Busting the Myth of Separation of Church and State

[BULLDOG]

We do a lot of that here. Google faith based initiatives.

Well they dont survive from the collection plate.

You're right. The people who say the churches should take care of the poor so the government doesn't have to just don't understand that the churches aren't doing it.

They are taking the governments money though. Bastards.

I think that money is probably going to what it is designated for, but without government funding, the churches wouldn't even be scratching the surface as far as helping the poor.

How are churches getting government funding?

As I said before, google "Faith based initiatives". Try to keep up.

 

[pinqy]

And you can't show where anyone has claimed the words "Separation of Church and State" are in the Constitution.

90% of the time you can't have this discussion without some Liberal defending the 'Separation of Church and State'. Many come unglued when you point out that does not exist.

The words "right to a fair trial" are not in the Constitution...does that mean no such right exists?

The words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution but the Constitution does separate them in Article VI, forbidding religious tests for office, and the 1st Ammendment, forbidding establishing a religion and protecting free exercise. The Government cannot control religion and religion cannot control governmnent. That's separation.


The idea of religious freedom and the concept that freedom OF religion in the context it pertains to escapes many Liberals. The 1st Americans came to America primarily to escape religious persecution. They wanted to ensure that this new nation would never have to face the same issue it sought to escape - an oppressive govt that sought to inject itself into religion, to CONTROL it and LIMIT it! That is EXACTLY what today's government is doing / trying to do.[/QUOTE]

 

[Correll]

In Australia the churches contract all the homeless shelters, charity orgs and employment agencies. It's disgusting. They use tax payers money to push their crazy rubbish.

Austrailia is not bound by the U.S constitution. What they do there has no bearing on what we do here.

If it works, and does not lead to a Theocracy that the libs fear so much, it is certainly relevant to whether or not it is a good idea.

We are propping up an outdated institution.

It seems your fellow citizens disagree.

How well served are the homeless and unemployed?

 

[The Great Goose]

In Australia the churches contract all the homeless shelters, charity orgs and employment agencies. It's disgusting. They use tax payers money to push their crazy rubbish.

Austrailia is not bound by the U.S constitution. What they do there has no bearing on what we do here.

If it works, and does not lead to a Theocracy that the libs fear so much, it is certainly relevant to whether or not it is a good idea.

We are propping up an outdated institution.

It seems your fellow citizens disagree.

How well served are the homeless and unemployed?

They are left I the street

 

[Correll]

Nope. If it can be shown that the "case law" is not founded on anything in the Constitution, that that case law is bad and should be overturned.

THUS, it is not a "failed and ignorant argument".

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Separation of church and state can be found here in the Constitution:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.” McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

You may disagree if you wish, ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't change the settled and accepted fact that the Supreme Court determines the meaning of the Constitution, a fundamental fact of law beyond dispute.

What if it was "IMproperly interpreted"?

YOu cite a ruling, but without the justification or reasoning for that ruling.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

A "what if" speculation fallacy doesn't mitigate settled, accepted case law.

YOu cite "accepted case law", but without the justification or reasoning that connected that law to the Constitution.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Case law is connected to the Constitution by the constitutional authority given to the Court to make case law.

That answer would have been GREAT, if I was asking for the justification of the very idea of case law.

As the topic is a SPECIFIC case law, not so much.

 

[The Great Goose]

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Separation of church and state can be found here in the Constitution:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.” McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

You may disagree if you wish, ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't change the settled and accepted fact that the Supreme Court determines the meaning of the Constitution, a fundamental fact of law beyond dispute.

What if it was "IMproperly interpreted"?

YOu cite a ruling, but without the justification or reasoning for that ruling.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

A "what if" speculation fallacy doesn't mitigate settled, accepted case law.

YOu cite "accepted case law", but without the justification or reasoning that connected that law to the Constitution.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Case law is connected to the Constitution by the constitutional authority given to the Court to make case law.

That answer would have been GREAT, if I was asking for the justification of the very idea of case law.

