Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

qas: question: Who made a metaphor about a wall of separation?
answers: text: Jefferson

question: What has the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly cited?
answers: text: metaphor

question: When was the case of Reynolds v. United States?
answers: text: 1879

question: What did the Court write about Jefferson's comments as it related to the scope and effect of the First Amendment?
answers: text: authoritative declaration

question: What was the clause against establishment of religion by law intended to erect?
answers: text: a wall of separation between church and state

question: Who refused a metaphor about a wall of separation?

question:  What has the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly denied?

question:  When was the case of Reynolds v. UN?

question:  What did the Court write about Jefferson's comments as it related to the scope and effect of the Third Amendment?

question: What was the clause against establishment of non-religion by law intended to erect?
context: Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

qas: question: What was one of the reason early immigrant groups came to America?
answers: text: to worship freely

question: What were Protestant Christians fleeing from?
answers: text: religious persecution

question: Who was persecuting the Puritans?
answers: text: King of England

question: What did William Penn ensure the protection of in his colony?
answers: text: religious minorities

question: What did the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony both establish?
answers: text: churches

question: What was one of the reason late immigrant groups came to America?

question:  What were Protestant Christians not fleeing from?

question:  Who wasn't persecuting the Puritans?

question:  What did William Penn deny the protection of in his colony?

question: What did the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony both reject?
context: Many early immigrant groups traveled to America to worship freely, particularly after the English Civil War and religious conflict in France and Germany. They included nonconformists like the Puritans, who were Protestant Christians fleeing religious persecution from the Anglican King of England. Despite a common background, the groups' views on religious toleration were mixed. While some such as Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn of Pennsylvania ensured the protection of religious minorities within their colonies, others like the Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony had established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland established the Dutch Reformed Church and outlawed all other worship, though enforcement was sparse. Religious conformity was desired partly for financial reasons: the established Church was responsible for poverty relief, putting dissenting churches at a significant disadvantage.

qas: question: What may no person within Georgia be deprived of the privilege of doing in any manner agreeable to them?
answers: text: worshipping God

question: When was the Georgia Constitution amended to add Article IV, Section 10?
answers: text: 1789

question: What can a citizen of Georgia not be compelled to do?
answers: text: attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment

question: What is constitutionally forbidden to be established in the state of Georgia?
answers: text: No one religious society

question: What will no person be denied the enjoyment of in Georgia based on their religious principles?
answers: text: any civil right

question: What may every person within Georgia be deprived of the privilege of doing in any manner agreeable to them?

question:  When was the Georgia Constitution amended to add Article VI, Section 10?

question:  What can't a citizen of Georgia not be compelled to do?

question: What is constitutionally allowed to be established in the state of Georgia?

question: What will every person be denied the enjoyment of in Georgia based on their religious principles?
context: ^Note 2: in 1789 the Georgia Constitution was amended as follows: "Article IV. Section 10. No person within this state shall, upon any pretense, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in any manner agreeable to his own conscience, nor be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rate, for the building or repairing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or hath voluntarily engaged to do. No one religious society shall ever be established in this state, in preference to another; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles."

qas: question: When did the North Carolina Constitution disestablish the Anglican church?
answers: text: 1776

question: What religious denomination was the only one allowed to hold public office in NC until 1835?
answers: text: Protestants

question: What category did the NC Constitution broaden the people allowed to hold public office to from 1835 to 1876?
answers: text: Christians

question: What part of the NC Constitution forbids atheists from holding public office?
answers: text: Article VI, Section 8

question: When did the U.S. Supreme Court rule clauses forbidding people from holding public office based on their religion was unenforceable? 
answers: text: 1961

question: When did the North Carolina Constitution establish the Anglican church?

question: What religious denomination wasn't the only one allowed to hold public office in NC until 1835?

question:  What category did the NC Constitution broaden the people allowed to hold public office to from 1935 to 1976?

question:  What part of the NC Constitution allows atheists to hold public office?

question: When did the U.S. Supreme Court rule clauses allow people to hold public office based on their religion was unenforceable?
context: ^Note 5: The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 disestablished the Anglican church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835-1876 it allowed only Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office. Article VI, Section 8 of the current NC Constitution forbids only atheists from holding public office. Such clauses were held by the United States Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with First and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

qas: question: What shows support for the separation of church and state as early as the mid-17th century?
answers: text: The Flushing Remonstrance

question: What were the Remonstrance opposed to?
answers: text: religious persecution of any sort

question: When did a group of English citizens sign a document condemning hatred, war and bondage?
answers: text: December 27, 1657

question: Who were the signers of the document affronted by the persecution of?
answers: text: Quakers

question: What had Peter Stuyvesant formally banned all of other than the Dutch Reformed Church?
answers: text: religions

question: What shows support for the separation of church and state as late as the mid-17th century?

question:  What were the Remonstrance not opposed to?

question: When did a group of English citizens reject a document condemning hatred, war and bondage?

question: Who were the rejecters of the document affronted by the persecution of?

question:  What had Peter Stuyvesant formally approved all of other than the Dutch Reformed Church?
context: The Flushing Remonstrance shows support for separation of church and state as early as the mid-17th century, stating their opposition to religious persecution of any sort: "The law of love, peace and liberty in the states extending to Jews, Turks and Egyptians, as they are considered sons of Adam, which is the glory of the outward state of Holland, so love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage." The document was signed December 27, 1657 by a group of English citizens in America who were affronted by persecution of Quakers and the religious policies of the Governor of New Netherland, Peter Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant had formally banned all religions other than the Dutch Reformed Church from being practiced in the colony, in accordance with the laws of the Dutch Republic. The signers indicated their "desire therefore in this case not to judge lest we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master." Stuyvesant fined the petitioners and threw them in prison until they recanted. However, John Bowne allowed the Quakers to meet in his home. Bowne was arrested, jailed, and sent to the Netherlands for trial; the Dutch court exonerated Bowne.

