Talk:Separation of church and state/Archive 1

message: Could someone please clean up the opening paragraph of this page? I've read it half a dozen times trying to figure out what is trying to be said and all I'm left with is a bad headache. Loomis51 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clean up the opening paragraph 

message: I have a question please about the following paragraph.
:When fundamentalists attempted to force biology teachers to teach the Genesis creation story if they taught evolution, the Supreme Court ruled that labeling a religious doctrine as "science" was insufficient to allow it to be taught to a child in public school for the purpose of converting the child to a religion. 
To FairAndBalanced.  You wrote that "the Supreme Court ruled that labeling a religious doctrine as "science" was insufficient to allow it to be taught to a child in public school for the purpose of converting the child to a religion." Could you point to the page in the case where the Court said that?
It seems to me that the Court found that the Act failed the first prong of the Lemon test--"secular purpose."  Accordingly, the Court ruled on summary judgment and did not have to examine whether the thousand pages of "science" that the creationists filed was actually  "science" or not.  Would you agree? Rednblu 03:26, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not invalidate my version, but feel free to change it to stick more closely to the strict legal reasoning.  The previous version inappropriately implied that ID was scientific. Fairandbalanced 00:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did the Court actually say? 

message: When fundamentalists attempted to force biology teachers to teach the Genesis creation story if they taught evolution, the Supreme Court ruled that even scientific evidence could not be taught to a child in public school for the purpose of converting the child to a religion. That is, religious people could not appropriate snippets of scientific evidence with the aim of persuading public school children to adopt religious beliefs.
:Where is Intelligent Design even implied in the above statement?  
:How about you and I start from the above and change it so that you think it is accurate.
:Or how about quoting the Supreme Court?
When fundamentalists attempted to force biology teachers to teach the Genesis creation story if they taught evolution, the Supreme Court ruled that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause."  In other words, the Court did not have to examine whether what was taught under the Creationism Act was scientifically accurate.  Only the legislators' intent to teach religion mattered to the Court. 
:Are we getting somewhere?  Rednblu 02:36, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentalist attempt to force biology teachers to teach Genesis 

message: I agree with MisfitToys' edits, which resulted in a text that expressed what I meant better than my original. However, I reverted "estrangement" to "separation". "Estrangement" is separation, but with the added nuance of some hostility. I don't think that hostile feelings are an issue here – it's just that some countries separation religion and politics by tradition, and many people adhere to this vision without being hostile to religion. It's just like strawberry marmalade and steak - you may like each separately, but think, without any kind of bad feeling, that they do not mix well. See laïcité for instance. David.Monniaux 08:27, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, 'separation of church and state' isn't fixed "constitutional law' in the US either (although it is a concept discussed in constitutional law); the nature of the amendment is more toward non-establishment (different from disestablishment) rather than separation. MisfitToys 20:48, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
I would have expected to see something about Turkey here as I believe it is a good example of an Islamic country which has acheived a clear secular constitution. I don't know enough about Turkish history to edit the article. Are there any Turkish contributors who would like to comment ?  Julianp 02:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Do you have sources for any of your assertions? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of politics and religion in the US 

message: Actually, I see nothing in the Canadian Constitution about supremecy of any god...
check here
:I also can find no mention of god at all
1982 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#I
--JimWae 21:31, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
It's in the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a Constitutional document:
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law." Loomis51 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God. We use upper-case "G" when refering to God. You should too. Nevertheless, you should read the text of the Charter again. DocEss 17:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Constitution 

message: I just stumbled into this:
:"For example, in the Russian Armed Forces -- for which there continues to be universal conscription -- no form of religious worship other than Orthodox Christian worship is permitted."
I think this is wrong. I've never heard of any law like that in Russia. It is true that chaplains are strictly Orthodox (although this might have changed recently), but, as far as I know, prayer is NOT prohibited. Can anyone supply a reference to prove or disprove this?
----The previous statement is entirely incorrect (but a good try!)  Freedom of religion has been wholeheartedly adopted in Russia.  In Chechnya, before going into battle, it is common for soldiers to pray.  No religion is prohibited.  That said, Russian Orthodox is the primary religion practiced.  And it is still not what could be considered a religious country, as the enforced athiesm of the communist era had its effect and a majority of the population could be considered non-believers.
Noitall 03:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian laws 

message: I took out the sentence at the end of the first paragraph.  I don't think it matters how many people believe it, saying that "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution is a loaded statement that makes it seem that there is some significance in its not being there.  I don't believe it is significant, because the law is discussed every day in terms that don't appear in the constitution.  Anyway, I'm sure 2/3 of Americans think a lot of things about the constitution that aren't true. Superking 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence about the phrase not appearing in the US Constitution 

message: :Seven U.S. states still have religious tests for office on the books, that have yet to be challenged.
I assume that previous precedents have essentially rendered these statues unenforcable.  If so, I wouldn't see the fact that they remain unchallenged as particularly significant, though it might be an interesting bit of trivia to add to Separation of church and state in the United States. -- Beland 02:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tests for office in the U.S. 

message: Nobody has responded to my suggestion that this article be renamed Relations between church and state. Anyone object? Any supporters? DJ Clayworth 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fine as is. However, you might like to shift all information pertaining to relations under a new section with your suggested title.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *I think the name of the article as it stands is appropriate and has a different meaning to the proposed change.  The separation of church and state was important in Australian colonial history and made a difference in particular to education and how it is delivered today.  It has a different sense than relations between the two institutions.  Perhaps a separate article might be in order exploring the issues of the relationship.--AYArktos 08:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article 

message: The Greece section appears to be copied directly from the linked source ().
While the source is clearly indicated, the paragraph is not displayed as a quote (and is really too long to be considered one). Probably this should be rewritten to avoid copyright infringement? --David Edgar 11:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greece - copyright problem? 

