Separation of Church and State

[otseng]

The First Amendment in the US Bill of Rights says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This has been interpreted to mean that there should be a wall of separation between the Church and the State.

What does "separation of church and state" mean? What does the first amendment mean? How does the first amendment carry over to mean that there should be a wall of separation between church and state?

Any other thoughts on this huge topic are also welcome.

[Corvus]

In the strictest interpretation of the establishment clause, it's taken to mean government isn't allowed to create and sponsor a government religion. In the letters of Madison and Jefferson (who was always a bit irreverent) we see them talking about the need to establish a wall of separation between church and state.

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1947 that the separation of church and state would be a good idea, and although the words are attributed to Jefferson, it's the supreme court that actually implemented it. All nine judges agreed during the Everson v Board of Education trial that the establishment clause was meant to do more than just prevent government from creating national religion.

From the trial, which goes into detail about the matters:

These words of the First Amendment reflected in the minds of early Americans a vivid mental picture of conditions and practices which they fervently wished to stamp out in order to preserve liberty for themselves and for their posterity. Doubtless their goal has not been entirely reached; but so far has the Nation moved toward it that the expression "law respecting an establishment of religion," probably does not so vividly remind present-day Americans of the evils, fears, and political problems that caused that expression to be written into our Bill of Rights. Whether this New Jersey law is one respecting an "establishment of religion" requires an understanding of the meaning of that language, particularly with respect to the imposition of taxes. Once again, therefore, it is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and environment of the period in which that constitutional language was fashioned and adopted.

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of non-belief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.

These practices of the old world were transplanted to and began to thrive in the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or non-believers, would be required to support and attend. An exercise of this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes n8 to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. The imposition of taxes to pay ministers' salaries and to build and maintain churches and church property aroused their indignation. It was these feelings which found expression in the First Amendment. No one locality and no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given entire credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption of the Bill of Rights' provisions embracing religious liberty. But Virginia, where the established church had achieved a dominant influence in political affairs and where many excesses attracted wide public attention, provided a great stimulus and able leadership for the movement. The people there, as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group.

The movement toward this end reached its dramatic climax in Virginia in 1785-86 when the Virginia legislative body was about to renew Virginia's tax levy for the support of the established church. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the fight against this tax. Madison wrote his great Memorial and Remonstrance against the law. In it, he eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free; and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions. Madison's Remonstrance received strong support throughout Virginia, and the Assembly postponed consideration of the proposed tax measure until its next session. When the proposal came up for consideration at that session, it not only died in committee, but the Assembly enacted the famous "Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty" originally written by Thomas Jefferson.

This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective and were intended to provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

I've also heard some people say establishment was meant to be a noun, not a verb, making it mean congress "can make no law respecting a religious establishment", but I'm not entirely sure about that.

Even if the wall of separation is proven to be entirely false, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good idea to implement one. One can see definite problems when a church can influence the government and the government can influence church, or a religious government can force their will on society or individuals.

[otseng]

In the strictest interpretation of the establishment clause, it's taken to mean government isn't allowed to create and sponsor a government religion.

Personally, this is all I think it was meant to mean. And I think this is where the debate comes in. Does it mean more than this?

Obviously the Supreme Court thinks it means more than this. More specifically, the SC of the last 57 years thinks so. And isn't it interesting that for 156 years, the SC never thought it meant more than that?

When Jefferson uttered the words "separation between Church and State" in 1802, he was addressing a group of Baptists in disproving the rumor that a state religion would form. So, even in the context of Jefferson using the words, it was only meant that the government would not recognize a national denomination.

[Abs like J']

And isn't it interesting that for 156 years, the SC never thought it meant more than that?

How many times was a case regarding religion in government taken before the Supreme Court during the span of time you speak of? The Supreme Court has to have a case brought before them in order to weigh in on an issue; they don't just swoop in uninvited and tell people how it is.

