Separation of Church and State is a Lie?

[borrofburi]

Mostly irrelevant background information (you can skip this part!):
So I got this chain letter in my email the other day entitled "laus deo" in which it said, and I quote, "separation of church and state was not, is not, in the Constitution." I thought I'd find all the errors and point them out; I did not, instead I linked to the snopes answer and said "only partially true" (curiously, they did not seem to care if it was true or not, because it "illustrated a point", though they never did say what point that was or why it was so valid that twisting the truth and even possibly outright lies were a good way to communicate it).

But in that quest to answer basic flaws, I decided I would address the idea that SoCaS denial by quoting the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." I figured I should anticipate any counter arguments and answer those, so I looked them up.

tl;dr someone emailed me something that said the separation of church and state doesn't exist, so I investigated.


Actually interesting bit for this thread (the only paragraph you *need* to read to contribute meaningfully):
It turns out, no surprise really, that these people (who deny separation of church and state is in the constitution) use a very strict definition of the establishment clause "congress shall make no law"; they essentially think that so long as congress doesn't ban a religion or officially declare christianity the religion of the USA, then the clause has not been violated. Granite statue of the ten commandments in the court room? Neither of those were violated, check. Prayer in the court room? Again, not violating the establishment clause, check. Endorsing christianity? Doesn't ban other religions, isn't official US religion, check. Giving massive amounts of money to christian churches? Doesn't prevent the free exercise of other religions, still isn't officially law-made US religion, check.

So, it looks like we all might have to get good at arguing law now, by which I mean understand all this and "educate" the SoCaS-deniers just as we must educate the creationists' distorted view of evolution into an accurate understanding.

tl;dr oi, just read the paragraph, but if you want a summary anyway (after having read it), here it is: these people argue for a very strict interpretation of both the establishment and free exercise clauses, insisting that the government is free to endorse christianity all it wants with as much resources as it wants so long as there is no official US religion and so long as congress doesn't ban any religions.





Some selected quotes (or more precisely, a way to make reading my sources list interesting):
First, the more balanced document I found on the subject, by TheocracyWatch.org
There's also an ok one from about.com
David Kupelian for worldnetdaily
"Congress shall make no law." Thompson never did explain how a granite display of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse constituted Congress "making a law."
How far, millions wonder aloud, can this judicial assault on the nation's religious and traditional values, a jihad waged most prominently and notoriously by the American Civil Liberties Union, possibly go before someone stops it?
He goes on to claim various instances in history are proof that separation of church and state are a lie.
Nathan Tabor for RenewAmerica
"most Americans today have been spoon-fed a poison porridge of revisionist lies that claim George Washington and Company were all rationalistic Desists [sic] seeking to advance the secular ideals of the French Enlightenment."
"our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian . . . this is a Christian nation." (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892)
"Because three generations of secular humanist educators and atheistic ACLU ideologues have parroted this big lie"
But what we're dealing with here is ... a willful ignorance (real or professed) of long-settled historical facts.
Some stuff from creationist.org (not even worth quoting, you know the like from them).
Katherine Harris, former secretary of florida, a former representative (of florida), and 2006 senate candidate (she lost), in an interview for "florida baptist witness":
"that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

tl;dr it's primarily a source list, with partially out of context quotes (the difference between this and a quote mine is I am doing my best to understand their position and then quote the scary bits, not understand it and then purposefully take them out of context to distort their position), I don't know what more you want from me!...

 

[e2iPi]

Fortunately for those of us in the United States, the Supreme Court has decided in favor of a separation of church and state on several different occasions and has used the term in majority opinions on at least 25 occasions, mostly upholding the formal separation of church and state.

-1

 

[borrofburi]

Fortunately for those of us in the United States, the Supreme Court has decided in favor of a separation of church and state on several different occasions and has used the term in majority opinions on at least 25 occasions, mostly upholding the formal separation of church and state.

-1

Unfortunately for us, there is a growing sect of fundies who desire to overturn all of this if at all possible.

 

[JustBusiness17]

So, it looks like we all might have to get good at arguing law now, by which I mean understand all this and "educate" the SoCaS-deniers just as we must educate the creationists' distorted view of evolution into an accurate understanding.

I wonder if Annie Laurie Gaylor (Freedom From Religion) would be interested in putting up some contest money for this. $5,000 for the first youtube video about SoCaS to reach 1,000,000 views or something like that. They already have essay writting contessts where they hand out $2000 and $1000 for 1st and 2nd respectively. A 1,000,000 view video is no joke either. There is no way 1,000,000 people are ever going read any of those essays (although I do respect the contest intellectually).