qas: question: What did an established church, even at the state level, have?
answers: text: opponents

question: What was Issac Backus' profession?
answers: text: Baptist minister

question: What region did Isaac Backus come from?
answers: text: New England

question: When did Isaac Backus write against a state sanctioned religion?
answers: text: 1773

question: When was Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom enacted?
answers: text: 1786

question: What didn't an established church, even at the state level, have?

question:  When was Issac Backus' born?

question:  What city did Isaac Backus come from?

question:  When did Isaac Backus write supporting a state sanctioned religion?

question: When was Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom rejected?
context: There were also opponents to the support of any established church even at the state level. In 1773, Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist minister in New England, wrote against a state sanctioned religion, saying: "Now who can hear Christ declare, that his kingdom is, not of this world, and yet believe that this blending of church and state together can be pleasing to him?" He also observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued." Thomas Jefferson's influential Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was enacted in 1786, five years before the Bill of Rights.

qas: question: Who was Roger Williams?
answers: text: Baptist theologian

question: What phrase did Roger Williams first use?
answers: text: "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"

question: What colony was Roger Williams the founder of?
answers: text: Rhode Island

question: When was the book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution published?
answers: text: 1644

question: Who used William's phrase as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch?
answers: text: Thomas Jefferson

question: Who was a non-Baptist theologian?

question:  What phrase did Roger Williams never use?

question:  What colony did Roger Williams escape from?

question:  When was the book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution burned?

question: Who used William's phrase as a description of the Third Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch?
context: The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution. The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

qas: question: Whose conceptions of separation have long been argued over?
answers: text: Jefferson and James Madison's

question: What did Jefferson refuse to issue, when it was sent to him by Congress during his presidency?
answers: text: Proclamations of Thanksgiving

question: How many religious proclamations did Madison issue while President?
answers: text: four

question: Where did both Jefferson and Madison attend religious services?
answers: text: at the Capitol

question: What is essential to the purity of both religion and civil government?
answers: text: practical distinction

question:  Whose conceptions of separation have long been agreed with?

question: What did Jefferson approve to issue, when it was sent to him by Congress during his presidency?

question: How many non-religious proclamations did Madison issue while President?
context: Jefferson and James Madison's conceptions of separation have long been debated. Jefferson refused to issue Proclamations of Thanksgiving sent to him by Congress during his presidency, though he did issue a Thanksgiving and Prayer proclamation as Governor of Virginia. Madison issued four religious proclamations while President, but vetoed two bills on the grounds they violated the first amendment. On the other hand, both Jefferson and Madison attended religious services at the Capitol. Years before the ratification of the Constitution, Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body." After retiring from the presidency, Madison wrote of "total separation of the church from the state." " "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." Madison's original draft of the Bill of Rights had included provisions binding the States, as well as the Federal Government, from an establishment of religion, but the House did not pass them.[citation needed]

qas: question: What did Jefferson's opponents accuse him of wanting to do to Christianity? 
answers: text: destruction

question: What did Jefferson encourage the separate sects at the University of Virginia to have of their own?
answers: text: preachers

question: How was the state banned from supporting a Professorship of Divinity?
answers: text: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

question: What scheme did Jefferson apparently support when it came to University students?
answers: text: attend religious worship each morning

question: What does Mark David Hall think people focus on way too much?
answers: text: one Jeffersonian letter

question: What did Jefferson's opponents not accuse him of wanting to do to Christianity?

question: What did Jefferson discourage the separate sects at the University of Virginia to have of their own?

question: How was the state allowed to support a Professorship of Divinity?

question: What scheme did Jefferson reject when it came to University students?

question:  What does Mark David Hall think people don't focus on enough?
context: Jefferson's opponents said his position was the destruction and the governmental rejection of Christianity, but this was a caricature. In setting up the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all the separate sects to have preachers of their own, though there was a constitutional ban on the State supporting a Professorship of Divinity, arising from his own Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Some have argued that this arrangement was "fully compatible with Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state;" however, others point to Jefferson's support for a scheme in which students at the University would attend religious worship each morning as evidence that his views were not consistent with strict separation. Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, attempt to sidestep the whole issue by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant history

qas: question: When did Jefferson's letter enter American jurisprudence?
answers: text: 1878

question: What was the case that used Jefferson's letter?
answers: text: Reynolds v. U.S.

question: What was the topic of Reynolds v. U.S.?
answers: text: Mormon polygamy

question: What was the court seeking, in using Jefferson's letter?
answers: text: legal definition for the word religion

question: What did the court rule outlawing polygamy was?
answers: text: constitutional

question:  When did Jefferson's letter not enter American jurisprudence?

question:  What was the case that denied Jefferson's letter?

question:  What was the court seeking, in not using Jefferson's letter?

question:  What was the topic of Meynolds v. U.S.?

question: What did the court rule not outlawing polygamy was?
context: Jefferson's letter entered American jurisprudence in the 1878 Mormon polygamy case Reynolds v. U.S., in which the court cited Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Johnson Field cited Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists to state that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." Considering this, the court ruled that outlawing polygamy was constitutional.

