Actually, its not clear. espicially through reading the constitution. That is part of the issue with this.
The constitution sets forth that the state will not create a State Religion, IE a religion mandated that all citizens must belong to ALA the church of england. It establishes that everyone is free to practice religion as they choose.
NO WHERE does it state "Separation of Church and State".
The key that is lost so often today is coercion. Seeing something, or hearing something, is in no way...shape...or form causing you to have to believe, follow, or worship.
IE...teachers in schools not allowing their students to mention god, or religion, is the STATE infringing upon the rights of citizens to express their religion.
IE...bans upon stores or people putting up religious articles during holiday seasons is an infringing upon the rights of the citizens to express their religion.
There are as many scholars that speak that this "separation" was intended to keep the state out of the church just as much as the church out of the state.
It also doesn't flatly mean that somehow government must be atheist. Indeed, people that demand that elected officials shouldn't vote based upon their belief are, in effect, infringing upon their rights as an American to express their religion. They were voted into office (or appointed by law) and are thus free to use whatever judgment to make their choices...using religious values is no more or less constitutional than an atheist using their own morality to judge what they vote for. Its if they try to instill the actual religion as something mandated by the government that trouble comes in.
Or, put more simply.
A Christian, voted into office, voting for a gay marriage ban because he believes being gay is a sin is not unconstitutional. Indeed, its his right by the constitution to express his religious belief through his voting as an elected official.
However he could not put in a law stating that homosexuals must go to confessional at a catholic church every week to confess their sins, or they'll be subject to criminal penalties, as it is forcing people into a religion...which is unconstitutional.
An atheist could vote for stem cell research on the stem cell of cloned fetuses, because he see's it from a purely scientific aspect and does not believe that fetuses have a "Soul"...and its fully within his right, as while it disagrees with what a religion may say, its not infringing in their ability to practice or perform it (IE, its not forcing a Christian to go out, make the clone, do the research, etc).
An atheist could however not get a law passed banning the meeting of a baptist Sunday school group in a public location, as it would be having the state infringe upon a religions right to worship.
Over the years there has been FAR to much read into this "separation" and it has been used to actually do the very thing the first amendment is supposed to be protecting.
The FF made many more statements concerning the dangers of religion in government than they made in favor of it. They were educated men and they were very aware of the history of Europe and how religion had kept the people of that part of the world in bondage.
Indeed. And the way in which it kept them in bondage was when the state mandated that everyone having to join, support, pray to, and attend a specific state religion.
