Taxes on Churches?

[ElectTheDead]

If churches can afford to have everything embossed in silver and gold, they can survive taxation and still keep up with all their other services. Religion is drifting away from being about faith. They deserve to be taxed.

Come to Rockwell Falls Presbyterian, please. You will find no silver or gold. Our poor imitations are mere plastic and brass. But you will find people willing to listen if you want to talk, pay your heating bill, give you the shirt off their backs (one deacon just did so at the scene of an accident, its on video, it was below freezing) and we have a nice coffee hour with soup and sandwiches and occasionally cake.

And we discuss world issues, such as relating to hostile nonbelievers in a loving way.

I guess that's where I'm wrong. That, in my opinion, is how churches should be. Not the poor part, of course. So many places of worship have switched from being about faith, to being about greed. I was talking about the majority, my apologies.

[Sociobiology]

If churches can afford to have everything embossed in silver and gold, they can survive taxation and still keep up with all their other services. Religion is drifting away from being about faith. They deserve to be taxed.

Come to Rockwell Falls Presbyterian, please. You will find no silver or gold. Our poor imitations are mere plastic and brass. But you will find people willing to listen if you want to talk, pay your heating bill, give you the shirt off their backs (one deacon just did so at the scene of an accident, its on video, it was below freezing) and we have a nice coffee hour with soup and sandwiches and occasionally cake.

And we discuss world issues, such as relating to hostile nonbelievers in a loving way.

sorry if your club really needs a permanent clubhouse you can pay for it just like the kite flying clubs and and political organizations.
equal treatment is not oppression.

[Sociobiology]

*raises hand slowly*

You are an exception, a fairly rare exception

It's said that the average person commits three federal felonies a day.

sorry it's stealing I do it, and I accept that if I get caught I do the time, as long as companies keep embedding crap in their songs I'll continue to do it, and by embedding crap I'm talking about Trojans and spyware not subliminal messages.
when in doubt record it of the radio.

[UCUMAY]

Yes. All churches/temples/mosques should be taxed.

If I have to pay taxes on my religion so should they....

[Caninope]

The law is cold and frigid, inflexible and unmoving. At times this can be a great thing, others it can be destructive. Arresting teenagers for sexting, the numerous age of consent issues (where say a 15 year old has sex with a 17 year old guy), throwing down heavy fines and oppressive jail sentences for those who download music illegally -who hasn't?

*raises hand slowly*

*seconds*

[Caninope]

I think Churches should be taxed as well. They do too much damage to be allowed to do it for free. Alcohol isn't free, neither should organized religion.

How do churches do damage? I want studies and links please.

[Caninope]

If churches can afford to have everything embossed in silver and gold, they can survive taxation and still keep up with all their other services. Religion is drifting away from being about faith. They deserve to be taxed.

Except most churches can't afford that.

[New Chalcedon]

Meh. Non-lawyers think accuracy about law is dull. They'd rather treat opinions as facts, when it is much more interesting -- although requires more effort -- to discuss opinions based on accurate facts.

Also, if law is so dull, don't argue about it or at least argue only about what it should be and not what it is. The "legal mind" is perfectly capable of distinguishing between the two and discussing either. It appears that other minds are the dull ones that confuse these categories and chase their own mental tails.

The law is cold and frigid, inflexible and unmoving. At times this can be a great thing, others it can be destructive. Arresting teenagers for sexting, the numerous age of consent issues (where say a 15 year old has sex with a 17 year old guy), throwing down heavy fines and oppressive jail sentences for those who download music illegally -who hasn't?

I plead the Fifth.

[Bottle]

I never claimed that my opinions are consistent with American law. I'm simply pointing out that, for me, taxing the income of religious organizations at MERELY the same rate as others would be a compromise. I think the ideal case would be one in which religious organizations were pushed out of business through a combination of broad social and cultural change and aggressive taxation and regulation. But, as I said, I know this won't happen, so I'm willing to compromise.

No person could ever claim to be liberal or progressive and wish to engage in frankly repugnant and aggressive coercion against what is overwhelmingly voluntary communal associations, which often one of the main facets of their social interaction and contributions to their overall happiness. This is social engineering, this is the antipathy of being a progressive.

*Shrug* If you want to play the No True Scotsman game with my political orientation that's fine with me. I'm not especially attached to any label.

[Bottle]

If churches can afford to have everything embossed in silver and gold, they can survive taxation and still keep up with all their other services. Religion is drifting away from being about faith. They deserve to be taxed.