qas: question: What approach was not the only one taken in the 18th century?
answers: text: Jefferson and Madison's

question: What did Jefferson draft his Statute of Religious Freedom in opposition to?
answers: text: a bill

question: Who was the chief supporter of the bill that got Jefferson motivated to draft his Statute?
answers: text: Patrick Henry

question: What did Patrick Henry want to require Virginians to pay taxes to support?
answers: text: some denomination

question: What did the Constitution of Massachusetts express no one would be restrained from doing?
answers: text: worshipping God

question: What approach was the only one taken in the 18th century?

question: What did Jefferson draft his Statute of Religious Freedom in support of?

question:  Who was the chief opposition of the bill that got Jefferson motivated to draft his Statute?

question: What did Patrick Henry not want to require Virginians to pay taxes to support?

question: What did the Constitution of Massachusetts express everyone would be restrained from doing?
context: Jefferson and Madison's approach was not the only one taken in the eighteenth century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom was drafted in opposition to a bill, chiefly supported by Patrick Henry, which would permit any Virginian to belong to any denomination, but which would require him to belong to some denomination and pay taxes to support it. Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts originally provided that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience... provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship," (Article II) but also that:

qas: question: What did the Duke of York require every community in his lands to support?
answers: text: some church

question: Instead of Anglican, what were the churches most often supported in New York and New Jersey?
answers: text: Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian

question: What were taxpayers free to do after they paid the Duke of York his local tax?
answers: text: to choose their own church

question: Why was the Duke not a friend of Anglicanism?
answers: text: openly divine-right Catholic,

question: When did the first Anglican minister arrive in New Jersey?
answers: text: 1698

question: What did the Duke of York never require every community in his lands to support?

question: Instead of Anglican, what were the churches never supported in New York and New Jersey?

question:  What were taxpayers not free to do after they paid the Duke of York his local tax?

question:  Why was the Duke a friend of Anglicanism?

question:  When did the first Anglican minister leave New Jersey?
context: The Duke of York had required that every community in his new lands of New York and New Jersey support some church, but this was more often Dutch Reformed, Quaker or Presbyterian, than Anglican. Some chose to support more than one church. He also ordained that the tax-payers were free, having paid his local tax, to choose their own church. The terms for the surrender of New Amsterdam had provided that the Dutch would have liberty of conscience, and the Duke, as an openly divine-right Catholic, was no friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.

qas: question: What did the original charter of the Province of East Jersey restrict membership in its Assembly to?
answers: text: Christians

question: What was the Duke of York's relationship to his religion described as being?
answers: text: fervently Catholic

question: What religious sect were the proprietors of Perth Amboy?
answers: text: Scottish Catholic

question: What did the Province of West Jersey specify there would not be for those running for an office, in 1681?
answers: text: religious test

question: When was an oath requiring militia to abjure the pretensions of the pope replaced?
answers: text: 1799

question: What didn't the original charter of the Province of East Jersey restrict membership in its Assembly to?

question:  What was the Duke of York's relationship to his religion described as not being?

question:  What non-religious sect were the proprietors of Perth Amboy?

question: What did the Province of West Jersey specify there would be for those running for an office, in 1681?

question: When was an oath requiring militia to abjure the pretensions of the pope not replaced?
context: The original charter of the Province of East Jersey had restricted membership in the Assembly to Christians; the Duke of York was fervently Catholic, and the proprietors of Perth Amboy, New Jersey were Scottish Catholic peers. The Province of West Jersey had declared, in 1681, that there should be no religious test for office. An oath had also been imposed on the militia during the French and Indian War requiring them to abjure the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. That law was replaced by 1799.

qas: question: What does the first amendment to the US Constitution state?
answers: text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

question: What is the first part of the First Amendment know as?
answers: text: "establishment clause"

question: What is the last part of the sentence of the First Amendment known as?
answers: text: "free exercise clause"

question: What do the two clauses of the First Amendment for the basis of?
answers: text: the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.

question: What are citizens of the United States free to embrace or reject as they choose?
answers: text: a faith

question:  What does the second amendment to the US Constitution state?

question:  What is the second part of the First Amendment know as?

question: What is the first part of the sentence of the First Amendment known as?

question:  What do the four clauses of the First Amendment for the basis of?

question: What are citizens of the United States not free to embrace or reject as they choose?
context: The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

qas: question: What is John Baker of LSU's profession?
answers: text: legal scholars

question: Why was a more general "religion" used in the language of the First Amendment?
answers: text: to appease the Anti-Federalists

question: Why was the word "national" a cause for alarm to both Federalists and Anti-Federalists?
answers: text: because of the experience under the British crown

question: Who took issue with Madison's language during the debate over the establishment clause?
answers: text: Elbridge Gerry

question: What was Elbridge Gerry's constituency? 
answers: text: Massachusetts

question: What is John Baker of LLU's profession?

question: Why was a more general "religion" used in the language of the Second Amendment?

question: Why was the word "national" a cause for alarm to neither Federalists and Anti-Federalists?

question: Who didn't take issue with Madison's language during the debate over the establishment clause?

question:  What wasn't Elbridge Gerry's constituency?
context: Some legal scholars, such as John Baker of LSU, theorize that Madison's initial proposed language—that Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of a "national religion"—was rejected by the House, in favor of the more general "religion" in an effort to appease the Anti-Federalists. To both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, the very word "national" was a cause for alarm because of the experience under the British crown. During the debate over the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts took issue with Madison's language regarding whether the government was a national or federal government (in which the states retained their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests compelled Madison to withdraw his language from the debate.

