Talk:Separation of church and state in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge 'George H. W. Bush's comment on separation of church and state' to American Atheists

Oppose. I have reworded the paragraph to take into account that this case is unclear. User:Vary seems to be of the opinion that this should only be debated in the article American Atheists. I am of the opinion that this case, regardless of what Bush (Snr) actually said, should be debated in this article. If even the Washington Times mentioned it, it should be notable, and I would consider it a POV-Fork no to debate it in THIS article. However, if you can reach a broad consensus that it should not be debated in this article (but at American Atheists) I won't care. The sociological debate on this is more interesting, anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start, Wikipedia articles are not a place for 'debate'. And as Cool Hand Luke pointed out to you, weasel words like 'allegedly' do not allow you to do an end-run around blp. The other sources that mention Sherman's claim mention them in articles about atheist activism. It's more relevant to articles like American Atheists, because it's used there as an example of that group's activities, but the fact that a reliable publication has acknowledged that he made an unsupported claim about GHW - especially one that, if his account was accurate, should have been reported in every major newspaper in the country - does not make the claim appropriate to this article.

Why are you proposing a merger that you yourself are opposed to? And I'm not sure what POV forks have to do with it; a pov fork is a near-duplicate article created as a haven for pov pushing. An example would be creating two separate articles on the anti-abortion movement, one titled "Pro-Life" and one "Anti-Choice".

At any rate, there's no merging required; last I checked, American Atheists already covers this information. But that doesn't mean it shoud stay here. -- Vary | Talk 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine to centralize debate here to avoid WP:MULTI, but the alleged comment does not belong in this artice. I dug up the Washington Times ref because it seemed to be more reliable than the other sources, but it's an article about Sherman, not Bush. I think the appropriate place for such comment is in the articles on American Atheist and Sherman (if one existed). To avoid BLP issues, it needs an explanation of its provenance, and that would be off-topic in any article not about Sherman. Cool Hand Luke 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think there should be an entire section on this comment here, a brief mention would certainly not be superfluous. It is highly notable to the topic to quote an US president (alright, a "special" US president) who appears to have no practical knowledge or perception of the legal principle. Try to find a constructive compromise. dab (𒁳) 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be a paragraph to explain the quote's origin. A passing reference implying the Bush in fact said this would be a BLP violation. Cool Hand Luke 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We would need a line quoting the clarification made by the President's spokesman. Relata refero (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As I commented some time ago when a report on this was filed at the BLP noticeboard, whether or not he actually said it, it is notable that he did not apparently deny it once reports circulated that it had been said. It certainly seems notable enough from that standpoint. Plus it was reported - or the controversy was covered - in several unimpeachable sources. If many RSes are "teaching the controversy", to borrow a phrase, then so might we - in the context of controversy, which is how it should be phrased. Relata refero (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So in an article on Separation of church and state in the United States we want to cover a controversy over whether the president might have said something? "Sherman claimed... published in American Atheist... president's spokesman did not deny..." This really isn't so notable here. It has a few dozen cites to it over the years, and the preponderance are editorials. I think the material might have a place in other articles (maybe even Bush), but this is an overview on a large subject, and I don't think SYNthy comments on a "controversy" about not denying a statement should have a home in this article. Cool Hand Luke 16:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather think that the fact that a former President found that denying that religious faith is essential for civic virtue to be difficult or politically unwise is more than relevant; the fact that this point is regularly brought out in op-eds seems to indicate notability. Perhaps an RfC? I certainly think there are no BLP issues. Relata refero (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, because Bush has apparently not denied of having made that statement, or at least found it politically unwise to admit that "atheists can be patriots" in the US, this is notable in THIS article. But since this seems to such a controversial issue for some people here, i think there needs to much more said here. Most likely I will have the time to write a LONG statement on this discussion page tomorrow. Zara1709 (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The statements don't appear to have received any serious coverage in the mainstream press at the time, and what coverage since has been in articles about Sherman and to atheist activists in general, not about Bush. When a quote has that low a profile, and when it's being carefully treated by the mainstream press as an 'alleged' quote, explicitly denying it or issuing a press release about it would be counter productive; it would suddenly be all over the news. So it's not surprising that the Bush camp never bothered with a categorical denial. But those letters coming from his office in response to letters from citizens which mention the quotes more specifically all refer to them as 'quotes attributed to the president.' I think what's more notable than the lack of an official denial is the fact that the quote was supposedly made in front of many members of the mainstream press, and not one of them thought it was worth mentioning, or has come forward since with stronger evidence. Right now all we have is one man's word out of an entire roomful of people.

What mainstream coverage there has been has been of the quote has been about the fact that Sherman claimed Bush said these things; not about the quotes themselves, which does affect where the quote is or is not appropriate, I think. Those unimpeachable sources were careful not to state the incident as fact, and have mentioned it in the context of Sherman's activities, not on its own. That makes Sherman's claim notable, but not the statement itself. I think we should be treating this quote the same way the press seems to be treating it; as more notable to the person who claims it was said than to anything else. -- Vary | Talk 14:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Vary. Bush might have said it, but your argument that we must find a source showing that he didn't say it shifts the burden to the wrong side on BLPs. It's a notable quote for Sherman and American Atheist, and is often reported in relation to them, but op-eds and other sources using the quote might just be perpetuating a well-known legend. I agree that the lack of official denial doesn't mean anything. If I claimed that the current Bush said something dreadful, his staff probably wouldn't respond unless it had been reported in a mainstream publication, which this quote was not. Sitting U.S. Presidents don't usually have time to tackle fringe claims made in specialty magazines. In any case, I would welcome an RfC. Cool Hand Luke 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process.

What does WP:BLP actually say? If you take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, you will see in the 2nd sentence that it does only supplement and emphasize the three main Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (the last of which is not an issue here). You, Vary, are of the opinion that we would need to verify whether Bush actually said the statement to include is in this article. I should point out here, that I never explicitly was of the of the opinion that one could verify it. After I took a look at the sources that I gathered largely myself, I would actually say that one can't verify it. Nevertheless, even if the statement was actually wrong, it would not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to include it in the article George H. W. Bush in this case, if one would make clear that he did not actually say it. A search on the Internet turns up enough pages on this to make it notable. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid;" This is to be included because it was part of a public discussion, but Wikipedia is not a tabloid that would decide for the reader wether he actually said it or not, unless of course, either one of the viewpoints could be reliably sourced. I mean, I don't care about the issue that the American public has with atheism. But some people are likely to look up Wikipedia to see if we have something on the rumour about Bush having said something against Atheists, and it would be better to say that it is not clear whether Bush actually said it than to say nothing.

How does Wikipedia really work? I would otherwise rest it here, but Vary was determined to tell me how it [Wikipdia] works. On the right side you can find a flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process. If you disagree about something, you should usually discuss it first. I had intented the merge propasal to give the room for the discussion.

The claim that the material needed to be removed because of WP:BLP is nonsense. If you take ANOTHER look at the last revision that was removed, you will see that I did not say anything about whether this statement was true or not. But I was referring to the Tucson Weekly saying that it would be "one of the most famous quotes about atheists in American society." That Newspaper (that should be a reliable source) also does not say whether Bush actually said it, but it mentions that "Atheistic journalist and activist Robert Sherman attributed the statement to him". Of course, one newspaper article is not enough to establish notability, but one could easily find some more references , and you know that there are other reliable sources for the point that Shermann HAS ATTRIBUTED this statement to Bush, too. So you removal was not covered by wp:BLP and I consider it quite offensive. But I will assume that you acted in good faith.