Come to Rockwell Falls Presbyterian, please. You will find no silver or gold. Our poor imitations are mere plastic and brass. But you will find people willing to listen if you want to talk, pay your heating bill, give you the shirt off their backs (one deacon just did so at the scene of an accident, its on video, it was below freezing) and we have a nice coffee hour with soup and sandwiches and occasionally cake.

And we discuss world issues, such as relating to hostile nonbelievers in a loving way.

The Jewish community center in my parents' town does all those same things while still managing to pay the same taxes as secular organizations. It's quite possible to be generous, loving, kind, open, and integral to the community while also accepting equal legal status to non-religious organizations.

[Hydesland]

The Jewish community center in my parents' town does all those same things while still managing to pay the same taxes as secular organizations. It's quite possible to be generous, loving, kind, open, and integral to the community while also accepting equal legal status to non-religious organizations.

If a non profit community centre is getting taxed more than a church (not plausible in the least by the way), then I'd support abolishing those certain taxes to equalise the level of tax payments to that of charitable, scientific, educational, literary organisations and yes, churches.

[Kobeanare]

The law is cold and frigid, inflexible and unmoving. At times this can be a great thing, others it can be destructive. Arresting teenagers for sexting, the numerous age of consent issues (where say a 15 year old has sex with a 17 year old guy), throwing down heavy fines and oppressive jail sentences for those who download music illegally -who hasn't?

I plead the Fifth.

You can't plead the fifth. You plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest.

You take the fifth.

[New Chalcedon]

I plead the Fifth.

You can't plead the fifth. You plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest.

You take the fifth.

Oh, shoosh. Fine: I take the Fifth, and plead Not Guilty. Better?

[Caninope]

You can't plead the fifth. You plead guilty, not guilty, or no contest.

You take the fifth.

Oh, shoosh. Fine: I take the Fifth, and plead Not Guilty. Better?

Which part of the 5th?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Meh. Non-lawyers think accuracy about law is dull. They'd rather treat opinions as facts, when it is much more interesting -- although requires more effort -- to discuss opinions based on accurate facts.

Also, if law is so dull, don't argue about it or at least argue only about what it should be and not what it is. The "legal mind" is perfectly capable of distinguishing between the two and discussing either. It appears that other minds are the dull ones that confuse these categories and chase their own mental tails.

The law is cold and frigid, inflexible and unmoving. At times this can be a great thing, others it can be destructive. Arresting teenagers for sexting, the numerous age of consent issues (where say a 15 year old has sex with a 17 year old guy), throwing down heavy fines and oppressive jail sentences for those who download music illegally -who hasn't?

The point is when you're talking to people, or giving a speech, nobody cares about civil codes, technicalities, and dull nature of the law...Opinions and ideals, especially vague ones, are stronger and more meaningful. I am strangely reminded of something Chris Matthews pointed out during the 2004 campaign, John Kerry walks into a diner and greets a person sitting at a booth, he immediately begins to talk about the issues. George Bush walks into a diner, greets the person, and begins talking not about social security reform or the war in Iraq, but of them, their kid (Does he play baseball? How old? Etc.).

I seem to be going off track slightly. My point is NSG isn't a courtroom, the majority of us aren't lawyers, and whether you care to admit it or not, rhetoric, regardless of how opinionated, without facts or valid sources, is considerably stronger and always will be.

That is all very nice. I even agree -- to an extent. (Although I'd rather be correct and misunderstood, than popular and wrong.)

But when people are arguing about what the law is (as opposed to purely what it should be), no amount of "rhetoric" substitutes up for the actual truth about what the law is.

That was all I offered -- and was explicit in limiting my comments.

You then objected that "the legal mind is such a dull one" -- apparently because cases, the Constitution, & codes are less interesting that pure fiction, even when the subject is supposedly cases, the Constitution, & codes!

[The Cat-Tribe]

Yep, there are three types of people:

1. Those who think that the separation of church and state means that government can't have a say in the church...
2. Those who think that the separation of church and state means that the church can't have a say in government...
and
3. Those who think the other two types had to have missed something in that phrase somewhere.

You missed the fourth type,

4. Those who think that the separation of church and state is mentioned in the Constitution.

So, churches can be banned in the United States? Or you can be taxed to fund local churches? Or do you think there is a part of the Constitution that forbids these things that can be summarized as "the separation of church and state."

As I posted earlier in this thread:

The notions that the First Amendment does not require the separation of Church and State or that our government or nation is or should be "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" are easily rebutted.