message: I removed this:Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.  Ulysses S. Grant because of where it was situated, as though it were a statement of fact, or the last word.  The quote is not irrelevant though; and an appropriate place might be found for it, in this article.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah because Grant was our greeatest presedent ever. It however is appropriate for the article so I can offer no reason to not add it. Personally I am in Favor of a Theocracy. 167.142.154.27 21:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grant quote 

message: I propose a split of this article. I would move the descriptions of each country's relation between its church and state to a new article Relationship between church and state, while keeping the specific discussion of the separation parts, especially the US experience here. This is basicly because the degree of separation is not actually the key thing for many countries. For them it is not sensible to discuss the relationship in terms of separation. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: I think there's a problematic leaning within the concept of "separation" as it is discussed here. Granted, this affects the whole discussion in the "outside world" so it surely does affect Wikipedia, but I will ask anyway.
At fact value, separation of church and state should mean neither interferes directly with the other. However, as the section for the "separated" Turkey (the quoted passage reads the "There shall be no interference whatsoever of the sacred religious feelings in State affairs and politics"), as well as the entry to the "Modern" section ("Some states are more strict than others in disallowing church influence on the state") are leaning towards only considering a ecclesiatical interference into the state and not the other way around.
Does anyone have an idea how to fix this (the Turkey passage is not so much the problem, as the passage raises this issue, but the "modern" is). I'm not sure whether there is a solution since this a real life problem. Str1977 21:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation 

message: The section here which claims to be an overview of the topic in fact goes into enormous detail about the origins of the particular position in the USA. I think much of that materal needs to be in a distinct section concerned with separation of church and state in the US constitution. I know it's a particular constitutional isue in the US, but a general overview should be international in scope. Myopic Bookworm 09:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that would involve a new section about works such as A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke (Yes, I know that Locke didn't advocate the modern understanding of toleration - he didn't allow for toleration of Catholics or atheists, but his work can be seen as a forerunner.) Autarch 17:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview or US Summary? 

message: I just cut most of the intro out, so I thought I would defend why.  Roughly 75% of the introduction consisted of a convoluted discussion of what is meant by "church," with some digression into the whether or not various religions are centralized.  If we want to include all this text, we ought to make it a great deal more coherent than it was.  But I don't think we need it at all.  The phrase is defined perfectly well in the original intro.  I cut:
:The text read Some denominations trace the principle back to the founding of Christianity 2000 years ago. The term "church" refers to religions and religious institutions in general and their relationship to government; in countries with religions more predominant than Christianity, the words mosque, temple, or synagogue are often substituted. However, the "church" is far more similar to the religious institutions of other monotheistic faiths. Other religions (such as The Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism, Jainism, and hundreds of animist faiths) have religious institutions with varying levels of authority within the faith. For example, there is no centralized Hindu "temple," in the way that there is a centralized Roman Catholic Church. There is no contemporary dominant authoritative body for Taoists, Confucianists or Muslims. There is no similarity between  religious institutions even inside monotheism.
Peace out. Ethan Mitchell 22:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro was incoherent 

message: In the "United States of America" subsection of "Countries with separation," the ACLU's view and Clarence Thomas' seem to be the same, which confused me upon reading it.  As is, both the ACLU and Thomas hold to the view that "no government can blatantly favor one faith or church over the others, or favor belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief."eudaemonic3 04:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion Between ACLU and Clarence Thomas 

message: I have removed this subsection.  It appears to be irrelevant to this article.
The first sentence of this article reads, "The separation of church and state is a political doctrine which states that the institutions of the state or national government should be kept separate from those of religious institutions."  As I understand it, the idea is to keep government out of religious affairs and out of the affairs of religious institutions.  As I understand it, the idea is not to keep religiously-grounded ideas, religious organizations, or religiously-motivated organizations or individuals out of political affairs.  I don't see that ano of the cites websites advocating ending separation of church and state, in America or elsewhere.
:===American activism against separation===
:* Wallbuilders
:Their About us page says:  WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built—a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined.
:* Christian Coalition of America
:Their About us page says, in part: The Christian Coalition of America offers people of faith the vehicle to be actively involved in shaping their government - from the County Courthouse to the halls of Congress.
:* Focus on the Family
:Their website describes their Mission as: Focus on the Family's Mission Statement: To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.
:* American Center for Law & Justice
:Their website says: The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is committed to insuring the ongoing viability of constitutional freedoms. By specializing in constitutional law, the ACLJ is dedicated to the concept that freedom and democracy are God-given inalienable rights that must be protected. The ACLJ engages in litigation, provides legal services, renders advice, counsels clients, provides education, and supports attorneys who are involved in defending the religious and civil liberties of Americans.
:* Center for Reclaiming America
:Their website describes their mission as: To inform, equip, motivate, and support Christians; enabling them to defend and implement the Biblical principles on which our country was founded.
:* Jeremiah Project
:As far as I could figure it out (not far), their website is focused on religious evangelism. -- Boracay Bill 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsection removal:  American activism against separation 

message: After having made the subsection removal described above, I see on more careful reading that some parts of this article are written as if barring religiously-motivated persons and/or organizations from participating in government and/or in politics does fall within the definition of Separation of church and state for purposes of this article.  I would disagree, but I think that the article less than crystal clear about this.  -- Boracay Bill 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. :) --Noypi380 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further comment re the meaning of Separation in this article 

message: CBadSurf 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've made a start, because I dislike that this article has become a chest-pounding session for people from both sides of the divide. Collard 06:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done cleaning up the "America's Founding Fathers" section. Good enough? Collard 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial bias in this article, lack of citations, wide-spread weasel wording 

message: The reference to the united Kingdom is a little misleading, it's not enough to say that there is an established Church in the United Kingdom. The Anglican Church is the estaplished church only in England. The Episcopal Churches elsewhere in the UK (Church in Wales, Church of Ireland, and the Scotish Episcopal Church) are not established. The (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is established in Scotland, elsewhere in the UK there is a separation of Church and State. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.224 (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: CBadSurf 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've made a start, because I dislike that this article has become a chest-pounding session for people from both sides of the divide. Collard 06:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done cleaning up the "America's Founding Fathers" section. Good enough? Collard 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial bias in this article, lack of citations, wide-spread weasel wording 

