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 Jefferson’s 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?

[1John2_26]

Quote:
Quote:
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).

"Respecting" comes down from the wooden teeth ages as "regarding" now. Still, Churches can say what they want to. It is only recently that anti-religious activists want the Churches silenced from the pulpit as from the podium.

There is no debate here. The first ammendment has meant the same thing for the last 200 years.

Please tell that to unborn children and marriage certificate departments. Also, "everyone" could own a gun until "someone" changed the two-hundred year definition of bearing arms. The constitution has suffered at the hands of many editors.

It's validity has only recently been questioned. Apparently it's meaning has suddenly become ambiguous to some..... go figure.

Exactly the opposite. People are waking up to the leftist political agenda of stamping out Christianity. Certainly nothing ambiguous in that.

[micatala]

Still, Churches can say what they want to.

Essentially agreed. So far, the only restriction that I am aware of in the U.S. has to dwo with tax exempt status. Personally, I would even be willing to revisit that issue. However, I think it is readily apparent first amendment rights are quite alive and well with respect to religious groups being able to practice and express themselves.

It is only recently that anti-religious activists want the Churches silenced from the pulpit as from the podium.

This is irrelevant to the thread, unless it is the state that is doing the silencing. Once again, I would say that the assumption underlying this statement is quite hyperbolic. There is only a small fringe of U.S. society that would support government 'silencing' religious groups. In my view, this statement reflects an attempt to paint Christians as victims of some massive effort to persecute them, when in fact, this is not the case and there is essentially no chance of this happening.

"everyone" could own a gun until "someone" changed the two-hundred year definition of bearing arms. The constitution has suffered at the hands of many editors.

Uhhh. . .. . Everyone can still own a gun. If you think there should be no laws even regulating gun ownership, you are free to support that position, but that fact is, people can and do own lots of guns. I will point out that the purpose for the second amendment was to provide the population with a means to resist government tyranny. Little or none of the NRA is up to has anything to do with this idea. At any rate, let's stick to the first amendment.

People are waking up to the leftist political agenda of stamping out Christianity. Certainly nothing ambiguous in that.

It is easy to make unambiguous statements if you don't mind making completely false ones.

THis is, quite simply, baloney and it deserves to be called baloney no matter how many times you repeat it and no matter how many irrelevant articles from opinionated websites you paste onto the forum.

The right to worship as you see fit does not mean you are exempt from all other laws of the land. You have yet to show any evidence that Christianity is in any danger of being outlawed in the U.S.

Opposition does not equal criminalization.

[Cephus]

"Respecting" comes down from the wooden teeth ages as "regarding" now. Still, Churches can say what they want to. It is only recently that anti-religious activists want the Churches silenced from the pulpit as from the podium.

Churches do not exist to force political change. If they want freedom of political speech, they can pay their entry fee like everyone else and be taxed. Otherwise, they can't influence the political system and the political system can't influence them.

[Easyrider]

If the Founding Fathers though there was to be strict separation between church and state then we likely wouldn't have seen the following then and thereafter:

First, two days AFTER the Danbury Separation letter, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives.

The following is from the U.S. Library of Congress:

Reserved Seats at Capitol Services

Here is a description, by an early Washington "insider," Margaret Bayard Smith (1778-1844), a writer and social critic and wife of Samuel Harrison Smith, publisher of the National Intelligencer, of Jefferson's attendance at church services in the House of Representatives: "Jefferson during his whole administration was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first day sabbath, and the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him."

Church Services in The Old House of Representatives

Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.

A Millennialist Sermon Preached in Congress

This sermon on the millennium was preached by the Baltimore Swedenborgian minister, John Hargrove (1750-1839) in the House of Representatives. One of the earliest millennialist sermons preached before Congress was offered on July 4, 1801, by the Reverend David Austin (1759-1831), who at the time considered himself "struck in prophesy under the style of the Joshua of the American Temple." Having proclaimed to his Congressional audience the imminence of the Second Coming of Christ, Austin took up a collection on the floor of the House to support services at "Lady Washington's Chapel" in a nearby hotel where he was teaching that "the seed of the Millennial estate is found in the backbone of the American Revolution."

First Catholic Sermon in the House

On January 8, 1826, Bishop John England (1786-1842) of Charleston, South Carolina, became the first Catholic clergyman to preach in the House of Representatives. The overflow audience included President John Quincy Adams, whose July 4, 1821, speech England rebutted in his sermon.

