What is Seperation of Church and State ?

[jojoju1998]

How should it be applied to American Politics ?

[jojoju1998]

That the government does not establish a state church nor does it excessively entangle itself in the affairs of any particular church or sect

I'd also add that government and government policy is never based on one religion/sect/denomination (ex: no citing  the Bible or Catholic tradition or Mormon practices etc.) as legal authorities, nor government or government policy ever being biased for or against particular religions/sects/denominations even if it's short of establishing a state church.

It didn’t stop some states from having their own state churches up until I think the Mid 1860s.

[jojoju1998]

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 ?

[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.

[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.