NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to redress this issue to you all - don't worry, I'm all for separation of Church and State, however I'm not gonna freak out if there's just a minor infringement (IE how the word God appears in some state Constitutions):

When the Constitution was drafted, this part of the 1st Amendment was passed NOT because the Founding Fathers were religiously tolerant people (I've remember a rather anti-Christian quote from Jefferson once). It was passed out of fear of religious tyranny; when the Founders were alive, they remembered that the most despotic rulers included ones which controlled both their government and the religious institution.

Just a rant I've been wanting to go on for a while (let's not turn this into an 'OMG Bush wants to turn teh US into JesusLand!!1!1!1!1' debate please_

Ahhh I smell a storm! ;)

Seperation is a good thing.

Tradition and display are two things that should be acknowledged.

Now that I have you going "What?"

Tradition as in a city seal that is say over 100 years old and would have a cross on it. As long as it's not a focus an arguement for saying these Religous principles will guide the law and guide how we govern then there shouldn't be a problem.

Display. Using God is ok depending on the focal point. The Jefferson Memorial has it but your attention is the statue and the room.

The statues in the SCOTUS building are ok as Moses is there with the tablets but so are other ones like Napoleon whose laws were a part of this land.

Now the ones you should get are the absolutists as in the Consititution does not say Seperation of Church and State so it does not exist.

Then again you have Scalia who has said no Founding Father ever used the phrase Seperation of Chruch and State! :eek:

Now who says American education is bad! :D

Tradition and display are two things that should be acknowledged.

Now that I have you going "What?"

Actually I completely agree with you - it's just that I've met a number of feverent leftists who don't even want simple displays

The founders knew the perils of faith-based government, most americans still do today. We should hope that they can stop the maniac and fanatic christians.

I believe that the adage of "In God We Trust" should be removed from US currency, as it was added recently in a wave of government propaganda in response to World War II. I also think that you should have the right to believe in any religion, or lackthereof, you wish.

I do not mind the President having a religion under Christianity or even outside of it. I find it a shame that to be considered for President you HAVE to be Christian of some kind or other. I DO mind a courthouse taking a religious stance that would effect their judiciary decisions, however.

I DO mind having to Swear to God before getting my birth certificate in the US, or to take the stand in a court of law there. I DO mind the Pledge of Allegience on more than one level.

While I do not believe that the US will turn into Jesusland, I think that people are becoming lax in the Seperation of CHurch and State, and that the United States are in danger of backsliding on ivil rights because of Christian activists. I do not bame this directly on the President, but on Christianity on a whole in that country.

Me being what I like to call a human being without any religious beliefs, reading god on money or seeing the 10 commandments in front of courthouses doesn't bother me, however this quote by President Bush(not the sequal, the original) is quite disturbing to me: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

In my opinion, no politician is fit for office if they have any religious bias. You can't represent such a diverse country under one set of ideals and so called "morality".

I believe that the adage of "In God We Trust" should be removed from US currency, as it was added recently in a wave of government propaganda in response to World War II. I also think that you should have the right to believe in any religion, or lackthereof, you wish.


Well it was before that. Teddy started it on its "offical" use. He was totally against it as he thought it was an afront to God. But it was a political land mine so it let it go.

For me I say pull it off the money as well. Seems like an idol worship to me. ;)

I am familiar with that quote. It frightened me then and it frightens me now. Some ofthe most patriotic Americans I have ever met were atheists, or at least not Christians.

The founders knew the perils of faith-based government, most americans still do today. We should hope that they can stop the maniac and fanatic christians.

We do not now, and have never had a faith-based government. What we have had is a government that is based on Christian-Jewish principles of law and morality.

Religion should be taken off currency, taken out of the pledge of allegiance (shouldn't even have to say the pledge, anyway), taken out of Courts, and all things to do with government.

That's just my ten cents (without "in god we trust" engraved in the coin).

