Perhaps the most ignored and misunderstood part of the 1st Amendment, even the whole damn Constitution. This concept derives from the establishment and free exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment.
The government CANNOT give preference to any religion, yet we still have "in God We Trust" on our currency, "One nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, and legal marriage rights are dictated by the Church.
There may be no restrictions on religion.... well almost. Numerous Supreme Court cases have allowed for some restrictions (no polygamy for mormons, no peyote use for some native american religions, and no animal sacrifices for some religions, i guess) but these restrictions are for EVERYONE, not just against a particular group (so it's technically not discrimination).
Essentially, people are free to BELIEVE what they want (even if they aren't allowed to PRACTICE their beliefs in some cases) and people are free FROM religion.
The government CANNOT give preference to any religion, yet we still have "in God We Trust" on our currency, "One nation under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance, and legal marriage rights are dictated by the Church.
There may be no restrictions on religion.... well almost. Numerous Supreme Court cases have allowed for some restrictions (no polygamy for mormons, no peyote use for some native american religions, and no animal sacrifices for some religions, i guess) but these restrictions are for EVERYONE, not just against a particular group (so it's technically not discrimination).
Essentially, people are free to BELIEVE what they want (even if they aren't allowed to PRACTICE their beliefs in some cases) and people are free FROM religion.
Thank God (Ironic? I think not) that there is such a thing as Separation of Church and State. Imagine being forced to believe a certain way or being punished by law for believing something.
Marriage is both a legal and religious institution. WTF? Don't we have separation of church and state?
Guess what? I believe that a giant spaghetti monster sits on a throne of meatballs and laughs at all of humanity's follies. I can believe what I want.
Marriage is both a legal and religious institution. WTF? Don't we have separation of church and state?
Guess what? I believe that a giant spaghetti monster sits on a throne of meatballs and laughs at all of humanity's follies. I can believe what I want.
by AnySensiblePerson September 15, 2009
An important part of the Constitution that isn't literally written in said document. It's implied, under the reasoning that since we have freedom of religion, any leaning on the government's part toward any one religion would force everyone to only be a part of that religion, and violate their constitutional rights.
by DarkMillennia September 5, 2003
by pseudonym March 19, 2005
For all of you conservatives who still use that lame argument that the exact phrase "separation of church and state" must be present in the Constitution in order for the principle in and of itself to exist, I guess at the same token we don't have the "right to a fair trial." Neither do we have the "right to free speech." Oh, and forget about the "right to warranted search and seizures." That said, it simpy DOESN’T MATTER if the EXACT phrase “separation of church and state” appears in the Constitution or not. Separation of church and state is IMPLIED -- and one doesn’t even have to look in the First Amendment for it (I’m not even addressing precedent either here, i.e. Lemon vs. Kurtzman).
Please refer to Article VI, Section III of the unamended Constitution: “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Joseph Story comments:
Please refer to Article VI, Section III of the unamended Constitution: “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Joseph Story comments:
“The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object: to cut off forever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility.”
From: COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833)
pg 705)
From: COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833)
pg 705)
by zyx August 20, 2005
Originally cited in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, this small footnote in history was used by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v Board of Education (1947) to justify that:
"(New Jersey) Cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. While we do not mean to intimate that a state could not provide transportation only to children attending public schools, we must be careful, in protecting the citizens of New Jersey against state-established chirches, to be sure that we do not inadvertently prohibit New Jersey from extending its general state law benefits to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief."
(From Black's Majority Opinion).
However, according to his biographer Roger K. Newman, Black wrote this opinion not to protect the use of public funds so much as to undercut the true meaning of the religion clauses within the constitution. It is also possible that, as a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, Black had a fear of Catholic influence within the United States and taylored his decision to prevent any further Catholics from influencing the course of the country.
The original meaning of the religious clause of the constitution was such that the United States federal government would not set up a church such that all citizens were required to be a follower or in essence be treated as a second class citizen (it should be noted, however, that at the time of the Bill of Rights some states did have individual state religions). Now, the meaning of the religious clause has been destorted such that the people do not have a freedom to practice their religion but have an imagined freedom from being exposed to anyone else's religion. It is especially shown where persons of a Christian upbringing voice opposition to abortion or gay marriage, with the 'sepertation of church and state' group shouting that an elected individual should leave any sort of religious upbringing they had at home and make decisions with a complete lack of religious influence at all.
