Talk:Separation of church and state in the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Summary of spirited debate between North8000 and BTfromLA

We want to describe the the issue and our arguments concisely in order to obtain outside opinions. Please keep main arguments down to 300 words and rebuttals down to 100 words. It is OK for the original writers to change /edit what they wrote later. It is done when both BTfromLA and North8000 agree that it is done. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Content in question

BTfromLA wants it to read: "The phrase 'separation of church and state' (sometimes 'wall of separation between church and state') describes a legal and political principle embedded in the Constitution of the United States."

North8000 wants the first sentence of the article to read: "The phrase 'separation of church and state' (sometimes 'wall of separation between church and state') describes a legal and political principle, elements of which are embedded in the Constitution of the United States."

Both object to (and tag for cite needed) the other's version.

The questions:

Is:Is either (or both) of these incorrect / unsourcable?

And, if both survive the first question, which should we use?

Argument by North8000

BT's version of the sentence essentially says that everything covered by the phrases "separation of church and state" and "wall of separation between church and state" is embedded in the US Constitution. My argument stated in Wikipedia-ese is that the statement is unsourced, and unsourcable AS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN. All of the sources discussed by BTromLA say things to the effect that one is a metaphor for the other, that they both have the same main principles, that they are similar etc. NONE make the structurally very different statement which is the sentence that BT wants, that everything covered by the phrase is embedded in the constitution. WP:ver says that the source must specifically support what it is used to cite. My version adds qualifier wording that reduces the reach of the sentence, which corrects its error, and makes it sourcable. I am arguing against BT's incorrect/unsourced statement, NOT necessarily FOR my particular method of correcting it. Total removal of the incorrect/unsourced statement or a different way of correcting it would also be fine with me.

The above states it in Wikipedia terms. As a sidebar, here is some analysis on why BT's version of the sentence AS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN is incorrect and thus not reliably sourcable. Those two phrases are very broad and include some things which ARE embedded in the US Constitution and some things which are NOT embedded in the US Constitution. Therefore, that statement is incorrect (overreaching) and thus not reliably sourcable. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Argument by BTfromLA

"Separation of church and state" describes a foundational principal of the US government. The phrase (or "wall of separation...") was used for that purpose by both Jefferson and Madison, and has been universally acknowledged by Supreme Court decisions, presidents, historians and journalists, especially so since the Supreme Court began applying the Establishment Clause to state laws in the 1940s. (Sources galore can be found in the article, starting with Jefferson's famous letter). While the interpretation and application of the religion clauses of the constitution are subject to dispute, I am not aware of any reputable source that denies that the "separation" metaphor is now and has historically been used to describe a constitutional principal, nor has North8000 offered one. ( I am aware of political activists who attempt to undermine the use of "separation...", presumably because they have ideological objections to the principal or the way it has been applied. ) The bit about the "very broad" meaning of the phrase and the "things" which are or are not embedded in the constitution is a completely unsubstantiated invention of North8000s, largely incoherent. -- BTfromLA (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal by North8000

BT makes several correct statements, but is incorrect in implying that they reflect on the SPECIFIC issue at hand, which is the SPECIFIC wording of the sentence that BT wants. Responding to BT's "rewrite" note, that was a part of the proposed plan (vs. a long series of rebuttals, or restatement in response to statements) to keep this short, and BT should feel free to do the same. North8000 (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal by BTfromLA

I rest my case. North8000s latest innovation — to unilaterally declare that we can completely rewrite earlier statements after the other has responded to them (and he has already exercised that prerogative, above) — virtually guarantees that the written dialogue will become distorted or totally incomprehensible to a reader. Sigh. -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

- - End of section - -

Comments & Discussion on the matter described in the previous section

Agree with BTFromLA

BTFromLA is correct and the first sentence should be returned to the form he uses. Clearly Jefferson, the Supreme Court et al used the "separation" and "wall" language to describe the concepts presented in the existing wording of the First Amendment. "Elements" just muddies the waters. The article is about the idea of "separation" and the first sentence as proposed by BTFromLA accurately describes what the idea means and how it was understood by the people promulgating it. Arguments that the idea itself was based on a misunderstanding are dealt with properly in their own section (which needs a lot of work to meet Wikipedia NPOV standards, by the way). Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase is used to describe what is in the constitution. My issue is not with that, it is with saying that the phrase is (fully) embedded in the constitution. Maybe you and BT have created the answer. Change "embedded in" to "used to describe", in which case the sentence would become sourcable without the qualifier in question. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"North8000, the sentence does not and never did say or imply that the phrase itself is embedded in the constitution. It says that the phrase describes a concept that is embedded in the constitution. -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

