The term, "'''separation of church and state'''", typically refers to a widely repeated [[liberal]] falsehood about the [[Establishment clause|Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[United States Constitution]], which actually states:{{cquote|'''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....'''<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti 1st Amendment of the US Constitution]</ref>}}
That is, the term "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the First Amendment, unlike rights explicitly protected therein, such as free exercise of religion, [[freedom of speech]], [[freedom of the press]], and [[freedom of expressive association]]. Though absent from the Constitution, "separation of church and state" is seen as being derived from it, and which is interpreted by many liberal law professors and some misguided judges to exclude religion from government by declaring that church and state must be kept separate to an extreme degree.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Lemon v. Kurtzman]].</ref> Christian Roger Williams, founder of [[Rhode Island]] did use the phrase,<ref>Segers and Jelen, ''Wall of Separation?'', pp74-75</ref><ref>http://www.lawandliberty.org/chur_sta.htm</ref> in seeking protection from state interference in religion, and in opposition to the church acting as the state in punishing dissenters. Later, in 1802 President [[Thomas Jefferson ]] would use the phrase", "wall of separation between Church and State ", with like intent, but apparently with some political motivation.<ref>http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html</ref>
A phrase close to "separation of church and state", but used for malevolent purposes and expanded to name education, does appear in Article 52 of the constitution of the Soviet Union (1977): "In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."<ref>http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html#chap06</ref>
[[Conservative]]s have criticized the liberal interpretation as being without justification in the text or meaning of the [[First Amendment]].<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/focus/secularization.html</ref><ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html</ref> In recent years the Supreme Court has shifted from a high wall of "separation" to somewhat of an "accommodation" of religion, by stressing the importance of the [[Free Exercise clause|Free Exercise Clause]].
Since no-one can possibly speak with more authority on this subject than [[George Washington]] himself, here is what he said <ref>http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/intro.html The Papers of George Washington, Documents, The Farewell Address, page 20</ref> in the Farewell Address to the Congress and to the people of America; and his guidance deserves to be put in front of all the others‘ opinions: ''„Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of Free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.“'' In contrast to official pervasive acknowledgment of God (mentioned in all 50 state constitutions<ref>http://patriotpost.us/reference/50-state-constitutions-on-god/</ref>) and the place the Bible historically had in government, jurisprudence <ref>[http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government The Bible and Government]</ref> and in over 300 years of American education <ref>[http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Education_in_the_United_States Education in the United_States]</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/CauseEffect.html CAUSE AND EFFECTS: THE BIBLE AND EDUCATION]</ref> and the status therein of Christian faith in 1962 when [[Engel v. Vitale ]] case was decided, (when an estimated 75 percent of the school systems in the South had religious services and Bible readings<ref>Colliers 1961 Yearbook p. 224</ref>), are some see court decisions in the last 60 years as which some see resulting in Christian faith being functionally supplanted by secularist ideology and the religion of non-theistic [[Secular Humanism]].<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/neutral.html Paul G. Kussrow and Loren Vannest, ''Can Public Schools Be Religiously Neutral?''] Leadership U.</ref>
Donald Closson comments that,
Rulings such as Marsh v. Chamber (1983), which affirm prayer in legislative and judicial settings, based upon established positive practice as well as the age of hearers, stands somewhat in contrast with the modern Court's rulings on state-sponsored prayer in schools, though they both have substantial historicity.
The liberal interpretation depends upon a traditional, formal definition of religion, especially when it pertains to pray or the use of the Bible, versus a less substantial ideology such as [[Secular Humanism]]that seeks "separation of church '''from''' state", as well as the presumption that the state can be almost absolutely separate from the former and its distinctive morality, and that the overall history of church/state relations for almost 150 years did not manifest the Founder's interpretation of the First Amendment, but was in violation of it.
==Origins==
[[John Locke]], the English political philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers, was influenced by the same Puritan milieu which shaped Williams,{{fact}} but he shifted the argument to a [[Humanism|humanistic]] base; instead of being concerned about the State not giving proper allegiance to God, he was concerned that the State would not allow people full freedom in the exercise of certain inalienable rights. The writings of both [[Thomas Jefferson|Jefferson]] and [[James Madison|Madison]] reflect the Lockean orientation.
Among dissenters supporting religious freedom were Baptists [[John Leland]] and [[Isaac Backus]]. Backus appealed to Enlightenment figures in his political pamphlets supporting separation, but the Revolutionary Era was generally unaware of Williams and of his theological defense of religious freedom.<ref> Leroy Moore, , Jr. Religious Liberty: Roger Williams and the Revolutionary Era. Church History 1965 34(1): 57-76. 0009-6407 </ref>
By the 1770s the [[Baptists]] in colonial America took the lead in calling for the separation of church and state, especially in Virginia where the [[Anglican]] Church was supported by tax revenues and had a role in local government. They fought in the period 1775-1810 for the disestablishment of the Anglican church and freedom of religion for all citizens. Three doctrines served as the foundation for the Baptist position: the nature of salvation, the nature of the church, and a belief in the necessity for the separation of civil and ecclesiastical authority. Baptists did not achieve separation of church and state alone (for the active aid of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[James Madison]] was also a considerable factor), but did serve as a constant reminder of the necessity of securing what they believed to be the inalienable rights of men.<ref> Jesse C. Green, Jr. "The Early Virginia Argument for Separation of Church and State" ''Baptist History and Heritage'' 1976 11(1): 16-26. 0005-5719 </ref>
No other American clergyman was more conspicuous or influential in public affairs in the Revolutionary years and immediately thereafter than [[John Witherspoon]], President of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton). Witherspoon also served in the New Jersey Legislature and the Continental Congress, and was a signatory to the Declaration of Independence. In his lectures to students, Witherspoon showed himself "in all essentials an exponent of John Locke's views on government and toleration." When the American Presbyterian Church was organized in 1786, Witherspoon drafted the preface to the new "Form of Government." In it he asserted the universal inalienable right of private judgment in religion and repudiated special aid to churches by civil power, thus reaffirming the position taken by the colonial Presbyterian Church in 1729 in adopting the [[Westminster Confession of Faith]] with a declaratory statement rejecting any State control over the synods as well as any power of the civil government "to persecute any for their religion." The primary concern of Witherspoon and the Presbyterian Church was clearly religious liberty; separation of church and state was valued as a means to that end.<ref>John Hastings Nichols, "John Witherspoon on Church and State" ''Journal of Presbyterian History'' 1964 42(3): 166-174. 0022-3883 </ref>
===No religious test===
Jefferson’s letter and the FBI’s restoration work are among the items in an exhibit at the Library of Congress called, "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic." The exhibit also notes that Jefferson began to attend worship services held at the House of Representatives two days after writing the letter, and that he permitted regular worship services to be held there, a practice that continued until after the Civil War, with preachers from every Protestant denomination appearing there. The Library of Congress exhibit records that
<blockquote>
As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience."...In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government. <ref>[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html ''Religion and the Founding of the American Republic'', part 4]</ref><ref>FBI works sheds new light on famous Jefferson pledge'', Carl Hartman Associated Press, Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO), June 7, 1998</ref>
</blockquote>
[[David Barton]], Founder and President of [[WallBuilders]], states that Jefferson voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building, praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services, urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, set aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups, assured a Christian religious school that it would receive “the patronage of the government”, proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto, and agreed to provide money for a church building and support of clergy. And that like support of religion by the federal government militates against the extreme separatist position.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/common/founderspubrelig.html </ref>
In contrast, separatists place weight upon statements by Jefferson that stress the importance of government not supporting religion, and his refusal as President to issue proclamations of Thanksgiving and prayer, as his Federalist predecessors George Washington and John Adams did. In the light of the conflict, some see Jefferson as allowing some government promotion of religion by the government "for the health of the republic (the political purpose of religion) versus promoting it for the salvation of people's souls."<ref>http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Dreisbach104.htm</ref>
