Constitutional expert on the ‘separation of Church and state”: the draftsman said nothing wrong with the religion in the culture

nearvideo mark Levin and Michael McConnell to the separation of Church and state

Mark Levin and Michael McConnell to the separation of Church and state

The phrase “separation of Church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution and the founding fathers saw nothing wrong with the religion in American culture, according to an expert.

While the Congress is prohibited from adopting a state religion, the founding document says nothing about the banishment of religion from the public square, Professor Michael McConnell, Mark Levin said to “life, liberty, and Levin.”

“The words” separation of Church and state ” is not in the Constitution… I think this is a shorter version of what is the meaning of the establishment clause,” he added, Recalling the passage in the Constitution reads, “Congress shall no law an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.”


“It has a deep history, because there was, in the 18th century, prominent writers, advocated openly a union between Church and state. In fact, there is a famous essay by one of the bishops in the Church of England of this title.

“And not to believe our author, that in a union between Church and state.”

The Stanford law professor by the founders wanted to protect instead against the government “control” of religion, and that they do not show object-symbols of faith in the public square.

“This does not mean that the author believed that the American people should not be religious-less, as you choose,” he said.

“It does not mean that the culture -that there is something wrong with religious elements in the culture. What it means is that we have a system in which the government was able to tell us what to believe, was able to control, churches, decide what to decide their teachings, who would be your employees, and so on.”

McConnell noted the Supreme court rules on cases, the challenge to the paradigm from time to time.

In a ruling announced this week, the judges have decided 7-2 in favor of allowing a peace-cross to remain in force, the suburbs on public land in Washington, DC.


Residents of Prince George’s County and the American Humanist Association (AHA) had to have taken to suing the cross, to defend the bottom in front of the American Legion, whose symbol also intervened on the monument, it.

While the residents and the AHA claims that the cross in the memorial violated established the Constitution, the Supreme court, that support factors, including the history of the memorial, the idea that it is not religious in nature.

“For almost a century, the Bladensburg cross, the community has expressed grief over the loss of the young men who died, his thanks for their sacrifice and their devotion to the ideals for which they fought,” justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion.

Alito also noted that during this particular cross does not serve a religious purpose, to remove it, because it would be a cross of a religiously-charged action.


“It has been a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical change at this time would be seen by many, and not as a neutral act, but as the manifestation of” a hostility toward religion that has no place in our establishment clause traditions,'” he wrote, quoting from Justice Breyer ‘ s meeting, the 2005 decision in Van Orden v. Perry.

The court’s decision reverses the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cross was declared unconstitutional.

Fox News’ Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular