David Barton's Original Intent

In the “Letter to Danbury Baptist,” the author Thomas Jefferson develops and refines the central idea of “separation between church and state” by explaining the importance of keeping a good relationship between himself and the Baptist people but also standing firm on the importance of the first amendment. The danbury Baptist people wanted to change the division of church and state but Jefferson used his rhetoric to help explain to the people that the separation of church and state is good for all men and all religions. Jefferson states, “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man

James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

The portrayal of the separation of church and state, and the harmony in the middle of law and religion, is one of persevering disarray in current American protected hypothesis and origination. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is generally accepted to be the determination of this mass of partition, on the other hand, the Framers never purposed such a divider. Some portion of the perplexity in comprehension religious freedom inside of the setting of the political, lawful, and social measurements of America lives in the United States Supreme Court's foundation and free practice

In the First Amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is known as the Establishment Clause, and it has been a controversial topic of many Supreme Court cases throughout America’s history. There are three different methods of constitutional interpretation--textualism, intentionalism, and pragmatism—that have shaped the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is usually interpreted in two different ways: “The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions—federal, state, or local—that promote religion,” and that “The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion.” There is a common metaphor that accompanies the Establishment Clause know as the “wall of separation.” The Establishment Clause has this “wall” in order to keep the church and state separate. This is a reoccurring theme I have seen develop throughout various court cases. I studied four different cases that made it to the Supreme Court: Everson vs. Board of Education, Lynch vs. Donnelly, Lee vs. Weisman, and Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe. During the brief period of me studying these four cases involving the Establishment Clause, I have inferred that pragmatism has indicated the utmost dominance in shaping the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause.

Thomas Jefferson fought for separation of church and state, in Virginia. Jefferson fought so strongly for this because under British anarchy, they were persecuted for their religion. This document brought conflict with Jefferson and the Anglican Church, as the Anglican Church believed that Church and State should be one. The idea of Freedom of Religion carries into our government. President’s can swear in with a Bible during oath, though the book may differ on religion. The separation between church and state was one of the most important policies in the United States Constitution and was inputted in the first amendment. In the 1st Aamendment it states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom has ensured Americans’ freedom to express whichever religion they choose, and it is a main part of why The United States of America is so

The First Amendment ensures that there is separation between Church and State. However, this disjunction is not absolute. As the United States has become a more multi-cultural society, certain rituals have become problematic. Some issues were traditions that put one religion at the forefront, violating of the Establishment Clause; other issues affected peoples’ right to free expression of their religion. Many times people do not realize the Judeo-Christian bias in our culture because it is so integrated into our way of life. This country needs to recognize these biases and address them as the United States become a more diverse population.

In the United States, religious neutrality appears throughout society as an attempt to respect majority and minority religions, which seems implausible due to the complicated relationship between religion and government. When the government makes legal decisions involving religion, the ideal of neutrality seemingly dissipates when one faith appears to garner more respect over another in earning the majority decision in the Courts. This impossibility of state neutrality is apparent when balancing citizens’ freedom to practice their religion with the government choosing one religious value over another. This idea of balance originates in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which declares, “Congress shall make no law

A significant strength of the Constitution is that if it is followed, its language clearly guides disputes and helps settle any debate over issues of religion and politics. The framers intended it to do so and made its language simple and clear. The question is why American citizens insist upon disregarding the Constitution’s language. A simple answer is that by doing so, various groups who attempt to twist the Constitution are attempting to do exactly what the document intends to prevent—the wresting of power away from the democratic process and awarding it to a given group who would then have the ability to force their own agenda on our democracy. Those who would disregard the Constitution are or should be considered enemies of the state; religious groups fall into this argument and have in the past been the exact enemies of the state described here. Any group, religious or not, that interrupts the governance rules of a country should be considered an enemy combatant, and history proves such groups have indeed been defined as such. The framers understood the power of persuasion that religion holds, and they detested it. Kramnick and Moore (1997) affirm this by saying that Americans are fed a line of propaganda by the Religious Right that the framers were Christians who wrote a Christian document when this statement is incorrect. The authors write “God and Christianity are nowhere to be found in the American Constitution, a reality that infuriated many at the time.

Separation of church and state has been part of the nation’s legal and cultural nomenclature since the early 1800s. Judges, politicians, educators, and even religious leaders have embraced church-state separation as central to church-state relations and a cornerstone of American democracy. The Supreme Court first employed the term “separation of church and state” in 1879 as shorthand for the meaning of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, stating “it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.” To this day, most Americans support the principle of church-state separation as one of the hallmarks of American government. Although the phrase is not found in the Constitution, no organizing theory

Religion is a big part of the history of the United States. Many of the people who ended up settling in America held very strong religious beliefs and traveled across the ocean from Europe to practice their beliefs in freedom. Our founding fathers, for the most part, held deeply religious beliefs and you can see that legacy on our currency, in our court proceedings, and on government buildings and monuments. Despite what appears a clear integration between religion and government our founding fathers sought ways to limit religions role in government. The first Amendment in the Bill of Rights says, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Madison, 1791). Some interpret this to mean that the government can’t set up a church or favor one religion over another. And on this basis is why I believe faith groups and institutions should not be allowed to form political parties or gain influence in the workings of government. This paper will explore some of the reasons why this is problematic and why our founders sought to control religions influence but also letting everyone worship in freedom.

Separation of church and state is a defined as, the understanding of the intent, and function of the Establishment Clause, and Free Exercise Clause. The Combination of church and state has been a topic that, many generations have struggled with for centuries. The first amendment of the constitution states that “Congress shall make no law about our religious beliefs, or prohibiting our free exercise of religion” If we put our faith in the constitution to define the founding father’s standpoint of separation of church and state, then we have definitely misinterpreted their stance on religion. Many people believe the reference to separation of church and state is in the original constitution, but the truth is, the references, often conceptualized and misinterpreted as intertwining with our religious freedom, but that is not the truth.

     Another man used greatly in concluding the godless Constitution is Thomas Jefferson. During his early public years his reputation was one of as an anti-Christian. He received many negative opinions about his stands and opinions. Kramnick and More chose to use Jefferson as an example of one who was misunderstood. The public believed that he would further immorality. His draft to separate church and state brought forth many different reactions from the publics. The people who desired to have a known Godly ways in the constitution believed that this would only further corruption in the United States. Others took into consideration the beliefs Jefferson and other leaders proclaimed to be

Alan Wolfe makes his opinion clear that church and state were separated in 1947 by ruling of the Supreme Court in the Everson trial, and it should remain that way to protect the rights of all citizens. His belief is that integrating the two powers would ultimately lead to further corruption of the government. He also states that keeping church and state together would lead to favoritism of one religion over another, undermining the very ideals of “Freedom of Religion.” Steve Bonta claims that the modern interpretation of documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, has been perverted from the actual meanings and intentions of our founders. His belief is that the first amendment, on Congress “…making no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” was not meant to keep a wall between Church and state (¶ 12), but rather to protect the Church from being separated. Bonta believes that while the United States does not have an official, national religion (such as Episcopalian in England), it was founded on Christian values and morals, which have been entwined throughout our earliest documents and laws, making it impossible and impractical to separate.

America wastes a lot of time trying to create a democracy completely absent of the moral expectations that our ancestors have put into place. Our founding fathers’ dream of establishing a country in which all people would be accepted has begun to fall. In our attempt to rid our country of a democracy contaminated with any belief in a supreme power, we have rid ourselves of many of our values and morals. Perhaps it is impossible for religion to dominate our political country, but we have misinterpreted the original intent of “separation of church and state” and taken this concept too far.