Furthermore, the appointment of officials such as John Roberts to the Supreme Court has shown that religious litmus tests have become more important than the candidates actual qualifications. This act of testing a candidate or appointee for their religious belief is a much more direct violation of the constitution than the imagined 'Seperation of Church and State' freedom. Article VI, clause 3 of the constitution specifically states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; _but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States._
"(New Jersey) Cannot exclude individual Catholics, Lutherans, Mohammedans, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Non-believers, Presbyterians, or the members of any other faith, because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation. While we do not mean to intimate that a state could not provide transportation only to children attending public schools, we must be careful, in protecting the citizens of New Jersey against state-established chirches, to be sure that we do not inadvertently prohibit New Jersey from extending its general state law benefits to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief."
(From Black's Majority Opinion).
However, according to his biographer Roger K. Newman, Black wrote this opinion not to protect the use of public funds so much as to undercut the true meaning of the religion clauses within the constitution. It is also possible that, as a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, Black had a fear of Catholic influence within the United States and taylored his decision to prevent any further Catholics from influencing the course of the country.
The original meaning of the religious clause of the constitution was such that the United States federal government would not set up a church such that all citizens were required to be a follower or in essence be treated as a second class citizen (it should be noted, however, that at the time of the Bill of Rights some states did have individual state religions). Now, the meaning of the religious clause has been destorted such that the people do not have a freedom to practice their religion but have an imagined freedom from being exposed to anyone else's religion. It is especially shown where persons of a Christian upbringing voice opposition to abortion or gay marriage, with the 'sepertation of church and state' group shouting that an elected individual should leave any sort of religious upbringing they had at home and make decisions with a complete lack of religious influence at all.
Furthermore, the appointment of officials such as John Roberts to the Supreme Court has shown that religious litmus tests have become more important than the candidates actual qualifications. This act of testing a candidate or appointee for their religious belief is a much more direct violation of the constitution than the imagined 'Seperation of Church and State' freedom. Article VI, clause 3 of the constitution specifically states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; _but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States._
I'll give anyone $1000 if they can show me where "Seperation of Church and State" is written in the constitution.
Dunce: There's no Seperation of Church and State in this country anymore.
Dr. Levin: So how WAS church this past weekend?
Dunce: I don't go to church. I'm agnostic.
Levin: And you still have your job, and are allowed to participate in elections and such like that, dispite being agnostic?
Dunce: Yeah, what's your point?
Levin: Point is there is no established religion in this country. NOW GET OFF THE PHONE YA BIG JERK!
Dunce: There's no Seperation of Church and State in this country anymore.
Dr. Levin: So how WAS church this past weekend?
Dunce: I don't go to church. I'm agnostic.
Levin: And you still have your job, and are allowed to participate in elections and such like that, dispite being agnostic?
Dunce: Yeah, what's your point?
Levin: Point is there is no established religion in this country. NOW GET OFF THE PHONE YA BIG JERK!
by Sutsu August 10, 2005
The division of biased religious perspective from a government catering to all beliefs. This is contradicted in Bush's ban on abortion for everyone of every religion in the United States that derives from his christian beliefs.
For all to be equal and happy in a democratic system, we must have separation of Church and State in the government
by Alex December 10, 2004
A person (in most cases a supporter of the Religious Right) who intentionally ignores the 1st amendment to advanced a certain religious groups moral agenda over another. Ignore the fact the 1st amendment clearly states that the U.S. can not endorse religion.
Clearly some one who cherry-picks the Constitution without any respect for the constitution as a whole.
These type of people tend to support or smpythise with Social Authoritarian(a.k.a. Radical Social Conservatives)
People who can't fully be trust with the reigns of Government.
Clearly some one who cherry-picks the Constitution without any respect for the constitution as a whole.
These type of people tend to support or smpythise with Social Authoritarian(a.k.a. Radical Social Conservatives)
People who can't fully be trust with the reigns of Government.
Mike Huckabee is Separation of Church and State Denier
by Bob_the_Patriot January 15, 2008