Separation of Church and State IS abstractly in the constitution.

[Quixote1818]

I was just on an AOL board and some idiot said that their is no such thing as the "Separation of Church and State" because it's not in the constitution. Well he is right about that but from everything I have heard the term "Separation of Church and State" is fully accepted by the Supreme Court as a way to summarize the first Amendment. The term has been used by dozens of presidents.

Who is getting everyone mixed up about this? Where is this misinformation coming from? Let me guess! Pat Robertson? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? I have seen and heard this a lot lately and it's time we put a stop to this crap and start educating people again. Hearing blatant idiotic lies like this absolutely drives me nuts!

Any suggestions? What are some good comebacks when people post stuff like this? How can we shut them up real quick? What is the history behind the term "Separation of Church and State"?

[LizMoonstar]

1. when my crazy grandpa brought this up,

I told him that's because back then they called it the anti-establishment clause. He (and my crazy dad) both went, "Oh. Ok."

[vi5]

2. Then by that standard there is no right to bear arms either...

If they are talking about the fact that the first amendment is an addendum to and not a part of the constitution as originally drafted then ask them if they also believe there is no right to bear arms in the constitution?

[tx_dem41]

16. I think you missed the point of the person referenced in the OP...

They are saying the phrase "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution (which it doesnt). They are not making the argument that you imply.

That said, the phrase came from a correspondence of Thomas Jefferson's to a congregation in Danbury, Conn. I believe. It does a decent job of summing up the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

[rkc3]

3. Tell them they might feel differently if bush wanted to install Islam as

the national religion.

Also remind them that while we are blurring the lines between church and state in the US, bush is pushing for a secular government in Iraq. Ask them why this is important for Iraq but not for America.

[Turbineguy]

4. Not only that

but it is what makes the US unique among nations. Without that we are just another country.

[alcuno]

5. We had a MLK assembly at school on Friday. God was mentioned

over and over again. In poetry, song, and speeches. This is an area that voted 82% for Kerry and it happens again and again. You should have hear the "holiday" concert. No one even seems to notice because tolerance is the norm here.

[TlalocW]

6. Separation of Chruch and State

Was coined by Thomas Jefferson to explain it to the largest bunch of Baptists back in the day. So if one of our founding fathers told a large sect of Christians to go piss up a rope about trying to make America a "Christian" nation, then everyone else can stop their bitching. :)

One of Pat's favorite ploys is to say that there's nothing in state constitutions separating church and state, and that's where they need to concentrate.

TlalocW

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Actually, jefferson was trying to reassure the baptists that the anglicans

would not become the official ecclesiastical power. Baptists at that time were a small, persecuted sect who strongly favored the separation, as they were being discriminated against.

[TlalocW]

17. Oh, well...

For some reason I thought the Danbury Baptists were the big guns. Maybe it's my general animosity towards Baptists. :)

TlalocW

[BattyDem]

7. I posted this response on DU a while back ...

It's about the "fact" that the US is a Christian nation, but it certainly applies to the Separation of Church and State, because let's face it, the RWers aren't talking about any church, they're talking about the Christian Church.

--------------------------------------------------------

If the US was intended to be a Christian nation then why does the First Amendment directly contradict the First Commandment?

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

First Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."


Now ... if the Founding Fathers wanted a Christian nation, why would they have clearly stated in the very first amendment to the Constitution that the government would not impose any religion on people, nor would it prevent people from practicing their chosen religion. Shouldn't the amendment have said something like, "Congress hereby decrees that all people shall worship no other gods before the Christian God" :shrug:

[TlalocW]

18. At least 7 of the 10 Commandments

Are contradicted by the Constitution (depending on which version of the 10 Commandments you go by - Jewish, Catholic, Protestant).

Not having any God before Me.
Coveting.
Honoring Mom and Dad.
No business on the Sabbath.
No graven images
No name taking in vain of God.
Adultery (although it is a just cause for divorce I guess)

So that leaves no stealing, no murder, and no bearing false witness (which we can think of as lying under oath).

I like pointing that out and asking conservatives just how the laws of the land were based on the Ten Commandments when older law codes (Hammurabi - sp?) had stuff like no stealing and killing.

TlalocW

[LuCifer]

19. THANK YOU!

I saw a letter in the paper when I lived in Michigan back in early 2002 that said basically the same, and it was great. I may have to dig it up, it was from the Midland Daily News (IF YOU LIVE IN MIDLAND, MI, GET OUT! IT IS A REPUKE HELLHOLE!!!!) and I was blown away that they would print it in such a RED area. It said that only 3 of the Commandments were covered in the Consititution and law in general, that of course being 1) Murder, 2) Theft and 3) Lying...under oath that is!

XIAN NATION? YEAH, GREAT IDEA! LET'S END UP LIKE SAUDI ARABIA!!!

