The term “separation of church and state” is being thrown around more every day, but it seems that its origin and meaning still escapes many Americans, even those who should know better.
Even among Christian conservatives, there are now some who constantly check themselves at the door of separation of church and state before making private or public decisions or statements, readily accepting the popular understanding of the phrase. The problematic reality of the situation is that they are being misled by those whose intentions are dishonest and far from the promotion of free speech and religion.
Most political conversations now initiated, concerning the separation of church and state, claim that the separation they speak of is based upon the U.S. Constitution. In reality, this phrase is found nowhere in the Constitution; neither is their argument. The anti-freedom argument of separation of church and state contends that no reference, audible or visible, to any biblical or Christian tenet should be allowed in any federal or state facility (or in any decision made therein.)
Their unfounded claim is made in citation to the First Amendment to the Constitution, effective December 15, 1791. Amendment I states that “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.”
Obviously, the exact phrase that is so popular among this crowd is not present in this amendment. The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” actually originated from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut on January 1, 1802. This religious group, like many today, had learned just enough about the governmental terminology that had been established concerning the church and the state to entertain the possibility that the government meant to turn completely away from the interests and influences of Christianity and Bible teaching. That was their fear. The purpose of Jefferson’s letter was to remove their fears and to assure them that this “wall” was being erected to protect their religious freedom, in that it was meant to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business. The respect or display of Judeo-Christian faith is not the sort of “establishment” being addressed in the First Amendment. This faith had already been established long before the writing of the Constitution.
It’s easier to put the true intent of the nation’s founders into perspective when we consider their plight in the earlier American colonies and, for some of them and many of their ancestors, in the mother country of England. There, under the British monarchy, the Church of England and the government were one in the same. Both entities infiltrated the other, causing citizens’ lives, well-being, and freedoms to suffer. This “establishment” of a state religion is what the founders wished to avoid in the independent separation of their young nation of the United States from British control. Their intention was never to remove the free expression or practice of religion from public or private American life. Quite the contrary was true.
In fact, 52 of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established colonial orthodox churches. As the very first Supreme Court justice, John Jay, in a private letter to Jedidiah Morse in 1797, said that “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” In 1798, John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Based upon historical record, these views were also shared by others, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Dr. Benjamin Rush. Although the nation was not officially founded to be a Christian nation, in that it was not penned into founding documents that “the United States of America is to be solely representative and influenced by Christianity,” by the very nature of the Founders’ faith and actions, it should be clearly understood that America was, from the beginning, a Christian nation. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times and clearly states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” By any contextual interpretation, it can only be concluded that the “Creator” being spoken of in this document is the God of the Holy Bible.
Other evidence of the country’s traditional Christian heritage can be clearly observed in the nation’s Capital and in other public institutions elsewhere. The words “In God We Trust” are emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the U.S. Capitol. The Supreme Court building, built in the 1930’s, contains a carved monument above its East entrance featuring Moses holding stone tablets representing the Ten Commandments. God is mentioned, including Bible verses, in the stone architecture of various Federal buildings and monuments in Washington, D.C. The liberty bell also contains an engraved Bible verse. In every presidential swearing-in ceremony, prayers have been offered, and every U.S. president has uttered the words “So help me God” as they were sworn in on the Bible. Every president who has given an inaugural address has invoked the name of God in their speech. Other courtroom oaths have also always invoked God, and chaplains have always been included on the public payroll. God is mentioned in the original Constitution of all 50 states. Including official festivities under every administration at the White House, our nation has also always celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior’s birth.
Especially in recent years, however, there has been a growing and unified effort among certain secular-leaning individuals and organizations to remove any sign or mention of God, the Bible, or Christianity from public buildings and institutions. Most are familiar with court decisions resulting from lawsuits since 2007 in which such plaintiffs have been successful in removing monuments containing the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament from court buildings in Oklahoma and elsewhere. In other cases, such as in Alabama and Texas, the Supreme Court has dismissed such suits. It has also become evident that freedom of religion and expression, as pertaining to Christianity, has been unevenly targeted in such legal and public policy efforts, more so than that of any other belief system.
