Editing Separation of church and state (section)

====Use of the phrase====
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President [[Thomas Jefferson]] in 1802 to [[Danbury Baptists|Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut]], and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]], Jefferson writes:

{{Blockquote|Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.<ref name=Jefferson11 />}}

Another early user of the term was [[James Madison]], the principal drafter of the [[United States Bill of Rights]]. In a 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of the First Amendment, the following was said:

{{Blockquote|August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts. … He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether. … Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law." … Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law." … [T]he State[s] … seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution. … it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might … establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended. … Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. … He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.<ref>''Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States'' (Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834, Vol. I pp. 757–759, August 15, 1789</ref>}}

Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html |title=James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments |publisher=Press-pubs.uchicago.edu |access-date=2012-04-27 |archive-date=2012-04-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419061114/http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state".<ref>(March 2, 1819 letter to [[Robert Walsh (diplomat)|Robert Walsh]]), {{cite book|last=Lambert|first=Frank|title=The founding fathers and the place of religion in America|publisher=Princeton University Press|year=2003|page=[https://archive.org/details/foundin_lam_2003_00_2547/page/288 288]|isbn=978-0691088297|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1qse4fZ6eQgC|access-date=2016-11-09|archive-date=2017-01-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102211121/https://books.google.com/books?id=1qse4fZ6eQgC|url-status=live}}</ref> "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm|title=Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations – Ecclesiastical Endowments|first=James|last=Madison|publisher=constitution.org|access-date=2008-06-16|archive-date=2008-10-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081010151047/http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."<ref>(1811 letter to Baptist Churches)</ref> In a letter to [[Edward Livingston]] Madison further expanded:

<blockquote>We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.reachandteach.com/content/article.php?story=20030829111914471 |title=Madison's letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822 |publisher=Reachandteach.com |date=2003-08-28 |access-date=2012-04-27 |archive-date=2012-04-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120403082712/http://www.reachandteach.com/content/article.php?story=20030829111914471 |url-status=live }}</ref></blockquote>

[[File:Thomas Jefferson's Grave Site.jpg|thumb|right|[[Thomas Jefferson]]'s tombstone. The inscription, as he stipulated, reads, "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of ... the [[Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom|Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom]] ...."]]
This attitude is further reflected in the [[Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom]], originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination:

{{Blockquote|… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.<ref>J. F. Maclear, ''Church and state in the modern age: a documentary history'' (1995) p. 65</ref>}}

Under the [[United States Constitution]], the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the [[establishment clause]] and the [[free exercise clause]]. Both are discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.

The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President [[John Tyler]] on July 10, 1843.<ref>Tyler wrote, "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent – that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgment of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions . … The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid . … and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have cried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.") quoted in Nicole Guétin, ''Religious ideology in American politics: a history'' (2009) p. 85</ref> During the 1960 presidential campaign the potential influence of the Catholic Church on John F. Kennedy's presidency was raised. If elected, it would be the first time that a Catholic would occupy the highest office in the United States. [[John F. Kennedy]], in his [[s:Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association|Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association]] on 12 September 1960, addressed the question directly, saying:

{{Blockquote|I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote – where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference – and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. […] I do not speak for my church on public matters – and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President – on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject – I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.}}

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, though not always fully embracing the principle, saying "the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state".<ref>* See [http://supreme.justia.com/us/465/668/case.html ''Lynch v. Donnelly'', 465 U.S. 668, 673] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111025052330/http://supreme.justia.com/us/465/668/case.html |date=October 25, 2011 }} (1984): "The concept of a 'wall' of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. . . . [b]ut the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state."
* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/756/case.html ''Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist'', 413 U.S. 756, 760] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111025052900/http://supreme.justia.com/us/413/756/case.html |date=October 25, 2011 }} (1973):

<blockquote>Yet, despite Madison's admonition and the 'sweep of the absolute prohibitions' of the Clauses, this Nation's history has not been one of entirely sanitized separation between Church and State. It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation.</blockquote>
* Patrick M. Garry, [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1139183 ''The Myth of Separation: America's Historical Experience with Church and State'', 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 475, 486] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303203040/https://ssrn.com/abstract=1139183 |date=March 3, 2016 }} (2004) (noting that "the strict separationist view was wholly rejected by every justice on the Marshall and Taney courts.")
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=306 ''Zorach v. Clauson'', 343 U.S. 306, 312] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130619025257/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=306 |date=June 19, 2013 }} (U.S. 1952): "The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.".
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=602 ''Lemon v. Kurtzman'', 403 U.S. 602] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140401193740/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=602 |date=April 1, 2014 }} (1971): "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense."</ref> In ''[[Reynolds v. United States|Reynolds]]'', the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed [[polygamy]] was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in ''[[Everson v. Board of Education|Everson]]''. In a minority opinion in ''[[Wallace v. Jaffree]]'', Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference. Rehnquist made numerous citations of cases that rebutted the idea of a total wall of separation between Church and State. A result of such reasoning was Supreme Court support for government payments to faith-based community projects. [[Justice Scalia]] has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.<ref>[[Lee v. Weisman]], {{ussc|505|577|1992}}</ref>