North8000's suggestion would create an awkward and confusing sentence including "describes....used to describe", and is therefore not acceptable. The original first sentence expressed the following: "Phrase X [originally used by person Y] describes the intentions and workings of Z." Since this is a report of an opinion (albeit of someone whose opinion is incredibly important to the interpretation of Z) adding the words "elements of" does not add any information to the sentence. John Updike's poem beginning "The cars in Caracas create a ruckukus" describes Caracas' highway noise. Saying it describes "elements" of highway noise in Caracas obscures the meaning, as Updike's phrase does not indicate that his intention was to describe only such elements. The concept suggested by the inclusion of the word "elements", that the cars in Caracas are sometimes silent, or that some highway noises are provided not by cars but by donkeys or children, is not properly part of a topic sentence describing Updike's assertion. In a Wikipedia entry on Updike's poem, it might be relevant to include a section stating contrary views, that the cars in Caracas do not make a ruckukus, or that there are other noises too. An equivalent section already exists in this article. Let me tinker with the wording of the first sentence a bit and see if I can propose something which would be acceptable to everyone. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Jonathanwallace, I am very happy that you are dissecting the sentence from a logical standpoint. However, the BT's version is different than your analogy. It says "Phrase A is B, and is embedded within C. And, stripping away the the uncontested "is B" statement, we have "Phrase A is embedded in C", which is the core of the issue. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Careful

I would ask that we stop the serial reversion of each other's versions while we work this through here. I will try later today to come up with a couple of alternatives you both will find acceptable. I hope you are aware of the 3 revert rule WP:3RR.Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The "elements of..." version had been standing for several days, I figured it was reasonable to allow the alternative to act as the default version for a while. But I will not get into a reverting war. By the way, thank you for jumping in here. --BTfromLA (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't happy with the change while the discussion is in progress, but not upset, and not upset enough to revert the change, if the tag stays in. BTW another editor took out both BT's tag and my tag. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Original Research?

Citations 2,3,5 and 6 seem problematic, not because of the argument they "support", but for the manner in which they are being used. They are being cited as direct sources, but the claim that is being made is not a direct quotation, but an interpretation about the cases. Is this not original research, or at the very least running afoul of attributing an argument to a source that does not directly make that argument (i.e. it relies on interpretation)? I think there are plenty of credible sources that could be referenced here without relying on what seems to be POV original interpretation of the cases. I would further argue that the interpretation being made is arguably not universally accepted and that one viewpoint (i.e. that these cherry-picked pieces of the rulings are the sum and substance of the cases view on separation of church and state)is being given undue weight, and being erroneously put forth as the universal legal take on the matter. I have no doubt there are reams of megabytes devoted to arguing each side of these interpretations.

Regardless, I do not think these citations should be used in the manner they are, because it requires interpretation not present in the sources to bridge the gap between the text shown and the argument made. I can cite text from Moby Dick, and Moby Dick is certainly a credible source, but if I make the claim that "Moby Dick represents God", I need to back up the claim, not just cite the basis for my interpretation.

I would recommend that sources that directly make the argument (that the courts have not always supported separation of church and state) be referenced, rather than relying on POV interpretation of cases themselves. With that done, I'd also recommend that the text be changed to something like "some (historians/lawyers/whoever is referenced) argue that the court has not always...etc." to give due weight to both opinions on the matter.Jbower47 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has replied to this point, so I would recommend removing arguments based on these citations, unless another source can be found. Personal interpretation of a source is not the same thing a a direct statement by a source. I would much rather we found more sources, but would advocate removal if no one responds or amends the section. Jbower47 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but it shouldn't be hard to find third party sources for these assertions. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, so I didn't want to delete it out of hand. I was hoping bringing this back up might spur some folks to action. I personally don't know enough about this facet of the debate to know where to start.Jbower47 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is also a structural question. Courts don't rule on "separation of church and state". They rule on particular cases, and on what is actually in the Constitution (which this phrase is NOT). For cases that people would generally classify under this topic, it is a "sky is blue" statement that the rulings go "both ways". And this is generally based on whether or not the court feels that particular type of separation in the particular case is one of the particular types of separation mandated by the constitution. And not only is it a "sky is blue" statement, but it is sourced. Anyone who starts deleting sourced "sky is blue" statements based on technicalities is bound to run into objections. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I started to write a response to this, but in looking at the article and references, it looks like there have been changes in the interim. I am comfortable with how those specific citations stand now.Jbower47 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about:

