Happy Atheist Forum

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?

Quote from: "Asmodean"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.

I see... So basically, the practicality of such a separation - and even its symbolicism (hope I spelled that at least half-right) depend on the state you live in..? It IS a national law though, is it not..? That is supposed to be applicable to every state..?

Quote from: "Asmodean"I see... So basically, the practicality of such a separation - and even its symbolicism (hope I spelled that at least half-right) depend on the state you live in..? It IS a national law though, is it not..? That is supposed to be applicable to every state..?

Yeah, the establishment clause in the first amendment of the constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", so it's a national thing.  One of the issues with implementing the separation of church and state is that some areas largely ignore it, and it would take money and time to fight these indiscretions which is something not many people have a lot of right now.  Also, our constitution is constantly being interpreted, so when you have a Supreme Court that has a lot of religious jerkwads on it, you get ridiculous court rulings like saying the cross isn't a religious symbol, it's a cultural symbol and therefore can be placed in courthouses and the like.  

So yeah, there are lots of ways to get around it.  That's why I support organized vocal atheism in all areas of the US, because as we grow and group together, we stand a better chance of being able to fight these infringements and keep our nation secular - so that everyone has the freedom to believe or not believe whatever they want.

Part of the reason there is so much difference between states and how they rightly or wrongly interpret the Constitution is that the federal government has restrictions against interfering with a state's right to govern it's self...to a point at least. However a states laws don't supercede federal laws which leave room for ... disagrement between state and federal governments.

I'm fine with local control, myself.  Even in Texas I didn't personally experience discrimination based on my views, which were kind of loudmouthed, as you guys might have figured out by now.

While the courts get it wrong sometimes, separation of church and state is still the law of the land, and there are times when it comes in handy.  For example, N. Caroline as of 2009 at least had a law on the books that prohibits from public office "any person who shall deny the being of the Almighty God".  Shockingly, an atheist did get elected to a city council and that law was easily challenged. (http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2009/12/atheist-elected-in-north-carolina-presenting-an-easy-religious-freedom-case/)

Quote from: "reed9"While the courts get it wrong sometimes, separation of church and state is still the law of the land, and there are times when it comes in handy.  For example, N. Caroline as of 2009 at least had a law on the books that prohibits from public office "any person who shall deny the being of the Almighty God".  Shockingly, an atheist did get elected to a city council and that law was easily challenged. (http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2009/12/atheist-elected-in-north-carolina-presenting-an-easy-religious-freedom-case/)

So it does work... On a state-by-state basis. However, it can be conveniently ignored at need... I do applaud the notion of state and church separated. However, what I do not understand is the possibility of having the abovementioned law on the books when the federal law says that isn't right.

As I understand, the federal laws come before and above the laws and regulations of a subject of the federation, so how can such a subject make and enforce a law that is contradictory to federal law..?

My country is not a federation, so I think having several sets of laws within the same borders is just... Confusing.

Quote from: "Asmodean"However, what I do not understand is the possibility of having the abovementioned law on the books when the federal law says that isn't right.

See my comment above.

Our Constitution grants universal rights however the states are allowed to govern and rule temselves. Basicly states can add laws and freedoms for their citizens beyond the federal government's as long as they don't impinge on federaly established rights and laws. When there is disagreement between a state and the federal government it is mediated by the Supreme Court who have the duty (among others) of adapting and interpreting the contitution while keeping faithfull to the framer's intent. Our Constitution is NOT set in stone. Our fore fathers were forward thinking enough to realise needs, peoples, morals, and ideals change with time and so must the rights and laws that govern them ie; the Bill of Rights (rights added to the constitution). At differnt times in our contries history it has not only been ok for states to make these laws but have been encouragd to do so. MacCarthy anyone? While under strict reading of the Constitution these laws are often later found to be at best ambiguous and at worst un-Constitutional and are repealed.

Flexability in the contitution is a sometimes a double edged sword.

(Been a few years since my Civics and Social Studies classes in school so if anyone sees a mistake please correct me.)

