Talk:Separation of church and state in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Separation of Church and State...[edit]


In the Matter of Separation of Church and State...

I would like to know HOW the word *Respect* has changed to *Separation*...

The words are completely Different in their Defined actions and also have Different Definitions in their Defined Usage...

It is my Opinion that the people who View Respect as Separation are completely Ignorant of their Definitions and Usage...

Therefor the Debate and Argument of those wanting to Separate Church Morals, from the Government are Completely Wrong in their thinking and their actions... It is also my Opinion that these person have a goal to LOWER the Moral and Ethical Behavioral Standards Necessary in Humanity to create Peace on Earth.. Their Goal is Anarchy and No Law... With No Law,, Murder would have No Responsibility or Consequence... We would have No Need for Courts and Punishment for Bad Behavior... Ponder a world without Law... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State Explained[edit]

I believe you are challenging the use of the word "Separation" as part of the name of the legal concept where the U.S. Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law in respecting an establishment of religion..."[1] "Separation of Church and State" is the preferred label/name/title of the legal standard, which is derived from "...function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause..."[2].

You are correct in that the word "Separation" isn't used in the U.S. Constitution. The idea of separation though is consistently included in many of the historical references leading up to the 1st Amendment (the basis for the language of the amendment). Your challenge suggests that without Church in State there would be a "Separation of [Church] Morals" thus leading to wrong thinking and wrong actions. "Separation" in most if not all instances leading up to the First Amendment were intended to "separate" the State's ability to govern religions while equally protecting the individual citizen from being governed by religion through the state. If you accept the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment, then any American citizen could assume that this ensures that Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists, etc all have their specific flavor of morals. Not separating a "Sufi's" morals from The State might be in some instances reprehensible to a Hindu's morals. If the student of the U.S. Constitution accepts religious freedom for all, this would then logically extend that each citizen and religious group should be free of laws requiring the acceptance of any private practice of any religion.

Zerostatetechnologies (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not I fully understand what you mean. Most debates here have not been about principles, they have been about things that purport to characterize or describe what is actually in the constitution. And a key item at the core of that that is that the word "separation" is a word that reaches much farther than what is in the constitution. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

intent of the first amendment[edit]

your description of the meaning of the first amendment is inaccurate, how do I correct it without my work being rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymessinajr (talkcontribs) 04:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

New York date of disestablishment?[edit]

Not listed in table. --JWB (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)