Woman Preacher in the House (and call for revival!)

In 1827, Harriet Livermore (1788-1868), the daughter and granddaughter of Congressmen, became the second woman to preach in the House of Representatives. The first woman to preach before the House (and probably the first woman to speak officially in Congress under any circumstances) was the English evangelist, Dorothy Ripley (1767-1832), who conducted a service on January 12, 1806. Jefferson and Vice President Aaron Burr were among those in a "crowded audience." Sizing up the congregation, Ripley concluded that "very few" had been born again and broke into an urgent, camp meeting style exhortation, insisting that "Christ's Body was the Bread of Life and His Blood the drink of the righteous."

Communion Service in the Treasury Building

Manasseh Cutler here describes a four-hour communion service in the Treasury Building, conducted by a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend James Laurie: "Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. Laurie alone. Sacrament. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours."

Adams's Description of a Church Service in the Supreme Court

John Quincy Adams here describes the Reverend James Laurie, pastor of a Presbyterian Church that had settled into the Treasury Building, preaching to an overflow audience in the Supreme Court Chamber, which in 1806 was located on the ground floor of the Capitol.

The Old Supreme Court Chamber

Description of church services in the Supreme Court chamber by Manasseh Cutler (1804) and John Quincy Adams (1806) indicate that services were held in the Court soon after the government moved to Washington in 1800.

Church Services in Congress after the Civil War

Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.

House of Representatives, After the Civil War

The House moved to its current location on the south side of the Capitol in 1857. It contained the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience" in the United States when the First Congregational Church of Washington held services there from 1865 to 1868.

Compliments: Library of Congress

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

I think it's safe to say we can know the measure of the Founding Father's beliefs by their actions above. Their actions do not jive well with a strict "separation of church and state" doctrine like we know it today.

[Easyrider]

Churches do not exist to force political change. If they want freedom of political speech, they can pay their entry fee like everyone else and be taxed.

Some are. But if you want a strict separation of church and state, why should the state tax them to begin with? You can't have it both ways.

Otherwise, they can't influence the political system and the political system can't influence them.

Christians are citizens like everyone else, and you cannot constitutionally prevent them from running for office, holding office, or even voting or lobbying for political change.

[theleftone]

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 am not sure of the historical circumstances surrounding taxation and religion, but currently it's an issue of "profit" status (i.e., for-profit and non-profit). Most churches are non-profit organizations, and as such are not required to pay taxes. Their not paying taxes, as such, is the result of non-profit status rather than government aiding religion.

[theleftone]

It's interesting to note that many states originally had "state established churches" or religious requirements for holding office. MA had a state church until 1833. New Hampshire required one to be Protestant to serve in the legislature until the 1870s. Other states had similar religious requirements (New Jersey, South Carolina, etc.).

[McCulloch]

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 am not sure of the historical circumstances surrounding taxation and religion, but currently it's an issue of "profit" status (i.e., for-profit and non-profit). Most churches are non-profit organizations, and as such are not required to pay taxes. Their not paying taxes, as such, is the result of non-profit status rather than government aiding religion.

If the only tax in question were income tax then you would be correct. However, non-profit organizations which own property usually have to pay municipal property taxes, unless those non-profit organizations are churches.

[McCulloch]

Christians are citizens like everyone else, and you cannot constitutionally prevent them from running for office, holding office, or even voting or lobbying for political change.

Christians do run for and hold office. They vote and lobby for political change. They can even form lobby groups and political parties.

But Churches are not allowed to do the same.

[McCulloch]

If the Founding Fathers though there was to be strict separation between church and state then we likely wouldn't have seen the following then and thereafter:...
Compliments: Library of Congress

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html

I think it's safe to say we can know the measure of the Founding Father's beliefs by their actions above. Their actions do not jive well with a strict "separation of church and state" doctrine like we know it today.

It's interesting to note that many states originally had "state established churches" or religious requirements for holding office. MA had a state church until 1833. New Hampshire required one to be Protestant to serve in the legislature until the 1870s. Other states had similar religious requirements (New Jersey, South Carolina, etc.).

This shows to me that you have proven your point. The US Constitution could not have originally meant what the US Supreme Court has ruled that it now means, if these things were allowed to continue without constitutional challenges. Fortunately, progress has been made in this area since then.