Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick argues there is no separation of church and state in U.S. Constitution

[M14 Shooter]

I look forward to your acceptance of Sharia "religious principles and tenets."

This was addressed in post #38.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

He's right. Find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution. It does not exist. Some people take the part about "gov't shall establish no religion" as "separation of church and state" but that's not in the constitution.

So if the clause : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the fee excercise thereof" does not mean that the Chufch and State shall be separate..... WHAT THE **** DOES IT MEAN ? .....in your own words.

This does -not- prevent the inclusion of religious principles and tenets within the functions of the state.

What exactly does that mean? What religion? What does that look like exactly in real life?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So if the clause : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the fee excercise thereof" does not mean that the Chufch and State shall be separate..... WHAT THE **** DOES IT MEAN ? .....in your own words.

This is the degree to which the constitution protects religion from the government.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is the degree to which the constitution protects religion from the government.

Really, that's what it means to you? Not that we need protection from religion. ? Where are you getting this codswallop from?

 

[HikerGuy83]

The LT Governor of Texas, the most influential position in the state (history there), as part of a Trump Commission, is arguing there is no separation of Church and State.

By all means show us where the Constitution says there is a separation of church and state.

There were state sponsored religions in the original states up through the 1830's and THEY WERE NEVER CHALLENGED.

The states just got smart and wrote them out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really, that's what it means to you?

That's what the words say.
By "religion" I mean the "right to practice you religion, if any", not the various churches.
So, better said:
This is the degree to which the constitution protects the right of the people to the religion of their choosing from the government.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's what the words say.
By "religion" I mean the "right to practice you religion, if any", not the various churches.
So, better said:
This is the degree to which the constitution protects the right of the people to the religion of their choosing from the government.

It is also protection from the government being infested with religion, which then would foist itt on the populace with laws and policies favoring said religion

It also protects the individuals right to have freedom FROM religion- whether that religion be imposed upon then but the religious entity, or through the government . If you can't understand or accept that, there is no hope for you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is also protection from the government being infested with religion,

Where are you getting this codswallop from?

It also protects the individuals right to have freedom FROM religion-

Where are you getting this codswallop from?

If you can't understand or accept that, there is no hope for you.

Ah. The final refuge of someone with a piss-poor argument

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The LT Governor of Texas, the most influential position in the state (history there), as part of a Trump Commission, is arguing there is no separation of Church and State. Given the Texas Republican's sudden fear of Sharia law, this appears to be a terrifying position to take. Thoughts USMB?

I've actually made this argument myself over the years and I am not a religious person. The Establishment Clause states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What this had always meant was that they could not establish a state religion. They put this in there to prevent religious persecution that many original settlers had faced in Europe. It wasn't until the 20th century that courts started taking it upon themselves to declare any government religious affiliation at all a taboo, like posting the Ten Commandments at a courthouse or preventing a team prayer at a football game.

 

[sartre play]

I've actually made this argument myself over the years and I am not a religious person. The Establishment Clause states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What this had always meant was that they could not establish a state religion. They put this in there to prevent religious persecution that many original settlers had faced in Europe. It wasn't until the 20th century that courts started taking it upon themselves to declare any government religious affiliation at all a taboo, like posting the Ten Commandments at a courthouse or preventing a team prayer at a football game.

People will just say anything to keep the hate going.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It is also protection from the government being infested with religion, which then would foist itt on the populace with laws and policies favoring said religion

The federal government.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The federal government.

Hogwash It has been interpreted by the courts to mean all government

 

[pknopp]

Hogwash It has been interpreted by the courts to mean all government

The 14th made it all government.

 

[Truth2Know]

If they intended a clear separation their actions did not show that. The very first thing Congress did was open with a prayer. We still do that. Where people like Patrick get lost is that any belief may open Congress with prayer.......not just Christian.

51 out of 55 of delegates to the Constitutional Convention identified as Christian: 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 3 Deists. They worshiped the same God, but differently.

