CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is the phrase "separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution"
There is no such Phrase in the U.S. Constitution, but you have those who are affraid of or who hate the Christians who will swear on a bible that this phrase is in the Constitution
That phrase has never been in the Constitution. Where it comes from is a letter from Jefferson to a religious group showing them how the federal government via the First Amendment will not have a national religion like the church of England
There are plenty of things left out of the US Constitution. We adhere to several values merely out of tradition/culture.
Even if it were written in the US Constitution, it could be amended or repealed all together. The founding fathers weren't idiots. They knew that nothing remains static.
It is not that they were left out, it is that they were left to the people and the states. The Constitution was and is a limitation on the federal government. The Constitution enumerates 18 powers the states and the people gave to the federal government. If it is not Enumerated as a power for the feds, that power belongs to the people and the states
Separation of church and state is not exactly a government power.
In terms of federal vs state, much of that is also based on practice and tradition. The US Constitution is designed to be ambiguous. No one expected explicit powers written in the 18th century to remain relevant and practical in the 21st century. The federal government has grown quite a bit over the last few hundred years.
Actually the founders expected the Constitution to be in affect for as long as the country lasts. They did give us the Amendment process, but it has been found not to be needed that often. So yes the Constitution is still the law of the land, and it created two Sovereigns, the feds and the states. With the states having vast power, while the feds have enumerated powers. The Constitution is not ambiguous, as it enumerates the powers given to the feds. The federal government needs to be reigned back into it's proper limits as set by the Constitution. Separation if church and state is not in the Constitution
They did give us the Amendment process, but it has been found not to be needed that often.
The fact that there are twenty seven amendments says otherwise.
So yes the Constitution is still the law of the land, and it created two Sovereigns, the feds and the states.
There can not be two sovereigns (a word meaning supreme power). The Federal government is sovereign, but with strictly balanced powers held in check by the states.
The Constitution is not ambiguous, as it enumerates the powers given to the feds.
There are many ways in which the Constitution is ambiguous, such as the Commerce Clause, which has led to many of the arguments that have increased federal powers.
Separation if church and state is not in the Constitution
Yes, it is, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Yes, it is, via the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
I believe he is thinking along the lines of an explicit article/section. He seems to be a Constitutional literatist. That type of thinking never made much sense for me...
The phrase is not in the Constitution, but it can be found in other documents from the founding era and much more importantly it has been rather thoroughly incorporated into common law through the judiciary.
It has not been thoroughly incorporated into common law through the Judiciary. For starters the Judiciary cannot Amend or change the meaning of the Constitution, nor can they legislate from the bench
Whether the judiciary has the conceptual Constitutional authority to alter the meaning of the Constitution is irrelevant to a discussion of what they have in actuality done. Moreover, the rulings which have effectively established the separation of church and state in common law have been made generally well within the Constitutional provisions of judicial authority. The judiciary has not amended the Constitution to add the phrase separation of church and state. What is has done is held numerous laws to be in violation of the First Amendment establishment clause which was passed by the executive and legislative branches pursuant to Constitutional provision.
Actually weather the Judiciary has the conceptual authority to alter the meaning of the Constitution (which they do not) is very relevant to this discussion. And for their decisions that did alter the meaning of the Constitution, those decisions are useless as they carry no weight of law because they are unconstitutional. Get over your ignorance and arrogance, there is no separation of church and state clause, it is no where to be found, it has never been part of teh Constitution, and it is not part of the Constitution today
The prompt was whether the phrase was in the Constitution. I explicitly observed that it was not, but that it was effectively integrated into common legal practice consequent to common law established by the judiciary. Attempting to rebut my point by stating that the judiciary should not have been able to do what it did does not alter the reality that it did it nonetheless and that the phrase and concept of the separation of church and state has consequentially been integrated into common legal practice in this country.
I never stated that there is a separation of church and state clause. I observed that there is an establishment clause, which the judiciary has applied in finding certain laws unconstitutional (e.g. forcing children to pray in school violates their freedom of religious belief and expression). Your redundant assertions of the illegitimacy of these rulings when repeatedly faced with this rationale speaks to your likely inability to advance a plausible counter-rationale of actual substance. More importantly, the validity of the rulings is entirely irrelevant to the empirical reality that the rulings have been enforced (e.g. it is illegal to force children to pray in schools).