A contest like that would put a lot of information into the public. I'm sure FFRF would even help with most of the research too.

 

[Aught3]

Well I think the articles you posted from TheocracyWatch and About do a good job of explaining it. If any faith-heads need some help understanding you can point them there.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I wonder if Annie Laurie Gaylor (Freedom From Religion) would be interested in putting up some contest money for this. $5,000 for the first youtube video about SoCaS to reach 1,000,000 views or something like that. They already have essay writting contessts where they hand out $2000 and $1000 for 1st and 2nd respectively. A 1,000,000 view video is no joke either. There is no way 1,000,000 people are ever going read any of those essays (although I do respect the contest intellectually).

A contest like that would put a lot of information into the public. I'm sure FFRF would even help with most of the research too.

I sent Annie an email about this earlier this evening. I wonder what she'll say :?

 

[RestrictedAccess]

It turns out, no surprise really, that these people (who deny separation of church and state is in the constitution) use a very strict definition of the establishment clause "congress shall make no law"; they essentially think that so long as congress doesn't ban a religion or officially declare christianity the religion of the USA, then the clause has not been violated. Granite statue of the ten commandments in the court room? Neither of those were violated, check. Prayer in the court room? Again, not violating the establishment clause, check. Endorsing christianity? Doesn't ban other religions, isn't official US religion, check. Giving massive amounts of money to christian churches? Doesn't prevent the free exercise of other religions, still isn't officially law-made US religion, check.

Let's back it up here - you're painting a picture of the literalistic crowd that need not be painted.

Firstly, there are a couple terms in the Establishment and Free exercise clauses that vary in interpretation, but I'm only discussing the Establishment clause. "Congress shall make no..." is pretty cut and dry. It deals only with congress. I know a lot of people who love the idea of separation of church and state don't like it, but those are the words agreed to by the founding fathers.

"Respecting an establishment of religion" - this is where a lot of people disagree. Those who pull "congress can't establish a religion" from this phrase are reading it from a subjective, not literal, viewpoint. If it was meant to keep congress solely from establishing a national religion, it would read something like "respecting the establishment of a religion." The words "respecting an establishment" entails a the treatment of a particular religion - any treatment. Now, within that statement some would argue the meaning of "respecting", which could mean either "regarding", or "giving preference to". A better understanding of this would require studying the background and individual ideas of the founding fathers and trying to find their consensus on just how much the state should involve itself in religion, though in the end I'm willing to bet we'll come up with nil.

Those who say SoCaS doesn't exist in the constitution aren't wrong, but many of those who say that do so because they are looking for an excuse for their religion to be given preference to by the government.

Now as for the examples you gave, from a literalistic perspective it could be argued that if any of those occurrences were knowingly funded or endorsed in any way through legislative action, you may very well have yourself a violation of the first amendment. That's stretching it a bit, I'd imagine, but the first amendment could apply to knowingly funding the other branches attempts to show preference to religion. The actual action of a court house putting those Ten Commandments up or praying in a court room in itself would not violate the first amendment, though. Case and point, congress often opens with a prayer, which is perfectly legal - so why not a court room?

 

[Aught3]

Found a good quote from the US supreme court in 1947 (Everson v Board).

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 from 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.'

Then there is the Lemon test which is a good guideline to see if a new law has the effect of establishing a religion.

 

[borrofburi]

Aught3 basically said it all, I would point out to you that the separation of church and state has a much more.... interesting history than the 16 words in the first amendment indicate when reading them and only them.

 

[Nogre]

What's with the tendency of people here in the United States to deify the founders? I mean, we live in a world that they couldn't even have concieved of. Sure, they were brilliant, but there was no special and unique spark of brilliance in Washington, Jefferson, and the others that has never happened since and will never happen again. There's a reason why the Constitution can be ammended, and while we should consider the founders and respect them, we shouldn't limit ourselves to what a bunch of 18th century politicians could come up with.

I bet almost any of us on this forum can make an excellent case for the separation of church and state. Why should the original intention constrict our ability for change? Were they really that much more intelligent than we are today? Not that I'm saying we should throw all constitutions out the window. But we shouldn't be afraid to ammend it to make it clear exactly what the government is and is not allowed to do, simply because we want to preserve the original intent.

 

[obsidianavenger]

i think the issue here is not that "its not true if the founding fathers didn't say it" but rather that if its not in the constitution then many things that we commonly consider unconstitutional are actually not. its not that theres no case to be made for separation of church and state without the framers of the constituion, but that, as it stands, theres "technically" no legal basis for it.

but i think others in the thread have covered why thats not the case, so i will leave it at that.

