It prohibits the government from establishing a church, thus the name, and it prohibits government from discriminating against a church. It says nothing about a wall between church and state. That isn’t splitting hairs, that is simple facts. The idea that anything to do with religion was banned from anything to do with the government was added later by the courts.
The founding fathers were not stupid men, if they had wanted a hard separation between church and state they would have said so. Jefferson’s writings that he wanted a separation of church and state show that is was considered but intentionally not included.
The founding fathers were not stupid men, if they had wanted a hard separation between church and state they would have said so. Jefferson’s writings that he wanted a separation of church and state show that is was considered but intentionally not included.
That is your assumption. Whether people like it or not religion (Christianity) was a powerful force in society at the time and even the founding fathers had to watch just how far they went in possibly offending powerful civic leaders that they needed to form a new nation. It is quite possible that most of the founding fathers were for an absolutely secular government (as witnessed in some of their writings) but knew they could not ever get that kind of language approved and so settled for the wording they did as a compromise. I am not arguing that your understanding is totally wrong (it may be correct) but it is not entirely clear that if they wanted to put it in there then they would have.
But wine was the great assassin of both tradition and propriety...
-Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
-Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?"
- 20/10/2010 12:33:05 AM
931 Views
You don't want her?
- 20/10/2010 01:21:20 AM
494 Views
I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 01:27:13 AM
355 Views
Now there's an answer 
- 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM
458 Views
- 20/10/2010 01:47:28 AM
458 Views
And most of those posts are a guess at best.
- 20/10/2010 03:02:04 AM
337 Views
Local bonds/ballot initiatives? Want the only major road within 10 miles of your house tolled?
- 21/10/2010 01:50:41 PM
363 Views
Can you not spoil your ballot?
- 20/10/2010 10:19:54 AM
322 Views
I don't think so but an intentional no vote is just as valid as voting IMHO. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:45:35 AM
147 Views
When you don't vote the bad guys win. That simple.
- 20/10/2010 01:53:23 PM
451 Views
The bad guys? That implies that there are some "good" guys somewhere in politics.
- 20/10/2010 05:43:06 PM
312 Views
I didn't say that, just that the bad guys automatically win if you don't vote.
- 20/10/2010 05:49:43 PM
318 Views
Re: I have decided for the first time in my life to not vote this year.
- 20/10/2010 02:54:04 PM
440 Views
She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:25:43 AM
435 Views
Re: She is a buffoon of course. But what I am speechless about is...
- 20/10/2010 01:35:48 AM
366 Views
i feel kinda bad for her
- 20/10/2010 03:31:03 AM
390 Views
What is odd about this is that everyone is used to the 'separation' idea that they don't bother to
- 20/10/2010 06:44:48 AM
363 Views
Or, you know, the letters on the topic written by the people who drafted the Constitution *NM*
- 20/10/2010 07:04:47 AM
194 Views
She's right.
- 20/10/2010 12:27:55 PM
460 Views
I'm less concerned about what she said than why she said it. *NM*
- 20/10/2010 01:32:38 PM
242 Views
It is on youtube
- 20/10/2010 02:40:12 PM
360 Views
Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:03:30 PM
372 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:32:02 PM
326 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:36:48 PM
311 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 03:53:46 PM
315 Views
Re: Jesus Christ
- 20/10/2010 04:01:49 PM
397 Views
Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:31:19 PM
343 Views
Re: Because she knew her audience, she expected them to know better, not be deliberately obtuse.
- 21/10/2010 02:40:23 PM
417 Views
If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:11 PM
334 Views
Re: If the subsequent rulings aren't Constitutional they don't matter.
- 21/10/2010 03:57:45 PM
408 Views
She focused on the First Amendments text, and ignored the rest as commentary.
- 21/10/2010 04:49:22 PM
416 Views
Ok.
- 21/10/2010 05:01:22 PM
321 Views
I certainly don't think she deserves the scorn being heaped on her this time.
- 21/10/2010 05:14:03 PM
351 Views
See Dreaded Anomaly's reply below.
- 21/10/2010 03:03:02 PM
378 Views
Done.
- 21/10/2010 04:50:52 PM
314 Views
The last statement is the only relevant one, and still a bit ambiguous.
- 20/10/2010 03:51:35 PM
337 Views
I think it is clear that that argument is beyond her capabilities. It was not what she was saying. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:50:33 AM
127 Views
Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, so she's right.