So here is the 1st Amendment and clearly that phrase is not there
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The "father of the Constitution", James Madison wrote: "The purpose of the separation of church and state is to keep, forever from these shores, the ceaseless strife that has soaked the sands of Europe in blood for centuries." If that isn't what the intentions of the Constitution are, I don't know what could be clearer. or who could MAKE it clearer.
While James Madison is most certainly one of the most influential individuals pertaining to the Constitution, there were many founding fathers that disagreed with him when it comes to the purpose of the Constitution.
Wrong again, as Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists, the First Amendment prohibits a national religion, So the states can have their own religion if they wanted That is what the 1st is all about, not removing religion from government, but preventing the feds from having a national religion
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The 14th Amendment applies the Constitution to the states.
The 14th does not apply the Constitution to the states. Just looking at the USSC history proves that. If as you claim that the 14th applies the entire Constitution to the states, then why were the courts always so selective in what parts they applied to the states. Face it your argument falls on it's face. What is funny, is recently the Conservatives used the liberal way of thinking in regards to the 2nd Amendment, now the states cannot enact any laws that restrict us from having weapons in common use by the military
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Please, go ahead and try to explain how that does not apply to the states.
In Adamson v. California, decided just a few months after the Bartkus case, Justice Frankfurter described the negative consequences of the incorporation doctrine:
To consider “due process of law” as merely a shorthand statement of other specific clauses in the same amendment is to attribute to the authors and proponents of this Amendment ignorance of, or indifference to, a historic conception which was one of the great instruments in the arsenal of constitutional freedom which the Bill of Rights was to protect and strengthen. A construction which gives to due process no independent function but turns it into a summary of the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights would, as has been noted, tear up by the roots much of the fabric of law in the several States, and would deprive the States of opportunity for reforms in legal process designed for extending the area of freedom. It would assume that no other abuses would reveal themselves in the course of time than those which had become manifest in 1791. Such a view not only disregards the historic meaning of “due process.” It leads inevitably to a warped construction of specific provisions of the Bill of Rights to bring within their scope conduct clearly condemned by due process but not easily fitting into the pigeon-holes of the specific provisions. It seems pretty late in the day to suggest that a phrase so laden with historic meaning should be given an improvised content consisting of some but not all of the provisions of the first eight Amendments, selected on an undefined basis, with improvisation of content for the provisions so selected.
He also gave the Court a history lesson:
Between the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment into the Constitution and the beginning of the present membership of the Court — a period of 70 years — the scope of that Amendment was passed upon by 43 judges. Of all these judges, only one, who may respectfully be called an eccentric exception, ever indicated the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment was a shorthand summary of the first eight Amendments theretofore limiting only the Federal Government, and that due process incorporated those eight Amendments as restrictions upon the powers of the States. Among these judges were not only those who would have to be included among the greatest in the history of the Court, but — it is especially relevant to note — they included those whose services in the cause of human rights and the spirit of freedom are the most conspicuous in our history. It is not invidious to single out Miller, Davis, Bradley, Waite, Matthews, Gray, Fuller, Holmes, Brandeis, Stone and Cardozo (to speak only of the dead) as judges who were alert in safeguarding and promoting the interests of liberty and human dignity through law. But they were also judges mindful of the relation of our federal system to a progressively democratic society and therefore duly regardful of the scope of authority that was left to the States even after the Civil War. . . .
The notion that the Fourteenth Amendment was a covert way of imposing upon the States all the rules which it seemed important to Eighteenth Century statesmen to write into the Federal Amendments, was rejected by judges who were themselves witnesses of the process by which the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution.
What part of this says states should have their own religions:
"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"
And again, you haters grabbing at straws just does not make it true
When the Constitution was ratified by the states, some of them still had state religions. So today if Florida ssaid that the state religion of Florida was Catholic, that would be Constitutional. The courts are not the final say
And again, you haters grabbing at straws just does not make it true
How have I been a hater? You have been the one attacking me, not the other way around.
