Alright, I thought I might bring this up.

Seperation of the church and state is a constitutional law.

There is a seperation between religion and politics in the First amendment.

Does anyone know the difference between these two?

Does anyone know what this means?

There are several religious issues in the constitution:

Establishment Clause:  The First amendment bars Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

So this means in the most basic terms:  (1) the US government cannot look like it supports any religion (including by how it uses its tax dollars), and (2) it may not make laws prohibiting people from freely exercising their religion.

From there, it gets complicated...

To make this discussion worthy, issues that might come out of this are:

school prayer

use of tax dollars to fund religious private schools

barring certain religious practices (polygamy, peyote use, animal sacrifice, etc.)

clash of laws:  gender discrimination and sexual purity for teacher hiring, for example.

prohibition of clergy participating in political process

And then there are cases about nonprofit activity exemptions for taxes based on the nonprofit religious entities requiring adhesion to its religious codes.

This is inacurate, seperation of church and state is not mentioned in the constitution.  People just sort of accept this lie, they shouldn't.  The whole seperation of church and state was the result of activist judges who took a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote that had no legal authority and desided that there had to be this invisible law of seperation between church and state.  Big lie don't believe it!

As for the establishment clause, it is meant to keep the state from sponsoring religion.  Back when america was made, almost all of the european countries had an 'official' religion, some countries were catholic others lutherian and so on.  The puritians recieved persecution because they believed that the only real authority for spirtual matters was the Bible, not the king of england, this got them chased out of england by the govenment.  The whole point of having an establishment clause is to keep the goverment out of religion, not the other way around.

"Separation of Church and State" IS the first part of the Establishment Clause.  The State must separate itself from appearances that it is supporting religion.

Here's a good discussion:  http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd1.htm

Goes into what Paulos says as well.

Apparently, there is another provision for separation of church and state:



When we study it in law school, though, we look at the Establishment Clause.  The above clause is plain enough.

Sorry heath but this just isn't true.

congress shall make no law establishing religion does not equal there must be an invisible line between church and state.

The argument is very simple and straightforward.  Why am I the only person that is annoyed that 9 people in black robes that are not accountable to the public get to make society changing decisions?
This message was last edited by the player at 07:26, Fri 05 Nov 2004.

You're not the only one.

Currently right now in Canada, there is a big hoopla on homosexual unions, and how it might not even be voted on, but just given to the supreme court.

Does it make sense non elected people are deciding for the people? Do we not elect people to represent us?

Judges are basicly safe in america, they get a lifetime term and the only way to remove them from office is the same procedure that was unsucessfully tried on clinton if I recall correctly.  50% to impeach and 2/3rds to remove from office.

What do you mean it isn't true?  What I'm saying is that what people commonly refer to as "separation of church and state" is based on what is listed in the Establishment Clause.  Do you think they are basing it on something else?

Who said anything about an "invisible line" (I think that's what you're referring to)?  You can't make up phrases and references and then say I'm wrong.

Let me summarize:

(1) There is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution;
(2) What people are primarily thinking of when they say that is the Establishment Clause;
(3) The Establishment Clause is interpreted by three tests:

(a) The law must have a secular legislative purpose;
(b) Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
(c) The statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

(This is the test established by the US Supreme Court in 1971 still in effect.  Not all people agree it is the proper test, but it is currently the controlling one.)

--Believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about on this subject.

What I'm saying is that even the phrase seperation of church and state doesn't come from the law.  It was just jefferson's interpretation of it.  I believe the context of the letter he wrote was to explane why he didn't proclaim a day of fasting like presidents before him did.

(1802 ad)

It's not line sorry wall.  I believe you that you know what you're talking about I just don't agree with you.  I think the supreme court was way off on that ruling.  Hopefully if we get some new justices they can get another shot at a similar case and overturn the previous ruling.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:34, Fri 05 Nov 2004.