Location Transport

Did you know that the "wall of seperation between church and state" has no legal authority?

It is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson written to a group of baptists worried that the government would prevent them from practicing their religion several years after the first amendment was adopted. This is an expression of Jefferson's personal opinion. Jefferson did not take part in the forming of the constitution or the bill of rights as he was out of the country at that time. The phrase was first used when Supreme court justices explained their ruling that students attending a catholic school could not be excluded from a publiclly funded busing system that transported students to local private schools. Ironically, the phrase has repeatedly been used to justify excluding religious practice from the public arena in the last 30 years. The phrase is not in the constitution and the federalist papers and notes from the constitutional congress, the ratifiyng convention in individual states, and coreespondence between the members all make it clear that the modern interpretation does not fall within the framers intentions. bestanswer Actually the establishment clause was intended to keep the federal government from establishing an official national religion or from interfereing with the rights of the states to do so. The idea was that the federal keep it's legislative nose out of religious issues... It was not intended to prevent senators from having bible study sessions in their offices, teachers from sharing their faith with interested students, or students from reading their bibles, praying or sharing their beliefs with their classmates. Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers. Fisher Ames. Framer of the first Amendment.

Public Comments

1. No Really That's interesting!
2. Very interesting. I like your history report and what you have to say. I'm not really sure what the question is though and how you would like me to answer.
3. Unlike the vast majority of Americans, I've read every word of the Constitution. The term "separation of church and state" isn't even referred to, let alone mentioned. The people who most loudly shout that phrase almost always point to Conservative ministers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as being the target of their scorn. But for some reason, Liberal ministers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton never get the same kind of scrutiny. They are exempt from criticism from the Left. Just example number 13,646 of Liberal double standard and hypocracy.
4. Two clauses: There are two quite distinct clauses in the First Amendment pertaining to religion. 1. Establishment Clause: First, we have the Establishment Clause. That clause prohibits any law "respecting an establishment of religion." The main purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent government from endorsing or supporting religion. 2. Free Exercise: The second clause is the Free Exercise Clause. That clause bars any law "prohibiting the free exercise of religion." The main purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to prevent the government from outlawing or seriously burdening a person's pursuit of whatever religion (and whatever religious practices) he chooses. B. Applicable to states: Both the Establishment and the Free Exercise Clauses by their terms only restrict legislative action by Congress. However, both clauses have been interpreted to apply also to the states, by means of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Therefore, you don't have to worry whether the government action in question is federal or state - the same standards apply to each. [599] C. Conflict: Occasionally, the Establishment and Free Exercises Clauses seem to conflict on particular facts. That is, a religious group may be asking for some government benefit; if the benefit is given, there may be an Establishment Clause problem. Yet if the benefit is not gven, this may be a burdening of religion. When the two clauses seem to conflict, the Free Exercise Clause dominates. In other words, if a particular benefit or accommodation to religion is arguably required by the Free Exercise Clause, then when government grants that accommodation or benefit it is not violating the Establishment Clause. Example: A public university makes meeting rooms available to all sorts of student groups. If the university allows religious groups to use the room, there might be an Establishment Clause problem. But if it doesn't allow religious groups to use the rooms, while allowing non-religious groups to do so, there might be a Free Exercise Clause problem. Consequently, it will not be an Establishment Clause violation for the university to allow the religious groups to use the rooms. [599]
5. Actually, it's in US Supreme Court holdings dating back to the mid-1800s. Long before bussing. And last I checked, the Supreme Court still has some authority over the laws in the US. While the phrase is not literally in the Constitution, it is embodied in the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment. (see above). "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment. Essentially, as has been interpreted by the Supreme Court for well over a century, it means that government (federal or state) cannot dictate religious practices or prohibit religious expression, and that laws cannot be justified (enacted) purely on religious grounds. In other words, there must be some secular (non-religious) reason for the law, or it is an Establishment Clause violation. That's what the Supreme Court has said for quite some time now, and that makes it law in the US. Because the government cannot mandate or prohibit religious belief, and because religion cannot be the sole justification for secular law, the two (law and religion) are thus separate. That doesn't mean they can't sit down and have lunch together. It just means that one cannot control the other.