The Roberts Court and the Separation of Church and State
from Dissent magazine:
The Roberts Court and the Separation of Church and State
Franklin Strier - January 20, 2012
Separation of Church and State was one of the fundamental principles undergirding the new nation envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Neither God nor any synonym for it appears anywhere in the Constitution. Article VI forbids any religious test as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. And even before granting the freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, and petition, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Taken together, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment impose a delicate, dual obligation upon government, under which Congress can neither empower religion nor restrict it. But now this cornerstone of American government is under siege, its foundation threatened by an agenda-driven Supreme Court.
The Establishment Clause
The phrase separation of church and state derives from a letter by President Jefferson in 1802 where he wrote: Erecting the
wall of separation between church and state
is absolutely essential in a free society. The wellspring of American anti-establishment thinking, however, was Jeffersons successor, James Madisonthe principal drafter of the Bill of Rights. He believed the attempt to employ religion as an engine of good citizenship to be an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
With Madisons writings as its polestar, the Supreme Court has long interpreted the Establishment Clause as barring laws that favor one religion over another, or even religion in general over secularism. Government cannot declare any single religion to be the true religion; it cannot cede civil power to religious bodies; it cannot fund religious education directly or discriminate between religions in the distribution of funds. The Court has overturned numerous laws that violate the Establishment Clause, like those mandating bible reading, prayer, or the teaching of creationism in public schools. So important is the Clause that in the landmark 1986 case
Flast v. Cohen, the Warren Court facilitated its enforcement with a remarkable and unique sanction: it ruled that every taxpayer has legal standing to challenge, as a violation of the Establishment Clause, the appropriation of congressional funds to finance religious instruction in schools. ...............(more)
The complete piece is at:
http://dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=575