The phrase separation of church and state (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state"), attributed to Thomas Jefferson and others, and since quoted by the Supreme Court of the United States, expresses an understanding of the intent and function of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Let me know....Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I would clarify the last phrase to read Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but I like it. THF (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Great! Just waiting to hear from BTFromLA before making the change. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for mediating this, JonathanWallace. I like this version less than what it replaces, but it appears to resolve the dispute, so I'll accept it. I am dismayed, though, by the fact that a simple claim that separation of church and state describes a constitutional principle evidently needs to be finessed and watered down to pass muster. It leaves me very sad about the state of our country. Signing off, -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

BT, I think that you were/are talking big picture / general concepts, and my concern is precision of wording. And so I think that the big picture which you are talking remains in great shape and so I wouldn't be sad. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thought before I bow out: I disagree with inserting "establishment clause" in that first sentence. Even in the narrowest possible interpretation, the Free Exercise Clause is also part of it. To my mind, even "First Amendment" is too narrow, unless we are limiting the "separation..." concept to one quote by Jefferson. Doesn't Article VI constitute part of the separation idea? I've also seen the bit about "swear or affirm" in Article II used to describe church/state separation. Arguably, the conspicuous omission of references to God, the Bible, or Jesus in the constitution is also relevant. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the change in between your two messages. Let me think about this and see if I can come up with a suitable revision. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

From my standpoint, taking out "is embedded in" solved the problem. It's now replaced with three things "attributed to", quoted by" and "expresses an understanding of". As long as we keep that change in place, these other possible changes are not an issue to me. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good. In future, North, when you criticize, suggest an alternative at the same time, instead of abusing the 'fact' tag; see constructive criticism.--Elvey (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I did. Basically I put in a qualifier in the sentence. That was at the core of our recent long spirited debate on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit by IP User 136

IP User 136 added the following text to the Williams quote in the first paragraph: "God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness."

The purpose of the existing sentence was to say that Williams had used a similar phrase, borrowed or echoed by Jefferson. The material added appears to me to add nothing to the sense of the sentence ("Williams used a phrase. Jefferson also used it") but to confuse the issue as to what Williams actually meant by the phrase (not directly under discussion here). It would require an additional sentence or two of clarification more properly raised at the Roger_Williams_(theologian) article. Rather than reverting the edit, I am posting here to try to engage the IP user in a discussion. If I don't hear anything in a day or two, I will delete the material. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jonathanwallace. I agree with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Jefferson believed that the states held the right to "prescribe" a religion"

Article stated "Jefferson believed that the states held the right to "prescribe" a religion within their territory." - but that citation actually states the opposite. AV3000 (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Section headers

I don't believe there are too much sections, so I removed the tag. Most texts are quite long (A4-like), except the three 'Former state churches' bit, which is split. This, however, aids reading in my opinion. Jhschreurs (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence in lead is fraught with problems

The last sentence in the lead is fraught with problems. I tried fixing it but someone reverted me. I'll discuss the basic points, with the preface in wikipedian that each is unsourced and un-wp:sourcable.

1. This essentially says that the phrase/metaphor is interpreted by jurists. Jurists interpret laws and the constitution, they do not interpret metaphors.
2. This essentially says the statements of the one individual are representetative of the whole group. This is unsourced and not plausible. Further, the lead should be a summary of what's in the article, not the statement of one individual.
3. A very common assertion of a myth is against the myth that the metaphor itself is the wording in the constitution or a law. Judges/jurists of course know that this is not true. So, a statement that the asserters categorically disagree with jusirsts is false, unsourced and not wp:sourcable.
4. Slight variants for the same three problems exist for historians. Plus it also essentially says that all historians weigh in on the same side of this issue which is false, unsourced, and not wp:sourcable.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

