The Separation of Church and State is a Myth

The much touted separation of Church and State as a way to keep everything Christian out of the public square was never a part of the Constitution. But how did America start with freedom of religion from government interference, weave in and take out of context a private letter written by a President to a group of Baptists, and end up with freedom of government from religion? And perhaps more importantly, how do we reestablish our Constitutional right to freedom of religion?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution 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." (Amendment to the Constitution, 1791).

Nowhere do the words "separation of church and state" appear. When the original 90 framers spent the summer debating this amendment, not a single one of them mentioned a separation between church and state. (Barton, 2003). No doubt they were all aware of the atrocities committed in England each time a new king or queen took reign, Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Catholic, and they also understood the dangers of a state sponsored church both to the governed and to the purity of the church itself. But they were certainly never shy about expressing their own faith in the public square. In the Declaration of Independence, they frequently invoked the freedoms given to them by God as the reason they must separate from the government they were currently under. (Sears, 2003). They understood that protecting the practice of religion from government interference was not the same thing as a state sponsored church.

George Washington, an integral part of the founding of our country and our first President, set up chaplains in the army regiments, took his oath of office on a Bible, prayed at a church, established national days of prayer and fasting, gave numerous speeches explaining the rightness of his dependence upon Almighty God to guide the country, and in his farewell address he claimed, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports." (Sears, 2003). He clearly showed that religion has a legitimate place in the public square, and he was obviously not alone.

The Declaration of Independence gives numerous open references to honoring God as a country, and there are many other examples of the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the belief that one's faith was a legitimate part of one's public life. The founders gave numerous speeches openly stating their dependence on Almighty God, and Washington, D. C. is literally riddled with scriptures, prayers, statuary of Biblical characters and Biblical scenes literally etched and carved in stone, as well as paintings, stained glass and many other reminders of the faith of the early Fathers. (http://godinthetemplesofgovernment.com/).

Individuals, even Government representatives, were free to be openly religious and to rely on their God to guide them in their civic duties. Government as an entity, however, could not use the power of a state-sponsored Church as an authority. The freedom of religion phrase guaranteed two things: "That Congress will not favor, promote, or endow religion; and that Congress shall not impede, obstruct or penalize religion. Government would simply leave religion alone." (Moyers, 2003). So where did the wall of separation come from?

In the early 1800s, our third President, Thomas Jefferson, received a letter of admiration from a Baptist group from Danbury, Connecticut. In this letter they also sought reassurance that the government wouldn't set up a particular sect of Christianity and promote it. They wanted to know that the freedom of religion came from God, and not man, just like the other rights mentioned in the original Constitution. To this end, Jefferson wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, 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." (Barton, 2003).
.
In this and many other letters, speeches, and addresses, Jefferson affirms his belief that it is only right that religious individuals, Christians no less than any others, be allowed to openly practice and speak of their faith, unhindered by government restrictions. He is recorded as saying "The constitutional freedom of religion is the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." (Coates, 1995), and wrote to P.H. Wendover that "Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." (ibid).

The more recent definition of separation of church and state is the exact opposite of what he himself claimed to mean by it. Not to mention that we have no other restrictions on our constitutional rights based on one segment of one letter of an individual to a private group. If this is to be our standard for interpreting amendments, we would do well to see what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the press. Should we greatly restrict our press based on a statement made by Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, wherein he laments that the press "raven on the agonies of their victims, as wolves do on the blood of the lamb," (ibid) or "I deplore...the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them..." as he complained to Walter Jones? (ibid). Or should we balance his statements by noting that he also told John Jay that "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." (ibid).

No, Thomas Jefferson was a man of strong opinions and prolific writings, and he did not appreciate having his words twisted, as he told John Norvell in a letter claiming to have seen "repeated instances of the publication of what has not been intended for the public eye, and the malignity with which political enemies torture every sentence from me into meanings imagined by their own wickedness only..." (Coates, 1995).

But earlier courts appeared to understand Jefferson. Indeed, in 1878 in Reynolds vs. United States, when Jefferson's letter to the Baptists was used to try and interpret the First Amendment, the entire letter was published and then the Court concluded that "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere (religious) opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. The rightful purpose of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In this ...is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State." both quoting and summarizing Jefferson's words as to what separation of church and state meant. (Barton, 2003). The religious actions which could be interfered with were established in cases such as Commonwealth vs. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People, and consisted of such things as incest, infanticide and advocation and promotion of immorality (ibid).

