Separation of church and state

Again, I do apologize if for some reason you feel as if that I am making this out to be a moral issue. I too am arguing neither for or against whether or not these examples "should" be in effect. I simply intended to expand upon this topic (only slightly) to see if we could actually gain some ground. To avoid confusion, I will instead do what is requested of me, by simply giving my interpretation of these clauses (which in effect does nothing, since there are no sides, and therefore technically a philosophical discussion rather than an actual debate where one can gain a true understanding of the clauses themselves and what can be done in a given society). "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." These are known as the "Establishment Clause" and the "The Free Exercise Clause" (We both know this). But let me take an example that you gave and place it into perspective. You mentioned this: "I have concluded that expression and teaching of religion by public employees, such as teachers, are very much constitutional and efforts to restrict these expressions are unconstitutional." In response to this I will have to disagree. For if a teacher were allowed to teach religion in public school's she would therefore be imposing her personal beliefs on the class. Why? because It is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause. How? it's simple, Let us become familiar with another term known as "compulsory attendance". Laws that require children between certain ages to be in some kind of school program. With that being said, a public school (funded with Taxpayer Dollars) with a Teacher (Also funded with taxes though not directly) would need to teach every single religious affiliation in order to be within legal boundaries of the the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. and I do mean EVERY single one. This is simply not possible and therefore, a teacher who is allowed to teach his or her students a particular religion (that they believe in) would be seen as a bias and promotion of that religion. Your statement of teachers being within constitutional boundaries to teach their religion in public school's is false. If they were, It would be seen as a public endorsement of one particular religion, that students would be forced to attend and study. since Schools are funded by state governments, then the teacher who imposes their religion is therefore being endorsed by them. Let's move on to the second Issue to which you gave an example. (keep in mind, I am only using the same examples but instead providing scenarios but still keeping to my main interpretations of the clauses to which you are disputing). you mentioned: "To give an example, I would say groups like American Atheists have no constitutional authority to do things like sue to have a cross memorial removed from a public 9/11 memorial." Let us change this example slightly by placing in it, a different religion(since Atheism is a lack of religion or beliefs). Let us say a cross is placed on a given 9/11 memorial and now we have it there for the public eye to see. Taxpayer money has been placed into this memorial A Muslim see's this and becomes outraged that their religion is not included, suddenly another religious affiliate (pagan) see's that Muslims, and Christians are being represented and endorsed by his money and is now outraged that his/her religion is not being represented properly. Do you see what I am getting at? Anything under Public Domain is state jurisdiction and without fair distribution of any and all religions, they cannot and will not endorse one in particular. They do this to avoid showing favoritism because that is when we start splitting hairs. Is it a direct violation of the establishment clause because the government "technically" isn't making a law against this sort of expression? No. but the principal remains and it is why several court cases have been lost due to it's irregularities. (examples and citations will be given at the end, to avoid you, and the audience from having to dig through countless quotations when my final thought has yet to be mentioned. While it is true, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle. There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision? Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas. You can't simply give me your "interpretation" and then proceed to use exact phrasing to prove that something is precise and constitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." My final point on the matter is, the point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here. Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist. This concludes my interpretation of These clauses and I hold to my standpoint that there ARE laws that restrict such blatant endorsement and teaching of religion, they just may not seem as clearly stated (to some) within our constitution. I want to thank the Audience (and you PapaCam94) for your time, and thank you for the wonderful debate! and one last thing I wish to urge to both you and the Audience, would be to please go through my sources, (since I had little time to quote and give examples of each and every one, lest I take up the entire page). It will provide all the proof one could desire on why I stand with the "con". http://www.aclu.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://archive.adl.org... http://archive.adl.org... http://www3.nd.edu... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.patheos.com... (one of the best, even if youre not a religious Zealot) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://sixthamendment.org...