The MYTH of Separation of Church and State

I've always thought that freedom of religion meant just that, not freedom from religion. Interesting post Marilyn!

Good post!

good post :)

Beth: Actually, freedom OF pretty much demands freedom FROM. If I'm not Christian (be it athiest, Bhuddist or Muslim), I can't believe I have freedom of religion if YOURS is the only one on display, AND it's everywhere and ALL THE TIME.

Those of you who think you want a theocracy... be REALLY careful what you wish for. Which version of Christianity do you think would be in charge? Catholics - Roman or Eastern? Metodists? Baptists? Pentecostals? Snake Handlers? LDS?

If you want to really see what a Theology looks like, take a good look at Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or... Israel. I promise you, you won't like what you see - and I further promise you that those are representative of ANY Theocracy. That's WHY our Constitution demands freedom of (and, yes - from) religion(s).

Now its a no no.... I think America turned into the very thing they were standing up against when America was born...

Good post on this one.

If you want an interesting book read Rediscovering God in America by Newt Gingrich. He takes a tour of Washington DC monuments and shows has God is in all of them.

You know I have to say I read about a state, I think Connecticut or New Hampshire, can't remember which, I would have to research it, but they want to tell the Catholic religion what to do and how to practice their religion. I guess there is no more separation of Church and State as according to How Jefferson meant it in his letter.

Or the meaning of separation of church and state has become so loose and interpreted that Congress can do what they want.
Mooch

The "founding fathers" left England to escape the tyranny of a Theocracy. The wanted to practice thier religion their way. They understood that their was not only one type of religion, but there were different way to interprest THEIR religion. They didn't want the government to dictate to the country what religion they had to follow and how.

No, the wall of separation between church and state built by the First Amendment isn't a myth. It's a very real wall, and thankfully, it's getting thicker and higher as the United States continues to evolve as a pluralistic nation.

We've managed to get full-blown religious services out of the Capitol Building, and with a bit of luck, maybe one day we'll get a reversal of Marsh v Chambers and get rid of chaplains and opening prayers in our legislatures.

The key is in the first Amendment language itself, the last phrase of the first clause;

" . . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

That means just what it says; Anyone, at any time, is free to exercise their religion. It has nothing to do with "certain buildings", or any of the other crap anti-religionists conjure up in their imaginations.

"Anyone, at any time, is free to exercise their religion."

No they're not. Some folks have some crazy ideas about how they want to exercise their religions. Their right to believe whatever they like is protected by the Constitution, but the right to act on those beliefs isn't absolute.

If there is no separation of Church and state why are many Christians whining about being discriminated against by the state for their beliefs?

Wil, as you well know, the First Amendment says:

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.

If Congress cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion, that means that people are free to exercise their faith.

Larry, the right question is why are they being discriminated against, don't you think? The government has no right to do that.

Marilyn: I am curious, since you believe the seperation of church and state is a myth: say hypothetically everyone in the country suddenly agreed with you,  What would the United states look like? what kinds of things would happen, that aren't happening now? and I'm not sure I know exactly how christians are being discriminated against.... because religion can't be taught in public schools? Because we can't have religious symbolism in goverment buildings? how does this keep anyone from practicing the religion they want to? and have you considered that if religion and religious symbolism, was suddenly allowed in public schools or government buildings; that it would have to include all religions-and not just christianity?

Everyone did agree when the founding documents were drawn up, Ellen.  And everyone agreed clear into the 60s about what our founding fathers meant.  It's not written anywhere that we cannot have religious symbols in government buildings.  Any judge in the land should be free to post the Ten Commandments in his court room if he so desires.  That's what having freedom is about. 

Any validictorian in our country should be able to say in her speech that her faith got her through her high school years.  But schools are keeping students from saying that, when they're Christian.  Most likely if they mentioned the Buddist or Muslim faith, the schools would be okay with that.

We used to understand that we all serve the same God, that there is only one God.  And the problems didn't start with people who disagreed about matters of faith.  Problems started when athiests decided that Christians had no right exercising their faith as was protected.

