There is nothing and I repeat nothing in the Constitution that seperates cuhrch and state and our country was not founded on that principle all you have to do is look it up

The First Amendment doesn't exist, according to heelsluva. Nor does the "no religious test" clause. We're just imagining those.

OK Heels,

I'm from Missouri. Show Me.

The current, modern concept of "separation of church and state" originated from an opinion by a lesser known Justice in a USSC decision in the late 40's or early 50's.

The concept was originated by Thomas Jefferson, Hugh.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

The exact words "Separation of Chruch and State" may not be found in the US Constitution, but any reference to a constitution power for a "Union of Church and State cannot be found as well.

Some comments on the issue from the "Father of the Constitution" James Madison:

"There is not a shadow of right in the general government [US Constitution] to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state." James Madison, Virgina ratifying convention of US Constitution June 12, 1788.

"Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect--Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony, and most favorable to the advancement of truth." Letter to Dr. De La Motta, August 1820

"in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Govt. & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst. And in a Govt. of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance."

"We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." James Madison letter to Edward Livingston 10 July 1822

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinance of the Govt. from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others." James Madison letter to Rev. Jasper Adams 1832

Here is the First Amendment, commonly called the establishment clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here is the Danbury Baptist Association's Letter to Thomas Jefferson:

http://www.reformedreader.org/dbc.htm

Here is Jefferson's original draft of the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

Here is his final draft:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Finally, here is an audio interview with a historian concerning the letter, cultural and political background,etc. on today's Truths That Transform broadcast:

http://www.truthsthattransform.org/

Should the Supreme court be able to cite a letter from a President and take a phrase out of it and make it the law of the land? If so, could they then be justified in taking a phrase from a letter from Bill Clinton to Monica Lewinsky and make it the law of the land?

"modern concept" is the one where every little facet of faith is removed from public property by judicial decree. This did not begin until sometime in the 1950's and became a regular weapon used by the anti-God folks after the 1960's USSC decision that removed prayer from public schools. The most recent assine use of this interpretation is the lawsuit against Los Angles County to remove a cross from their official seal....but it's ok to keep the an American Indian Earth Goddess on the seal. Political correctness run amuck.

Based on the prior history our founding fathers lived and witnessed it is my understanding that their were concerned with a separation between church law and "laws of man".

"Should the Supreme court be able to cite a letter from a President and take a phrase out of it and make it the law of the land?"

I think that what has happened is that the name of the concept has been taken from the letter. The concept itself has been consistently used in court cases. I would hazard a guess that it is a dearth of lawsuits up to the last 50 or so years that made it look as though there was no separation.

I'm not sure I've ever encountered any case where the Danbury letter was used to establish any judicial precedent. Do you have a citation for this complaint?

I see no point in taking ANY oath before testifying in court. It means nothing to a liar and a truly honest person will not lie regardless of an oath or not.

Eric, the case commonly cited is Everson v. Board of Education. See website below and see for yourself.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/everson.html

ECUMAN, thanks for the link.

I'm wondering, reading this 1947 decision, exactly what use the Justice was making of the quotes from Jefferson and Madison. It looks to me as though he was trying to get a sense of the reasoning behind the creation of the First Amendment. Isn't this what people find most powerful when trying to decide what the Constitution means?

I mean, it sounds to me as if you are saying that to quote Jefferson or Madison is tantamount to twisting the Constitution away from its proper meaning. This is the concept that comes to mind when I hear of judges "creating laws" in their decisions. Is this what you mean to say?

While you are at it, remove Minerva from the UNCG logo.

Just out of curiosity, how many people are out there, claiming that America is a country dedicated to Minerva or to the Earth Mother? Are there really churches out there that are trying to make America a Minerva-based theocracy? That's the first question that pops into my mind when discussing what is appropriate for a government logo.

The point here is that I really don't think there is anyone who thinks Minerva is anything but an ancient symbol for knowledge. I see no church/state issues there. While the Los Angeles logo may be a slightly different matter, I would argue that Minerva is going a bit overboard. At least until the religion of the Greek pantheon makes a serious comeback and reaches for political dominance.

This letter writer makes good sense. I agree.

Yeah, and while we're at it let's remove the all-seeing Eye of God from the Great Seal of the United States!

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Matthew 5:29 KJV)

-- Matt Wallace, aka The Compleat Heretic; that is, an economic and social conservative, Republican, Teamsters union member, moral traditionalist, pro-life, U.S. Army veteran, NRA Benefactor Life Member, Secular Humanist atheist

P.S. I'm a-keepin' Athena's owl as my official web site mascot.

P.P.S. Am I the only UNCG alumnus who's noticed the peculiarity of a university that prominently utilizes images of Minerva/Athena to represent itself, but goes by the nickname "Spartans"?

Eric, Jefferson was not an author of the US Constitution. I don't particularly think his opinion is that relevant in this area. Although, I do feel that those that were closer to the date of the writing and passage of the Constitution should know what is meant by the Establishment clause better than we do today and back in 1947.

I do know that there were worship services held in the halls of Congress on Sundays for many years. So much for the "separation of church and state"! There was public funding of religious education in the schools and the Bible was taught in public schools.

Personally, I think the intent was the Federal Government was not to establish a State Church as the Anglican Church was and is in England. Some states also had State Churches. I think Rhode Island and perhaps Pennsylvania were examples. I think it was presumed that Christianity was to be the religion of the US, but it was not to be forced and a specific denomination was not to be established as the Church of the US. Congress was not supposed to hold a position on infinite baptistism, immersion or sprinkling, etc.

Also, I don't think there is a protection granted against being "offended" by religious displays, etc. People often say if you don't like what is on TV, change the channel. If you want to follw that reasoning, look the other way if you don't like a religious display and move on.

If that was the intent of the First Amendment, then I think the only way to enact a strict separation of church and state would be by another amendment.

"Also, I don't think there is a protection granted against being "offended" by religious displays, etc. People often say if you don't like what is on TV, change the channel. If you want to follw that reasoning, look the other way if you don't like a religious display and move on."

I'm not offended by religious displays. I go to church with my wife every week, and I dare say I listen more attentively to the sermon than many of the Christians that share the pew with me. The pastor is a very good friend, and we talk about religion quite often.

What I'm offended at is having my tax money going to support a religion I don't want to support. Surely you can understand this. You would find it offensive, I expect, if you found that your tax money was being used to support Muslim religious schools.

You mentioned religious services in the same halls as Congress' meeting place on Sundays and you seem to think this means church and state weren't separate... yet I have to ask if Congrssional business was transacted during those church services, or was the building on loan to some congregation until it could build it's own home?

The bottom line here so far as I can see is this: Does any religion need the support of a government? If it does, it must not be able to stand on its own merit. Does your personal religion need the support of the government in order to be meaningful to you? If not, why do you fight against the idea of keeping government out of the religion business altogether?

Eric,

A nation without Christ will become either socialist or communist. You remind me of a dumb blond chick who for the life of her cannot find a single brick in her house and looks at you silly when you explain to her that THAT is what is holding her house up. But then she says,'oh, I hate brick, get rid of it." Uh, but ma'am,we can't, uh....

Another similiar story begins with, there's no God in religion, we can stand on our own, I don't SEE god- he must not exist-- remove him!!

Both are examples of simple, mindless twits.

I can always count on Mike to start the namecalling. Right out of the Karl Rove Playbook.

Eric, I can understand that you don't want to support certain things with your tax dollars that you disagree with? I don't want my tax dollars going to support evolutionary teaching in public schools that is not supported my scientific evidence or has weak support. That teaching also has religious implications. So, I can opt out of paying taxes? Should I sue and hope to get a judge that can agree with me? Should I petition my congressman and senators to change the law? Should I work to change public opinion about evolution, funding for PBS or NPR or others that I sometimes disagree with? Personally, I think too many issues are brought before courts that should be decided by legislatures.

"Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....or the one."

- Spock, Star Trek

Great quote for all of you out there screaming about the Bible being in a court room and the Ten Commandments being on a tablet. I hate to break it to you all, but the more the minority (yes...you are a minority) kick and scream about getting all of this ripped out of the public eye the more of a backlash you create.

So scream away and make idiots of yourselves....you are actually helping me justify why it should stay.... :-)

This is the best yet - hoo boy what a hoot! Tater Christian is using a quote from a TV sci-fi show by a fictioal character to argue his christian point of view. Thanks for laugh Tater.

Don't mention it! haha! I regularly get a laugh out of reading your posts even when you are serious.....

"Should I petition my congressman and senators to change the law?"

Yes, I think that's what the system is meant for.

"Should I work to change public opinion about evolution, funding for PBS or NPR or others that I sometimes disagree with?"

Yes, ours is a nation built on freedom of speech, and the public square is there for everone to voice his/her opinion.

Of course, when it comes to public opinion on evolution, I don't see the point. Science is not democratic. You are aware of that, aren't you?

"Personally, I think too many issues are brought before courts that should be decided by legislatures."

I agree with you there. Courts play a vital role in protecting the weak from the tyranny of the strong, and are meant to ensure that the basic rules of society are followed correctly.

Eric, I don't have a problem with operational science. I do have a problem with philosophical naturalism being forced down my children's throats in the form of macroevolution, especially when the evidence for it is so poor.