qas: question: Where was Representative Roger Sherman from?
answers: text: Connecticut

question: Why did Sherman believe the establishment clause was unnecessary? 
answers: text: Constitution only gave Congress stated powers

question: What power was not granted to Congress by the Constitution?
answers: text: establishing a national religion

question: Where was Representative Thomas Tucker from?
answers: text: South Carolina

question: What was Tucker concerned the establishment clause could preempt?
answers: text: religious clauses in the state constitutions

question:  Where was Representative Roger Merman from?

question: Why did Sherman believe the establishment clause was necessary?

question:  What power was granted to Congress by the Constitution?

question:  Where was Representative Thomas Pucker from?

question: What was Tucker concerned the establishment clause could not preempt?
context: Others, such as Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believed the clause was unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress stated powers, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to strike the establishment clause completely because it could preempt the religious clauses in the state constitutions. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to drop the clause from the first amendment.

qas: question: When was the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution created?
answers: text: post-Civil War

question: What was the intent of the 14th Amendment?
answers: text: secure rights for former slaves

question: What clauses does the 14th Amendment include?
answers: text: due process and equal protection clauses

question: What does the 14th Amendment also introduce the concept of?
answers: text: incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states

question: What has the doctrine of incorporation been used to ensure?
answers: text: application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states

question: When was the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution created?

question:  What was the intent of the 13th Amendment?

question:  What clauses does the 13th Amendment include?

question:  What does the 13th Amendment also introduce the concept of?

question: What has the doctrine of incorporation been used to not ensure?
context: The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) is one of the post-Civil War amendments, intended to secure rights for former slaves. It includes the due process and equal protection clauses among others. The amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.

qas: question: What landmark case has impacted all subsequent interpretations of the separation of church and state in regard to state governments?
answers: text: Everson v. Board of Education

question: What did the Supreme Court uphold in Everson v. Board of Education?
answers: text: state law

question: What did the Supreme Court hold the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to?
answers: text: state governments

question: What was a recent case involving the application of the principle of the establishment clause against states?
answers: text: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

question: When was the case of v. Grumet?
answers: text: 1994

question: What landmark case hasn't impacted all subsequent interpretations of the separation of church and state in regard to state governments?

question: What didn't the Supreme Court uphold in Everson v. Board of Education?

question: What didn't the Supreme Court hold the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to?

question: What was a past case involving the application of the principle of the establishment clause against states?

question:  When was the case of v. Prumet?
context: The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments. Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).

qas: question: What did Jefferson's concept of 'separation of church and state" became part of what jurisprudence?
answers: text: Establishment Clause

question: What case was Jefferson's concept apropos to?
answers: text: Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145

question: What does the constitution guarantee when it comes to religion?
answers: text: freedom

question: What word is not defined in the Constitution?
answers: text: religion

question: Who had Jefferson's letter been sent to?
answers: text: the Danbury Baptists

question: Jefferson's concept of 'separation of church and state" didn't become part of what jurisprudence?

question: What case wasn't Jefferson's concept apropos to?

question:  What doesn't the constitution guarantee when it comes to religion?

question:  What word is defined in the Constitution?

question: Who hadn't Jefferson's letter been sent to?
context: Jefferson's concept of "separation of church and state" first became a part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, the court examined the history of religious liberty in the US, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted." The court found that the leaders in advocating and formulating the constitutional guarantee of religious liberty were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Quoting the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concluded that, "coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

qas: question: When was the centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution made explicit?
answers: text: 1947

question: What case was the concept relevant?
answers: text: Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1

question: What was the topic of the Everson v. Board of Education?
answers: text: government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools

question: What was the case of Everson v. Board of Education the first instance of?
answers: text: court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state

question: How must the wall separating church and state be kept?
answers: text: high and impregnable

question: When was the centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution not made explicit?

question:  What case wasn't the concept relevant?

question:  What wasn't the topic of the Everson v. Board of Education?

question: What was the case of Everson v. Board of Education the second instance of?

question:  How mustn't the wall separating church and state be kept?
context: The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

qas: question: What did the decision ultimately uphold?
answers: text: state law

question: What was the state allowed to continue to fund?
answers: text: transportation of students to religious schools

question: What did both the majority and dissenting opinions reiterate?
answers: text: that the Constitution has erected a "wall between church and state"

question: What was the disagreement between the Justices over whether funding breached what?
answers: text: that wall

question: What did Justice Jackson argue there were no grounds upon which to support what?
answers: text: the present legislation

question: What did the decision not uphold?

question:  What was the state not allowed to continue to fund?

question:  What did neither the majority and dissenting opinions reiterate?

question: What was the agreement between the Justices over whether funding breached what?

question:  What did Justice Jackson agree there were no grounds upon which to support what?
context: While the decision (with four dissents) ultimately upheld the state law allowing the funding of transportation of students to religious schools, the majority opinion (by Justice Hugo Black) and the dissenting opinions (by Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge and Justice Robert H. Jackson) each explicitly stated that the Constitution has erected a "wall between church and state" or a "separation of Church from State": their disagreement was limited to whether this case of state funding of transportation to religious schools breached that wall. Rutledge, on behalf of the four dissenting justices, took the position that the majority had indeed permitted a violation of the wall of separation in this case: "Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia's great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth." Writing separately, Justice Jackson argued that "[T]here are no good grounds upon which to support the present legislation. In fact, the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of Church from State, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion yielding support to their commingling in educational matters."