Religion and morality were paramount to the education of youth in early American schools, with the Bible being the first book in these early classrooms. It was first from the Bible that students learned to read and write, and the Bible was used both for its content and for the building of skills, with each school day including the recitation and memorization of Bible passages. Even the first official textbooks in these early schools, the New England Primer and the later McGuffey Reader, included instruction in basic morals and values that were first established in the Holy Bible. In these early schools, and until relatively recently in school districts across the U.S., prayer was used in a variety of ways. Some of these prayers were basic and informal, and others consisted of structured prayers such as the 23rd Psalm or the Lord’s Prayer. For example, early American students as a class in New York prayed daily, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee and beg Thy blessing over us, our parents, our teachers, and our nation.”
Although for some there will never be enough evidence to convince them of the detriments of the removal of God from our public schools, there is much significant evidence of this that is very difficult for many of us to ignore. The 1962 Supreme Court decision in the case of Engels v. Vitale prohibited state-mandated prayer in public schools, even with the provision of a student’s free will whether or not to participate in these prayers. Prior to this decision, records across the nation show that, as a small percentage, students were usually guilty of committing crimes such as raising their voices, cutting in line, or running in the halls. Since this decision, a growing number of students have been guilty of using drugs and alcohol and of committing robbery, assault, rape, suicide, and homicide. SAT scores have also declined among the majority of American public school students, and there has been a rise in the numbers of teen pregnancies and divorce and a decline in marriages.
It is hard to deny the reality that removing prayer, moral values, and the Bible from most of our schools has changed who the majority of our young people are and how they act. In the Bible, Jesus Christ warned that “…whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven,” in Matthew 10:33. Especially for Christians, it is easy to see that this has become the reality in many of our schools. We are not surprised to see that the blessings of God on our children and society have been withheld after He is no longer being acknowledged in the places where our children are supposed to first become prepared for life as good, law-abiding citizens. We know that instruction to respect the law and to discern the difference between right and wrong will fail if God, as the original giver of the Law, is denied from our present and future generations. We also see the importance of carrying out the instruction of Proverbs 22:6 to “train up a child in the way he should go,” so that “when he is old, he will not depart from it.” For that matter, any who recognize the drastic changes in American culture over just the past few decades, and who place any value on Judeo-Christian principles, should be able to easily see the causes of the negative impact on our society.
As Americans, we should be informed of our legal and Constitutional rights and the rights of our school-aged children. Many have been intentionally and successfully fooled into thinking that prayer and other religious expression is now completely prohibited across the board in all public schools. According to all available evidence, this is not the case. Since the Engel v. Vitale decision prohibited only state-mandated prayer in public schools, many rights and freedoms of public school children remain intact at the federal and state levels. In another landmark Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, it was ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” According to such established precedents and existing U.S. laws, U.S. public school students are free to:
1) Take Bibles or other religious materials on the school bus or to hand them out to others during non-instructional periods;
2) Wear T-shirts or jewelry containing religious symbols or text;
3) Form a Bible study club or other religious club, if even one other student-led group is already allowed in the school, as a guaranteed right under the federal Equal Access Act of 1984; and to
4) Pray alone or in groups at flagpoles or elsewhere on school grounds, in school cafeterias, and even in classrooms, outside of regular instructional hours.
While these are guaranteed Constitutional rights, they are not necessarily granted automatically by the authority of individual schools. There are, though, a variety of American legal organizations, such as the Rutherford Foundation, that exist in part to protect the rights and freedoms of students and have been known to explain related law to school administrations. Because of the existence of so many laws protecting the rights of students, such matters have generally proved to be cleared up quickly. The Rutherford Foundation itself has stated that “Many cases can be solved with a strong and professional letter from an attorney, a legal memorandum from our office, or a phone call from a staff member” B.A. Robinson (religioustolerance.org).
It’s no wonder that secular individuals, with views contrary to those of America’s Christian founding and traditions, have chosen to focus their attention on the fronts of government and public schools. They correctly believe these avenues to be the most influential means by which to implement a new secular system of society that will establish a culture more fitting to their private interests. Their success is now being further secured with the help of the country’s mainstream sources of media, Hollywood, and many liberal organizations (including the modern Democrat Party.) Although their efforts are now gaining momentum, these efforts are not new to American society or the world. The ultimate source of these efforts is further clarified when reviewing the work of those such as the avowed Satanist Alester Crowley and his followers, who believed institutions such as Christianity, the traditional family, and traditional marriage to be the entities that must be attacked and destroyed in order for their idea of a secular, new world order to be implemented. With all these things in mind, Christians and all Americans who love freedom must consistently fight to retain these institutions and our Constitutional freedoms as well as to insist that the Bible and Almighty God continue to be acknowledged and respected in our nation.