If we start putting religious symbolism up in government buildings though, how does that not come across as the governemt endorsing one religion; which is against the constitution? and can you imagine the big mess we'd have if we started allowing that sort of thing? and even if you don't want a theocracy, there would certainly be one started if there was no line between church and state.

I think we still should be able to have God in our schools and government buildings.and in congrees and so on.If some one wants to say a prayer. Not every one has to take part in it.

What is stopping someone from saying a prayer anywhere? Who said YOU CANNOT PRAY to you, and why would you allow them this authority overy your heart and mind?

"Actually, freedom OF pretty much demands freedom FROM."

If the prepositions of and from meant the same thing, there would only be need for one of them in the language. The Church of England was intolerant of religious disparity. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that this would not be the case in the New World, thus the freedom of religion. Sure, if you're an Atheist, you can have freedom from religion, but that's not what is stated and guaranteed by the Constitution of the USA. This is what is stated and guaranteed.

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

This means and only means that there shall be no established religion of the land enacted by Congress, and that there shall be no law made that will prohibit the free exercise of one's religion. That's all it means, and that's all it ever meant.

Wil,

"Their right to believe whatever they like is protected by the Constitution"

Who the hell would need protection of such a "right"? Since when is there any way to prevent people from believing whatever they like? I don't need the Constitution to protect something no one can do anything about anyway. The founding fathers were not trying to protect people's right to believe things, that is nonsensical.

No one can stop you from beliving such nonsensical things, but I can speak of it (thus far anyway  ; )

(I suppose next, you'll be telling me the Founders only meant freedom to speak to myself, when they wrote that next part  ; )

Exactly, Sue:

This means and only means that there shall be no established religion of the land enacted by Congress, and that there shall be no law made that will prohibit the free exercise of one's religion. That's all it means, and that's all it ever meant.

One might say that holding a particular religion's services in government buildings, teaching a particular religion's principles in schools funded by tax payer's money, and having a particular religion's symbols on offical property would essentially be establishing a particular religion.

Most would not consider having a symbol on government property as establishing a religion.  Teaching principles?  If you're speaking of the Golden Rule, that's something that is in every religion and now that we don't teach that our kids are selfish, self-centered and badly behaved.  The Ten Commandments?  As I have told the story before, a group of people in FL reworded the Ten Commandments and called them something like the Ten Good Behaviors.  The public school system allowed them to send the brochure to every child in the district.  On the back were some small words about where the pamphlet originated.  It was from the Scientologists.  Moral of the story?  The rules really are good ones.  They guided people in this country for many, many years.

Having church services in government buildings?  No, that does not establish a religion either, Shannon.  Obviously, our founding fathers didn't think so,  and since they're the ones who wrote the documents, I would think they understood them best.

Chuck,

"Those of you who think you want a theocracy... be REALLY careful what you wish for."

Who in the world are you talking to there? Christians don't favor theocracy, they favor freedom of religion. That's why the overwhelmingly Christian people of the Founder's time approved of the First Amendment, which prohibited such a thing, quite clearly. And, why for all those years, the overwhelmingly Christian population never came close to a theocratic movement. If Christians wanted a theocracy, they could have made it so, any time, but they don't, they want religious freedom for everyone. That's what our Lord told us is best.

You can't have freedom of speech, and freedom from speech. If people are to be free to talk, others cannot be free to demand silence. The very same is true for religious speech, or any other kind really. If you embrace freedom from such things, it is you that are championing oppression, and the end of individual rights.

"Who the hell would need protection of such a "right"?"

I'm sure many of the people in colonial America who were fined, imprisoned, banished, tortured and/or executed for believing the wrong things or being involved with the wrong religious group or denomination would've appreciated such legal protection.

So now, thanks to the First Amendment, the government can't pass a law outlawing a religion because it says that it's OK to rape women as long as the rapist pays the victim's father 50 shekels of silver and then marries her. It can't pass a law banning a religion because that religion calls for a human sacrifice on the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox.