qas: question: When did the Supreme Court address the issue of officially sponsored prayer in public schools?
answers: text: 1962

question: What was the case in 1962 where the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially sponsored school prayer?
answers: text: Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421

question: By what vote did the Supreme Court determine it unconstitutional for state official to compose an official school prayer?
answers: text: 6-1

question: Even if a prayer is non-denominational it's still considered what?
answers: text: unconstitutional

question: When did the Supreme Court address the issue of unofficially sponsored prayer in public schools?

question:  What was the case in 1962 where the Supreme Court addressed the issue of unofficially sponsored school prayer?

question:  By what vote did the Supreme Court determine it unconstitutional for state official to compose an unofficial school prayer?

question:  Even if a prayer is denominational it's still considered what?
context: In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially-sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:

qas: question: What was one of the reasons early colonists left England to seek religious freedom in America?
answers: text: governmentally composed prayers for religious services

question: Who was the lone dissenter in the Supreme Court's ruling?
answers: text: Justice Potter Stewart

question: What did Stewart object to?
answers: text: the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor

question: Stewart felt the court was not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of what?
answers: text: metaphors

question: Stewart pointed out that the phrase "Wall of separation" was nowhere to be found in what?
answers: text: the Constitution

question: What wasn't one of the reasons early colonists left England to seek religious freedom in America?

question:  Who wasn't the lone dissenter in the Supreme Court's ruling?

question:  What did Stewart agree with?

question: Stewart felt the court was responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of what?

question: Stewart pointed out that the phrase "Wall of separation" was everywhere to be found in what?
context: The court noted that it "is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America." The lone dissenter, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "wall of separation" metaphor: "I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."

qas: question: When did the case of Epperson v. Arkansas take place?
answers: text: 1968

question: What did an Arkansas law make it a crime to teach the theory of?
answers: text: that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals

question: Who wrote the court's opinion in Epperson v. Arkansas?
answers: text: Justice Abe Fortas

question: What did the Arkansas law violate the constitutional prohibition of state laws in respect to?
answers: text: an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

question: What does the State have no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from?
answers: text: views distasteful to them

question: When did the case of Ipperson v. Kansas take place?

question:  What did an Arkansas law make it legal to teach the theory of?

question:  Who wrote the court's opinion in Epperson v. Kansas?

question: What did the Kansas law violate the constitutional prohibition of state laws in respect to?

question: What does the State have legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from?
context: In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considered an Arkansas law that made it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" this theory in any school or university that received public funds. The court's opinion, written by Justice Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violated "the constitutional prohibition of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." The court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and that "[T]he state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them." 

qas: question: When was the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman?
answers: text: 1971

question: What state's policy was in question in Lemon v. Kurtzman?
answers: text: Pennsylvania

question: Whose salaries were being reimbursed in private religious schools?
answers: text: teachers of secular subjects

question: What did the state's policy violate?
answers: text: the Establishment Clause

question: What did the court's decision argue that the separation of church and state could never be?
answers: text: absolute

question: When was the case of Lime v. Kurtzman?

question:  What state's policy was in question in Lime v. Kurtzman?

question:  Whose salaries were being reimbursed in public religious schools?

question:  What did the state's policy not violate?

question: What did the court's decision argue that the separation of church and state could always be?
context: In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that a Pennsylvania state policy of reimbursing the salaries and related costs of teachers of secular subjects in private religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court's decision argued that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable," the court wrote. "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."

qas: question: How many prongs is the Supreme COurt's test to determine if a government action comports with the Establishment Clause?
answers: text: three

question: What is the three-pronged test regarding the Establishment Clause know as?
answers: text: "Lemon Test"

question: To not violate the Establishment Clause, a law must be adopted with neutral or what purpose?
answers: text: non-religious

question: What much the primary effect of a law neither advance or inhibit?
answers: text: religion

question: Excessive entanglement occurs when a state policy results in a close relationship of what?
answers: text: government with religion

question: How many prongs is the Supreme COurt's test to determine if a government action comports without the Establishment Clause?

question: What is the four-pronged test regarding the Establishment Clause know as?

question: To violate the Establishment Clause, a law must be adopted with neutral or what purpose?

question:  What much the primary effect of a law both advance and inhibit?

question: Excessive entanglement occurs when a state policy results in a distant relationship of what?
context: Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion. (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.

qas: question: How many judges were on the panel which held the Pledge of Allegiance in California public schools was unconstitutional?
answers: text: three

question: When did the three judge panel make their ruling?
answers: text: 2002

question: What did both houses of Congress pass measures reaffirming their support for?
answers: text: the Pledge of Allegiance

question: Why was the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow overturned?
answers: text: procedural grounds

question: What did the five-justice majority hold that Newdow lacked?
answers: text: standing to sue

question: How many judges weren't on the panel which held the Pledge of Allegiance in California public schools was unconstitutional?

question: When did the three judge panel fail to make their ruling?

question: What did neither house of Congress pass measures reaffirming their support for?

question: Why was the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow not overturned?

question:  What did the six-justice majority hold that Newdow lacked?
context: In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.

qas: question: When did the US Court of Appeals rule in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County?
answers: text: December 20, 2005

question: What was displayed in Kentucky courthouses?
answers: text: the Ten Commandments

question: Why were the displays of the ten Commandments allowed?
answers: text: secular in nature

question: When was a ruling handed down on the Mount Soledad cross controversy?
answers: text: May 3, 2006

question: What did a federal judge rule must be removed from public property?
answers: text: the cross

question: When did the US Court of Appeals not rule in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County?

question:  What was not displayed in Kentucky courthouses?

question:  Why were the displays of the ten Commandments disallowed?

question: When was a ruling not handed down on the Mount Soledad cross controversy?