As James Madison, primary author of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, explained "the separation between religion and & Gov't" is "[s]trongly guarded ... in the Constitution of the United States." First, Article VI, Sec. 3 provides: "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Then, the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment declare:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

Finally, these Clause apply to state and local governments through incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This IS "separation of Church and State."

To those that raise objections, I am obliged to add (in merciful spoilers) my obligatory (and a tad repetitive) past rants related to this subject:

1. The phrase, "separation of Church and State" it is merely a shorthand for the Establishment Clause that SCOTUS has adopted from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. This the Court first explained 130 years ago in Reynolds v United States, 98 US 145, 162-164 (1878) (emphasis added):

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration 'a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested 'to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.'

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a 'Memorial and Remonstrance,' which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated 'that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,' was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, 'for establishing religious freedom,' drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. 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.

2. As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

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.'

3. Finally, although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison (the author of the First Amendment), in particular, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

I object to some of the characterizations of separation of Church and State in this thread. In particular, I object to the notion that the First Amendment forbids only a government establishment of a single religion or preference for one sect over another. The First Amendment clear forbids aid to one religion, aid to all religions, prefering one religion over another, or prefering religion over non-religion.

The First Amendment forbids any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. These are the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. The Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947) was crystal clear: "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."

In Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), for example, the Court further rejected the argument that the Establishment Clause prohibits only government discrimination among various sects:

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs").

One of the most authoritative sources of historical information about the Constitution is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (3 vols. 1833). It has been cited copiously by SCOTUS for centuries -- particularly by conservative justices that believe in originalism.

Here is what Justice Story has to say re separation of Church and State in his comments on the last clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. See Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (5th Ed. 1833) vol. III, chapter XLIII, pp. 705-707 (emphasis added, internal quotation marks and a citation omitted):

§ 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States." This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility. The Catholic and the Protestant had alternately waged the most ferocious and unrelenting warfare on each other; and Protestantism itself, at the very moment, that it was proclaiming the right of private judgment, prescribed boundaries to that right, beyond which if any one dared to pass, he must seal his rashness with the blood of martyrdom.¹ The history of the parent country, too, could not fail to instruct them in the uses, and the abuses of religious tests. They there found the pains and penalties of non-conformity written in no equivocal language, and enforced with a stern and vindictive jealousy. . . . [A]ll persecution for diversity of opinions, however ridiculous or absurd they may be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil freedom. The names and subordination of the clergy, the posture of devotion, the materials and colour of the minister's garment, the joining in a known, or an unknown form of prayer, and other matters of the same kind, must be left to the option of every man's private judgment. . . .
------------------------------
1 See 4 Black. Comm. 44, 59, and ante; Vol. I, § 53.

Other quotes
Thomas Paine, Common Sense: "As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith."

John Adams, Letter to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812: "Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."

Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary), signed on November 4, 1796 and ratified unanimously on June 7, 1797, 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 tranquillity, of Musselmen ..."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Miller, 1808: "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. "

Thomas Jefferson, Reply to New London Methodists, 1809: "Our Constitution... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the consciences of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose."

James Madison, Journal excerpt, June 12, 1788: “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom.”

President Andrew Jackson, Letter to the Synod of the Reformed Church of North America, June 12, 1832: "I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." (Statement declining to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting.)

President John Tyler: "The United States has adventured upon a great and noble experiment . . . of total separation of Church and State. . . . 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. . . . Such is the great experiment which we have tried, and . . . our system of free government would be imperfect without it."

James K. Polk, Diary entry, Oct. 14, 1846: “Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State.”

Millard Fillmore, Address during 1856 presidential election: “I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled.”

Ulysses S. Grant, Speech to veterans of the Army of Tennessee, Sept. 30, 1875: “Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that neither the state nor nation shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical dogmas. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.”

President Rutherford B. Hayes: "We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion suffer by all such interference."

James A. Garfield, Letter accepting presidential nomination, July 12, 1880: “Whatever help the nation can justly afford should be generously given to aid the States in supporting common schools; but it would be unjust to our people and dangerous to our institutions to apply any portion of the revenues of the nation, or of the States, to the support of sectarian schools. The separation of the Church and the State in everything relating to taxation should be absolute.”

Theodore Roosevelt, Speech, Oct. 12, 1915: “I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools.”