message: It only contains one sentence and only presents the opinion of one man. Realistically, almost all believers in secular government support the separation of church and state. I'm going to remove it anyway. User:66.177.138.113 19:14, 10 April 2005 
:No, it is a valid point and it is not held only by Maurras but by many others as well. Actually it is the conservative (in the sense of political philosophy around 1800) take on religion and was turned upside-down by Marxism. Though not all proponents of this view were downright atheists, as Maurras was, many were merely conventional Christians, e.g. Metternich. They advocated Christianity because it was "respectable" and "decent" to do so, but not out of a deep faith. 
:You say, "almost all believers in secular government support the separation of church and state", but this is either historically questionable (and what is almost all? - so they were others?) or redudant. 
:What do you mean by secular government? One can very well argue that any government is secular since it deals with secular things. Or is a secular government one separated from religious bodies? Then your statement is redundant. And what is separation? In a way Christianity is the inventor of a separation of the two powers (Gelasius, Augustine, Jesus himself) Hence this section must be included.Str1977 16:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove the section "secular arguments against separation 

message: As the text in the article makes clear by summarizing the laws in several countries, the separation of church and state is NOT a constitutional law--except in the United States.
:Actually, the Constitution of France enforces the concept of laïcité, which implies the separation of Church and State. David.Monniaux 08:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The separation of church and state is a concept in constitutional law wherein the functions of government are kept separate from those of religion.
I suggest that the current first sentence be corrected to remove the inaccuracies and severe United States bias that are in the current first sentence. Rednblu 19:19, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the separation of church and state is constitutional law, whether it be expressed explicitly in a written constitution (like the USA, France and Australia) or whether it is a convention of an unwritten constitution (like the UK and New Zealand). I'm not aware of any state that separates itself from the church through legislation, but if this were the case, the constitutonal focus of the article should be adapted.--Cyberjunkie 13:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of church and state is NOT a constitutional law outside the United States 

message: Surely many other countries could be included.  E.g., Greece. Michael Hardy 22:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the list of stable state churches so short? 

message: ...in fact, many non-Catholics (and non-Christians) prefer these schools for either the quality of education or the opportunity to be educated in an environment where morality and spirituality are not excluded.
:Does this sentence implicitly state that non-(Catholic)religious schools are immoral since they provide an environment where morality and spirituality are excluded? Please excuse my imperfect grasp of English if that is not the case. Illythr 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You sure it's better that way? "Exposure to religion"? And what's up with that deleted chunk about other arguments against separation? --Illythr 19:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Separation of church and state#Canada|Religious schools in Canada]] 

message: This section explains the common misconception about Israel being a "Jewish State." What is meant by "Jewish State", as explained in the section is the National sense, i.e. the state of the Jewish nation, similar to Italy being "the Italian state" and the Netherlands beign "The Dutch State". 
The confusion derives from the ambiguity of the term "Jewish" that refers both to nationality, as in this case, and to religion. "Jewish" can also mean a general ethinicity but in this case it is not merely ethnicity that is relevent but the view that "Jewish" is in fact a nationality and that thus Israel is the Jewish Nation- the Jewish State. So, changing the term nationality into "ethincity" really misses the whole point of the esssence of Israel in the National sense. 
Furthermore, the view that the Jewish people form their own nationality is in fact the raison d'être of the State of Israel.
Also, the fact that the State's name and the nationality are not derived from the same root doesn't change the fact that Israel is the manifestaion of the Jewish Nationality, similar to the way the Netherlands are to the Dutch. The citizens of Israel regardless of ethnicity are Israeli, but their nationality is Jewish (except in the case of the minorities which have in fact a double nationality, the "Israeli" political nationality and the ethnic nationality that is unique to their group.) 
Understanding the differences between these terms is esssential for one to understand Israel's declaration of independence that states Israel is a "Jewish state" in which their shall be equality "Regardless of religion, race, and sex," and in which there will be complete religious freedom etc. Tal :) 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  status in Israel- Jewish nationality vs. ethnicity 

message: Is this an official designation of some sort? Because it's currently but a redirect to state religion, something I certainly wouldn't call a "harmony". And it looks a bit POV'ish, too. --Illythr 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Harmony of Church and state" 

message: I would find it helpful to see a section listing some non-Internet sources of information about this issue (i.e. books, documentaries, etc.) Bryan H Bell 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources 

message: In fact, I am going one step further and propose that this article be renamed Relations between religions and states, since it concerns primarily how religion in certain countries are related to the respective states that they are located, there are mentions of countries that have religious influences in state, like Greece, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The French version that is interwikied is titled Rapports entre Etats et réligions, which means what I proposed above.. The current title should be a redirect. I feel that the current title shows systemic bias and the intro is kinda weaselly. It really does sound weird to talk about religion in Saudi Arabia under "seperation of church and state". See my post directly above about the use of "church" not being appropriate and showing systemic bias. It would also sound weird if we renamed the "sep of church and state in the US" article to "sep of mosque and state in the US" while claiming that mosque is used figuratively. I am atheist, so it is not because I am particularly offended or anything, it is just logical and rectifies the systemic bias that I mentioned. Just because that's how it was written in the US Constitution 200 years ago doesn't mean we have to do so today in Wikipedia. :))) Baristarim 03:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Baristarim, I think a title including an appreciation as "separation" involves a bias. What is interesting is to study what links are allowed or prohibited btwn politics and religion in different states -- e.g., Germany has strictly regulated links. Then, there's the minor question about choosing btwn "state" and "government", I think "state" is better (e.g. federal states, and also civil servants are not always understood as belonging to the "government"). --131.111.17.49 09:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was placed between Elizmr's support and mine, is it intended to be a support position? and if so, of what title? KillerChihuahua?!? 09:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal 

message: CBadSurf 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've made a start, because I dislike that this article has become a chest-pounding session for people from both sides of the divide. Collard 06:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And now I've done about as much of the cleanup as I care to do (see edit history...). Someone else want to step in and help? :/ Collard 08:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial bias in this article, lack of citations, wide-spread weasel wording 

message: The reference to the united Kingdom is a little misleading, it's not enough to say that there is an established Church in the United Kingdom. The Anglican Church is the estaplished church only in England. The Episcopal Churches elsewhere in the UK (Church in Wales, Church of Ireland, and the Scotish Episcopal Church) are not established. The (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is established in Scotland, elsewhere in the UK there is a separation of Church and State. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.224 (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: This article has been nominated (again) for an AiD drive. Please go to WP:AID and vote for this article if you want a lot of help repairing the broken state of this article. Diez2 00:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AiD Nomination 

