Separation of Church and State is a Myth and a distortion of the truth and it is not mention in Constitution

[Mannyfit75]

The phrase separation of Church and State is a myth. The United States Constitution explicitly states the following words.

First Amendment:

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.

In other words, the Government cannot establish “Religion of United States.” The Amendment also that prohibition of practicing their religious faith is not permitted. This allows the citizens of this country to practice their own religious faith.

Current Courts have attempted to force their ruling restricting religious liberties (such as the ruling by the courts about posting the “Ten Commandments”/ Ten Commandments is not claimed by just mere Christians but Jews as well).

The only Federal Law that made the claim that the US is not a Christian nation is stated in the Treaty of Tripoli.

It states,

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Note, the Article states, "United States is NOT in any SENSE, founded on Christian religion.

The phrase “separation of church and state” became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. (1879).

While the U.S. Government is prohibited from establishing a religion, it also allows its citizens to practice their faith. In my opinion, the courts is leaning towards restriction of religious freedom. The US Government should maintain a balance taking no side on the matter.

 

[ChadS]

The phrase separation of Church and State is a myth. The United States Constitution explicitly states the following words.

While the U.S. Government is prohibited from establishing a religion, it also allows its citizens to practice their faith. In my opinion, the courts is leaning towards restriction of religious freedom. The US Government should maintain a balance taking no side on the matter.

Does a phrase have to appear in the Constitution to make it part of the Constitution? That’s the argument that is given most of the time that since the phrase isn’t in the Constitution then it must mean that the founders never intended for something like that to happen. As you’ve said in your post you’d favor the government to remain neutral and take no sides in the matter. That would also include playing favorites towards one religion over another. How is the Constitution being violated if a court orders a copy of the ten commandments removed from public property? I don’t see the problem there, nobody’s right to practice their faith has been infringed upon by them not being there, however what if a Buddhist judge decided that the 8-fold path to enlightenment would be displayed in his courtroom. Would there be a violation of Constitutional standards there, I would think so.

ChadS

 

[Lutheranteach]

I would argue the very fact there is no religious test for any elected office in the U.S. is proof of the separation. Also, one needs to look no further than the tombstone of Thomas Jefferson to see how seriously the writer of The Declaration of Independence took the separation of Church and State. Jefferson wanted to be remembered for only three things: 1) Writing the DOI; 2) Writing the religious statutes of the Virginia constitution, and 3) for creating the University of Virginia. In a letter to the Danbury Baptists, who feared a national religion and that such would bring discrimination, Jefferson, in 1802, wrote:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. "

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Interesting that the OP is ignoring:

• The concept of jurisprudence in interpreting the constitution.
• Subsequent quotes by those individuals who actually drafted said amendment to the constitution, in which the intended purpose of the amendment was expounded upon.
• The fact that doing things such as adding a placard of the 10 commandments on a courthouse wall requires a law to be enacted by the congress, which obviously flies in the face of his apparent strict constitutionalist leanings.

Thankfully for all of us, court cases such as these are determined by actual law scholars instead of armchair reactionaries behind a computer.

 

[ChadS]

If I remember my colonial history correctly the Danbury Baptists thought they had the most to fear from an established national religion. It wasn’t too much longer before that that Baptists were hounded from several of the colonys for their beliefs. They feared that if a national religion were established it just wouldn’t be Christian in some general sense of the word but could be profoundly sectarian and would bar members of other groups from holding office or participating in civil discourse – sort of like the Test Acts in Great Britain did to Catholics for hundreds of years.

Also, I think you look back through history the strict constructionist ideas, really in vogue now, could’ve stifled America’s growth. One example is that of the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson wanted to buy the land from France but there were those in opposition that said that the Constitution didn’t give explicit authority to the President to either enlarge the country or for Congress to appropriate money for that reason. Where would we be if that line of reasoning had been successful back then?

I don’t really buy the argument that separation of church and state is a myth or a distortion of our past.

ChadS

 

[TriuneUnity]

If I remember my colonial history correctly the Danbury Baptists thought they had the most to fear from an established national religion. It wasn’t too much longer before that that Baptists were hounded from several of the colonys for their beliefs. They feared that if a national religion were established it just wouldn’t be Christian in some general sense of the word but could be profoundly sectarian and would bar members of other groups from holding office or participating in civil discourse – sort of like the Test Acts in Great Britain did to Catholics for hundreds of years.

Also, I think you look back through history the strict constructionist ideas, really in vogue now, could’ve stifled America’s growth. One example is that of the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson wanted to buy the land from France but there were those in opposition that said that the Constitution didn’t give explicit authority to the President to either enlarge the country or for Congress to appropriate money for that reason. Where would we be if that line of reasoning had been successful back then?

I don’t really buy the argument that separation of church and state is a myth or a distortion of our past.

ChadS

 

[Justin_Mee]

For the fruits of the failure to separate church and state, we need to look no farther than the middle east. I believe it would be just as likely that radical Christians would develop as radical Muslims. The founding fathers knew what they were doing. God bless the USA.