Separation of church and state

And if your remark about 1947 was intended as a reference to Everson v. Ewing, then let me point out that when the court referred to the "wall of separation between church and state" they then immediately cited the 1878 case of Reynolds v. United States as their precedent.How could you think that the notion of "separation of church and state" is a case of an "activist Court" making a new interpretation of the Constitution when they were relying on a precedent so old that it was set eight years before the birth of the guy who wrote the majority opinion?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

jar and Taz already made this point, but I feel that it is important enough to repeat. But first, I'd like to point out that reading the "intent" of people who died 200 years ago is a bit problematic. The reason is that there were many people involved in the founding of the Republic, and there were many people involved in framing the Constitution. Like most political documents, the Constitution isn't based on some simple, timeless principles; it is a set of compromises between political factions that had competing visions of what the Republic should be like. The framers had lots of different "intents," and the Constitution is a result of compromise between these intents. That is one of the reasons why anyone can quote mine the founders to try to find something that appears to back up there point.Now, back to jar and Taz's point. Even if the founders unanimously had no intention of separating church and state, what does that have to do with us today? The founders have been dead for 200 years; they don't live in this country any more. We do, and it is our right (it is our duty, one might claim) to live our own lives under principles that we think are important.Although Tom Paine wasn't a framer of the Constitution, his polemics were important in expressing a justification of independence from the UK, and he was quite clear the no generation is obligated to obey the promises made during earlier generations. In a sense, each generation is responsible for renegotiating the social contract that binds them together.As long as we are on the subject of intents of the founders of this Republic, let's remember what I think are the important ones, that they, too, intended each generation to decide for itself how it will be governed. One point they had in mind is that the country was (and did) change greatly over the years. And, in fact, we aren't the same country that was founded over 200 years ago. One important difference is that the population is far, far more diverse than it was back then.The second point that I don't think gets as much time as it should is that the founders themselves were well aware that, as one of the first to attempt to establish a constitutional democracy, they really weren't sure what they were doing. They realized that the document they produced was flawed, that whatever principles they were using hadn't been tested yet. And they were right. I flatter our ancestors in thinking it was a good first attempt, but it was flawed. Now, over that past 200 years of experience with constitutional democracy, between our federal government, 50 state governments, and the nations of Western Europe, we have a much, much better of idea of what will work to achieve our desired goals and what won't. (We probably have a better idea of what it is exactly what we want to achieve, but that is another topic.)So our ideas of constitutional democracy, including the separation of church and state, did evolve over time -- just as the founders intended that it should.

---

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

This is nothing new. In 1811 James Madison vetoed a bill which would have grated public land to a Baptist church --- at which point a group of Baptists wrote to congratulate him. As he justly remarked:

Because he's been swallowing the tripe that neocon assholes dish out to justify their attempts to create a "Christian" nation.{AbE}Oh, and of course, FDR is a convenient target for neocons, so linking the belief that the First Amendment has been misinterpreted to him helps the case along. No need for facts when innuendo can do the same job more effectively.Edited by subbie, : As noted

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Some, but not all of the respondents to this thread so far seem clear on just what it is about, so I’ll clarify. There is already a thread from earlier this year about the US being a Christian nation. Those discussions seldom seem to get too far, opinions abound, and little significant historical fact is promoted. I intended this thread to be more about a look at actual history, two things that can be factually explored. 1) How separation of church and state has changed in its application over a period of 200+ years, and 2) claims that the US foundations had no religious inspiration or content at all.Something I’ve never seen thoroughly explored before is how separation of church and state is a two-way street. When the subject comes up, it’s important to distinguish if the discussion is about protecting the state from the church, or the church from the state. In quotes from the US founders, it’s usually about the latter. In political issues of today, it’s usually the former.Hello Chiroptera, Well said, the quote mining thing is a problem for/from both sides. But one of the worst quote mines of all is the Treaty of Tripoli. That was a negotiation process with a Moslem nation, it wasn’t a summary of US foundings. Those who promote that as a summary don’t have a lot of room to accuse others of quote mining. (not you, I’m referring to others in this thread — I can’t respond to this many opponents individually) Adam’s Treaty of Tripoli terminology directly contradicts some of his other quotes. That he felt he had to use those words to convince another nation that the US had no religious restrictions that would prevent secular trade was his choice as an imperfect human. It’s a political thing, and it goes on today as well. (understatement of the year)Your comment about many people involved in framing the Constitution is an important one, and one that is all too often lost in these discussions. While the findings on this page
could be controversial, they are eye opening to those who only hear the implication that Jefferson, Adams, and Frankin were all Deists, therefore all the founders were Deists. This site shows a list of founders in order of their influence on US foundings. No surprise that James Madison is on top, but who were the next four, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Rufus King, and Elbridge Gerry? Where’s golden boy Thomas Jefferson? He’s 19th. Joseph Story, one of the first Supreme court justices that I quoted in my opening post, is on that list, as is John Witherspoon, a mentor of James Madison. Madison attended the College of New Jersey (later to become Princeton university) where Witherspoon was president, and also a Presbyterian minister. There was a personal closeness between Madison and Witherspoon — that is actual history. Witherspoon signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was not a Deist. Were Sherman, Wilson, King, and Gerry Deists? Let’s look at a few quotes;

quote:

---

Roger Sherman I believe that there is one only living and tru God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance, equal in power and glory. That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.

​

James Wilson "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

​

Rufus King "The law established by the Creator, which has existed from the beginning, extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind. This is the law of God by which He makes His way known to man and is paramount to all human control."

---

John Jay is on the list (one of only three writers of the Federalist Papers), Patrick Henry is on the list. They were not Deists. The more that the history of the framers and their influence is actually studied, it becomes more and more clear why the words separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution. That wasn’t jar’s point originally — he did a switcharoo. I understand what you’re saying, and there are political processes for it, though there are well supported opinions that the courts have helped themselves to more authority than the constitution originally allowed them. But it’s important for me in this thread to address claims that there are no religious principles in US foundings — that the founders were adamant about keeping religious influence out of government. There are religious inscriptions all over original government buildings in Washington D.C., and George Washington proclaimed a national day of Thanksgiving within days of the vote on the Bill of Rights. These things could not happen today, and it needs to be acknowledged that separation of church and state has been an evolving process. That is true, but human nature does not change. When Madison said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents, I don’t think he was saying that someday it will be okay as the population gets lazier and lazier. You and I probably disagree on what limits there should be on how much US founding should be permitted to evolve, probably the differences between originalism vs a living constitution, and I don’t see any progress on that dispute being made on any discussion forum. You’ve partially acknowledged what my point was in the opening post, that separation of church and state have evolved into something quite different than they were at the time of the US founding. So my question to you would be; do statements like this...

quote:

---

The US Constitution is NOT Biblically based in any way or form.
So far no one has been able to show ANYTHING in the US Constitution that is Biblically based.

---

that I c/p’d in my opening post, do harm when they fly around on forums about science and go unchallenged? Is it of special interest to science to get things wrong about what happened 200 years ago?

jar's point is twofold, that there is nothing in the Constitution that is based on the Bible and that the personal beliefs of the Founding Fathers is irrelevant and their intent was to create a new and untried form of government with the full knowledge that what they were creating would need to be modified over time.The biggest religious concern that they had was the very reasonable understanding that religion, specifically Christianity, was a major obstacle to the creation of the new government and so it needed to be separated, segregated from the governing process.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Perhaps you could expand on the distinction.Consider Madison's veto discussed in post #18. Which was that?How about Madison's opposition to the office of Congressional Chaplain?Myself, I think that the two are inextricable. None of which, as I have pointed out, are germane to the issue.Yes, all of the Founders had some religion or other, and the large majority of them were Christian. This does not allow us to deduce that they were against the separation of Church and State. Hold on a minute. I've given you links and quotes showing that Madison and Jackson thought that for the executive to proclaim national days of prayer would be unconstitutional. George W. Bush had no such qualms. So which way has the process really evolved?Another instance I came across in reading up on this: originally the US Mail delivered seven days a week, with the explicit rationale that to stop services on Sunday would be to show favor to mainstream Christians over Seventh Day Adventists and Jews! You can read about this here. (Note that: "The report and resolution were concurred in by the Senate.")Nor did the Founding Fathers put "In God We Trust" on their currency, or have a department of Faith-Based Initiatives. Here, by the way, is Madison using his veto to squash a "faith-based initiative". It was not proposed that any public funds should be allocated to the church for charitable purposes, merely that it should be given a public seal of approval --- in words only --- endorsing it as a charitable institution. That was too much for James Madison.Yes, times have changed, but in many ways this has involved a softening of the hard separationist line taken by the founders. If you're going to argue that the Constitution is Biblically based, then I for one should like to see a little more argument than just calling the opposite view wrong. Especially since, if you'll forgive my saying so, you've been wrong about quite a lot of things already on this thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It seems to me that they only way that it could do harm is if it is wrong. Therefore, my question back to you is what evidence is there that the Constitution is biblically based?To be clear, I'm not asking about the individual views of any of the founders. I'm asking for specific examples of things in the Constitution that can be found in the bible.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

