The Myth Of Separation Of Church & State

meangreenbob · June 3, 2009

The Supreme Court announcement from the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education was the "first" occasion on which the Court declared there to be a separation of church and state in the First Amendment. Following that "1947" announcement, the Court began unraveling the fabric of American life by reversing long-standing national traditions.

The Constitution was and is still the same; yet, somehow , it's meaning now appers to be different after that announcement! This is because the 1947 Everson Court used an unprecedented legal maneuver, a maneuver no previous Court had ever dared to make. This Court took the Fourteenth Amendment as a tool to apply the First Amendment against the states. Never before had the Fourteenth Amendment been used to forbid religious practices from the public affairs and public institutions of the individual states. This action by the 1947 Court was without precedent.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 to guarantee that recently emancipated slaves would have civil rights in all states. It is a strange interpretation that takes an Amendment providing citizenship to former slaves and uses it to prohibit religious activity in the schools or public affairs of and state.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in our Constitution or Bill of Rights but studies show that over 2/3 of the nation believes it does.

Why weren't displays of Christian activity declared unconstitutional prior to 1947?

This was a successful Coup de Tat.

Edited June 3, 2009 by meangreenbob

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

Don't want the 10 commandments in our schools... or any religion is school.

Religion should be taught at home and church.

Green Guy Bass · June 3, 2009

Don't want the 10 commandments in our schools... or any religion is school.
Religion should be taught at home and church.

Wow, we do agree on stuff.

meangreendork · June 3, 2009

Like many things in American law and in the founding documents, it's all interpretation. You know, just like individual church doctrine.

I see the original writings to mean that religion needs to be kept away from government to prevent religions from being replaced by a national religion. This is because people often already have faiths of their own, and there would be no need to impose one on a person. So, for those of us who don't have a particular religion, our "lack of" religion shouldn't be imposed upon.

Next, we have a more practical way of looking at this:

It would be counter-productive to the message of the U.S. to teach religion in a public setting. In a nation that really draws its strength from its diversity of people, it seems rather backwards to force it on people. We might as well restrict skin color and seating arrangement on buses because that would be the next step down the line.

And finally:

I'd strongly prefer someone not push their religion on me. I would assume they also don't want me doing the same to them.

Just sayin'.

meangreenbob · June 3, 2009

Don't want the 10 commandments in our schools... or any religion is school.
Religion should be taught at home and church.

Stone v. Graham, 1980

United States Supreme Court

This case occurred 17 years after "VOLUNTARY" Bible reading had been banned in schools.

The court pointed out the problem with displaying the 10 Commandments:

"If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the school children to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments............"

So, lets change the meaning of the Constitution, kick Christ out of our schools, teach evolution and give the kids condoms. Great plan if your objective is to overthrow a nation.

Censored by Laurie · June 3, 2009

Stone v. Graham, 1980
United States Supreme Court
This case occurred 17 years after "VOLUNTARY" Bible reading had been banned in schools.
The court pointed out the problem with displaying the 10 Commandments:
"If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the school children to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments............"
So, lets change the meaning of the Constitution, kick Christ out of our schools, teach evolution and give the kids condoms. Great plan if your objective is to overthrow a nation.

Posting the dissenting opinion of a Supreme Court case doesn't really qualify as the conclusion of the court in a court case that stated the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment was being violated by the REQUIRED posting of the 10 commandments in Kentucky Schools.

So it kinda upheld the meaning of the constitution.

Christ has no place in secular schools.

Probably shouldn't teach gravity either.

Condoms would probably cut down on abortions...thought you'd be on board with that.

And if I were trying to over-throw a nation I'd ban condoms...better chance of producing more proletariat for my revolution.

hickoryhouse · June 3, 2009

"To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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, & 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802."

As far as I know this is the first mention of separation of church and state in any context, from any one having anything to do with our government.

DeepGreen · June 3, 2009

Don't want the 10 commandments in our schools... or any religion is school.
Religion should be taught at home and church.

Then why do we build "muslim" feet washing facilities at state colleges in Michigan and elsewhere. Are the muslims imune?

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

So, lets change the meaning of the Constitution, kick Christ out of our schools, teach evolution and give the kids condoms. Great plan if your objective is to overthrow a nation.

Well, I think we should kick all religion out of schools, I think we should teach evolution (science in school!), and we should make condoms available to teenagers. I don't think any of these endanger the country.

hickoryhouse · June 3, 2009

I don't know how i feel abou t the evolution thing, I don't buy into the whole creationism thing, but the theory of evolution is still a theory. If it is presented as such then awesome.

I honestly don't see how evolution and religion cannot coexist anyway. one is not exclusive of the other.

As far as condoms in school goes, It would be better if kids practiced abstinence but anyone who pays even a little bit of attention knows that is not a reality in this society. If you want your kids to grow up and not have sex until marriage, then teach them that. That is not the school's job.

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

...but the theory of evolution is still a theory. If it is presented as such then awesome.

Should the Theory of Gravity be held to such a standard? It is "still a theory."