question: What did a federal judge rule must be removed from private property?
context: On December 20, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continued display of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger display on American legal traditions in a Kentucky courthouse was allowed, because the purpose of the display (educating the public on American legal traditions) was secular in nature. In ruling on the Mount Soledad cross controversy on May 3, 2006, however, a federal judge ruled that the cross on public property on Mount Soledad must be removed.

qas: question: What case is in regards to whether prayers at town meetings must allow various faiths?
answers: text: Town of Greece v. Galloway

question: When did the Supreme Court rule on Town of Greece v. Galloway?
answers: text: May 5, 2014

question: What was the Supreme Court's final vote in Town of Greece v. Galloway?
answers: text: 5-4

question: Who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of?
answers: text: Town of Greece

question: What did the Supreme Court rule the Constitution allowed for?
answers: text: sectarian prayers

question: What case is in regards to whether prayers at town meetings must not allow various faiths?

question:  When did the Supreme Court not rule on Town of Greece v. Galloway?

question:  What wasn't the Supreme Court's final vote in Town of Greece v. Galloway?

question: Who did the Supreme Court not rule in favor of?

question:  What did the Supreme Court rule the Constitution disallowed for?
context: In what will be the case is Town of Greece v. Galloway, 12-696, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding whether prayers at town meetings, which are allowed, must allow various faiths to lead prayer, or whether the prayers can be predominately Christian. On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Town of Greece by holding that the U.S. Constitution not only allows for prayer at government meetings, but also for sectarian prayers like predominately Christian prayers.

qas: question: What do some organizations disagree with the notion of?
answers: text: separation of church and state

question: What do scholars also disagree with about the way the Supreme Court has interpreted what?
answers: text: constitutional limitation on religious establishment

question: What do the critics argue the phrase misrepresents?
answers: text: the textual requirements of the Constitution

question: What do critics note were intermingled at the time the Constitution was ratified?
answers: text: many aspects of church and state

question: What do these critics argue couldn't have been intended by the framers of the constitution?
answers: text: prevalent degree of separation of church and state

question: What do some organizations agree with the notion of?

question: What do scholars also agree with about the way the Supreme Court has interpreted what?

question:  What don't the critics argue the phrase misrepresents?

question: What do critics note were intermingled at the time the Constitution was not ratified?

question:  What do these critics argue could have been intended by the framers of the constitution?
context: Some scholars and organizations disagree with the notion of "separation of church and state", or the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutional limitation on religious establishment. Such critics generally argue that the phrase misrepresents the textual requirements of the Constitution, while noting that many aspects of church and state were intermingled at the time the Constitution was ratified. These critics argue that the prevalent degree of separation of church and state could not have been intended by the constitutional framers. Some of the intermingling between church and state include religious references in official contexts, and such other founding documents as the United States Declaration of Independence, which references the idea of a "Creator" and "Nature's God", though these references did not ultimately appear in the Constitution nor do they mention any particular religious view of a "Creator" or "Nature's God."

qas: question: Critics of modern separation of church and state note there was official establishment of what in several states at the time of ratification?
answers: text: religion

question: When was the passage of the 14th Amendment?
answers: text: 1868

question: What was recognized by the time the 14th Amendment passed?
answers: text: first amendment's application to the state government

question: What kind of theory is the doctrine of the Living Constitution?
answers: text: progressivist

question: What do some debates center on the law of the land not being just defined by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause but also by what?
answers: text: legal precedence

question: Critics of modern separation of church and state note there was unofficial establishment of what in several states at the time of ratification?

question:  When was the passage of the 15th Amendment?

question:  What wasn't recognized by the time the 14th Amendment passed?

question:  What kind of theory is the doctrine of the Dead Constitution?

question: What do some debates center on the law of the land being just defined by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause but also by what?
context: These critics of the modern separation of church and state also note the official establishment of religion in several of the states at the time of ratification, to suggest that the modern incorporation of the Establishment Clause as to state governments goes against the original constitutional intent.[citation needed] The issue is complex, however, as the incorporation ultimately bases on the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, at which point the first amendment's application to the state government was recognized. Many of these constitutional debates relate to the competing interpretive theories of originalism versus modern, progressivist theories such as the doctrine of the Living Constitution. Other debates center on the principle of the law of the land in America being defined not just by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, but also by legal precedence, making an accurate reading of the Constitution subject to the mores and values of a given era, and rendering the concept of historical revisionism irrelevant when discussing the Constitution.

qas: question: What clause are both elected officials and appointed ones covered by?
answers: text: religious test

question: What type of beliefs are not an allowed job qualification test for federal employees?
answers: text: Religious

question: How many states violate the religious test clause with language somewhere in their official policies?
answers: text: Seven

question: What do states violate the clause require state office-holders to possess?
answers: text: particular religious beliefs

question: What clause are neither elected officials and appointed ones covered by?

question:  What type of beliefs are an allowed job qualification test for federal employees?

question: How many states violate the religious test clause without language somewhere in their official policies?

question: What don't states violate the clause require state office-holders to possess?
context: The "religious test" clause has been interpreted to cover both elected officials and appointed ones, career civil servants as well as political appointees. Religious beliefs or the lack of them have therefore not been permissible tests or qualifications with regard to federal employees since the ratification of the Constitution. Seven states, however, have language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that require state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs, though some of these have been successfully challenged in court. These states are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

qas: question: What do the non-permissible clauses require a belief in?
answers: text: a Supreme Being

question: What's one example in Tennessee's constitution?
answers: text: Article IX, Section 2

question: What language do some of the same states specify the oath of office include?
answers: text: so help me God

question: Requiring oaths invoking God are today deemed to be in violation of what?
answers: text: federal First Amendment

question: Because such oaths are in violation of the First Amendment, they're what?
answers: text: unconstitutional and unenforceable

question: What do the permissible clauses require a belief in?