While Jefferson's terminology helped define the language of the debate, it did not constitute a precedent in law. However the Supreme Court adopted this metaphor and interpretation in the 1947 case, [[Everson v. Board of Education]]. The leader of the new interpretation was Justice [[Hugo Black]].<ref>Barbara A. Perry, "Justice Hugo Black and the 'Wall of Separation between Church and State'" ''Journal of Church and State'' 1989 31(1): 55-72. </ref>
Jefferson and Madison insisted that a necessary condition for political freedom was religious freedom, and they insisted on the disestablishment of the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Congregational churches in the new states. That view, however, and the Jeffersonian notion that an impenetrable wall of separation must exist between church and state, has been called into question or attacked by such Supreme Court decisions as [[Sherbert v. Verner ]] (1963), Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990), and Boerne v. P. F. Flores (1993), which question the acceptance of religious pluralism, one of the great achievements of the American "experiment." <ref> Edwin S. Gaustad, "Thomas Jefferson, Religious Freedom, and the Supreme Court." ''Church History'' 1998 67(4): 682-694. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3169848 in JSTOR]</ref> ===Northwest Ordinance - importance of religion in education=== Under the [[Articles of Confederation]] government, which preceded the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Congress passed the [[Northwest Ordinance]] of 1787, a law designed to set up the modern state of [[Ohio]]. Article 3 reads as follows: <blockquote>Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.<ref>http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html</ref></blockquote> Article 1 of the Ordinance reads: <blockquote>No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.<ref>http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html</ref></blockquote> This law provides further proof that the "separation of Church and State" promoted by liberals and atheists today does not match the view of the Founding Fathers.
==="Not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"===
Critics of the extreme separation concept that uses this treaty argue that Article 11 was only one part of a larger treaty, in which it was essential that a distinction be made between the United States and the "Christian powers" and their state churches which had persecuted Muslim nations, as well as the American colonists; also by noting that the statement at issue pertained to the nature of the government and not the nation, which was characterized as being Christian.<ref>[http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125 David Barton, Treaty of Tripoli]</ref><ref>[http://hubpages.com/hub/Tempest-in-a-Treaty-Does-the-Treaty-of-Tripoli-Support-a-Secular-America Tempest in a Treaty: Does the Treaty of Tripoli Support a Secular America?]</ref> as attested to by many of the Founders.<ref>[http://www.praydailyamerica.com/americanhistory.html American History Quotes About God and the Bible]</ref> The significance of differences between the English and Arabic versions of the Treaty are also debated.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html Tektonics.org, On Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli]</ref><ref>http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/barmenu.asp</ref><ref>http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796e.asp</ref> It is also argued that, in distinction to Congress, there is great latitude for the states in the matter of religion.
In addition, numerous other documents and statements are invoked in countering the use of the Tripoli declaration to assert that America was not overall a Christian nation, or that the Christian faith was not distinctly favored by the Founders.<ref>http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/US/USXn-Congress.htm </ref><ref>http://www.contenderministries.org/law/linkpages/09052003hr1547text.php</ref>
It must be noted that the Treaty of Tripoli was a temporary document, is no longer in effect, and has no bearing on the Constitution itself as the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", meaning that no other law, treaty or judicial ruling can supersede it.
===Separating the State from sanctioning religion===
The view that the Establishment Clause must zealously guard against even an appearance of sanctioning any expression of a formal religion is manifest in many cases in the latter half of the 20th century. In ''Brandon v. Board of Education of Guilderland Central School District'' (1981), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated, "Our nation's elementary and secondary schools play a unique role in transmitting basic and fundamental values to our youth. To an impressionable student, even the mere appearance of secular involvement in religious activities might indicate that the state has placed its imprimatur on a particular religious creed. This symbolic inference is too dangerous to permit." Misconceptions over the appropriate roles of church and state learned during one's school years may never be corrected. As Alexander Pope noted, "Tis Education forms the common mind,/Just as the twig is bent, the tree's inclin'd." (Epistle to Lord Cobham).