Let's be clear, "theory" does not make something less of a fact. Evolution is a fact, just like gravity. The "theory" part is the mechanics of the explanation of the fact. Apples didn't suspend in the air when Einstein's Theory of Gravity replaced Newton's.

hickoryhouse · June 3, 2009

I guess the difference would be that when I drop an apple I see it fall. The same cannot be said of evolution. We can see where we think that species have adapted and evolved, but the ability to watch it unfold before you is not the same between the two.

June 3, 2009

Then why do we build "muslim" feet washing facilities at state colleges in Michigan and elsewhere. Are the muslims imune?

You think feet washing is "teaching" a religion?

June 3, 2009

I guess the difference would be that when I drop an apple I see it fall. The same cannot be said of evolution. We can see where we think that species have adapted and evolved, but the ability to watch it unfold before you is not the same between the two.

Then, let's change CBL's statement. Let's not teach Electricity and Magnetism in public schools. Circuit design should not exist... You can't really see what is going on, we only have theories and predict what is happening on those theories.

Mean Green 93-98 · June 3, 2009

Should the Theory of Gravity be held to such a standard? It is "still a theory."
Let's be clear, "theory" does not make something less of a fact. Evolution is a fact, just like gravity. The "theory" part is the mechanics of the explanation of the fact. Apples didn't suspend in the air when Einstein's Theory of Gravity replaced Newton's.

No, it's the Law of Gravity that is fact. There is theory behind that law to explain the "how" and "why" of gravity, which may or may not be correct--this is why it's still theory. If you remember your 8th grade science, you start out with a hypothesis, when observation confirms it it becomes a theory, and when it is shown to be incontrovertibly true it is a law. And technically, evolution is not even a theory because it has never been observed--it still remains a hypothesis.

Mean Green 93-98 · June 3, 2009

And by the way, America's public schools began for the primary intent of maintaining a Bible-literate populace.

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

No, it's the Law of Gravity that is fact. There is theory behind that law to explain the "how" and "why" of gravity, which may or may not be correct--this is why it's still theory. If you remember your 8th grade science, you start out with a hypothesis, when observation confirms it it becomes a theory, and when it is shown to be incontrovertibly true it is a law. And technically, evolution is not even a theory because it has never been observed--it still remains a hypothesis.

Laws are verbal or mathematical statements that are always true under specific conditions. There are very few scientific laws, and a hell of a lot of theories.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:

F=Gm₁m₂/d²

Then Einstein came along and threw relativity into the mix.

Gravity was a fact before Newton or Einstein came along, it was observable.

We know evolution is a fact because it has been observed, and predictions made about future observations (fossils that would be found, changes in genetic code) have been verified.

KRAM1 · June 3, 2009

Our founding fathers were worried about the establishment of a "state religion"...such as The Church of England. They would (probably are) be laughing and turning over in their graves with all the discussion and misinformation there is on this issue today.

meangreendork · June 3, 2009

When religion is given governing powers, the results are often negative. You see abuses of authority, malformed laws, and corruption all thinly veiled under faith and morality. It twists and polarizes those in that particular country, and in some cases, ended with the loss of life. All of this happening through whatever religious figure(s) and group(s), manipulating faith for what often is personal gain. You can fool the masses when you tell them you're a direct voice of God/Allah/Vishnu/Galactic Hamster.

When governing powers are given religious authority, you see almost the same thing. And it's often for the same purpose. Again, it's rather easy to manipulate the people if they think you're under a god-to-government mandate from God/Allah/Vishnu/Galactic Hamster.

UNTLifer · June 3, 2009

We know evolution is a fact because it has been observed, and predictions made about future observations (fossils that would be found, changes in genetic code) have been verified.

When you state evolution is fact, are you referring to evolution as humans evolving from apes, etc..., or evolution/adaption to environmental change in a species?

Where are the transitional fossils that support a change from ape to human or fish to land creature, etc..?

Edited June 3, 2009 by UNTLifer

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

When you state evolution is fact, are you referring to evolution as humans evolving from apes

There is no such theory. Humans and modern apes both descended from a common ancestor, oneline diverging into hominids and humans, the other into apes, monkeys, and chimps.

UNTLifer · June 3, 2009

There is no such theory. Humans and modern apes both descended from a common ancestor, oneline diverging into hominids and humans, the other into apes, monkeys, and chimps.

Okay, then where are the fossil records to support this?

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

Okay, then where are the fossil records to support this?

hickoryhouse · June 3, 2009

June 3, 2009

There is no such theory. Humans and modern apes both descended from a common ancestor, oneline diverging into hominids and humans, the other into apes, monkeys, and chimps.

And you have scientific proof of that?

All of the evidence that can supposedly back evolution can be displayed on a kitchen table. Was this a perfect evolution or were there mutants? If so, where are their remains (fossils)?

While I agree that religion should not be taught in schools, neither should evolution. I think that one could make a case that forcing a contrary view also violates the free exercise of religion. The only compromise in my opinion is to teach neither.