question:  What's not one example in Tennessee's constitution?

question:  What language do some of the different states specify the oath of office include?

question:  Requiring oaths invoking God are today deemed to not be in violation of what?

question: Because such oaths are in violation of the Second Amendment, they're what?
context: The required beliefs of these clauses include belief in a Supreme Being and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. (Tennessee Constitution Article IX, Section 2 is one such example.) Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God." In some cases these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required of jurors and witnesses in court. At one time, such restrictions were allowed under the doctrine of states' rights; today they are deemed to be in violation of the federal First Amendment, as applied to the states via the 14th amendment, and hence unconstitutional and unenforceable.

qas: question: Why have perks like relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges been allowed for churches?
answers: text: beneficial arrangements for the society

question: What is the national motto "In God We Trust" officially known as?
answers: text: ceremonial deism

question: What has the Supreme Court ruled about ceremonial deism?
answers: text: not religious in nature

question: What state uses as a motto a passage from the Bible?
answers: text: Ohio

question: Why was Ohio allowed to use a biblical passage as its motto?
answers: text: because it displayed no preference for a particular religion

question: Why have perks like relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges been disallowed for churches?

question:  What is the national motto "In God We Trust" unofficially known as?

question:  What has the Supreme Court not ruled about ceremonial deism?

question:  What state doesn't use a passage from the Bible?

question:  Why was Ohio disallowed from using a biblical passage as its motto?
context: Relaxed zoning rules and special parking privileges for churches, the tax-free status of church property, the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday, etc., have also been questioned, but have been considered examples of the governmental prerogative in deciding practical and beneficial arrangements for the society. The national motto "In God We Trust" has been challenged as a violation, but the Supreme Court has ruled that ceremonial deism is not religious in nature. A circuit court ruling affirmed Ohio's right to use as its motto a passage from the Bible, "With God, all things are possible", because it displayed no preference for a particular religion.

qas: question: When do Jeffries and Ryan that the modern concept of separation of church and state dates from?
answers: text: mid-twentieth century

question: What was the central point of the rulings of the Supreme Court's rulings?
answers: text: constitutional ban against aid to religious schools

question: What was later banned in public education?
answers: text: religious observance

question: How many propositions make up the separationist position on the Establishment Clause?
answers: text: two

question: When don't Jeffries and Ryan that the modern concept of separation of church and state dates from?

question: What was the non-central point of the rulings of the Supreme Court's rulings?

question: What was later not banned in public education?

question:  How many propositions make up the separationist position on the Non-Establishment Clause?
context: Jeffries and Ryan (2001) argue that the modern concept of separation of church and state dates from the mid-twentieth century rulings of the Supreme Court. The central point, they argue, was a constitutional ban against aid to religious schools, followed by a later ban on religious observance in public education. Jeffries and Ryan argue that these two propositions—that public aid should not go to religious schools and that public schools should not be religious—make up the separationist position of the modern Establishment Clause.

qas: question: What position do Jeffries and Ryan argue was the reason for support from a coalition of separationists?
answers: text: no-aid

question: What type of secularism came to dominate American public life?
answers: text: pervasive

question: Who supported the ban against government aid to religious schools before 1970?
answers: text: most Protestants (and most Jews)

question: What diminished after 1980?
answers: text: anti-Catholic sentiment

question: What is opposed today by members of many Protestant faiths?
answers: text: strict separationism

question: What position do Jeffries and Ryan argue wasn't the reason for support from a coalition of separationists?

question:  What type of secularism came to dominate Non-American public life?

question: Who supported the unban against government aid to religious schools before 1970?

question:  What diminished after 1981?

question:  What is opposed today by members of no Protestant faiths?
context: Jeffries and Ryan argue that no-aid position drew support from a coalition of separationist opinion. Most important was "the pervasive secularism that came to dominate American public life," which sought to confine religion to a private sphere. Further, the ban against government aid to religious schools was supported before 1970 by most Protestants (and most Jews), who opposed aid to religious schools, which were mostly Catholic at the time. After 1980, however, anti-Catholic sentiment has diminished among mainline Protestants, and the crucial coalition of public secularists and Protestant churches has collapsed. While mainline Protestant denominations are more inclined towards strict separation of church and state, much evangelical opinion has now largely deserted that position. As a consequence, strict separationism is opposed today by members of many Protestant faiths, even perhaps eclipsing the opposition of Roman Catholics.[citation needed]

qas: question: What do critics of the concept of separation of church and state argue it's untethered to?
answers: text: anything in the text of the constitution

question: What is the profession of Philip Hamburger?
answers: text: professor

question: What school is Philip Hamburger associated with?
answers: text: Columbia Law school

question: What does Hamburger feel the modern concept of separation of church and state is rooted in?
answers: text: American anti-Catholicism

question: What are state constitutional amendments relating to separation of church and state known as?
answers: text: Blaine Amendments

question: What do critics of the concept of separation of church and state argue it's tethered to?

question:  What isn't the profession of Philip Hamburger?

question:  What school is Philip Hamburger disassociated with?

question: What does Hamburger feel the modern concept of separation of church and state is not rooted in?

