IntroductionThe separation of church and state has been a topic addressed by the Supreme Court for the last 150-plus years. Our countries' religious freedoms and how they are interpreted have been debated by both sides with reasonable arguments. The framers of our federal government had established a set of guidelines for a free and prosperous society. One of the most controversial clauses of the First Amendment of our Constitution, which states that no law shall endorse a religion or prohibit the right of people to exercise their religious rights, has been part of a national debate since the session of the First Congress. Can you blatantly ignore a religion and ensure they don't receive government funding for their schools because of their religious status? Is it constitutional to ignore drug laws because it is a person's religious belief to use them in their practice? In this essay I will show through Framer's papers, early political debates, and various Supreme Court cases to show why the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses were inserted into the Constitution in order to "build a wall of eternal separation between Church and State." . ContextTo understand what the appropriate relationship between a government and a religious institution was according to the framers of the Constitution, we should first examine their writings and speeches to understand what their beliefs were on this issue. It is true that, like most issues brought to the table at the Constitutional Convention, the question of religion in government was a widely debated topic among the Fathers. There is no doubt that the battle to structure the issue of separation ended when the Constitutional Convention closed its doors. ...... middle of paper ...... eacon Press, 1951. McConnell, Michael M. "The Origins and Historical Understanding of the Free Exercise of Religion." Harvard Law Review. 103.7 (1990): 1409-1517. Powell, Jefferson H. “The Original Understanding of Original Intent.” Harvard Law Review Vol. 98, no. 5 (March 1985), pp. 885-948. Cambridge: The Harvard Law Review Association.Reynolds v. US, 98 US 145 (1878) 98 US 145 Rossiter, Clinton. 1787: The Great Convention. 1st ed. New York: Macmillan, 1966. Print.Seixas, Moses, and George Washington. "There is no sanction for bigotry." American Treasures from the Library of Congress. Library of Congress, July 27, 2010. Web. February 14, 2012. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) Sofaer, Abraham D. "The Presidency, War, and Foreign Affairs: Practice under the Framer." Contemporary law and problems. 40.2 (1976): 12-36.