As the topic is a SPECIFIC case law, not so much.

People like us live in shelter. What about the homeless?

 

[Correll]

In Australia the churches contract all the homeless shelters, charity orgs and employment agencies. It's disgusting. They use tax payers money to push their crazy rubbish.

Austrailia is not bound by the U.S constitution. What they do there has no bearing on what we do here.

If it works, and does not lead to a Theocracy that the libs fear so much, it is certainly relevant to whether or not it is a good idea.

We are propping up an outdated institution.

It seems your fellow citizens disagree.

How well served are the homeless and unemployed?

They are left I the street

As that is the case here also, that doesn't seem to be much different.

Have the "blurring of the lines" between Church and State led to a Theocracy where non-Christians are terribly oppressed?

 

[NYcarbineer]

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Separation of church and state can be found here in the Constitution:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.” McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)

Again, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

You may disagree if you wish, ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't change the settled and accepted fact that the Supreme Court determines the meaning of the Constitution, a fundamental fact of law beyond dispute.

What if it was "IMproperly interpreted"?

YOu cite a ruling, but without the justification or reasoning for that ruling.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

A "what if" speculation fallacy doesn't mitigate settled, accepted case law.

YOu cite "accepted case law", but without the justification or reasoning that connected that law to the Constitution.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Case law is connected to the Constitution by the constitutional authority given to the Court to make case law.

That answer would have been GREAT, if I was asking for the justification of the very idea of case law.

As the topic is a SPECIFIC case law, not so much.

Case law is the opinion of the judges. The People, indirectly, elect the judiciary. We have had, for example, over 40 years since Roe v Wade for the People to elect senators and presidents who would put enough judges on the court to overturn Roe. The People haven't.

That applies to all court decisions in force today that you 'think' don't follow the Constitution to your peculiar preferences.

 

[Correll]

What if it was "IMproperly interpreted"?

YOu cite a ruling, but without the justification or reasoning for that ruling.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

A "what if" speculation fallacy doesn't mitigate settled, accepted case law.

YOu cite "accepted case law", but without the justification or reasoning that connected that law to the Constitution.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Case law is connected to the Constitution by the constitutional authority given to the Court to make case law.

That answer would have been GREAT, if I was asking for the justification of the very idea of case law.

As the topic is a SPECIFIC case law, not so much.

Case law is the opinion of the judges. The People, indirectly, elect the judiciary. We have had, for example, over 40 years since Roe v Wade for the People to elect senators and presidents who would put enough judges on the court to overturn Roe. The People haven't.

That applies to all court decisions in force today that you 'think' don't follow the Constitution to your peculiar preferences.

THat also did not explain the reasoning behind the "case law" that supports the Separation of Church and State.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A "what if" speculation fallacy doesn't mitigate settled, accepted case law.

YOu cite "accepted case law", but without the justification or reasoning that connected that law to the Constitution.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Case law is connected to the Constitution by the constitutional authority given to the Court to make case law.

That answer would have been GREAT, if I was asking for the justification of the very idea of case law.

As the topic is a SPECIFIC case law, not so much.

Case law is the opinion of the judges. The People, indirectly, elect the judiciary. We have had, for example, over 40 years since Roe v Wade for the People to elect senators and presidents who would put enough judges on the court to overturn Roe. The People haven't.

That applies to all court decisions in force today that you 'think' don't follow the Constitution to your peculiar preferences.

THat also did not explain the reasoning behind the "case law" that supports the Separation of Church and State.

Which case?

 

[Timmy]

So what is this thread getting at?

That city hall can put a giant cross on top of the building ?

How would that NOT violate the establishment clause ?

 

[Correll]

YOu cite "accepted case law", but without the justification or reasoning that connected that law to the Constitution.

That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Case law is connected to the Constitution by the constitutional authority given to the Court to make case law.

That answer would have been GREAT, if I was asking for the justification of the very idea of case law.