message: I'm about to try and clean up the first paragraph, as requested in the ... well, request section ... but I was wondering if a lock should be placed on this article. Although I am unfamiliar with its history, obviously given the first section of the talk page (at one point it says that the article should've been cleaned up sometime in April 05) there have been problems. (Oh and by lock I mean where only advanced users can edit (no new users or non-users). Just a suggestion.
Danielfolsom 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Collard 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the update.  Why don't you lock it if no one disagrees by tomorrow? CBadSurf 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Paragraph, Lock 

message: As to the picture in the introduction, I don't really see a parallel between Jesus and the money changers and modern governmental policy, especially since that story took place within a religious milieu (the temple).
But then why use an image that draws a parallel rather than one about the topic at hand? If no one objects I'm going to replace it.
Sorry if this was discussed previously, but I didn't see it. Bantosh 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. I don't see the connection either. Lewis Collard 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No objection here either. CBadSurf 06:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points for the first person to come up with a suitable image to replace it. :) Lewis Collard 15:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it, but still probably not the best it could be. At least Constantine was more directly political.Bantosh 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and the two points go to Bantosh. Good choice. :) Lewis Collard 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Picture 

message: I think this article has gone through widespread and substantial improvements.  As one of the editors who added an NPOV tag, I now think we can remove it.  Any thoughts? CBadSurf 06:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Lewis Collard 20:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove NPOV tag ? 

message: I've just posted a suggestion here in the hope of better organizing this and related articles.  For a unified discussion, perhaps any interested editors could offer their thoughts over there. Thanks, Mackan79 03:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the fixes.  I reclarified "...the term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise," which I think is important, since "secularity" and "freedom of religion" are both rather general and can mean different things.  Hopefully ok.  Mackan79 01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: see WP:GTL#Body_sections and WP:MSH -- Boracay Bill 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming/Merger proposal 

message: I have made two fairly significant changes to the Advocacy section.  I dithered about discussing the need for these changes here before making them, but decided to go with the WP:BB approach because the changes, though organizationally significant, are simple and easily reverted if the feeling is that I've got it wrong.
Firstly, I have deleted the subsection titled Differences between Sunni and Shī‘a/Shi'ite Islam.  At a minimum, this should have been a subsubsection below the subsection on Islam rather than standing alongside or (as it was) outside of Islamic views in the subsection ordering.  Even as a subsubsection, though, I could see no relevance of the deleted material to a discussion of differences between Sunni and Shiia branches of Islam with regard to to advocacy of their views on separation of Church and State.
Secondly, I changed the subsection organization from
*Advocacy
**Religious views on separation
***Roman Catholic views
***Baptist views
***Other Christian views
***Islamic views
***Other religious views
**Secular views on separation
to
*Advocacy
**Roman Catholic views
**Baptist views
**Other Christian views
**Islamic views
**Other religious views
**Secular views
I considered, alternatively,
*Advocacy
**Views of Christian religions
***Roman Catholic views
***Baptist views
***Other Christian views
**Islamic views
**Other religious views
**Secular views on separation
but in the end it didn't make any more sense to me, for purposes of this article, to gather the Christian religious denominations into separate subsections under a Christian views subheading than it had made sense to me to gather Religious views under a subheading. -- Boracay Bill 23:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizational changes in the Advocacy section 

message: Per the edit summary, I removed the statement on atheist opposition on the ground that it allows Christians to coexist... If we had a source that would be fine (possibly), but it doesn't seem that Harris's statements actually oppose separation (does he?).  Mackan79 13:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderates 

message: I have tried, numerous times, to keep this article free of US-centric material, and have been reverted several times. User:Mackan79 said in his edit summary:
:(I agree the second part should be moved, but we need to move it then, not just delete it. I planned to look at ways but haven't yet.)
So I think the best option is to move the paragraph here. As it happens, I think this is merely "critics say" fluff which has no place in either article, and that the last sentence makes no sense whatsoever, but whatever. Here's the deleted paragraph:
:thumb|left|180px|Scholars such as Philip Hamburger have argued that late 19th century popularity of Separation was fueled by nativism such as that of the Know Nothing movement.
American 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 framers understood it.  Philip Hamburger, University of Chicago law professor and prominent critic of the modern understanding of the concept, maintains that the modern concept is rooted in American anti-Catholicism and nativism.  Hamburger connects the modern conception of separation to nativist groups, including the Know Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan, while noting that in 1947, of the nine Supreme Court Justices who held that the constitution required separation in Everson v. Board of Education, at least seven were Masons.  Hamburger, Philip Separation of Church and State (Harvard University Press, New Ed edition 2004) Hamburger argues that one of the primary proponents of Separation on the Supreme Court, Justice Hugo Black, had once been a member of the Klan and was known for anti-Catholic sentiments.Hamburger, Philip Separation of Church and State (Harvard University Press, New Ed edition 2004).  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.  LOCKE V. DAVEY 540 U.S. 712 (2004) So this should not be misconstrued as a separation of church and state, rather a separation of government interference of public religion.
Lewis Collard! (natter) 10:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigh 

message: Hi. I've just spent the last half hour trying to work out how to make this VERY IMPORTANT article somewhat readable and I have almost given up in disgust. This article approaches the issue from multiple angles (Historical, Philosophical, Semantic, National, Religious, Secular (if that can be distinguished from Religious)) Eighty percent of the stuff here is US-centric and repetitive and a lot of it's biased. I propose limiting this page to conceptual and historical development, and then listing different approaches to the separation of church and state, into which countries fall. For example, France is in strict separation, Iran is a Theocracy, The UK is somewhere in between because it has a state religion but is generally pluralistic, etc. This can be done partly with links to specific pages like Separation of church and state in the United States. I am also going to post my edit, which is fairly radical and does away with a lot of repetitive material. I expect it to be reverted shortly but maybe not.--Cdogsimmons 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true of Turkey technically. The Turkish state influences exceptional control over imams, going so far as to be their employer, amongst other things. While the Turkish state is ostensibly secular, its hard to assert that there is a true separation between the two; certainly such a case (of religious employment or appointment in a specific Church coming down from the government) would be anathema and blatantly illegal in America. Even the Chaplain service of the US military has safeguards; the person must be appointed specifically by the Church they represent and can be removed by such at any time, and the government generally has little say in the matter, short of illegal or court-martial level offenses. Even THAT has come under fire recently, and numerous lawsuits are currently in the courts that will, more than likely, result in further, stricter regulations and separations between military brass and chaplains. SiberioS (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article is a FREAKING Nightmare!!! 