However, while outlawing voluntary prayer during school hours in fear that this might be seen as state-sanctioned, the court went on to express official support for prayer, stating, "Introspective activity that seeks to strengthen the moral fibre of our nation's young adults deserves our support, but only in our role as private citizens. We hope that the "Students for Voluntary Prayer" can conduct their prayer meetings and religious discussions at another place and at different times."<ref>http://openjurist.org/635/f2d/971</ref>
===A Limit on federal power, not states===
The 1940 decision of the Court to make the First Amendment applicable to the states is also objected to by some, arguing that when the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, its jurisdiction was limited to the Federal Government, a rule that lasted for 150 years.<ref>http://www.covenantnews.com/davidnew060919.htm</ref> Additionally, since the first amendment itself has no restrictions on the activities other two branches of government, the scope of this restriction can only apply to the State Legislatures. However liberal activist judges have expanded this restriction to every aspect of all levels of government activities and organizations, even though there the Constitution sole restriction is with the legislative body.
Preacher [[Pat Robertson]] has argued that the [[Establishment Clause]] was intended merely to prevent the Federal government from imposing a state religion, as two of the original 13 states already had their own official religion.<ref>From [http://www.patrobertson.com/Statesman/StatesRights.asp Pat Robertson "Restore States Rights and Public Morality" (1986)] </ref>
{{cquote|An established religion was a religion where the state paid the clergy and where there were civil liabilities to those who did not belong to that religion; where such things as marriages could only be performed with the blessing of a particular church; where, unless a person was a member thereof, he or she was denied the right to hold public office, etc. That's an established religion. All the people of the framers knew it was to take one sect and prefer it above another.
===Power of Supreme Court contested===
The concept of a supreme judiciary as the final arbiter in judicial matters, and which must be obeyed, is not unique to the United States, as such was instituted in ancient Israel, (Dt. 17:8-13) in its manifestly God-ordained theocracy. However, while the United States Supreme Court may interpret the constitutionality of laws or statutes, it is argued that the Constitution does not give the Court power to judge laws passed by Congress. The Court, under Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] in 1803, assigned itself that power, referred to as ''Judicial Review'', in Marbury vs. Madison, based upon its interpretation of the Constitution. It is understood by most that according to Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, [[Congress]] may declare that the Supreme Court is no longer authorized to hear challenges to the constitutionality of a particular law. <ref>http://www.pregnantpause.org/court/uncon.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/conlaw/judicialrev.htm</ref>
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist papers (#78) referred to the Supreme Court as the "least dangerous" branch of the government because it possessed neither the "power of the purse" (to fund itself) nor that of "the sword" (the executive power and the police and army).<ref>http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.krusch.com/real/suprememyth.html</ref>
However, leaving the interpretation of the Constitution to elected officials is also an issue.<ref>http://www.strictconstruction.org/fast-and-loose-with-the-constitution/</ref>
It is perceived by some that outlawing formal religion results in replacing it with a functional ideological equivalent. Secularity as a condition of a non-ecclesiastical state may be distinguished with secularism as an ideology, with key Supreme court decisions being used to infer state favor toward the nonreligious, resulting in a "religion-free education" which "indoctrinates" the young into viewing secularism as the only frame of reference.<ref>(liberal) Warren A. Nord, ''Religion and American Education: Rethinking a National Dilemma''</ref>
Enacting laws themselves is seen as an imposition of morality,<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/what_libertarians_misunderstan.html AmericanThinker.com, ''What Libertarians Misunderstand']',</ref> October 10, 2010 </ref> and Paul G. Kussrow and Loren Vannest ask, ''Is a religiously neutral public school education an oxymoron?'', and see notable Supreme court Establishment Clause decisions (such as [[Engel v. VataleVitale]], l9621962) as in essence creating "a legal fiction--a myth of religious neutrality." They argue that "Philosophy and religion blur when dealing with these basics, such as truth, while pointing to the ultimate questions and answers in life," and that, "Any discussion of a secular-religious distinction is self-refuting. For someone's values are always being advocated even in so called "neutral" settings."
