Separation of Church and State

tress: not meaning to obfuscate this issue but there is enough historical documentation to arrive at any interpetation one may be looking for.

An unscholarly beginning:

My understanding* is that there was no uniformity of belief among the framers whose primary concern was to avoid the primacy of one or several religions or collaboration between state and religion. I believe that the bottom line was that the state should not act through (promote the agenda of) any religion. The state may not punish a citizen for a religious disbelief or belief, but only for an act which breaks secular law. Secular law trumps religious law. Religious institutions may take political stands but not act with and through the government.

*With no Federalist Papers in front of me and only distant memory coming from pretty close study in school and college... However, I am proud of an ancestor whose life (and hanging) illustrates the intolerance which forms the background of the framers' experience ["Historians credit her death with establishing the basis for religious freedom subsequently granted in our Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. A statue of her stands in front of the State House in Boston." http://www.gis.net/~mtf/dyer.html " and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/2822/marydyer.

And not meaning to be contentious, Dys, but I think it is more accurate to say that there's enough creativity out there to allow one to interpret the available historical documentation in such a way as to arrive at the desired conclusion. :wink:

I happen to believe that an intelligent and fruitful discussion of this issue is possible between open-minded individuals, and that such a discussion will necessarily stray into the fundamental question of what exactly original intent is and how we determine what it is on a specific constitutional issue. (I also happen to believe that this can be ascertained and agreed upon; the only bar to doing so being an intractable allegiance to one's own preconceptions.)

But I'd like to sit back and let this unfold a bit more before I wade in too deeply. I already know what I think. I'd like to get a "bead" on what others think first, if I may.

Tres
I seems to me we have had this discussion before. Since I know what your stand will be, first amendment does not call for separation of church and state and mine is that is the interpretation attributed to it I will just be a spectator.

It comes down to what seems closest to the intent of framers who looked for a balance of civility, law and freedom in a time very different from ours. In our time, the influence of religion has not been noted for its contribution to civility and freedom. It has made every effort to affect laws. We're living at a time when religion shouts loudly and rudely and daily. Instead of defending freedom and the rule of law, I'd be interested in hearing from those who are NOT supportive of separation. I'd like to know what good they believe has come from the intrusion -- or partnership -- of religious institutions with government.

Glad to have you involved in any way you deem appropriate!

- TW

To put this discussion in an historical context, i offer the following: During the civil war between Charles I of England and the Long Parliament, leaders like Oliver Cromwell mobilized the "dissenters" (i.e., Protestants who were not members of the established Church of England) to provide the "christian soldiers" with which the Major Generals eventually defeated the King. In 1649, they appointed Agitators (their word, capitalization included), to demand a written constitution and a bill of citizens' rights, to include religious toleration. Cromwell and company asked them to divide into three groups, so that the discussions would be more manageable. The Agitators were sufficiently naive to comply, and so were easily rounded up, by a leadership who had no intention of giving in to such a demand. Shortly thereafter, Colonel Pride and his troopers stood at the entrance to Parliament, looking for those who were not "politically correct" in terms of the avowal of religious belief--in this case, they were mostly on the look out for Presbyterians. This was a wide open time in terms of social and religious thought, a time when George Fox established the Society of Friends (Quakers), and a time when the Puritans, who had sought to reform the Church of England along the lines of the teachings of John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Church, had begun to fragment: some believing in a rule by a hierarchy of elders (Presbyters) of the congregation, a majority in Scotland, eventually established the Presbyterian Chruch; others believed that only "mechanic" preachers should teach (by mechanic, they meant someone working to get his daily bread in the sweat of his brow, as the rest of the congregation did)--these people eventually gave rise to the social movements known as the Diggers and the Levellers; some believed that each congregation should govern itself--in England they became known as Independents, in America, they became known as Congregationalists. This period was crucial to the formation of beliefs in social systems and governments in England, and, by extension, in America. Many of those who were dissatisfied with the settlement of "the vexed question of religion" in England went to North America. Even prior to the civil wars in England, Puritans worried about the trend of Charles I to enforce the dictates of the established church had sent John Winthrop to Massachusetts to be the Governor of their "godly republic" in the wilderness. Those who dissented within that colony were driven out, Roger Williams being the most notable, and both dissent and settlement spread throughout New England and the middle Atlantic region as a result. The restoration of Charles II in 1660, followed by the deposition of his brother James II in 1688 finally resulted in the firm establishment of the Church of England in that country. (For a thorough description of the upheaval this period represented to the most of the population in England, see The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution, by Christopher Hill. For the attempt at the foundation of a "godly republic" in New England, see John Winthrop and the Puritan Dilemma, which i believe was written by Morgan Sears, but i don't have the reference with me.)

In America, in the early 1700's, there was a revival of fundamental religious fervor known as "the Great Awakening." Preachers (nominally "low church" in the establishment) in England had been introducing "the New Light," and the movement, although it gave rise to John Wesley, and eventually Methodism, was pretty quickly quashed there. But not before it had transferred to our shores. Here, the "Old Light" believers quickly took steps to drive out or silence "New Light" preachers, and to scatter their congregations, if they would not return and adhere to the old principles. The most notorious example of this took place in Connecticutt. There arose thereafter, althought the phenomenon was largely confined to New England (and to a lesser extent, New York and Pennsylvania), a deep and abiding mistrust of government enlisted to enforce religious orthodoxy, and a mistrust of the religious attempting to control government. (There are so many references for this, i'll leave it up to the reader--the religious significance of this period in American history has been blown out of all proportion to the numbers of Americans actually involved--hence the thousands of works, or passages in works, which you will be able to find. Not at all surprising, however, is the scant amount of research done on the political side of this conflict.)

