In the Newsweek issue dated September 11, 2006, Steven Waldman wrote a brief about Katherine Harris' comments about the separation of church and state being "a lie." Waldman properly notes that the Constitution of the United States of America makes absolutely no mention of the "separation of church and state", whatsoever.
Wikipedia details that this phrase can be traced to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group called the
Danbury Baptistsin which he stated:
"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."
Jeesh, such words of legalese!. Could it be more simply stated?:
I continually review with great respect that
act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should not
make a law having reference to any one
religion, nor [a law] preventing the freedom
to follow any given religion,
thus building a definite distinction
between Church and State.
His words are in reference to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, 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."
Additionally, the word "of" may be used to mean "belonging to" (e.g. member
of this community) or it could be used to mean "not in possession" (e.g.: free
of flaws). Perhaps it was purposefully used in the constitution to represent both (say, kill two birds with one stone?) and therefore more clearly states:
Congress shall not make a law having reference to any one religious or non-religious belief, nor a law preventing the freedom to follow or not follow any given religion; 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.
In other words, with adultery as an example, Congress will not pass a law stating it is legal or illegal. And, it's up to the individual organizations to define if adultery is acceptable or not amongst its members. And, within the laws of the United States, what is proper punishment from said organization for failure to follow their rules (fine, expulsion, certainly not death).
So, when those who argue against laws that others seem to only justify based on what God or Jesus wants, it is merely that the former are just trying to uphold the idea of the First Amendment - as written in the Constitution and as revisited by Thomas Jefferson in his letter.
If that's not clear enough, consider this: If those in constant opposition to the current stem cell research practices finally drove the scientific community to [what soon appears to be successfully] finding another way to extract stem cells without harming the embryo, then why can't those in opposition - to laws solely based on God's/Jesus' wishes - request the law's proponents find a more common justification for their desired legislation?