[QUOTE=KejottIn my opinion, no politician is fit for office if they have any religious bias. You can't represent such a diverse country under one set of ideals and so called "morality".[/QUOTE]

Except for the President, no politician represents the "country." At the federal level, each Congressman represents his/her district while Senators represent the State. Every district and every State is distinct. Therefore, some politicians will represent the "religious bias" of their district or State no matter what that bias may be.

We do not now, and have never had a faith-based government. What we have had is a government that is based on Christian-Jewish principles of law and morality.

You mean after the Constitution right?

;)

The Constitution mentions God.

The Founding Fathers believed in the Judeo-Christian God.

Ergo, the Constitution espouses a belief in the Judeo-Christian God.

So, if you want to mention of God, move to China. I hear they're very strict about their seperation of state and religion.

The Constitution mentions God.



The US constitution... ???

You're a liar or you are incompetent to discuss the subject.

This would never happen in Australia, if a politician mentioned God often, especially on TV people would shun him. Australians tend to find talking about religion in poor taste. Morals and ethics are encouraged, but religion is something you do with your friends and family in the private sphere.

The Australian mind-set has always been wary of religion, not just in government. Perhaps it is because the collective mind started with a bunch of convicts who often had religion passed down their throats like they were storing boxes in a celler, or perhaps it is the harm done by well meaning early Christians. Either way, religion is a taboo subject for Australia's public, not just in politics.

Personally I doubt that America will become a fundamentalist Christian state, with the Bible its only law, but hey, its not like I have a magical crystal ball.

We do not now, and have never had a faith-based government. What we have had is a government that is based on Christian-Jewish principles of law and morality.


We have indeed not had a faith-based government yet, but the forces of religiosity are pushing our country in that direction.

The Constitution mentions God.

The Founding Fathers believed in the Judeo-Christian God.

Ergo, the Constitution espouses a belief in the Judeo-Christian God.

So, if you want to mention of God, move to China. I hear they're very strict about their seperation of state and religion.

Most of the FOunding Fathers were Diests, and most certainly DID NOT espouse the Judeo-Christian God. The Declaration of Independance mentions an ambiguous "Creator", with no specific religious attachment. Learn your civics before attempting to discuss them.

Mah bad, yo.

Declaration of Independance. Well, that and the fact that the United States Government endorses the Judeo-Christian God at every Presidential Inauguration, etc.

Seriously; New Granada. Take a chill pill. Step back, admit you're not smarter than the rest of the world, then feel free to come back into the circle.

We have indeed not had a faith-based government yet, but the forces of religiosity are pushing our country in that direction.

Got that right. You should see the bullshit my school books try to shove down my throat (I go to a christian correspondence school, even though I begged my dad not to).

Declaration of Independance. Well, that and the fact that the United States Government endorses the Judeo-Christian God at every Presidential Inauguration, etc.

Yeah, and that's a total contradiction of the separation of church and state. It's bullshit, and it needs to be done away with. Now.

Seriously; New Granada. Take a chill pill. Step back, admit you're not smarter than the rest of the world, then feel free to come back into the circle.

What? You're the one who butted in like you knew everything.

Jee, Riptide. In a nation of Christians, "founded" by Christian pilgrims, it's hard to believe they'd be talking about Zeus.

Nice try, though. Deism is an interesting "religion" but their intent was clear.

Yes, potaria! Down with the United States government!

We should start a letter-writing campaign!

The Government doesn't endorse it, per se, but George Washington improvised that part of the Inaugurationa; Address and it has since become ingrained. But just because you have a little wet dream of the US prescribing to One Nation Under God does not make it so, ma petite intelligence.

Yes, potaria! Down with the United States government!

We should start a letter-writing campaign!

Couldn't come up with a good counter-argument, could we?

Attend a session of congress. What do they do, oh, somewhere near the beginning...

...PRAYER?! AT A GOVERNMENT FUNCTION?!

SOMEBODY CALL THE ACLU! They should've sued Franklin back in the '80s for even bringing that up.

Dude, the United States is not a theocracy. It is not, nor ever was, a nation of Christians. And Potaria never said anything of taking down the United States government. Are you blind? Ca you read? She said that putting God in the Inauguration should be done away with. That is NOT tantamount to deposing the government.