Interpreted literally, Congress shall simply make no law regarding the estabilshment or prohibition of religion. Interpreted as the Supreme Court has tended to act, the government as a whole is meant to refrain from any means of officially endorsing religion. While not following the literal reading of the First Amendment, I agree with Corvus that the Supreme Court's take in recent history is a good one.

While those opposed within the Christian faith may like to see it as a battle between the faithful and the secular, this view of the First Amendment also prevents one denomination from gaining government support against another and leading to any kind of federally funded religious feuds. It appears in our government's best interest to remain neutral and leave matters of faith to the free individuals of this country.

[otseng]

How many times was a case regarding religion in government taken before the Supreme Court during the span of time you speak of?

I don't know of any. And that is precisely the point. All the courts understood what the FA meant. It was clear in everyone's minds that there was no need to even debate what it meant. It is only since 1947 that the court has strayed away from it's original meaning.

While not following the literal reading of the First Amendment, I agree with Corvus that the Supreme Court's take in recent history is a good one.

Even though people might think the SC interpretation is a good idea, it's straying from the intent of the Constitution. Thereby making people's preferences and opinions usurp the authority of the Constitution.

While those opposed within the Christian faith may like to see it as a battle between the faithful and the secular,

I don't primarily view it as this. I view it as deviating from the meaning of the FA.

If citizens are really for a "separation between Church and State", they should go for a constitutional amendment, rather than twisting the FA to fit what they would like it to mean.

It appears in our government's best interest to remain neutral and leave matters of faith to the free individuals of this country.

However, even the founding fathers were not neutral in terms of faith and government. Faith was integral to how this country was led.

John Adams:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I could go on and on, but the notion that faith and politics were separate during the time our Constitution was founded was not a reality.

I realize though that times have changed. We are no longer a Christian nation. The whole value system 200 years ago was not the same as now. However, we cannot misinterpret the Constitution to make it conform to opinions.

[Abs like J']

John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

Thomas Jefferson:
"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

As I'm sure we might both go on and on, the notion that faith and politics meant exclusively the Christian faith and politics was not a reality either. And while each of the individuals responsible for the birth and growth of our nation held their respective beliefs and disbeliefs, their actions reveal that they did try to prevent their beliefs from becoming government at the expense of liberty.

Quoting Otseng:

Abs like J' wrote:

How many times was a case regarding religion in government taken before the Supreme Court during the span of time you speak of?

I don't know of any. And that is precisely the point. All the courts understood what the FA meant. It was clear in everyone's minds that there was no need to even debate what it meant. It is only since 1947 that the court has strayed away from it's original meaning.

The point is not that the courts or the justices understood anything about the First Amendment, or what their individual opinions regarding its utilization might have been. The court doesn't simply swoop in and make decisions for the country; they have to first be approached. Whether it was in regards to the First Amendment, segregation or the legality of abortion, cases had to be brought before the court by the people. The only point revealed by my question is that the people held a particular view prior to the 20th century, not that the courts or justices did.

...we cannot misinterpret the Constitution to make it conform to opinions.

I agree, but I would also take the position that the interpretation we have to day, which expands the prohibition of government involvement in religion, is the best interpretation to take. If the government were allowed to freely engage in religion, the only way we could be assured of continued freedom of religion (a clear goal of the First Amendment) is if the government gave equal consideration and support for each to prevent bias from infringing upon the religious liberty of others. With an all inclusive or neutral stance is necessary, the latter is the easiest solution to adhere to, whether the solution was clearly expressed from the beginning or not.

[Corvus]

What's more important, having a good government, or keeping the ground rules so that government can impose religion, and religion can impose on government? The whole reason for the constitution is to establish good government. If that's done by a little creative interpretation, who suffers from it? It's not the first time it's happened.

There are some people who believe the constitution is dead, and neither democrats or republicans follow its rules. From what I understand, it's common for the supreme court, when a constitutional statement is unclear, to go to the original intent of the writers. This is what they did here.