On the actuall issue: Anyway, if this was an issue for wp:blp, it needed to be removed from American Atheists, too. But this is not the case, and a removal there would clearly be a violation of wp:NPOV that mandates that all significant viewpoints need to be included. The only real question here is, whether the attribution of this quote to Bush is significant enough to included in this article. That would be probably a question for a Requests for comment, but I still think that we can solve the other issues here with common sence. Again: Nobody is insisting that Bush actually said: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." What I am insisting on is that it has been alleged by Bob Sherman that he said it. Naturally, the use of the word 'alleged' does not violate wp:NPOV, since this has in fact been alleged. Similarly, the use of the word 'eminently' is not POV. The phrase "it has been eminently been argued by" is like a standart phrase for summarizing academic discussion. Only that this topic is here not considered to be an academic question which one can discuss in a relaxed atmosphere, but a political topic in the bad sense of the word political. Here a discussion means complelety denying any other point of view. Zara1709 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for any spelling error, but I ran out of time during writing (For technical reasons, I have to relog every hour). Currently I am conducting a websearch to get more sources. Most stuff I have found so far are atheist's and other webforums. This one is interesting [1]: "Did George H W Bush really say "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God"? - No one knows but George H W Bush and Rob Sherman. Bush isn't talking, and Sherman's story has changed over the years." Another interesting page is [2]. Anyway, it you know some newspaper articles that are accessible online, it would be helpful if you have the links. Zara1709 (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Move debate to 'Discrimination against atheists'?

I found another newspaper who reported on it. Washington monthly: [3], [4]. This should be a reliable source. There also is a statement in a forum, that even CNN and the New York Post reported on this. [5]. But anyway, I also found out that Wikipedia already has an article Discrimination against atheists which says: "In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush reportedly said, [the statement]". I'd guess Vary and Cool Hand Luke will object to the way that this is currently written there, so I propose that we just move the debate there an settle here with another sentence in the section that does not mention the statement by Bush, but links Discrimination against atheists instead. Zara1709 (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Worded appropriately, I think it would absolutely belong in that article, as would a reference to that topic here (presumably in the recently added section? But given that it's so uncertain that he even said it, I still think the statement itself off topic an inappropriate here.

And as for your complaints about my statements on 'how wikipedia works', that comment was in response to your request that this revision stay in place until you had a chance to address the blp violation. The "is believed to have" bit notwithstanding, I don't think that there can be any question that the unqualified statement 'In the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, he, at that time Republican presidential candidate, said: "blah, blah, we all know the quote by now"' violates blp. As I said in the comment I linked to, blp violations should be removed and then addressed on the talk page, not left in place until someone gets around to discussing how to go about correcting them. -- Vary | Talk 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You just had to completely remove it, instead of rewording it accordingly. You are familiar with the article American Atheists, where there is a reference to the Tuscon Weekly, which is a reliable source for the allegation that Bush said it. I am still somehow irritated. Why didn't you just take the time to move that paragraph to American Atheists, reword it, and make an appropriate link to it here? Zara1709 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a reliable source that he said it. Besides, I thought your point is that it doesn't matter whether he said it or not. I wouldn't mind if the articles said that only Rob Sherman reported it (for the American Atheist), that it was not taped, and that no other reporter at the press conference ever confirmed it. That way, we would put this almost-urban-legend quote on solid ground. That second Washington Monthly source is very nice and explicit. Thanks for your work. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did 'just have to completely remove it.' The version that was in the article at the time needed to go, whether the topic was appropriate or not. But as I said, I don't think it belongs here in any form, and it's already covered at American Atheists, so any rewriting and/or merging would, from my perspective, have been a waste of time. Why should I do something I don't think needs doing just because you disagree? -- Vary | Talk 19:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is a reliable source for THE ALLEGATION that he said it. (I don't have to write in a highlighting style all the time, do I?) And I consider it somehow reckless to delete a paragraph if you can rewrite it. Anyway, I moved the stuff to Discrimination against atheists; the Washington Monthly source is already included. Zara1709 (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Reckless? Sorry, but no. I am under no obligation to rewrite problematic material that I do not feel belongs in the article to begin with. I'm under no obligation to rewrite it even if I don't have any specific objections to the content itself. With a problem like this, getting the unsourced material (and here I mean the statement that GHW said these things, not that Sherman said he said them) out of the article is the first priority. And anyway, what was I supposed to do, rewrite it so that it doesn't state an unproven story as fact and then remove it as not germane to the article? -- Vary | Talk 21:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

'Eminently' and 'coined'

The word 'Eminently' is inherently pov, and the way it's being used here does not add anything to the article itself. It effectively says "I think this guy knows more about this than anyone else and you should listen to him." That's not what an encyclopedia should do.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau coined the term 'civil religion' a good hundred and fifty years before Bellah was born, so saying that Bellah coined the term is problematic.

And the statement that The article Civil Religion won't get any better if you delete the 'eminently' here puzzles me, as I don't know what one has to do with the other. -- Vary | Talk 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, it says that about Rousseau in the the current version of Civil Religion. But no one took up the term before Robert N. Bellah, so I consider it legitimate to say that he coined the term. Anyway, about a year ago I made a presentation on the topic in a course at the religious science department at my German university. I used, Thomas Hase: Zivilreligion : religionswissenschaftliche Überlegungen zu einem theoretischen Konzept am Beispiel der USA, Ergon-Verl. : Würzburg 2001, ISBN 3-935556-98-5, as a reference then. I would consider rewriting the article Civil Religion, but currently I am at a French university and it is somehow difficult to get the corresponding literature here. You can believe me that I referred the academic debate to the best of my knowledge, and that Bellah's research badly needs to be included in the English article on Civil Religion. Otherwise, you might want check out the German article de:Zivilreligion. Zara1709 (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

His research is included in the current article, but it still says that Rousseau coined the term, because he did. In the 1700's. And Bellah, in his paper "Civil Religion in America", states "The phrase 'civil religion' is, of course, Rousseau's." So even he doesn't appear to claim he coined it. -- Vary | Talk 15:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, but no one USED the term between Bellah and Rousseau; that it is used now again is ONLY due to Bellah. But disputing ONE WORD is really not worth it. Zara1709 (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Popularized $\neq$ coined. So no, it's not. -- Vary | Talk 15:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

cases

Shouldn't there be cases in this article? Supreme court cases, like Wallace against Jafree, I mean.204.147.20.1 (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

This section contain only the views of critics of the mordern concept of church and state. It should include views from the other side too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobisbob (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Tripoli

I want to create this section quickly. I will discuss in more detail in a few minutes. Pooua (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to explain why the following sentences are inappropriate in this or most other Wikipedia articles. I removed the words,

However, Article 6 of the United States Constitution provides that the Constitution, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it, are "the supreme Law of the Land" and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."

1) As I recently learned when I was editing the Treaty of Tripoli article, the quoted words are WP:SYNTH. That automatically means they cannot be used.

2) The quoted words are misleading. The fact that treaties are considered "the law of the land" has no bearing on the separation of church and state, or even on the phrase in Article 11 that states that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." The reason it is irrelevant is, no treaty could retroactively change the historical facts of the founding of the U.S. government, no treaty is superior to the U.S. Constitution or of federal law and the phrase in Article 11 was an observation, not a regulation.

3) The quoted text does not apply to the Treaty of Tripoli because the Treaty is not "the supreme law of the land," having been broken and replaced by a new treaty (and the new treaty also is not in force).

I know, you want to argue that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli somehow made it a law that the U.S. government is not Christian, but that was never possible for this treaty, and it is all the less possible now that the treaty is nothing more than an historical artifact. Pooua (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot a point.

4) By international law, copies of treaties are only valid inasmuch as they are accurate translations of the original. Article 11 is not an accurate translation of the original, and so has no weight in law.