Declaration of Independance. Well, that and the fact that the United States Government endorses the Judeo-Christian God at every Presidential Inauguration, etc.



The Government does quite a few things that it perhaps ought not to on constitutional grounds.

Where is the judeo-christian god referred to in the bible as "nature's god" and where are judeo-christian religious laws referred to in the bible as "nature's laws."

quote- you "[...]The Constitution mentions God.(sic)

The Founding Fathers believed in the Judeo-Christian God.(sic)

Ergo, the Constitution espouses a belief in the Judeo-Christian God.
[...]"

The founding fathers had a rather nasty deist streak. "nature's god" and the "laws of nature" are pieces of explicitly deist language.

Is it that you are a liar or that you dont know what you're talking about? Someone ought to report you for trolling.

Is it that you are a liar or that you dont know what you're talking about? Someone ought to report you for trolling.

He seems to be both a liar and a dork who doesn't know what he's talking about.

And yeah, he should be reported for trolling.

We do not now, and have never had a faith-based government. What we have had is a government that is based on Christian-Jewish principles of law and morality.


Really? Cause most Christian run countries haven't been free. . . .

Not to mention the Consitution makes no reference to Christianity or to a god of any form.

Leave him alone, guys. He's fun to edify.

Mah bad, yo.

Declaration of Independance. Well, that and the fact that the United States Government endorses the Judeo-Christian God at every Presidential Inauguration, etc.

Seriously; New Granada. Take a chill pill. Step back, admit you're not smarter than the rest of the world, then feel free to come back into the circle.


Actually no. The President can opt for a prayer, but it is ertainly not required. The oath of office just says he will preserve, protect, and defend the Consitution of the US. It requires no religious symbols or swearing by god.

Someone ought to report you (and your secular cohorts) for pseudo-harassment, and an over-the-top elitist streak.

S'riously, people; Washington and the Bible, Congress and prayer, "In God We Trust" - do you actually study history, or have you been too busy pretending to?

His pretentious and condescending attitude toward all who disagree with him are also highly amusing to behold.

Actually no. The President can opt for a prayer, but it is ertainly not required. The oath of office just says he will preserve, protect, and defend the Consitution of the US. It requires no religious symbols or swearing by god.

Exactly, but Courts require you to swear on a Bible, and if I remember correctly, Courts are a part of Government. It's bullshit!

Leave him alone, guys. He's fun to edify.

Thank you. :fluffle:

Now you're insulting me. Way to go, guys! Resorting to teasing this quickly; takes one back to kindergarten.

I'll go grab some macaroni and glue. You guys get the construction paper.

His pretentious and condescending attitude toward all who disagree with him are also highly amusing to behold.

You're laughable... Really; but it's hard to hear you on that high horse. Mind stepping down?

Someone ought to report you (and your secular cohorts) for pseudo-harassment, and an over-the-top elitist streak.

S'riously, people; Washington and the Bible, Congress and prayer, "In God We Trust" - do you actually study history, or have you been too busy pretending to?

We are not "eletists". We are learned people who have actually had a lesson or two in civics in our day, as well as the political history of the United States of America. You spout off lies in your attempt to turn the US Government into a theocracy, and then feel like any affront to Christianity in the Government is an affront to the Government itself.

You take a chill pill, read a history book, and come back when you're a little more ready to accept that your wet dream has no basis in reality.

Exactly, but Courts require you to swear on a Bible, and if I remember correctly, Courts are a part of Government. It's bullshit!

I know here (Australia) you can swear on your own personal honour if you don't want to swear on the Bible, or any other book.

Someone ought to report you (and your secular cohorts) for pseudo-harassment, and an over-the-top elitist streak.

S'riously, people; Washington and the Bible, Congress and prayer, "In God We Trust" - do you actually study history, or have you been too busy pretending to?


More flamebait from the trolling flamebaiter?

Exactly, but Courts require you to swear on a Bible, and if I remember correctly, Courts are a part of Government. It's bullshit!

