Separation of church and state in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The separation of church and state is an important legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The phrase separation of church and state was popularized by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. The phrase itself does not appear in any founding American document, but it has been quoted in opinions by the United States Supreme Court.

Contents 1 Early History 1.1 Jefferson, Madison, and the "wall of separation" 1.2 Patrick Henry, Massachusetts, and Connecticut 1.3 Test Acts 2 Bill of Rights 3 Debate since 1950 4 Supreme Court since 1947 5 Recent Federal court decisions 6 Interpretive controversies 7 Quotes 8 See also 9 References 10 Bibliography 11 External links 11.1 American court battles over separation 11.2 Other

[edit] Early History

In the 17th and 18th centuries, many people had immigrated to the land that would later become the United States. The primary reason for many was the desire to worship freely in their own fashion. These included a large number of nonconformists such as the Puritans and the Pilgrims, as well as Catholics. However, with some exceptions such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn, most of these groups did not believe in religious toleration and in some cases came to America with the explicit aim of setting up a theocratic state compatible with their faith. The Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony were colonies with established churches.

The Dutch colony of the New Netherlands had also established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, although Peter Stuyvesant was instructed, in the last years of that colony, not to enforce this against otherwise peaceful and respectable inhabitants. Here, as in other cases, part of the reason for establishment was financial: the established Church was responsible for what poor relief existed, and dissenting churches would therefore have a significant advantage.

Given the limited variety of religions, nearly all Christian, the diversity of opinion on Christian theological matters was wide. Consequently, the Constitutional Convention believed a Federal sanctioned church would serve to disrupt rather than bind the newly formed union together. Thus, George Washington wrote in 1790 to the country's first Jewish congregation, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island to state:

"All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."^[1]

Furthermore, there were dissidents to the support of any established church even at the state level. In 1773, Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when:

"church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

Most Anglican ministers, and many Anglicans, were Tories. The Anglican establishment, where it had existed, largely ceased to function during the American Revolution; the new States did not formally abolish and replace it until some years after the Revolution.

[edit] Jefferson, Madison, and the "wall of separation"

The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island.^[2] It was popularized by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the Establishment Clause in an 1802 letter^[3] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut). His intention was to assure this religious minority that their rights would be protected from federal interference. The paragraph containing the phrase is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson's letter was in reply to a letter^[4] that he had received from the Danbury Baptist Association dated 1801-10-07. In an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists, Jefferson would use the same theme:

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

Jefferson refused to issue Proclamations of Thanksgiving sent to him by Congress during his presidency, but he did issue issue a Thanksgiving and Prayer proclamation as Governor of Virginia.^[5] Madison issued four religious proclamations while President,^[6] but vetoed two bills on the grounds they violated the first amendment.^[7] On the other hand, both Jefferson and Madison attended religious services at the Capitol.^[8] After retiring from the presidency, Madison argued in his detached memoranda^[9] for a strong separation of church and state. Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights had included provisions binding the States, as well as the Federal Government, from an establishment of religion, but the House did not pass them.

Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction of Christianity, and amounted to governmental rejection of it; but this was a caricature.^[10] when he set up the University of Virginia, he encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, but there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity — his own Statute on Religious Freedom, which he had written to have constitutional force in Virginia.^[11] This arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state".^[12]

The letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court resorted to Jefferson's opinion, as well as Madison's, seeking a legal definition for the word "religion." Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field interpreted Jefferson's intent in the Letter to the Danbury Baptists as being that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."[1] This served as the legal basis for the court's ruling that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.

[edit] Patrick Henry, Massachusetts, and Connecticut

The approach of Jefferson and Madison was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it.

Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that

It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship. (Article II)

but also that:

the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend. (Article III)

Since, in practice, this meant that the decision who was, for example, a Quaker (and taxable for the Quaker meetinghouse), and who was a Congregationalist, rested in the hands of the selectmen, usually Congregationalists, this system was open to abuse. It was abolished in 1833; the intervening period is sometimes referred to as an "establishment of religion" in Massachusetts.

