What is Seperation of Church and State ?

[If my soul was made of stone]

Buddhism isn't a religion, actually; it's a philosophy.  While I wouldn't encourage someone to try this, one can be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time.

Uh...

Jon Kabat-Zinn would be proud.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

So you're saying that public policy that stems from the religious motivations of individual legislators can never be, but if it's from the religious motivations of athiests, it's OK?

Religious beliefs motivate all sort of legislation and public policy.  There is a difference between codifying Religious Doctrine into law and crafting secular public policy based on the motives of the religiously minded.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As I previously said it's secularism before the Urban era, during Agriculture it meant populism and working class and Dixiecrats meant status quo and inferior of the races and Whigs were more Secular meaning blacks were equal to whites after the urban era with Labor unions and taxes it means tax the rich and give to the poor

But both parties had Secularist and Traditl means over Time

[beaver2.0]

As other posters above have said, my understanding is that it means the state does not endorse a particular religion and that the laws of the United States, rather than the laws of one religion, will govern the people.

The line between actions that violate separation and actions that do not is very thin.  Lawmakers are, and should be, governed by their own sense of morality when making laws, and for most people, that sense of morality is influenced by religion.

Lately, I've seen a trend from the left towards labeling things as violations of the separation of church and state.  In my view, many of these allegations are unfair as people on both sides of the aisle are influenced by religion.  There are many people that say the death penalty is immoral and cite Christian teachings, but I've never heard an anti-death penalty campaigner being called a theocrat.  Similarly, views that would be called Christian Democratic in some countries are held by American politicians are never said to be violating the separation of church and state.  I do think there are examples of conservatives violating the separation, but I also think many of the accusations are unfair and until we are truly able to define where church ends and state begins, we will have this argument many times.

[Ferguson97]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

So you're saying that public policy that stems from the religious motivations of individual legislators can never be, but if it's from the religious motivations of athiests, it's OK?

No. That's not what I said, and this doesn't even make any sense. Atheists have no religious motivations because they do not believe in a higher power.

Religious beliefs motivate all sort of legislation and public policy.  There is a difference between codifying Religious Doctrine into law and crafting secular public policy based on the motives of the religiously minded.

Explain to me the difference between, for example, explicitly banning gay marriage because of the Bible's stance on homosexuality, and banning gay marriage because the personal moral convictions of the legislators are rooted in those biblical teachings.

If the end result is the same (a ban on gay marriage due to the teachings of one religion), then there is no real difference.

[Del Tachi]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

So you're saying that public policy that stems from the religious motivations of individual legislators can never be, but if it's from the religious motivations of athiests, it's OK?

No. That's not what I said, and this doesn't even make any sense. Atheists have no religious motivations because they do not believe in a higher power.

Religious beliefs motivate all sort of legislation and public policy.  There is a difference between codifying Religious Doctrine into law and crafting secular public policy based on the motives of the religiously minded.

Explain to me the difference between, for example, explicitly banning gay marriage because of the Bible's stance on homosexuality, and banning gay marriage because the personal moral convictions of the legislators are rooted in those biblical teachings.

If the end result is the same (a ban on gay marriage due to the teachings of one religion), then there is no real difference.

One religion being socially or poltically dominant enough to elect legislative majorities that will use that religion's teachings as the basis for public morality isn't a violation of the separation of church and state.

The historical context that led to the Enlightenment's "separation of church and state" doctrine was established state churches holding special status and conferring special privileges under the law.  That these two corporate entities (i.e., the church and the state) are legally distinct is the only requirement; secularism is something entirely different.   

[politicallefty]

It's hard to imagine someone I agree with more than Justice Black's opinions with respect to the Establishment Clause. His words in Everson resonate strongly with me. While I do think some of his thoughts might have gone too far in some limited respects (I'm not against reasonable accommodations for those in the military or those in prison under the Free Exercise Clause), I couldn't put it better myself:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

If the Establishment Clause meant only to cover actual establishment of state religion, it's effect would be almost without meaning. The First Amendment says that Congress (and through the 14th Amendment, the states) "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Those words are broad in their meaning and intent. It should be given effect in the same way. I do not believe it requires full establishment of a religion to violate the Establishment Clause. Otherwise, it could allow for massive encroachments of religion into the state that reduces the Establishment Clause to an empty promise.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's hard to imagine someone I agree with more than Justice Black's opinions with respect to the Establishment Clause. His words in Everson resonate strongly with me. While I do think some of his thoughts might have gone too far in some limited respects (I'm not against reasonable accommodations for those in the military or those in prison under the Free Exercise Clause), I couldn't put it better myself:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

If the Establishment Clause meant only to cover actual establishment of state religion, it's effect would be almost without meaning. The First Amendment says that Congress (and through the 14th Amendment, the states) "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Those words are broad in their meaning and intent. It should be given effect in the same way. I do not believe it requires full establishment of a religion to violate the Establishment Clause. Otherwise, it could allow for massive encroachments of religion into the state that reduces the Establishment Clause to an empty promise.