Photo credit: AlphaBetaUnlimited (Creative Commons)
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
How can we have separation of church and state when the government favors muslims and exempts them from so many of our laws and regulations, like the exemption from Obamacare. This is favoring one religion over another and therefore illegal.
The beginning of the decline of America is coincident with the expulsion of God from the schools..If you read the original first amendment yiu will find tha we are guaranteed freedom OF religion not freedom FROM rekigion. If people want to practice their religion of atheism, that is their right. However, it does not give them the the right to interfere with anyone else practicing theoir religion.
Correct. The guarantee of religious freedom also requires that religions allow all other religions to practice without interference. (I am not talking about criticism–but actions that result in curtailing the religious practices of other religions.) And, that is why Islam doesn’t belong in the U.S. It is the one religion that calls for the destruction of all others. It is the one religion that ACTS to prevent religious freedom of other religions within the U.S. (and that is with the complicity of the federal government.)
The longer it takes to put a stop to it, the more negative impact Islam will have in this country. We didn’t put a stop to the athiests who have continually acted to impact the practice of Catholicism and Christianity. Now we have eliminated prayers in school and U.S. citizens cannot even mention God or Jesus Christ in public without government and the courts trying to stop them.
Finally, we have reached the point when our Dictator in Chief and our supreme Courts tell American Catholics they do not have the right to practice Catholicism, according to Government’s new laws. The Athhiests, Islam, and of course, Satan, must be cheering at the strides they have made, culminating in Obama’s illegal presidency.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
We are a great nation because we are a Christian nation that acknowledges our God-given unalienable rights and responsibilities as confirmed in our founding documents. [Proof] As a rule, a nation’s predominate religion determines its political and economic systems. This is not debatable. [Proof]
Our unalienable rights come from God, not man. We also have corresponding God-given responsibilities to administer those rights. All of our freedoms flow from these basic insights. Those who are unconcerned about God, or who deny Him, simply cannot be trusted to administer those rights and responsibilities. They eventually enslave societies because they separate God (morality) from state (performance). They currently call themselves social moderates and liberals. History calls them pagans. They must never be elected to any office.
Our freedom is based on morality, not money. It is our responsibility to do good works AND fight evil to guarantee the exercise of our God-given unalienable rights. Freedom without that responsibility is a nation-killer. It will deprave us and enslave us, as we are witnessing.
If you separate church (Christian morality) from state (the behavior of government employees), both are corrupted and our nation falls. Romans 13:3-4. Christianity is being attacked by renegade government employees, communist pseudo-intellectuals, and a degenerate media. This must stop immediately. The social collapse we are experiencing is mainly due to the erosion of our moral foundation. Deadly totalitarianism cannot exist in a Christian nation, so the wannabe dictators actively try to suppress Christianity.
Our Constitution is a sacred document. The Soviet Union’s Constitution was a profane document. The primary difference lay in the character of those who created and administered them. The Soviet dictators were generally bad people because of their immoral, atheist humanist beliefs. Their country died. Our leaders have been generally good people because of their moral, Christian beliefs — until now. The United States is dying because our laws reflect our morality and fewer and fewer Christians are writing and administering them.
Unfortunately, most pastors and priests have been derelict in their duty to fight evil in society and government. So we see the Ten Commandments, Christian crosses, prayer, Christmas trees and creches being stripped from us for the most trivial reasons. Worse, we see rampant corruption at all levels of government. That must stop. Nehemiah 4:14.