Removing formal God (and morality) based religion from the public schools is seen to have the effect of supplanting it with [[Secular Humanism]]. This in turn promotes pantheism, the worship of nature with its [[evolution]]ary hypothesis, and the rejection of moral absolutes (especially those of the Bible), resulting in a dangerous ever-morphing morality and decline of beneficial [[moral decline|traditional morality]].<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/neutral.html</ref>
In support of this understanding, declarations by humanists such as John J. Dunphy, are often invoked:
<blockquote>
I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith...These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach,...The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism...''<ref>A Religion for a New Age'',The Humanist magazine’s January-February January–February 1983</ref>
</blockquote>
Kussrow and Vannest argue that "since atheism is a religion under the establishment clause, (Malnak v. Yogi, l977), given the above facts, secular humanism must be considered a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment (Gove v. Mead School District, l985)", noting that "the American Humanist Association even has a religious tax exemption status approved by the Federal government."<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/neutral.html Paul G. Kussrow and Loren Vannest, ''Can Public Schools Be Religiously Neutral?'']</ref> In ''United States v. Kauten'' (2d Cir. 1943), conscientious objector status was granted to Mathias Kauten, not due to his belief in God, but on the basis of his “religious conscience.”<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/neutral.html Paul G. Kussrow and Loren Vannest, ''Can Public Schools Be Religiously Neutral?'']</ref>
Other evidence indicates that U.S. courts have moved from a generally substantive definition of religion, in which the religion affirms a transcendent deity, to a functional definition of religion, which Secular Humanism has been defined by some courts to be. In the ''[[Torcaso v. Watkins]]'' case in 1961, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions.
In the light of such, James Davison Hunter argues that,
==Major U.S. Supreme court establishment cases==
What constitutes government establishment of religion,, as forbidden by the First Amendment has been a difficult and somewhat inconsistent matter, especially in the modern era. In ''Walz v. Tax Commissioner'' (1970), the Court noted that for "the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'' It would later state that the "Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments."<ref>Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2494 (1994)</ref> <ref>http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/02.html#fsupp.3</ref>
* In [[Lemon v. Kurtzman ]] (1971), the Court rejected state statutes which provided state aid to church-related elementary and secondary schools, judging "the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion." In so doing, it conceded that "total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable." It then proposed that the constitutionality of such religious programs could be met if they met all of three conditions:
# It has a secular purpose
However, the Court appears not to have always bound itself to all 3 prongs of this test in future Establishment cases, with the second aspect being more stressed.
* In ''[[Everson v. Board of Education]]'' (1947), the [[Supreme court]] ruled that it was not unconstitutional for tax money to fund a bus fare program to get students to and from religious schools, which met the secular educational requirements which the state has power to impose. It noted that "parents might refuse to risk their children to the serious danger of traffic accidents going to and from parochial schools, the approaches to which were not protected by policemen. Similarly, parents might be reluctant to permit their children to attend schools which the state had cut off from such general government services as ordinary police and fire protection, connections for sewage disposal.."
However, the case was also notable for its statement by Chief Justice Black, who, writing the majority opinion, invoked the metaphor which Thomas Jefferson used in writing to the Danbury Baptists, declaring,
Justice Black also stated,
<blockquote>
“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....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.’”<ref>[[Everson v. Board of Education]], 330 U.S at 15-16 (1947)</ref><ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#63</ref>
</blockquote>
* The next year (1948), in ''McCollum v. Board of Education'', the Court disallowed a public school program under which religious instruction was provided during the last period of the school day instead of secular subjects.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=333&invol=203</ref>
* The most significant challenge to the predominate historical understanding of the Establishment Clause occurred in 1962, almost 170 years after the adoption of the First Amendment (Dec. 15, 1701). In ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' the Supreme Court dealt with a required practice of a local New York school which began each school day by reading aloud the following prayer in the presence of the teacher: ''Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.'