President Warren G. Harding: "There is no relationship here between Church and State. Religious liberty has its unalterable place, along with civil and human liberty, in the very foundation of the Republic. I hold it [religious intolerance] to be a menace to the very liberties which we boast and cherish."

Alfred E. Smith: "I believe in the absolute separation of church and state and in the strict enforcement of the Constitution that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

John F. Kennedy, Speech to Greater Houston Ministerial Association, Sept. 12, 1960: “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.”

Lyndon B. Johnson, Interview with Baptist Standard, October 1964: “I believe in the American tradition of separation of church and state which is expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution. By my office – and by personal conviction – I am sworn to uphold that tradition.”

Senator Sam Ervin Jr.: "I believe in a wall between church and state so high that no one can climb over it."

Jimmy Carter, Letter to Jack V. Harwell, August 11, 1977: “I believe in the separation of church and state and would not use my authority to violate this principle in any way.”

Senator Barry Goldwater: "Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"

Senator Barry Goldwater: "By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Throughout our two hundred plus years, public policy debate has focused on political and economic issues, on which there can be compromise. . . ."

Governor Lowell Weicker Jr.: "History makes the point time and time again: No greater mischief can be created than to merge the power of religion with the power of government."

Governor Jesse Ventura: "I believe in the separation of church and state. We all have our own religious beliefs. There are people out there who are atheists, who don't believe at all. . . . They are citizens of Minnesota, and I have to respect that." (Explaining his refusal to issue a proclamation calling for National Day of Prayer activities in Minnesota.)

Sources not otherwise specified include:
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/church_&_state.htm
http://blog.au.org/2010/02/15/president ... s-liberty/

Don't worry about the "Congress shall make no law ...." language as a limitation on the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to all "state action'--in other words any government action. So the whole federal government is covered. Further, the First Amendment applies to the states through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., wikipedia; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise of religion applies to states); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (establishment clause applies to states).

EDIT: Just in case someone thinks this is a liberal trick, here is an article on incorporation from the National Rifle Association.

Also, consider this language from West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943):

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures-Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights.

The Establishment Clause has, in part, roots in even the beliefs of the Puritan who first colonized this land. For example, here are excerpts from Roger Williams's treatise on the subject of separation of Church and State (emphasis added):

Short version:

"[A]ll civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship. . . . It is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God. . . . God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls. . . . [A]n enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. . . . I add that a civil sword (as woeful experience in all ages has proved) is so far from bringing or helping forward an opposite in religion to repentance that magistrates sin grievously against the work of God and blood of souls by such proceedings. . . . The God of Peace, the God of Truth will shortly seal this truth, and confirm this witness, and make it evident to the whole world, that the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is most evidently and lamentably contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus the Prince of Peace.

Long version:

THE BLOUDY TENENT OF PERSECUTION
Roger Williams (July 15, 1644)

First, that the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of Protestants and Papists, spilt in the wars of present and former ages, for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.

Secondly, pregnant scriptures and arguments are throughout the work proposed against the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience.

Thirdly, satisfactory answers are given to scriptures, and objections produced by Mr. Calvin, Beza, Mr. Cotton, and the ministers of the New English churches and others former and later, tending to prove the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience.

Fourthly, the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance under the altar.

Fifthly, all civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.

Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God.

Seventhly, the state of the Land of Israel, the kings and people thereof in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and no pattern nor president for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.

Eighthly, God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.

Ninthly, in holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the Jew's conversion to Christ.

Tenthly, an enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Eleventhly, the permission of other consciences and worships than a state professeth only can (according to God) procure a firm and lasting peace (good assurance being taken according to the wisdom of the civil state for uniformity of civil obedience from all forts).

Twelfthly, lastly, true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile....

TRUTH. I acknowledge that to molest any person, Jew or Gentile, for either professing doctrine, or practicing worship merely religious or spiritual, it is to persecute him, and such a person (whatever his doctrine or practice be, true or false) suffereth persecution for conscience.

...[S]hine enemies, though they speak and rail against thee, though they outrageously pursue, imprison, banish, kill thy faithful witnesses, yet how is all vermilion'd o'er for justice against the heretics? Yea, if they kindle coals, and blow the flames of devouring wars, that leave neither spiritual nor civil state, but burn up branch and root, yet how do all pretend an holy war? He that kills, and he that's killed, they both cry out: "It is for God, and for their conscience."

'Tis true, nor one nor other seldom dare to plead the mighty Prince Christ Jesus for their author, yet (both Protestant and Papist) pretend they have spoke with Moses and the Prophets who all, say they (before Christ came), allowed such holy persecutions, holy wars against the enemies of holy church.