The Duke of York had required that every parish in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church; but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. He also ordained that the tax-payer was free, having paid his local tax, to go to some other church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience; and the Duke was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698; Anglicanism was more popular in New York.^[13]

Connecticut, however, had a real establishment of religion as a State. They did not adopt a constitution at the Revolution; they simply amended their Charter to remove all references to the British Government. As a result, the Congregational Church continued to be established, and Yale College, as a Congregational institution, received grants from the State, until Connecticut did adopt a constitution in 1818, partly because of this issue.

[edit] Test Acts

The absence of an establishment of religion did not necessarily imply that all men were free to hold office; that was not a right. Most colonies had a Test Act; and several states retained them for a short time. The Federal Constitution explicitly prohibits the employment of any religious test for Federal office, and the Fourteenth Amendment extends this to the States.

For example, the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 provides liberty of conscience in much the same language as Massachusetts (and, in the process, forbids payment of "taxes, tithes or other payments" contrary to conscience). It then provides:

That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects. (Article XIX, italics added)

This would permit a Test Act, but did not require one.

The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scotch Catholic peers. An oath had been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope; whether this was exacted during the Revolution was unclear; it was replaced by 1799.

The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 provided:

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.

And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

Again, it provided in general that all tax-paying freemen and their sons shall be able to vote, and that no " man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship."

[edit] Bill of Rights

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Both these clauses, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, are significant.

The First Congress' deliberations show that the First Congress’s understanding of the separation of church and state differed sharply from that of their contemporaries in France who sought to destroy Christianity as a force in society. As 19th-century Union Theological Seminary historian Philip Schaff observed:

“The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself…. The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

^[14]

An August 15, 1789, entry in Madison’s papers indicates he intended for the establishment clause to prevent Congress from requiring Americans to belong to any particular church or religion.

The entry says: “Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience....”[2]

In the 18th century, the phrase "establishment of religion" meant the creation of a state church where attendance would be mandatory, which would be supported by taxation. Unlike, in the post Everson v. Board of Education era, 19th century courts generally interpreted the establishment clause in that manner, as was reflected in law books of that era.^[15]

Some, such as LSU legal scholar John Baker, theorize that Madison’s initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a “national religion”—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general “religion” in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. [3]

Thus, removing the word “national” from the establishment clause was necessary to secure ratification by the states, many of which were wary of having their authority undercut by the federal government.

During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison’s language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty). The question compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.

Following the argument between Madison and Gerry, Rep. Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire proposed language that would have said, “Congress shall make no laws touching religion or the rights of conscience,” which raised uproar from members, such as Rep. Benjamin Huntingdon of Connecticut and Rep. Peter Sylvester of New York. They worried the language could be used to harm religious practice because federal courts might construe the establishment clause in a manner different from Madison’s intent.

Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which Sherman believed made it impossible for Congress to establish a national religion (since doing so was not among its stated powers).

Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions, but the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop it from the amendment.

The Senate went through several more narrowly targeted versions before reaching the contemporary language.

One version read, “Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall freedom of conscience be infringed,” while another read, “Congress shall make no law establishing one particular religious denomination in preference to others.” Ultimately, the Senate rejected the more narrowly targeted language.

At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, many states acted in ways that the separation of church and state would now be held to prohibit. For example, in 1854 the State supreme court of Maine declared that the local school board had the right to expel a 15-year-old girl for refusing to read aloud a portion of the King James translation of the Bible to her class; her family's religion required her to read only the Douay Catholic translation of the Bible.^[16] All of the early official state churches were disestablished by the 1820s, including the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. It is commonly accepted that, under the doctrine of Incorporation - which uses the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the vehicle by which the protections and restrictions of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states - they could not be reestablished today. (Justice Thomas has occasionally made note of a view, held by a small number of constitutional scholars, that the states could still establish official religions today; under this view, the establishment clause cannot be incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, because under its arcane wording, it is a "hands-off" directive aimed solely at Congress. Others take the view that so long as religion is established by the government, "establishment of religion" is "establishment of religion" no matter whether Congress is directly involved.)

Prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, the only mention of religious freedom in the Constitution was a clause forbidding any "religious test" for government officials. This has been called the "no religious test" clause, and is found at the end of Article VI, Section 3 (the final clause of the original Constitution save only for the Ratification Clause stating under what conditions the new Constitution would be deemed to be valid and in effect), which reads in part "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or trust under the United States."