Up to this point, the First Amendment did not apply to the states, but after the 14th Amendment was adopted, the due process clause was applied and the states no longer were immune. In 1947 in Everson vs. Board of Education, which dealt with whether tax money should be used to pay bus fare for Catholic students to parochial schools (First Amendment Center, 2004), Justice Hugo Black, formerly a member of the Ku Klux Klan, used only 8 words out of one of Jefferson's private letters to declare that there must be an "impregnable wall" (Barton, 2003) of separation between church and state. Not only is separation of church and state part of the Klan oath (Sears, 2004) it also is found in Article 53 of the constitution of the Soviet Union (The Eagle Has Landed, 2003) - neither are very good documents upon which to base interpretation of our United States Constitution.

Over the years the court has tried to maintain a position of neutrality (First Amendment Center, 2004), which is much closer to the original intent. In reality, however, although freedom of speech has been stretched to include actions, freedom of religion has been shrunk to exclude even speech. This is due largely to groups that have shown hostility to religious expression in the name of preserving our rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union is one such group that claims it is protecting all of our civil rights while consistently whittling away at all of the religious ones. The ACLU claims that our system of government is based on the balance between the majority rule and the individual's rights. Under a section labeled "What the Bill of Rights guarantees" their literature states "Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state." (American Civil Liberties Union, 1999). They make no differentiation, but act as though this all goes together seamlessly, without so much as a comma. They make no such stipulations on any other First Amendment rights.

Many rights have been lost as groups such as the ACLU have gone largely unchallenged. Their efforts show that we must fight for our rights, and many groups are beginning to do just that. Groups such as the Alliance Defense Fund are training attorneys in Constitutional law, educating the school officials as to what the truth is, and fighting court battles to preserve and restore our First Amendment rights. They are consistently winning cases, each building precedent for winning more, and have had significant roles in 23 U.S. Supreme Court victories. (Alliance Defense Fund, 2004).

If the American people want to preserve and protect the freedoms granted to them in their Constitution, they have to first know what those freedoms are. Once informed, they have to be willing to fight for those rights through public debate, and if necessary, through the courts. Otherwise, the rights that so many have lived and died to protect will be eroded and then lost.

As Thomas Jefferson observed, "I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of the governors, and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people." (Coates, 1995).

If we want to preserve our God-given rights of religious freedom as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, we have to know what the original documents and founders said, and base our arguments on the law instead of the hysteria. The current definitions of separation of Church and State are merely myths.

References
ABC's of Religion in the Public Schools. (2000). Anti-Defamation League.
Retrieved February 9, 2004 from http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/by_students.asp

Barton, D. (2003). The separation of church and state. Wall Builders.
Retrieved February 9, 2004 from http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detailpf.php? ResourceID=9

Coates, Sr., E.K. (1995). Jefferson on politics & government: freedom of the press.
Retrieved February 24, 2004 from http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/press/jeff1600.htm

Coates, Sr., E.K. (1995). Jefferson on politics & government: freedom of religion.
Retrieved February 24, 2004 from http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/press/jeff1650.htm

Fact or Fiction. (2003). Alliance Defense Fund.
Retrieved February 3, 2004 from http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/print_page.php?ref=http%3A//www.alliancedefensefu...

First Amendment Timeline. (2004).
Retrieved February 24, 2004 from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=FirstAmendment_timeline+print

Freedom is Why We're Here. (1999). The American Civil Liberties Union. New York,NY

Moyers, B. (2003). God and government. Now with Bill Moyers.
Retrieved February 9, 2004 from http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/churchandstate.html

Religious Liberty in Public Life. (2004). First Amendment Center.
Retrieved February 11, 2004 from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel-liberty/establishment/index.asp

Sears, A. (2003). Separation of church and state: why religion has a place in the public square. Alliance Defense Fund.
Retrieved February 3, 2004 from http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/print-page.php?ref=http%3A//www.alliancedefensefu...

The Eagle Has Landed. (2003). Ku klux klan supreme court justice hugo black conjured up separation of church & state in 1947.
FreeRepublic.com Retrieved February 24, 2004 from http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/972516/posts

http://godinthetemplesofgovernment.com/