Your approach would result in massive encroachments by the state into the affairs of religion.  It would also, at some point, establish a de facto religious test, albeit in a sub silentio manner.

[jojoju1998]

It's hard to imagine someone I agree with more than Justice Black's opinions with respect to the Establishment Clause. His words in Everson resonate strongly with me. While I do think some of his thoughts might have gone too far in some limited respects (I'm not against reasonable accommodations for those in the military or those in prison under the Free Exercise Clause), I couldn't put it better myself:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

If the Establishment Clause meant only to cover actual establishment of state religion, it's effect would be almost without meaning. The First Amendment says that Congress (and through the 14th Amendment, the states) "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Those words are broad in their meaning and intent. It should be given effect in the same way. I do not believe it requires full establishment of a religion to violate the Establishment Clause. Otherwise, it could allow for massive encroachments of religion into the state that reduces the Establishment Clause to an empty promise.

Your approach would result in massive encroachments by the state into the affairs of religion.  It would also, at some point, establish a de facto religious test, albeit in a sub silentio manner.

Where's the balance ? It seems as if we have " world views " of religion and state life.

1. The French Model of church and state. Religion in public life is evil; and so the state must block religion from interfering with the public life of the country.

2. The Classic American Model. Where the state is limited from interfering with religion. Individual Liberty.

[politicallefty]

Your approach would result in massive encroachments by the state into the affairs of religion.  It would also, at some point, establish a de facto religious test, albeit in a sub silentio manner.

In what sense? Please be more specific. Unlike this current Court, I understand that there must be a balance struck between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

Where's the balance ? It seems as if we have " world views " of religion and state life.

1. The French Model of church and state. Religion in public life is evil; and so the state must block religion from interfering with the public life of the country.

2. The Classic American Model. Where the state is limited from interfering with religion. Individual Liberty.

I would argue that the balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause is somewhere in between those two examples, but is closer to the former. Do you think Engel and/or Schempp should be overruled? I have said repeatedly that this current Court's jurisprudence is going to approach or outright attack those decisions.

[Hermit For Peace]

It's hard to imagine someone I agree with more than Justice Black's opinions with respect to the Establishment Clause. His words in Everson resonate strongly with me. While I do think some of his thoughts might have gone too far in some limited respects (I'm not against reasonable accommodations for those in the military or those in prison under the Free Exercise Clause), I couldn't put it better myself:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

If the Establishment Clause meant only to cover actual establishment of state religion, it's effect would be almost without meaning. The First Amendment says that Congress (and through the 14th Amendment, the states) "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Those words are broad in their meaning and intent. It should be given effect in the same way. I do not believe it requires full establishment of a religion to violate the Establishment Clause. Otherwise, it could allow for massive encroachments of religion into the state that reduces the Establishment Clause to an empty promise.

Your approach would result in massive encroachments by the state into the affairs of religion.  It would also, at some point, establish a de facto religious test, albeit in a sub silentio manner.

Isn't that the type of encroachments that the radical religious types want to put on women having to do with abortion? You don't want the state encroaching on your rights, but it's okay for you to encroach massively on women and girl's rights to choose? Just to be clear.

[jojoju1998]

Your approach would result in massive encroachments by the state into the affairs of religion.  It would also, at some point, establish a de facto religious test, albeit in a sub silentio manner.

In what sense? Please be more specific. Unlike this current Court, I understand that there must be a balance struck between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

Where's the balance ? It seems as if we have " world views " of religion and state life.

1. The French Model of church and state. Religion in public life is evil; and so the state must block religion from interfering with the public life of the country.

2. The Classic American Model. Where the state is limited from interfering with religion. Individual Liberty.

I would argue that the balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause is somewhere in between those two examples, but is closer to the former. Do you think Engel and/or Schempp should be overruled? I have said repeatedly that this current Court's jurisprudence is going to approach or outright attack those decisions.

I don’t know.

The classic American Model came out of the Religous Wars in the past between Catholics and Protestants.

It never took into account the rise of secularism. Immigrants from non Christian countries.

Even if the Supreme Court overturns those decisions,

What form of Christianity would be established ? We have like 10 million denominations.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It means that there is a clear line between holding faith-based views and serving in office and getting into office to put into place a calculated, deliberate effort to revolve the nation's laws around your own particular religious ideology.

The idea that anyone would run for office and proclaim that they are a "Christian", or a "Jew", or a "Muslim", or a "Buddhist", etc. is to me violating that line.  Republicans want to be a religious fundamentalist party - they want to broadcast their religion so that everyone knows that they're going to enact laws that are based on their interpretation of the Bible.  What about the Christians that they represent that don't believe in those ideas, or the religious minorities, or the nones that do not have any religion at all?

I think it's so strange that we don't have the same tolerance for candidates that would go out there and put on their campaign websites: "Pro-life.  Pro-family.  Pro-Allah."  or "Buddha and Country"... I don't believe conservative Christianity should have any kind of right to claim dominance to this nation anymore than any other religion should.

We've all been conditioned to accept that much of the country's politics revolve around fundamentalist ideas - but it's not acceptable and in my opinion it's very far from what this country is about.  This is not only a Christian country or a conservative Christian country and that's the message that the Republican Party wants to constantly push.

If someone wants to say that they are a Proud Bhuddist Democrat and their values come from Bhuddism, would you allow them to speak ?

Yes.  I might even vote for them, depending on what their "values" were, as well as specific issue positions.

Buddhism isn't a religion, actually; it's a philosophy.  While I wouldn't encourage someone to try this, one can be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time.

This is a common misconception in the West, one that unfortunately is enabled by a lot of Western Buddhist teachers. As practiced in most parts of Asia Buddhism is clearly a religion and, as much respect and admiration as I have for it, one whose tenets are subtly but deeply incompatible with those of Christianity.

You might, however, be interested to know that orthodox Buddhism is generally almost as opposed to abortion as orthodox Christianity is, although the concept of sin and where the line is drawn between actions that are merely discouraged and those that are flatly inadmissible are different.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It means that there is a clear line between holding faith-based views and serving in office and getting into office to put into place a calculated, deliberate effort to revolve the nation's laws around your own particular religious ideology.

The idea that anyone would run for office and proclaim that they are a "Christian", or a "Jew", or a "Muslim", or a "Buddhist", etc. is to me violating that line.  Republicans want to be a religious fundamentalist party - they want to broadcast their religion so that everyone knows that they're going to enact laws that are based on their interpretation of the Bible.  What about the Christians that they represent that don't believe in those ideas, or the religious minorities, or the nones that do not have any religion at all?

I think it's so strange that we don't have the same tolerance for candidates that would go out there and put on their campaign websites: "Pro-life.  Pro-family.  Pro-Allah."  or "Buddha and Country"... I don't believe conservative Christianity should have any kind of right to claim dominance to this nation anymore than any other religion should.

We've all been conditioned to accept that much of the country's politics revolve around fundamentalist ideas - but it's not acceptable and in my opinion it's very far from what this country is about.  This is not only a Christian country or a conservative Christian country and that's the message that the Republican Party wants to constantly push.

If someone wants to say that they are a Proud Bhuddist Democrat and their values come from Bhuddism, would you allow them to speak ?

Yes.  I might even vote for them, depending on what their "values" were, as well as specific issue positions.

Buddhism isn't a religion, actually; it's a philosophy.  While I wouldn't encourage someone to try this, one can be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time.

This is a common misconception in the West, one that unfortunately is enabled by a lot of Western Buddhist teachers. As practiced in most parts of Asia Buddhism is clearly a religion and, as much respect and admiration as I have for it, one whose tenets are subtly but deeply incompatible with those of Christianity.

It depends on what you mean by "incompatible", how tolerant one is of syncretism, and there's a lot lost in translation when you cross the Pacific and all that conflating terminology.
The East Asian conception of religion largely flat-out rejects the idea of exclusively drawing all of one's ideas from just one "religion". From that angle, one might in fact say Buddhism is merely a philosophy, but one would referring to the constellation of ways of looking at the Buddha and the scrolls and the numerous schools by a rather un-fitting label.
It's apples and oranges, really.

[Хahar 🤔]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

This is an absurd standard and it's horrifying that liberals seem to have internalized it.

[Ferguson97]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

This is an absurd standard and it's horrifying that liberals seem to have internalized it.

What specifically do you object to? Why should others be able to force their religious beliefs down our throat by legislating it?

[Damocles]

That state authorities should remain neutral in religious matters, neither endorsing nor condemning any particular set of religious traditions; and, conversely, that religious authorities should remain neutral in political matters, neither endorsing nor condemning any particular political party, candidate, ballot measure, etc etc.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

This is an absurd standard and it's horrifying that liberals seem to have internalized it.

What specifically do you object to? Why should others be able to force their religious beliefs down our throat by legislating it?

For the standard to be juridically enforceable there would need to be an objective yardstick for when a policy position is inherently religious versus when it simply happens to correlate strongly with certain religious commitments (as opposition to abortion does with Catholicism, or GMO skepticism does with various "granola" New Age and pagan currents). I don't think developing that yardstick and giving it the force of constitutional law is either possible or desirable, and I assume Xahar doesn't either.

[Ferguson97]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

This is an absurd standard and it's horrifying that liberals seem to have internalized it.

What specifically do you object to? Why should others be able to force their religious beliefs down our throat by legislating it?

For the standard to be juridically enforceable there would need to be an objective yardstick for when a policy position is inherently religious versus when it simply happens to correlate strongly with certain religious commitments (as opposition to abortion does with Catholicism, or GMO skepticism does with various "granola" New Age and pagan currents). I don't think developing that yardstick and giving it the force of constitutional law is either possible or desirable, and I assume Xahar doesn't either.

If religious doctrine inspires lawmakers to enshrine those values into law, it is by definition, forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else. That should not be acceptable in a liberal democracy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

This is an absurd standard and it's horrifying that liberals seem to have internalized it.

What specifically do you object to? Why should others be able to force their religious beliefs down our throat by legislating it?

For the standard to be juridically enforceable there would need to be an objective yardstick for when a policy position is inherently religious versus when it simply happens to correlate strongly with certain religious commitments (as opposition to abortion does with Catholicism, or GMO skepticism does with various "granola" New Age and pagan currents). I don't think developing that yardstick and giving it the force of constitutional law is either possible or desirable, and I assume Xahar doesn't either.

If religious doctrine inspires lawmakers to enshrine those values into law, it is by definition, forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else. That should not be acceptable in a liberal democracy.

Sure, but who determines when lawmakers are doing that, and what standard do they use to determine it? How controversial does a doctrine have to be? Most Americans perceive, for instance, draconian abortion restrictions as obviously religiously motivated in a way that's difficult to get past, but what about similarly stringent and moralistic drug laws, or very popular and widely accepted legislation like the Civil Rights Act that happened to be lobbied for in a way that included repeated religious appeals (remember what the first C in SCLC stands for)? Rick Santorum is Catholic and Rick Perry is Methodist; the Catholic Church's official teaching on abortion is famously strict and absolute, whereas that of the United Methodist Church is traditionally much vaguer. Would an abortion restriction that Santorum voted for in the US Senate be an unacceptable imposition of the positions of Santorum's religion on the public, while an abortion restriction that Perry signed into law as Governor of Texas wouldn't be?

[OSR stands with Israel]

The government can't tell religious orgs what to do (within reason). Religious doctrine cannot be used to craft government policy.

This is an absurd standard and it's horrifying that liberals seem to have internalized it.

What specifically do you object to? Why should others be able to force their religious beliefs down our throat by legislating it?

For the standard to be juridically enforceable there would need to be an objective yardstick for when a policy position is inherently religious versus when it simply happens to correlate strongly with certain religious commitments (as opposition to abortion does with Catholicism, or GMO skepticism does with various "granola" New Age and pagan currents). I don't think developing that yardstick and giving it the force of constitutional law is either possible or desirable, and I assume Xahar doesn't either.

If religious doctrine inspires lawmakers to enshrine those values into law, it is by definition, forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else. That should not be acceptable in a liberal democracy.

This is obviously absurd cause everyone will have some sort of a basis behind their philosophical and moral beliefs and for many people that is religion.

The appropriate standard for this is whether a religious justification is the only type of justification you can make for a certain policy and if thats the case then I would say it violates the principle, otherwise it does not.