Many other schools also did likewise, as such had been a historical practice since the beginning of schooling in America. However, the Court outlawed any government sanctioned prayer in schools, declared that "it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.''
Justice Black stated that "The Establishment Clause . . . is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not." Justice Stewart was alone in dissenting, contending that, "to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.''
* In 1963, in ''[[Abington School Dist. District v. Schempp]]'', the Supreme Court outlawed public school requirements that each school day begin with selections readings from the Bible.
In this case the State argued that the object of the programs was the promotion of secular purposes, such as the expounding of moral values, the contradiction of the materialistic trends of the times, and the promotion of traditional institutions. The State also rightly contended that by forbidding Bible reading a ''religion of secularism'' would supplant it. However, the Court rejected all these contentions, stating that it was not preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.
* In ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]'' (1968), the Court rejected an Arkansas state statute which made it unlawful for any teacher in any state-supported educational institution "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" the evolutionary theory.
* A notable exception to the trend of outlawing government sanction of religion occurred in [[Marsh v. Chambers ]] (1983). In this case a clergyman who opened each session of the Nebraska state legislature with a prayer was paid by public funds. [[Atheist]] Senator Earnest Chambers found this intolerable and went to court to outlaw the practice. The District Court judged it was wrong to use public money to pay the preacher's salary, while the Appellate Court saw the prayer being offered as not permissible.
However, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the practice of beginning the legislative session with a prayer by a publicly funded chaplain was indeed constitutional. The Court's basis was the almost 200 year historicity of the use of chaplains in government, "ever since the First Congress drafted the First Amendment", a practice without adverse effect. In addition, it was stated that "because of the principles upon which the nation has developed, religion has become part of the fabric of society. The offering of the prayer is a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."<ref>http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/mars_v_cham.html</ref>
The age of the participants was also a deciding factor, as it judged that state legislators, being adults, are ''presumably not readily susceptible to 'religious indoctrination' or 'peer pressure'''. Justice Brennan dissented, objecting that the all three aspects of the [[Lemon v. Kurtzman ]] test had been violated.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=463&invol=783</ref>
* In ''[[Wallace v. Jaffree]]'' (1985), the Court disallowed an Alabama statute authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools ''for meditation or prayer''. This was rejected on the basis that the purpose of the legislation was to restore prayer to schools. Justice Rehnquist dissented, rejecting the interpretation that the First Amendment required strict neutrality between religion and ''irreligion,'' and instead confined the scope to a prohibition on establishing a national church, or otherwise favoring one particular religious group over another. Some other justices indicated that other state statutes which had simply authorized moments of silence would be constitutional.
* In 1987, the Court decided in ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'', that a Louisiana statute mandating balanced treatment of ''creation-science'' and ''evolution-science'' in the public schools was unconstitutional, as the Legislators viewpoint that a supernatural created humankind was one that was religious, and thus it sought to discredit evolution "by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creation science.''
* In ''[[Lee v. Weisman]]'' (1992), the Court decided that school-sponsored, state-directed religious prayer (invocation), even if nonsectarian, at a high school commencement also violated the Establishment Clause.
* In 1981, in ''[[Widmar v. Vincent]]'' the Court ruled that religious groups were to have the same equal access to a public college's facilities as other ''noncurriculum'' related student groups, as this would further a secular purpose, would not constitute an impermissible benefit to religion. Later, in ''[[Bd. of Educ. of the Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens|Westside Community Board of Educational v. Mergens]]'' (1990), these principles were also applied to public secondary schools as well, as it judged students were able to understand the school was accommodating, not affirming (as it effectively did for secularism), religious belief. Likewise, in ''Rosenberger v. University of Virginia'' (1995), the Court judged that student religious organizations were not to be excluded by public colleges from receiving benefits otherwise provided to a full range of student civic-type groups.
