyway.

3. Assuming the doctrine of separation of church and state is good and constitutionally valid, is it currently being implemented in a fair way?

Good question. Let's examine where the rubber hits the road, so to speak.

the rubber meets the road when you realize that religion isn't in there. in the bible that is

[AClockWorkOrange]

Christianity is a religion... As much as that word is stigmatized, you cannot rationalize it out of applicable existance.

[Cmass]

Can I make the assumption that if the line between church and state were further blurred - I would have the freedom to submit my own religion into the mix and that it would be accepted as an equally valid view and that I would enjoy all the influence and benefits that came with this?
If so, then I hereby submit the The Great Sphagetti Monster as my one true God. His creation story must be taught in schools along with 456 other competing creation stories. The only way they could avoid having to indulge me this is to make this country an officially Xtian country.
And wouldn't that be nifty? Pat Robertson our Defense Secretary and Jerry Falwell as president.

[arayhay]

Christianity is a religion... As much as that word is stigmatized, you cannot rationalize it out of applicable existance.

i didn't say religion didn't exist. i said it's not biblical. moslems try to steal the Bible,christians succeeded.

[AClockWorkOrange]

Muslims dismiss alot of the bible, they dont really embrace is.
"religion isnt biblical".

This is a moot point. Christianity is a religion, regardless of the label you WANT to have. The term Christian isnt biblical either, but that is the term used to describe those who believe in the divinity of christ.

If you dont like the term religion, just accept that their is a line between secular (state) and nonsecular.

Or, there is a line between beliefs which pertain to a higher intelligent power and state.

Regardless, your "point" remains invalid.

[Confused]

Can I make the assumption that if the line between church and state were further blurred - I would have the freedom to submit my own religion into the mix and that it would be accepted as an equally valid view and that I would enjoy all the influence and benefits that came with this?
If so, then I hereby submit the The Great Sphagetti Monster as my one true God. His creation story must be taught in schools along with 456 other competing creation stories. The only way they could avoid having to indulge me this is to make this country an officially Xtian country.
And wouldn't that be nifty? Pat Robertson our Defense Secretary and Jerry Falwell as president.

Is there actually 456 other competing creation stories? And last I checked, creationism wasn't taught in school, so no you still couldn't enjoy that benefit since it doesnt' exist, sorry. But I do believe you would qualify for awesome tax breaks.