Separation of Church and State / Wall of Separation

Recently, I've found myself arguing the Separation of Church and State and whether it is, indeed, a proper interpretation of the 1st Amendment which states:

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 use of the phrases "separation of Church and State" and "wall of separation" are in longstanding usage in decisions by the Supreme Court, which, in fact, makes use of external documentation (relevent to the Constitution) by the founders in interpreting the intent of the 1st Amendment.



MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION , 333 U.S. 203 (1948):

..thereby breaching the "wall of separation" which, according to Jefferson, the First Amendment was intended to erect between church and state.

..agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

..it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the state's compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and State.

..in our view the Constitutional principle requiring separation of Church and State compelled invalidation of the ordinance sustained by the majority.

..a spacious conception like that of the separation of Church from State is unfolded as appeal is made to the principle from case to case.

But agreement, in the abstract, that the First Amendment was designed to erect a 'wall of separation between Church and State,' does not preclude a clash of views as to what the wall separates.

We cannot illuminatingly apply the 'wall-of-separation' metaphor until we have considered the relevant history of religious education in America, the place of the 'released time' movement in that history, and its precise manifestation in the case before us.

It is not a question of religion, or of creed, or of party; it is a question of declaring and maintaining the great American principle of eternal separation between Church and State.

..the more extensively the movement operates, the more ominous the breaches in the wall of separation.

Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped.

It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. [333 U.S. 203 , 232] We renew our conviction that 'we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion.'

They've even quoted directly:

'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and 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 and State.' 8 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington ed., 1861) 113.

ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962):

..the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State.

Williams, who was one of the earliest exponents of the doctrine of separation of church and state, believed that separation was necessary in order to protect the church from the danger of destruction..

ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963):

..in violation of "the principle of separation between church and state, contained therein.."

..in violation of the state or federal constitutional command of separation of church and state..

JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. v. WILSON, 343 U.S. 495 (1952):

..apart from our [343 U.S. 495, 529] requirements for the separation of Church and State.

EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947):

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.'

..the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State..

Nor should I think that those who have done so well without this aid would want to see this separation between Church and State broken down.

..the only serious surviving threat to maintaining that complete and permanent separation of religion and civil power which the First Amendment commands is through use of the taxing power to support religion..

There are many more examples. The point is, the Supreme Court has continually interpreted the 1st Amendment to be a 'wall of separation' and a 'separation of Church and State'.

The question, if one wishes to be constructive, is not whether it exists (historical fact proves this to be the case), but how or where it should be applied. Although, be sure to take into account the 14th Amendment which solidifies the Constitution's authority over state laws and decisions, including those pertaining to the 1st Amendment.