Most treaties for the last few centuries have been written in French, because the French language allows for many subtle shades of differentiation. However, the Treaty of Tripoli was written in Arabic, because the men who wrote it primarily spoke and wrote in Arabic. It was translated into English for Joel Barlow and James Leander Cathcart. As far as I can find, Barlow did not have any formal training in Arabic, though he undoubtedly picked up some in his time in the Barbary nations. Cathcart probably knew Arabic well, as he had spent several years as a slave in the Barbary nations, eventually becoming chief Christian clerk to the Dey of Algiers. In any event, the English translation that was given to Barlow is crude, and the English Article 11 doesn't even exist in the Arabic. The Cathcart translation is more accurate, and also does not contain Article 11. In fact, the only version of the Treaty of Tripoli that contains Article 11 is Barlow's copy.

Now, secularist pundits will point out that Barlow's copy was the copy that was ratified by Congress and signed by President John Adams, and has since then been considered the official treaty. But, legally, it isn't, according to the American Society of International Law:

"National translations are valid only as they are good translations, however official they may be."

1) You have a fair point. The sentence in question, as currently written, was synthesis which is a form of original research. Also, as I noted earlier, starting the sentence with "however" is tendentious (per WP:WTA) as it implies that this argument is the correct one. Mention should be made of this argument though, as it is a common one. It simply needs to be cited and the language changed to make clear that it's just that; an argument. I don't have time to track down a source at the moment, but I imagine the edit would read something along the lines of "It is argued (insert reliable source cite) that this treaty along with Article 6 of the Constitution which reads....such and such...are evidence that (whatever the cite is arguing)." And then if there is another reliable source countering this argument it can be cited as well.

2-4) these are all interesting points, but seem to be original research. As I noted, if these arguments all came from a single reliable source, then they should be briefly summarized and presented as a counter-argument to the above. Otherwise, it couldn't be included. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, the existence of the paragraph - and the fact that it appears in the congressionally ratified copy of the treaty - does appear to support the argument being made here, which is that the founders of the United States intended for it to be religiously neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.178.220 (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want the legal basis for separation of church and state, it's not in the treaty of Tripoli. It's in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Translation; this government is theologically neutral. We will not establish your religion as more American than anyone else's, nor will we establish anyone else's as more American than yours. We will not prevent you from worshipping whatever God you choose, nor will we allow you to interfere with the worship of others. We will not use our station as a pulpit for your religion, nor will we allow anyone else to use it as a pulpit for theirs.

"Fair and balanced", some people call it.

It's actually a very interesting read, because at the time the Constitution was ratified, the United States was something like 95% Protestant. There were a couple Catholics and Jews for diversity's sake, but that was about it - certainly no one outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Yet the founding fathers still thought it was important enough to seperate not just church and state, but *religion* and state - even though everyone at the time basically had the same religion, and very few people would have been affected if Christianity actually had been made the state religion.

The Treaty of Tripoli; so far as I know, it doesn't have much legal bearing over the discussion. The part I like, though, is that its English language version was drafted by George Washington's personal chaplain. So much for the religious right's assertions that old George was one of them... 213.181.226.21 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"[T]his is a Christian nation." Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892).

Um, I realize that none of you uneducated liberals who run this website even know what Lexis is, but come on ... find someone who does (and find someone with a J.D. while you’re at it). Proof that Wikipedia is nothing but a propaganda piece for uneducated, secular liberals? This article. There is absolutely no mention of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), OR U.S. Const. art. I, § 7 (stating that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill). Justice Brewer, speaking for the Court in Church of the Holy Trinity, had this to say:

“If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, ‘In the name of God, amen;’ the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

Church of the Holy Trinity, 143 U.S. at 471 (emphasis added). Justice Brewer also delivered an immaculate review of why the “separation of church and state” (again, its modern conception, you know - the one propogated by airhead 3rd grade teachers who wouldn’t know a constitution or case law if it hit them in the head, which it's about to) is hogwash (please read to the end... the end is the best part!):

“But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from “Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, King and Queen of Castile,” etc., and recites that “it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered,” etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from “Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce and Ireland, Queene, defender of the faith,” etc., and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that “they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England.” The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: “We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well intended Desires.” Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611, and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: “Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid.” The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration: “Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered ospel i the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike state or Comonwelth, and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation ospel i, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the ospel of our Lord Jesus weh we now prfesse, as also the ospel ine of the Churches, weh according to the truth of the said ospel is now practiced amongst vs.” In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: “Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits, and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare,” etc.Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thet are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . . We therefore the Representatives of the united states of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,” etc.; “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the Constitution of Illinois, 1870: “We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations,” etc. It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, “so help me God.” It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 4: “The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God.” Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867: “That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution.” Or like that in Articles 2 and 3 of part 1st of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780: “It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality, therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.” Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Mississippi, 1832: “No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. . . . Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state.” Or by Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware, (1776), which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration:“I, A. B., do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill. There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.”

Id. at 465-70. How do you like them apples?66.184.134.26 (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR definitely applies here. Also, you need to read WP:NPA. --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not respond to cites to Wikipedia rules unless the person who objects to my edit clearly explains why he/she believes the rule is applicable to the edit. Also, it is ironic that in the summary of your revert of my edit you claimed "too many problems to list here" and suggested I visit the talk page to explain and get consensus, when you yourself did not even give an intelligible explanation of your objection to my edits (again, with an explanation of how you think the Wikipedia rule supports your position). Finally, consensus is not needed when the Supreme Court case being cited says precisely what the main-article text says it says. In this case, the proposition being asserted is that the Supreme Court has not always fully embraced the principle of separation of church and state. The cases cited clearly and specifically support this assertion; the cites even include direct quotes to this effect. Thank you, and please let me know if you have any more questions on the issue.66.184.134.26 (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is always needed. And you should know that, as the editor seeking to add material, the burden is on you to get consensus for inclusion. Much of the material you added has POV problems and, frankly, just isn't relevant. Rather than engaging in personal attacks and copy/pasting 2,000 word unformatted blocks of text that nobody will ever read, you should try making your case in a clear, concise manner. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 66.184.134.26 on this one. Had the article not already stated in the intro that the Supreme Court has cited the separation a number of times, I'm not sure it would be worthy of inclusion; however, since it does, and since the material he cites shows that the Supreme Court has not always fully embraced it, then it appears to be extremely relevant. Again, I think the result would be different if the intro didnt say that its been cited by the SC. An argument can be made that that gives the wrong impression - namely, that the SC has always fully embraced it, which, judging from those cases he cites, is obviously not correct.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: LM refers to POV problems. Are you claiming SC opinions are POV? Surely you couldn't have meant that. I'll wait for the response (by the way, I'm not trying to insult you, I actually want to know if you are stating that a SC opinion is POV.... because by definition an opinion is a point of view, and the topic (SC citation of the separation)is what is being discussed).Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

SCOTUS decisions are clearly reliable sources and I can't see LM's argument that it is not relevant. However, a SCOTUS decision is a primary source and, as such, is subject to interpretation as to what the Supremes meant when they wrote what they wrote. It would be better to add some secondary sources who assert that the SC has not always fully embraced the separation of church and state. In fact, it would be good to see some secondary sources who trace the history of the doctrine over the 220 year history of the nation. As originally inserted, the text smacked of OR. Let's see some citations to reliable sources who make this argument. --Richard (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that secondary sources would be nice, they are certainly not necessary. "[A] SCOTUS decision is a primary source and, as such, is subject to interpretation as to what the Supremes meant when they wrote what they wrote." True, unless the SC is saying exactly what youre saying they are saying. Here, the quotes, which are directly stated in the citation, clearly state that the SC is not fully embracing the principle in those cases. Surely I don't have to click back over to the article page, come back, and cut and paste do I? Anyway, by all means, if you'd like to add secondary sources, go ahead. But they aren't necessary.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. I would be in support of removing the Church of the Holy Trinity citation, because nowhere in the opinion does the SC actually refer to the separation principle. (I can certainly see why it is relevant though... it just doesn't address the separation principle directly like the other cases do).Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So... the problem here is that the quoted text does not, as Iadmitmybias... points out, directly address separation of church and state. SCOTUS may have said what it said but the application of those words to the doctrine of separation of church and state still involves interpretation. What the quoted text does seem to assert is that the United States is a "religious nation", a "religious people", even a "Christian nation".