North8000, the sentences fraught with problems are yours. "A very common assertion of a myth is against the myth that the metaphor itself is the wording in the constitution or a law." What the... ? -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that that one is convoluted but nevertheless it's there. What it's about is that the most common myth is that the metaphor itself is written into a law or the Constitution. And the most common claim of a myth is that particular myth. North8000 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what your are saying. Let me get it straight: are you saying that lots of people believe that the exact phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the constitution? -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That it is in the constitution or a law. I think that that last sentence can be unscrambled into two legit statements:

• That the religious folks are saying that complete separation of church and state and complete secularity of government was never intended. This is basically / somewhat what I had edited that last sentence into.
• That a common myth is that the phrase/metaphor itself is in the constitution or law. The current sentence more or less implies that this myth is true, by saying that the jurists have been interpreting the metaphor.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's take one thing at a time. I challenge you to check your premises. If it is a widespread belief that "separation..." literally appears, word for word, in the US Constitution, it should be a simple matter to come up with sources where a writer asserts that to be a fact. Can you find some? One? Speaking anecdotally, I have never encountered one person--in print, on tv or in the flesh--who claimed those words were in the constitution, and certainly no competent reader who looks at the document would come to that conclusion. So, please show me evidence for this widespread belief. If you can't, I suggest that you step back consider that it may be you who is promoting a false "myth." -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to look far. The myth is repeated in the discussed sentence, because it says that jurists interpret it and jurists only interpret laws and the constitution, not metaphors. And for a long time (until I got it taken out) that myth was explicitly repeated in the "Separation of Church and State" article. And I recall a few months ago when Michelle Backman said that the phrase/metaphor wasn't in the Constitution, the mainstream media made the mistake on a widespread basis by saying and implying that her accurate statement was in error. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jurists interpret legal concepts, and the "separation" phrase has a long history of describing a concept in the law, just as "freedom of assembly" or "right to a fair trial" or "separation of powers" do--none of those phrases appear in the constitution, either. You have failed to show one example of somebody asserting that the words "separation of church and state" are in the constitution. Please supply some evidence for your claim or withdraw it. -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We're going off in many directions at once here (not that they aren't all interesting). First to clarify (and avoid going off on a tangent), I'm not advocating putting my "the most common myth is....." statement into the article. I merely don't want the article to repeat / fall prey to the same myth. In the context of this conversation, "legal concepts" is a vague (unintentionally) weasel word. "Separation of Church and State" is a (as any brief five words would be) vague term and metaphor referring to the actual precise legal wording on this topic. (The constitution and laws). North8000 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not off in many directions--I asked you one very direct question, to show evidence of this belief you say is widespread. If you are now agreeing that there is no such widespread false belief, we can move forward to another point. Otherwise, please supply some evidence that your assertion is grounded in reality. Just about the words being in the constitution, please, at this point, nothing else. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not amenable to narrowing the conversation to one tangent or holding it up for one tangent, particularly one that I already addressed. But that aside, I'd be happy to provide examples because it is an interesting and oft-misunderstood topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply attempting to reason with you, not to hold things up. I await these examples you are happy to provide. -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'll be listing a few. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• In this one [1] the quote is "Coons said.......due to the Constitution's First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state."
• In this one [2] the quote is: "Jansing appeared shocked that the Delaware candidate pointed out the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution. She then read from the First Amendment, but failed to find the words. After playing a clip of O'Donnell from this morning's debate, Jansing sputtered, "I thought she had to be kidding." She then pulled out her "handy, dandy" pocket Constitution and quoted, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech.' "
• In this one [3] the quote is "A majority of people think the phrase "separation of church and state" is part of the constitution.
• In this one [4] the quote is "Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution."
• Correcting my one previous note, it was Christine O'Donnell *(not Michelle Bachman) where the media we all mistakenly implying she was mistaken when she said that the phrase is not in the Constitution.
• In this one [5] the quote is "Today, many Americans think that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." ......."A recent national poll showed that 69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says "Separation of Church and State." You may be surprised to learn that these words do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution!"