message: The meaning of separation of church and state has long been twisted to mean "protecting the state from church influence" rather than protecting churches from state influence. Jefferson's intent in writing his letter was that of the second interpretation.
Unfortunately, people often mix up these two ideas and treat them as "separation of church and state" the same.
This article has lots of this type of "equivocation," if you will, of these two ways of interpreting this clause.
66.91.236.133 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that the term "separation of church and state" includes both concepts, and that the article should distinguish carefully when it's speaking only of one and not the other. Moreover, your point of view -- that separation means just protecting the state from church influence -- is one of the points of view that should be described in the definition section. It is just one point of view, however, and as such cannot guide the entire construction of the article, since, as you concede, "people often ... treat [these two ideas] as 'separation of church and state'". If you have specific points in the article where it would be helpful to distinguish (as opposed to trying to conform the article to your personal perspective) then please point them out here. --Lquilter (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article 

message: The stuff about reformation is absurd.  Luther and the other reformation leaders encoraged magistrates to burn heretics at the stake  He did argue for tollerence at the very begning of the movement, but changed his position later on.
The article says that Henry the 8th ended the seperation of church and state in England - in reality during the middleages the priesthood and the monarchy were seen as differnt offices with the same heirachy (With the pope at the very top).  Henry the 8th could not have abolished what did not previously exist.
As for ancient Isreal... a theocracy is a political structure in which GOD IS REGARDED AS THE HEAD OF STATE!  In ancient Isreal "falseprophets" and idol worshipers were routinely stoned to death, this is the very opposite of seperation of church and state!  I hope I will find time to work on this, and and some good sound references.  The current article is beyond a joke in this area. Melissa 149.254.49.31 (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled Nonsence 

message: I've moved the following recently-added paragraph here from the "Roman Catholic views" subsection in the "Advocacy" section of the article:
:However, recently there have been attacks on the inclusion of Catholics in US government positions most notably by atheist Rosie O'Donnell: ""How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic?" and "[H]ow about separation of church and state?"" There is an anti-Cathlic movement in the United States based on the so-called separation of Church and State.
*First, I don't think this digression belongs in a subsection which should be addressing Roman Catholic views regarding advocacy of Separation.
*Second, as far as I know, Rosie doesn't hold credentials which validate her opinions in this area as either knowledgeable or authoratative.
*Third, if this paragraph or something like it does find a home someplace in this article, it should probably be accompanied by a balancing opinion — perhaps this article from the Idaho Mountain Express quoting Law Professor, Richard Garnett on partial birth abortion (the context in which Rosie's remark was made) as having written: "the Constitution does not disable legislatures entirely from regulating what most people (not just Catholics, fideists, and sexists) regard as a particularly gruesome abortion procedure."
*Fourth, I'm doubtful that the paragraph's characterization of Rosie as "atheist Rosie O'Donnell" is appropriate here. Such a characterization would, IMHO, need a supporting source.
I suppose I should be up front here in saying that I personally am nonreligious, pro-Separation in the sense of restricting State actions in matters of religion, pro-choice, male, not a medical doctor, and  of the opinion that Partial birth abortion might be medically indicated in some cases (notably in cases where the fetus is found in late term to be hydrocephalic). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many Supreme Court judges are Catholic? 

message: Shouldn't there be cases in the article about this topic? Supreme court cases, such as Wallace against Jafree, I mean.204.147.20.1 (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cases 

message: Regarding the Two Kingdoms section, the reason I removed it to the main article is basically because it seems more appropriate in the main article on the subject.  With so much material that could be provided here, my thought is it should stay focused generally on the most discussed topics.  I could see a section on the meaning of separation from a theological perspective, which might focus on this in part, but a large section just on Luther's views seems out of place in the section going through a very general history.  Otherwise in the context of the history sections, I think it would probably need to be cut down to not much more than a sentence, which then would link to the main article.  If there are other ideas I'd be open to that as well. Mackan79 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Kingdoms section 

message: In the United States, separation of church and state is often identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by the U.S. President Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
-- 
I removed this section as such a focus on the United States in a lead is plainly biased with this concept.DDSaeger (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Section 

message: Looking at the ancient and medieval history sections, I wonder if there shouldn't be an article just on the relationship between religion and government, apart from these articles on separation.  This was done to an extent with the change of Separation of church and state in medieval Europe to Church and state in medieval Europe, but there still doesn't appear to be a general article on that topic of religion and government.  At least in this article, the most natural material to move would be the material from before the modern concept of separation was developed, including a lot of background that isn't exactly within the topic of the article.  Any thoughts on this? Mackan79 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section spinoff 

message: I suggest that with this hot topic, that we lock up this article with the silver lock so that only registered users may edit it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.85.143 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked Article time? 