What we don't have is a clear statement of how those facts affect separation of church and state and freedom of religion. Perhaps it can be found elsewhere in that SCOTUS decision. More importantly, we don't have an analysis of how the doctrines of freedom of religion and separation of church and state have evolved since those days. This is what secondary sources can do for us. They can trace the historical development of these doctrines through the legislative and judicial branches showing us what precedents have been set and how we have gotten from there to here.

Another important key is the way that the nation has evolved from being a religious Christian nation to a somewhat different nation. This provides the necessary context to understand the evolution of these doctrines. Any effort to do this with primary sources such as SCOTUS decisions is fundamentally OR. I don't doubt that much has been written by secondary sources on both sides of this issue. What's needed is to abandon the effort to insert these citations from primary sources and to go find secondary sources that provide scholarly treatments of the issue.

I personally think it's reasonable to assert that the Founding Fathers were mostly interested in making sure that no Christian Church became established as the official church of the U.S. in the way that the Church of England was the official church of the United Kingdom. There focus was in making sure that Protestants (and maybe Catholics) could practice their faith in freedom without interference from the state. However, the doctrine of separation of C&S has evolved as has our concept of freedom of religion as has our entire concept of the role of religion in the U.S. However, you need more than a 100-year old SCOTUS decision to assert that fact in Wikipedia. Come on, really. It's not as if this is a topic that has been ignored by scholars. Dust off the books and come up with some reliable sources already.

--Richard (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I completely agree. The Church of the Holy Trinity decision should not be cited. I am going to remove it, because - unlike the other cases, which directly refer to the separation principle - it does not address the principle. The other cases, however, specifically refer to the principle and in plain language indicate that the court is not willing to fully embrace it. If you would like to find secondary sources, please go ahead and do so. But in this instance, they are not necessary, because what the main-article text is saying is that the SC is not fully embracing the principle, and the SC in those cases clearly indicates, in plain language, that it is not fully embracing the principle. Again, I agree with you on the Church of the Holy Trinity decision. I am removing it. Please look at the other cases. Thank you.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot two points: (1) One of those decisions is from 1984 (the other from '73) - not exactly 100 years old; (2) there is already a scholarly cite (Hofstra Law Review). Let me know if you have any more questions.Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou? (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

what california law?

what california law required students so say the pledge of allegence? I do not recall being required to I was in school until 2003 so I would have been effected had it existed considering I hadnt even left the state of california until i was 13 and didnt move out until just this past july so i only went to cali schools, i could see a school policy but the article says CA law--Shimonnyman (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Christian nation

Could somebody take over from me, please? I have already reverted the latest edit twice, and I still do not think that it should be in the article... KarlFrei (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm repeating the removal of the block of text I think you're referring to:

a position which can be seen as contradicted by: "Jesus answered (Pilate), 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight (to defend him), ...' " - John 18:36 -- why "Christian nation" cannot be an official position, opponents have maintained for centuries, i.e., there are only Christian people, possibly in Christian communities. Beyond that are the "things which are Caesar's" - Matthew 22:21

This is POV commentary, whether true or not. This article is about separation of church and state in the United States. It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to list the arguments we see in favor of or against an idea. We can report, using published and reputable sources, that some particular party has advanced a particular argument if that party and their claims are specifically relevant to the article topic. Martin Luther falls outside the domain of "Separation of church and state in the United States" except as part of a claim made by somebody who is specifically relevant to this topic.

Kenji Yamada (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That was indeed it. KarlFrei (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson

The following quote is a more complete explanation of Jefferson's intent regarding the separation of Church and State: "Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions." This quote was taken from a writing from Bavid Barton's website: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.227.59 (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Core issues

Probably the #1 issue in all of the above is the degree of separation of church and state that we shall have. This is a subject of national debate, with opposing sides. It's a weakness of Wikipedia that articles on contentious topics are unstable with ongoing strife. I think that this falls into two categories:

1. 1 Those who want the article to either advance their viewpoint, or to not advance the viewpoint of their opposition.

1. 2 The article (and even more so, it's talk page) provides a boxing ring, a venue for those of opposing viewpoints to duke it out, where #1 is secondary.

Possibly recognition of this would help a little.

I would like to bring up a second and narrower core issue. "Separation of Church and State" is a vague and thus potentially massively reaching or overreaching phrase, going far beyond the law or the constitution. Contrary to widespread mis-impressions, that phrase is not US law, nor is it in the US Constitution. That phrase has been used by the Supreme Court when making judgments which implement the actual provisions of the Constitution. Use of a phrase in discussions does not make the phrase (and all of it's interpretations by everybody ) the law nor the constitution. The article sort of leaves the opposite impression, thus furthering a common mis-impression where it should instead be providing the facts to dispel it. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Falsehood

This page is blatantly POV. It asserts as fact that the ban on laws establishing a state church somehow "de-Christianizes" the nation. Actually knowledgable people know that in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States Chief Justice Fuller specifically stated that:

this is a Christian nation... Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…(source)

As you can clearly see, an actual supreme court case ruled that the Establishment Clause did not sever all connections between the government and the Church, nor did it condone any doctrine similar to the "separation of church and state" that this article describes.--Axiom^talk 17:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM regarding article discussion pages. This page is for discussing and proposing specific edits to the article only, not for general discussion or debate about the subject of the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the particulars of Axiom's post, but they are pointing out an area where the article has fundamental errors, including the lead. Neither the far reaching "wall" concept nor the far reaching vague term "separation of church and state" are in the US Constitution or US Law. To see what IS in the US Constitution on this topic, one can actually read it instead of mis-quoting it. North8000 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the "allegedly" is a bad word for the lead, Axiom's version of the lead is more accurate than the current one. I hate tagging, (and didn't yet) but those first couple of sentences need it. Not only uncited, but unciteable by any reliable RS because they are wrong. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're accusing of "misquoting the constitution." Do you have any specific edits to the article you would like to discuss or are you just looking to debate religious politics? --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So, an accusation built upon a baseless unfounded logical leap. Where the heck do you get "looking to debate religious politics" out of what I just wrote? Secondly, where do you get off saying that the only two possibilities are that and me already having a specific edit to make? North8000 (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To reinforce what an error that was, I'm an (unwilling) atheist would would like a little more freedom from religion. But that's irrelevant here. We leave all of that at the door and try to make an accurate article.