It's my belief that their intent in the first amendment was to ensure that the government could not force people to worship according to any specific denomination. They would be free to worship God, the one true God Christians worship, as they saw fit.

Along these lines, I feel that hey would be appalled at how their intent was misconstrued and where we are today in the degeneration of the Christian faith to include groups like Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. Not to mention the Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims. If I have offended anyone, you need to get saved. Read the Bible before it's too late.

 

[Nostra]

The LT Governor of Texas, the most influential position in the state (history there), as part of a Trump Commission, is arguing there is no separation of Church and State. Given the Texas Republican's sudden fear of Sharia law, this appears to be a terrifying position to take. Thoughts USMB?

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick argues there is no separation of church and state in U.S. Constitution

Patrick spoke as chair of President Donald Trump's Religious Liberty Commission, which is planning to make federal policy recommendations in May.

www.kut.org

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick argues there is no separation of church and state in U.S. Constitution​

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick speaks during a press conference on Monday, June 23, 2025, in Austin. Patrick was addressing about Gov. Greg Abbott’s veto the night before of the legislature’s bill to ban THC products.
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick argued "there is no such thing as ‘separation of church and state' in the U.S. Constitution." He issued the statement this week in his role as chair of President Donald Trump's Religious Liberty Commission, which plans to make federal policy recommendations in May.

"For too long, the anti-God left has used this phrase to suppress people of religion in our country," Patrick said. "During all 7 Commission hearings, witness after witness testified that the so-called ‘separation of church and state' was used to take their God-given religious liberty rights away."

Patrick’s remarks come as Texas is involved in multiple battles over the dividing line between church and state. These include multiple lawsuits over the enforcement of Senate Bill 10, which requires the display of an explicitly Protestant translation of the Ten Commandments in every Texas public school classroom, as well as efforts by Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton — the latter a candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate — to target what they call the implementation of Islamic religious law.

Douglas Laycock, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas School of Law, called Patrick’s statement a “very old claim from people who want to use government power to impose their religious practices on other people.”

"It is literally true that the word separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution, but the idea clearly appears in the Constitution," Laycock added.

Sam Martin, Frank Church Chair of Public Affairs at Boise State University, said that, while it is technically true that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, the principle is shorthand for what is embedded in the First Amendment's ban on a government-established religion.

"Religious people have every reason and claim to make arguments and be in public life," Martin said. "But [Patrick is] not just arguing that religious people belong in public life. He’s arguing for a more privileged role for Christianity in public institutions, and I think that that is less defensible and less in line with what we know about the founding and the Constitution and certainly the way the courts have interpreted rights to religious freedom.”

Patrick said the commission will deliver its recommendations to Trump on how to "safeguard" Americans' religious liberty next month.

"What I think Patrick is doing, and what this commission seems to be heading toward, is attacking the very fundamental idea that government should remain, let’s say, institutionally separate from religion," Martin said. "And that is a hallmark of Christian nationalist practice."

Well, I just checked again…….nope, not in the Const7.

Another Zincloser thread fail.

 

[BackAgain]

The LT Governor of Texas, the most influential position in the state (history there), as part of a Trump Commission, is arguing there is no separation of Church and State. Given the Texas Republican's sudden fear of Sharia law, this appears to be a terrifying position to take. Thoughts USMB?

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick argues there is no separation of church and state in U.S. Constitution

Patrick spoke as chair of President Donald Trump's Religious Liberty Commission, which is planning to make federal policy recommendations in May.

www.kut.org

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick argues there is no separation of church and state in U.S. Constitution​

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick speaks during a press conference on Monday, June 23, 2025, in Austin. Patrick was addressing about Gov. Greg Abbott’s veto the night before of the legislature’s bill to ban THC products.
Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick argued "there is no such thing as ‘separation of church and state' in the U.S. Constitution." He issued the statement this week in his role as chair of President Donald Trump's Religious Liberty Commission, which plans to make federal policy recommendations in May.

"For too long, the anti-God left has used this phrase to suppress people of religion in our country," Patrick said. "During all 7 Commission hearings, witness after witness testified that the so-called ‘separation of church and state' was used to take their God-given religious liberty rights away."

Patrick’s remarks come as Texas is involved in multiple battles over the dividing line between church and state. These include multiple lawsuits over the enforcement of Senate Bill 10, which requires the display of an explicitly Protestant translation of the Ten Commandments in every Texas public school classroom, as well as efforts by Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton — the latter a candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate — to target what they call the implementation of Islamic religious law.

Douglas Laycock, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas School of Law, called Patrick’s statement a “very old claim from people who want to use government power to impose their religious practices on other people.”

"It is literally true that the word separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution, but the idea clearly appears in the Constitution," Laycock added.

Sam Martin, Frank Church Chair of Public Affairs at Boise State University, said that, while it is technically true that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, the principle is shorthand for what is embedded in the First Amendment's ban on a government-established religion.

"Religious people have every reason and claim to make arguments and be in public life," Martin said. "But [Patrick is] not just arguing that religious people belong in public life. He’s arguing for a more privileged role for Christianity in public institutions, and I think that that is less defensible and less in line with what we know about the founding and the Constitution and certainly the way the courts have interpreted rights to religious freedom.”

Patrick said the commission will deliver its recommendations to Trump on how to "safeguard" Americans' religious liberty next month.

"What I think Patrick is doing, and what this commission seems to be heading toward, is attacking the very fundamental idea that government should remain, let’s say, institutionally separate from religion," Martin said. "And that is a hallmark of Christian nationalist practice."

His comment about “separation of church and state” not being in the Constitution is both trivially true and kind of misleading.

The First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom makes one’s religious beliefs irrelevant to eligibility for office, among other things. There is no required religion imposed by the government and no religion that individuals cannot adhere to. Etc.

But the phrase itself, “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution.

 

[Old Rocks]

He's right. Find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the constitution. It does not exist. Some people take the part about "gov't shall establish no religion" as "separation of church and state" but that's not in the constitution.

So you understand the Constitution better than Thomas Jefferson?

 

[Old Rocks]

The expression, "wall of separation between Church and State" comes from a private letter. It has no basis in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or in any law. The Founders started each meeting with a prayer.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"

Rational people understand that this wording was merely intended to preclude the Federal government from declaring an official State religion, which was the case in England and many European countries. Many Presidents have invoked God, Jesus Christ, and the Patriarchs of the Torah in their speeches over the years, and it wasn't until the 20th century that "some people" decided to find this objectionable.

As with the Tenth Amendment, the Left has used the courts to re-write the Constitution dramatically, despite lacking the super-majorities required to do it explicitly and formally.

The Left is evil.

Another fool that thinks they understand the Constitution better than Thomas Jefferson.

 

[BackAgain]

Another fool that thinks they understand the Constitution better than Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson’s view of the Constitution was not the view of some of the other prime Framers.

There is a certain utility in the expression he coined about that high wall of separation. But it also generates some confusion and some poor analysis of that provision of the First Amendment.

By the way, it’s perfectly ok to view the meaning of our Constitution as being different than Jefferson’s views. Or Hamilton’s.

 

[Old Rocks]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5833902-pope-leo-brother-louis-prevost-bomb-threat/

What bullshit. The religious ceremonies and traditions of our Native Americans were outlawed for many years. The prohibition on a state religion or prohibition of a particular religion was put into the Constitution specifically because in the early history of many of our states specific religions were outlawed.

Laws, Rights, and Liberties Related to Religion in Early America

Articles, Laws, and Orders, Divine, Politic, and Martial for the Colony in Virginia (c. 1610) First, since we owe our highest and supreme duty—our greatest, and all our allegiance—to Him, […]

teachingamericanhistory.org