Does any one know where the so call seperation of church and state bill is written?
Or if it is even true?
25 comments
The question that Kegman asks here is, in fact, valid. The Constitution makes no *specific* reference to the separation of church and state. The first reference to that notion was in the Federalist papers, I believe.
However, the Supreme Court has upheld the notion of separation of church and state consistently throughout American history, through the mechanism of judicial review.
So... I don't think he's stupid, so much as poorly researched.
Actually it is the bill of rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." This means that the Congress can't adopt a national religon. I don't think it really applies to any decorations, but the idea is that they didn't want the US to become a theocracy.
Kimball - I just thought of this the other day, but the first amendment leaves a MASSIVE loophole.
It says that CONGRESS shall not pass a law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't say anything about the people. Does this mean that, with a referendum, a law could be passed? You know, so long as it didn't touch the hands of Congress?
@Jesse
Well, the constitution was meant to leave alot of it up to the states. Technincally speaking, a state run facility could put up decorations, large stone tablets w/the ten commandments, etc, just as long as it wasn't also against the states constitution and bylaws. However, the Federal government gives money to and supports the state governments, and so, my guess is that all of the states' constitutions have a similar clause, so that they could recieve funding. If they left out one of these seperation clauses and something theistic popped up on state property, or made it so that they had an official religion, the federal government would have no choice but to give the state an ultimatum: either they get rid of the religious stuff, or the federal goevernment could not give them any support as a subordinate state, because that would be an implicit support of that establishment of religion. Basically, the state would effectively be forced out of the country.
@Alex
While you are correct about judicial review, that isn't part of the constitution, the power of judicial review wasn't given to the supreme court until 1803 with the case of Marbury v. Madison.
Doctor X is quite right. Looking at just the founding fathers to determine what the bill of rights means is narrow in light of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment incorporates most of the bill of rights to apply to state and local governments. Over the last 90 years the Supreme Court has applied most of these rights (though not all) to local governments.
In a sense, the founders thoughts on freedom of religion are as relevant as their thoughts on 3/5 of a person. Subsequent amendments have taken precedence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29
The Last Conformist #7416
<< I've always foud the typical American's reverence for the Founding Fathers incomprehensible. >>
--------------------------
Very simply, L.C., the Founding Fathers created a brand-new type of government, at least in terms of its specific form and ideology as well as checks and balances of power.
Of course, being men of their day, they still overlooked some (to us) rather obvious aspects of freedom and equality, such as the full rights of women and black people and the voting rights of all but white male landowners, and some of them had other personal shortcomings (which I do NOT excuse, by the way). However, what they created was a huge step up from a monarchy, and they even had the foresight to build it with development potential -- another unusual concept for the day, I believe.
In addition, most of the major players in that drama were just amazing people in their own right as philosophers, statesmen, and/or even scientists. Their personal achievements were such that many achieved individual fame as lasting legends in American culture, and the fact that there were several of them, acting together, makes the whole situation that much more remarkable.
~David D.G.
(*Slaps Kegman so hard, he, his mother and his high school civics teacher revert back to their pre-fertilised ovum state *)
14th Amendment, and Treaty of Tripoli, bitch!
It really does say so much about a country, when more people outside that country know more about it's history and Constitution than a sizeable proportion of said country's own population.
Isn't it somewhere in the Treaty of Tripoli, among other places?
So who's the American, Kegman? You or me?
Sweden is a much more Christian nation than the US of A. We've had a state church during most of my lifetime (up until 2000), and most Swedes still have to actively leave the Swedish Church if they don't want to be counted as Christians. Before 1996, every born child who had parents who were Christians became a Christian automatically. Me for example, and I haven't left the Church yet, as I like the burial ceremony, and the Swedish Church is much calmer and quieter than the American versions seem to be. They do much good, and televangelism is a rare phenomenon over here.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.