No thanks, I, like Thom Hartmann, say WWJD: WHAT WOULD JEFFERSON DO!

Lu Cifer, yeah I'm going to Hell..SO IS BUSH!!!
http://www.LU13.TK
http://www.MidnightCalling.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LeftWingRadicals/join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SternAndMore/join

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Hannity has said it too. Somehow, they're clear on Amendment 2

But everything else is fuzzy math.

[Az]

10. Seperation of Church and State is the concept they wished to implement

The first ammendment is the means they chose to do it. It is elegent and simple. The government can make no law concerning the establishment of a religion. It neatly divides the two entities from one another.

Note that the very first thing mentioned in the very first ammendment is this issue. This comes before every other right established. It is of primary importance.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Jefferson and Madison both used those exact words in other

correspondence, as well as 'a wall between Church and State'. As writers of the constitution, I think we can take their word for it what their intent was.

i'll have to do a quick search for references.

on edit -- the good people of DU have beaten me to it in other posts.

[nickgutierrez]

12. Read the first Amendment to them.

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.

[wuushew]

13. James Madison was very clear on the seperation of church and state

Seeing as he was the "father of the Consitution" the debate should end there.


Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;


http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_JMadison.htm

[MissMarple]

21. And the colonists had bad experiences with established religion.

Many colonies had established churches that were financially supported by the general population. The Congregational Church was mostly in the New England colonies and Church of England was in the south. There was growing religious diversity and people were becoming disenchanted with the concept of government being involved in religious practice. And the Baptists used to be against random government people leading their children in prayer, in other words, they were against school prayer, I do believe.

[More Than A Feeling]

27. American Baptists still support the Separation of Church and State

Southern Baptists (who split from the general baptist convention over slavery) are the ones who are do not (and not even all southern baptists, it all depends on who you are talking to)

[wuushew]

14. self-delete

dupe

[YNGW]

20. I agree

Just like the King of England was the Head of the Church of England, I would be opposed to the President of the United States being the Head of any particular organized religious denomination or the government naming any particular denomination as being the "official" religion of the United States.

[peacetalksforall]

22. We went 200 years + believing there was separation of church and

state until the political birth of fundamentalism in this country and their agenda of takeover and constitutional change to christianity.

(I refuse to put a cap on C for christianity when it is fundamentalist sham christianity.)

[wuushew]

23. Reveal his hypocrisy by illustrating other omissions of language

The phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg1.htm

To be a Constitutional literalist would invalidate thousands and thousands of federal and Supreme Court decisions ruled upon by the concept of case law and precedent. Everything from contract law to racial segregation would be turned back. If conservative zealots desire strict language then they can live in a country where statue law is king.


Also if we are going with the what the definition of is "is" argument, here is James Madison's take on the meaning of "establishment". His veto arguments can be directly compared to what Bush is trying to do with funding religious charities.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm

[Quixote1818]

24. Take this test on the Separation of Church and State

http://ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php

I got 17 out of 21 correct

[Boosterman]

28. Bah got 15 out of 21

Stupid history questions....oh wait thats me. nm

[Quixote1818]

30. I gave the Pilgrims more credit than they deserved

That and the questions about who brought all the lawsuits. I missed those as well.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

31. Yes, and then read the 14th Amendment

as well as established court cases like Lemon v. Kurtzman.

The 14th makes sure that no state or local entity can infringe on our national Constitutional rights (i.e., extends protection of the 1st Amendment to all levels of gov't); court cases like Lemon define exactly what "respecting an establishment of religion" means.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

33. Courts are there to interpret the law.

Including the Amendments. That's been their duty throughout the history of this great country. When there is disagreement about what a law means, or whether it is constitutional, we go to the court system to resolve the dispute.

[wuushew]

34. The Judicial branch is a co-equal parter in goverment

If laws were not open to interpretation then why was Article III included in the Constitution?

I really don't want to return to a pre-Marbury vs. Madision sitution.

[tx_dem41]

35. Ummm....I didn't need the courts to tell me what it meant.

Why did you?

[The Straight Story]

26. I think it comes from the idea

That the way it is worded it sounds like a limitation on congress such that they cannot make (pass) a law which sets a national religion. It specifically mentions only congress and not local school boards, nativity scenes (which don't require a law passed by congress) and so on.

SO that is what people play on when it comes to the terminology - it is not a seperation to most, it is a restriction telling congress they cannot make a law which declares one religion as being the state one.

[Quixote1818]

29. I agree

Thats exactly the same line I have heard before from the nut cases. They say we can't have a national church but things like school prayer are fine. However, James Madison's summary of the first Amendment shows it is much, much broader than this:

In James Madison's summary of the First Amendment he wrote: 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, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

[tx_dem41]

36. Of course, passage of the 14th Amendment which made the ...

Bill of Rights applicable to states (and lower) governments/authorities cleared all that up about 140 years ago.