Actually, I don't think you have to swear on a Bible or say "so help me God" but I could be wrong about that.

And I am wrong for saying you are condescending and pretentious? Fuck off already. Go ignore people on another thread, why don't you?

I know here (Australia) you can swear on your own personal honour if you don't want to swear on the Bible, or any other book.

Australia is sounding more and more pleasant every day. I'm serious!

Most of the FOunding Fathers were Diests, and most certainly DID NOT espouse the Judeo-Christian God. The Declaration of Independance mentions an ambiguous "Creator", with no specific religious attachment. Learn your civics before attempting to discuss them.

That is revisionist. Thomas Jefferson was the only deist involved in the creation of the founding documents.

John Adams.
George Washington - instituted swearing on the Bible at his inauguration
First Chief Justice John Jay

All of them were very clear on what they believed. In fact, the only reason they didn't scream "We want this nation to always run on Christian principles" was because they never believed a group of people could be misguided enough to try to oppress religion.

What we have today is not religion trying to oppress the nonreligious, but the nonreligious trying to erase religion. And they seem to have a louder, whinier voice. Sensible people around the country need to stand up and fix that.

Equality does not equal complacency.

Yeah, and that's a total contradiction of the separation of church and state.

Please tell me where the term "seperation of church and state" comes from.

We are learned people

Implying that I am not.

who have actually had a lesson or two in civics in our day

Implying that I have not.

as well as the political history of the United States of America

Implying that I have not.

You spout off lies

Which I have not.

in your attempt to turn the US Government into a theocracy

Which I would not; politicians are corrupt, I wouldn't want them to taint the Church.

and then feel like any affront to Christianity in the Government is an affront to the Government itself.

Which I do not; I take an affront to Christianity by conceited unbelievers to be an affront to things which Christianity has inspired.

You take a chill pill, read a history book, and come back when you're a little more ready to accept that your wet dream has no basis in reality.

I've got plenty of history books; read most of them, too. Also have a Bible.

Now, really... Get off your high horse. I think it's so strange - that secular atheists can at the one hand claim to be such tolerant people, but at the first hint of an opposite viewpoint they get so offensive. Would you like a side if irony with that hypocrisy?

More flamebait from the trolling flamebaiter?

You're a real piece of work, aren't you? "This man disagrees with moi? How dare he! The flaming trolling flamebait troll!"

All of them were very clear on what they believed. In fact, the only reason they didn't scream "We want this nation to always run on Christian principles" was because they never believed a group of people could be misguided enough to try to oppress religion.

Treaty of Tripoli. Go read it.

And how are non-religious people trying to erase religion? Just by saying that "Hey its our government too and we don't think you should use it as a platform for evangelism!!"? If your religious beliefs can't stand up to that, maybe its time to rethink them.

Excuse me? You were the one who took the offensive. We just responded in kind.

Australia is sounding more and more pleasant every day. I'm serious!

Aww, shucks! :D Come visit us then, your American money is worth more than ours! :)

Which I have not.







Twice a liar!

First you lie about god being mentioned in the constitution, then lie that judeo christian religious morals are enshrined in the constitution.

Now you lie outright about your patent dishonesty~!

You are a bona fide false witness.

WHere have I been hypocritical? I have never claimed to be tolerant of Christianity in the Government. In fact, I have claimed the opposite.

And all of your "implications" are subjective. They would not hold up in a Court of Law.

I merely made observations based on the things I have learned and the things I have observed. Anyway, I have to go now. You go play with the other children and take care.

Really? Cause most Christian run countries haven't been free. . . .[/QUOTE]

Oh? :eek:

Not to mention the Consitution makes no reference to Christianity or to a god of any form.

You are right. I never said it did. I said the country was founded on Christian-Jewis pinciples of law and morality.

Really? Cause most Christian run countries haven't been free. . . .[/QUOTE]

Oh? :eek:

Not to mention the Consitution makes no reference to Christianity or to a god of any form.

You are right. I never said it did. I said the country was founded on Christian-Jewish pinciples of law and morality.