[otseng]

As I'm sure we might both go on and on, the notion that faith and politics meant exclusively the Christian faith and politics was not a reality either.

No, I wouldn't say Christianity was the exclusive faith, but it certainly was the predominant faith. Other faiths were held by the founding fathers too. But, the point is that faith and government were not exclusive of each other during the founding of the US.

And while each of the individuals responsible for the birth and growth of our nation held their respective beliefs and disbeliefs, their actions reveal that they did try to prevent their beliefs from becoming government at the expense of liberty.

Yes, that's one of the main principles of the founding of this country. A freedom of religion that is not imposed upon by the state. But, I do not see them saying there should be a total divorce of religion from the state.

Each person is free to believe in whatever creed they want. And there is no law respecting any particular creed. But they did not say that people should have no creeds at all if it touches politics in any way.

The only point revealed by my question is that the people held a particular view prior to the 20th century, not that the courts or justices did.

Yes, the courts and the people knew what the FA meant.

I agree, but I would also take the position that the interpretation we have to day, which expands the prohibition of government involvement in religion, is the best interpretation to take. If the government were allowed to freely engage in religion, the only way we could be assured of continued freedom of religion (a clear goal of the First Amendment) is if the government gave equal consideration and support for each to prevent bias from infringing upon the religious liberty of others. With an all inclusive or neutral stance is necessary, the latter is the easiest solution to adhere to, whether the solution was clearly expressed from the beginning or not.

I agree that the state should not espouse any particular religion and should give equal standing for all religions. However, separation of church and state has come to mean that you can't do anything "religious" in schools. Take the pledge of allegiance case. How does saying "under God" espouse any particular religion? Or for a graduation ceremony to contain a prayer? These has gone way beyond the meaning of the FA.

Again, the application of separation of church and state to the FA is a gross misinterpretation of it's original meaning.

[Abs like J']

From Otseng's last posting:

Quote:

The only point revealed by my question is that the people held a particular view prior to the 20th century, not that the courts or justices did.

Yes, the courts and the people knew what the FA meant.

There is no data currently present in this topic to say whether the courts or justices presiding over them felt that the First Amendment should be taken word for word without any further interpretation.

Take the pledge of allegiance case. How does saying "under God" espouse any particular religion? Or for a graduation ceremony to contain a prayer?

The school system is federally funded and any endorsement of religion by the school system is in effect an endorsement by the government -- it's paid for by the tax dollars of each person irrespective of the faith each taxpayer holds to. Addressing a singular masculine deity is not inclusive of religions and philosophies devoid of deities, religions and philosophies which honor multiple deities, religions and philosophies which honor instead a Goddess or religions and philosophies which honor simply nature without ascribing to it some generic title such as God.

If people want to pray at a graduation ceremony, let them keep it on a personal level. So long as there is federal funding -- the money of taxpayers -- the event should have an all or none approach with the latter being the simplest solution.

[otseng]

The school system is federally funded and any endorsement of religion by the school system is in effect an endorsement by the government -- it's paid for by the tax dollars of each person irrespective of the faith each taxpayer holds to.

I don't see how it's endorsing any religion. It might be allowing a particular religion, but it's not endorsing any religion.

I guess it comes back to again how the FA is interpreted. If we stick to the literal, original meaning, the state is not respecting any particular religion by allowing a prayer to be said in a graduation ceremony. If some New Age high school valedictorian prays to Gaia during her graduation speech, nobody is going to make the leap that the government is endorsing that New Age belief.

Furthermore, Congress and the military has paid chaplains complements of the American taxpayer. Does that mean that the state is "endorsing" religion in these cases?

The case that there is a separation between Church and State based on the FA is highly questionable. The FA cannot be used as a basis that there should be a separation between the two. Again, if people want a separation between church and state, it should be by a Constitutional Amendment specificially stating such.