As the topic is a SPECIFIC case law, not so much.

Case law is the opinion of the judges. The People, indirectly, elect the judiciary. We have had, for example, over 40 years since Roe v Wade for the People to elect senators and presidents who would put enough judges on the court to overturn Roe. The People haven't.

That applies to all court decisions in force today that you 'think' don't follow the Constitution to your peculiar preferences.

THat also did not explain the reasoning behind the "case law" that supports the Separation of Church and State.

Which case?

You libs are the ones claiming that "Case Law" built upon the Constitution supports the concept of Separation of Church and State.

I have no idea what you are specifically talking about.

I disagree with you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Case law is connected to the Constitution by the constitutional authority given to the Court to make case law.

That answer would have been GREAT, if I was asking for the justification of the very idea of case law.

As the topic is a SPECIFIC case law, not so much.

Case law is the opinion of the judges. The People, indirectly, elect the judiciary. We have had, for example, over 40 years since Roe v Wade for the People to elect senators and presidents who would put enough judges on the court to overturn Roe. The People haven't.

That applies to all court decisions in force today that you 'think' don't follow the Constitution to your peculiar preferences.

THat also did not explain the reasoning behind the "case law" that supports the Separation of Church and State.

Which case?

You libs are the ones claiming that "Case Law" built upon the Constitution supports the concept of Separation of Church and State.

I have no idea what you are specifically talking about.

I disagree with you.

You've already been cited the case law, and you can research it yourself; at least understand what you're disagreeing with.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

And, as usual, you have not presented a single salient point where "separation of church and state" is anywhere in the constitution.

The right to brandish/carry a semi automatic rifle in public in certain circumstances isn't spelled out anywhere in the Constitution either. Simply because every possible circumstance isn't spelled out for bigoted Neanderthals who can't find their ass with either hand after 6 weeks of drill, is not any indication that that particular combination of words not appearing in the Great Contract is unconstitutional.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Case law is connected to the Constitution by the constitutional authority given to the Court to make case law.

That answer would have been GREAT, if I was asking for the justification of the very idea of case law.

As the topic is a SPECIFIC case law, not so much.

Case law is the opinion of the judges. The People, indirectly, elect the judiciary. We have had, for example, over 40 years since Roe v Wade for the People to elect senators and presidents who would put enough judges on the court to overturn Roe. The People haven't.

That applies to all court decisions in force today that you 'think' don't follow the Constitution to your peculiar preferences.

THat also did not explain the reasoning behind the "case law" that supports the Separation of Church and State.

Which case?

You libs are the ones claiming that "Case Law" built upon the Constitution supports the concept of Separation of Church and State.

I have no idea what you are specifically talking about.

I disagree with you.

The agreed upon original source of the expression, "Wall of separation between Church and State" comes from T. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Here is the pertinent bit:

"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, 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. 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." [Emphasis Added]
< Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter >

Ya want some SCOTUS case law re: the Establishment Clause?

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)
Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

 

[Correll]

That answer would have been GREAT, if I was asking for the justification of the very idea of case law.

As the topic is a SPECIFIC case law, not so much.

Case law is the opinion of the judges. The People, indirectly, elect the judiciary. We have had, for example, over 40 years since Roe v Wade for the People to elect senators and presidents who would put enough judges on the court to overturn Roe. The People haven't.

That applies to all court decisions in force today that you 'think' don't follow the Constitution to your peculiar preferences.

THat also did not explain the reasoning behind the "case law" that supports the Separation of Church and State.

Which case?

You libs are the ones claiming that "Case Law" built upon the Constitution supports the concept of Separation of Church and State.

I have no idea what you are specifically talking about.

I disagree with you.

You've already been cited the case law, and you can research it yourself; at least understand what you're disagreeing with.

So, you don't want to support your own stated position on the topic, you think that is my job to do for you?

Mmmm, nope.

Your position is unsupported other than by various logical fallacies.

You lose.

 

[Correll]

That answer would have been GREAT, if I was asking for the justification of the very idea of case law.

