Talk:Separation of church and state in the United States

Section headers

I don't believe there are too much sections, so I removed the tag. Most texts are quite long (A4-like), except the three 'Former state churches' bit, which is split. This, however, aids reading in my opinion. Jhschreurs (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence in lead is fraught with problems

The last sentence in the lead is fraught with problems. I tried fixing it but someone reverted me. I'll discuss the basic points, with the preface in wikipedian that each is unsourced and un-wp:sourcable.

1. This essentially says that the phrase/metaphor is interpreted by jurists. Jurists interpret laws and the constitution, they do not interpret metaphors.
2. This essentially says the statements of the one individual are representetative of the whole group. This is unsourced and not plausible. Further, the lead should be a summary of what's in the article, not the statement of one individual.
3. A very common assertion of a myth is against the myth that the metaphor itself is the wording in the constitution or a law. Judges/jurists of course know that this is not true. So, a statement that the asserters categorically disagree with jusirsts is false, unsourced and not wp:sourcable.
4. Slight variants for the same three problems exist for historians. Plus it also essentially says that all historians weigh in on the same side of this issue which is false, unsourced, and not wp:sourcable.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

North8000, the sentences fraught with problems are yours. "A very common assertion of a myth is against the myth that the metaphor itself is the wording in the constitution or a law." What the... ? -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that that one is convoluted but nevertheless it's there. What it's about is that the most common myth is that the metaphor itself is written into a law or the Constitution. And the most common claim of a myth is that particular myth. North8000 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what your are saying. Let me get it straight: are you saying that lots of people believe that the exact phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the constitution? -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That it is in the constitution or a law. I think that that last sentence can be unscrambled into two legit statements:

• That the religious folks are saying that complete separation of church and state and complete secularity of government was never intended. This is basically / somewhat what I had edited that last sentence into.
• That a common myth is that the phrase/metaphor itself is in the constitution or law. The current sentence more or less implies that this myth is true, by saying that the jurists have been interpreting the metaphor.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's take one thing at a time. I challenge you to check your premises. If it is a widespread belief that "separation..." literally appears, word for word, in the US Constitution, it should be a simple matter to come up with sources where a writer asserts that to be a fact. Can you find some? One? Speaking anecdotally, I have never encountered one person--in print, on tv or in the flesh--who claimed those words were in the constitution, and certainly no competent reader who looks at the document would come to that conclusion. So, please show me evidence for this widespread belief. If you can't, I suggest that you step back consider that it may be you who is promoting a false "myth." -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to look far. The myth is repeated in the discussed sentence, because it says that jurists interpret it and jurists only interpret laws and the constitution, not metaphors. And for a long time (until I got it taken out) that myth was explicitly repeated in the "Separation of Church and State" article. And I recall a few months ago when Michelle Backman said that the phrase/metaphor wasn't in the Constitution, the mainstream media made the mistake on a widespread basis by saying and implying that her accurate statement was in error. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jurists interpret legal concepts, and the "separation" phrase has a long history of describing a concept in the law, just as "freedom of assembly" or "right to a fair trial" or "separation of powers" do--none of those phrases appear in the constitution, either. You have failed to show one example of somebody asserting that the words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution. Please supply some evidence for your claim or withdraw it. -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We're going off in many directions at once here (not that they aren't all interesting). First to clarify (and avoid going off on a tangent), I'm not advocating putting my "the most common myth is....." statement into the article. I merely don't want the article to repeat / fall prey to the same myth. In the context of this conversation, "legal concepts" is a vague (unintentionally) weasel word. "Separation of Church and State" is a (as any brief five words would be) vague term and metaphor referring to the actual precise legal wording on this topic. (The constitution and laws). North8000 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not off in many directions--I asked you one very direct question, to show evidence of this belief you say is widespread. If you are now agreeing that there is no such widespread false belief, we can move forward to another point. Otherwise, please supply some evidence that your assertion is grounded in reality. Just about the words being in the constitution, please, at this point, nothing else. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not amenable to narrowing the conversation to one tangent or holding it up for one tangent, particularly one that I already addressed. But that aside, I'd be happy to provide examples because it is an interesting and oft-misunderstood topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply attempting to reason with you, not to hold things up. I await these examples you are happy to provide. -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'll be listing a few. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• In this one [1] the quote is "Coons said.......due to the Constitution's First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state."
• In this one [2] the quote is: "Jansing appeared shocked that the Delaware candidate pointed out the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution. She then read from the First Amendment, but failed to find the words. After playing a clip of O'Donnell from this morning's debate, Jansing sputtered, "I thought she had to be kidding." She then pulled out her "handy, dandy" pocket Constitution and quoted, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech.' "
• In this one [3] the quote is "A majority of people think the phrase "separation of church and state" is part of the constitution.
• In this one [4] the quote is "Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution."
• Correcting my one previous note, it was Christine O'Donnell *(not Michelle Bachman) where the media we all mistakenly implying she was mistaken when she said that the phrase is not in the Constitution.
• In this one [5] the quote is "Today, many Americans think that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." ......."A recent national poll showed that 69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." You may be surprised to learn that these words do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution!"