But since the right to act on such beliefs isn't absolute, the government can pass laws against rape and human sacrifice, and say that "but it's part of my religion" isn't a valid defense.

But it's not the Free Exercise Clause that provides the foundation for the wall of separation between church and state.

"I suppose next, you'll be telling me the Founders only meant freedom to speak to myself, when they wrote that next part"

Nope, but I hope you're not under the delusion that the Constitution says that freedom of speech is absolute, because it doesn't, and it's not.

Wil,

"I'm sure many of the people in colonial America who were fined, imprisoned, banished, tortured and/or executed for believing the wrong things or being involved with the wrong religious group or denomination would've appreciated such legal protection."

Yeah, and that's why they didn't pass some ditsy Amendment protecting something no one could deny them anyway; "Their right to believe whatever they like." They agreed that the government should not be allowed to pass any law prohibiting folks from freely EXCERSIZING their religion. Just like the Constitution says, literally. Your fantasy world ain't got nothing to do with it. (Thank God, considering the sick crap that pops into your head)

The "Wall of Separation" was neither a part of our Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. It was erected by an activist judiciary. Congress has the power to address the issue (that whole checks and balances processes) by amending the Constitution (which is not likely to occur.)

It seems in trying to adjudicate equality, the Courts deem it necessary to attempt to make everything "fair" as well. That was not the intent of the framers of our Constitution. "Fairness" is subjective.

Sometimes the minority view is wrong. Sometimes the majority view is overbearing. It is not for the Courts to decide issues of fairness, when one side has an advantage over the other. The Courts are to decide if the application of Constitutional guarantees are afforded to every citizen equally.

For example, not everyone can afford legal counsel when facing a criminal charge. If the law applies equally to each defendant, then the State must provide legal counsel for those who cannot afford it. That is equal application of the law.

But tearing down a cross, or removing the Ten Commandments from government property has more to do with the issue of fairness than equality. It's not fair that the Muslims did not found this country. It's not fair that atheists were not in the majority when the founding fathers drafted the First Amendment. The presence of those symbols do not endorse religion, but they do reflect the historical roots of our nation's founding and the moral underpinning, which our system of law was based upon.

But it's not fair. True. No one but the ACLU and an activist court said it had to be.

"They agreed that the government should not be allowed to pass any law prohibiting folks from freely EXCERSIZING their religion. Just like the Constitution says, literally. Your fantasy world ain't got nothing to do with it. (Thank God, considering the sick crap that pops into your head) "

You can thank your god all you like, John. It isn't going to change anything. That wall is getting taller and thicker year by year. And it's a wonderful thing.

Wil, there was never supposed to be a wall like you want. It was never written into any of the permanent documents for a reason. The only intent was to make sure the government did not take away our God-given rights.

Thanks for posting ~ Paying it forward

Here's an example showing why I'm glad the wall is getting taller and thicker. As I've already stated, I think chaplains and opening prayers need to be be done away with in Congress and in state legislatures, but unfortunately, the Supreme Court, in one of its sillier rulings, has said such things aren't unconstitutional. One of the reasons they gave, in Marsh v Chambers, was that"there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief."

Clearly that isn't always the case. A couple of years ago, a Hindu chaplain was finally allowed the opportunity to deliver the opening prayer in the US House and Senate. That was, as I understand it, the first time a non-Christian prayer had been permitted in the 200+ year history of Congress.

The Family Research Council (a lobby group connected to Focus on the Family) responded with a statement that included comments such as:

[W]hile it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our countryÂ’s heritage.

and

As for our Hindu priest friend, the United States is a nation that has historically honored the One True God. Woe be to us on that day when we relegate Him to being merely one among countless other deities in the pantheon of theologies.

That definitely looks like an attempt to advance one belief and disparage others.

Here's a YouTube video showing what happened when Rajan Zed tried to deliver the prayer in the Senate. Apparently, the group that organized the disruption was Operation Save America, and in case you missed it, what the first guy said was "Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight."

