Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Wisconsin

Re: Is there separation of church and state?

Does a true separation of Church and State exist? I believe so.

The framers of the constitution were ordinary men in extraordinary times.They could not possibly know what the current USA would be like, but predicting the future was not necessary to their purposes, nor, regarding your question about "christian morals" was it necessary for them to have any particular religion in mind.

The Bill of Rights is about freedom from tyranny,

in this case, the tyranny of King George as viewed by the colonists in colonial America.

In the case of the First Amendment the government is suposed to be neutral as regards religious beliefs.

I have always thought the Declaration of Independence was one of the most stirring statements of moral right and wrong ever witten.

What the framers did was announce their formation of this Country to the other nations in Europe in such a manner so they would at least be able to trade, send ambassadors and not be looked at as if the colonies were merely a bunch of revolutionary rabble.

They also had to set up a system of realistic rules to guide the new born nation or it would have fallen apart a lot sooner then the civil war.

By setting forth the principals that the British

were violating, the drafters of the and the Bill of Rights established their grievances against Britain, and justified the means of Revolution used to form a democracy dedicated to upholding those "self evident principals." And guaranteed these rights to all of our citizens.

The Fist Amendmant states that congress shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Essentially that means that the Congress should not be able to kick people out of the country based on their religious beliefs

as happened to the original pilgrams, who were protestants fleeing from persecution.

Nor should they form a USA religion, or favor one over another which has been grounds for challenging the Pledge of Allegance in Public School. The "under god" clause doesn't favor any particular religion, it just makes atheists uncomfortable.

In my view that is sufficient to make it an unconstitutional exercise of governmental power;

however, so long as no one is unduly harmed, the pledge shall remain around, subject to parental explanation.

Re: Is there separation of church and state?

The term "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution. What the constitution requires is that congress "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are thus two related requirements here, and they are often in conflict.

The requirment that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion is not the same thing as forbiding it to establish an official national church -- if that were what the framers intended, they could have said so quite easily.

So, what does this clause actually mean? The courts have wrestled with this question for over two hundred years. I can't begin to explain all the pertinent cases here, but essentially the government is not allowed to do anything that promotes the interest of any religion over others, or to promote religion over non-religion. The government is not supposed to be anti-religion, but rather religion-neutral.

You ask about the pledge and about the beliefs of political leaders. I will take on the second of these subjects first. Political leaders are entitled to their religious beliefs just like everyone else, and may conduct their lives as they believe their faiths require. But they cannot conduct their jobs according to their religious beliefs, because when they are doing their jobs they are acting for the government.

For example, if a judge insists that everyone in his courtroom recite the Lord's prayer each morning he is using the court in a way which favors Christianity over other faiths. Jurors, parties, employees and other people often have no choice about being in a courtroom and many of them are not Christian; it is not right to send these people the message that the court is Christian. Further, non-Christians should not be made to perform a Christian ritual, and doing so says they are at a disadvantage due to their religious beliefs.

The pledge also implicitly favors some religions over others and over non-religion, since it refers to "one nation under God." Hinduism and many other faiths -- including nearly every Native American religion -- believe in multiple gods, while other religions do not embrace the concept of a single God in the way most westerners do. The pledge not only proclaims that there is only one God, but also says that our entire nation -- including those who do not believe in him -- is under his authority.

I should also add that the words "under God" were added to the pledge about 45 years ago specifically in order to promote religion over atheism. In my view, making people -- especially young children -- who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian (and Muslim) God recite these words violates the establishment clause.