TRUTH. Dear PEACE (to ease thy first complaint), 'tis true, thy dearest sons, most like their mother, peacekeeping, peacemaking sons of God, have borne and still must bear the blurs of troublers of Israel, and turners of the world upside down. And 'tis true again, what Solomon once spake: "The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water, therefore (saith he) leave off contention before it be meddled with. This caveat should keep the banks and sluices firm and strong, that strife, like a breach of waters, break not in upon the sons of men."

Yet strife must be distinguished: It is necessary or unnecessary, godly or Ungodly, Christian or unchristian, etc.

It is unnecessary, unlawful, dishonorable, ungodly, unchristian, in most cases in the world, for there is a possibility of keeping sweet peace in most cases, and, if it be possible, it is the express command of God that peace be kept (Rom. 13).

Again, it is necessary, honorable, godly, etc., with civil and earthly weapons to defend the innocent and to rescue the oppressed from the violent paws and jaws of oppressing persecuting Nimrods (Psal. 73; Job 29).

It is as necessary, yea more honorable, godly, and Christian, to fight the fight of faith, with religious and spiritual artillery, and to contend earnestly for the faith of Jesus, once delivered to the saints against all opposers, and the gates of earth and hell, men or devils, yea against Paul himself, or an angel from heaven, if he bring any other faith or doctrine....

PEACE. I add that a civil sword (as woeful experience in all ages has proved) is so far from bringing or helping forward an opposite in religion to repentance that magistrates sin grievously against the work of God and blood of souls by such proceedings. Because as (commonly) the sufferings of false and antichristian teachers harden their followers, who being blind, by this means are occasioned to tumble into the ditch of hell after their blind leaders, with more inflamed zeal of lying confidence. So, secondly, violence and a sword of steel begets such an impression in the sufferers that certainly they conclude (as indeed that religion cannot be true which needs such instruments of violence to uphold it so) that persecutors are far from soft and gentle commiseration of the blindness of others....

For (to keep to the similitude which the Spirit useth, for instance) to batter down a stronghold, high wall, fort, tower, or castle, men bring not a first and second admonition, and after obstinacy, excommunication, which are spiritual weapons concerning them that be in the church: nor exhortation to repent and be baptized, to believe in the Lord Jesus, etc., which are proper weapons to them that be without, etc. But to take a stronghold, men bring cannons, culverins, saker, bullets, powder, muskets, swords, pikes, etc., and these to this end are weapons effectual and proportionable.

On the other side, to batter down idolatry, false worship, heresy, schism, blindness, hardness, out of the soul and spirit, it is vain, improper, and unsuitable to bring those weapons which are used by persecutors, stocks, whips, prisons, swords, gibbets, stakes, etc. (where these seem to prevail with some cities or kingdoms, a stronger force sets up again, what a weaker pull'd down), but against these spiritual strongholds in the souls of men, spiritual artillery and weapons are proper, which are mighty through God to subdue and bring under the very thought to obedience, or else to bind fast the soul with chains of darkness, and lock it up in the prison of unbelief and hardness to eternity....

*snip*

TRUTH. I answer, in granting with Brentius that man hath not power to make laws to bind conscience, he overthrows such his tenent and practice as restrain men from their worship, according to their conscience and belief, and constrain them to such worships (though it be out of a pretense that they are convinced) which their own souls tell them they have no satisfaction nor faith in.

Secondly, whereas he affirms that men may make laws to see the laws of God observed.

I answer, God needeth not the help of a material sword of steel to assist the sword of the Spirit in the affairs of conscience, to those men, those magistrates, yea that commonwealth which makes such magistrates, must needs have power and authority from Christ Jesus to fit judge and to determine in all the great controversies concerning doctrine, discipline, government, etc.

And then I ask whether upon this ground it must not evidently follow that:

Either there is no lawful commonw earth nor civil state of men in the world, which is not qualified with this spiritual discerning (and then also that the very commonweal hath more light concerning the church of Christ than the church itself).

Or, that the commonweal and magistrates thereof must judge and punish as they are persuaded in their own belief and conscience (be their conscience paganish, Turkish, or antichristian) what is this but to confound heaven and earth together, and not only to take away the being of Christianity out of the world, but to take away all civility, and the world out of the world, and to lay all upon heaps of confusion? . ..