Regarding specific changes, that would be to try to find some solid sourcing for the two sentences that I'll tag. This means RS sourcing that clearly supports the statement. After that proves impossible due to them being erroneous, then we can fix them. Or we can fix them now (without waiting for that) if there is a consensus North8000 (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why the idea that the "separation..." phrase refers to a concept embedded in the constitution is remotely controversial or needs further documentation. Clearly, Jefferson makes that assertion in his famous quote, correct? (The quote included in the same paragraph of the article.) And the article is about the meaning of the constitutional concept named "separation..." by Jefferson. While there are those who dispute that "separation of church and state," as usually understood by modern scholars, is truly implied by the constitution, is there any doubt that is the phrase itself--whatever your personal view--describes a constitutional principal? If Jefferson isn't referring to a constitutional principal, what is he referring to? -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In short, "Separation of Church and State" is a very very broad statement. CERTAIN ASPECTS of it are written into and supported by the constitution. So that broader statement is not embedded in the Constitution. To give a simpler example, consider the precise wording of the women's sufferage amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." And in the first court case which enforced it a judge coined the phrase "All women have the right to vote" and everybody mistakenly thought that that phrase was in the constitution. In some cases, the latter wording is patently wrong statement of what is in the constitution...... for example a woman conficted of a felony CAN be denied the right to vote. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the intro to the article, "separation of church and state" isn't an independent statement; it is being defined as a phrase commonly used to describe a constitutional principal. And so it is: Jefferson, Madison, numerous supreme court justices, later presidents, historians, journalists, etc. have used that phrase exactly that way, which is why it merits a wikipedia entry. You may argue that those guys had it wrong and that the "wall of separation" is an over-broad metaphor that is misleading about what's actually in the constitution, but that argument has no bearing on what the phrase is used to describe in the first place. If it weren't a description of a constitutional principal, you'd have no argument with it! The fact that the use and interpretation of this phrase has been and remains contentious certainly belongs in the article, but there is no basis for denying a clear statement of how that famous phrase is used at the outset. --BTfromLA (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

BTfromLA, very well written and I agree with you 100%. But you are not addressing the issue of the discussion here which is the statements that I tagged. which (briefly paraphrasing) are that that phrase/broader concept is "embedded in the US Constitution", and "became a definitive part of Establishment Clause" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing that first case. Since you agree that the phrase is used to describe a constitutional principal, it follows that one can say it is used to describe "a legal and political principle embedded in the constitution." The latter is just a more specific way of describing the former. As to the second example, I hadn't seen that, but I have to say that your description of it above is rather disingenuous: you left out a key word--the claim is that with a particular 1878 court case, the separation metaphor "became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence"--a very different meaning from it becoming part of the clause itself! Frankly, without further research, I don't know whether "definitive" applies in that case, but it was, I think, the point at which the phrase was first cited by the courts, and it certainly has reappeared in Supreme Court decisions--and been affirmed as a clear statement of the founders' intention--on many occasions since that time, mostly post-WWII. So, I think you should remove the call for a citation in the first case, and if you want to cut the word "definitive" from the second, I'd have no objection. -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree and would be happy to discuss in greater detail. Or possibly, would the following be agreeable?: Keeping in mind that the core fact is that the "Separation of Church and State" statement is broader than what is in the constitution. I would propose modifying those two sentences to either indicate that, or, at least, not say or imply the opposite. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

On the first one, I'm cool with Wiseskier's change and tag removal. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thats much better.Axiom^talk 20:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is false and wildly inappropriate to assert that "the core fact is that the 'Separation of Church and State' statement is broader than what is in the constitution." It is also apparent that you did not read carefully the post I wrote above that you claimed to be in 100% agreement with. What you are asserting is a not fact at all, but a very contentious political POV that has no place in this article. Whether we think the separation metaphor is too broad, or not broad enough, or too vague, or just perfect... it is not our place to comment on this when writing a wikipedia article, most especially with regard to the initial definition of the topic. To the extent there is such a thing as a "core fact," it is simply what I wrote above: this phrase has historically been used (by presidents, jurists, etc.) to describe a concept embedded in the US Constitution. Respectfully, North8000, if you can't separate your political opinions from your role as dispassionate reporter on this matter, I think you should recuse yourself from participating in this article. And I think the latest revision to the first sentence winds up with a garbled meaning, quite inferior to what it replaced. But I have no taste for a wikipedia edit war: I invite others to weigh in here. --BTfromLA (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote. I was trying proposing a shortcut to the discussion. If you are going to attack the shortcut, then let's switch back to starting with sourcing. And I don't appreciate your mistaken guesses as to my motivations. In reality, my motivation is simply precisess and accuracy, and supported by sourcing. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC) (Restored this text which somebody deleted) North8000 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, North8000, I'm disappointed (and a little surprised ) that nobody has yet jumped in below to offer an outside perspective on our dispute. As you may guess, I don't think your latest revision to the first sentence improves things--quite the opposite. But I do have a question for you that might help us to progress. It seems possible that the reason we are coming at this from such different angles is that we have fundamentally different understandings of what the topic of this article is. Based on the name of the article and the version of it I initially found here, my understanding is that this article is about the specific concept of "separation of church and state" -- and the history of that particular phrase --as applied in the US. Obviously, this phrase has a famous history as a description of a constitutional principal, which we've been wrangling over. I'm wondering whether you agree that this specific phrase is crucial, or whether you see the article topic as actually much more broad, such that the article could just as well be renamed something like "secular government in the US" or "the relationship between government and religion in the US". Thoughts on this? --BTfromLA (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I did not notice your question until today. My issue here is very very narrow, and is one merely of preciseness in an area where mis-conception is common. Briefly, "separation of church and state" is a very broad statement, (only) a portion of which is incorporated in the constitution. Anything that says or implies otherwise is misleading. North8000 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court section

North8000, you seem very concerned about the first bit in this section, and I don't understand why. I had presumed that your objection was to the word "definitive," but I obviously got that wrong. I will agree that the section is not well written ("since 1947" has to go, for starters, if we're starting with a nineteenth century case), but I don't understand why you are so exercised about mentioning the first Supreme Court case that cited Jefferson's letter as authoratative... this is also mentioned in the introduction to the article, and you've had no objection to it there. In other words, please clarify your concern, preferably with a proposed alternative draft. -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't have much time today, but answering 1/2 of our question, those earlier coverages were of people's statements, identified as such. So they are accurate, cited statements about what someone has said. For example, if John Smith says xxxxx, whetether xxxxx is right, wrong, or legally vague, the statement that "John Smith said xxxxx" is correct. But if an WP editor writes their own impression of xxxxx as being a fact, that is uncited synthesis.

North8000 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten that paragraph... how does the new version strike you? -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better, including on items unrelat3ed to my concern. I think I'll need to get a more rigorous def. of jurisprudence before I know finally, but I'm cool with it as is. (spirit of compromise also mattered here) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Studied "jurisprudence" some more. I think it would be more accurate (sourcable) with a different word or phrase in lieu of that word. North8000 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Does the phrase "separation of church and state" (in the US) describe a concept in the US constitution?

Editors disagree about the introductory section: is it appropriate to introduce this topic as a phrase that "describes a legal and political principle embedded in the Constitution of the United States," or is it the case that the intro should reflect that "the core fact is that the 'Separation of Church and State' statement is broader than what is in the constitution"? BTfromLA (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is several steps removed from being an accurate description of the question here. The article question is that BTfromLA advocates removal of the citation tag (without sourcing required) from the first sentence in the "Supreme Court Since 1947" section.

And while it's hard to keep up with the changes in the lead sentence, for the version in there as of this moment, BTFromLA would also like the cite require tag removed, without sourcing provided.

If we are getting off-article into the general debate raised by the RFC tag, my assertion is that "Separation of Church and State" is much broader than what is in the US constitution and that any statement that says or implies otherwise can't be reliably sourced (as an aside, due to being wrong). North8000 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that interested third parties review the discussion section above (labelled "falsehood") to assess whether I have fairly characterized the dispute. I've had little to say about the "Supreme Court since 1947" issue, and indeed hadn't even noticed that citation tag until we were well into our discussion. In other words, this discussion has focused primarily on the introductory section, mostly on the first sentence of the article. --BTfromLA (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

