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]

I will address 2, and await further research from legal scholars on 1.

I will assume for now we are considering this in the context of the U.S., although I think the discussion is relevant in the more general context as well.

I think the general idea of separation of church and state is a good one. In a society as pluralistic as the U.S., I can see no justification for having the state prefer one religion over another.

With regards to the state 'aiding religion in general,' I might be willing to consider this as OK, depending on the nature of the aid, whether the aid is available to non-religious groups, and other particulars. Certainly the general practice of not taxing church land could be considered aid to all religions, for example. Is this a violation of the separation doctrine?

I would also add that Jefferson's statement is not dissimilar in spirit to statements made by many others before him expressing concern about state established religions and the abuse that many who migrated from the Old World had suffered due to state proscribed religions. The Founding Fathers I think were very clear that they wanted to avoid similar occurrences in their newly established nation.

Now, the question as to whether modern religious organizations should exercise politcal power, or conversely should be prohibited form doing so is a tricky one, IMV. What exactly do we mean by exercising political power? Why would we allow non-religious organizations to exercise political power and not religious ones?


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?


This question gets at the accusations that are frequently made that Christianity and Christians are in practice subject to this doctrine to a greater extent than other religions.

If McCulloch feels this additional question would be loading to much on this thread, I am certainly amenable to creating a separate thread to deal with just this question.

[McCulloch]

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.

[micatala]

I found this footnote in the first document linked to by M of interest.

During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience. 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 730 (August 15, 1789).

That his conception of establishment was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.
8 THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON (G. Hunt, ed.) 13233 (1904).

Madisons views were no doubt influenced by the fight in the Virginia legislature in 17841785 in which he successfully led the opposition to a tax to support teachers of religion in Virginia and in the course of which he drafted his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments setting forth his thoughts. Id. at 18391; I.
BRANT, JAMES MADISONTHE NATIONALIST 17801787 34355 (1948). Acting on the momentum of this effort, Madison secured passage of Jeffersons Bill for Religious Liberty. Id. at 354; D. MALONE, JEFFERSON THE VIRGINIAN 274280 (1948). The theme of the writings of both was that it was wrong to offer public support of any religion in particular or of religion in general.

Clearly, at least one of the founding fathers took a broad view of the Establishment Clause. It would seem, for example, that Madison would likely have taken issue with the idea of vouchers or other public support to religious schools, at least those which were involved in a significant amount of religious instruction.

Perhaps it is fair to suggest that at least many of the founders took a broad view of the Establishment Clause, but that this view did not predominate in the courts of the time, which curtailed its effects, until the rulings of the 1940's cited by M in the OP.

[1John2_26]

Jefferson is only one guy. His letter did as much to cement the political power of Churches as it did to unleash the anti-Christian hounds that incessantly bay at the heels of Christians all day long.

Have the constitutional experts been misleading us all along and the separation of Church and State is not supported by the US constitution?

Where are those words in the Constitution?

Is separation of Church and State a good thing?

Would have kept a lot of Christians from being killed in Rome.

Should modern states establish religion?

No. "Which religion?" Islam is no joke.

Should modern religious organizations exercise political power?

They always have and always will. No one can go over or around the wall seperating Church and State.

Let's see what Mr Jefferson wrote to his friends:

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.

So much for telling Christian Churches they cannot be political. Jesus was and Christians certainly are as well. There is a wall seperating government from being able to "do anything" to stop religions from preaching and teaching within the Church.

Though there is no wording for seperation of church and state in the constitution, the matter is well settled that NO ONE in any secular or legislative endeavor can force Christians or other religions to accept anything that goes against their "religious" beliefs.

Jefferson may have disliked Christianity and the Bible, but he certainly was used by God to protect Christians. Thank God for the first freedom given to Americans in the Bill of Rights.

[Bugmaster]

Should modern religious organizations exercise political power?

I think this is kind of a moot point. Modern religious organizations do exercise political power, just by the virtue of being massive monolithic organizations that are able to control the votes of millions of people. I actually don't see anything wrong with that; people should be able to vote as they please, even if they choose to vote in whatever manner their church tells them to vote.

[McCulloch]

Should modern religious organizations exercise political power?

I think this is kind of a moot point. Modern religious organizations do exercise political power, just by the virtue of being massive monolithic organizations that are able to control the votes of millions of people. I actually don't see anything wrong with that; people should be able to vote as they please, even if they choose to vote in whatever manner their church tells them to vote.