*snip*

So that magistrates, as magistrates, have no power of setting up the form of church government, electing church officers, punishing with church censures, but to see that the church does her duty herein. And on the other side, the churches as churches, have no power (though as members of the commonweal they may have power) of erecting or altering forms of civil government, electing of civil officers, inflicting civil punishments (no not on persons excommunicate) as by deposing magistrates from their civil authority, or withdrawing the hearts of the people against them, to their laws, no more than to discharge wives, or children, or servants, from due obedience to their husbands, parents, or masters; or by taking up arms against their magistrates, though he persecute them for conscience: for though members of churches who are public officers also of the civil state may suppress by force the violence of usurpers, as Iehoiada did Athaliah, yet this they do not as members of the church but as officers of the civil state.

TRUTH. Here are divers considerable passages which I shall briefly examine, so far as concerns our controversy.

First, whereas they say that the civil power may erect and establish what form of civil government may seem in wisdom most meet, I acknowledge the proposition to be most true, both in itself and also considered with the end of it, that a civil government is an ordinance of God, to conserve the civil peace of people, so far as concerns their bodies and goods, as formerly hath been said.

But from this grant I infer (as before hath been touched) that the sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies in the people (whom they must needs mean by the civil power distinct from the government set up). And, if so, that a people may erect and establish what form of government seems to them most meet for their civil condition; it is evident that such governments as are by them erected and established have no more power, nor for no longer time, than the civil power or people consenting and agreeing shall betrust them with. This is clear not only in reason but in the experience of all commonweals, where the people are not deprived of their natural freedom by the power of tyrants.

And, if so, that the magistrates receive their power of governing the church from the people, undeniably it follows that a people, as a people, naturally consider (of what nature or nation soever in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America), have fundamentally and originally, as men, a power to govern the church, to see her do her duty, to correct her, to redress, reform, establish, etc. And if this be not to pull God and Christ and Spirit out of heaven, and subject them unto natural, sinful, inconstant men, and so consequently to Satan himself, by whom all peoples naturally are guided, let heaven and earth judge....

PEACE. Some will here ask: What may the magistrate then lawfully do with his civil horn or power in matters of religion?

TRUTH. His horn not being the horn of that unicorn or rhinoceros, the power of the Lord Jesus in spiritual cases, his sword not the two-edged sword of the spirit, the word of God (hanging not about the loins or side, but at the lips. and proceeding out of the mouth of his ministers) but of an humane and civil nature and constitution, it must consequently be of a humane and civil operation, for who knows not that operation follows constitution; And therefore I shall end this passage with this consideration:

The civil magistrate either respecteth that religion and worship which his conscience is persuaded is true, and upon which he ventures his soul; or else that and those which he is persuaded are false.

Concerning the first, if that which the magistrate believeth to be true, be true, I say he owes a threefold duty unto it:

First, approbation and countenance, a reverent esteem and honorable testimony, according to Isa. 49, and Revel. 21, with a tender respect of truth, and the professors of it.

Secondly, personal submission of his own soul to the power of the Lord Jesus in that spiritual government and kingdom, according to Matt. 18 and 1 Cor. 5.

Thirdly, protection of such true professors of Christ, whether apart, or met together, as also of their estates from violence and injury, according to Rom. 13.

Now, secondly, if it be a false religion (unto which the civil magistrate dare not adjoin, yet) he owes:

First, permission (for approbation he owes not what is evil) and this according to Matthew 13. 30 for public peace and quiet's sake.

Secondly, he owes protection to the persons of his subjects (though of a false worship), that no injury be offered either to the persons or goods of any....

...The God of Peace, the God of Truth will shortly seal this truth, and confirm this witness, and make it evident to the whole world, that the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is most evidently and lamentably contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus the Prince of Peace.

Amen.

[Arkinesia]

Presumably having In God We Trust on your currency, and having One Nation under God in the pledge recited in schools are equally unconstitutional and you would support them being removed as well?

I'm a Christian and I support them being removed. I'm sick of my money lying to me D:

[The Cat-Tribe]

Presumably having In God We Trust on your currency, and having One Nation under God in the pledge recited in schools are equally unconstitutional and you would support them being removed as well?

Yes, although the first is rather trivial.

[Ifreann]

Presumably having In God We Trust on your currency, and having One Nation under God in the pledge recited in schools are equally unconstitutional and you would support them being removed as well?

Yes, although the first is rather trivial.

The preferable alternative would be to have references to every deity randomly placed on bills. Collectors would be highly impressed.