What is Seperation of Church and State ?

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013742#:~:text=In%20a%20powerful%20challenge%20to,almost%20never%20invoked%20this%20principle.

In a powerful challenge to conventional wisdom, Philip Hamburger argues that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the First Amendment. The detailed evidence assembled here shows that eighteenth-century Americans almost never invoked this principle. Although Thomas Jefferson and others retrospectively claimed that the First Amendment separated church and state, separation became part of American constitutional law only much later.

Hamburger shows that separation became a constitutional freedom largely through fear and prejudice. Jefferson supported separation out of hostility to the Federalist clergy of New England. Nativist Protestants (ranging from nineteenth-century Know Nothings to twentieth-century members of the K.K.K.) adopted the principle of separation to restrict the role of Catholics in public life. Gradually, these Protestants were joined by theologically liberal, anti-Christian secularists, who hoped that separation would limit Christianity and all other distinct religions. Eventually, a wide range of men and women called for separation. Almost all of these Americans feared ecclesiastical authority, particularly that of the Catholic Church, and, in response to their fears, they increasingly perceived religious liberty to require a separation of church from state. American religious liberty was thus redefined and even transformed. In the process, the First Amendment was often used as an instrument of intolerance and discrimination.

Hamburger's book is pretty long and heavy; it isn't an easy read.  The phrase comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association:

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

The Federalists were the "Congregationalist" party.  There were many Federalists that would have wished the Congregationalists to have become somewhere between "The Official Church of the USA" (sort of like Wheaties is the Official Breakfast of the Olympic Training Table) and a Church of America not unlike the Church of England.  It was never intended to purge religious discussion from the public square.  That's not where we're at today, of course, but what would ACTUAL "Separation of Church and State" look like?

Would it look like the UK, where Muslims are able to decide matters of family law in Sharia Courts, separate and apart from the British Courts?  Would it mean that the government would not have the power to enforce COVID-19 vaccine mandates on those asserting documentable religious exemptions?  (After all, we are talking about the state interfering with the religous doctrines and practices of certain denominations.)  Would Religious Communes become enclaves where civil laws do not apply, because, after all, there is Separation of Church and State?  Would churches and religious facilities not be able to receive police protection or police enforcement of laws to protect against wrongdoings on school grounds?  Would Churches not be able to hook up to Public Utilities, but be free to provide light and heat as they chose?  

These are all extreme examples, some of which are purely hypothetical, but they are not unreasonable  if one considers the literal meaning of "Separation of Church and State".  "Separation" means that one is apart from the other, and does not interfere in the workings of the other.  Now I don't think our Constitutional system justifies any of the above-referenced examples (even the COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which I wholeheartedly oppose).  The phrase is misleading; the laws of the state are not suspended inside the confines of any Church and they are binding on Believers and Non-Believers alike.

What we have is a Secular system of Government that is able to be influenced by people of all schools of thought, with the ideas hashed out in the political process, with public policy enacted within Constitutional Limits.  This does not mean that a public policy "favors one religion over another" just because one religious group favors that policy and favors it because that policy because it more closely aligns with their worldview.  By that logic, only policy initiatives that were driven by the non-religious could be made law.  That's the goal of the Secular Left today, but it's not Constitutionally valid.  The Government cannot compel citizens to support Religious institutions, but the idea that religious ideas cannot be freely expressed, or that secular public policy cannot be motivated by religious principle is utter nonsense.  
I would, therefore, assert that "Separation of Church and State" involves the extreme examples I suggested, but it is not what we have in America, nor it is not what we should have.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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 you don't want to see overtly Religous people in office, don't vote for them.  What you're saying, however, is that overtly religious people should not be able to run for office.  That is neither morally right, nor majoritarian.

What you are saying is that people who hold deeply religious views and a Biblical Worldview have no right to hold public office because of their viewpoints.  That's simply ridiculous.  The First Amendment prohibits any religious test for holding public office, yet your post implies you would impose one.  Whether one is "religious" or not is a Religious Test in itself. 

Our nation is what it is.  It is likely more conservative than you believe it to be, and if that's where people are at, then that's what should be reflected in a "democracy".  You have the right to hold and express whatever views you have.  You have the right to not be discriminated against in things like housing and employment for your political views.  But you don't have the right to be in the majority; that has to be earned by persuading people to vote for candidates you believe in.  And you don't have the right to never hear a religious sentiment in public discourse; people get to choose their source of motivation. 

I don't demand that Leftists hide under a rock here.  They have every right to post here, and they have every right to demonstrate peaceably in my hometown, or wherever they can lawfully and peaceably assemble.  That goes for groups I consider reprehensible (BLM, Antifa).  Who people want to vote for is their business.  But the same principle should apply to religious people.  I have trouble asserting the idea that it's somewhat not OK to advance a political candidate who proclaims "Jesus is Lord" but fine and dandy to advance a candidate who proclaims "ACAB".

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[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.

[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.