I'd much prefer that my representatives concentrate on doing the job I elected them to do, rather than dealing with "My god is the real god and your god sucks!" crap.

Wil,

How is a prayer harming you? You act as if the "Wall of Separation" you marvel at is protecting you (and others.) By all outward appearances, it seems to be your symbol of hatred and disdain for faith in general (and Christianity in particular.)

I wonder, what harm Christianity has done to you personally that you harbor such bitterness and loathing?

Gregory, I wonder what harm those of us who are not Christians have done to you personally that you harbor such bitterness and loathing? Why do you hate me so much, Gregory D.? How I have I ever harmed you by refusing to worship the god you worship?

I can answer that, Wil. You do harm me when you try to take away the rights I was given under the first amendment.

" I can answer that, Wil. You do harm me when you try to take away the rights I was given under the first amendment."

That's why you hate me so much, Marilyn? That's why you harbor such bitterness and loathing for me personally? Because you think I'm trying to take away your First Amendment rights? The right to do what, exactly, Marilyn?

Wil, I don't hate you. I just think you're misinformed.

"Wil, I don't hate you."

Then clearly you can't answer the questions I asked Gregory, despite your claim that you could.

"I just think you're misinformed."

About what?

Wil,

Thanks for not answering my question by asking me the same question. I will answer yours, though I doubt you will answer mine.

As far as I am concerned, I have no animosity toward you personally. Fact is, I don't know you. What I do take issue with is your assertion (and groups like the ACLU) that because you do not care for God (as I worship him) that it entitles you (through government intervention and judicial activism) to remove any and all references to faith from government buildings and properties (whether federal, state, or local.) You cannot erase history by merely removing religious symbols from the public square.

The moral aspects of faith (religion) are the underpinning of the laws governing public decency and social mores in this country. By stripping away the tenets of faith from public discourse, our government now finances (by subsidizing Planned Parenthood) about 1 million abortions a year, all under the auspice of "a woman's right to choose." The latest study released this week announced that about 40 percent of all children born in 2007 in this country were born out of wedlock. So if we aren't flushing kids down the drain in abortion clinics, we are demonstrating to a large number of them that marriage means nothing.

There are certainly more social ills that can be attributed to the absence of morality, which can be linked to the absence of a strong moral consensus within our govermnent institutions (like public schools.)

Quid pro quo, Wil.

"As far as I am concerned, I have no animosity toward you personally. Fact is, I don't know you."

Then I find it bizarre that you feel the need to make up lies about me, my opinions and beliefs, and what you claim to be my assertions.

"What I do take issue with is your assertion (and groups like the ACLU) that because you do not care for God (as I worship him) that it entitles you (through government intervention and judicial activism) to remove any and all references to faith from government buildings and properties (whether federal, state, or local.)"

Then since neither I nor the ACLU have asserted that we are entitled to "remove any and all references to fail from government buildings and properties", I guess you don't need to take issue with me and make up bullshit stories about what I do or do not assert, right, Gregory D?

So you have fun up on your anti-abortion and marriage-before-children soapbox, Gregory, but given that many of the people choosing to have those abortions, and many of the people performing those abortions, and many of the people directly or indirectly choosing to fund those abortions, not to mention many of the people having children outside of marriage consider themselves to be religious, and in many cases Christian, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

But for the record, I support a woman's right to choose, and I don't think it really makes much difference whether a couple is married or not when they have a child, with regard to their capacity to love that child and their ability to care for it.

An absence of religion or an absence of Christian belief isn't the same thing as an absence of morality, and if you think it is, that's your problem, not mine.

Wil,

Please refrain from the use of expletives. It does not make your argument any stronger.

What lie have I constructed around you. Wil? You written responses and disdain towards Christianity seem fairly straightforward and apparent. Your glee over the apparent "thickening and heighth of the "Wall of Separation" certainly is an assertion on your part (and is strongly advocated by the ACLU on a number of fronts.) So are you now advocating you do not agree with the ACLU's position to remove the Ten Commandments from court buildings, or removing the cross from the Los Angeles County emblem? THat IS the result of advocacy for the Wall of Separation, Wil.

