Separation Of Church And State: Is It All It's Talked Up To Be?
Comments welcomed and appreciated.
Separation Of Church And State: Is It All It's Talked Up To Be?
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.
This is what the well known “separation of church and state” is referenced to, and commonly associated with. And yet the amendment has neither “separation”, “church”, or “state” anywhere in it. Where did this come from? What exactly does it mean? Is it even being used correctly? Let's clear some of the fog from this concept so that we can view it's meaning with confidence.
Today, those words are used to pull the Ten commandments off of walls, prohibit prayer and bibles in school, repress religious expression at graduations, restrict military chaplains freedom, and other acts of religious intolerance. The previously quoted first amendment was intended to block congress in the area of religious matters with two statements. First, that no religion would be instigated or established by the federal courts. Note how this is exploited when in conjuncture with the separation phrase. The courts have decided that because no religion is to be established, that means that they must remove religion from the public field entirely. Is that really what the founding fathers intended? Consider now, the second statement. No law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise -- which in effect includes public display -- of religious faith.
To gain a good grasp of any concept such as separation of church and state, it is necessary to know it's origins first. The phrase “separation of church and state” is nowhere to be found in the constitution. It's origins are in one of Thomas Jefferson's personal letters to a friend. In this letter, Thomas was reassuring his friend that government would remain detached and have no authority in how he could practice his faith. He used the sentence containing separation of church and state, explaining that the church would not run government affairs and handle the sword. One example of this would be the catholic church of roman times, like the inquisition or the crusades. The sentence further explained that from the other side, government would not control religion, like that of so many monarchies of the medieval ages which established one faith domains, forcing all to convert or flee. Note also, that the separation phrase is found only in this single letter a single time, written in context to show that it was not meant to restrict public religious freedom, but to protect it.
This letter of Jefferson's was written on January 1, of 1802. It is interesting to note that on January 3, 1802, just two days after writing this letter, Jefferson attended church service held in the capitol building. Jefferson obviously did not say separation of church and state with the intention of removing religion from the public arena.
This clear use of separation of church and state was in no way meant to be used as an additional clause for the constitution. Despite what historical documents prove, it is constantly brought up and “attached” to the first half of amendment one, whereupon decisions are made with serious implications for freedom of religious expression. So when exactly did this start? Well to begin with, in 1853 (a full half century after Jefferson's letter) a group petitioned congress, explaining that they wanted government to be less involved in religious activities. The judiciary committee replied one year later on March 27th, with this statement, “In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity.... that was the religion of the founders of this republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.” And two months later they added, “The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Fast forward a century, to 1947. There was the case of Everson and the Board of Education. In this case, “separation of church and state” was first used out of context. Only that single phrase was taken from Jefferson's letter, the rest is nowhere to be seen in the case. Consequently, the final verdict was that, “The first amendment has erected a wall of separation of church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”
From then on, government began to withdraw itself from religious connections. However, around this era there are two other significant points that are important. Government redefined it's definition of church, and what religious activity was constitutionally accepted as. Before 1947, church had been defined as a group of religious denominations in society, whereas afterward, it became known as “religious activity”. Judge for yourself which one you think is more accurate.
Secondly, in 1971 with the Lemon vs Kurtzman case, government redefined constitutional religion, putting forth three statements with which to judge by.
“The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose”.
“The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion”.
“The government's action must not result in an 'excessive government entanglement' with religion”.
These pertained towards government's public display of religion, which would include things like public prayer, nativity scenes, etc. Are those possible to do with a secular purpose? An additional test called the “Endorsement Test” also originated from this case. This test, in essence, attached to the second definition with a more restrictive air, adding that government may not endorse, or disapprove of public acts of religion. In effect, government cannot even be friendly to anything possibly seen as religion, and that means stamping down on things like graduation invocations, or benedictions, where government could be seen as endorsing religion.
And recently, since 1992, a third test has been added, the “Outsiders Test”. In one sentence: if you are in the minority, and you see something that makes you feel like an outsider of this country, then government will take down, prohibit, or otherwise stop whatever it is that makes you feel on the outside. Let me simply state that this completely ignores, and obsoletes the majority, moving power from the mass population to privileged minorities. This is not what made America strong.
