“Separation of Church and State”; Is It In The Constitution?

Posted by in History | 5 comments

By Matthew Desmond
AddictingInfo.Org

The separation of church and state is an issue that is widely debated throughout America. I chose this topic for my first post (I’m not sure if I should call it a blog, or article or something else) is because this is something I believe in very strongly. The marriage of religion to politics is something I believe our Founding Fathers were firmly against. Each of my posts on this site will include a quote or two from the Founding Fathers that I think accurately conveys how they felt about religion and politics.

I would like to state first and foremost that the term “separation of church and state” is not in the constitution, but it is clear, from the Constitution, that the Founders wanted to keep religion and politics separate. In Article IV of the Constitution it states “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This states clearly that religious beliefs should have no bearing on whether someone is fit to hold public office, or to earn the trust of the public.

In Amendment I of the constitution it states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” Taken out of context it’s very easy for people that don’t believe in a separation of church and state to say that this does not clearly state that there should be a separation of church and state. This is incorrect, while the term “separation of church and state was not specifically used in the Amendment, in 1802 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church that said, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

It’s pretty clear just from those 2 sentences that the Founding Fathers didn’t want someone’s worth or ability to hold office to be determined by their religious affiliation. It’s also clear that they didn’t want religion and politics to become intertwined, and that no law should dictate whether or not someone has to have a religious affiliation.

The words “separation of church and state” might not be directly in the constitution, that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t The Founders intentions. Using their own words at the end of each of my editorials I will show you that they thought religion had no place in politics.

“Strongly guarded is the separation between religion and government in
the Constitution of the United States.” – James Madison

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Thomas cooper 1814

  • JAFisher44

    The problem is that no matter how obvious it should be, up and coming theocrats will just put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes really tight and go, "LALALALALALALALALA…I can't see it…LALALALALALALALALA…it's not there!"

    Sigh. I despair for mankind :(

  • Mac

    I'd like to caution people about sanctifying the founders and/or their intentions re: the constitution. Those men were human, acted largely in self-interest and were not always wise, tolerant, "good" (whatever that means) or even necessarily nice.

    That being said, the only completely accurate statement about what they meant re: the constitution is that they did provide for changes to it.

    The entire opinion at the following link is well worth reading; especially the history which led to the establishment clause.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?…

    "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164."

    This is the law regardless (and I can't emphasize this enough) of the founders' intentions. Arguing about what they meant or didn't mean is an exercise in irrelevancy.

  • Bryan Trim

    The problem is…we are having a tax levied on us to support churches. Rather, churches are given tax exemptions, which then takes monies away from the tax base of the area where the church is. Now, for you run of the mill small church, this is not a big deal. For your multimillion or BILLION dollar megachurches, such as the ones who dot Dallas, TX or have huge radio and television "ministries" this money is considerable indeed.

  • Mac

    @Bryan: "Rather, churches are given tax exemptions, which then takes monies away from the tax base of the area where the church is."

    True, but short of catching their leaders out for dipping the till,how would you sort them out from other definitionally non-profit charities without requiring *all* of them to pay taxes?

  • Adam

    The way we tax (or don't tax) the church and it's staff isn't constitutional. The church, maybe, but we also let their ministers claim their rent/mortgage as 100% tax deductible income… so they don't pay an tax on the money they use for housing. Other non-profit 501C3s don't get this same exemption. That right their is a statute giving preferential treatment to churches.

    Check out the Freedom From Religion Foundation. I got to hear the president, Dan Barker, speak this weekend. They are currently fighting the "National Day of Prayer" which congress enacted in the 50's requiring the president to declare a National Day of Prayer each year. That is easily a situation violating the constitution. They clearly enacted a law making an establishment of religion. They won the first time, but now the Federal Lawyers are appealing it in a superior court in Chicago. Hearings start on December 2nd.