Well, there's the ones I found in the first few minutes. IMHO it's pretty common knowledge that many believe that that phrase is in the Constitution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict, this was written before your last link was added] Thanks, these make my point. First, please notice that NOT ONE of these offers an example of somebody claiming that the phrase is in the constitution. You do have examples, however, of people claiming that other people with whom they disagree believe this. I think this qualifies as a "straw man" argument -- mischaracterizing an opponents position in a way that makes it seem easy to defeat. This particular misrepresentation is a frequently repeated bit of rhetoric among politicians and political activists of a particular bent. It seems clearly false, doesn't it? I have yet to hear one person claim that they believe those words are in the constitution, let alone "a majority of people." Secondly, you (and Christine O'Donnell) seem to be confusing the claim that the constitution separates government from religion -- which it clearly does -- with the claim that the particular phrase "separation of church and state" appears there. Again, this makes no sense, except as a sort of crude rhetorical trick: nobody at all asserts the phrase is there, they are talking about an idea, not a phrase. There are, to be sure, real debates about how to apply the separation concept in particular cases, how absolute the separation is or isn't, and so on. But the idea that the concept isn't present at all -- that it is a myth -- has zero intellectual credibility, as far as I can see. I issue you a second challenge to your stated premises, if you're up for it: find a professional historian who supports the idea that "separation..." isn't a feature of the US constitution. I'm sure there must be one, but I've never come across him or her. (David Barton, I think you know, is not a trained historian.) -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

PS about that last link. Frankly, I suspect that 69% poll is a whopping lie, if by "says," we are supposed to understand that to mean "includes the exact phrase" (and that seems to be what the author of that page wants to suggest). There is no information anywhere on the page about the poll, who did it, when, what question was asked, etc. Since we have yet to identify ONE person who publicly claims those words are in the constitution, it isn't credible to imagine that nearly two-thirds of the population are secretly carrying around this mistaken belief. Alas, some of the links you've provided are plugged into an area of american political rhetoric in which distortion and outright lying is, sadly, commonplace. I strongly urge you to seek out more reliable sources if you seriously want to get to the bottom of this. PPS: I'll be signing off now for the rest of the evening--employment calls. -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I gave you a lot of evidence that people actually believe that, and you are saying that it proves the opposite. So I think we hit a dead end there. Fortunately the dead end is only on a sidebar/tangent. Your following question is vague and still not germane to the content problems noted. But splitting apart the distinctions that you blurred with the question, As a brief, inaccurate, common way often used to refer to what IS in the constitution, the scholars will say that the phrase is not in the constitution, that it is not an accurate paraphrasing of what is in the constitution, and that it is commonly used to refer to things that are actually in / are features of the constitution North8000 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to track down the source of the "69% of Americans believe that the First Amendment says 'Separation of Church and State'" reference. The best candidate I could find was this poll, which is apparently conducted annually by a group called the First Amendment Center: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sofa-2011-report.pdf As you'll see, 67% agreed that "the First Amendment requires a clear separation of church and state." This, after they had been quoted the first amendment in full. Clearly, they are not saying that the phrase appears in the amendment. They are referring to a principal, not a phrase. Obviously, I don't know for sure that this particular poll (or any real poll) was what that source referred to. But exactly that sort of distortion of facts to create a misleading impression for political ends is rampant in the "myth of separation" camp, and I can't understand how any fair-minded person would fail to condemn it.. -- BTfromLA (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where we're going here. It's interesting to discuss, but it's all off the the track of the 4 enumerated problems with that sentence. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Another debate..."

I have cut the following sentence from the lede, recently added by North8000: "Another debate is between those who say that the phrase states what is in the constitution vs. being only a metaphor for what is in the constitution." We already have a paragraph there stating that the interpretation of "separation..." is subject to debate, and no source is provided for this addition. North8000, I'm not trying to be contrary, but I don't see any evidence that "those who say that the phrase states what is in the constitution vs. being only a metaphor for what is in the constitution" is a public debate at all, let alone noteworthy enough to be worthy of the lede. Does anyone think "wall of separation" is not a metaphor? That would mean they maintain there is actually a physical wall someplace, wouldn't it? -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The debate is not what you stated, it is what is in that sentence. Expanding on those two sides, they are:

• Side #1. It is ONLY a metaphor, it is NOT a precise summary of what is in the constitution.
• Side #2 It is MORE than a metaphor, it IS a precise summary of what is in the constitution. (or, some believing that it actually IS in the constitution) This leads to the argument that the Constitution mandates complete separation in all respects rather than what is actually specified in the constitution, and is the basis of various cases/controversies covered in the article.

