Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.?

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution....

That is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas.

The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There is nothing there about a "fair trial," but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

"Separation of church and state" is the concept implied in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law..." means that the government will favor one religion over another. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment extended this principle to state and local government.

As for atheists attacking "free expression" you're asking a loaded question. The issue in cases like the Mt. Soledad cross and Roy Moore's Ten Commandments is whether these displays constitute government endorsement of one particular religious belief over another. The displays are on public property, maintained with public money, and are almost always exclusive. When was the last time you saw a statue of Vishnu next to a Ten Commandments display? The people who file lawsuits against these displays are asserting their Constitutional rights on the grounds that state sponsored religious displays violate the separation of church and state by discriminating against other beliefs. It would be no different from a Christian filing suit against a statute of Vishnu. (BTW, the people who bring these suits aren't all atheists. This assumption is another reason your question is loaded.)

What does the state do? The state creates laws. If the state (in the form of the congress) has no right to create laws about religion it is de facto separated from it.

The laws that the congress passes are more than just those that indicate what you can and cannot do. The annual federal budget is a law that congress passes in order to legally spend the money in the federal treasury. Therefore, any federal money is separated from religions because congress cannot pass any laws, even in the form of budgets, that respect or prohibit the free excercise of religion. Also, congress passes other kinds of laws such as grants to states, and passes the constitution of states so the congress cannot make laws such as those if they contain language that would otherwise respect the establishment of any religion or prohibit the free exercise of any religion.

As far as religions displays go, if public funds are used to set up, display, maintain or otherwise facilitate those displays then that is unconstitutional. It is not the actual display that is in violation of the constitution it is the fact that public facilities owned by the government (ie the people ie that state) are being used that is in violation. Personally I do not think that any religion, even my own, should have the right to put up any kind of display in any publically owned space in the US. (Other than those in historical context ie historic places of worship in National or State Parks for instance) But if you are a private entity, on your own land and conforming to whatever zoning or design regulations exist in your community, then it should be perfectly allowable.

Peace and Blessings,

Salim

The First Amendment does not mention separation of church and state, which is a concept that started to gain legal ground almost immediately after the US Constitution was ratified. The difficulty with the orginal First Amendment as written, however, is whether or not states themselves could in fact promote specific faiths. The 14th Amendment is today widely viewed by legal authorities as extending federal rights to the states. Legal principles are constantly evolving, and today separation of church and state is a fairly well established legal fact.

In the sentence, "respecting" means "about." Thus, the translation: Congress can't make any laws that would either establish an official state religion or that would prohibit someone from practicing their religion. It has nothing to do with whether or not churches are tax-exempt or not.

History is very clear on this separation point. The rule was made to keep state out of religion not religion out of state, how stupid are we to miss this point. It is clear as vodka.

I agree we ought not to be subject to the Popes every whim but in the end that would once again result in the state interfering in all the other religions.

The idea that stae should be able to ban any religious practice is the point. So if I want to pray in school that is my right, if I want not to pray in school that is my right. If I want to call attention to the fact that laws in this nation started with Biblical law that is our right, if we want to erect a monument to ateists having the right to keep their mouths shut (when we pray) then build one, if you can get approval put it on the court lawn.

The thing is we need to encourage religious freedom not be telling people what they can not do. Tell them what they can do. Preserve the rights of minority thought but do not obstruct the thought of the majority, how hard is that concept really this has gotten way out of hand. I am willing to feel out of place at an atheistic concert to hear a music I like. Whats with atheists being intollerant if anyone ought to avoid that kind of behavior it should be atheists.

Seems to me it is saying that congress cannot make a law which *endorses* a specific religion, nor can it enact a law which prohibits free exercise (practice) of a religion.

Schools are not an establishment of religion, nor are courthouses, etc. People who object to religious icons, statues, prayers, nativity scenes, etc are saying, "don't cram it down our throats, if it's not our particular belief".

No one wants to remove icons or crosses or prayers from churches or other religious establishments ... that's where they belong .. not in the schools and courthouses and other "non-religious" establishments.

While I don't particularly object or find them offensive, I understand why others might object.

>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Paraphrased: "The government may not endorse religion".

That seems like a "separation" to me!

---

>> OK, with that asked, how is it that athiests, can attack our free expression, by removing crosses, monuments, ect,?

When they appear on public/government buildings, they are funded by our tax dollars. Thus, the governement is "promoting" religion by having those icons there. You can still have your crosses, monuments on your church property -- just not on government/public property.

It doesn't. As with most laws 'separation of church and state' is the popular interpretation. Many believe it is better to err on the side of caution - by allowing nothing to cross the 'barrier' - than to risk religion becoming too strong an influence in government.

Even then, it's not a perfect system. But, one I think that's needed.

Our founding fathers put this in place because they saw from the past what the mixing of church and state can do to a nation and its people. when church and state do mix they almost always equal death. ( the catholic Inquisition , religious radicals)

It means that government cannot impose rules or regulations on a religious body.

When it comes to the separation of church and state. It is trying to avoid religion (mostly the catholic church) to influence government.

It also protects people from religious persecution.

When it comes to actually finding it in the constitution it is implied.

[vote for best answer!]