On the lead, I have an idea which might settle it, and also be precise and informative. If OK, I would be OK with removing the tag. If not OK, feel free to revert me - no hard feelings. North8000 (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not reverted. The more precise wording resolves my concerns. Removed tag that I put in. North8000 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So I had an idea on how to fix the lead sentence. But none on how to fix that first sentence in the "Supreme Court since 1947" section. I though we should should substitute a statement about what actually DID happen relative to separation of church and state in that referenced court case. That will take some work. Interestingly, there's an entire article WP on the court case which is the subject of the sentence, and separation of church and state in not even mentioned anywhere in the entire article. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on exactly where the controversy lies in the phrasing that has been put forth for this poll. Ultimately, separation of church and state is a fundamental political principal that was considered while the constitution and certainly the bill of rights were being authored. This would mean that the core is larger than the constitution while it is also a concept embedded within it. Could someone clarify? KenBest (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The article began with the sentence "The phrase separation of church and state (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") describes a legal and political principle embedded in the Constitution of the United States." This is immediately followed by citation of the relevant passages from the first amendment and article 6, and the paragraph continued from there as it does currently. The controversy is this: North8000, with a bit of support from a couple of other users, believes the claim in that first sentence is false, and needs changing on grounds that it is "unsourced" as well as false. He asserts is that "separation of church and state" is a very broad statement that does not describe any principal embedded in the constitution, hence the current version that reads (confusingly, in my view) that "separation" is a legal and political principal, period, "elements" of which appear in the constitution. I believe the original statement is clear and correct, and that it is fully justified by the information in the rest of the paragraph and the following paragraph. (If you read the "falsehood" section of this talk page, above, you'll get the details of the dispute.) North8000 has a second concern that he's bringing up here, which I think should be treated separately and was not any part of the RfC (i.e., in the article section on the Supreme Court, he objects to the word "jurisprudence", and may have other unstated objections, for reasons that I do not understand). -- BTfromLA (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(added later) Close, but not exactly. "Describes" means "is an accurate description of", and since it includes things which are not in the constitution, it is not a description of what it in the constitution. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Two thoughts: 1. Would you find it more accurate if the original were changed to read "The phrase... is often used to describe...? That would slightly decrease the quality of the prose, but if that's the extent of your objection, I could live with it. Otherwise, 2. Can you specify what "things" the phrase includes that are not a description of the constitutional principal? -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just double checking, do you have an objection to the lead I think that it is quite neutral and accurate. If you don't like, it, what do you not like about it?

With your revision, the statement becomes technically correct (just as "some people describe the earth as flat" is a correct statement  :-) ) but I don't think describing people's inaccurate description is a good first sentence for the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the US constitution created a government separate from religion (in contrast to the British, colonial and European governments that the founders were familiar with), is beyond dispute. If you are claiming, as you seem to be, that explicit statements to this effect by Jefferson, Madison, and multiple Supreme Courst justices--just for a start--is "unsourced," then you, my friend, are the flat-earther here. Reverting the first sentence to the earlier, accurate and directly worded version. (I can say more later... my real world work schedule has made it impossible for me to follow up here this week.) -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The error (and unsourced statement) is that that broader statement is a description of the the legal principles in the US constitution. My minor change makes it accurate. What is your dispute with my minor change? If there is no dispute, then that could be a resolution. Trying one more, if not, then it needs a cite tag. North8000 (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your position is baseless. YOU need to substantiate your claim that the quotes from Jefferson, Madison, Hugo Black, etc., etc. do not qualify as sources. I notice you have also failed to respond to my request for specification about the "elements" of the concept that are and are not embedded in the constitution, as is your claim. -- BTfromLA (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your first statement is too vague to respond to. I have never discussed any of those sources, I am saying that the particular statement (version) that you prefer is unsourced, and, as an aside, unsourcable because it is incorrect. I did fail to respond to your question, to do so thoroughly would be a huge job. But I'll give a partial response here. Actually, regarding the elements of that broad reaching statement that ARE embedded in the constitution, much of the the rest of this article gives an accurate and informative answer......if we can fix / keep fixed those two erroneous sentences in key places, they would become consistent with the content of the article.North8000 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess the simplest answer of what is NOT in the constitution, the phrase "separation of church and state" is NOT in the constitution. And the simplest answer of what IS in the constitution, the simplest answer is to actually look at it. The core of it is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Next I will try to give a few examples of things covered by that broad reaching statement that are NOT embedded in the constitution. A full implementation of that broad reaching phrase would actually require reverse discrimination. For example, allowing a chess club to use a public school as a meeting place during the evening, but forbidding a church club from doing so. Or, forbidding the use of the word "God" in government seals etc.. Or, forbidding all transactions between a church group and a governmental body. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I think I've said everything that needs saying above, but I will make one more attempt to communicate with you.

1. As to my request that is "too vague to respond to," perhaps I wasn't explicit enough. What I'm saying is that the fact that "separation..." refers to a constitutional principle is so fully supported by the first two paragraphs of the article (for a start) that no additional citation is needed or appropriate. We could add a footnoted reference to Jefferson's comment, or to the Supreme court decision saying ""The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state," or to any number of similar sources, but since they are right there in the body text, it seems both silly and tendentious to insert a note where none is called for. Likewise, your "elements of.." version of the sentence is confusing, unsubstantiated and tendentious. So, to be very clear: I am saying that the original first sentence is fully "sourced" by the sources quoted and described in the first two paragraphs, and even more sources are available in the Supreme Court section and elsewhere in the article. Again, so there's no mistaking: you are denying a well-established fact. Declaring that the moon is made of green cheese doesn't go any distance toward making it so, and doesn't mean that the "moon" article needs to add sources to demonstrate that no part of it is cheese.

2. Of course, the "separation..." phrase is not written in the constitution. This is well known, and the article does nothing to imply that it is. That is irrelevant to the question at hand. The principle of church/state separation IS reflected in the constitution (including by omission, by the way... the conspicuous absence of any mention of God, bible, Jesus, etc. could not have been lost on any of the framers). You've offered no evidence to the contrary. The argument that the principle isn't there because the exact phrase isn't there is childish: are you going to deny that the constitution establishes "three branches of government" or "the right to a fair trial" because those phrases don't appear? Come on... no thought or conversation is possible without metaphors and analogies. And the "separation" idea is indeed in the law, assuming you see court decisions as part of the law. The separation principle is discussed as such in most of the important first amendment cases having to do with religion.

3. As to your description of "things covered by that broad reaching statement that are NOT embedded in the constitution," you are confusing categories. The sort of things you mention--prohibitions against the word God on government seals, for example--are not principles! They are individual cases to which the law may be applied. Whether a court interprets the law to mean "God" can or can't be in a given seal says nothing about whether "separation of church and state" is a constitutional principal. This may help: look at the quote from the 1971 Lemon case in the Supreme Court section: ""Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable." See what's going on there? The court is saying that the principal exists, yet when applied to specific cases, it does not connote the sort of "total" separation that the phrase seems to conjure in your mind.

I truly don't mean to offend, but I have concluded that my comment that you disliked above about your being so blinded by a political POV that you should recuse yourself from editing here holds true. Your examples are all political controversies--and you are making a direct political argument by implying that certain court decisions constitute "reverse discrimination" and are somehow unconstitutional. It appears that you are trying to slant the article to favor your personal political views. Either that, or it is just a question of your being confused about what a constitutional principle is...in that case, I hope my efforts here have been of some value to you.

As to your objection to the Supreme court section... I honestly don't have a clue what your concern is, but you keep mentioning it. Are you are saying that the separation concept hasn't been used by the courts? Of course it has... just read the section. If not that, what is the problem? -- BTfromLA (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BTfromLA Please don't use ad homimen arguements, doubly so for mistaken ones. If you took what I said at face value instead of seeing POV ghosts, you would be a lot less confused at where I'm coming from. Which in both cases, is a sentence which is written precisely enough to be correct in this important area. And I have no problem with any of the Supreme Court decisions on this. Unlike the sentence in dispute, they have understood that the the description of what is in the constitution regarding this is what is in the constitution, and that it is not described by a vague broad phrase. Even the rest of the article understand this. The only misconception or error is in those two sentences, and in your defense of them. Per WP:Burden, the next step is to require reliable sourcing for the statement that that phrase IS A DESCRIPTION OF the principles written into the constitution. Since it is an incorrect statement, that will be very difficult. My minor tweaks which made it accurate, and you inexplicably have not voiced any specific objection to would have and would solve it. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A. I have made no ad hominem arguments. B. I have actually taken the time to carefully and repeatedly respond to your claims, though I have evidently failed to write in a manner comprehensible to you--you certainly have not responded to my argument why adequate "sourcing" is already in plain view and nothing else is needed. Nor have your responded to any of the arguments I made in that long post. The concept of separating church and state is one of the cornerstones of US government, and one of the few characteristics that distinguished the US Constitution from the charters of states that preceded it. I am still at a loss as to how you find this a controversial claim. -- BTfromLA (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that I did not more clearly respond those things which took the time to write, but I can explain. Each time you wrote about general principles of our government, and who said what, and what the courts do, you are (roughly speaking) saying things that I agree with but which are irrelevant to the question at hand. I honestly don't know whether your are not understanding my point or whether you do understand it but are pretending that you don't. The fact that you have never responded to my repeated questions about any specific objections you have to the revised wording leans me towards thinking the latter. But in case it is the former, here is a more bare bones illustration (an an exact analogy with respect to the issue) of the logical flaw in the first sentence.

Let's say that there is a group of people in Zanzibar are promoting the concept of "Nobody Works on Sunday". And, it is written into Zanzibar law (only) that nobody is allowed to work before 10:00 AM on Sundays. Now, the erroneous first sentence of the lead basically says:

"Nobody works on Sunday" describes a legal principle embedded in Zanzibar law.

The sentence is wrong due to it's faulty wording. The faulty wording is the ENTIRE issue here. My minor tweak ( which you have not voiced any specific objection to but keep reverting) corrected the error. So I have again tagged the faulty part of the wording for sourcing, which is the Wikipedian way to resolve it. You have not provided any sourcing supporting the faulty part of the wording. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I assure you that I'm not pretending to be mystified by your logic! I am truly mystified--I have expended a good deal of energy trying to find sense in what your are saying--the best I could come up with was something I wrote earlier about our having different conceptions of what the topic of the article is, but you did not find anything in that, instead focusing on "faulty wording," with a fixation on the word "describes." As to your analogy, first, it is interesting that you omitted "The phrase," which makes the point that we're talking about what that phrase denotes in practice, not what the words mean in the abstract. Second, if that law was in the constitution of Zanzibar that had survived for 200+ years, and there were multiple pronouncements from the authors of the law stating that this law expresses the principle of "Nobody Works on Sunday," and decades of judgements by the Zanzibar supreme court interpreting that law as an enshrinement of the concept of "Nobody Works on Sunday," then, yes, it would indeed be correct to say that the phrase "Nobody Works on Sunday" describes (or "refers to," if you'd rather) that principle in Zanzibar law. That phrase is historically connected to the law, in Zanzibar that phrase is widely accepted as describing the essence of that law, regardless of the fact that some Zanzibarians actually do work on Sundays. The wikipedia article on this concept would then go on to clarify what the "nobody works on Sunday" law actually entails, including the "10 AM Clause".

However, I must point out that your analogy is far from "exact," in fact it is completely misleading. The US Constitution does indeed create a government that explicitly prohibits any state religion or religious test. That's separation of Church and State. -- BTfromLA (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As to your edit of that first sentence, I did, briefly, indicate what the problems with it are above, where I said it is "confusing, unsubstantiated and tendentious." Confusing, because the extent to which "separation" is a concept separate from the constitutional context is not followed up on and because these "elements" are completely undefined. Unsubstantiated, because, well, the "elements" business is completely unsubstantiated. And tendentious because the effect is to muddle a straightforward statement, with the effect of undermining the historical connection of "separation" and the constitution. I hope that is enough to satisfy your curiosity. -- BTfromLA (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello BTfromLA. But if somebody let the misworded sentence in Wikipedia stand,....that "Nobody works on Sunday" describes the Zanzibar law, and if they see somebody working at noon, they will mistakenly say "arrest that man!" Maybe occasionally a cop who read the mis-written lead sentence instead of his law book might mistakenly arrest the person. But the courts did not go awry as you describe, they went by the actual law and released the guy. They sometimes repeated the phrase, but they NEVER said that the phrase is a description of the law. And then the judge said "how did that mis-written sentence in Wikipedia that started all this misconception and mess stay in there, and with no RS cite supporting the actual statement? And then they look back at the article history and say "It's because North8000 got weary and caved in to BTfromLA back in in December 2010" :-)

Perhaps there is mutually agreeable wording that would resolve this. I'm guessing that there is but I'm out of time at the moment. Have a great weekend. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have good wording yet, but here are a couple of ideas. One would be to use my verison except to briefly summarize the elements wher er embedded int eh constitution. A second would be say that the phrase grew from a variety of sources, including the US constitution, and writings of prominent Americans such as Thomas Jefferson. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I have been noodling on this and I keep coming back to "The phrase separation of church and state (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") describes a legal and political principle. Elements of it are embedded in the Constitution of the United States." or

"The phrase separation of church and state (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") describes a legal and political principle, elements of which are embedded in the Constitution of the United States."

This turns an erroneous (= "cite required" in WP terms) sentence into a correct one, and leads right into the following sentence.North8000 19:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Break to Separate Older Material

The official content dispute is me requiring sourcing for 2 statements. If one is wondering about where I'm coming from on this, my issue here is very very narrow, and is one merely of preciseness in an area where mis-conception is common. Briefly, "separation of church and state" is a very broad statement, (only) a portion of which is incorporated in the constitution. Anything that says or implies otherwise is misleading. And that such was the case with those two statements. I think that the RFC is sort of off both of these "tracks" and so I can't speak for it.

Regarding the first "content dispute", I would consider it to be resolved per my post about 4 paragraphs up.

Regarding the second "content dispute" per the next talk section, I sort of "caved in" due to combination of factors, including a spirit of compromise. But long term I'll still probably propose a tweak to it. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 10:34, 30 November

"elements of which"

Good grief, North8000, these "elements" (and the supposed gulf between the "separation" principal and the constitutional principal), exist only in your head--they are pure POV (and utterly unsubstantiated to boot). I am removing, with the request that you come up with sources to validate this "elements of" business. I note that you completely ignored all of my requests for you to explain why the many sources, from Jefferson on down, validating the use of the separation metaphor as a description of the the constitutional principal are somehow lacking. --BTfromLA (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see conversation above for the past weeks. This correction removed the need for the tag. Must we go back? Sincerely, North8000 21:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You are the one inserting a broader reaching statement (by removal of the qualifier).....the that entire scope of what is covered by the phrase "separation of church and state" is embedded in the constitution. You would need to provide a cite for that broader reaching statement to include it.Sincerely, North8000 21:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The cite tag which you put on there is misplaced because it is a qualifier which makes the actual statement of the sentence more supportable. But I think that it will lead to ending up with a good first sentence. Sincerely, North8000 21:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd posted a response here, but it doesn't seem to have made it so I'll try again: A. You've created the need for a citation tag by introducing undefined and unsubstantiated "elements" into a clear and factually accurate sentence. B. In another attempt to get someone else in to help us resolve this, I've posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Government. C. I have provided numerous sources! You consistently fail to respond to them, I do not understand why. The Supreme Court: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state." Jefferson: "...that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." etc, etc. -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least we are united in hoping for some well informed clear-headed opinions to help resolve this (at least I think we are). Atheistic season's greetings to you, too. -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I too posted something here which seems to have disappeared, along with the edit record. And you responded to it, so it must have been up for a while. 00:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(Moved here later..originally misplaced) ::: I posted there too. We'll see what the folks there say; also I'll look for an expert RS which addresses this topic directly. I know that we're sort of opponents on this issue, but I respect you for being a sincere editor, and, from this atheist/agnostic, a Merry Christmas to you. Sincerely, North8000 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to something you posted on that US Government talk page; perhaps you intended to place it here? BTfromLA (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I put it in the wrong place. Thanx. North8000 04:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BT, I'd like to ask a question that might be helpful. In short, what I am asserting is that "Separation of Church and State" is broader than what is in the Constitution, and so a statement that it is (fully) embedded in the Constitution is incorrect. And so I am not asserting the "elements of" qualifier, I am asserting the overall statement is inaccurate and unsourcable unless it has such a qualifier. Now, which is the case?:

1. My point is unclear, but you think I'm probably sincerely trying to make one.
2. You fully understand my point, but think that it is wrong.
3. You figure that I might not really be really trying to make a point, but rather might be just saying things in order to advance a POV in the article
4. You want to advance the concept of constitutional aspects of "Sep of Church and State" being as far reaching as is possible, and want the first sentence to do that regardless of any any of these issues.

Sincerely,North8000 15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have gone over and over this and don't have time now for one more round. It'd be nice if you would respond to my basic, many times repeated question as to why you find that when Jefferson, Madison, and various Supreme Courts (just for a start) use the "separation" metaphor to describe a constitutional principal, it does not constitute a legitimate source for that first sentence. -- BTfromLA (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Picking a # doesn't sound very time consuming. I think I answered your questions before, this one looks a little different. In short, "embedded in" is a fundamentally different statement than those other metaphor type statements that you are referring to. Her's a good analogy. Let's say that various people said things like "DesMoines epitomizes Iowa, or "Iowa is a metaphor for DesMoines. Those do not support the statemetn that "Iowa is embedded within DesMoines". This is very accurate analogy. The religion/church related items in the Constitution are a SUBSET of things covered by "Separation of Church and State" Sincerely, North8000 19:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"The religion/church related items in the Constitution are a SUBSET of things covered by 'Separation of Church and State.'" Says who? What is your source for this? -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to look like you are avoiding the core of the discussion. That was an explanation/discussion, not article content. Which brings us to the real question. You want a statement of the opposite in the article. Without my qualifier, it would say that everything covered by the "Sep of Church & State" phrase is embedded in the constitution and the fact that you have no sources that says that. Being wrong makes it very difficult to source.  :-) North8000 19:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, you are the one making this "broader concept" idea into the "core issue," and as far as i can tell you are doing so in complete contradiction to common usage, the historical record and innumerable authoritative sources. Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, it seems pretty clear that you just made up this idea out of whole cloth, with no intellectual basis and no coherent argument, and it has no place shaping the article. You have repeated failed to respond directly to any question about: A. why you believe the authoritative sources that use the phrase to describe the constitutional principal are inadequate sources or B. what your basis is for this "much broader" concept (that Jefferson, Madison and many Supreme Court decisions seemed to miss). The sentence I've endorsed is a clear statement of historical fact--I point to the sources, many of which are very widely known already, and you just ignore them. Please address these issues! -- BTfromLA (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: There is one sense in which I do recognize a "broader concept" exists, but you dismissed it as irrelevant when I brought it up many moons ago. That is, the "Separation..." concept as it appears outside of the constitutional principal, e.g., within state or local governments, or in pre-revolutionary history or philosophical arguments about the virtues of secularism. But if the article is to embrace those (and it does include some of that), I'd still argue that the constitutional principal is the strongest single meaning of the phrase, and should probably come first.

I meant that each time we start getting to the specifics, you hop somewhere else. Experience has taught me that usually that means the person doesn't want to sincerely discuss it. I keep telling you that the answer to you question is that the sources don';t say what is in that sentence as you want it. And you keep ignoring my answer, and keep ignoring everything that I say. North8000 (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

When every authoritative source under the sun for 200 years uses the "separation..." metaphor to describe the constitutional principal, and what the sentence says is that the "separation..." metaphor describes the constitutional principal, you can't simply declare the sources don't say what's in the sentence and call that a rational argument. Please don't accuse me of dodging the issue--I've invested far too much time in a sincere attempt to communicate with you, and you, to the best of my ability to understand, have failed to present any reasonable point or to address specifics at all. (I admit I have ignored a few things, like that "Des Moines" analogy, which I think you'll agree, if you look at it again, is better left without comment.) Best I can tell, you have decided, based on nothing (at least no source you have been kind enough to specifically point to in this entire exchange, and no source of which I am otherwise aware) that "separation of church and state" has some alternative, very broad meaning known only to you, and that in can be broken into parts; the identity of these components, too, is your personal secret, and some unnammed secret parts were inserted into the constitution, while the other parts are—what? stored in a cave? Truly, this is how what you are saying comes across, though I'm pretty confident it isn't what you intend. -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the insults. Inventing nut job stuff stuff and implying that I am thinking such. North8000 (talk)

If you ARE sincere in listing to what I'm saying, then we're talking two different languages. It is probably that I'm talking about the precise wording of the sentence and its meaning, and you are talking about the general thoughts put forth by the sentence.

I think that we have scared off outside commenters by the length and complexity of the discussion. How bout this? Lets make a section which starts with a very brief statement of the dispute. (basically 2 sentences....you want one, I want the other) And just briefly mention the tagging which is more of s symptom of the dispute rather than being the dispute. Then each of us makes our case in 200 words or less. Then each make a response rebuttal section 200 words or less, although we could still also modify our main arguments. The we stop writing in that section and try hard to get outside comments from some place where they sort of know this stuff and have them look at that section. Like the place you tried a few days ago. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Every time I've tried to lay out a concise, neutral description of the basic dispute, you've weighed in with an obfuscatory "clarification." I can't imagine another attempt will be any different. If you want to set up a section with my earlier introduction (below), please go ahead. I think this is just an obscure article that nobody much reads or edits. hence our lack of other editors. Somebody is probably out there enjoying the comedy of our exchanges, though. -- BTfromLA (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, here goes. North8000 (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the talk page discussion is so long and convoluted, this section exists for any third-party editors who would be so kind as to weigh in on the disputed first sentence. Briefly, the contesting versions are : "The phrase 'separation of church and state' (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") describes a legal and political principle embedded in the Constitution of the United States," and, "The phrase [...] describes a legal and political principle, elements of which are embedded in the Constitution of the United States." One editor asserts that "... describes a legal and political principle embedded in the Constitution" is inaccurate and inadequately justified; the other editor addresses similar criticism toward the inserted phrase "elements of which...". 00:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A good faith attempt at summarizing my point, but it missed it. "Separation of Church and State" is broader term than what is in the constitution. And so a statement that it (in it's entirety) is embedded in the Constitution is inaccurate not supportable. I had it tagged as cite needed (I.E. a cite which supports that specific statement, and, per talk floated (and later put in) the "elements of which" qualifier which made the statement accurate, and the tag removable. BTfrom LA tagged my qualifier for a cite. My response was "The cite tag which you put on there is misplaced because it is a qualifier which makes the actual statement of the sentence more supportable. But I think that it will lead to ending up with a good first sentence." I anticipate doing (or that this would cause doing) the research for a expert RS source which address this specific issue and evolving a solidified good lead sentence from it. North8000 23:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And so, to say it even shorter, "Separation of Church and State" is broader than what is in the Constitution, and so a statement that it is (fully) embedded in the constitution is incorrect. And so I am not asserting the "elements of" qualifier, I am asserting the overall statement is inaccurate and unsourcable unless it has such a qualifier. North8000 15:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

North8000, would you mind if I moved your comments to another section? My attempt here was to provide a section for third party respondents, with a very brief summary of the dispute. If I've written something above that you think is inaccurate, I'll remove it. But the complete dispute plays out at length elsewhere on this page, there is no reason to repeat it here. `` BTfromLA (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Since my concept of creating an empty space for comments failed, I've just folded this in to the rest of our back-and-forth. Third party editors can start a new section if they wish. -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)