[edit] Debate since 1950

Jeffries and Ryan (2001) argue that the modern Establishment Clause dates from the mid-twentieth century, when the Supreme Court adopted a rhetoric of radical separation of church and state. The central point was a constitutional ban against aid to religious schools. Later, the Court also moved to purge religious observances from public education. These two propositions - that public aid should not go to religious schools and that public schools should not be religious - make up the separationist position of the modern Establishment Clause.

Jeffries and Ryan (2001) also argue that no-aid position drew support from a coalition of separationist opinion. Most important was "the pervasive secularism that came to dominate American public life." That secularism sought to confine religion to a private sphere. Further, the ban against government aid to religious schools was supported before 1970 by most Protestants. The Protestant denominations, churches, and believers vigorously opposed aid to religious schools, which were mostly Catholic at the time. After 1980, however, anti-Catholic has faded, and the crucial coalition of public secularists and Protestant churches has collapsed. While mainline Protestant denominations continue to demand strict separation of church and state, fundamentalist and evangelical opinion has largely deserted that position. Today, fundamentalists and evangelicals have moved from the most uncompromising opponents of aid to parochial schools to its unlikely allies. As a consequence, strict separationism is opposed today by true believers of many faiths, not just Roman Catholics (and a few other sects with a history of religious schools), but also by the nation's largest Protestant denomination (Southern Baptists) and by the great weight of opinion among the variety of churches called fundamentalist and/or evangelical. It should be mentioned that today most Roman Catholics are in favor of the separation of church and state.

[edit] Supreme Court since 1947

The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Everson also was the first case to interpret the Clause as imposing a restraint on the states as well as the federal government, based upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1962, the Supreme Court banned from public schools all public prayers and religious readings done for religious purposes. The Supreme Court continued to allow private prayer. As such, any teacher, faculty, or student can pray in school, in accordance with their own religion. However, they may not lead such prayers in class, or in other "official" school settings such as assemblies or programs. Even "non-sectarian" teacher-led prayers are not allowed, e.g. "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country," which was part of the prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the decision of the Warren Court in Engel v. Vitale.

The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America." [4]

As authorized by state law, the "Almighty God" prayer had followed the teacher-led pledge of allegiance to the flag, which consisted of the following: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The pledge did not contain the words "Under God" until 1954, when Congress added them to the pledge. While the Court banned the "Almighty God" prayer, whose purported purpose was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator," it did not deliberate upon the "Under God" pledge.

Religious expression as part of school concerts or plays was debated before a 1980 court ruling, Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, which was upheld by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling allows religious songs to be performed at school concerts as long as secular songs are also included. So "Silent Night" might be followed by something like "Frosty the Snowman" or "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer."

Currently, the Supreme Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.^[17]

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a California law requiring the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was unconstitutional. Reaction from the Senate was to unanimously pass a bill which reaffirmed their support for the words "under God", and the House also condemned the ruling by a 416-3 vote. [5] [6] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where hearings began in March 2004. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow was overturned by the Supreme Court on Flag Day, June 14, 2004. The Justices, however, did not reach the merits of the case (whether or not the phrase "under God" in a public school setting is unconstitutional). Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, had no standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place, thus vacating the lower court ruling without resolving the constitutional question presented.

When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and evolution equal time in the classroom, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to advance a particular religion, and did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education.^[18] See also, Creation and evolution in public education.

The display of the Ten Commandments as part of courthouse displays was considered in a group of cases decided in summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. While parties on both sides hoped for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test above, the two rulings ended with narrow 5-4 and opposing decisions, with Justice Stephen Breyer the swing vote in each. The contradiction perceived between the two rulings has increased the ambiguous status of such displays.

[edit] Recent Federal court decisions

On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed.^[19] The opinion authored by Judge Richard Fred Suhrheinrich states that

"...the ACLU erroneously–though perhaps intentionally–equates recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow. Cf. Mercer County, 219 F. Supp. 2d at 789 ("Endorsement of religion is a normative concept; whereas acknowledgment of religion is not necessarily a value-laden concept."). Because nothing in the display, its history, or its implementation supports the notion that Mercer County has selectively endorsed the sectarian elements of the first four Commandments, we fail to see why the reasonable person would interpret the presence of the Ten Commandments as part of the larger "Foundations" display as a governmental endorsement of religion. We will not presume endorsement from the mere display of the Ten Commandments. If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation’s cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto. Fortunately, the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff. See Washegesic ex rel. Pensinger v. Bloomingdale Pub. Sch., 33 F.3d 679, 684 (6th Cir. 1994) (Guy, J., concurring) (describing the "eggshell" plaintiff as unknown to the Establishment Clause). Instead, he appreciates the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American legal traditions.^[20]

In its opinion, the court rejected one of the ACLU's fundamental claims in its suits against religious expression in public places, that "recognition [equals] endorsement," and further asserted that if that claim were accepted and followed thoroughly, it would require a massive revision of the entirety of the legal tradition of the United States.