Finally, there is another case with significant consequences that deserves a mention. On June 25, of 1962, in the case of Engel vs Vitale, a non-denominational, voluntary prayer, was deemed unconstitutional. The key word being voluntary. This case is just another of many. Cases and rulings like these have continued up to our present day, and show no signs of stepping back from what I fairly believe is bordering on religious oppression. Separation of church and state has been turned one-hundred and eighty degrees, to the point where it is used to stop religion instead of protecting it.
Consider this: the first amendment was framed and put into place in 1789. For a hundred and fifty years, separation of church and state was a non-existent issue. It was already in effect, as government neither established a national denomination, or stopped the public display of non-violent religion. Neither did government distance itself from religion, as shown by numerous calls for national prayer, church service in the capitol building, and thousands of letters and documents of leaders with their faith boldly proclaimed within. These are only a few examples of the strong influence of religion in government at the time.
Despite common belief, separation of church and state is not all it's talked up to be. Although it may seem as though the phrase has been the arbitrator of our religious freedom for the last half century, that does not have to continue. Just as knowledge is power, only in the lack of it does separation of church and state have the means to constrict us. Find original writings of the founding fathers and see what they said, instead of reading what others say they said. Amazon.com has resources available, such as letters between Jefferson and Adams. The Library of Congress has written records of congress' acts, and hundreds of documents, including letters, which contain good pictures of a person's true character.
For those who want to dig around, there are also lots of other resources available online. The Library of Congress has a good amount of great information one their site, concerning religion and other matters. If desired, information, and the truth, can be found.
Thank you for reading.
By Benjamin Bretey.
Information from many sources, incl. “The American Heritage Series” with David Barton.
Separation Of Church And State: Is It All It's Talked Up To Be?
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.
This is what the well known “separation of church and state” is referenced to, and commonly associated with. And yet the amendment has neither “separation”, “church”, or “state” anywhere in it. Where did this come from? What exactly does it mean? Is it even being used correctly? Let's clear some of the fog from this concept so that we can view it's meaning with confidence.
Today, those words are used to pull the Ten commandments off of walls, prohibit prayer and bibles in school, repress religious expression at graduations, restrict military chaplains freedom, and other acts of religious intolerance. The previously quoted first amendment was intended to block congress in the area of religious matters with two statements. First, that no religion would be instigated or established by the federal courts. Note how this is exploited when in conjuncture with the separation phrase. The courts have decided that because no religion is to be established, that means that they must remove religion from the public field entirely. Is that really what the founding fathers intended? Consider now, the second statement. No law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise -- which in effect includes public display -- of religious faith.
To gain a good grasp of any concept such as separation of church and state, it is necessary to know it's origins first. The phrase “separation of church and state” is nowhere to be found in the constitution. It's origins are in one of Thomas Jefferson's personal letters to a friend. In this letter, Thomas was reassuring his friend that government would remain detached and have no authority in how he could practice his faith. He used the sentence containing separation of church and state, explaining that the church would not run government affairs and handle the sword. One example of this would be the catholic church of roman times, like the inquisition or the crusades. The sentence further explained that from the other side, government would not control religion, like that of so many monarchies of the medieval ages which established one faith domains, forcing all to convert or flee. Note also, that the separation phrase is found only in this single letter a single time, written in context to show that it was not meant to restrict public religious freedom, but to protect it.
This letter of Jefferson's was written on January 1, of 1802. It is interesting to note that on January 3, 1802, just two days after writing this letter, Jefferson attended church service held in the capitol building. Jefferson obviously did not say separation of church and state with the intention of removing religion from the public arena.
This clear use of separation of church and state was in no way meant to be used as an additional clause for the constitution. Despite what historical documents prove, it is constantly brought up and “attached” to the first half of amendment one, whereupon decisions are made with serious implications for freedom of religious expression. So when exactly did this start? Well to begin with, in 1853 (a full half century after Jefferson's letter) a group petitioned congress, explaining that they wanted government to be less involved in religious activities. The judiciary committee replied one year later on March 27th, with this statement, “In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity.... that was the religion of the founders of this republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.” And two months later they added, “The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Fast forward a century, to 1947. There was the case of Everson and the Board of Education. In this case, “separation of church and state” was first used out of context. Only that single phrase was taken from Jefferson's letter, the rest is nowhere to be seen in the case. Consequently, the final verdict was that, “The first amendment has erected a wall of separation of church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”
From then on, government began to withdraw itself from religious connections. However, around this era there are two other significant points that are important. Government redefined it's definition of church, and what religious activity was constitutionally accepted as. Before 1947, church had been defined as a group of religious denominations in society, whereas afterward, it became known as “religious activity”. Judge for yourself which one you think is more accurate.
