where in the Constitution does it say "separation of church and state" ?
830746
It DOES NOT say that........it was interpreted as saying that. Here is the EXACT wording:\n\nCongress 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. \n\nIt says they cannot establish a religion or prohibit the exrcise of it, which is done all the time....you people need to get it right! Basically it says that Congress cannot make a state religion, it does not mean they have to do away with people practicing their religion.
1077753
The government is not going to take the words "under God out of the Pledge of Allegiance.  At least not right away.\n\nThe Humanist (Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, Unitarian, whatever) groups want the words removed from the pledge.  The belief in God by the majority of Americans interferes with their (the humanists) religious beliefs.\n\nThe "wall of seperation between church and state" is a non issue.  It is not in the constitution, and is a phrse taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson who was not even a framer of the constitution.  Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from exposure to religion.
1080948
Because separation of church and state was never intended by the Framers of the Constitution. In fact, it is never even mentioned in the Constitution. Read the personal letters of the Framers. Without a doubt, they meant for Judeo-Christian ethics to guide the country. In fact, many outright said that without Christian principles guiding the country, it was doomed to ultimately fail.\n\nThe First Amendment merely guarantees that the government cannot force you to attend a particular denomination of church - or national religion, if you will. It is a direct result of the persecution of the English who did not belong to the Church of England. It does not prohibit the expression of religion ANYWHERE - public place or otherwise. Why is each session of Congress opened with prayer if there was supposed to be true separation of church and state? Why does the President attend many National Prayer Breakfasts each year? Why does almost every government agency sponsor its own National Prayer Breakfast? Because separation of church and state is not Constitutionally sanctioned.\n\nThe First Amendment was meant to protect religion from the government - NOT to protect the government from religion.
43420
Private donations, and offerings from congregation. separation of church and state makes it, illegal for state local, or federal , governments to give financial aid
943709
Looking more closely at this issue, I can see why you want a specific source.\n\nThe only person who I can find that claims Justice Thomas said this is Frank J Ranelli, in his piece "One Nation Under “Whose God is it Anyway?” from October 27, 2006.  As a columnist, he doesn't seem to feel the need to cite his sources.\n\nAnd the thing is, IF Justice Thomas did say this, it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he has said at other times.  Specifically, in the case of Elk Grove v. Newdow he puts in a long opinion about what the constitution has to say about the government's ability to suppress or endorse religion (link 1, below).  The specific quote that interests me is this:\n\n"The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments."\n\nIn other words, Justice Thomas is of the opinion that it is PERFECTLY OKAY for any one or even all states to declare a state religion and eforce it.  Just not the federal government.  In other sections of his opinion on that case, he even says that other decisions which made other forms of religious expression illegal are just plain wrong.\n\nThus, if he DID make the statement that Ranelli says he did (which I cannot find an actual source for anywhere), it would seem to be contrary to his views expressed when he is actually doing his job.  A legally enforced, punishable, state-based religion is apparently peachy keen to him.  Yikes.
471326
Not in state-funded schools--separation of church and state should be strictly enforced.  In religious-run institutions, they should do whatever they want.  If a student didn't want the religious instruction, they could go somewhere else.  In my perfect world.
939867
There is no such thing as separation of Church and state in any government documents....that phrase originates with liberal media types over the last few years to try to remove Christianity from our heritage as a nation.....all the founding Fathers prayed and even had services in the Capitol Blgd. often.
338239
ABSOLUTELY.  The US government was founded on Christian principles.  Its the turning away from them that is destroying us.  The so-called separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution, but the opinion of a handful of people.  Further, it was designed to keep the government from having a church sponsored religion, like the church of england when we were colonies....not to remove religious principles.
694761
You might do well to remember that the USA was founded on the separation of church and state.\nRemember this famous quote; "Freedom can be measured by the distance between the state and the church."
614574
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution
834738
an encroachment on the separation of church and state =)
911951
separated from religion\n\n:> peace\n.
48850
church and state were intermingled at the time of, and after, the writing of the constitution.  Obviously our forefarthers did not mean to have a God-free society like liberals would like to have.
802888
The separation of church and state was a founding tenet in the Constitution because the founding fathers saw the abuses of the many religions when they held positions of power in the Old World. Many of our earliest immigrants came to this country to escape religious tyranny and oppression. It made perfect sense, in my view, that they would have included this amendment in the Constitution. This is especially significant, IMHO, considering many of the founding fathers were Masons.\nNothing has been miscontrued about the "intent" of the original amendment for 230 years. Now, all of a sudden, when theocratic radicals want to twist the original intent from what it was meant to be to their own narrow view of what it should be to them,  they scream that they alone know what the founding fathers intended and everyone else is wrong.\n I respectfully beg to differ.\n There is no surer way to fall into despotism than allow one religious group's views to be above another one's. All the theocratic radical needs to do is consider whether they would allow Buddhism, Islam, Hindu or any other religious sect have precedence over them. That is something I seriously doubt. Why then, would they expect others to accept their view as the only valid one? Hence, the reason for the second amendment.\n\nJefferson and Madison speak well for themselves:\n\n"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416 \n\n"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that '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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382 \n\n"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813. \n\nI believe Mr. Jefferson's intent is blaringly obvious in his own words. Transparently clear and to the point. As was James Madison's.\n\nJames Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention\n\n12 June 1788Papers 11:130--31 \nThe honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded--there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment--I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in suc
211226
Nothing.  In America there is seperation of church and state as long as it is presumed that christianity will always be included.
470954
True, it doesn't say verbatim "seperation between church and state", however that somes up the 1st amendment nicely.\n\nHow would you teach a specific religion in a public school and not consider that to be a favoring a specific religion above all others?
581981
I'm not sure how you are defining "separation of church and state".  That phrase doesn't appear in the constitution in any form.\n\nI agree with what the constitution says, in essence and I paraphrase... that "the congress (government) shall establish no official mandated religion" which it never has nor ever will. If that is your definition, YES.  I do believe and support no "state mandated religion" which is what the writers of the constitution clearly intended.  \n\nIf you define it like that idiot out in funny land (California) Michael Neudow does, who wants "in God we trust" off all our money, all our buildings and all references to any higher power expunged from all government related materials of any kind, the answer is NO.\n\nIf you don't remember Mr. Neudow, he is the same looney that filed the phoney lawsuit "on behalf" of his 7 year old daughter to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Alleigence.  My answer to that perverted interpretation of the constitution is a big, BIG NO and I don't believe in it for the simplest reason in the world, THATS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. nor what it means.\n\nAs for tax status, I could care less since the IRS will stick to just as bad either way.\n\nOh, yeah, by the way.... <lord_dups76> (the first reply) should really, REALLY be back on his Lithium.