- 21/10/2010 03:41:27 PM
284 Views
I see we have replaced the PDS with ODS
- 20/10/2010 03:05:58 PM
320 Views
It only depends on just how finely one wants to split hairs.
- 20/10/2010 04:02:28 PM
312 Views
no it depends how far you want to stretch the Constitution to say things it doesn't say
- 20/10/2010 04:19:04 PM
314 Views
No it does not show that.
- 21/10/2010 02:58:32 AM
300 Views
Treaty of Tripoli through the Establishment clause fairly explicitly affirms this. Sorry. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 03:56:09 AM
131 Views
OK which clause allows for amending the Constitution by treaty? I can't seem to find it *NM*
- 21/10/2010 02:59:01 PM
128 Views
Supremacy clause, not establishment clause. My mistake.
- 21/10/2010 05:07:18 PM
311 Views
Sorry, but the Treaty of Tripolis relevant section still seems like commentary.
- 21/10/2010 05:18:00 PM
288 Views
This is quickly becoming infuriating.
- 22/10/2010 01:41:18 AM
289 Views
No, it's part of the treaty.
- 22/10/2010 02:02:42 AM
317 Views
Take it up with the Supremacy Clause. 
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
139 Views
*NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:12:11 AM
139 Views
So from 1797 we've been at "perpetual peace" with Libya?
- 22/10/2010 02:25:44 AM
292 Views
Fair enough as regards the treaty being broken.
- 22/10/2010 02:38:37 AM
309 Views
Seems to apply to the Tenth Amendment only, not the Constitution as a whole.
- 22/10/2010 02:56:27 AM
371 Views
When a treaty is ratified by the senate, its provisions become federal law via a few processes.
- 22/10/2010 03:02:24 AM
296 Views
Even if we take that at face value, a law can still be unconstitutional.
- 22/10/2010 03:19:07 AM
335 Views
it was a poor decision anyway since Amendments should be seen to modify the original
- 22/10/2010 02:11:22 PM
287 Views
no your mistake was misreading the clause
- 21/10/2010 05:48:52 PM
299 Views
Very difficult not to lose my temper here.
- 22/10/2010 01:39:21 AM
295 Views
Then you should argue it violate a treaty with a country that no longer exist
- 22/10/2010 02:03:32 PM
296 Views
She's so... bewildered!
- 20/10/2010 06:40:04 PM
299 Views
that is what I think when I read a lot of the responses here
- 20/10/2010 07:44:40 PM
296 Views
She was still confused when he clarified what he meant, is what's funny *NM*
- 20/10/2010 08:56:56 PM
132 Views
Because the logical conclusion is obvious.
- 21/10/2010 03:08:39 AM
301 Views
I think it is logical that it means what is say not want some want it to say
- 21/10/2010 03:02:08 PM
296 Views
Nonsense. The nature of the nation was already changing in the first generation.
- 22/10/2010 12:35:26 AM
400 Views
I think it funny that so many people can't see that what she was actually saying was true
- 20/10/2010 09:23:23 PM
307 Views
I think it is funny that you think that she could argue that angle when she clearly can't. *NM*
- 21/10/2010 03:10:43 AM
119 Views
For those who think O'Donnell is correct, even on a technicality:
- 20/10/2010 10:49:40 PM
347 Views
She reiterates her question about "separation of church and state" and he repeatedly dodges.
- 21/10/2010 03:19:56 PM
320 Views
or she wasn't really paying attnetion to him and was still trying to argue her first point
- 21/10/2010 03:24:06 PM
447 Views
Heh...reminds me of Obama claiming to have visited all fifty seven states.
- 22/10/2010 12:44:58 AM
423 Views
My favorite bit is how people are attacking the judicary because they disagree with rulings.
- 21/10/2010 05:12:01 PM
313 Views
so you believe we all should just accept what the courts say without question?
- 21/10/2010 05:54:42 PM
325 Views
Given that it's you, Joel and Christine O'Donnell versus two centuries of jurisprudence? YES. *NM*
- 22/10/2010 01:49:01 AM
141 Views
Y'know, an alliance as unlikely as that one ought to give you cause for a second look.
- 22/10/2010 03:03:05 AM
399 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM
130 Views
yes we are the only ones who don't think the courts can rewrtie the Constitution at will *NM*
- 22/10/2010 02:04:44 PM
127 Views
Come, my brethren! All Hallows Eve approachs, and we have much to do!
- 22/10/2010 05:34:01 PM
291 Views