Separation of church and state

[Tanker]

Really? So they don't have a responsibility to protect our rights and freedoms as our founding fathers originally intended with the Constitution? (after re-reading that sounds almost sarcastic to me it wasn't intended to be so please don't read into it)

Really.  There is no compulsion, legally, to interpret the Constitution in any particular way.  The only check on Constitutional interpretation by the federal judiciary is the "advise & consent" function of the Senate.

It should also be noted that the Founding Fathers had no intention of giving the Federal courts the power to rule on the constitutionality of any law; it was Chief Justice John Marshall's invention, in the early 19th century.

To be honest, I think of the original-intent philosophy to be a disguised appeal to authority.

Not to mention, if we're arguing for original intent, the Constitution was only a limit on Federal power and not States' power.  Madison proposed some language that was specific to the States, but it was shot down.  As mentioned above, it wasn't until the 14th amendment that the Constitution was held to limit the States as well.  As I recall, in the spirit and optimism of the Enlightenment, it was thought that each State would act as a little self-contained experiment in democracy, and the ideas which worked best would eventually be adopted by the others.

Wasn't that the Articles of the Confederation? Which failed pretty horribly since it gave the federal government nearly zero power to actually govern. Wasn't the Bill of Rights the most important of the solutions? It was written in the early 19th century right about when the federal govenment got power back but needed a list of rights they could not supercede. Our first government failed I was under the impression that after this happened and our "fixed" government was in place is when the judical branch started to judge constituionality to protect citizens new and original rights. When the framers signed the constituion they had no idea how bad a goverment they had created. Once they realised they tried to stay true to the constitution but make a new government that works despite their earlier intentions. Which It seems to me John Marshel as Chief justice set up a system of fair (relatively) mediation between citizens, state, and Federal governments. Is this not so?

[reed9]

Wasn't that the Articles of the Confederation? Which failed pretty horribly since it gave the federal government nearly zero power to actually govern. Wasn't the Bill of Rights the most important of the solutions? It was written in the early 19th century right about when the federal govenment got power back but needed a list of rights they could not supercede. Our first government failed I was under the impression that after this happened and our "fixed" government was in place is when the judical branch started to judge constituionality to protect citizens new and original rights. When the framers signed the constituion they had no idea how bad a goverment they had created. Once they realised they tried to stay true to the constitution but make a new government that works despite their earlier intentions. Which It seems to me John Marshel as Chief justice set up a system of fair (relatively) mediation between citizens, state, and Federal governments. Is this not so?

The Bill of Rights is just the first ten amendments to the Constitution, ratified in 1791.  So 18th, not 19th century.  The SCOTUS decision referred to is Marbury vs. Madison, decided in 1803, so not long after.  The all knowing wikipedia has a pretty good article on it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Really? So they don't have a responsibility to protect our rights and freedoms as our founding fathers originally intended with the Constitution? (after re-reading that sounds almost sarcastic to me it wasn't intended to be so please don't read into it)

Really.  There is no compulsion, legally, to interpret the Constitution in any particular way.  The only check on Constitutional interpretation by the federal judiciary is the "advise & consent" function of the Senate.

It should also be noted that the Founding Fathers had no intention of giving the Federal courts the power to rule on the constitutionality of any law; it was Chief Justice John Marshall's invention, in the early 19th century.

To be honest, I think of the original-intent philosophy to be a disguised appeal to authority.

Not to mention, if we're arguing for original intent, the Constitution was only a limit on Federal power and not States' power.  Madison proposed some language that was specific to the States, but it was shot down.  As mentioned above, it wasn't until the 14th amendment that the Constitution was held to limit the States as well.  As I recall, in the spirit and optimism of the Enlightenment, it was thought that each State would act as a little self-contained experiment in democracy, and the ideas which worked best would eventually be adopted by the others.

Indeed.  The Bill of Rights was nearly omitted as well.

[Tanker]

From Wikipedia and the one of the reasons I think the judical branch got it's "contitutional oversight".