When the Constitution was ratified by the states, some of them still had state religions.
Yes, before the 14th Amendment was ratified. The 14th Amendment applied the bill of rights to the states, making state establishments of religion unconstitutional.
So today if Florida ssaid that the state religion of Florida was Catholic, that would be Constitutional.
No, it wouldn't, due to the 14th Amendment.
The courts are not the final say
On legal matters, they actually are (Well, the Supreme Court is), unless a new Constitutional Amendment is passed. That is our separation of powers.
I have not attacked you. Calling out your lies is not an attacks
The 14th did not apply the Constitution to the states. The liberal justices used selective incorporation to cherry pick what parts of the Constitution they would apply to the states. You liberals howled when the Conservatives did the same with the 2nd, you do realize that now every gun free zone enacted by the states are unconstitutional
Today if any state wanted to have a state religion they could
The courts are not the final say on the meaning of the Constitution
I have not attacked you. Calling out your lies is not an attacks
Calling people names and forming lies of your own is not "calling out lies". Calling anyone who disagrees with you a "hater", and declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to "enslave society" or "attack Christianity" is, itself, a form of attacking.
The 14th did not apply the Constitution to the states.
You are tiresome. I have asked you to provide an argument over and over and over as to how the first section doesn't make it apply to the states, and you are so incapable of doing so! You just repeat your claim without any argument to back it up.
You liberals howled when the Conservatives did the same with the 2nd, you do realize that now every gun free zone enacted by the states are unconstitutional
First, my ignorant little friend, I am not a liberal. Second, the 2nd Amendment should apply to the states, and gun free zones are completely and utterly preposterous.
Today if any state wanted to have a state religion they could
No, they couldn't, as the courts have proven. You might think they should be able to, but they can't.
The courts are not the final say on the meaning of the Constitution
In this country, they currently are. Again, you think they shouldn't be, but they are (short of constitutional amendments, of course).
A law that allows prayers in schools is clearly favouring Christianity over others. It is promoting the establishment of the Christian religion.
The ruling of Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) also supports this interpretation interpretation:
"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 form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."
Or Thomas Jeffersons interpretation:
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. "*
Another case to read is Good News Club v. Milford Central School. Jefferson's quote was from a letter where he described how the feds cannot have a national religion imposed on the states. As for the flawed everson decision, the court erred on applying the 1st to the states via that 14th Amendment. Since the court refused for close to 100 years to apply all the Amendments to the Constitution to the states, it is an invalid power grab to just apply selected parts of the Constitution to the states. It either it all applies, or none applies to the states. And of course the 14th was never intended to apply the Constitution to the states
And of course the 14th was never intended to apply the Constitution to the states
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The separation of church and state is hardly the first unwritten concept that is protected by the constitution. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a women’s constitutional right to have an abortion despite the word abortion never appearing in the constitution. In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court established that laws against same sex marriage were unconstitutional despite the word marriage never appearing in the constitution. In the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court established that the constitution guarantees the right to an attorney despite the words public defender never appearing in the constitution. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the constitution.
It should also be noted that of the 112 Supreme Court Justices, none of them has been an atheist. In fact 92 pecent of them were Christian. What rationale would these justices have for making laws that would create a legal prejudice towards their system of beliefs, especially if the separation of Church and State is a misinterpretation?
The reality is that the constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document that was rigidly adherent to the words on the page. As Thomas Jefferson said “The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.” Over the past 200 years the Supreme Court has shaped the constitution to contain a clear separation of church and state that protects every religion equally. If only those who argue against this separation could see how they benefit from it instead of inappropriately interpreting it as an attack on Christianity.
James Madison wrote: "The purpose of the separation of church and state is to keep, forever from these shores, the ceaseless strife that has soaked the sands of Europe in blood for centuries."
I can think of no better source to speak for what the Constitution infers. We can look at a current example of what NON-separation results in....IRAN. Other good examples are England around the time he wrote that, and the thousands who left there for America to get away from religious persecution. The church had TOO MUCH control over the government and taxes there AND in France....just to point out that it is not only a Muslim thing.