While five members of the circuit filed a strongly worded dissent, the appeal by the ACLU for an en banc rehearing was declined by a majority ruling.^[21]

In ruling on the Mount Soledad Cross Controversy on May 3, 2006, a federal judge ruled that the Mount Soledad cross on public property must be removed within 90 days, or the city of San Diego will be fined $5,000 a day. The U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. declared that "It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this Court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad Cross on City property."^[22]

[edit] Interpretive controversies

Some — especially certain devout Christians — disagree with the notion of "separation of church and state", or the way the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause.

The Founding Fathers did not prohibit religious references in official contexts. The United States Declaration of Independence contains four references to God (although the word only appears once, in the phrase "Nature and Nature's God"). While the Declaration is a rebuke to the notion of a Divine Right of Kings, and while it can be argued that references to God were unavoidable because it is responding to a religious concept, its particular wording seemingly goes further than the minimum required for this, expressing implicit faith in and reliance upon a deity for the justification of the rebellion of the colonies. In contrast, the Constitution — which is the legal framework of the United States — does not refer to any deity (other than referring to its passage by the Constitutional Convention as occurring in the "Year of our Lord 1787").

The "religious test" clause has been interpreted to cover both elected officials and appointed ones, career civil servants as well as political appointees. Religious beliefs or the lack of them have therefore not been permissible tests or qualifications with regard to federal employees since the ratification of the Constitution. Seven states, however, have language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that require state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs. These states are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee.^[23]

The required beliefs include belief in a Supreme Being, and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. (Tennessee constitution Article IX, Section 2 is one such example.) Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God." In some cases these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court. At one time, such restrictions were allowed under the doctrine of states' rights; today they are deemed to be in violation of the federal First Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th amendment, and hence unconstitutional and unenforceable.

While sometimes questioned as possible violations of separation, the appointment of official chaplains for government functions, voluntary prayer meetings at the Department of Justice outside of duty hours, voluntary prayer at meals in U.S. armed forces, inclusion of the (optional) phrase "so help me God" in the oaths for many elected offices, FBI agents, etc., have been held not to violate the First Amendment, since they fall within the realm of free exercise of religion.

Relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges for churches, the tax-free status of church property, the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday, etc., have also been questioned, but have been considered examples of the governmental prerogative in deciding practical and beneficial arrangements for the society. The annual holiday of Thanksgiving, and the national motto "In God We Trust", are violations if strict separation is implied.

[edit] Quotes

• "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were....the general principles of Christianity in which all the sects were united. And the General Principles of English and American liberty. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature." - John Adams
• "Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state'...is absolutely essential in a free society." - Thomas Jefferson
• "Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us." - James Madison
• "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" - James Madison
• "The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." - James Madison
• "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate." - Ulysses S. Grant
• "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - Opening statement of Article XI of The Treaty of Tripoli, approved by President John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate.
• "Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved, I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker, in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." - Thomas Jefferson
• "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson
• "The sanctions of religion compose the foundations of good government; and the ethics, doctrines, and examples furnished by Christianity exhibit the best models for the laws of opinion." - DeWitt Clinton
• "The delusion into which the X.Y.Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion." - Thomas Jefferson, to Benjamin Rush September 23, 1800
• "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." - George Washington (Farewell Address)
• "It is certainly very desirable that a pacific disposition should exist among all nations. The most effective way of producing it is by extending the prevalence and influence of the Gospel. Real Christians will abstain from violating the rights of others, and therefore will not provoke war.