I guess the question should have been, "should modern religious organizations exercise direct political power?" People with religious views should not be disenfranchised in a tolerant democracy. But, should churches directly support political campaigns? Should the Vatican have a seat at the UN? Should there be a Christian political party?

[micatala]

Where are those words in the Constitution?

I think we all know they are not, but that is not the point.

The point is whether the legal doctrines, rulings, and legislative actions that could be described as supporting 'separation of church and state' have a basis in the constitution. THe phrase 'separation of church and state' is merely a handy descriptor to denote the intent or effect of the Establishment Clause which is in the constitution.

I guess the question should have been, "should modern religious organizations exercise direct political power?" People with religious views should not be disenfranchised in a tolerant democracy. But, should churches directly support political campaigns? Should the Vatican have a seat at the UN? Should there be a Christian political party?

As I understand, and has been debated elsewhere, churches that explicitly endorse candidates can lose their tax exempt status. However, pastors in their role as private citizens are quite free to endorse candidates, as long as they do not portray their personal endorsement as an endorsement by the church as a whole.

While I understand the concern that some might have that 'religious demagogues' might manipulate their flocks into supporting certain candidates, I have to ask on what grounds would we not allow them to do this? Do we put restrictions on any other groups or organizations as far as their ability to endorse candidates?

Many have criticized labor leaders for putting their unions' endorsement behind certain candidates, without even consulting their membership. Why would this be OK and not church endorsements? Do labor unions not have the same tax exempt status as churches?

Should their be a Christian Political Party?

Why not? On what basis would we not allow this? Are there not parties like 'Christian Democrats', etc. in Europe?

I don't think the answer to the concern about theocratic control is to specifically limit the ways in which people or organizations of faith can participate in the political process. I think the answer is to craft constitutions and other legal structures to prevent any group, be it religious or not, from infringing on the rights of citizens through the use of political power. This is part of what the Establishment Clause is all about.

Certainly this is not always easy. Everyone is well aware that rights often come in conflict, and when they do, it can be difficult to find a solution that will be perceived fair to all involved. My religious beliefs might include pacifism. In exercising what I might consider my right not to particpate in military activities, I am in some sense infringing on the rights of my fellow citizens to have the burden of military service be distributed equally among all able-bodied citizens.

Some might believe that they should not associate with people of other races. If we consider this a 'freedom of religion right' it comes in conflict with the right of all people to have equal access to public spaces and institutions like schools, courts, etc. The current solution to this conflict in the U.S. is basically to tell the first group that, while in their personal interactions they can feel free not to associate with people of other races, in political or professional or business interactions, they must accept their presence.

[ST88]

While I understand the concern that some might have that 'religious demagogues' might manipulate their flocks into supporting certain candidates, I have to ask on what grounds would we not allow them to do this? Do we put restrictions on any other groups or organizations as far as their ability to endorse candidates?

Many have criticized labor leaders for putting their unions' endorsement behind certain candidates, without even consulting their membership. Why would this be OK and not church endorsements? Do labor unions not have the same tax exempt status as churches?

No, they do not.

Labor unions (501(c)(5) organizations) are under one of the least restrictive tax exempt stauses, because of the nature of their representation.

the organizations contemplated by IRC 501(c)(5) as entitled to exemption from income taxation are those which: (1) have no net earnings inuring to the benefit of any member, and (2) have as their objects the betterment of the conditions of those engaged in such pursuits, the improvement of the grade of their products, and the development of a higher degree of efficiency in their respective occupations.
-- F. BID SUPPLEMENT AND REBATE PROGRAMS OF IRC 501(c)(5) LABOR ORGANIZATIONS (this is a PDF)

Bold mine.
Labor unions get to be political because the IRS recognizes that "conditions" for workers can be affected by the politics of the area. I don't think that religions can claim this sort of direct, material affect on their lives. Government does not get to dictate what goes on in a religion (short of animal & human sacrifice), but it does get to dictate certain aspects of how unions can operate. Since government has an affect on unions that can be measured in a legal sense, the union gets a voice in how it is governed.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Where are those words in the Constitution?

I think we all know they are not, but that is not the point.

What? Of course they are.

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

This clause and the term "separation of church and state" mean the exact same thing.

In fact, guess where the church/state term came from? James Madison (author of the 1st ammendment) coined it, using it as a nickname for his seperation clause.

The separation clause clearly establishes that churches have absolutely no political power (but also, as John remarked, that the state has no power over churches).



There is no debate here. The first ammendment has meant the same thing for the last 200 years. It's validity has only recently been questioned. Apparently it's meaning has suddenly become ambiguous to some..... go figure.