question: What are state constitutional amendments relating to separation of church and state never known as?
context: Critics of the modern concept of the "separation of church and state" argue that it is untethered to anything in the text of the constitution and is contrary to the conception of the phrase as the Founding Fathers understood it. Philip Hamburger, Columbia Law school professor and prominent critic of the modern understanding of the concept, maintains that the modern concept, which deviates from the constitutional establishment clause jurisprudence, is rooted in American anti-Catholicism and Nativism.[citation needed] Briefs before the Supreme Court, including by the U.S. government, have argued that some state constitutional amendments relating to the modern conception of separation of church and state (Blaine Amendments) were motivated by and intended to enact anti-Catholicism.

qas: question: Who is the Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee?
answers: text: J. Brent Walker

question: What does Walker feel does not impugn the validity of the principle of separation of church and state?
answers: text: supported by some who exhibited an anti-Catholic animus or a secularist bent

question: Who have argued for the separation of church and state for reasons having nothing to do with a desire for a secular culture?
answers: text: Champions of religious liberty

question: Separationists opposed the Catholic church when it sought to do what?
answers: text: tap into the public till to support its parochial schools

question: What does a principled debate on the issues not support a charge of?
answers: text: religious bigotry

question:  Who is the former Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee?

question: What does Walker feel does impugn the validity of the principle of separation of church and state?

question:  Who have argued for the separation of church and state for reasons having everything to do with a desire for a secular culture?

question: Separationists agreed with the Catholic church when it sought to do what?

question: What does a principled debate on the issues support a charge of?
context: J. Brent Walker, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee, responded to Hamburger's claims noting; "The fact that the separation of church and state has been supported by some who exhibited an anti-Catholic animus or a secularist bent does not impugn the validity of the principle. Champions of religious liberty have argued for the separation of church and state for reasons having nothing to do with anti-Catholicism or desire for a secular culture. Of course, separationists have opposed the Catholic Church when it has sought to tap into the public till to support its parochial schools or to argue for on-campus released time in the public schools. But that principled debate on the issues does not support a charge of religious bigotry"

qas: question: What did evangelicals want to keep apart?
answers: text: the spiritual and secular worlds

question: What did religious freedom result from?
answers: text: an alliance of unlikely partners

question: What profession does Frank Lambert have?
answers: text: historian

question: What is the name of Lambert's book?
answers: text: The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America

question: What did Deists and skeptics join together to fight for?
answers: text: a complete separation of church and state

question:  What didn't evangelicals want to keep apart?

question:  What didn't religious freedom result from?

question:  What profession doesn't Frank Lambert have?

question:  What is the name of Mambert's book?

question:  What did Deists and skeptics join together to fight against?
context: Steven Waldman notes that; "The evangelicals provided the political muscle for the efforts of Madison and Jefferson, not merely because they wanted to block official churches but because they wanted to keep the spiritual and secular worlds apart." "Religious freedom resulted from an alliance of unlikely partners," writes the historian Frank Lambert in his book The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. "New Light evangelicals such as Isaac Bachus and John Leland joined forces with Deists and skeptics such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to fight for a complete separation of church and state."

qas: question: What does Bellah say the separation of church and state is grounded firmly in?
answers: text: constitution of the United States

question: What does Bellah use the term "civil religion' to describe?
answers: text: the specific relation between politics and religion

question: Whose speech does Bellah's 1967 article analyze?
answers: text: John F. Kennedy

question: What word does Bellah ask how a President is justified to use?
answers: text: God

question: What has the separation of church and state failed to deny the political realm of?
answers: text: a religious dimension

question: What does Bellah say the separation of church and state is not grounded firmly in?

question:  What doesn't Bellah use the term "civil religion' to describe?

question:  Whose speech does Bellah's 1977 article analyze?

question:  What word does Bellah ask how a President is justified to not use?

question: What has the separation of church and state failed to approve the political realm of?
context: Robert N. Bellah has in his writings that although the separation of church and state is grounded firmly in the constitution of the United States, this does not mean that there is no religious dimension in the political society of the United States. He used the term "Civil Religion" to describe the specific relation between politics and religion in the United States. His 1967 article analyzes the inaugural speech of John F. Kennedy: "Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension."

qas: question: Who has argued the United States is a model for the world in separation of church and state is a good thing?
answers: text: Robert S. Wood

question: What does having no state-run or state-established allow a variety of religions to do?
answers: text: flourish

question: Where is the Center for New Religions located?
answers: text: Toronto

question: What does Wood believe the U.S. operates on?
answers: text: a sort of civic religion

question: What does Wood call the approach of allowing individuals the freedom to decide what they want to believe?
answers: text: genius of religious sentiment in the United States

question: Who hasn't argued the United States is a model for the world in separation of church and state is a good thing?

question: What does having no state-run or state-established allow a variety of non-religions to do?

question:  Where did the Center for New Religions leave?

question:  What does Wood believe the U.K. operates on?

question:  What does Wood call the approach of allowing individuals the freedom to decide what they don't want to believe?
context: Robert S. Wood has argued that the United States is a model for the world in terms of how a separation of church and state—no state-run or state-established church—is good for both the church and the state, allowing a variety of religions to flourish. Speaking at the Toronto-based Center for New Religions, Wood said that the freedom of conscience and assembly allowed under such a system has led to a "remarkable religiosity" in the United States that isn't present in other industrialized nations. Wood believes that the U.S. operates on "a sort of civic religion," which includes a generally-shared belief in a creator who "expects better of us." Beyond that, individuals are free to decide how they want to believe and fill in their own creeds and express their conscience. He calls this approach the "genius of religious sentiment in the United States."