Originally, the Bill of Rights restrictions applied only to the federal government and not to the state governments. Parts of the amendments originally proposed by Madison that would have limited state governments ("No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.") were not approved by Congress, and therefore the Bill of Rights did not apply to the powers of state governments.[45]

States had established state churches up until the 1820s, and Southern states, beginning in the 1830s, could ban abolitionist literature. In the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the Bill of Rights provided "security against the apprehended encroachments of the general governmentâ€"not against those of local governments." In the Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, (1925) case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been adopted in 1868, could make certain applications of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. However, the Gitlow case stated (p. 666): "For present purposes we may and do presume that freedom of speech and of the press â€" which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress â€" are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States." However at p. 668, the Court held: "It does not protect publications prompting the overthrow of government by force", which Gitlow and associates advocated in their publications. The Supreme Court has cited Gitlow v. New York as precedent for a series of decisions that made most, but not all, of the provisions of the Bill of Rights restrictions applicable to the states under the doctrine of selective incorporation.

(Emphasis mine)

Not such a bad idea, originaly intended or not under the circumstances if you ask me.

[februarystars]

In my country, we have a state church and pretty much everyone who has ever been baptised is a member in it - willingly or otherwise - until they pull out of it. The state sponsors it and whatnot, but religion does not play an important, or at least obvious part in our nation's politics.

Now as far as I know, the USA have church and state separated, yet it seems to me that the church does, in many ways, pretty much run the state - for instance by dictating, directly or otherwise, what kind of people should occupy government offices.

So my question is this: What exactly does separation of church and state do in the United States on a practical level?

It really depends on where you live in the US.  Where I live, Seattle area, there is a pretty strong separation of church and state.  If you were to suggest that the church runs the state, most people here would laugh and disagree.  In my area, religion is a personal thing and the people who try to make it political or even overtly public are generally treated like they're potentially unstable.  Now, talk to a Mississippi atheist and you'll be hearing an entirely different tale, I'm sure.

Oh, hi there...

Allow me to direct you to Article 14, Section 265 of the Mississippi State Constitution.

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

You will rarely ever see a political sign, flyer, handout, or tv commercial that doesn't emphasize the religion of the candidate, and on those rare occasions that you do see a politician who is mum on the subject, the probability of them getting elected is laughable. We have a big state election coming up right now, and I can't walk anywhere in town without getting flyers and business cards shoved in my face promoting various candidates. Every last one of them had under the list of "why you should vote for this candidate" their religious affiliation. Welcome to the red states.

â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"

On a related note, another thing that irritates me is the blatant disregard for the separation of church & state in public schools. During my freshman year in high school, our principal was fired for allowing what was supposed to be a short before-school FCA presentation turn into an all-day revival of sorts. Time Magazine even published an article about it.

I ran into a girl I know in Wal-Mart today, and she was stocking up on these chocolate Jesus fish for her son to bring to school (the same school mentioned above) to pass around to his classmates during their Easter party. I'm not even sure if public school classrooms should be allowed to host Easter parties to begin with. It's just way too hard to keep something like that on a secular ground, and it singles out any kids who aren't Christian.

I don't think I'd be too happy if my kid came home from school with one of these:
[spoiler:3unyn3y2][/spoiler:3unyn3y2]

[Stevil]

Allow me to direct you to Article 14, Section 265 of the Mississippi State Constitution.

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

So it doesn't matter who that Supreme Being is? It could be the real Mr Potato Head?


I don't know much about America, didn't know of the term Bible belt until a few months ago, but it seems that in some states America is very backward. As if they are living in the 1950's '60s or something. These religious beliefs must be stifling progress in those states.

[fester30]

Allow me to direct you to Article 14, Section 265 of the Mississippi State Constitution.

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

So it doesn't matter who that Supreme Being is? It could be the real Mr Potato Head?


I don't know much about America, didn't know of the term Bible belt until a few months ago, but it seems that in some states America is very backward. As if they are living in the 1950's '60s or something. These religious beliefs must be stifling progress in those states.

That's an easy law to get around.  I would just list myself as a supreme being, and I do not deny my own existence.

Or I'd do some drive-by egging of political signs containing any mention of a god.  Immature??  yes.  The way we want to portray ourselves?  No.  Satisfying?  WOOHOOO!