* In related equal access rulings, in ''Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District'' (1993), the Court determined that public schools may not exclude, on First Amendment grounds, religious groups from being given permission for after-hours use of school property which were otherwise available for non-religious social, civic, and recreational purposes. This was also seen to apply to Town Halls, etc. In 1995 the Court similarly ruled in ''Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette'', that the government cannot deny access for non-government funded religious displays or gatherings in a traditional public forum on government property which was used for citizen speeches and unattended displays.<ref>http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/03.html</ref>
* In the 1995 decision in ''Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia'', the Court required the University of Virginia to fund a Christian student newspaper as it also funded secular student newspapers, with liberal justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer dissenting.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10270</ref>
* In ''[[Good News Club v. Milford Central School]]'' (2001), the Court majority ruled that a public school district violated the free speech rights of an [[Evangelical Christian]] group by preventing them from using school facilities after classes were over.<ref>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010711.html </ref><ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-2036.html</ref>
===Pledge of Allegiance===
</blockquote>
In a recent ruling<ref>Newdow vs Rio Linda Union School District</ref> concerning the phrase, the usually liberal [[Ninth Circuit|California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]], ruled 2-1 that the use of the phrase "under God" in the [[Pledge of Allegiance]] was constitutional, reversing its 2002 decision. The Court stated (in part) that,
The phrase “under God” is a recognition of our Founder’s political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights. Thus, the Pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect...The Framers referred to the source of the people’s rights as the ‘Creator,’ the ‘Supreme Judge,’ and ‘Nature’s God.’ The Declaration of Independence, 1 U.S.C. § XLIII (1776). The name given to this unknowable, varied source was not crucial, but the source was a necessary prerequisite to the concept of limited government that formed the basis of our nation’s founding.” <ref>http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf pp. 52, 37</ref>
In a separate case, the court ruled 3-0 that "In God We Trust" does not constitute an illegal endorsement of religion inscribed on national currency.
=== Secular humanism is a religion ===
[[Atheism]] is a religion (see: [[Atheism is a religion]]). [[Secular humanism]] rejects the supernatural and is a type of atheism.
In the 1961 U.S Supreme Court case of [[Torcaso v. Watkins]] Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."<ref>[http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/367/488.html Torcaso v. Watkins]</ref>
John Calvert, a lawyer and [[intelligent design]] proponent declared:
{{cquote|The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the [[United States]] held that atheism is a [[religion]]. Therefore, it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently, public schools are often unwittingly promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of [[Evolution|materialistic theories of origins]].<ref>[http://www.highway30cofc.truepath.com/Articles/SpiritualWarfare;AtheismisaReligionPart1.pdf Spiritual Warfare; Atheism is a Religion Part 1 ] by Darrin Morehouse</ref>}}
==Other cases==
==Further reading==
*Barry McGowan, ''How to Separate Church & State: A Manual from the Trenches'' Hufton Mueller, LLC, 2012 ISBN 978-0-615-63802-7
* Dreisbach, Daniel L. ''Thomas Jefferson and the wall of separation between Church and State'' (2002) Conservative examination of the issue [http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Dreisbach104.htm Review]
* Gaustad, Edwin S. "Thomas Jefferson, Religious Freedom, and the Supreme Court." ''Church History'' 1998 67(4): 682-694. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3169848 in JSTOR]
*Guinness, Os. ''American Hour: A time of reckoning and and the once and future role of faith'' (1993) 468 pages
* Hamburger, Philip. ''Separation of church and state'' (2002) 514 pages
* Hammond, Phillip E. "American Church/State Jurisprudence from the Warren Court to the Rehnquist Court," ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,'' Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 455-464 455–464 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388099 in JSTOR]
* Healey, Robert M. "Thomas Jefferson's 'Wall': Absolute or Serpentine?" ''Journal of Church and State'' 1988 30(3): 441-462, history of usage by Supreme Court
* Hutson, James H. at al. "Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists: A Controversy Rejoined." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 1999 56(4): 775-824. a debate among leading historians; [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2674235 in JSTOR]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[categoryCategory:political Political Terms]][[Category:First AmendmentSeparation of church and state]][[categoryCategory:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]