Secondly, in 1971 with the Lemon vs Kurtzman case, government redefined constitutional religion, putting forth three statements with which to judge by.
“The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose”.
“The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion”.
“The government's action must not result in an 'excessive government entanglement' with religion”.
These pertained towards government's public display of religion, which would include things like public prayer, nativity scenes, etc. Are those possible to do with a secular purpose? An additional test called the “Endorsement Test” also originated from this case. This test, in essence, attached to the second definition with a more restrictive air, adding that government may not endorse, or disapprove of public acts of religion. In effect, government cannot even be friendly to anything possibly seen as religion, and that means stamping down on things like graduation invocations, or benedictions, where government could be seen as endorsing religion.
And recently, since 1992, a third test has been added, the “Outsiders Test”. In one sentence: if you are in the minority, and you see something that makes you feel like an outsider of this country, then government will take down, prohibit, or otherwise stop whatever it is that makes you feel on the outside. Let me simply state that this completely ignores, and obsoletes the majority, moving power from the mass population to privileged minorities. This is not what made America strong.
Finally, there is another case with significant consequences that deserves a mention. On June 25, of 1962, in the case of Engel vs Vitale, a non-denominational, voluntary prayer, was deemed unconstitutional. The key word being voluntary. This case is just another of many. Cases and rulings like these have continued up to our present day, and show no signs of stepping back from what I fairly believe is bordering on religious oppression. Separation of church and state has been turned one-hundred and eighty degrees, to the point where it is used to stop religion instead of protecting it.
Consider this: the first amendment was framed and put into place in 1789. For a hundred and fifty years, separation of church and state was a non-existent issue. It was already in effect, as government neither established a national denomination, or stopped the public display of non-violent religion. Neither did government distance itself from religion, as shown by numerous calls for national prayer, church service in the capitol building, and thousands of letters and documents of leaders with their faith boldly proclaimed within. These are only a few examples of the strong influence of religion in government at the time.
Despite common belief, separation of church and state is not all it's talked up to be. Although it may seem as though the phrase has been the arbitrator of our religious freedom for the last half century, that does not have to continue. Just as knowledge is power, only in the lack of it does separation of church and state have the means to constrict us. Find original writings of the founding fathers and see what they said, instead of reading what others say they said. Amazon.com has resources available, such as letters between Jefferson and Adams. The Library of Congress has written records of congress' acts, and hundreds of documents, including letters, which contain good pictures of a person's true character.
For those who want to dig around, there are also lots of other resources available online. The Library of Congress has a good amount of great information one their site, concerning religion and other matters. If desired, information, and the truth, can be found.
Thank you for reading.
By Benjamin Bretey.
Information from many sources, incl. “The American Heritage Series” with David Barton.
Part 1.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "separation of church and state" is but a metaphor to describe the principle reflected by the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) and, indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they've discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
Note, too, that as President he vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national church, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. Contrary to your suggestion, separation of church and state was part of our republic's history from the outset.
The Judiciary Committee Report you quote was prompted by questions raised about the constitutionality of Congress' appointment of chaplains--one of the very topics Madison addressed in his Detached Memoranda. As Madison's commentary was not published until many years later, the Committee did not see or consider it. If they were acting as objective historians, they may have been persuaded to reach the same conclusion as Madison. But they acted as politicians issuing a political document, so knowledge of Madison's understanding likely would have made little difference to them--though it certainly would have been interesting to see them struggle to sidestep it.
Part 2.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing separation of church and state, it is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
The Constitution and particularly the First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
David Barton, whom you reference as a source, should be taken with a grain of salt. As revealed by Chris Rodda's meticulous analysis, zealotry more than fact shapes his work, which is riddled with shoddy scholarship and downright dishonesty. See Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History (2006) and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/glenn-becks-new-bff----da_b_458515.html She presents Barton's claims, reviews the evidence and explanations he offers, and then shines a bright light on the evidence omitted, misinterpreted, or even made up by Barton, all with documentation and references so complete one can readily assess the facts for one's self without the need to take either Barton's or Rodda's word for it.
Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx
First, let me profusely thank you for a such an interesting and informative comment. I eagerly await part two, if that is still to come. My comments to follow are working from the bottom to the top of yours.
ReplyDeleteYou've most certainly piqued my interest with James Madison and his Detached Memoranda, it is something I am definitely going to find out more about.
To continue, I agree with you that separation of church and state was from the beginning. please note that in my third paragraph from the bottom, I simply say that the topic was not an issue brought up over and over, because it was already in effect and people knew what it meant.
Also, I do believe I was a little harsh with my use of, and portrayal of cases, as with the Board of Education one. The main importance of that case, (at least that I was trying to get across) was the use of the metaphor out of context. I agree, it was not the only deciding factor. Good point.
As much as I agree with you on most points, I can't seem to on the first paragraph. From what history shows me of the founding fathers, I can't agree that they designed the constitution and government as secular, or that it would say nothing to connect it to religion. The constitution we have is designed for a moral and virtuous nation, led by moral and virtuous leaders. Without religion, (namely Christianity) there are no moral standards. Our inflated and corrupt government today, is a pointer to the size needed to keep an immoral nation in line.
Religion in government and in America has never been coercive, and no denomination or faith has ever been put on the people, which fulfills the first amendment. Separation of church and state is just that, that state will not run church, and church will not run state. The utter removal of one from the other was not the intent of the majority of the founders.
To close, thank you again for taking the time to read, and respond, with an intelligent and knowledgeable comment. You obviously know a good deal about this subject that I don't, and I am excited to hear what else you have to say, as I am constantly learning more each day.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have already gassed on overly long, your kind (and quite unbarbarian) response prompted some further thoughts.
ReplyDeleteWhile the subject is not without controversy, I agree with you that many founders were Christian of one sort or another. Care should be taken though not to make too much of the founders’ individual religious beliefs. In assessing the nature of our government, the religiosity of the various founders, while informative, is largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government in the sense that it is based on the power of the people (not a deity) and says nothing substantive of god(s) or religion except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did. They refrained from any expression in the Constitution even remotely suggesting that the government is somehow connected to or predicated on any religious belief. Given the norms of the day, that was quite a remarkable and controversial and plainly intentional choice.
By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder in society as they will. Given the republican nature of the government, it is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religion, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people's expression of political will. To the extent that the people's values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite--the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity's influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that--and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow "lock in" (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
In my belief, the line separating the church and the state should be clearly defined. There are some causes that both parties do not agree on and by no means should the church be able to impose their beliefs on the general public.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, part 2 did not show up in my spam box until today, and I'm not sure why it was in there. It definitely isn't spam. Thank for taking the time to re-post, although I've removed one for the sake of other readers.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. Both part 2 and your second post. David Barton certainly does need to be taken with a grain of salt, (just as I would with anyone else) and he certainly is zealous. Although with today's sluggard-ly demeanor, that's pretty much mandatory to get anyone thinking.
Unfortunately, it's late enough that I've been sitting for fifteen minutes trying to come up with an adequate response, with no luck. Your comment have been encouraging, and I am definitely going to look deeper, and keep learning exactly what the founders intended. The idea of them having strong beliefs, yet instigating a non-denominational and non-establishing government precisely because of that, is new to me.
It was a pleasure to converse with someone who knows that even if we disagree on some points, we can still be civil about it. Although I think that it is good for government to not establish a religion, I still disagree with how far government action has gone against religion, Christianity especially. It is very disheartening to see the moral decline as a result of teaching "whatever you think goes". No, schools shouldn't teach Christianity as true, (as much as I would like that) because that's not freedom of religion. However, teachers should encourage students towards good morals, and that is something that nobody can argue against. Society is better off when we are taught that lying and stealing are wrong, rather than figments of our imagination. Real life in the job world tells us otherwise.
Anyway, I think I got off topic, sorry. Thanks for your comments, I really enjoyed them, and I hope that you will find some other posts on here interesting as well.
And thanks for your comment too, Danbury (Moving Labor).