New Granada, go take a look at my contraction; and then suffice it to say you can stop beating the horse. It's dead.

Riptide, I doubt you've been inside a court of law when the proceedings begin. You'd flip out, and probably leave in a huff. That whole prayer thing.

For tolerant secular atheists, you sure hate anyone who takes the opposite side. Gimme' a break. You trip over yourselves to get at me like so many stoned teenagers in line at a Pauley Shore movie.

You are right. I never said it did. I said the country was founded on Christian-Jewis pinciples of law and morality.

Except that it wasn't. How do I know this? Because the Consitution is what founded the country . . . .

Again I say to you, as further proof, go look up the Treaty of Tripoli and read it.

Aww, shucks! :D Come visit us then, your American money is worth more than ours! :)

Oh, I plan on visiting Australia... After I finish College, which will be quite a ways away.

A bit off-topic; but in Australia is the Anglican church considered an "established religion" much like evangelical Lutheran churches in N Europe, etc, where they can collect taxes? I remember visiting and seeing quite a few Anglican houses of worship.

New Granada, go take a look at my contraction; and then suffice it to say you can stop beating the horse. It's dead.

Riptide, I doubt you've been inside a court of law when the proceedings begin. You'd flip out, and probably leave in a huff. That whole prayer thing.

For tolerant secular atheists, you sure hate anyone who takes the opposite side. Gimme' a break. You trip over yourselves to get at me like so many stoned teenagers in line at a Pauley Shore movie.


More flaming/flamebaiting. And do I detect a hint of the desire to anger others with your posts? there is a word for that....

the maniac and fanatic christians
You're a liar
you are incompetent
the forces of religiosity
flamebait from the trolling flamebaiter
More flaming/flamebaiting.
Twice a liar!
First you lie
then lie
Now you lie
You are a bona fide false witness

What's that sound? Must be the wind escaping from your deflated ego. (Flamebait)

The point of the Establishment and Free-Exercise clauses was not to prevent faith-based government. It was to prevent government-based faith. Look at how they are worded and remember where the colonists were comming from. Anyone ever hear of the Church of England. (I use a perioid because it is a rehtorical question)

However, it is important to remember that faith based government leads to government based faith and vica versa. The prohibition of one is necessarilary the prohibition of the other.

That is revisionist. Thomas Jefferson was the only deist involved in the creation of the founding documents.

John Adams.
George Washington - instituted swearing on the Bible at his inauguration
First Chief Justice John Jay

All of them were very clear on what they believed. In fact, the only reason they didn't scream "We want this nation to always run on Christian principles" was because they never believed a group of people could be misguided enough to try to oppress religion.

What we have today is not religion trying to oppress the nonreligious, but the nonreligious trying to erase religion. And they seem to have a louder, whinier voice. Sensible people around the country need to stand up and fix that.

Equality does not equal complacency.


AMEN!

Except that it wasn't. How do I know this? Because the Consitution is what founded the country . . . .

Again I say to you, as further proof, go look up the Treaty of Tripoli and read it.

Take some History courses. The Constitution is not "what founded" our country. You have to go back a lot further than the Revolution to discover the principles behind the founding of America.

Take some History courses. The Constitution is not "what founded" our country. You have to go back a lot further than the Revolution to discover the principles behind the founding of America.

No, I just have to look at the document that is the foundation of our system of government, and therefore of our country.

But again, I reiterate, go read the Treaty of Tripoli. I'll even provide a link:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm


Read article 11.

No, I just have to look at the document that is the foundation of our system of government, and therefore of our country.

But again, I reiterate, go read the Treaty of Tripoli. I'll even provide a link:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm


Read article 11.

This treaty was made in 1796, several years after the Revolution and long after the Declaration of Independance. This treaty has nothing at all to do with the principles this nation were founded on.

yeah the more speration the better. remember, most of the founding fathers, were in fact free masons (32nd and 33rd degree mostly)

From The Avalon Project (at Yale):

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
-----------

This is not a matter of internal policy, but rather it was just informing the Algerian (Barbary) pirates that the Marine interdiction (On the shores of Tripoli, remember that song?) was not the beginning of a Christian Crusade against Islam. (Ironic that we always have to qualify military action against Africans and Mideastern nations by saying it's not a Crusade).