message: Hello everyone,
It came to my attention that there is quite a deliberation of the article for "Separation of chuch and state".
As and "Aide" and "Reference" to eliminate confusion, which I will allow to be published are the views and excerpts comming from the Prussian Monarchy on the subject of "Speration of church and state". The following will explain the spearation of the "church and monarchy" and/or also meaning the "church and state" which are the same meaning.
I hope the word of the monarchy will help to provide a better view of the meaning, "Separation of church and state" and/or monarchy.
Question: "Why do we separate the church from the state? Is the Church above the Monarchy?"
Answer: (Feb. 4, 2009) - "Why do we separate the church from the state? Is the Church above the Monarchy?" 
alt.talk.royalty
BEGINING TEXT...............
A popular question i've been asked is if the church is above the 
monarchy? To start, the answer is no, and I will explain why since how 
can man be above god? The answer is that allthough the monarchy is 
above the church, the monarchy by far is not above god but works 
together as a team. Then, why do I say the monarchy is above the 
church? Well to put it quickly, god needs man to (lets say) "stay in 
business", therefore god elects the king (persay) to command his 
kingdom the way he wants it. So still, why do I say the monarchy is 
above the church still? The answer is that allthough, the church is 
appointed spokespersons for god, only the king can interpret gods want 
and not the church as the king in gods eyes is the spokesperson to his 
kingdom and not the church, ie the pope such and so forth. Then why is 
the pope not king? The answer is, the pope is there just in case the 
king can't interperet gods word himself, then delegate to the rest of 
the people. So the monarchy is above the church because, we seperate, 
the church from the monarchy because the monarchy is priority in gods 
kingdom the way god wants it and not the way the church wants. It's 
easier to blame the king if there is mishap for the kings 
interpretation beacuse he is just one human, and the church is many, 
and we don't blame our own society. So, botttom line is, "God as 
Architect, I the King Engineer". - King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia
ENDING TEXT............... 
HOPE THIS HELPS!!!!!! 70.181.250.164 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The foregoing appears to come from a comment posted here in a Google groups discussion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarchy and/or "State" the separation of; 

message: Many of the original Church-State conflicts of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries were related to a much deeper conflict between Catholicism and Freemasonry. For instance, the Church has condemned Masons since 1738, and many prominent secularists such as Thomas Jefferson and Émile Combes have been Freemasons. It would not be a bad thing to mention this with relevant sources, the only problem being that any unexpected mention of Freemasonry is taboo. Also, I noticed that one major difference between American secularism and French/Turkish/Mexican secularism is that the US Grand Lodge masons are usually deists while the French/Turkish/Mexican Grand Orient masons are often agnostic/atheist. ADM (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholicism and Freemasonry 

message: I have changed the source to a site which includes the entire book 'National sunday Law'. However I'm not sure how to (or if I should) remove the 'not included in citation' note.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by F4M (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seventh Day Adventist View 

message: I don't quite understand this section.  I don't understand how the French Revolution or persecution in Mexico actually correlate the description given, however.  The description just does NOT describe what actually happened in these events.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.204.179 (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hostile Secularism? 

message: I think there should probably be an additional commentary on Marxist secularism, i.e. on Marxist interpretations of Church-State separation. Communist countries have often been refered to as atheistic in the Western press, but at home, they considered themselves to be merely secular states, secular states that applied Marxist ideology in public life. During the 1980s, as opposed to the two-way model that currently exists between the United States and France, there was often a third-way model of secularism that was promoted in the Eastern bloc states and in the Soviet Union, which asserted the primacy of the State in all matters public, and considered religion to be a negative influence that was to be relegated to the private sphere, along with other undesirables such as capitalism. ADM (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist secularism 

message: Church and State, when refering to public institutions, are usually written with capital letters. It's unclear why they have been left out in the title of the current article. ADM (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital letters 

message: Were there any countries in antiquity that actually separated religion and state? People were much more superstitious in those days, after all.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 00:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient states 

message: I know the supposed term for this political doctrine is "Separation of church and state", however I believe this title is not in accordance with the doctrine should be "Seperation of religion and state", as the term "church" connotates merely with Christian denominations, offering the assumption that other religions and religious doctrines are not included in the "Seperation of church and state"—it also can be viewed as discrimination toward Christianity. I believe the term "church" is most likely used due to ineptitude of the term's creator, and should be replaced with the term "religion" on Wikipedia. I propose we move this article to that title and rephrase the opening statement as such:
*The separation of religion and state (unveiled as separation of church and state) is a political doctrine ..."
A further explanation of the title and title alteration could be explained further in the article. Any further comments would be appreciated. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ineptitude of the creator"? I think you misunderstand the issue. The doctrine as it is formed was originally to stop a Christian denomination being favoured and adopted as an official state denomination - it's not actually the secularism ideal (that religion should not be included in Government whatsoever) that so many people believe it to be. The historical context has led it to be called this. It's not a biased issue in any sense. (JROBBO 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll pull it.19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of "Church" and State 

message: I've moved the following material added by an anon in this edit here:
It was clear, however, that Jefferson did not espouse a viewpoint that divorced all inferences of religion in government.  Perhaps the best example of this is the fact that he appropriated federal funds for what today would be considered a violation of "separation of church and state." The treaty approved stated :
Jefferson used federal monies to teach the Indians the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  he personally authored "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth".  He approved funding while president for this.  Annual support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.  The treaty approved stated :
"And whereas, the greater part of the Tribe having been baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually for seven years one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion.. and.. three hundred dollars to assist the said Tribe in the erection of a church"
[Henery S. Randall, The Life of Thomas Jefferson (New York, Derby & Jackson, 1858)
American State Papers, Walter Lowery and Matthew St. Claire Clark, Editors (Washington D.C. Gales & Seaton, 1832)]
The cited supporting source is fully readable online ({vol. 1, vol. 2, vol. 3). I have searched all three volumes and have been unable to find the quoted passage. Also, as THE FOUNDERS INTENT pointed up above, the inserted material lacks context. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll pull it.19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Material moved here for discussion