 

[Hwon]

I would agree that the Constitution does not expressly state there should be a SoCaS. However, I would say it exists as a condition of applying the establishment clause.

1. Taxes are determined by laws that are passed by Congress.
2. Congress shall pass no law that respects an establishment of religion.
3. The government is funded via taxes.

Thus tax revenue and inevitably the government cannot be used to respect an establishment of religion. This would also include the things like the usage of publicly owned property.

 

[Demojen]

It doesn't matter that the constitution does not expressly seperate church and state in any way we may like...it provides for us the ability to seperate them as we see fit.
As previously noted, there have been several judicial arguments finding in favor of seperation of church and state. Whether they were premised on the constitution or not is irrelevent if they've never been overturned, and subsequently they become precedent for future law reform that reinforces this mindset.

Whether the constitution expressly states it or not, we have seperation in many states of the USA. For those who do not, we have the United States Supreme Court that does.

 

[Hwon]

It doesn't matter that the constitution does not expressly seperate church and state in any way we may like...it provides for us the ability to seperate them as we see fit.
As previously noted, there have been several judicial arguments finding in favor of seperation of church and state. Whether they were premised on the constitution or not is irrelevent if they've never been overturned, and subsequently they become precedent for future law reform that reinforces this mindset.

Whether the constitution expressly states it or not, we have seperation in many states of the USA. For those who do not, we have the United States Supreme Court that does.

A SoCaS has to be premised on some constitutional basis otherwise the Supreme Court would hold no power over enforcing such a policy as it is limited to interpreting and upholding the Constitution. It would require the action by the legislative branch to enact new law for a vested state interest.

 

[Demojen]

While law must fall within the confines or frame of the constitution it is not defined by it alone.
So, no...the constitution does not have to say it, for it to be so.

Alot of court cases are judged using legal precedents and not the constitution, and while you can argue that at the root of these legal precedents is some sort of constitutional derivative, again that only serves to equivocate and obscure the issue.

 

[Hwon]

While law must fall within the confines or frame of the constitution it is not defined by it alone.
So, no...the constitution does not have to say it, for it to be so.

I never said it did.

Alot of court cases are judged using legal precedents and not the constitution, and while you can argue that at the root of these legal precedents is some sort of constitutional derivative, again that only serves to equivocate and obscure the issue.

Yes, I can agree with that, but this wasn't my point. My point is that courts don't define the law, but rather they interpret it and how to apply it. That is what legal precedents are. Guidelines for applying the law. So these laws have to be already established either by the Constitution or by legislation.

We can't use court rulings as an authoritative basis for a SoCaS.

 

[Jaguar]

Greetings:

I don't know about you the UK and US folks, but here in Mexico, separation of church and state is, thankfully, legal and enforced. Of course, when it all started, Vatican's Zealots started to cause trouble, we even have a specific war about it: "The Cristero War".

However, at the end, the liberals (left wing, democrats, whatever you call them) who issued the laws, won at the end. Of course, today it is much more civil, and if there is no more active and fierce enforcement it's because the church has learned its place, or so ti seems. After all, they don't do that bad at all. They make plenty of money from the contributors, either from the poor who blindly surrender the few cents they can make, or large corporations trying to appear good, or the drug dealers looking to somehow "cleanse" themselves through donating large sums of blood stained money to the smiling priests.

Anyway, the thing is that Reform Laws were quite drastic: church property was limited and confiscated, convents and cloysters were also seized by the state, there were limitations on the number of priests that there could be in the country (this one has been lifted), priests could not vote nor wear their garbs outside the church (both also lifted), but most important, and I am quite happy these provitions still hold way today; public education is free of faith, there is no "state religion", so you may choose whichever you want, and members of the clergy are forbidden to support political parties or take a stand in political affairs at all.

So, separation of church and state is real, depending which state and which church we are talking about.

- The Jaguar

 

[Aught3]

That sounds like the state is drastically interfering with the church, not that I particularly mind.

 

[e2iPi]

That sounds like the state is drastically interfering with the church, not that I particularly mind.

I do. Any form of state sponsored censorship is a threat to all free speech. I don't agree with what they say, however that is a battle which should be fought on the field of open discourse, not behind the doors of government.

-1

 

[Aught3]

I do. Any form of state sponsored censorship is a threat to all free speech. I don't agree with what they say, however that is a battle which should be fought on the field of open discourse, not behind the doors of government.

Do you mean the political restriction placed on the clergy? Sounds very similar to the limitations in the US probably fair enough if they don't pay taxes.