"Almost all nations have peace or war at the will and pleasure of rulers whom they do not elect, and are not always wise or virtuous. Providence has given our nation the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to prefer and select Christian rulers." (Jay, to John Murray, Junior, October 12, 1816; Jay's emphasis. Jay had opposed the War of 1812 and the re-election of James Madison, his fellow Episcopalian.^[24])

[edit] See also

• Separation of church and state
• United States church-state separation case law
• Americans United for Separation of Church and State
• United States religious history
• Christian amendment
• Mount Soledad Cross Controversy
• State religion
• Freedom of Religion in the United States

[edit] References

[edit] Bibliography

• Philip Hamburger, Separation of church and state Harvard University Press, 2002. ISBN: 0674007344 OCLC: 48958015
• Marci A. Hamilton, God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-521-85304-4
• Mark DeWolfe Howe. The Garden and the Wilderness: Religion and Government in American Constitutional History(U. of Chicago Press, 1965)
• Daniel L. Dreisbach. Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State(New York University Press, 2003)
• John C. Jeffries, Jr. and James E. Ryan, "A Political History of the Establishment Clause," 100 Michigan Law Rev. (2001) online version
• Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (Norton, 1996)
• Philip B. Kurland, ed., Church and State: The Supreme Court and the First Amendment (U. of Chicago Press, 1975)
• Adam M. Samaha; "Separation of Church and State." Constitutional Commentary. 19#3 2002. pp 713+. online version
• Anson P. Stokes and Leo Pfeffer, Church and Stare in the United States (reprint, 1964)

[edit] External links

[edit] American court battles over separation

• 1947, first case concerning separation of church and state; supporting busing for children to private religious schools and declaring that states were required to provide the same guarantees of religious freedom as the federal government
• 1948, banning religious instruction in public schools
• 1952, allowing religious instruction off school property during regular school hours
• 1962, banning teacher-led prayer from public schools
• 1963, banning Bible-reading and the recital of the Lord's Prayer in public schools
• 1973, allowing state funding for textbooks and teachers' salaries in religious schools; creating the Lemon test
• 1987, declared the Creation Act invalid, which had mandated the teaching of Creation if Evolution was taught
• 1989, banning religious displays depicting only one religion
• 1992, banning prayers given by clergy as a part of an official public school graduation ceremony.

[edit] Other

• Christian Science Monitor analysis of George Washington's letter and its implications
• "The Intellectual Origins of the Establishment Clause" by Noah Feldman, Asst. Professor of Law, New York University, 2002.
• Unconfirmed Quotations by David Barton, an opponent of separation; some "quotations" which he deprecates as unconfirmed.

v • d • e United States Constitution Complete text at Wikisource
Original text: Preamble ∙ Article 1 ∙ Article 2 ∙ Article 3 ∙ Article 4 ∙ Article 5 ∙ Article 6 ∙ Article 7 Amendments: 1 ∙ 2 ∙ 3 ∙ 4 ∙ 5 ∙ 6 ∙ 7 ∙ 8 ∙ 9 ∙ 10 ∙ 11 ∙ 12 ∙ 13 ∙ 14 ∙ 15 ∙ 16 ∙ 17 ∙ 18 ∙ 19 ∙ 20 ∙ 21 ∙ 22 ∙ 23 ∙ 24 ∙ 25 ∙ 26 ∙ 27
Formation	History of the Constitution • Articles of Confederation • Annapolis Convention • Philadelphia Convention • New Jersey Plan • Virginia Plan • Connecticut Compromise • Signatories
Adoption	Massachusetts Compromise • Federalist Papers
Amendments	Bill of Rights • Ratified • Proposed • Unsuccessful • Conventions to propose • State ratifying conventions
Clauses	Case or controversy • Citizenship • Commerce • Commerce (Dormant) • Confrontation • Contract • Copyright • Due Process • Equal Protection • Establishment • Free Exercise • Full Faith and Credit • Impeachment • Natural–born citizen • Necessary and Proper • No Religious Test • Presentment • Privileges and Immunities (Art. IV) • Privileges or Immunities (14th Amend.) • Speech or Debate • Supremacy • Suspension • Takings Clause • Taxing and Spending • Territorial • War Powers
Interpretation	Congressional power of enforcement • Double jeopardy • Enumerated powers • Incorporation of the Bill of Rights • Nondelegation • Preemption • Separation of church and state • Separation of powers • Constitutional theory • Executive privilege