Talk:Separation of church and state in the United States

Original Research?

Citations 2,3,5 and 6 seem problematic, not because of the argument they "support", but for the manner in which they are being used. They are being cited as direct sources, but the claim that is being made is not a direct quotation, but an interpretation about the cases. Is this not original research, or at the very least running afoul of attributing an argument to a source that does not directly make that argument (i.e. it relies on interpretation)? I think there are plenty of credible sources that could be referenced here without relying on what seems to be POV original interpretation of the cases. I would further argue that the interpretation being made is arguably not universally accepted and that one viewpoint (i.e. that these cherry-picked pieces of the rulings are the sum and substance of the cases view on separation of church and state)is being given undue weight, and being erroneously put forth as the universal legal take on the matter. I have no doubt there are reams of megabytes devoted to arguing each side of these interpretations.

Regardless, I do not think these citations should be used in the manner they are, because it requires interpretation not present in the sources to bridge the gap between the text shown and the argument made. I can cite text from Moby Dick, and Moby Dick is certainly a credible source, but if I make the claim that "Moby Dick represents God", I need to back up the claim, not just cite the basis for my interpretation.

I would recommend that sources that directly make the argument (that the courts have not always supported separation of church and state) be referenced, rather than relying on POV interpretation of cases themselves. With that done, I'd also recommend that the text be changed to something like "some (historians/lawyers/whoever is referenced) argue that the court has not always...etc." to give due weight to both opinions on the matter.Jbower47 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has replied to this point, so I would recommend removing arguments based on these citations, unless another source can be found. Personal interpretation of a source is not the same thing a a direct statement by a source. I would much rather we found more sources, but would advocate removal if no one responds or amends the section. Jbower47 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but it shouldn't be hard to find third party sources for these assertions. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, so I didn't want to delete it out of hand. I was hoping bringing this back up might spur some folks to action. I personally don't know enough about this facet of the debate to know where to start.Jbower47 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is also a structural question. Courts don't rule on "separation of church and state". They rule on particular cases, and on what is actually in the Constitution (which this phrase is NOT). For cases that people would generally classify under this topic, it is a "sky is blue" statement that the rulings go "both ways". And this is generally based on whether or not the court feels that particular type of separation in the particular case is one of the particular types of separation mandated by the constitution. And not only is it a "sky is blue" statement, but it is sourced. Anyone who starts deleting sourced "sky is blue" statements based on technicalities is bound to run into objections. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I started to write a response to this, but in looking at the article and references, it looks like there have been changes in the interim. I am comfortable with how those specific citations stand now.Jbower47 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about:

The phrase separation of church and state (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state"), attributed to Thomas Jefferson and others, and since quoted by the Supreme Court of the United States, expresses an understanding of the intent and function of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Let me know....Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would clarify the last phrase to read Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but I like it. THF (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Great! Just waiting to hear from BTFromLA before making the change. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for mediating this, JonathanWallace. I like this version less than what it replaces, but it appears to resolve the dispute, so I'll accept it. I am dismayed, though, by the fact that a simple claim that separation of church and state describes a constitutional principle evidently needs to be finessed and watered down to pass muster. It leaves me very sad about the state of our country. Signing off, -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

BT, I think that you were/are talking big picture / general concepts, and my concern is precision of wording. And so I think that the big picture which you are talking remains in great shape and so I wouldn't be sad. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thought before I bow out: I disagree with inserting "establishment clause" in that first sentence. Even in the narrowest possible interpretation, the Free Exercise Clause is also part of it. To my mind, even "First Amendment" is too narrow, unless we are limiting the "separation..." concept to one quote by Jefferson. Doesn't Article VI constitute part of the separation idea? I've also seen the bit about "swear or affirm" in Article II used to describe church/state separation. Arguably, the conspicuous omission of references to God, the Bible, or Jesus in the constitution is also relevant. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the change in between your two messages. Let me think about this and see if I can come up with a suitable revision. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

From my standpoint, taking out "is embedded in" solved the problem. It's now replaced with three things "attributed to", quoted by" and "expresses an understanding of". As long as we keep that change in place, these other possible changes are not an issue to me. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. In future, North, when you criticize, suggest an alternative at the same time, instead of abusing the 'fact' tag; see constructive criticism.--Elvey (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I did. Basically I put in a qualifier in the sentence. That was at the core of our recent long spirited debate on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit by IP User 136

IP User 136 added the following text to the Williams quote in the first paragraph: "God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness."

The purpose of the existing sentence was to say that Williams had used a similar phrase, borrowed or echoed by Jefferson. The material added appears to me to add nothing to the sense of the sentence ("Williams used a phrase. Jefferson also used it") but to confuse the issue as to what Williams actually meant by the phrase (not directly under discussion here). It would require an additional sentence or two of clarification more properly raised at the Roger_Williams_(theologian) article. Rather than reverting the edit, I am posting here to try to engage the IP user in a discussion. If I don't hear anything in a day or two, I will delete the material. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jonathanwallace. I agree with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Jefferson believed that the states held the right to "prescribe" a religion"

Article stated "Jefferson believed that the states held the right to "prescribe" a religion within their territory." - but that citation actually states the opposite. AV3000 (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)