If your pastor or priest focuses only on love, good works, prayer, tithing, and pacifist sermons, but avoids courageous moral teachings and won’t fight evil, then rebuke him. Fire him if he’s unrepentant, or change churches if he “owns” it, or start a home church and tithe to it. It’s an abomination and suicidal to submit to the pastoral authority of a coward; it’s also a nation-killer. [Proof] “…it is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.” Pope Benedict XVI addressing US bishops on 1-27-12 [Proof]
On the other hand, the nation’s pastors and priests could turn this all around if they mobilized their congregations to fight evil. So far they haven’t, so we’re having to work around them. In 1776, Peter Muhlenberg delivered a sermon, concluding, “There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come.” He removed his black clerical robe that covered his Colonel’s uniform, then set out to successfully command the 8th Virginia Regiment of the Continental Army. This Black Robe Regiment provided the primary impetus for our Declaration of Independence. That Regiment is forming again. [Proof]
I support voluntary prayer in schools, at sporting events, and other public occasions, governmental or not. The Ten Commandments should be in every public building. Crosses, Christmas trees, and crèches should be on public property. We must not let spiritually flawed community organizers re-create the Soviet Union from the bottom up. The choice is simple: Good or evil. Don’t let anyone complicate it for you.
“Brethren, our preaching will bear its legitimate fruits. If immorality prevails in the land, the fault is ours in a great degree. If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discrimination, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the Church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in religion, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it. Let us not ignore this fact, my dear brethren; but let us lay it to heart, and be thoroughly awake to our responsibility in respect to the morals of this nation.” Charles G. Finney, Power From On High, Chapter 11 (c. 1871-1874)
http://elect.ErnestHuberForCongress.com/
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day, the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some 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 name 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.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. 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 were 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.”
While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.
It is important to distinguish between the “public square” and “government” and between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional 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 founding principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is that the natural laws or rights , life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and others are given to you by God, not man; because if man can give you something he can take it away. This country seemed to prosper and grow when religious principles were instilled in our way of life and thinking. Now that religion is the new focus of something bad, this country seems to have a hate filled haze surrounding it, like a period of tribulation. You can say it is almost biblical.
The question of the origin and nature of human rights is fascinating. It is, at bottom, a philosophical question, but it also has legal and thus practical aspects. In this respect, it bears noting that the concept of natural rights is not necessarily dependent on a belief in god(s); some philosophers ground the concept in such a belief, and some don’t.
I agree with you that the religious and philosophical views of the founding generation necessarily underlie and, at least in some sense, are reflected by the laws enacted by the government they founded, which is hardly surprising given its republican nature. That said, I would stop short of claiming there is a legal connection between our government and the philosophical view that human rights are god given. To the extent any such claim seeks to “establish” some form of theism as an inherent aspect of our government, it is antithetical to the constitutional principle of separation of religion and state.
While some also draw meaning from the references to “Nature’s God” and “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence (references that could mean any number of things, some at odds with the Christian idea of God) and try to connect that meaning to the Constitution, the effort is largely baseless. Important as the Declaration is in our history, it did not operate to bring about independence (that required winning a war), nor did it found a government, nor did it even create any law, and it certainly did not say or do anything that somehow dictated the meaning of a Constitution adopted twelve years later. The colonists issued the Declaration not to do any of that, but rather to politically explain and justify the move to independence that was already well underway. Nothing in the Constitution depends on anything said in the Declaration. Nor does anything said in the Declaration purport to limit or define the government later formed by the free people of the former colonies. Nor could it even if it purported to do so. Once independent, the people of the former colonies were free to choose whether to form a collective government at all and, if so, whatever form of government they deemed appropriate. They were not somehow limited by anything said in the Declaration. Sure, they could take its words as inspiration and guidance if, and to the extent, they chose–or they could not. They could have formed a theocracy if they wished–or, as they ultimately chose (as can we today), a government founded on the power of the people (not a deity) and separated from religion.
There is no separation of church and state clause in the constitution, the 1st amendment says that the government cannot interfere or make laws preventing your free exercise of religion. The atheists have been successful in convincing judges to make it where the free exercise is interfered with, the atheist groups know that townships will not spend a lot of money to fight this in court, they just cede and buckle. Now they sue for anything that has a cross, they are trying to remove the crosses at military cemetaries, the cross at the 911 site, and the memorial to WW 1 veterans on a mountain. I will bet the next thing they go after is the lower case t, because of its religious significance.
As explained in my earlier comment, while the Constitution does not contain the phrase “separation of church and state,” it establishes the principle just as certainly as it does separation of powers and other such concepts.
Nor should it be supposed that the principle is derived from atheism. Certainly Madison was not an atheist. While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. 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.