Based on my reading in these subjects, i have not the least doubt that the American population at the end of the 18th century wanted to see a complete separation of church and state--and i rcognize that there are those who will dispute this hotly. The constitution was accepted rather reluctantly because it included no bill of rights. Frederick Augustus Muhlenburg, first Speaker of the House, and company, in the first Congress, made the formulation of such a bill of rights their first priority. The amendment we know as the first amendment was the third proposed amendment to be formulated. It became the first amendment, however, because it addressed the issues of no establishment, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of assembly--it was ratified pretty damned quickly. The historical events of which i have written were well known to the Americans of two hundred years ago--another reason i am convinced that the intention of the first amendment was to assure complete separation of church and state.

What it comes down to is how the Courts ( especially the Sup. CT) interpret the first amendment.

I am not among them, though I suspect we could have a spirited discussion regarding what exactly the phrase "separation of church and state" meant at that time.

Looking at the Federalist Papers and other historical documents it is clear to me that this phrase was used exclusively and specifically to mean preventing the government from embracing one specific denomination of Christianity. While many of these documents--representing the personal opinions of individuals--are at odds one with the other, in several cases you can find our founding fathers writing of the importance of a close association between the federal government and Christianity simultaneously with* expressing their support for a separation of church and state. (Most often they write in terms of the 'establishment' of a religion.

That written, I have also come across numerous passages that can be interpreted to support an absolute ban on government associating with religion, such as the following:




(By the way, in case anyone missed it, that was me offering a citation that disagrees with my position.)

*(within the same text)

I think that Paine's passage was likely inspired by that suspicion of establishment "bred in the bone" in many of the people of the English-speaking world in the 17th and 18th centuries. It is impossible to say at this distance precisely what was meant. It is worth noting that we are on shakey ground attempting to determine what was meant by "the framers," as this amendement was a product of the First Congress, and not the Constitutional Convention.

This is rather an idle passtime here, not that i mind . . .

Absolutely true, though I was looking to establish what a person of that time took the concept of separating church and state to mean. My position is that this was meant to mean disallowing the establishment of a specific religion as the official religion of the government, rather than a blanket bar to any relationship between government and all religions.

It seems to me that the "separation of Church and State" means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, and with this administration and this Supreme Court, I am very afraid for the country I love.

Hi nelsonn, and welcome to A2K. You might be interested in this thread:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3817&highlight=

I can't help thinking that a big part of the problem in understanding this issue is that so many people have had it drilled into their heads for years that there's this mythical absolute barrier between church and state in the Constitution somewhere, and trying to just get them to THINK about this question is like getting someone in 1600 to question whether the Sun orbited the Earth. (Of course it did!)

This is NOT to say that those supporting the "absolute" separation concept are necessarily wrong, just that I get the impression time and again that they believe this because they were told to believe it, not because they've ever considered alternative points of view and ruled them out.

I think this is at least a part of the issue overall. There was certianly concern expressed with both the influence of religion on government and the interference of government on religion when the country was founded but there does seem to have been a shift to the wall being an absolute in both directions.

I've looked for most of the evening thusfar and can't find any document that indictaes that was ever the intention of that participated in the writing or passage of the Constitution, the 1st Amendment or any of the subsequent Supreme Court rulings on the issue.

This very issue has been broached by the USSC on a few occassions and all have said the same thing in response: "The purposes of the First Amendment guarantees relating to religion were twofold: to foreclose state interference with the practice of religious faiths, and to foreclose the establishment of a state religion familiar in other 18th-century systems. Religion and government, each insulated from the other, could then coexist. Jefferson's idea of a "wall," see Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), quoting reply from Thomas Jefferson to an address by a committee of [459 U.S. 116, 123] the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802), reprinted in 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861), was a useful figurative illustration to emphasize the concept of separateness. Some limited and incidental entanglement between church and state authority is inevitable in a complex modern society..." (This quote was from LARKIN v. GRENDEL'S DEN, INC (1982))

There are other references of course but the basic premise has been maintained throughout the 100 year period these cases have come to the court. There is a seperation but it isn't absolute.

i grew up in a muslim nation that (at the time) was moderately tolerant of other religions. the idea expressed was that if you did not confront Islam, Islam would not confront you. When i came home to the U.S. i supposed it would be free of the kind of restricitions i had seen in the muslim country. I was wrong. The U.S. is tolerant of non-christians in nearly the same fashion as the nation i had come from. what i encounter here was that i would be tolerated as a non-christian but certainly not accepted. the american society is drenched in christianity that openly speaks of religious freedom but only for the multitudes of christain varieties be they mormon, baptist, catholic, or quaker. the remainder of us non-christians had best learn to, ever so politely, defer our beliefs.

fishin' - Thanks for so eloquently putting forth the argument I so miserably failed to make.

dys - Is it the US--the government--that you found to be intolerant of other religions, or the American people?

its assumed that in america the govenment is the people.