As the topic is a SPECIFIC case law, not so much.

Case law is the opinion of the judges. The People, indirectly, elect the judiciary. We have had, for example, over 40 years since Roe v Wade for the People to elect senators and presidents who would put enough judges on the court to overturn Roe. The People haven't.

That applies to all court decisions in force today that you 'think' don't follow the Constitution to your peculiar preferences.

THat also did not explain the reasoning behind the "case law" that supports the Separation of Church and State.

Which case?

You libs are the ones claiming that "Case Law" built upon the Constitution supports the concept of Separation of Church and State.

I have no idea what you are specifically talking about.

I disagree with you.

The agreed upon original source of the expression, "Wall of separation between Church and State" comes from T. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Here is the pertinent bit:

"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, 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. 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." [Emphasis Added]
< Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter >

Ya want some SCOTUS case law re: the Establishment Clause?

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)
Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

That's more like IT!

The letter reference is good, as it gets to Original Intent.

The cases look interesting, but when I clicked on them to read the Opinions, I didn't see anything.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Case law is the opinion of the judges. The People, indirectly, elect the judiciary. We have had, for example, over 40 years since Roe v Wade for the People to elect senators and presidents who would put enough judges on the court to overturn Roe. The People haven't.

That applies to all court decisions in force today that you 'think' don't follow the Constitution to your peculiar preferences.

THat also did not explain the reasoning behind the "case law" that supports the Separation of Church and State.

Which case?

You libs are the ones claiming that "Case Law" built upon the Constitution supports the concept of Separation of Church and State.

I have no idea what you are specifically talking about.

I disagree with you.

The agreed upon original source of the expression, "Wall of separation between Church and State" comes from T. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Here is the pertinent bit:

"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, 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. 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." [Emphasis Added]
< Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter >

Ya want some SCOTUS case law re: the Establishment Clause?

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)
Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

That's more like IT!

The letter reference is good, as it gets to Original Intent.

The cases look interesting, but when I clicked on them to read the Opinions, I didn't see anything.

One can always look up the decisions at FindLaw or Justica or my 1st choice Cornell LII; Welcome to LII

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Do you know how tiresome it is for you to make that same silly claim about separation of church and state not being in the constitution, and then somebody taking the time to explain it to you yet again? Ask hannity to give you some new material. It's just dumb to rehash this one again.

Instead of your rambling rant, why don't you PROVE to us what you think is the truth?

That was the point of my post. It's been proven to you hundreds of times already, but you are still stuck on that same whining point. At least whine about something new occasionally.

And, as usual, you have not presented a single salient point where "separation of church and state" is anywhere in the constitution.

Typical Leftist/Progressive tactic.

Sorry if you don't get it, but since the Supreme Court decided that a long time ago, it doesn't matter if you get it.

I suppose since the supreme court had previously ruled against marriages that were out side of the norms of society, Gay Marriage should not be allowed either.
Am I understanding you correctly? nothing can be overturned once the SC has ruled?

 

[BULLDOG]

Do you know how tiresome it is for you to make that same silly claim about separation of church and state not being in the constitution, and then somebody taking the time to explain it to you yet again? Ask hannity to give you some new material. It's just dumb to rehash this one again.

Instead of your rambling rant, why don't you PROVE to us what you think is the truth?

That was the point of my post. It's been proven to you hundreds of times already, but you are still stuck on that same whining point. At least whine about something new occasionally.

And, as usual, you have not presented a single salient point where "separation of church and state" is anywhere in the constitution.

Typical Leftist/Progressive tactic.

Sorry if you don't get it, but since the Supreme Court decided that a long time ago, it doesn't matter if you get it.

I suppose since the supreme court had previously ruled against marriages that were out side of the norms of society, Gay Marriage should not be allowed either.
Am I understanding you correctly? nothing can be overturned once the SC has ruled?

Sure things can be overturned if there is a valid reason. You got a valid reason why we should become a theocracy?