Hardly a lie, Wil.

As for those who do or those who don't, Wil, whether it is about abortion or marriage, if morality is not based upon a higher authority than majority rule, then it only is a matter of time until the majority will overrule something near and dear to your heart. When that happens, you will be powerless to stop it because it will be the law. Just ask all those who escaped the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union what a wonderful world was created by those who pulled the plug on God in their government.

If I have mischaracterized your position on things as you presented them, please forgive me. But you have been sniping at people of faith on this thread. It appears you are angry. One would think you should not care one iota about what people of faith think about the "Wall of Separation," yet your posts are vitriolic and positively ad hominem in presentation.

Why so angry, Wil?

Wil, your comment said that Gregory cannot tell you what to say. Neither can I, but I can choose to delete your comments. If you choose to clean that last one up, the resubmit. If you'd like to be crude, please do so on your own posts.

How was I crude in my last comment, Marilyn?

Theocracy? When did that happen? When did that revolution happen?

Great article! One grave danger we face today is that the federal government is enlisting churches (and even Wal-Mart) to bring about citizen compliance -- like churches were used in New Orleans when guns were illegally confiscated. And they'll try the same thing with these idiotic "plan-demics" (bird-swine flu) to bring about mass vaccination -- which will just speed the mutation and virulence of the disease. The 1918 flu was started when soldiers were vaccinated, yet they keep digging up these horrible organisms. No tax dollars should be used to establish ANY religion -- which also includes the pernicious "secular humanism" of government schools. Thanks for posting this!

You're right, Visionaerie.  Secular humanism is, indeed, the religion of government schools.

Yes -- except it's getting more like "inhumanism" these days! Have you signed that "Separation of School and State" agreement yet? Have a good night.

I could play the Advocate and say that, if such a thing as "separation of religion and government" really does exist, then it protects Christian belief far more than it harms it or deters it.

What if no such provision existed and the religion of Buddhism, for example, became so popular in the United States that all other religions (namely, Christianity) ended up being pushed somewhere in the back row of American religiosity??.....

But Berf, Christians are NOT protected.  Their right to freely expercise their religion has been taken away, especially in schools.  Again this year, a validictorian had to sue the school district because it was decided that she could not mention Jesus or her faith as the reason she shined in her high school years.  That's not right.  If she had mentioned her Buddist or Muslim faith, I doubt she would have had to change her speech.  Today, in colleges and businesses, Muslims are given extra time and in many cases a private place, where they can pray at the times that take place during their work schedules. Have you ever known any school or college to bend over that way for Christians?  I have not.

The Christians who had to face the lions would laugh at your idea that Christians are persecuted today. Americans whine and cry too much. Everybody is on a poor me, I'm persecuted kick. Jesus would want us to love and help others.

I didn't say they were persecuted, I said that they are not allowed to freely exercise their religion, a right guaranteed by our forefathers.  Loving people doesn't mean allowing them to walk all over you, Jane.

Americans who feel they are not allowed to express their religious ideas should do a little time in Communist China and see how far their religious practices go there. Just my thoughts.

So just because we're better off than in a communist country we should be happy?

Being a devout Christian, one might say that my anti war beliefs have been "persecuted by other Christians" in this country. If you're a Quaker, you're not considered a "true Christian" by many elite Christians in this country.

I'm sorry that has happened to you, Jane.  I know when I was young, many guys turned to the Quakers for help during the Vietnam War.  My cousin did, and although they couldn't/wouldn't help him directly because he was an athiest and he could not claim a religious reason for not wanting to go to Nam, they did provide some excellent adice to him about defecting to Canada.  I've always been grateful.

I think people, no matter who they are, are afraid of something that is different.  I was blessed with working for a Quaker store owner when my son was little and I learned quite a bit about the faith.

this disucssion is back and some of the same trolls are out in full force...
gotta love dissent

I don't love it at all, Mooch.