This, and things leading from it is certainly a common debate if not the most common debate. The current sentence (without such an addition) is problematic. Certianly not a summary from the article, and only covers one specialized case. This is a highly problematic sentence for the lead, and you have been reverting attempts to fix it. North8000 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are objecting to the part about David Barton, which seems to put an over-emphasis on the Christian Nartionalist position. Is that right? If so, how about we cut Barton and the sentence you dislike entirely from the lede, and change it to read:

... 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."

However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.

End of lede. Seem like an improvement? -- BTfromLA (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is excellent. Also that removed specific case material would be fine for the body of the article, but should not be stated as if it were summary of the controversies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Progress! -- BTfromLA (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That letter by Jefferson

Is obviously very important, but must it be mentioned twice in the lead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

References

While you are taking the time to edit this controversial, yet important article, please note that two notes, 'Note 6' and 'Note 7' are identical and one needs to be deleted, whilst the citation numbers listed in the article for 'Note 6' and 'Note 7' need to be fixed to match the deletion of one of these notes.

^Note 6: Religious tolerance for Catholics with an established Church of England was policy in the former Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida while under British rule.

^Note 7: Religious tolerance for Catholics with an established Church of England was policy in the former Spanish Colonies of East and West Florida while under British rule.

Sponsion (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed it. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Lemon v. Kurtzman and the Lemon Test

I think information on the supreme court case Lemon v. Kurtzman and the resultant Lemon Test are important and relevant and should be added to this article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State...

Salutations;

In the Matter of Separation of Church and State...

I would like to know HOW the word *Respect* has changed to *Separation*...

The words are completely Different in their Defined actions and also have Different Definitions in their Defined Usage...

It is my Opinion that the people who View Respect as Separation are completely Ignorant of their Definitions and Usage...

Therefor the Debate and Argument of those wanting to Separate Church Morals, from the Government are Completely Wrong in their thinking and their actions... It is also my Opinion that these person have a goal to LOWER the Moral and Ethical Behavioral Standards Necessary in Humanity to create Peace on Earth.. Their Goal is Anarchy and No Law... With No Law,, Murder would have No Responsibility or Consequence... We would have No Need for Courts and Punishment for Bad Behavior... Ponder a world without Law... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.53.90 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

intent of the first amendment

your description of the meaning of the first amendment is inaccurate, how do I correct it without my work being rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymessinajr (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State Explained

I believe you are challenging the use of the word "Separation" as part of the name of the legal concept where the U.S. Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law in respecting an establishment of religion..." "Separation of Church and State" is the preferred label/name/title of the legal standard, which is derived from "...function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause...".

You are correct in that the word "Separation" isn't used in the U.S. Constitution. The idea of separation though is consistently included in many of the historical references leading up to the 1st Amendment (the basis for the language of the amendment). Your challenge suggests that without Church in State there would be a "Separation of [Church] Morals" thus leading to wrong thinking and wrong actions. "Separation" in most if not all instances leading up to the First Amendment were intended to "separate" the State's ability to govern religions while equally protecting the individual citizen from being governed by religion through the state. If you accept the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment, then any American citizen could assume that this ensures that Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists, etc all have their specific flavor of morals. Not separating a "Sufi's" morals from The State might be in some instances reprehensible to a Hindu's morals. If the student of the U.S. Constitution accepts religious freedom for all, this would then logically extend that each citizen and religious group should be free of laws requiring the acceptance of any private practice of any religion.

Zerostatetechnologies (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not I fully understand what you mean. Most debates here have not been about principles, they have been about things that purport to characterize or describe what is actually in the constitution. And a key item at the core of that that is that the word "separation" is a word that reaches much farther than what is in the constitution. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

New York date of disestablishment?

Not listed in table. --JWB (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Who started the separation of the church and state?

The First Amendment in the US constitution built a wall between church and state, however surely there was an earlier movement to separate religion from the state wasn't there? Anyone out there know more on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.220.8.142 (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Evangelicals views on separation of Church and State as a general principle.

The discusses the fact that the majority of modern evangelicals oppose a separation on the the argument that it is not true requirement of the 1st amendment nor was a such a separation intended by the framers. But, many of the same evangelicals would argue against a separation on principle regardless of whether they believed the constitution required one. Thus, we should present their arguments against the concept of separation of Church and State, regardless of the constitutional question. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)