Was George Washington Against Separation of Church and State?

[Doktor Avalanche]

9 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

You did say that, yes. Its irrelevance was more what I was getting at.

Your post was successfully irrelevant. Congratulations.

 

[ComradeMilton]

Cool. :hi5:

[Dubayoo]

On 7/24/2017 at 3:06 PM, Doc Martini said:

The separation of Church and State is stupid easy: The State cannot impose laws which enforce religious doctrinal law. The end.

You can pray in schools, at government facilities, express your faith, etc. but no law or enforcement of a faith/practice is legal. This is why there is a prayer allowed at the beginning of every congressional gathering. This is why there were prayers said at the beginning of every school year practiced until the late 60's/early 70's. People only started interpreting that separation of Church and State meant that there was no religious affiliation or association with anything governmental/public until the 1970's when oppressive atheists demanded a change in university practices on college campuses, then it hit the US like wildfire.

Perhaps, but was George Washington in favor of this?

[Dubayoo]

On 7/24/2017 at 9:49 PM, ComradeMilton said:

James Madison: https://books.google.com/books?id=1qse4fZ6eQgC : Madison wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[23] " "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[24] 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."

The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

In 1962, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of officially sponsored prayer or religious recitations in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the Court, by a vote of 6-1, determined it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools, even when the prayer is non-denominational and students may excuse themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Board of Regents prior to the Court's decision consisted of: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen.") As the Court stated:

The petitioners contend, among other things, that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention, since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

Subsequent to this decision, the Supreme Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether government action comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". First, the law or policy must have been adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute or policy must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government with religion.[45] (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman hinged upon the conclusion that the government benefits were flowing disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools were an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, thus the policy involved the state in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.) Failure to meet any of these criteria is a proof that the statute or policy in question violates the Establishment Clause.

In 2002, a three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not compelled to recite it, due to the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to the case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, both houses of Congress passed measures reaffirming their support for the pledge, and condemning the panel's ruling.[46] The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case was ultimately overturned in June 2004, solely on procedural grounds not related to the substantive constitutional issue. Rather, a five-justice majority held that Newdow, a non-custodial parent suing on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue.

To be fair, America has always been a Protestant country which is where the real foundation of Separation of Church and State comes from.  It wanted to tolerate the diversity of denominations instead of playing favorites towards a specific one.  It also wanted to prevent fusion of public education with a specific religious doctrine.

That said, George Washington did ban Guy Fawkes Day, and the timing of that case after the Melting Pot Era after Catholic immigrants started arriving in America suggests something else is going on there.