The Treaty of Tropoli is the law of the land, which Adams obviously approved of. This was signed and approved of during the time of the founding fathers. If you claim the use of this is quote mining you obviously have no idea what the term means. If you dismiss the Treaty of Tripoli you obviously do not understand how the US constitution and government work. It is laughable that you think this rating system has any validity at all. Using a rating system like this just shows who was the biggest politician.Lets look at one of your guys.Roger Sherman
Gee the quote you use says nothing about how he felt about the separation of church and state. It is s statement of faith. I am sure the Danbury Baptists probably felt the same way, but they wrote Jefferson looking for a firm stand FOR the separation of church and state.Looks like Sherman served on a lot of committees and congresses but he has a very limited body of work available, unlike the people we feel are the giants.He is most notable for the Great Compromise and wanting to prohibit paper money. But to put him above Jefferson or Franklin is ludicrous.You keep on saying that since there is no explicit mention of separation of church and state then the founding fathers must have not been supportive of the notion. Using this reasoning what are we supposed to think about religion and Christianity, based on the fact there is no mention in the constitution.You seem to not understand there is a difference between personal beliefs and how those people felt a government should be designed and run.You have shown no evidence that shows the founding fathers wanted the church to be part of government. That leads to the next question and the reason why the founders and the religious of the time wanted a separation. Because no one wanted some other church to become the state church. What church do we give preference to? Only Christians? Who defines who is Christian? What about non-believers?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Except for one point that you are obviously missing. Protecting the state from religion is also protecting religions from any specific religion, which is what the separation is about. Freedom from religion is freedom of religion. The reason that it appears the former is the blatant attempt by fundies to install ultra conservative Christian ideals into the US government.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Is it a two-way street? Because church influence in the secular state seems more like a vicious circle - in the absence of a defined separation between church and state, the church gains untoward control of the state, and then uses it to oppress other churches. (Proponents of Christian control of the state may wish to reflect on the likely consequences of that control falling into the hands of a denomination they view as heretical - Mormons? Catholics? - or another religion altogether, such as Islam. How does Christianity tend to fare where the state and Islam are not so separated?) Sure, but it's also the ratified law of the United States. You can't simply discard the law where you find it "inconsistent" or "political." It's worth reminding you of the words that do appear in the Constitution:

quote:

---

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.

---

as well as reminding you of a word that appears nowhere in the Constitution: "God." Fitting for its role as the foundation of an entirely secular state, the Constitution is an entirely secular document. But it's not wrong. The US Constitution isn't based on Biblical principles, it stands in direct opposition to almost all of them. That's obvious by any plain inspection of the text.

marc has been asked a couple times now to show the biblical principles that are enshrined in the Constitution, but I see he has no response. Hmm, I guess that kind of settles it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The Separation of Church was jousted through the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, before any official government document was ratified. Many of the Founders were Christian and many were of a deist persuasion.The origins of the exact phrase "Separation of Church and State," come specifically from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group in Connecticut, known as the Danbury Baptists. These baptists heard rumors that the United States was going to institute a state religion, much like how at that time the state religion in Britain was the Church of England.Since Americans fled for many reasons, some reasons being for religious freedom, the last thing they wanted to do was institute a state religion with provisions of what was the supposed appropriate way to worship God.The Founders saw that it was important for each individual to come to their own conclusions concerning God. In light of this, the ambiguous use of the word "Creator," seen in the Declaration of Independence, alludes to an intentionally open interpretation of a higher power.It was later officially instituted that state and religion should be separate from one another so as to avoid unecessary conflict.Now, the question is what you think about the Separation of Church and State, and if you were president, what you would do about it.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

I don't see anything a President could do about it other then try to explain the reasoning behind that position.Personally, I would welcome a State Religion if that State Religion was the US Episcopal Church version of Christianity as expressed by Bishop Spong, The Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool and The Most Rev. Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori. Then there would be no more nonsense about a woman's rights, same sex marriage, banning abortions or the nonsense called ID or Biblical Creationism.However, I doubt that all Christians would be happy in that Christian Nation.And that in a nutshell was the problem that the Founding Fathers faced. Folk in Virginia would not join a Union where the New England Puritanical Christian Religion was the State religion. Frankly, I don't blame them. The folk in Maryland, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina, New York, Georgia, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey agreed. Them Christians in New England were terrifying.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I just meant hypothetically that if he had no restrictions, what would he do with the Separation of Church and State. That sounds really scary. Since elements of every religion and denomination would want their religion to rule the roost, I trust you can see why that would be a conflict of interest.I happen to like the Separation of Church and State. It's the only way to keep religion free from government intrusion, and keep secular society free from religion. I don't think that any other religion or secularists would be happy about it either.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine