Because of a certain district court ruling, I have traded arguments with several people regarding ‘separation of church and state’, a phrase that many people use without fully understanding (myself included, of course). One coworker declared this concept a ‘lie’ and a ‘myth’, saying that those words appear nowhere in the Constitution or any piece of legislature.
Well, sure, the exact phrase isn’t used, but isn’t it strongly implied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’)? I thought a law dictionary would clear things up, but the one I found offered only more ambiguity. There was no definition of ‘respect’ or ‘respecting’ and several meanings for ‘establishment’. One meaning was ‘the act of establishing’, in which case the clause would prohibit the government only from creating a religion. However, the dictionary listed the primary meaning as ‘something established (as)’. Using this definition, the clause would have a much broader meaning, barring the state from passing laws that respect any religion.
So, what do ‘respecting’ and ‘establishment’ mean in this context, and does the clause establish ‘separation of church and state’, whatever that is?
I just shot this one out to the SD staff, but I’m eager to hear the opinion of the Millions. Any Teeming lawyers in the house?
Oops. I see now I should have posted this to Great Debates.
The expression “separation of church and state” was introduced by Thomas Jefferson, who used it to reassure Baptist clergy, who feared that Congregationalism was about to become the state religion.
“Respecting an establishment of religion,” as I understand it, means “about establishing religion”; i.e., Congress can’t create a state religion. Combined with “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the language is meant to prevent Congress from interfering with the religious life of Americans.
Things have gotten complicated today because the founding fathers saw this language as protecting the various Christian sects, and maybe a few Jews; it was not foreseen that Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, and Satanists would live in the US in large numbers, and all claim equal protection under the First Amendment, demanding that Congress not only refrain from sectarian legislation, but from any legislative action that assumes the truth of ANY religious fact.
Whether or not Mr. Jefferson and his pals would see today’s policy as a proper application of their rhetoric is arguable; I do think, however, that had they foreseen today’s situation, they would have been a little more specific. I don’t know if that would be a good thing or not.
You can add to all that the question of whether in interpreting the Constitution we should be limited to their literal meaning as would be understood by the founders themselves (after having read their minds, of course).
I’m sure there will be many who will jump in with specific citations and quotes, but to put it generally, courts have recognised a concept of separation of church and state inherent in the Constitution.
There are those who will say that this deduction is in error.
It seems to me that a strict separation of religion and government is not only good for government, it’s also good for religion.
Or, as Mr. McCabe, my 11th grade history teacher used to say, “I can’t wait until they bring back prayer in schools, because the next day I’m bringing in my prayer rug and we’re all facing Mecca!” I half wished it would have happened, just to see the look on the faces of those god-botherers.
No problem.
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - General Questions Moderator