This is only a foreign policy document. I don't see how the Treaty of Tripoli apples to arguments about the founding documents.

This is only a foreign policy document. I don't see how the Treaty of Tripoli apples to arguments about the founding documents.

You are right. It does not apply to the founding documents or the principles they were established under.

Take some History courses. The Constitution is not "what founded" our country. You have to go back a lot further than the Revolution to discover the principles behind the founding of America.

This treaty was made in 1796, several years after the Revolution and long after the Declaration of Independance. This treaty has nothing at all to do with the principles this nation were founded on.

Where does one find "the principles this nation were found on" if not in the Constitution and contemporaneous documents? Are you referring to the Pilgrims?

If so, fine. I think that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the founding of our government. The founding of our system of government.

The Treaty of Tripoli is a crystal clear statement made by US Government while it was being run by the Founders.

Got any official document of the US government from the founding period that is close to supporting your position?

This treaty was made in 1796, several years after the Revolution and long after the Declaration of Independance. This treaty has nothing at all to do with the principles this nation were founded on.

This nation was founded by the Consitution. That treaty is the law of the law. It states the position of this country on its founding. It was ratified by the Senate during Washington's term and was signed into law by John Adams. I don't think it gets much more blatant into what the FOUNDERS intended when the FOUNDED the country by the writing and SIGNING of the Constitution.

You do realize that when the revoluationary war was over, the US wasn't a country right? We were thirteen separate countries that decided to work together as a Conderation (see the Articles of Confederation). This didn't work so the Constitution was written which FOUNDED the United States of America and one unified nation--not as a Confederacy.

it is never stated (printed) that there is a separation of church and state. the concept was only mentioned in a letter to a pastor by the President. it was never legally adpoted nor added to the constitution, bill of right or any national documents.

in other words... to revoke the Separation of Church and State, all any President has to do is write another letter.... pure and simple.

Me being what I like to call a human being without any religious beliefs, reading god on money or seeing the 10 commandments in front of courthouses doesn't bother me, however this quote by President Bush(not the sequal, the original) is quite disturbing to me: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

In my opinion, no politician is fit for office if they have any religious bias. You can't represent such a diverse country under one set of ideals and so called "morality".


I am no fan of the Bush family, but I seriously doubt the authenticity of this statement attributed to George Bush the Elder.

Although it is bandied about the internet, the sole source seems to be this one guy (http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2004/0204.htm) who appears less than credible. Although he claims reporters were there (http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm) when the statement was made (in 1987 when Bush was VP and had just announced his candidacy for President), no journalist appears to have reported it. The guy claimed in February 2004 he had located documents proving the claim and was in the process of getting them, but he still has not posted any proof.

it is never stated (printed) that there is a separation of church and state. the concept was only mentioned in a letter to a pastor by the President. it was never legally adpoted nor added to the constitution, bill of right or any national documents.

in other words... to revoke the Separation of Church and State, all any President has to do is write another letter.... pure and simple.

There is a bit more to it than that.

The phrase "separation of Church and State" is shorthand for the concepts behind the First Amendment, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An uninterrupted history of over a 100 years of U.S. Supreme Court cases supports the wall of separation of Church and State. (Although the drawing of the wall itself has been disputed and twisting.)

In Renyolds v. U.S. (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 U.S. 145 (1878), Chief Justice Waite wrote for the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (emphasis added):

Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and 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 and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

In Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ), 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947), Justice Black wrote for the majority:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Although Justice Black was writing for the majority, the Court was -- in fact -- unanimous on this point. The majority held the particular law in question in the case did not violate the separation of Church and State. The minority took a stricter view of separation.

The wall of separation of Church and State is a concept well grounded in the language of the Constitution, in the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, and in constitutional law. It is far from a recent invention of liberals (not that you said it was, but to the extent others believe it to be so).