message: I read carefully both Separation of church and state and Laïcité and please forgive my stupidity but the concepts are basically the same, with some intricacies in specifics as applied in specific countries. But these particularites may be covered in country-specific articles, such as Separation of church and state in the United States. No need for a French word IMO. `'mikka (t) 05:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, it is not only France that practices laicité, that is not the reason it was named in french. Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, has been intentionally practising laicité and not secularism.. I know that in English secularism is used as a blanket word, but most European academicians would know the conceptual difference between these two.. Another very important point: Laicité is not the seperation of church and state as equals, it is the subordination of church to the state in a hierarchy, religion only being able to do what the laws of the republic allow them: religions are considered as inferior to the moral superiority of the republic which is defined as the soul of the nation.. I have lived in TR, US and FR, and believe me, there is a fundamental difference in nature.. By definition such a merge would be illogical, since it would assume that laicité is the French method of seperating the church and the state.. I hope that u were able to follow me, this is one of the more delicate philosophical matters in political sciences and law, so it might be extremely hard to grasp the concept if one is not familiar with the subject (history of secularism in Europe) beforehand..Baristarim 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In TR and FR, we use both words, secularism and laicité (tr:laisizm), in academic writing when talking about political sciences especially in intl pol sci.. However, there is an academic concensus that are parallel to the decisions of constitutional courts of both countries that affirm that these countries choose and practise laicité, not secularism.. Laicité is not the French for secularism: for example in Italy, both words are used (more or less), but there has been an ongoing debate for decades as to which form the country should practice.. Baristarim 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Laicité is almost more than just separation of State and Church. It is a total disparition from public sphere of mentions of religion or God. All that touches religion is totally banned from law, politic, education, justice, etc. because it is considered as part of private life.Rhadamante 21:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No merge; see also because they are related, but no merge because they are quite different. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I also strongly disagree with any merger.  Laicite, as the sources note, arose out of a culture of anti-clericalism which is not found in the American tradition.  The kind of hostility to religion in that tradition was not for the most part found in the U.S.  The concepts are different and distinct.  While the concepts are obviously related in some regards, merging the two would only muddle the issues, confuse readers and make connections which do not exist. Mamalujo (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I’m uneasy about the “Friendly and Hostile separation” section. The first time I read it, I thought I heard axe-grinding. Example:
"The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to banish religion to the private realm within the walls of the home and church and limits or usurps religious education, sacred rites of passage and public displays of faith."
Which I edited to a more a neutral and encyclopaedic version:
"The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to confine religion purely to the home or church and limits religious education, religious rites of passage and public displays of faith."
I’m worried my edit has just glossed over an inherently biased piece of writing however. I’m not an expert on the topic, so could someone please add some well-sourced balance? “Hostile” separation can be taken much too far, but it has an important role in protecting people from the church – I don’t want to say prayers in school, as the law of my country insists I should! This article is currently making out there's no middle ground, just "hostile" fanatics (the terminology doesn't help!). GM Pink Elephant (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not supposed to weigh in with an opinion. Rather, (oversimplifying) on points where there is disagreement, WP is supposed to present the various opinions, citing sources explaining each opinion in more detail. I would say (not being very nuanced myself about this) that either version above is a fair restatement of what the supporting source cited at that point says. I've edited that section attempting to sharpen up the presentation of the supporting cites, using the style I found in place there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I think you misunderstand NPOV.  Just becuase there isn't a view "supporting" what scholars call the hostile approach to separation of church and state does not mean you must delete the reliably sourced material which is already there.  Mamalujo (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias - Friendly and Hostile separation 

message: In the section called "advocacy", its actually Catholics and Muslims opposing, not advocating the "separation of Church and State". IMO this article should be renamed "Relationship between church and state" and then a section describing fors and againsts. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be called "Quote heard 'round the world", because a single quote by a single man is what many hang entire legal premises on.  --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the Advocacy section should have Advocacy for and Advocacy against subheadings. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps... I think Yorkshirian has read "advocacy" in a way it isn't intended though.  Doesn't necessarily imply one way or the other.  (That doesn't mean it's the best choice of heading, but it seemed ok to me.) Mackan79 (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: It appears that footnote 34 is a bogus attribution of "complete separation of church and state" to Madison's letter to Robert Walsh. The letter to Walsh contains no such verbiage, and pretty much is on the subject of the Missouri Compromise Spoon!! (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a supporting cite. There are other supporting sources (see . The wikisource link you provided was broken, but you apparently intended to link this, which quotes a 27 November, 1819 letter. The source I've cited doesn't date the quoted-from precisely, but other sources (e.g., this one) date it as March 2, 1819. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus Attribution 

message: I've moved the following material recently added in these edits by User:Rwuorenma here:
Thomas Jefferson was recorded discussing the First Amendment in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. He was never a strict separationist, but was determined to defend the right of the states to respect religion when he said, "no power over freedom of religion [is]...delegated to the United States by the Constitution;...All lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were restored, to the states, or the people." This important addition to the Constitution was written to free us of religion's particular name not from religion, an influence that secularists may want for public life.
Respectfully, Rick Wuorenma Almena, WI
Since it purports to quote Jefferson directly, per WP:V a supporting source would need to be cited if added to the article.Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material quoting Jefferson moved here from the article 

message: Someone told me to use the talk page. I had to remove a few sections repeatedly. It looks like those who reverted me were reverting dozens of articles at a time, so they clearly were not looking at my change, just undoing it because they can. I removed sections which talked about ancient cultures that did not have separation of church and state. These sections did not have footnotes, and they did not create an article that showed that those cultures helped to create separation of church and state in modern time. All they were were establishment of how in ancient times there was no such thing. It reads like a right wing conservative push against separation of church and state, by saying 'it's only modern and it isn't correct', which is a typical argument by people with that position. I removed them, but I left the mesopotamia section, because it is marked as needing help, and it shows an ancient culture that did have separations, and i did the same for the Japan part.  None of the sections I removed built on the sections I left in, and the sections left do not need the sections I removed. Those sections simply did not make the article more clear, or more about separation of church and state.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.169.4 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits. 

message: "Separation of Church and State" is a vague and thus potentially massively reaching phrase.  Contrary to widespread mis-impressions, that phrase is not US law, nor is it in the US Constitution. That phrase has been used by the Supreme Court when making judgments which implement the actual provisions of the Constitution.   By implication and omission, article propagates the widespread error rather than clearing it up. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This U.S. centric issue more directly concerns the Separation of church and state in the United States article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You probably have made a more thorough analysis of the article than I with respect to that. In a quick overview it didn't look that way but I could be wrong. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article makes a false statement  by implication and omission 

message: Only about 5% of this article is patently about the USA.  Possibly it is too USA centric at a subtler level.  Either way, I don't think it needs the Scarlet Letter of such a template at the top of the article. North8000 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalization and Globalization Template 