Well, there's the ones I found in the first few minutes. IMHO it's pretty common knowledge that many believe that that phrase is in the Constitution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict, this was written before your last link was added] Thanks, these make my point. First, please notice that NOT ONE of these offers an example of somebody claiming that the phrase is in the constitution. You do have examples, however, of people claiming that other people with whom they disagree believe this. I think this qualifies as a "straw man" argument -- mischaracterizing an opponents position in a way that makes it seem easy to defeat. This particular misrepresentation is a frequently repeated bit of rhetoric among politicians and political activists of a particular bent. It seems clearly false, doesn't it? I have yet to hear one person claim that they believe those words are in the constitution, let alone "a majority of people." Secondly, you (and Christine O'Donnell) seem to be confusing the claim that the constitution separates government from religion -- which it clearly does -- with the claim that the particular phrase "separation of church and state" appears there. Again, this makes no sense, except as a sort of crude rhetorical trick: nobody at all asserts the phrase is there, they are talking about an idea, not a phrase. There are, to be sure, real debates about how to apply the separation concept in particular cases, how absolute the separation is or isn't, and so on. But the idea that the concept isn't present at all -- that it is a myth -- has zero intellectual credibility, as far as I can see. I issue you a second challenge to your stated premises, if you're up for it: find a professional historian who supports the idea that "separation..." isn't a feature of the US constitution. I'm sure there must be one, but I've never come across him or her. (David Barton, I think you know, is not a trained historian.) -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

PS about that last link. Frankly, I suspect that 69% poll is a whopping lie, if by "says," we are supposed to understand that to mean "includes the exact phrase" (and that seems to be what the author of that page wants to suggest). There is no information anywhere on the page about the poll, who did it, when, what question was asked, etc. Since we have yet to identify ONE person who publicly claims those words are in the constitution, it isn't credible to imagine that nearly two-thirds of the population are secretly carrying around this mistaken belief. Alas, some of the links you've provided are plugged into an area of american political rhetoric in which distortion and outright lying is, sadly, commonplace. I strongly urge you to seek out more reliable sources if you seriously want to get to the bottom of this. PPS: I'll be signing off now for the rest of the evening--employment calls. -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I gave you a lot of evidence that people actually believe that, and you are saying that it proves the opposite. So I think we hit a dead end there. Fortunately the dead end is only on a sidebar/tangent. Your following question is vague and still not germane to the content problems noted. But splitting apart the distinctions that you blurred with the question, As a brief, inaccurate, common way often used to refer to what IS in the constitution, the scholars will say that the phrase is not in the constitution, that it is not an accurate paraphrasing of what is in the constitution, and that it is commonly used to refer to things that are actually in / are features of the constitution North8000 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to track down the source of the "69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says 'Separation of Church and State'" reference. The best candidate I could find was this poll, which is apparently conducted annually by a group called the First Amendment Center: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sofa-2011-report.pdf As you'll see, 67% agreed that "the First Amendment requires a clear separation of church and state." This, after they had been quoted the first amendment in full. Clearly, they are not saying that the phrase appears in the amendment. They are referring to a principal, not a phrase. Obviously, I don't know for sure that this particular poll (or any real poll) was what that source referred to. But exactly that sort of distortion of facts to create a misleading impression for political ends is rampant in the "myth of separation" camp, and I can't understand how any fair-minded person would fail to condemn it.. -- BTfromLA (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we're going here. It's interesting to discuss, but it's all off the the track of the 4 enumerated problems with that sentence. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Another debate..."

I have cut the following sentence from the lede, recently added by North8000: "Another debate is between those who say that the phrase states what is in the constitution vs. being only a metaphor for what is in the constitution." We already have a paragraph there stating that the interpretation of "separation..." is subject to debate, and no source is provided for this addition. North8000, I'm not trying to be contrary, but I don't see any evidence that "those who say that the phrase states what is in the constitution vs. being only a metaphor for what is in the constitution" is a public debate at all, let alone noteworthy enough to be worthy of the lede. Does anyone think "wall of separation" is not a metaphor? That would mean they maintain there is actually a physical wall someplace, wouldn't it? -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The debate is not what you stated, it is what is in that sentence. Expanding on those two sides, they are:

• Side #1. It is ONLY a metaphor, it is NOT a precise summary of what is in the constitution.
• Side #2 It is MORE than a metaphor, it IS a precise summary of what is in the constitution. (or, some believing that it actually IS in the constitution) This leads to the argument that the Constitution mandates complete separation in all respects rather than what is actually specified in the constitution, and is the basis of various cases/controversies covered in the article.

This, and things leading from it is certainly a common debate if not the most common debate. The current sentence (without such an addition) is problematic. Certianly not a summary from the article, and only covers one specialized case. This is a highly problematic sentence for the lead, and you have been reverting attempts to fix it. North8000 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are objecting to the part about David Barton, which seems to put an over-emphasis on the Christian Nartionalist position. Is that right? If so, how about we cut Barton and the sentence you dislike entirely from the lede, and change it to read:

... Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.

End of lede. Seem like an improvement? -- BTfromLA (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is excellent. Also that removed specific case material would be fine for the body of the article, but should not be stated as if it were summary of the controversies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Progress! -- BTfromLA (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion?

I cannot seem to add the concept of abortion anywhere in here. Should we add the concept of abortion here? After all, the Christians are trying to gain their rights to not have to supply birth control to their women, because it is against their religious beliefs (although a couple of churches are going as far as to make abortion illegal). I think that the abortion topic belongs. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That letter by Jefferson

Is obviously very important, but must it be mentioned twice in the lead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

References

While you are taking the time to edit this controversial, yet important article, please note that two notes, 'Note 6' and 'Note 7' are identical and one needs to be deleted, whilst the citation numbers listed in the article for 'Note 6' and 'Note 7' need to be fixed to match the deletion of one of these notes.

^Note 6: Religious tolerance for Catholics with an established Church of England was policy in the former Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida while under British rule.

^Note 7: Religious tolerance for Catholics with an established Church of England was policy in the former Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida while under British rule.

Sponsion (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)