The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Federal Bill of Rights to state constitutions, but states can pass laws which do not comport with it; It must thereby get fixed in the courts.

Quote from: "Tanker"When there is disagreement between a state and the federal government it is mediated by the Supreme Court who have the duty (among others) of adapting and interpreting the constitution while keeping faithful to the framer's intent.  [Emphasis in original]

Your emphasized passage is not a requirement for judicial review in America at any level.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Federal Bill of Rights to state constitutions, but states can pass laws which do not comport with it; It must thereby get fixed in the courts.

Quote from: "Tanker"When there is disagreement between a state and the federal government it is mediated by the Supreme Court who have the duty (among others) of adapting and interpreting the constitution while keeping faithful to the framer's intent.  [Emphasis in original]

Your emphasized passage is not a requirement for judicial review in America at any level.

Really? So they don't have a responsability to protect our rights and freedoms as our founding fathers originaly 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)

OUTSTANDING question, and I did not read the other responses because I wanted to give my take on it, without any influence from what I read.

The original Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.  It actually DOES NOT specifically state that there is a separation of church and state at all, that term came from a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist Church, and has become one of the great debates among Theists and Atheists in this country.

I believe that the original intent, and this is my interpretation, was to keep the government from creating the situation that was currently going on in England, so that there would be no State Religion, per se.  You are correct, however, in your statement that religion does play a vital role in the politics of this nation, too much so, in many opinions.  It has been my contention that we allow the Churches to operate with impunity in America, allowing them to become financially powerful, without forcing them to pay taxes; then allow them to influence the outcome of many political, social, and legal debates in this country.

I am in favor of eliminating the tax clause, especially if the evangelical Christian Right continue to spend so much money to influence politics in this nation.  But I do agree that there needs to be separation of church and state in schools, public forums, laws, and the likes.  The argument you get from the Faith-Heads is that government should stay out of religion, but religion has every right to interfer with the role of government.  I hope this helps some.

One of the most vocal and successful atheist groups that fight for the Separation of Church and State laws is the Freedom from Religion Foundation or FFRF.  They have filed and won a number of cases both state and nationally, challenging the Clause.  Recently, they won a lawsuit against the National Day of Prayer in America.

You can join the fight by going to their website, ffrf.org.  IF you are in America and know of a situation that violates the clause, you can write to them and they will actually review the claim and may file the case for you.  Dan Barker, is co-president of the FFRF, and Dan is a former Evangelical Minister who is a cracker-jack debator and has written several books, including Goodless which I totally endorse.  Dan and I have had a number of discussions and his group has filed two lawsuits in my behalf over the years.  I usually refrain from endorsements of this kind, but the FFRF is a top notch group.

Check out the website, they have some great books, some non-tracts (like those Christians hand out only with an atheist slant) t-shirts, stickers, and a whole lot more.  I, also, endorse joining the group, mainly because I believe that especially in America, atheists do not work well in groups, mainly because we are all freethinkers and don't conform well, but with just over 10% of the America population as atheist, we would have enough of a voice to be heard.  Just my humble opinion.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "reed9"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "Tanker"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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) has a pretty good article on it.

Quote from: "reed9"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "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.

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

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

QuoteOriginally, 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.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Asmodean"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 (http://www.mscode.com/msconst/14/14-265.html) of the Mississippi State Constitution.

QuoteNo 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. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997088,00.html)

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](https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc6%2F208686_10150148761686254_504656253_6966758_6336118_n.jpg&hash=c9b405165f3a4369c0f92af0358d92e864a4fe5a)[/spoiler:3unyn3y2]

Quote from: "februarystars"Allow me to direct you to Article 14, Section 265 (http://www.mscode.com/msconst/14/14-265.html) of the Mississippi State Constitution.

QuoteNo 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.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "februarystars"Allow me to direct you to Article 14, Section 265 (http://www.mscode.com/msconst/14/14-265.html) of the Mississippi State Constitution.

QuoteNo 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!