message: I had tried to edit the article on 'separation of church and state' by posting a comment that said the US Constitution,Bill Of Rights,First Amendment makes government support of religion illegal,since it says 'congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion'. That means that the government should not establish the credibility of a religion by endorsing it's doctrine,or establish it's bank account,by giving it money. The 'office of faith-based initiatives' is illegal and unconstitutional under the First Amendment,since it establishes a means of giving the taxpayers' money to churches. I think somebody said,at the time,that my remarks were 'original thought',and therefore,deserved to be deleted. No so. Since I did not write the U.S. Constitution,it does not qualify as 'original thought'. I think someone else said my remarks were POV,which means 'point of view'. My remarks were actually a reiteration fo the point of view expressed by Thoman Jefferson,George Washington,and the other writers of the U.S. Constitution. The Wikipedia article about 'separation of church and state' has a strong pre-religious bias. I should also point out that since the U.S. Constitution,Bill Of Rights,First Amendment says 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion',that any means of establishing the bank account of a religion is illegal under American Constitutional law. Clergymen in the U.S.A. enjoy an exemption from income taxes,called the 'ecclasiastical exemption'. It means a clergyman does not have to pay income taxes,so obviously,the clergy has an unfair advantage over taxpayers. The office of faith-based intiatives is unconstitutional,because it's purpose is to establish the credibility of religion,by giving a de facto state endorsement of the very idea of religion,and since the office of faith-based initiatives provides money to churches,it establishes the bank accounts of churches. So,federal support for religion contradicts Constitutional law,and that is not an original thought,it dates back to the time when the Constitution was written. If you want to delete my remarks,you are only expressing pro-religious bias. ----Anthony Ratkov
(68.248.12.48) 09:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal 

message: The United States is the only country with it's own section in this article and yet in the following "International Views" section one paragraph starts "In the United States" and the one right after contains the same words in the second sentence. Both paragraphs are entirely about the United States. I vote to move these paragraphs to the US section or loose them all together. Omniomi (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The US has a section, why is it in the international views? 

message: What a lot of work and changes by RJensen.  For most of us it will take a week or two to figure out what happened.  (or if you care to summarize more than what's in the edit summaries.....)  Hope it turns out to be good! North8000 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did several things. One I've added subheads and a short guide to further reading. 2, I cleaned up some citations, such as the one to Pres. Tyler. three, I added a little historical background on Europe, especially St. Augustine. 4, I dropped some unsourced speculation about separation of church and state in the United States. 5. I revised somewhat of the sections on France. I think all these are marginal improvements, they did not change the main scope of the article.Rjensen (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the overview!  North8000 (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of Work & Changes by RJensen 

message: Please add various religious views. Thanks Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Religious view 

message: Why doesn't this article mention Spinoza? He was one of the most influential early proponents of the separation of church and state His book: Theologico-Political Treatise [Tractatus Theologico-Politicus], published in 1670, has had a lasting influence on intellectual thought in philosophy and politics. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm... I have no background in this area, but that caused me to look at pages 300-301 here: "... , we are compelled to maintain that the Divine right, or the right of control over spiritual matters, depends absolutely on the decree of the sovereign, who is its legitimate interpreter and champion. Therefore the true ministers of God's word are those who teach piety to the people in obedience to the authority of the sovereign rulers by whose decree it has been brought into conformity with the public welfare." That sounds clearly relevant, but it doesn't sound like a view which favors separation. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoza? 

message: I've boldly removed this section, which this recent edit drew my attention to. The content looked more than a bit strange and not drawn from the content of the Treaty of Tripoli article. The section was added in December of 2009 by this edit. The IP address from which the edit was made is currently blocked for a year for sockpuppet activity. This section doesn't seem to have any close connection with the topic of this article, so I've simply removed it. If reinserted, its content should be thoroughly reviewed and probably rewritten as a proper summary style section. One additional reference which might be useful is  Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: punishing a sockpuppet by blocking is one thing but punishing the readers of this article is something else. Information that is highly relevant and correct and fully cited belongs in Wikipedia.  There is strong suspicion that some folks hate the Triopoli treaty because it undercuts their religious belief that America ought to be a Christian nation; the suspicion is strengthened when Wtmitchell cites DeMar's book promoting "Christian History".  That is a strong motive for them to erase good information, but it would violate NPOV rules to do that and we have to be BOLD and prevent that misuse of Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen, please keep your suspicions in check. I'm not trying to punish anyone, and I did not come at this with a POV bias in mind. FYI, I personally do not have a religious bias towards a belief that America ought to be a Christian nation. As I said, I removed the section you've reinserted when this this edit came up on my watchlist. What caught my eye about that edit was the bit about the treaty having been (or allegedly having been) drafted by "George Washington's administration with Thomas Jefferson's help." I remembered the the treaty as having been negotiated in Tripoli, not drafted in the U.S. I remembered the name "Barlow" in close connection with the negotiation of the treaty, not the name "Washington". A quick check of the Treaty of Tripoli article turned up differences in this area as presented here vs. as presented in that article. Thinking about travel times and communications difficulties between the U.S and Tripoli in a 1796 timeframe raised questions in my mind about how much close influence could have been exerted from the U.S. over the progress of the negotiations in Tripoli. I tried to check the cited source (F. Forrester Church. The separation of church and state (2004) p. 121) here, and found that it is not previewable online. Libraries are not available in my location, so I did a bit of googling for info and came up with the book chapter which I cited which, at a quick skim, appeared to have some pretty good info about the process by which the treaty came to be what it ended up being.  I see from your user page that you are an active historian. As such, you are no doubt better acquainted with the relevant details than I. However, those details as presented here differ from the details as presented in Treaty of Tripoli#Signing and ratification, which speaks of David Humphreys having been given a task on March 30, 1795 work out a treaty and having delegated the mechanics of the negotiation on February 10, 1796, about a year later, to Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson, and of the treaty having been signed on November 4, 1796, about nine months after that. I don't see the heavy hands of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in that -- Washington was in the U.S at the time, Jefferson was in France, and the fastest means of communication was exchange of quill and ink missives via sailing ship, right? Perhaps I misapprehend. Whatever the situation was, however, that situation should not be presented as differently here than it is presented in the Treaty of Tripoli article as it currently is. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (added) I've placed  tags in the two articles. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  My removal of the Treaty of Tripoli section